ML20079N513
| ML20079N513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1984 |
| From: | Bayne J POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| JPN-84-02, JPN-84-2, NUDOCS 8401300247 | |
| Download: ML20079N513 (6) | |
Text
123 Main Stiert Wh'e Plmns. New bk 10001 C
914 081 0200
- > NewWrkPower l=:i::_,
4# Authority
-c-January 20, 1984 JPN-84-02 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Mr.
H.R.
Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Subject:
James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Potential Pi_pe Support Non-Conformance
References:
1.
NRC letter, H.
R.
Denton to J.
P.
- Bayne, dated September 23, 1983.
2.
NYPA letter, J.
P.
Bayne to H.
R.
- Denton, dated November 18, 1983 (JPN-83-97).
3.
NYPA letter, J. P.
Bayne to D.
B. Vascallo, dated September 1, 1983 (JPN-83-79).
4.
NYPA letter, J.
P.
Bayne to D.
B. Vasaallo, dated November 17, 1983 (JPN-83-96).
5.
NYPA Letter, J.
P.
Bayne to D.
B. Vassallo, dated December 19, 1983 (JPN-83-100).
Dear Sir:
In a petition dated and filed on September 12, 1983, tne Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) made various allegations regarding the adequacy of pipe supports in the FitzPatrick plant.
The NRC requested, in Reference 1, that the Power Authority provide a written response to the issues raised in the UCS petition.
The Authority provided the requested response in Reference 2.
8401300247 840120 A gg) f DR ADOCK 05000333 D
'I
On November 30 and December 5, 1983, Power Authority personnel and members of the NRC staff met to discuss the Authority's response.
During the latter meeting, the Authority comnitted to take additional steps to reconfirm the adequacy of a support in the main steam system.
These commitments are described in detail in Attachment 1 to this letter.
The status of the Authority's independent third party review of the FitzPatrick pipe supports was also discussed in these meetings.
The review, which is wider in scope but includes the UCS allegations, was described in Reference 3.
In that letter, the Authority informed the NRC that United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C) had been retained to perform the review, and also provided the status of the UE&C review.
The Authority updated the status of UE&C's efforts by providing a copy of a comprehensive and detailed UE&C status report in Reference 4.
At the meeting the NRC requested that the Authority update the status and provide clarification of aspects of the UE&C review.
This information is provided in Attachment 2.
In Reference 5, we described a program to reinspect sixteen pipe supports previously inspected by UE&C.
This reinspection was performed by Authority personnel to verify the discrepancies noted by UE&C and cneck support details not examined by UE&C.
As a result of this reinspection, additional discrepancies were identified.
These discrepancies were subsequently forwarded to Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) for evaluation.
SWEC has completed their evaluation and
"...has confirmed that the subject as-installed piping systems are acceptable for all normal and seismic loading conditions."
Since the Authority first informed the NRC of this situation in July of 1983, we have made every effort to thoroughly investigate Target Technologies Ltd.'s (TTL) allegdtions.
Discrepancies, not directly a part of TTL's allegations, were similarly investigated.
Inspections have been conducted by the Authority, UE&C, SWEC and the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
As a part of their independent investigations, UE&C measured pipe support weld size and length during their field inspections.
In some instances, these neasurements differed from those shown on construction drawings.
In all cases.
subsequent analyses confirmed the acceptability of the supports r
for all normal and seismic loading conditions.
All calculated stresses were less than allowable - in many cases significantly less, with average weld stress forty percent of allowable.
The majority of the discrepancies identified by UE&C and the Authority were of this type.
l t
Other dovistions were alco identified by UE&C: beam to structural. steel setback at the clip angle connections, clip angle size, and transposition of dimensions of supplementary
-steel.
None of these deviations have any significant impact on the acceptability of the supports.
(These were the result of 1
variations in field geometry, the use of standard pipe support clip angles and " east / west" viewing of supports.) There are no safety implications as a result of this type of deviation.
Neither the Authority, UEEC or SWEC has identified any significant deficiences in pipe supports at FitzPatrick as a result of these investigations (with the exception of a single support identified in Reference 3.)
Considering the nature of the devistions found to date, these discrepancies have no generic safety implications.
Despite the lack of significant findings resulting from these investigations, the Authority is developing a long-term pipe support inspection and evaluation program.
The purpose of this program will be to identify and evaluate similiar discrepancies at FitzPatrick.
This program, which will extend over several operating cycles, will be in addition to the normal Inservice Inspection Program.
Details of the program's exact scope and schedule will be finalized in the near future.
We will submit further details as soon as they are available.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. J.
A.
Gray, Jr. of my staff.
Very truly yours,
(. m
\\,-s y,
(
J ay Executive V ce President Nuclear Generation i
State of New York County of Westchester Subscribed and Sworn to before me thisA* day of C 9'y a q,1984.
/
M ar,darv Pu e a:e Jew YorW Notary Public No. 4737373 Med in Westchester Coun erm Expires March 30,19 cc:
Office of the Resident Inspector U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 136 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
New York Power Authority James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant ATTACHMENT 1 TO JPN-84-02 MAIN STEAM PIPE SUPPORT ADEQUACY The Power Authority. committed to perform an inspection, in addition to those recently completed, to reconfirm the adequacy of main steam line support H29-351.
Specifically, during the next outage, which is currently scheduled for March of 1984, the Authority will perform a physical inspection of this support and the main steam piping in its vicinity.
Special attention will be given to the trunnion to pipe welds, piping in the vicinity of the welds, and anchor bolts associated with the new support member.
The Authority also will perform an additional inspection to reconfirm the adequacy of main steam line supports in the vicinity of H29-351.
--e v.
w
-,--e,
~
New York Power Authority James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant ATTACHMENT 2 TO JPN-84-02 INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY REVIEW Clarification The NRC requested that the Authority clarify the direction provided to UE&C with regard to significant findings and, indicate if UEEC had identified any supports as having been damaged by normal operating loads.
The Authority instructed UE&C to notify us immediately of any significant findings or safety problems, so that pronpt and appropriate action could be taken.
UE&C described their approach in Section 1.3.1 of the status report transmitted by Reference 4.
Section 1.3.1 reads:
"All of the anomalies and discrepancies identified during the review, which in UNITED's judgement required additional action, were reported as findings.
Where potentially significant findings were identified, UNITED performed preliminary evaluations, where possible, to determine the seriousness of the effects.
At the same time, expedited, formal documented resolution from the responsible organization involved (NYPA, S&W, TTL) was requested."
UE&C has not identified any supports which were damaged due to operational loads.
As the Authority has previously stated, pipe supports were properly designed for normal operating loads.
Status UE&C's three major open iteme are:
1.
Review and verification of recirculation system pipe supports.
2.
Verification of transient loads on main steam line support H29-351.
3.
Resolution of discrepancies between pipe supports and design drawings.
ll
The Authority has requested that General Electric (GE) provide information and documentation sufficient for UE&C to close out items 1 and 2.
GE has provided UE&C with some of the required information.
The Authority has asked GE to provide the remainder as expenditiously as possible so that these items can be resolved in the near future.
It should be noted that UEEC does not consider either of these items significant.
UE&C notified the Authr::ity of the-discrepancies identified during their inspections of pipe supports.
Authority pereannel then reinspected the supports in question.
All of the identified discrepancies were forwarded to Stone and Webster (SWEC).
SWEC has evaluated the discrepancies and has determined that all of the supports involved are operable and acceptable without modification.
1
.-,..-m-
,