ML19323A592

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-312/80-08 on 800304-05.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Activities Performed in Response to IE Bulletin 79-02, Pipe Support Base Plate Design Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts
ML19323A592
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 03/20/1980
From: Dodds R, Narbut P
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML19323A587 List:
References
50-312-80-08, 50-312-80-8, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8004210428
Download: ML19323A592 (5)


See also: IR 05000312/1980008

Text

MAR t ir 1990

m

-

-

U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION V

Re ort No. 50-312/80-08

Docket No. 50-312

License No.

DPR-54

Safeguards Group

Licensee:

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

P. 0. Box 15830

Sacramento, California 95813

Facility Name: Rancho Seco

Rancho Seco Site

Inspection at:

Inspection conducted:

March 4-5, 1980

Inspectors:

Gf

(

3f17

O

P. P. Narbut, Reactor Inspector

Date Signed

Date Signed

Date Signed

3

Approved By:

,Y

3

O N

'

R. T. Dodds, Chief, Reactor Engineering Support Branch,[Date/ Signed

Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch

Su:::: nary :

Inspection on March 4-5, 1980 (Report No. 50-312/80-08)

Areas inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection by. regional based inspectors

of the licensee's activities performed in response to IE Bulletin 79-02,

" Pipe Support Base Plate Design Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts". The

ir.spection involved 16 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.

Results:

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified as a

result of the inspections.

RV Form 219 (2)

soods2eLLM

- _ _ _ - _

.

.

DETAILS

1.

Persons Contacted

a.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)

  • R. Columbo, Technical Assistant
  • J. Sullivan, Quality Assurance

'

  • G. A. Coward, Maintenance Suoervisor
  • H. Heckert, Nuclear Engineer Technician

J. Dowson, QC Coordinator

D. Raasch, Generation Engineering

  • L. Schwieger, QA Director
  • Denotes those attending the exit interview on March 5, 1980

which was attended by H. L. Cantor, J. O'Brien and G. Zwetzig

of the NRC.

b.

Bechtel

R. Benson, Civil Engineer

2.

Licensee Action on previous Inspection Findings

a.

(0 pen) Open Item: Acceptance criteria for concrete expansion

anchor expansion was not established and inspection data had

not been evaluated (Item 50-312/79-17/01).

The inspector examined the acceptance criteria established by

the licensee for the acceptable degree of anchor expansion.

The acceptance criteria were derived from a University of

Tennessee study and appeared to be reasonable.

The inspector

had no further questions regarding the acceptance criteria.

'

The acceptance criteria had not been applied to all the anchor

,

inspection data, at the time of the inspection.

At the exit'

interview on March 5, 1980, the inspector discussed the potential

for additional' work that might-be identified as a result of

the remaining data review. Licensee management restated their

intention to complete the data review and take appropriate

actions in accordance with the bulletin requirements prior to.

the end of the current refueling outage. The item will

be inspected further on a future inspection.

. _ _ _

_

-2-

,

..

b.

'(0 pen) Unresolved Item:

Sliding supports had been modified by

the addition of non-sliding bracing (item 50-312/79-17/07)

The cognizant engineer stated that the commitment to remove

Concresive buildup from the faying surfaces of sliding supports

would be accomplished during a planned support by support

walkdown.

This aspect will be inspected further on a future inspection.

In regards to the need to provide periodic lubrication for

sliding supports, the cognizant licensee engineer provided a

letter BSL-978 of February 5,1980 which stated periodic

lubrication was not required since the design accounted for

friction coefficients for metal to metal contact surfaces.

.

The inspector had no.further questions on this aspect of the

item.

'

Based on the fact that the support design was based on metal ~

to metal friction factors, the fact that the supports observed

did not experience large thermal differentials between operation

and shutdown, the fact that the supports observed did not have

long pipe runs from fixed points, and the consideration that

the supports may have been installed for seismic movements

rather than thermal growth, the inspector had no further

questions. This aspect of the item is considered closed,

c.

(Closed) Unresolved Item: The effectiveness of Quality Assurance

in Maintenance / Modification work was questioned (Item 50-

312/79-17/08)

The question of quality assurance effectiveness, as it is

related to the control of maintenance and modification work,

was discussed with several supervisory licensee personnel

including quality assurance, quality control and engineering.

