ML20149D984
| 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: |
| References | |
| 50-219-87-36, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8801130182 | |
| Download: ML20149D984 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1987036
Text
.
..
.
..
.-
.'
, . .
.
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
/2 [/ M8I
Inspectors
bk
04
. K. Chaudhary, Sdn Br Reactor Engineer
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
ADOCK 05000219
0
,
<
.
. .
.
'
.
..
.
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
The above reports tracked items identified in the NRC IR#
-
50-219/85-14, and dealt with findings related to IE Bulletins
4
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.
,
?
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
' '
'.
'
.,
.
.
,
.
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
.
.
.
- .
.
.
.
u
.
.
.
.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
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
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.