|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[IR 05000324/1989022]] |
| | number = ML20247D724
| |
| | issue date = 09/06/1989
| |
| | title = Insp Repts 50-324/89-22 & 50-325/89-22 on 890724-28.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Open Items,Especially Issue of Svc Water Lube Water Support Operability
| |
| | author name = Blake J, Carrion R
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation =
| |
| | docket = 05000324, 05000325
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = 50-324-89-22, 50-325-89-22, NUDOCS 8909150053
| |
| | package number = ML20247D711
| |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| |
| | page count = 6
| |
| }}
| |
| See also: [[see also::IR 05000324/1989022]]
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:., _ _ - - .
| |
| .;._._
| |
| ,
| |
| *
| |
| *y
| |
| kMEP . UNITED STATES
| |
| ~ *. .
| |
| o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
| |
| r[ o . REGION il
| |
| .J' .y ,101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
| |
| '
| |
| ~
| |
| .
| |
| * *. . ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
| |
| -
| |
| f
| |
| .....
| |
| Report Nos.: 50-325/89-22 and 50-324/89-22-
| |
| Licensee: Carolina Power.and Light Company
| |
| ,
| |
| '
| |
| P. O. Box 1551
| |
| e Raleigh, NC 27602-
| |
| . Docket.Nos.: 50-325'and'50-324 License Nos.: DPR-71 and DPR-62
| |
| Facility Name: Brun swi ck :1' and ' 2 -
| |
| ~ Inspection Co ucted: July 24-28, 1989
| |
| Inspector: . # # '87 -
| |
| 'R. r ior Date Si ed-
| |
| Approved by: . a u.
| |
| J Jf. Blake, Chief
| |
| 'i/ 6 @
| |
| Date Signed
| |
| aprials and Processes Section
| |
| ngineering Branch
| |
| Division of Reactor' Safety
| |
| SUMMARY
| |
| Scope:
| |
| This routine announced inspection was conducted in the areas of open items,
| |
| especially the issue of Service Water Lube Water Support Operability. A total
| |
| of eight open items were reviewed.
| |
| Results:
| |
| In the areas' inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
| |
| Of .the open items reviewed, none were closed. However, the technical aspects
| |
| of the Service Water Lube Water Support Operability issue were satisfactorily
| |
| resolved. The corrective action / management response to the issue will be
| |
| - addressed by the Resident inspector in a forthcoming report
| |
| 8909150033 890907
| |
| PDR ADOCK 05000324
| |
| O PDC
| |
| - _- _ - - _ __ _ _ - - __-_- _ --_ - _ ___ - _____- _- ____ _-_ - __--__-__ __ - ____ _ ____ _
| |
| | |
| -. .-- ._-_ -_ . - _ -
| |
| ,
| |
| p g> ,
| |
| g.' "
| |
| <
| |
| *
| |
| 4h *
| |
| .
| |
| -: .
| |
| [ .
| |
| (L.
| |
| L
| |
| L >
| |
| ' REPORT DETAILS
| |
| 11. Persons Contacted?
| |
| ' '
| |
| . Licensee Employees
| |
| y
| |
| *C. F. Blackmon, Manager of Operations
| |
| .
| |
| S. Boyce, Project Engineer for ECCS
| |
| *A.1G..Cheatman, Manager - E&RC
| |
| R. Cowen, Structural Engineer
| |
| *W. J. Dorman,' Supervisor - Quality Assurance
| |
| *J. L. Harness, General Manager.
| |
| *W. ' Rt Hatcher . Supervisor of _ Security
| |
| .
| |
| *R. E. .Helme, Manager of. Technical Support
| |
| -
| |
| * L. E.' Jones, Director of QA/QC
| |
| .*H. A. Jones, Director af On-Site Nuclear Safety
| |
| R. :Knott, Senior Engineer (LED-Civil)
| |
| J. A. McKee,_ Quality Control Supervisor
| |
| *W. G. Monroe, Principal Engineer (NED)
| |
| *J. O'Sullivan, Manager of Training
| |
| M. J. Pastva,' Regulatory Compliance Specialist
| |
| *R. M. Poulk, . Project Specialist - Reguitory Compliance
| |
| *R. 'L. Warden, Manager of Maintenance
| |
| A. Washburn, System Engineer for_ Service Water
| |
| H. L. Williams, Principal Engineer (NED)
| |
| A. Woods, Service Water Engineering for Outage Management Interrated
| |
| Scheduling Section_(0MISS)
| |
| A. M. Worth, Engineering Supervisor, Technical Support
| |
| Other ' licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
| |
| security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
| |
| - NRC Resident Inspectors
| |
| *W. Ruland, Senior Resident Inspector
| |
| W. Levis, Resident Inspector
| |
| D. Nelson, Resident Inspector
| |
| '* Attended exit interview-
| |
| 2. Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
| |
| e. Followup on Licensee Identified Violations (LIVs)
| |
| (1) (0 pen) LIV 50-325, 324/88-24-05: " Failure to Maintain
| |
| RHR SW Piping Temperature Below 120 F"
| |
| The 120 F limit was based on the original stress analysis for
| |
| the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Service Water (SW) piping
| |
| - _ - --- __ _ _ -__ _
| |
| | |
| . _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _
| |
| _ - _ _ _ _- _ - _-. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| _
| |
| .
