IR 05000302/1981024
| ML20038D061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1981 |
| From: | Ang W, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038D058 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-81-24, NUDOCS 8112160031 | |
| Download: ML20038D061 (5) | |
Text
.
d Rio
[
UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
REGION 11
-
r
'*
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W, Sulf E 3100 o,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
%
o
Report No. 50-302/S1-24 Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation 320134th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Facility Name:
Crystal River Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72
.
Inspection at Crystal River Nuclear Plant site near Crystal River, FL Inspector: b i t- *S SI
W. P. Ang "
Date Signed Approved by: ~jb. [.
- %
%
l-RO
/v /4/5'/
A. R. Herdt, Section Chief ) h
//
Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branc Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on October 27-30, 1981
/
'
Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 23 inspector-hours on site in the areas of pipe suoport baseplate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts (IEB 79-02); seismic analysis for as-built safet.v related piping systems (IEB 79-14).
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8112160031 811123 PDR ADOCK 05000302 o
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- D. C. Poole, Plant Manager
- P. Baynard, Nuclear Support Services Manager
- C. Brown, Nuclear compliance Supervisor
- G. Becker, Mechanical Engineering Supervisor, Nuclear Engineering Dept.
- K. Wilson, Licensing Specialist
- D.
Fields, Modification Coordinator
- D. Brock, Maintenance Specialist
- J. Hessinger, QC Inspector J. Karah, Mechanical Engineer J. Goering, Assistant Planning Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- T. Stetka
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 30, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discu*. sed in detail the inspection findings listed below. No dissenting comme ets were received from the licensee.
.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 81-24-01 - Inadequate Pipe Support Inspection Records paragraph 6.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 81-24-02 - Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolt j
Procedure Change paragraph 5.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
'
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
,
L
_
.
.
5.
Pipe Support Baseplate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts (IEB 79-02)
On Decerber 10, 1979, the licensee submitted its final response to IE Bulletin 79-02. On July 16, 1980, the licersee responded to the open items of the bulletin as identified in inspect N report 50-302/80-02. A follow-on inspection to those reported in IE Report Numbers 50-302/79-20 and 80-02 was performed. The licensee responses noted above were reviewed and dis-cussed with the licensee. Design documentation regarding the open items was at the Architect / Engineers ( A/E) (Gilbert Associates, Incorporated) of fice and was not available at the site.
Pipe support repairs resulting from IEB 79-02 inspections and reanalysis were inspected and are discussed in paragraph 6.
The inspector noted that maintenance procedure MP-515 had originally been issued to provide instal-lation and inspection requirements for the type of concrete expansion anchors installed at the site.
It was further noted that MP-515 had been revised to provide only instructions for the controls for drilling in reinforced concrete and a new procedure MP-527 had been issued for the installation and in:;pection of concrete expansion anchors.
No cross reference between the two procedures was provided.
Instructions being issued by Nuclear Engineering still referred to MP-515 for installation and inspection of concrete expansion anchors, for example, modification approval record 81-5-28. The licensee acknowledged the condition and will determine the necessary ccrrective action. No examples of inadequate concrete expan-sion anchor installation or inspection were noted during this inspection.
Pending licensee resolution of the cross referencing problem between MP 515 and MP 517, this item shall be identified as inspector followup item 81-24-02, " Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolt Procedure Change". Pending completion and inspection of licensee action, IE Bulletin 79-02 shall remain open.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14)
On November 9, and December 13, 1979, the licensee submitted final responses to IE Bulletin 79-14.
On July 16, 1980, the licensee responded to open items of the Bulletin as identified in inspection report 50-302/80-02. A follow-on inspection to those reported on IE report numbers 50-302/79-32 and 80-02 was performed. The licensee responses noted above were reviewed and discussed with the licensee. Design documentation regarding the open items was at the A/E's office and was not available at the site.
