Text

Insp Rept 50-219/87-36 on 871019-22.No Violations or Unresolved Items Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Followup Actions in Response to IE Bulletins 79-02 & 79-14
	ML20149D984
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/18/1987
From:	Chaudhary S, Strosnider J; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20149D959	List: ML20149D955; ML20149D984;
References
	50-219-87-36, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8801130182
	Download: ML20149D984 (7)
	v • d • e

.

.. .

.. .-

,..

.'

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-219/87-36

Docket No. 50-219

License No. DPR-16 Category C

Licensee: GPU-Nuclear Corporation

P.O. Box 388

Forked River, N.J.

Facility Name: Oyster Creek Generating Station

Inspection At: Forked River, New Jersey

Inspection Conducted: October 19-22, 1987

Inspectors bk 04

. K. Chaudhary, Sdn Br Reactor Engineer

/2 [/ M8I

date

Approved by: .$. W /2//7/U

.R. SI.rosnider, hief Materials and '

and Processes Section, EB, DRS date

Inspection Summary: Inspection on October 19-22, 1937 (Inspection Report No.

50-219/87-36)

Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection was conducted by a regica

based inspector of licensee's follow-up actions in response to IE Bulletins

79-02, and 79-14.

Resuly : No violations or unresolved items were identified.

8801130182 871223

PDR ADOCK 05000219

0 DCD ,

<

. . .

.

'

..

.

Details

1. Persons Contacted

GPU-Nuclear Corporation

H. Tritt, Lead Instrumentation Instructor-

R. Dantalson, OP Training Manager

H. Lapp, Jr. , Managor, Plant Training

M. Heller, OC Licensing Engineer

P. Feidler, V.P. and Director, Oyster Creek

J. Rogers, Licensing Engineer, 0.C. __

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

J. Wechselberger, Resident Inspector

D. Lange, Senior Operations Engineer

M. Evans, Operations Engineer

In addition to the above, the inspector also interfaced with other

cognizant licensee employees as needed to carry out the inspection.

2, Licensee Follow-up Actions on IE Bulletin 79-02, and 79-14.

To assess the progress on the follow-up actions for items identified in

previous NRC inspection report (IR# 50-219/85-14), the inspector reviewed

documentation and held discussions with cognizant licensee personnel.

This inspection mainly consisted of selective examination of records

available on site and review of engineering evaluations performed by GPUN

corporate engineering. The records reviewed by the inspector are listed

below.

Correspondence from GPU Nuclear Corporation to the NRC:

-

GPUN to Murley, dated June 14, 1985

,

-

GPUN to Zwolinski, dated July 1, 1985

-

GPUN to Ebneter, dated October 28, 1985

-

GPUN to Ebneter, dated November 7, 1985, with attachments.

-

GPUN to Ebneter, dated November 24, 1986, with attachments.

Licensing Action Item (LAI) tracking reports:

LAI# 85099.01 through 85099.36 l

-

The above reports tracked items identified in the NRC IR#

4

50-219/85-14, and dealt with findings related to IE Bulletins

79-02 and 79-14

I

.

.. *

-

...

. '

3

By review of the above records and discussions with responsible plant '

engineers, the inspector determined the status of open items identified in

NRC IR# 50-219/85-14. The inspectors observations are listed by NRC item

numbers with corresponding Licensing Action Item (LAIs) number assigned by

the licensee for his internal tracking purposes. In some instances,

therefore, one NRC item is tracked by the licensee in more than one LAI

report by dividing the items into smaller subitems. This effort has been

identified by the licensee as 85099.0 series. The individual LAls are

then assigned subnumbers from .01 onwards.

(open) Violation, 85-14-01:

LAI .01 & LAI .02: Activities performed for IE Bulletins

79-02 and 79-14 were not covered by documented procedures.

The licensee has developed, approved and implemented procedures

to cover the above effort. ,

LAI .03: It was not clear if the plant FSAR addressed

requirements for safety - related components.

The paragraph 3.9, and Table 3.9-1, Rev. O, 12/84, of the FSAR

address above area.

i

(open) Unresolved Item, 85-14-02

The licensee could not retrieve inspection checklist, marked-up

drawings, and/or other field inspection documentation during the

NRC inspection.

The above records were provided to the NRC late during the

inspection, and at the manaoement meeting on June 25, 1985. The

records need further review in conjunction with other open

items.

(open) Deviation, 85-14-03

LAIs .04: Five of twelve seismic category I systems were not l

tested for anchor bolt acceptability. (

It appears that the licensee has enlarged the sample size to i

include other systems. '

i

(open) Deviation, 85-14-04

LAls .05: No specific design documents applicable to the seismic l

evaluations of safety-related piping were available.

The licensee has re-analyzed the safety-ralated piping systems, j

and results are available at corporate engineering office. !

l

,

?

'

'. ,

.

' '

., .

.

4

LAIs .06: Inspection checklist was not sufficiently detailed to

compare acceptance criteria with as-found conditions.

A detailed checklist has been developed and implemented to

satisfy the above concern. The requirements of the

specification SP-1302-12-208 have been included in the checklist

for acceptance criteria.

(open) Unresolved Item, 85-14-05

LAI .07 & LAI .35: Adequacy of the baseplate and bolt

evaluation for support NC-Z-HZ1 could not be determined.

The licensee has determined that this baseplate was not covered

by the bulletins. The baseplate is not safety-related.

(open) Unresolved Items, 85-14-06

LAI .08: A verification of engineering disposition for

calculation number 8.31.208 was not available.

The licensee has re-analyzed the support under the general

re-analysis pregram, and has found the support acceptable.

(open) Unresolved Item, 85-14-07

LAI . 09: No documentation was available to verify the

conservatism of the seismic span tables.