| |
| ;a
| |
| .
| |
| .'
| |
| 2-
| |
| l
| |
| _
| |
| downstream of the RHR heat exchanger. Because the temperature
| |
| peaked at 215 F, the licensee. prepared Engineering Evaluation
| |
| Report 88-0365 and re-evaluated. the pipe stress model for -the
| |
| elevated temperature to determine piping operability.
| |
| Additional analysis was done to determir.e. if the piping would
| |
| have remained operable at 215 F during a Design Basis Earth-
| |
| quake. Also, a re-analysis of the pipe supports associated
| |
| with the affected piping was completed to qualify them as
| |
| operable .during a Design Basis Earthquake coincident with an
| |
| . operating temperature of 215 F.
| |
| The inspector reviewed Calculation No. 2SW-261-02, Revision F-0,
| |
| entitled . "Re-analysis of Pipe . Supports on Service Water ISO's
| |
| D-2846,. Sheets 261, 262, 263, 266, and 267." This calculation
| |
| includes 32 attachments which contain ' load summaries and other
| |
| pertinent:informat % as well as individual support evaluations.
| |
| However, the pipe senss re-analysis was not available for.
| |
| review and there vie no way to verify the loads shown on the
| |
| summary sheets. Therefore, the pipe stress calculations must be
| |
| reviewed during a future . routine inspection to evaluate this
| |
| issue fully. This item remains open.
| |
| b. Followup on Unresolved Items (UNRs)
| |
| (1) (0 pen) UNR 50-324/88-13-01: "As-Building Drawing
| |
| Discrepancies for Torus External Piping Systems"
| |
| The inspector requested a status report on this item from the
| |
| cognizant licensee engineer and was told that the referenced
| |
| discrepancies would most probably be resolved in the Phase II
| |
| As-Built Piping System Walkdown Verification Program, rather
| |
| than doing it as a separate " stand-alone" effort. This would
| |
| allow the most ef ficient use of resources. However, it also
| |
| means that this item will not be closed until the completion of
| |
| the Walkdown Verification Program, scheduled to be finalized in
| |
| 1992. Therefore, this item remains open.
| |
| (2) (0 pen) UNR 50-325,324/88-36-01: " Suppression Pool '
| |
| Temperature Monitoring System Adequacy"
| |
| The inspector held discussions with the cognizant licensee
| |
| engineer concerning this issue because the information presented i
| |
| for review was insufficient to close the item. The inspector !
| |
| and the engineer agreed on what information is still needed and
| |
| the engineer began an effort to procure it. This item ,
| |
| remains open. i
| |
| !
| |
| l
| |
| 1
| |
| 1
| |
| _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - - - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ .
| |
| | |
| - -- _ -_
| |
| u;
| |
| w
| |
| .
| |
| .'
| |
| .3
| |
| '(3) (0 pen) UNR 50-325,'324/88-36-04: " Accuracy of As-Built Phase 'II ,
| |
| Piping Walkdown Verification" ]
| |
| '
| |
| The inspector monitored the progress of the Walkdown
| |
| Verification' Program. This effort is the result of modifying -;
| |
| earlier programs 'and is designed to accurately reflect the "
| |
| as-installed configuration of the safety-related piping and !
| |
| supports. The Quality Control Supervisor informed the inspector .,
| |
| that the program is on schedule..with over 40%.of .the walkdowns. 1
| |
| complete. Virtually a'11 of the walkdowns outside the drywells
| |
| have been completed and currently none are in_ progress. They
| |
| .will resume with the upcoming Unit- 2 outage in September.