On August 23, 1979, the licensee requested that the Reactor Coolant (RC) Hot and Cold Legs be exempted from IEB 79-14 inspections. Part of the justifi-cation for requesting the exemption was stated to be the " extensive erection documentation" available at the site and that "a reverification that the actual "as-built" dimensions were utilized in the stress analysis for the RC system will be performed." An attempt was made to inspect the noted reccrds-and the documentation of the reverification of the stress analysis.
-,
..
... -.
.-
__
.
.
.
However, the licensee indicated that this was not readily available and would take two weeks to obtain. The licensee was informed that this would be inspected during a subsequent inspection.
The IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14 inspections and reanalysis generated modifica-tions/ repairs to the safety-related pipe supports / restraints. A listing of all the modifications / repairs generated by the inspections and reanalysis
,
was requested. The licensee provided five letters from the A/E listing the various modifications / repairs of pipe supports / restraints that were required. The licensee was informed that because of the apparent fragmented identification of corrective action, a summary listing of all modifica-tions/ repairs should be obtained to assure that all modifications / repairs, required as a result of the inspection and reanalysis, have been completed.
The licen'see was further informed that this summary listing should De concluded by a statement from the A/E that upon completion of the listed modifications / repairs, the applicable analytical records would conform with the plant's as-built condition.
A review of the five A/E letters listing corrective action for the inspected / reanalyzed pipe supports and the corresponding licensee modi-fication approval records (MAR) were reviewed. Speci fically, MAR's 79-6-86, 79-10-85, 79-11-74A, 79-11-75, and 80-2-72 were reviewed. It was noted that all the physical modifications / repairs were documented to be complete.
However, MARS 79-6-86 and 80-2-72 were still open, pending completion of as-built drawings.
A review of the MARS and their corresponding work requests revealed that adequate pipe support inspection requirements had not been identified and therefore adequate inspection documentation was not provided. A review of a post IEB 79-14 MAR for relocation of valves and supports, MAR 81-05-28, revealed a similar lack of inspection requirements and, subsequent documentation.
Mair. Steam System Supports / Restraints, MSH-219 and MSH-220 and Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Supports / Restraints SFA-691 and 692 were inspected to verify the completion of modifications /
repairs resulting from IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14, Inspections and Re-Analysis.
Three of four bolts (item "k" of the support drawing) of support MSH-219 were loose. One of four bolts (item "k" of the support drawing) of support MSH-220 was loose. MSH-219 and 220 were installed on Main Steam safety valve piping. No work appeared to have been authorized on the pipe sup-ports. It was also noted that the bolt holes for the bolts were slotted, indicating a design allowance for thermal movements. However, the licensee did not have readily available the design calculations and loads for the-bolts to allow further evaluation of the condition. It was further noted that the weld for the vertical member (item "v" of the support) of sunport MSH-219 was located 90 off the drawing location.
However, the as-built drawing had not been completed for the support.
The general condition regarding the lack of inspection requirements and documentation for pipe supports and the specific discrepancies noted on supports MSH-219 and MSH-220 shall be identified as inspector followup item 81-24-01, " Inadequate Pipe Support Inspection and Documentation Requirements".
-, _
_
..
.
On July 14, 1981 the licensee responded to NRR Generic Letter 81-14.
The response, which was reviewed and discussed with the licensee, indicated that parts of the power supply and initiation and control system for the auxil-iary feedwater system had not been visually inspected (walk-downs) for the capability to withstand a seismic event. During subsequent discussions, the licensee committed to perform walkdowns of the remaining portions cf the auxiliary feedwater system not inspected during IEB 79-14 work and not walked down during the the first walkdown for NRR Generic Letter 81-14.
This information will be forwarded to NRR.
Pending completion of IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitments, the bulletin shall remain open.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
(Closed) Deep Draft Pump Deficiencies (IE Bulletin 79-15)
On September 10, 1979 the licensee submitted a response to IE Bulletin 79-15.
The response was reviewed and discussed with the licensee.
On May 4,1981, IE Headquarters provided an evaluation of licensee responses to IEB 79-15. No comments were noted for Crystal River Unit 3.
The inspector had no further questions. This Bulletin shall be closed.
L i
!
!