ML20153B536
| ML20153B536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1988 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153B534 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-87-25, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8803220246 | |
| Download: ML20153B536 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000333/1987025
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-333/87-25
Docket No.
50-333
License No. OPR-59
Licensee:
Power Authority of the State of New York
P.O. Box 41
Lycoming, New York 13093
Facility Name:
J. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Inspection At:
Lycoming, N.Y.
Inspection Conducted: November 17-19, 1937
Inspector:
k 0 b CLtt
Cotti
3l2 h 5'8
S. K. Chaudhary, Sen199 Reactor Engineer
' d a't e
Approved by:
[
J/2[88
. R. Strosnider, Chief, MPS, EB, DRS
date
Inspection Summary:
Routine unannounced inspection on November 17-19, 1987
(IR 50-333/87-25)
Areas Inspected:
Follow-up of status of open itoms, and work in response to
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
However, it was
determined that pipe support inspections and evaluations in response to NRC
bulletin 79-14 are not complete.
8803220246 880315
ADOCK 05000333
G
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
Details
1.0 Persons Contacted
New York Power Authority
- R. Converse, Resident Manager
- W. Fernandez, Superintendent of Power
D. Howe, Plant Engineer
R. Liseno, Planning Superintendent
T. Moskalyk, Technical Services Plant Engineer
R. Patch, QA Superintendent
V. Walz, Technical Services Superintendent
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- A. Luptak, Senior Resident Inspector
In addition to the above, the inspector also contacted other engineering,
technical, and administrative personnel during the inspection.
- Persons attending exit interview.
2.0 Inspection Scope
This inspection covered the activities associated with the inspection and
evaluation program for pipe supports. This program was developed in re-
sponse to the IEB 79-14.
2.1 Follow-up on Previously Identified Items
(Closed) 83-18-05, Unresolved Item:
This item pertains to potential
non-conformance in the re-analysis of pipe suppor t design.
These
potential inadequacies were identified by the licensee's consultant
in this area, Target Technology Limited. (TTL).
The consultant indicated that in the design of pipe support modifica-
tions, the stresses resulting from normal loads were not verified to
be within the code allowable.
The design of the supports for seismic
loads was completed in accordance with the applicable code and there-
fore not in question.
Targot Technology Ltd. also identified 20
additional supports engineered by Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC) which had the potential for not meeting the code
allowable limit for the normal loading condition.
For the 348 pipe
supports identified by TTL as having incomplete calculation packages,
the licensee's Design and Analysis Group reanalyzed 342 of these
supports (6 were recently modified and reanalyzed).
Based on this
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
3
.
reanalysis, all 342 pipe supports were found to be satisfactory under
normal operating loads and did not need any structural modifications
to meet the FSAR or Code requirements.
For the 20 supports engineered
by SWEC, a review by SWEC indicated that all necessary verification
calculations were made and that the supports were in compliance with
the committed criteria.
To evaluate the extent of non-conformaace, the licensee visually
examined 18 of the 20 supports identified by TTL; and re-analyzed 342
of 348 supports designed by TTL to assure the adequacy of supports to
withstand design loads.
The licensee also retained another con-
sultant, United Engineers and Constructors (UE), as a third party
reviewer of this effort.
The third party reviewer was to provide an
independent inspection, analysis, and evaluation of the identified
pipe supports for their adequacy of design.
The inspector reviewed
UEs final report (UJ-0078), dated November 11, 1983, and transmitted
to the licensee on August 30, 1985.
This third narty review did not
result in the identification of any safety concern in areas original-
ly identified by TTL.
This item is closed.
(Closed) 83-21-02, Unresolved Item:
This item also is related to
the potential inadequacy of pipe supports identified by TTL.
Inspec-
tion report 83-21 identified that the licensee's 10 CFR 21 evaluations
were not complete and were held open for the results of the third
party review; also, the adequacy of the licensee's original part-21
evaluation was suspect.
However, subsequent NRC review as documented
in NRC memoranda, Starostecki to Eisenhut, dated December 5, 1983,
and December 19, 1983, determined that the licensee's evaluations
were adequate.
The above conclusion also was supported by the third
party (UE) review.
This item is closed.
(Closed) 83-21-03, Unresolved Item:
This item pertains to the
adequacy of licensee action in response to a TTL letter dated
September 3, 1980, questioning the validity of pipe support design
by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC).
