IR 05000338/1980028
| ML19344E274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1980 |
| From: | Compton R, Herdt A, Modenos L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344E266 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-80-28, 50-339-80-27, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8008280296 | |
| Download: ML19344E274 (3) | |
Text
q ss
.
p nea UNITED STATES
o,,
8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
o
- < r REGION 11
'*
o, 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 lJl ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
,
o
,
Report Nos. 50-338/80-28 and 50-339/80-27 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261 Facility Name: North Anna Licensee Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 Inspection at Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA Inspector
,l 7 i
/
r,<
..?
,m.
R. M. Comptori T
Date Signed 7!/(!.M
__
m/m L."Mo en
'
Date Signed
,
Approved by:
C
[/
//N/[\\-
A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Ilate ' Signed SUMMARY Inspection on June 16-18, 1980
,
Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 16 inspector-hours at Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation in the areas of IE Bulletin 79-14, " seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems" and licensee identified items.
Results Of the 2 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
800828( f4)6
T
.
<
J DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J
Licensee Employees E. W. Harrell, Acting Station Manager
- T. A. Peebles, Superintendent of Technical Services
- R. K. MacManus, Associate Engineer Other Organizations Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
- C. B. Miczek, Vice President - Engineering
- N. B. Cleveland, Vice President - Quality Assurance
- W. B. Dodson, Project Engineer - North Anna 1
- R. B. Bradbury, Project Engineer - North Anna 2
- G. A. Gardner, Lead Engineer
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 18, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above and on June 23, 1980 by telecon with Acting Station Manager E. W. Harrell.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Licensee Identified Items (Closed) Item 338/79-15-02 and 339/78-36-01: Stress Analysis of Service Water and Component Cooling Water Systems Piping and Piping Supports. This item is also identified as Unit 1 LER 78-124 and Unit 2 Technical Specifica-tion Item 7.3(4). Prior inspection of this item was detailed in NRC Inspec-tion Reports 50-338/79-5, 50-339/79-7, 50-338/80-23 and 50-339/80-23. The purpose of this inspection was to review documentation related to engineering verification that small bore piping (6 inch diameter and smaller) and l
related supports, which had originally been analyzed by chart methods, could accommodate the increased movements of the large bore piping. The
)
inspectors examined memos dated June 25, 1979 and January 18, 1980 which indicated that MSK 103A series hand calculations had been reviewed and that the selected small bore component cooling lines are acceptable for the new temperature ranges. This item is closed.
l
.
-
_ _ _ _ -.
\\
-
.
-
-2-6.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin 79-14, " Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems", Units 1 and 2 Stone and Webster (S&W) has not developed any specific generic procedures for IE Bulletin 79-14.
The Stone & Webster North Anna project group also has no specific project procedures for the IE Bulletin 79-14 effort. The S&W engineers indicated that, because of the reduced scope of the IE Bulletin 79-14 work effort for North Anna, they considered that correspondence between S&W and Vepco along with standard S&W administrative and generic procedures was sufficient. This correspondence consisted of a S&W 1etter to VEPC0 Serial NAV-7482, dated September 25, 1979 and Vepco's Unit 1 Design Change 79-574, " Pipe Hanger Modification Due to NRC Bulletin 79-14".
The inspectors reviewed this correspondence, but stressed to S&W and the licensee that specific procedures should be developed for projects of this significance and uniqueness. The lack of procedures was turned over to NRC hegion IV Vendor Inspection Branch personnel for followup during a future inspection.
The following stress isometrics were selected for examination of the evaluation and analysis work effort:
Unit 1: MSK 113B-4, Problem 281 Unit 2: MSK 103AY-3, Problem 722 MSK 114FI-4 MSK 102D
.
Documentation examined included stress isometrics, stress analysis results, valve weight change summaries, valve drawings and telex's from valve manufacturers.
On many of the problems valve weights were reduced from those used in the original analysis but the reanalysis showed overstresses and support additions or modifications were required. Problem 722 is an example of slight (12 percent) reduction in valve weight significantly, increasing stresses.
This result was apparently due to slight weight reductions changing the pipe frequency under seismic action, slightly shifting some points higher on the amplified response spectrum curves. The licensec was requested to provide a written explanation of this occurrence including justification of the 10 percent valve weight tolerance allowed by the valve weight verification program. This was identified as Inspector Followup Item 339/80-27-01:
Valve weight decrease with resultant pipe stress increase.
S&W engineers indicated that many of the valve weight changes were due to erroneous vendor drawings or vendor supplied information. The inspectors requested that the licensee expedite reporting of the results of the IE Bulletin 79-14 effort and include specifics as to valve suppliers and the amount and cause of the weight changes.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.