IR 05000335/1981031
| ML17212B365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1981 |
| From: | Ang W, Herdt A, York J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212B361 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-81-31, 50-389-81-24, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-15, NUDOCS 8202050444 | |
| Download: ML17212B365 (11) | |
Text
~R REqII
~o Cp nO I
R'l o~
++*++
t UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-335/81-31 and 50-389/81-24 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P. 0. Box 529100 Miami, FL 33152 Facility Name:
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 License Nos.
DPR-67 and CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Lucie site near Ft. Pierce, Florida Inspectors:
W. P. An Date Signed Pg I Approved pJ Yo A. R. Herd
, Section C
Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division Da e Signed
/'ate Signed SUMMARY Inspection on November 23-25, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 50 inspector-hours on site in the areas of seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping systems ( IE Bulletin 79-14)
Units
and 2;
and licensee action on unresolved item 335/80-23-04, Inspection of Hanger Installation Welds, Unit 1.
Results Of the two areas inspected, one violation was found in one area (Violation-Fai lure to follow pipe support/restraint inspection procedures - paragraph 3).
No deviations were noted'SPSPSP444 S2Pi27
. PDR ADOCK OSOOO>>>
.I
'
",
~
~
li
'EPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"C. M. Wethy, Plant Manager, Unit
- B. J.
Escue, Site Manager, Unit 2
"J. E. Bowers, Maintenance Superintendent, Unit
"K. N. Flanagan, Assistant Site Manager, Unit 2
- E. O. Poarch, Service Superintendent, Unit 2
- J. Krumins, EPP Site Representative, Unit
"H. W. Cairns, Project QC Supervisor, Unit 1
"J. L. Parker, Project QC Supervisor, Unit 2 C. Carlo, Jr.,
QC Supervisor, Unit 2
"E. W. Sherman, QA Engineer, Unit 2
"A. M. Anderson, QA Engineer, Unit 2 Ebasco Services Incorporated
"T. A. Tarte, Project Engineer, Unit 1
.
"R. A. Garramore, Senior Resident Engineer, Unit 2 NRC Resident Inspector
.*S. A. Elrod
"H. E. Bibb
- Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 25, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail, the inspection findings listed below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
(Open)
Violation 335/81-31-01, Failure to follow pipe support/restraint inspection procedures paragraph 3.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item 335/80-23-04, Hanger Inspection Records - paragraph 3.
(Open) Inspector Followup Item 335/81-31-02, Maintenance of corroding pipe supports/restraints paragraph Licensee Action on Previous Inspection F'indings (Closed)
Unresolved Item 335/80-23-04, Inspection of Hanger Installation Welds.
A follow-on inspection to those documented on NRC/RII reports 50-335/81-23 and 81-26 was performed to determine the licensee's resolution of this item.
NRC/RII report 50-335/80-23 questioned the use by QC of inspection form QI 10.9, a weld inspection form, for the inspection of pipe supports/restraints in lieu of the required QI 10. 14 form.
NRC inspection of pipe supports whose QC inspections were originally recorded on QI 10.9 forms, noted on NRC/RII report 50-335/81-23, revealed various weld discrep-ancies on pipe supports CH-3-10B, SI-H-159',
and SI-H-160.
Concrete expan-sion anchors installed skewed greater than 3o were noted on pipe support SI-H-160.
NRC/RII report 50-335/81-26 further noted that pipe support CH-3-10A 'potentially had concrete expansion anchors with unsatisfactory embedment depth and pipe support CCH-169 had a potential unauthorized fastener installation that differed from its detailed drawing requirements.
The noted conditions were limited to 20 plant changes and modifications (PC/M) that resulted from IEB 79-14 inspections.
The licensee stated that all pipe supports/restraints on all
PC/M's were reinspected and docu-mented on the required QI 10. 14 forms.
A sampling inspection of PC/N's 80-80, 85-80 and 73-80 confirmed that reinspection had been performed and documented on QI 10. 14 Forms.
The weld defects noted above were evaluated by the licensee's A/E and, although considered to be technically acceptable, the licensee chose to repair the welds.
The skewed concrete expansion anchors of pipe support SI-H-160 had been previously noted by the licensee during IEB 79-02/79-14 inspections and determined to be technically accept-able.
A review of the evaluation and repair instructions confirmed this.
The licensee's A/E's technical evaluation of the concrete expansion anchors for pipe support CH-3-10A confirmed that the embedment depth was 2~~ inches in lieu of the required 6~~ inches and resulted in the concrete expansion anchors and the pipe support to be technically unsatisfactory in that the required safety factor of four for the concrete expansion anchors could not be met.
The licensee'
A/E was in the process of preparing repair instructions for the pipe support.
The licensee was also reviewing all PC/M's to determine all the new concrete expansion anchor installations preliminary information indicated potentially three additional pipe supports were involved.
The licensee was in the process of determining any addi-tional inspections that may be required for these pipe supports to verify adequate concrete expansion anchor installation and inspection.
