ML20084H053
| ML20084H053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bellefonte  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1984 |
| From: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8405070431 | |
| Download: ML20084H053 (2) | |
Text
l e
.o TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 374of 400 Chestnut Street Tower II 84 APR24 P 3 2
April 2D, 84 BLRD-50-438/84-02 BLRD-50-439/84-02 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Attn:
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 - FAILURE TO INCORPORATE INCREASED SUPPORT - BLRD-50-438/84-02, BLRD-50-439/84 SECOND INTERIM REPORT l
The subject deficiency was initially mported to NRC-0IE Inspector P. E.
Fredrickson on December 22, 1983 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) as NCR 2661. This was followed by our interim report dated January 18, 1984.
Enclosed is our second interim report.. We expect to submit our next report by August 30, 1985.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with R.- H. Shell at FTS 858-2688.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
^
L. M. Mills, Manager Nuclear Licensing Enclosure cc:
Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director (Enclosure)
Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiot Washington, D.C.
20555 Records Center (Enclosure)
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 1500 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 8405070431 840420 PDR ADOCK 05000438 S
PDR t
1983-TVA 5OTH ANNIVERSARY l
I An Equal Opportunity Employer gg
ENCLOSURE l' _ '.
BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 FAILURE TO INCORPORATE INCREASED SUPPORT LOADS INTO DESIGN i
BLRD-50 '438/84-02, BLRD-50-439/84-02 NCR 2661 10 CFR 50.55(e)
SECOND INTERIM REPORT Description of Deficiency During the course of scheduled NRC-0IE Bulletin 79-14 walkdown exercise, a number of supports on rigorous analysis problem N4-1KE-4, for the Emergency Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) system, were discovered not to be in agreement with analysis data in regard to loads and movements. Some supports were designed by ITT Grinnell while the remainder of these supports were,
designed per the TVA load-rated typical program. Specific support designs found to be disagreeing with ERCW analysis drawings 1KB1506-KE-41 R1 and 1KB0506-KE-42 R2 were:
1KE-MPHG-0046 R3 1KE-MPHG-0054 R1 1KE-MPHG-0097 R2 1KE-MPHG-0049 R0 1KE-MPHG-0057 R0 1KE-MPHG-0101 R0 1KE-MPHG-0051 R0 1KE-MPHG-0059 R0 1KE-MPHG-0114 R0 1KE-MPHG-0053 R0 1KE-MPHG-0061 R0 1KE-MPHG-0127 R0 1KE-MPHG-0140 RO There are two separate parts to this deficiency. The first part consists of a failure to review the revised analysis drawing 1KB0506-KE-41 R1. This drawing is a support load table for supports which were designed by ITT Grinnell. TVA support review personnel reviewing the revised drawing learned that other changes to analysis problem N4-1KE-4 were scheduled as a result of engineering change notice (ECN) 1626. Therefore, the support review personnel decided to idefer the review until ECN 1626 was incorporated. When the new analysis drawings were issued the revised analysis myiew was completed, identifying all needed changes for the subject analysis and foe ECN 1626. All supports found to be inadequate were identified to be redesigned. No Division of Engineering Design (EN DES) procedures were violated in failing to review the above drawing revision. The time lag between the second analysis issue and support review caused the analysis and the supports to temporarily disagree.
The second part consists of a failure to revise the support detail sheets for TVA-designed load-rated typical supports for changes made on support load table drawing 1KB0506-KE-42 R1. These supports were placed on construction hold and identified to the Division of Construction (CONST) by memorandum dated November 17, 1982 as requiring revision. The personnel reviewing the support at the site released the listed support with no revision required. This resulted from an error by the site personnel sb2 determining when a support required revision for an analysis change.
EN DES had determined that the incorrect release of rigorously analyzed J
typical supports which required revision for analysis changes was a generic error at Bellefonte (BLN).
)
g
Intrein Progress The following supports were placed on construction hold to be redesigned per normal EN DES procedures:
1KE-MPHG-0046 R3 1KE-MPHG-0054 R1 1KE-MPHG-0049 R0 1KE-MPHG-0057 R0 1KE-MPHG-0051 R0 1KE-MPHG-0059 R1 1KE-MPHG-0053 R0 1KE-MPHG-0061 R0 The above supports were ITT Grinnell supports on 1KB0506-KE-41 Rt.
The following typical aupports have been placed on hold per ECN 1626 for dhanges due to that ECN:
1KE-MPHG-0097 R2 1KE-MPHG-0101 R0 1KE-MPHG-0114 R0 1KE-MPHG-0127 R0 1KE-MPHG-0140 RO The corrective action for the generic error will be that EN DES will review all load-rated typical supports on revised rigorous analysis to resolve the deficiency.. Those supports found in error will be revised.
to reflect the correct analysis information. EN DES personnel (who now review typicals instead of CONST) will be instructed in the proper methods of revising typical supports. Also, Bellefonte Design Project Engineering Procedure 44.77 will be revised to prevent recurrence of these deficiencies.
J I
/
7 e
'l L-
.