ML19344D779

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-312/80-05 on 800130-0201,12-15 & 17-18.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Activities Performed in Response to IE Bulletin 79-02 & Activities Performed for Inservice Insp for 1980
ML19344D779
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 03/03/1980
From: Dodds R, Narbut P
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML19344D773 List:
References
50-312-80-05, 50-312-80-5, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8004280180
Download: ML19344D779 (7)


See also: IR 05000312/1980005

Text

O

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

=

REGION V

50-312/80-05

Report No.

50-312

DPR-54

Docket No.

License No.

Safeguards Group

Licensee:

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

P. O. Box 15830

Sacramento, California 95813

Rancho Seco

Facility Name:

Rancho Seco Site

Inspection at:

Inspection conducted:

Jan 30-Feb 1, Feb 12-15, Feb 17-18,1980

Inspectors:

tw M

3/3/DO

P. P. Narbut, Reactor Inspector

Date Signed

Date Signed

Date Signed

Approved By:

N

'

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

ReactorConstructfonandEngineeringSupportBranch

Suenary:

Inspection on January 30-February 1, February 12-15, February 17-18, 1980

(Report No. 50-312/80-05)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based

,

inspectors of % 11censee's activities performed in response to IE

Bulletin /OL'

" Pipe Support Base Plate Design Using Concrete Expansion

Anchor Bolts" and of licensee's activities performed for the inservice

inspection for the 1980 refueling outage. The inspection involved 67

inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspectors.

Results: ~ No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified as a

result of the inspections.

RV Form 219 (2)

800428o

WO;

.

DETAILS

,

1.

Persons Contacted

a.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)

'

  • R. J. Rodriguez, Manager, Nuclear Operations
  1. P. Oubre, Plant Superintendent
    • R. Columbo, Technical Assistant
  • B. Stiver, Mechanical Engineer
    • J. Sullivan, Quality Assurance
    • G. A. Coward, Maintenance Supervisor
  1. W. Ford, Supervisor of Nuclear Operations
  1. R. Medina, Quality Assurance Engineer
  1. H. Heckert, Nuclear Engineer Technician

'

    • N. C. Brock, Electrical Supervisor

W. Garrett, Mechanical Engineer

  • Denotes those attending the exit interview on February 1,1980

'thich was attenCed by R. T. Dodds, H. L. Cantor and J. O'Brien

.

of the NRC.

  1. Denotes those attending the exit interview of February 15,1o80

which was attended by H. L. Cantor and G. Zwetzig of the NRC.

b.

Babcock & Wilcox (B&W)

Howard Stoppelman, Supervisor

J. Uhl, ISI Coordinator

M. Gallagher, NDE Examinor

c.

Hartford Steam Boiler

P. Miller, ANI

2.

Licensee Action on orevious Inspection Findings

a.

(Closed) Open Item: Pipe support welding does not meet

AWS D.1.1 acceptance criteria (Item 50-312/79-17/06)

,

The inspector examined supports 60-32120-1 and 4A-26020-1 and

found that they met the AWS D.1.1 criteria. The inspector

further examined recently acccmplished support welds on

nuclear raw water support NRW 10G 47350-1 and found they met

AWS D.1.1 requirements. The inspector had no further questions.

This item is closed.

. _ _ _ _ - - _

__ ________

-2-

b.

(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 wedge placement data for 16 supports

and determined the 12 of the 16 supports may have one or more

anchors with insufficient expansion. At the time of inspection

the licensee had not finalized the acceptance criteria to be

used and had not evaluated the data in hand.

At the exit

interview of 2/1/80 the results of the inspectors data review

were explanied to licensee management and the potential for

significant additional work was discussed.

c.

(0 pen) Unresolved Item:

Sliding supports had been modified

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

The inspector examined decay heat system support DHS 40 26021-

1 and observed it had been remodified to restore sliding

capability in accordance with modified engineering instructions

on Bechtel drawing M-485 Sheet 4-56 DCN 1E. The inspector had

no further questions on the design of the sliding supports

which had been changed by addition of bracing.

The inspector

examined the following sliding supports which had not been

modified, that is no bracing was added by design modifications,

but had been worked on, in that the grout under the slide

plate had been removed for bolt testing and replaced with

Concresive (epoxy type compound):

^

SU 23803-9

4U 26020-4

5U-29120-2

4U-26020-6

The Concresive was observed to be built up in such a manner as

to lap over between the slide platas and would apparently

interfere with the slide function of the plates.

Four additional supports were examined which had not been

modified or tested.

4U-48222-9

4G-26122-1

-

SU-23820-2

5U-23820-7

The edges of the slide plates were observed to be encrusted

with debris and, in some cases, borate crystals. There was no

visual evidence of the supports having moved in recent times.

The installation drawings for these sliding supports required

that upon original installation, the bottom of the slide plate

be greased and that the support be free to slide after installatir-

Through discussions with the cognizant engineer it was determined

that there are no maintenance requirements, which require the

periodic reapplication of grease nor a visual verification of

sliding functionability on heat up or cool down.

-3-

,

'

.

.

At the February 1,1980 exit interview licensee management

comitted to inspect for and remove excess Concresive which

would interfere with the sliding function. The licensee

management further committed to evaluate the need for periodic

lubrication of sliding supports and the need for visual evidence

l

of movement.

