IR 05000335/1981026
| ML17212B070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1981 |
| From: | Ang W, Herdt A, York J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212B069 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-81-26, NUDOCS 8112070284 | |
| Download: ML17212B070 (6) | |
Text
e
~8 REPIN
.
~c~
mp.0 ce
p oO I
e
++*++
" UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SuITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-335/81-26 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P. 0. Box 529100 Miami, Florida Facility Name:
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit
Docket No. 50-335 License No. DPR-67 Inspection at St. Lucie site near Ft. Pierce, Florida Inspectors:
W 0;
n ate igned J
o v
~
Approved by:
~+I l A. R. Her~4, Section Chief Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on October 13-16, 1981 Areas Inspected ate Signed ate Signed This routine, announced inspection involved 44 inspector-hours on site in the areas of pipe support baseplate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts (IE Bulletin 79-02);
and seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping systems (IE Bulletin 79-14).
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
~8112070284 8111~03 PDR ADOCK 05000335
'~g
(:PDR,.
~ 'I t
IL
J'i Vl
'f '"
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"C. M. Wethy, Plant Manager CD Kent, Project Manager, Power Plant Engineering
"J. Krumins, Power Plant Engineering Site Representative
- H. W. Cairns, Project Quality Control Supervisor
"K. V. Smart, Area QC Supervisor D. R. Stone, Construction QC Superintendent A. W. Bailey, QA Supervisor Other Organizations EBASCO
"T. A. Tarte, Backfit Project Engineer S. Dixon, Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- S. A. Elrod
~H. E. Bibb
- Attended exit interview
- 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 16, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed the results of the inspection.
The licensee committed to submit additional information for their response to IE Bulletin 79-14.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.2 5.
'- Pipe Support Baseplate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts IE Bulletin 79-02 A follow-on inspection to those reported on IE inspection report numbers 50-335/79-22, 79-28, 79-31 and 80-20 was conducted to verify licensee compliance with IE Bulletin 79-02 requirements and licensee commitments.
On January 4,
1980 the licensee submitted its response to IE Bulletin (IEB)
79-02 Revision 2.
On March 4, 1981, the licensee submitted its response to the concerns noted on IE inspection report 50-335/80-20.
Both responses were discussed with the licensee.
The licensee response to IEB 79-02 Rev.
2, dated January 4,
1980, stated that no expansion anchor installations utilizing structural steel shapes, in lieu of base plates, existed at St.
Lucie Unit 1.=
Subsequent re-evaluation by the architect/engineers (A/E),
EBASCO, revealed that
seismic Category
pipe supports that utilized structural steel shapes were installed in St.
Lucie Unit 1.
The licensee stated that the subject pipe supports were inspected and analyzed by the A/E and the analysis complied with IEB 79-02 requirements.
The licensee committed to revise their IEB 79-02 response to reflect the items noted above.
The inspectors had no further questions regarding the RII concerns noted on IE inspection report 50-335/80-20 and the licensee's response to the con-cerns.
However, the 'analytical work in question was not available on site.
An inspection of the analytical work will be performed.
The IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14 inspections necessitated repairs or modifica-tions to seismic Category 1 pipe supports and baseplates.
Modified pipe supports were inspected and plant change and modification inspection records were reviewed.
Paragraph 6 of this report discusses the scope and results of this inspection.
Pending licensee completion of IEB 79-02 requirements, and licensee commit-ments, the bulletin shall remain open.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems IE Bulletin 79-14 On September 19, 1980, the licensee submitted a final report for IE Bulletin (IEB) 79-14.
A follow-on inspection to those documented on IE reports 50-335/79-28 and 50-335/80-20 was performed.
The bulletin response was discussed with the licensee.
The following items were noted.
(a)
The reactor coolant (RC)
loops were not included in the IEB 79-14 inspections and a verification that the piping analysis reflected the
as-built condition was not performed for IEB 79-14.
The licensee stated that this was not performed because the RC loops were fabricated and installed to very stringent tolerances and records to this effect were generated at that time.
The" licensee further stated that the RC loops had no pipe supports and consequently concluded that IEB 79-14 did not apply.
The licensee was informed that IEB 79-14 required verification that the seismic analysis applied to the actual configu-ration of seismic Category 1 piping systems as defined by Reg.
Guide 1.29, Seismic Design Classification, Revision 1,
or as defined in their FSAR.