The licensee personnel stated that several actions were underway

'

which included a. planned increase in the staffing of the

quality assurance group and the quality control group.

Other

actions included the hiring of engineering assistance for the

purpose of reviewing maintenance procedures for current-technical

.

requirements and for the adequacy of' inspection callouts. An

!

additional' action underway is the rewriting of standard inspection

,

instructions. This item will be inspected further in the

normal course of future inspections.

Therefore this item is

closed.

!

l

l

.

-3-

'

..

d.

(Closed) Open Item:

Anchor shell standout is not limited in

the procedure for inspection grouted supports.

Revision 3 to Procedure MT.017 Inspection of Concrete Fasteners

of 2/1/80 added a requirement to verify that the anchor shell

does not stand out above the concrete.

In addition it was determined by discussion with the Quality

Control Coordinator that the inspectors involved with anchor

bolt inspection had been specifically trained to inspect for

sleeve standout. Therefore this item is closed.

3.

IE Bulletin 79-02 " Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete

Expansion Anchor Bolts".

,

The inspector examined the licensees activities in the area of

insuring that all seismic category 1 pipe supports using concrete

anchor bolts had been identified for test and analysis. The question

arose as a result of the licensees analytical activities in response

to IE Bulletin 79-14 " Seismic Analyses for As-Built Safety-Related

Piping Systems" wherein 89 additional supports were identified as

applicable to Bulletin 79-02 and required analysis to the requirements

of Bulletin 79-02. Cognizant licensee personnel stated that a list

of applicable supports had been generated during the system walk

downs done for Bulletin 79-14. This complete list of pipe supports

generated for Bulletin 79-14 was being used as a source document to

generate a complete list of those particular pipe supports which

used concrete anchor bolts (Bulletin 79-02). This list of supports,

which used anchor bolts, will be used to verify that the lists of

supports which had been:

(1) tested and, (2) analyzed for Bulletin 79-02 was, in fact, complete. The cognizant licensee personnel

stated this review and any consequently identified actions would be

completed prior to the end of the current refueling outage. This

item will be inspected further during a future inspection (Item 50-

,

312/80-08/01).

~

The inspector examined. supports SG 29120-1 (CBS Aux Bldg) and

10-29122-4 (CBS Containment) which were two'of approximately 20

supports identified as having inaccessible anchor bolts. The

Region V imediate action letter of January 14, 1980 recorded the

agreement reached between the NRC and the licensee.

The letter

stated, in part that the licensee would perform inspections to the

extent possible on those anchors determined to be inaccessible.

The concrete anchors listed as inaccessible on support 10-29122-4

were accessible for inspection. -Further questioning of cognizant

licensee personnel ~ determined that the instructions given to anchor

,

i

bolt inspection personnel were that anchors which were not accessible

for repair should not be tested, even if there was sufficient

l

accessibility for testing.

It was further determined that'all the

supports with anchor bolts listed as inaccessible were being reanalyzed

,

i

_-_.

._

. , .-

.

@.

.g.

'

,

..

..

without taking credit for the inaccessible anchor bolts to determine

i.

if the. remaining ancnor bolts were capable of carring the design

' load within the bulletin required factors of safety. At the time

?

,

of inspection, all supports :s'o analyzed met the factor of safety

-

requirements.

,

'

At the exit interview of March 5, 1980, the licensee management

!

committed that the above approach would continue.to be used and any

instance where bulletin requirements were not met would be identified

to the NRC with appropriate justification prior to the end of the

current refueling outage. This item will be-inspected further in a

futureinspection(Item 50-312/80-08/02).

-

'

.

'

4.

< Exit Interview

The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted'in

paragraph 1 on the date indicated. 'The scope of inspections and

the inspectors findings as noted in this report were discussed.

l

<

.

1

t

a

r

,

i

- 1

1

!

'

1

,

i

1

s

<

$

I

,

- l

..i

,

. -..

-.

-

,,

,,-.m-.

.-

-r=-

,- - - - . ,

I