IR 05000302/1985016
| ML20127G822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1985 |
| From: | Ang W, Blake J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127G809 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-85-16, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8505210155 | |
| Download: ML20127G822 (5) | |
Text
[
o
,.,
L.
gy he tg'o,,
g UNITE'3 STATES
- 3 {- )/ ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
o REGION 11 <
{
$
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
',
'
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 os... /
-x
.
..
'
-,
.s
- j
, Report _No.: -50-302/85-16
'
Licensees Florida Power Corporation
~'
'
3201 34th' Street, South
.St. Petersburg, FL 33733 l'
,
Docket'No.:
50-302 License No.: DPR-72-
-
g Facility'Name: Crystal River 3
,
,
T-
~
Inspection Conducted: March 25 - 28, 1985 Inspector: 'lO 8k
+-ic f Y
.
'
W. P. Ang
.
Date-Signed.
JApproved byi N
&
4 so-fr
'
,
J. J. Blake, section Chief Date Signed-Engineering Branch
'
Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY
,
Scope: This-routine,announcedinspectionentailed53 inspector-hoursonsite:in
-
the areas of pipe ~ support baseplate designs using concrete ^ expansion anchors (IEB 79-02)'and seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping ' systems (IEB 79-14).
-
Results: One violation was identified - Pipe support installation discrepancies, paragraph 6.
'
-
/f 3
,.
s a
!
!
[.'
-s PD$
.
.
-
.
~ REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- E. C. Simpson, Director, Nuclear Operations Engineering and Licensing
- J. T. Telford, Director, Quality Programs
'
E. M. Howard, Director Site Nuclear Operations
- G. R. Westafer, Manager, Licensing
- R. C. Widell, Manager, Nuclear Operations Engineering
- P. R. Tanguay, Supervisor, Nuclear Engineering
- A. Petrowski, Nuclear Structural Engineer
- K. R. Wilson, Supervisor, Site Nuclear Licensing V.A.Hernandez,SeniorNuclearQualityAssurance(QA) Specialist
.
Other Organization Gilbert / Commonwealth-J. B. Muldoon, Manager, Piping Department C. N. Rentschler, Section Manager, Piping Department
- T. A. Cuba, Crystal River 3 (CR3) Project Piping Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- T.-Stetka
- Attended exit interview
,
2.
Exit Interview 1The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 28, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph.1 above.
The inspector described the-areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed-below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Violation 302/85-16-01 - Pipe Support Installation Discrepancies, paragraph 6.
,
.
. Unresolved Item 302/85-16-02 - Justification of Concrete Expansion Anchor Design Calculation Capacities, paragraph 6.
Proprietary material was reviewed during the inspection. However, informa-tion used in this inspection ^ report was not considered to be proprietary by the. licensee during the inspection.
..
.
... - - -
-
.
-
.--
--
3: '
.
.
i3.
' Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters-(Closed) Unresolved Item 302/84-32-01 - Compliance Regarding WEJ-IT Reduced Capacity. 'The unresolved item identified concerns regarding licensee corrective' action resulting from reduced concrete expansion anchor capacity detennined by testing.
The unresolved item also identified ' associated.QA
. program concerns.
On. March 14, 1985, the' licensee ~ submitted letter-3F0385-14,- IEB 79-02 -Supplemental Information and IE Inspection Report 84-32.. 'The letter outlined the -licensee's corrective action for the
- reduced concrete' expansion anchor capacities and addressed the associated QA program. concerns.
During this inspection (see also paragraph 6), the Linspector determined that the licensee had commenced implementation of the
. corrective ' action committed to in the above noted letter.
In addition, a
- review
- of Safety. Related - Engineering Procedure 8, Revision 4, Temporary-
-Change 1, and Quality Programs Surveillance Report 84-RJC-30 indicated that the'. licensee was also addressing the above noted QA program concerns.
' Unresolved Item 302/84-32-01 was closed.
4.-
Unresolved Item
. Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to-determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions.
One new unresolved item identified during this inspection is
' discussed in paragraph 6.
~5.-
Independent. Inspection (92706)
fThe' inspector conducted a general inspection of the CR3 control room. The
' inspector. observed. and discussed plant _ status with licensee personnel, reviewed the control room ' log and observed control room - activity and decorum.' No violations or deviations were identified.
'
6.
. Pipe-Support Baseplate Design Using Concrete Expansion Anchors (IEB 79-02)
.and Seismic Analysis for.As-built Safety-Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14)
On October 8,1984, the licensee submitted to NRC Region II supplementary information for IEB 79-02 'on Florida Power Corporation (FPC) letter 3F1084-01.
The. letter stated that licensee site-specific testing of WEJ-IT type concrete expansion anchors showed a 40% to 60% reduction of capacities from the 1982' catalog capacities.
The 1977 catalog capacities were used in Crystal River 3 concrete expansion anchor calculations.