The licensee committed to revise their response to IEB 79-14 to reflect that the RC loops had not been included in their, IEB 79-14 work and to state the action that they would take to comply with IEB 79-14 requirements.
(b)
Appendix "D" of the licensee's IEB 79-14 final report listed
supports/restraints that had been partially insulated and stated that the insulated parts had not been inspected.
The inspectors noted that the supports and restraints were concentrated in the reactor coolant 2~ IPS and 4" IPS piping, pressurizer surge and spray piping and safety injection piping.
The licensee had not performed a failure analysis on a
system by system basis for the uninspected pipe supports.
The licensee committed to fur ther clarify the IEB 79-14 final report, and to analyze and report the potential effects of the uninspected pipe supports, on a
system by system basis, on the operability of the applicable systems during-.-an SSE.
(c)
Item 4.D of IEB 79-14 required that if the licensee identified noncom-pliances during the inspections, the licensee should revise documents to reflect as-built conditions and describe measures which are in effect which provide assurance that future modifications of piping systems, including their supports will be reflected in a timely manner in design documents and the seismic analysis.
The licensee's final report did not address this requirement.
The licensee committed to revise the final report to address Item 4.D of IEB 79-14.
Unresolved item 50-335/80-23-04 was noted during a previous inspection.
This identified concerns regarding inadequate pipe support inspection records.
IE report 50-335/81-23 followed-up on the noted concerns and noted that the condition still existed.
It further questioned the adequacy of the inspection records due to existing installation discrepancies that were not noted on the inspection records and that may not have been identified and evaluated during the IEB 79-02, 79-14 inspection program.
The records in question were for pipe supports that were modified as a result of the IEB 79-02, IEB 79-14 inspection and re-analysis program.
The licensee final report for IEB 79-14 listed in Appendix "E" the pipe supports that required modification and the applicable plant change or modification (PC/N) work package.
The work packages for PC/N's 617-79, 80-80 and 85-80 were selected and inspection records for the pipe supports included in the work'ackage were inspected.
It was noted that pipe support inspection records contained
in PC/MS 616-79 and 85-80 were for weld inspections but did not adequately document inspection and acceptance of the pipe support modifications.
The
'icensee stated that the inspections had been performed and committed to document the inspection and acceptance.
Where insufficent or questionable information was available, actual re-inspection was to be performed to accept the modifications.
The following pipe supports were inspected to further verify, the accuracy of the inspection records:
(a)
CH-3-10A in the Chemical and Volume Control System (b)
BF-459-11 in the Feedwater System (c)
CCH-169 in the Component Cooling System Two concrete expansion anchors for pipe support CH-3-10A were noted to extend approximately three inches above the concrete surface.
This indicated a potential unsatisfactory embedment depth for'he concrete expansion anchors.
Four (4) nuts for the U-bolt of pipe support CCH-169 were installed on the back-side of the U-bolts.
The modification drawing required two on each side of the structural member.
In addition, the modification drawing did not appear to provide a means for assuring that the nuts would not loosen during operation.
The 79-02/79-14 inspection and evaluation records for pipe supports CH-3-10A and CCH-169 were not readily available'onsequently, whether or not the noted conditions had previously been identified and evaluated, could not be checked pending this determina-tion, the above noted conditions shall be identified as additional items for unresolved item 50-335/80-23-04.
The licensee submitted a response to IEB 79-04 on May 5, 1979 regarding the use of correct weights for Velan Valves in the piping analysis.
The inspector had no further questions regarding the response.
Inspection of the licensee'
corrective action will be performed concurrent with IEB 79-14 inspections.
Consequently, IEB 79-04 will be closed.
NRR Generic Letter 81-14 requested verification of the adequacy of the auxiliary feed water system portions not included in IEB 79-14 inspections to withstand earthquake design loads.
The licensee submitted a response to the generic letter on September 18, 1981.
Further clarification of the response appeared to be required.
The response was discussed with the licensee.
The licensee stated that in summary, their A/E's verfication of the Auxilliary Feedwater System showed that it would function as designed during an SSE.
The licensee further stated that the Auxiliary Feedwater System met the design standards at the time of installation but would not meet current design criteria.
This clarification will be forwarded to NRR for information.
Pending licensee completion of IEB 79-14 requirements and commitments, the bulletin shall remain open.
No violations or deviations were identified.