This item shall be identified as an example for violation 335/81-31-01,
"Failure to Follow Pipe Support/Restraint Inspection Procedures".
The licensee's evaluation of the discrepant fastener installation for pipe support CCH-169 revealed that the.fastener arrangement was changed by the detailed drawing for the applicable PC/N but was not identified by the drawing as a change.
Consequently the fastener arrangement was not changed and this condition was not noted by QC during inspection of the pipe support.
This apparent violation of QI 10. 14 paragraph 5.2.3.4 appears to be a violation of
CFR
Appendix "B" Criterion V and shall be identified as another example for violation 335/81-31-01.
This fastener installation violation appears to be an isolated case in that no other similar conditions were
Cq
~
- g ~
noted during the inspections noted above and during this inspection.
Other than the violations noted above, the inspectors had no further questions regarding this unresolved item.
The violation will be followed-up separately and the'unresolved item shall be closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection 5.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems (IE Bulletin 79-14)
Unit 1 - A follow-on inspection to those documented on NRC/RII reports 50-335/79-28, 80-20 and 81-26 was performed to verify licensee compli-ance with 1EB 79-14 requirements and commitments.
The following pipe supports/restraints were randomly selected and inspected to determine the effectiveness of the licensee's IEB 79-14 inspections on the pipe supports/restraints.
CH-143 CH-111 BF-1005-319 BF-2-8 DO-1091-32 DO-1091-35 S1-676-798 SI-676-981 Condensate System Condensa'te System Auxiliary Feedwater System Auxiliary Feedwater System Diesel Oil System Diesel Oil System Safety Injection System Safety Injecti'on System Hanger CH-111 was not installed.
Removal of the hanger was required by the IEB 79-14 program.
No discrepancies that had not been identified by the licensee's IEB 79-02 or IEB 79-14 inspections/walkdowns were identified.
However, the baseplates for hangers SI-676-798 and SI-676-981, located in a pipe tunnel condusive to moisture and drying cycles, had significant corrosion that could be partially peeled off by hand.
A visual inspection of the area indicated that this was a common problem for the pipe tunnel.
During subsequent discussions, the licensee agreed to consider a program to minimize future corrosion and prevent deterioration of safety related pipe supports/retraints.
Pending resolution of this condition, it was ident'ified as inspector follow-up item 335/81-31-02
"Maintenance of Corroding Pipe Supports/
Res'traints."
Pending completion of IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee
'commitments, the bulletin shall remain open.
A follow-on inspection to that documented on NRC/RII Report 50-335/
81-26 was performed to further identify licensee action in response to NRR Generic Letter 81-14.'BASCO procedures used for performing the walkdowns for generic letter 81-14 were reviewed.
These were proce-dures FLO 128-6.800, l"eYislon l -and FLO 128-6.802, revision 0.
The following electrical conduit and electrical boxes for the auxiliary feedwater system were inspected:
rv l
Auxiliary Feedwater System Electric Motor Dr iven Pump "B" Box B-1406 Box B-151A Box B-1984 Auxiliary Feedwater System Turbine Driven Pump "C" Box B-150 Box B-102B Box B-103B Box B-132B Box B-1330 Box B-1665 Box B-1983 Auxiliary Feedwater System conduits 1B3 1B6 1A2 Vent system heater control panel 6Al.
6A2 6B1 6B2 The inspections revealed no discrepancies with the licensee's response to NRR Generic Letter 81-14.
This information will be forwarded to NRR.
Other than the violation noted on paragraph 3,
no additional violations or deviations were identified.
Unit 2 - A follow on inspection to those documented on NRC/RII Inspec-tion Reports 50-389/79-16, 81-04 and 81-16 was performed to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and commitments.
The gC inspection records and the installation of the following pipe supports/restraints were randomly selected and inspected Safety Injection System SI-2413-31 S I-18-R16 SI-2410-103 SI-2402-22
4'
Component Cooling System CCH-28 CCH-287 CCH-288 QC Records Only QC Records Only Containment Spray System CS-2007-7223 CS-2007-7265 CS-2007-278 QC Records Only QC Records Only QC Records Only No discrepancies between the QC inspection records and the inspected pipe supports/retraints were noted.
This indicated a
significant improvement in QC inspections of pipe supports and restraints.
However it was also noted that pipe supports/restraints being inspected still had a high, approximately 50 percent of the pipe supports/restraints, discrepancy rate.
The licensee stated that the improved QC inspections should result in improved pipe support/restraint erection.
The licensee further stated that a
more formalized turnover of pipe supports/restraints, that would further ensure that the pipe supports/restraints are complete and ready for inspection, was being considered.
j-
, Pending completion of IE Bulletin 79-2'4 requirements, the bulletin shall remain open.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
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.
The inspector had no further questions regarding the licensee's response.
A May 4, 1981 memorandum from IE:HQ, J.
Sniezek, had no further questions or comments regarding St.
Lucie Unit 1.
This bulletin shall be close ~
~
V e
g
~