!

3.

Concrete Expansion Anchors in Pipe Supports.

l

I

The inspector examined the testing of concrete expansion anchors by

two of the testing crews to verify conformance to the requirements

'

of IE Bulletin 79-02.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.

During the testing of support SU-23620-2 (SIM) which is a grouted

coltimn support, it was noted, with the grout chipped away for

-

inspection, that one of the anchor bolt sleeves protruded above

the face of the concrete floor by approximately one inch. The

anchor inspector noted the condition as a coment on the inspection

data sheet. The inspector noted that tne procedure MT.017 Revision

!

2

" Inspection of Concrete Fasteners" does not prohibit a concrete

anchor sleeve projecting from the concrete surface nor does the

procedure require reporting of the condition. At the exit in

terview of February 1,1980 licensee management comitted to

determine if other involved inspectors have consistently reported

'

anchor standout and to make a procedure change to specify anchor

standout criteria. This item will be inspected further on a future

inspection (Item 50-312/80-05/01.)

_

4.

Inservice Inspection

The licensee is performing the third refueling outage inservice

inspection in accordance with ASME B&PV Code Section XI 1971

Edition through Sumer of 1973 Addenda for Class 1 and 1974 Edition

through Sumer of 1975 for Class 2 and 3.

i

a.

Eddy Current Testing of Steam Generator Tubing

i

The inspector examined the eddy current testing of steam

'

generators A and B during the outage for conformance to

Technical Specification 4.17. and Procedure ISI-401 Rev.10

of 8-8-79.

,

-4-

,

The inspector (1) examined the acquistion of eddy current

-

data on generators A and B, (2) reviewed calibration data

sheets,(3) checked qualification records of selected eddy

current operators, and (4) reviewed the B&W computerized

method of data analysis.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.

It was noted by the inspector that a two channel method

of recording was not used as is recommended by Regulatory

Guide 1.83.

However the licensee has not committed to

Regulatory Guide 1.83.

b.

Visual Inspection of the Space Below the Reactor Core

In the course of preparation for the inservice inspection a

question arose as to whether visual inspection of the space

below the reactor core was required at this time by ASME B&PV

Code Section XI Table IS 251 Category N examination.

The licensees inspection program regards the space below the

core as inaccessible for visual examination when components

are removed during normal refueling outages.

The licensee

stated that a visual examination will be performed under the

core at the end of the inspection internal (currently estimated

to be 1985) as is allowed by the requirements of Examination

Category N.

The inspector had no further questions.

,

c.

Automated Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Vessel Nozzle to

Pipe Welds

,,

The inspector examined the preparations for and partial

4

calibration of the equipment for the ultrasonic examination

of the nozzle to pipe weld (Inspection B.4.5.1 of SMUD's

inspection plan) for compliance to procedure ISI-131

Revision 5 and the requirements of ASME B&PV Code 1971 Edition

through Summer of 1973 Addenda.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed,

d.

Ultrasonic Examination of Steam Generator Secondary Manway

Studs and Nuts

The inspector examined the calibration of equipment for the

ultrasonic examination of the Steam Generator B Secondary

manway studs and nuts, inspections C.1.4.5 and C.1.4.6.

The

actual inspection was not performed at that time because the

studs and nuts had not been sufficiently cleaned for examination.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.

(

-5-

.

The examiners performed calibration for straight beam scan of

the ends of the nuts by establishing a reference level on the

scope using a 3/4" thick calibration block with a 1/2 t

reference reflector hole. The nut being scanned was approximately

2 1/2 inches thick. The applicable procedure, ISI 105, can be

'

read to allow calibration by the back reflection method or a

calibration block. The intent of the procedure, as established

by subsequent discussions with the examiners supervisor,

was to use the calibration block to establish a reference

level for straight beam scan from the nut flats and to use the

back reflection method for the straight beam axial scan from

the nut ends.

At the exit interview of February 15, 1980 licensee management

committed to resolve the proper method of calibration prior to

acceptance of data for the examination of the nuts and to

resolve whether a procedure clarification is required. This

item will be inspected further on a future inspection (Item

50-312/80-05/02)

e.

Ultrasonic Examination of the Pressurizer Power Operated

Relief Valve Nozzle to Head Weld and Pressurizer Spray line

To Head Weld

The inspector examined the calibration and examination of the

nozzle to head welds of the power operated relief valve and

the spray line nozzles for conformance to the requirements the

ASME B&PV Code and procedures ISI 130 and 124. These inspections

are licensee inspection numbers B.2.2.1 and B.2.2.2.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.

..

f.

Qualifications of Nondestructive Examiners

The inspector examined the qualification records of three

Level II examiners and one Level III examiner for compliance

to the requirements of SNT-TC-1A of Summer 1973.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.

9

Review of Quality Records

,

The inspector examined nondestructive examination records

including data sheets, calibration records and expendable

material certifications for the following examinations.

1)

Inspection B.4.5.90 Pressurizer spray elbow to pipe

weld, ultrasonic examination.

-6-

.-

2)

Inspection B.4.5.139 High Pressure Injection elbow to

!

pipe weld, ultrasonic examination.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.

5.

Exit Interview

The inspector met with the licensee representative denoted in

paragraph 1 on the dates indicated. The scope of inspections and

the inspectors findings as noted in this report were discussed.

.

$