The letter.
identified that further licensee evaluation of Crystal River 3 safety-related seismically analyzed pipe support concrete expansion anchors was being performed. An NRC inspection documented on RII Inspection Report 50-302/84-32,
.
was ~ performed to. follow-up on the licensee's report and to verify licensee compliance. with IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee-commitments. On March 14, 1985, the licensee submitted a revised corrective
-
action plan to provide for IEB 79-02 requirements.
A follow-on inspection to the.above noted inspection was performed to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-02 and 79-14' requirements and its revised commitments.
<
,
,m____m w
.
_ _.
-
.__
-_
. _. _
_
.. _
_
- -
, o
.
'
-
.
The following related documents' were reviewed:
Safety-Related Engineering Procedure Number 8, Revision 4, -Temporary
-
Change 11, Corrective Action
'
Quality Programs Surveillance Report 84-RJC-30, Evaluation of -the
'*
-
~ WEJ-IT Testing Program
- '
Interoffice Correspondence NEA-85-0014, Dated February 4,1985, Report of Concrete Anchor Deficiency
- '
Modification Approval Record (PER) 84-10-08-01, Seismic I Large Bore.
Pipe Support Redesign-
Work Package 60571-53, Modification of Pipe Supports SWH-84, MUH-556 and DHH-521
'
!
. Maintenance Procedure MP-132, Rev. 11. Erection of Piping
'*
- Nuclear Modification and Outage Procedure M0P-408, ' Installation of-Concrete Anchor Bolts
. MAR 84-10-08-01: and M0P-408 provided inspection requirements for modifica-p tion. and ~ installation of pipe supports and concrete expansion anchors.-
,
However, specific requirement to verify concrete expansion anchor embedment
~
depth, spacing.and edge distance had not been. included.' During the inspec-
-
,
tion,: the licensee prepared Field Change Notice 13 to MAR 84-10-08-01. to.
ensure that the. required verification of. proper installation of ' concrete expansion anchors ' included specific verification.and. documentation :of
. acceptable concrete expansion anchor embedment depth, edge distance and
- spacing.
The following pipe supports were randomly selected. ' Installation drawings and concrete -expansion anchor design calculations, if applicable, were reviewed to determine licensee-compliance with its written commitments in its March 14, 1985 letter regarding ' safety' factor _ evaluation, operability
+
evaluation and pipe support modification.
t MSH - 143 MSH - 147
~ EFH - 65
[
EFH -.71
- EFH - 77.
i.
MSH - 158A
'
' MSH - 230 EFH - 530 EFH - 532 DHH - 538 DHH - 602 MSH - 182
,,,..w,--
o,, -
.---, - -, - - -,.,,, -
-,.,,. -.,,.,....,. - -, -,. - -.,
- -,,,, +,, - - -, - - -., -. - - -, - -.
-
,
s A'
, ' _ ' Or,__
i
- P
- !
- Concrete expansion anchor capacities' used in-the calculations were compared with the resultslof~the-licensee's~on-site testing.
It was.noted that some lof the calculations utilized concrete expansion anchor capacities that were interpolated fran the test data.
The licensee was informed-that :the
'
calculations.should clearly document the source of the capacity used (i.e.,
-interpolated test:value) and justify the value used.
Furthermore, it was
.
noted that the calculation for pipe support MSH-230 utilized capacities for-1 1/2" diameter. concrete expansion anchors that had been extrapolated from test data. jThe licensee was requested to justify extrapolated data used in-calculations.
The above noted items regarding justification and documenta-tion.of interpolated and extrapolated data-were identified as Unresolved Item. 50-302/85-16-02, " Justification of Concrete Expansion Anchor Design
' Calculation Capacities."
'
The lic nsee stated that modification packages were being prepared for the large ' are safety-related seismically analyzed pipe supports whose concrete expansson~ anchor safety factors were between two and four. Ninety-nine pipe-supports were identified as requiring additional corrective action. 'Of the
.
99, three pipe supports had been modified. Modification of the remainder of-
'
the pipe supports had not been. started during the_ inspection. Documentation of. inspections for modified pipe supports DHH-521, MUH-556 and SWH-084 were reviewed. MUH-556 and DHH-521 were reinspected by the NRC inspector.and the licensee.' -SWH-084-was not readily' accessible but was partially visible and was' visually inspected for obvious discrepancies.
Completed, installed, modified, inspected.and Quality Control' (QC)' accepted pipe support MUH-556 -
- piece cH" installation dimensions did not " conform" with the applicable
. approved engineering' drawings.
In. addition, unauthorized. loads (scaffolding).
were being partially supported tar =the pipe support.
No: procedure or
'
instructions were available -authorizing or prohibiting installation of scaffolding / staging :on permanent plant equipment.
This Jappears to be.in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix "B"', ~ Criterion V, and was identified as Violation 50-302/85-16-01, " Pipe Support Installation Discrepancies."
Pending licensee completion of IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee. commitments, the Bulletins were left open.
.
!
e I
V
'
-
.
-
- -