ML20205B675
| ML20205B675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205B654 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-85-14, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8509120193 | |
| Download: ML20205B675 (2) | |
Text
W APPENDIX B NOTICE OF DEVIATION GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. 50-219 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-16 Forked River, NJ 08731 As a result of the inspection conducted on May 14-17, 1985, and in accordance with NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR2, Appendix C), published in the Federal Register on March 8, 1984, (49 FR 8583), the following deviations were identified:
1.
Action Item No. 4. of IE Bulletin No. 79-02 specifies a design requirement verification for each concrete anchor bolt with respect to anchor bolt pre-load, design size and type, and proper installation.
If these requirements cannot be met from existing quality control documentation, a testing pro-gram should be initiated to assure that each seismic category I system will perform its intended tunction.
This action item suggests two sampling techniques for testing of concrete expansion anchors. The licensee's IE Bulletin 79-02 response dated July 6, 1979, states, "An in plant inspection and test program has been initiated to verify proper anchor bolt installa-tion and correct size and type."
It also states, "The test method involves a pull test of the anchor bolt to a minimum test load of 125% of the cal-culated bolt design load.
The sampling technique being used is the first method listed in Appendix A of the supplement to the bulletin", i.e. test-ing one bolt per base plate.
Contrary to the above, information contained in Attachment 8 of Burns and Roe document " Review of Conformance to USNRC IE Bulletins 79-02 and 79-14" indicates that bolts were tested on only seven of the twelve seismic Cate-gory I piping systems.
The five systems which were excluded from the an-chor bolt testing were the Cleanup Demineralizer, Control Rod Drive, Feed-water, Main Steam and the Shutdown Cooling Systems. Therefore, the func-tionality of these five untested systems was not assured.
Furthermore, the anchor bolt testing on the seven tested systems was neither conducted according to the first sampling method proposed by the bulletin and commit-ted by the licensee in the July 6,1979 response, nor according to the second sampling method which requires a statistical sampling of anchor bolts on each safety related system such that a 95 confidence level is provided to establish an evidence of operability of these systems.
8509120193 850904 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G
PM 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY IR OYC 85 0005.0.0 08/27/85
P Appendix B 2
2.
IE Bulletin 79-14 states that the licensee should assure that seismic analyses of safety related piping systems accurately reflect the as-built configuration of the plant.
The design specifications, drawings, and other data used for these analyses should be considered in this investigation.
Among the bulletin statements are the following:
Identify the piping system parameters which were input into the seismic analyses.
Identify the specific design documents from which values of these parameters were obtained for the seismic analyses.
Establish acceptance criteria which as-built values of the parameters must meet.
In addition, action items No. 2. and No. 3. require that, for each safety related systoc. the licensee should verify by physical inspection that the inspection e.
ents meet the acceptance criteria.
In the August 31, 1979, and the February 22, 1980, letters to the USNRC, the licensee provided reports of inspections conducted at the plant in accordance with the IE Bulletin 79-14.
These reports state, "The inspection consisted of compar-ing the as-found condition of piping, valves, supports, and restraints with the design documents used as input to the seismic analysis." The licensee also provided the scope of what would be considered in the inspection with a general summary.
Contrary to the above:
No specific design documents applicable to the seismic evaluation of as-built safety related piping could be located.
Although an inspection checklist was established, it provided only one acceptance criterion regarding hanger location which was not substan-tiated by analysis. The checklist presented was not sufficiently com-plete to compare the as-found conditions with a specific acceptance criteria.
In addition, no evidence was provided,, during the inspec-tion, to show that the checklist was applied in a controlled and con-sistent manner.
Furthermore, the licensee did not provide, during the inspection, such documentation as marked-up walkdown drawings, field inspection data sheets or other first generation documents resulting from a physical inspection.
GPU Nuclear Corporation is hereby requested to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of the letter which transmitted this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the esults achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further deviations; and (3) the date when full conformance will be achieved.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR OYC 85 0005.1.0 08/27/85