The licensee's re-analysis program for all large bore pipes (2 "

and larger) are based on dynamic computer modelling. For small

bore piping. The GPUN calculation number C-1307-104-5320-040

indicates that the span table used for original design is *

sufficiently conservative.

LAI .10: Many discrepancies were noted between drawings and

actual installation of supports.

As of October 22, 1987, the effort was still underway to resolve <

the concern. It is part of a larger effort to "as-built"

verification and re-analysis program.

(open) Unresolved Item, 85-14-08

LAI .11: Pipe support analyses of supports with frictional

loads did not include these loads in the support calculation.

4

>

b

v

.o, ,

-

.

5

The licensee has stated that this concern is being addressed by

the re-evaluation of support loadings by computerized modelling

of supports. However, frictional loads are not normally added

to seismic loads due to its dynamic nature. An appropriate

computer modelling will resolve this concern.

(open) Unresolved Item, 85-14-09

LAi .12: The valve V-3-88 was not located as shown on the

drawing B&R-H-102.

The licensee has determined that the correct location of the

valve was identified and used in analysis, but due to an

oversight the drawing was not updated.

LAI .13: The setting of spring hanger SN-2-H4 was not readable

since it was painted over.

The licensee initiated a Maintenance and Construction Short Form

(#31853) to correct this condition, and determined that it was

an isolated incident.

LAI . 14 & LAI .15: The support SW-SN-10 and SW-SN-11 had

excessive gaps, and the support did not appear to carry

any dead weight as indicated on the detailed drawing.

The support has been re-analyzed as part of general re-analysis.

Also, the support was only a seismic restraint, therefore,

deadweight loading was not important. The gaps have been

shimmed to meet the requirements.

LAI .16: The support SW-2-H7 was located 3'-7" away from the

designed location.

The location and its effect on pipe stresses have been analyzed

under the general re-analysis program and found to be

acceptable.

LAI .17 & LAI .24: On the baseplate of support NV-1-H7, two

concrete anchor bolts had less than full thread engagement.

The licensee has examined and evaluated the condition and found

that the configuration was satisfactory for current operability

of the support. However, after the re-analysis of the system

appropriate repair will be initiated.

,

LAI .18: The support No. NO-2-R1 was found to have excessive

gaps between pipe and frame numbers.

i ;

!

>

+'.,,.

-

'

6

The licensee evaluated this condition and found the support to

be non-functional due to excessive gap. A re-evaluation of the

system stresses without the support indicated that the piping

system was functional without the support.

LAI .19: The support near valve V-21-13 did not provide six

degrees of restraint.

The licensee has re-analysed the support, and has determined

that the support does provide six degrees of restraint. The

restraint in "Z" direction is the least, but the reaction

loading for this Z-moment is negligibly small.

LAI .20 & LAI .36: The support NC-2-H60 was offset such that

direct loading of the spring was not achieved.

The information regarding this concern was not available;

because, this support is not part of the bulktime scope of work.

LAI .21: The vertical piping from containment spray pumps A & B

does not have adequate seismic restraints.

The licensee stated that the re-analysis program using dynamic

computer analysis indicated that the system satisfied the

original design allowables (thermal, dead weight, seismic) as

required by the design code 13 31.1.

LAI .22: The extension rod on support NQ-2-S3 is extremely long

and places its adequacy in question.

The licensee stated that based on present re-analysis the

support is acceptable.

LAI .23: An unidentified support near valves V-21-75 and

V-21-76 appeared deformed.

The licensee stated that during the reverification program for

these bulletins, this support on a 4" diameter branch line to

the containment spray system was inspected and the geometry was

documented on an "as-built" sketch. A support number

(241-BR-H0326-124) was assigned. A new drawing showing correct

mark number and configuration has been issued. The licensee's 1

evaluation showed that the support resisted a maximum downward '

load of 446 lbs during a SSE. A calculation which assumed a

large eccentric loading due to valve operators was performed to !

evaluate the apparent "deformation". The e.alculation indicated '

that a minimum load of 3600 lbs downward would be required to j

deform the member as installed. The licensee, therefore,

concluded that the support geometry was as originally installed, 1

and is acceptable, j

j

!

'

., , .

4

7

Based on the above review, discussions, and personal

observations, the inspector determined that the licensee was

making considerable effort to resolve problems in the areas of

concrete expansion bolts and seismic design of pipe supports.

The licensee has engaged services of engineering consultants to

analy:e and evaluate pipe support discrepancies. Computer

analyses have been performed to evaluate piping system response

under dynamic loads.

A walk-down inspection covering one hundred percent of expansion

anchor base plates has been performed using specification

SP-1302-12-208, and the checklist developed from it, and the

results are being evaluated.

The inspector also observed that due to the on going nature of

this extensive re-evaluation program, the detailed re-analyses,

technical data, and engineering evaluations are still being

re-evaluated, compared and refined in light of new results and

conclusions derived from on going work, Therefore, most of the

technical data and documentation of analyses and evaluations are

in GPUN Headquarters in Parsippani, NJ. To determine the

adequacy of re-analyses and evaluations, and validity of technical

data and conclusions, an inspection at Parsippani, NJ will be

scheduled later. Pending this review and determination of the

acceptability of the licensee's actions, these bulletins remain

open.

3. Exit Interview

At the conclusion of the inspection on October 22, 1987, the inspector

met with licensee representatives (denoted * in paragraph 1), at which

time the inspector summarized the scope and the findings of the l

inspection.

At no time during this inspection, did the inspector provide any written

material to the licensee. The licensee did not indicate that any

proprietary material was included in the scope of this inspection.

l

ML20149D984

Text

Navigation menu

Search