TTL indicated
in their December 20, 1982 letter that the fact that calculations
had not been done to demonstrate ability to meet normal loading
stresses for the subject supports, had been previously brought to
PASNY'S attention in a letter dated September 3, 1980 (a copy of
this letter was attached). A search of licensee records did not
indicate that this letter had been received or evaluated. A
subsequent search of individual files located the original of the
September 3,1980 letter, indicating that it had in fact been
received.
The inspector interviewed the engineer who had received
the letter and reviewed a memo written by this engineer dated
October 24, 1980, indicating that an answer was required from Stone
and Webster to determine if their design covered the work in
- . - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
J
c
0
4
o
question.
The licensee has been unable to confirm if Stone and
Webster was contacted to evaluate and respond to the September 3,
1980 letter.
The adequacy of the licensee's evaluation concerning
the information in this September 3, 1980 letter was unresolved
pending response from Stone and Webster.
The inspector reviewed SWEC response (PAS-26077) and determined that
the design for the pipe supports was adequate.
This item is closed.
(0 pen) 84-04-05, Unresolved Item:
This item pertains to inaccuracies
in "as-built" drawings used for verifying installed piping and sup-
ports in response to IE Bulletin 79-14.
During the review of the licensee's actions with respect to IEB 79-14, the NRC staff identified that the licensee did not have a
formal written procedure documenting inspection elements used in
verifying the "as-built" condition of piping and supports.
This
inadequacy of procedure had previously been identified by the
licensee's consultant, United Engineers and Constructors (UE).
In November 1983, during a detailed field verification of support
member sizes, weld sizes and length, and bolts, UE&C identified
dimensional discrepancies in thirteen (13) out of eighteen (18)
supports examined.
These discrepancies included undersized welds,
missing welds, and difference in steel member sizes.
The licensee
forwarded these discrepancies to Stone and Webster Engineering Cor-
poration (SWEC) for evaluation.
SWEC determined that the as-instal-
led piping system was acceptable for all normal and seismic loading
despite these deficiencies, and no safety concern existed.
As a result of the above findings the licensee developed a program
to inspect all safety-related pipe supports.
The program description
for the above was submitted to the NRC in May 1985.
The program con-
sisted of two phases.
Phase I consisted of inspection and evaluation
of one hundred (100) supports, the results of which would be the
basis of the second phase effort for the remaining supports.
The
proposed program covered a period of three years.
In October of 1985,
the licensee informed the NRC that phase I had been completed and
phase II of the program had been started.
The rate of progress was
approximately 10 supports per week for the balance of 1650 supports
included in the phase II program.
The licensee, however, had completed only 35% of the scheduled phase
II inspection and evaluation of pipe supports by September 1987.
In
view of the conclusion reached by the plant staff (Memo Gray to
Converse, September 9, 1987) that many supports with problems which
meet the relaxed operability criteria for the short term, might not
have met the original design code requirements, it is a concern of
the NRC that pipe support evaluations have been further delayed.
O
5
.
.
The inspector reviewed the following documents to determine the
status of the above program:
Letters, memoranda, & Office Correspondence:
-
NYPA to NRC, JPN-83-65, dated 7/7/83
A.C. Pal to L. Gusquil, dated 8/16/83
-
-
NYPA to NRC, JPN-83-79, dated 9/1/83
-
United Engineers to NYPA, UJ-0049, dated 11/11/83
-
NYPA to NRC, JPN-83-100, dated 12/19/83
-
NYPA to NRC, JPN-84-02, dated 1/20/84
-
NYPA to NRC, JPN-85-38, dated 5/2/85
-
NRC to NYPA, (Vassallo to Brons), dated 7/22/85
-
L. Guaquil to J. Gray, [[::JAF-85-253|JAF-85-253]], dated 9/3/85
-
NYPA to NRC, JPN-85-68, dated 10/1/85
-
R. Converse to J. Gray, JAFP-87-0716, dated 9/9/87
Pipe Support Task Force, Project Plan. Rev. 1.
Pipe Support Evaluation-Phase 2, Work Tracking Log.
Based on the above review, discussion, and personal observation, the
inspector determined that this item has not been resolved.
This
item therefore remains open.
3.0 Exit Interview
The inspector met with the licensee at the conclusion of the inspection
on 11/19/87, at which time the inspector summarized the scope and the
findings of this inspection.
At no time during this inspection did the inspector provide any written
material to the licensee.
The licensee did not indicate that proprietary
information was included in the scope of this inspection.
_ . _ . . . . .
.
-