IR 05000309/1979005
| ML19289E821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1979 |
| From: | Fasano A, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289E818 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-79-05, 50-309-79-5, NUDOCS 7905290137 | |
| Download: ML19289E821 (5) | |
Text
._.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-104/70 nc;
'
Docket No. 50-309 License No. DPR-36 Priority Category C
--
Licer.see:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Comoany 20 Turnpike Road
'
Westborou-h, Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name: Mair.e Yankee Nuclear Power Station I
<.
Inspection at: Wiscasset, Maine
"
Inspection conducted: April 4-6, 1979 Inspectors:
,Y/m, 8
/hrh b S / W
-
r,a A.N.Fasado,Re'actorInspector
'date signed
I date signed
/
date signed
L.
Approved by:
' / /M
- ' ' '
'
'
L. Tripp, Section Chief, Engineering date signed
Sup p rt Section 1
Inspection Summary:
e
,,
i Inspection on April 4-6, 1979 (Report No. 50-309/79-05)
Area Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee onsite efforts related j
to seismic design concerns where computations for piping systems were performed
using computer code SHOCK 2.
The inspaction included a review of as-built drawings
.
for affected systems and a walking of affected lines for one system. The inspection
involved 21 inspector hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
'
,
i Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
,..
,~
-
>
2047 JR4
=
.
...
,
i
_
',
'
(
- t t
{
l
,
l
,' -. I a
/
,
'
,
g 790529013 7
[
Region I Form 12
'I
(Rev. April 77)
,.
>
<
.
>i t
,
,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Mr. E. Wood, Plant Manager
- Mr. C. Frizzle, Assistant Plant Manager
- Mr. S. Sadosky, QA Coordinator Mr. P. Anderson, Staff Assistant to Plant Manager
- Mr. J. Hebert, Plant Engineer QA Head Mr. M. Veilleux, Mechanical Engineer Mr. P. Willoughby, Mechanical Engineer
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Piping Support Details and Pioina Drawina Confinnation The inspector reviewed the current efforts being performed on site to validate the as built details reflected in the current piping drawings.
In particular, the emphasis was on those piping sytems which were seismically analyzed with computer code SHOCK 2.
The following documents were used as the basis for inspection criteria:
MY FSAR, Questions and Answers (Q&A) 1.3, which specify structures,
--
systems and components that were designed to category I requirement and Q&A 4.11; which specify codes and standards used as the basis for design.
Pages 2 through 5 of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station prelimin-
--
ary response to NRC, April 2,1979.
IE Bulletin No. 79-02, March 8,1979, Pipe Support Base Plate
--
Designs Using Concrete Anchor Bolts.
Correspondence to Yankee Atomic Electric Company from the
--
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, April 2,1979.
The following listed systems have portions of the piping that were analyzed using the SHOCK 2 code:
204/
JR5
High Pressure Safety Injection; Low Pressure Safety Injection; Residual Heat Removal, RHR; Primary Component Cooling Water, PCC; and Containment Spray, CS.
The licensee was actively verifying small diameter piping associated with drain and vent lines located in the Primary Auxiliary Building.
The inspector witnessed a portion of this line trace activity. The lines checked by the licensee included 3/4" DRL-135, 3" DRL-31; 6" VRL-4; 3" VRL-7 and 2" VRL-7. The licensee marked the drawings and relayed discrepancies noted to the engineering staff.
The inspector witnessed the detail checks made on the following pipe anchors:
RHR pipe support H-3, Reference Drawings FP-16A Revision 8,
--
FP-16E Revision 8 PCC pipe support H-13, Reference Drawing FP-20'<, Revision 9
--
CS pipe supports H-51 and H-53, Reference Drawing FP-17F,
--
Revision 7.
The results of this inspection verified the existence of the noted supports.
Pipe support H-3 has stiffner plates that were cut to suit as specified on the drawing. Actual final dimensions were made of these members.
Information on anchor bolting spacing and thread engagement were taken.
Pipe support H-13 was found to have a reinforcing plate welded to the I beam support and subsequently, to the stanchon. The plate was not detailed on the drawing.
Dimensions were noted.
Pipe supports H-51, H-53 were found to have discrepancies to drawings involving welds and bolting. Measurements were taken of the pipe support members including bolt spacing and wall to plate gap.
204/
JA6
.
The Primary Component Coolant Water effected piping with supports was checked on a sampling basis for conformance to drawings. The drawings included FP-20A, pipe location, Revision 9, FP-20K, pipe support details, Revision 9 and FP-20P, pipe support details, Revision 5.
The pipe supports associated with lines 20" PCC-17, 16" PCC-18 and 16" PCC-19 were sample checked to drawing details.
The approximate location of supports appear to be in agreement with drawings.
Discrepancies related to cinch bolt size were noted as being 7/8" diameter vs.1" diameter on drawing, example H-9.
Pipe support H-ll varied from drawings having pipe clip connections shorter than specified.
Pipe supports H-14 and H-15 support members were welded in a configuration, using angle iron, that deviated from the detail drawing. The sample inspection included Hangers H-8,10,12,19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
The inspector checked the official index for the latest revision for drawings.
FP-20N, Revision 6 and FP-20A, Revision 9, related to the Primary Component Coolant Water system; FP-16E, Revision 8 and FP-16A, Revision 8, related to the RHR system; and FP-17F, Revision 7 and FP-16A, Revision 8, related to the Containment Spray System. The issues agreed with the index.
The licensee has a general procedure which address maintenance and changes.
The inspector reviewed procedures YA-GEN-1, Specification of Mechanical and Quality Control Requirements for feintenance, Repair and Changes, Revision 8, May 2, 1978, and Guideline No. 1, Dolicy for Material Purchases, Design Changes, Repairs and Alterations --
Revision 7.
Specific QC procedures related to concrete expansion anchor checks, tests and inspections were not available.
Results of the Inspeccion The licensee is actively performing physical checks of piping as installed against as-built drawings to assure accuracy of existing systems.
The checks are generated by request made from the licensee's engineering personnel and from Stone and Webster (S&W).
Based on the inspectors witnessing of piping support checks and a review of current program documents, there are three unresolved items:
204/
JA7
.
QC implementing procedures with defined anchor bolt checks on
--
installed expansion type anchors werenot available. This is an unresolved item pending tlie writing and approval of an implementing procedure (309/79-05-01).
The items listed for site maintenance corrective action on
--
findings for inspection of existing pipe supports as documented in f1R No. 480-79 remain to be performed. This is an unresolved item pending the completion of the corrective maintenance and QC checks.
(309/79-05-02)
--
Discrepancies found in details of pipe support as they differ from as built drawings remains to be considered for design adequacy. This is an unresolved item pending the licensee's analysis of the effect en the piping and supports as caused by discrepancies noted.
(309/79-05-03)
Phone contact was made with the licensee at 0800 a.m. on April 11, 1979. The inspector was informed that the licensee has conducted a detailed review of the piping supports for the piping lines in question for the five systems listed above. The licensee stated that the findings are being formalized for transmittal to their engineering staff. Also, action has begun on noted discrepancies that can be resolved by plant maintenance.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, or items of noncompliance. Three unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraph 2.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 6,1979. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
204/
JR8