| |
| Therefore, this item remains open.
| |
| (4) (0 pen)UNR 50-325,324/89-07-02: " Service Water Lube' Water 1
| |
| Operability" J
| |
| Upon arriving at the site, the inspector reviewed the referenced
| |
| piping and supports to become familiar with the actual physical I
| |
| configuration. All ten of the Lube Water Piping Supports had j
| |
| been repaired by cutting away the corroded portions and
| |
| replacing 'them with new material. This new material was then i
| |
| covered by a Belzona surface treatment to act as a corrosion {
| |
| barrier against future deterioration. The inspector was told j
| |
| that this is a temporary fix until Plant Modifications 83-220L I
| |
| and 82-221-L are implemented. These modifications will convert
| |
| the Service Water Pumps to " product-lube" pumps, i.e. internal
| |
| self-lubrication by the fluid being pumped, water in this case.
| |
| This conversion will allow the removal of all lube water piping, ;
| |
| valves, cyclone separators, lube water pumps, and existing ;
| |
| '
| |
| support structure. Only two small (less than 1" d) lines, for
| |
| the motor cooler supply line and its return, will remain to be
| |
| supported. The new supports are to be " Christmas Tree" type, a i
| |
| vertical tube steel " trunk" with " branches" consisting of !
| |
| structural angles to support the lines. The tube steel is
| |
| welded to base plates which are situated on 1" grout pads. The
| |
| grout pads are utilized to elevate the supports above the
| |
| general floor level, reducing their exposure to the corrosive
| |
| environment. j
| |
| The inspector reviewed Engineering Evaluation Report No. 4
| |
| 89-0128, which detailed the test done to determined if a short !
| |
| run of Lube Water piping at the Service Water Pump bearing could ;
| |
| withstand a deflection of plus of minus 1" for the duration of
| |
| Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) without failure, 12 seconds based
| |
| upon Section 3.7.1.2.1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report
| |
| (FSAR). The preliminary analysis results indicated that the .,
| |
| fundamental frequency of the system is about 4 Hz. Therefore,
| |
| the system could expect about 48 cycles during a DBE. The
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . __ i
| |
| | |
| . _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| __-_ -
| |
| 0
| |
| .'
| |
| e
| |
| 4 ,
| |
| a
| |
| actual test was conducted through 50 cycles. Also, the test
| |
| specimen was hydrostatically tested to 1-1/2 times of the
| |
| system's design pressure. The 225 psi hydro produced some slow
| |
| seepage around the threaded connection at the assembly but none
| |
| of the other joints showed any signs of leakage. Upon .
| |
| completion of the test, the specimen was re-examined. The j
| |
| seepage around the threaded connection was slightly increased
| |
| while the other joints remained water tight. The inspector
| |
| judged the test to be an accurate, conservative representation
| |
| of the actual physical configuration under seismic loading
| |
| conditions.
| |
| Upon the successful completion of the test, with its
| |
| conservative assumptions, a rigorous quantitative analysis,
| |
| Calculation 0-01534A-148, Revision 0, was done. A finite
| |
| element model which incorporated the worst conditions of all the
| |
| structures on the analyzed structure was used. The model
| |
| included the attached piping, and an attached ladder in addition
| |
| to the pipe support structure itself. All sources of stiffness
| |
| were utilized, even though they may not have been originally
| |
| designed as part of the support systems, due to the urgency of
| |
| the situation. As-found field data was gathered for the
| |
| corroded support legs, piping configuration, support attach-
| |
| ments, supports members and their configuration. This informa-
| |
| tion was used to established nodal coordinates, members sizes,
| |
| connection fixities, and other model properties. Stiffness
| |
| associated with 1/2" ( pipe attached to the pump bearing was
| |
| determined from information from the previously-conducted test.
| |
| Stiffness associated with the cyclone separator nozzles was
| |
| determined based on tests conducted previously and documented in
| |
| Calculation 82-218A-01, Revision F1, dated August 14, 1986. The
| |
| purpose of that calculation was to seismically age the cyclone
| |
| separator and qualify it for piping loads.
| |
| The computer input was reviewed by the inspector, especially
| |
| noting and spot checking coordinates of nodes, member materials,
| |
| member beginning and ending nodes, member releases (as appropriate),
| |
| member properties, and support points. The output was also
| |
| reviewed for madal information, especially frequency and related
| |
| displacements for a given mode, as well as member forces and
| |
| member stresses under the postulated seismic event. The natural
| |
| frequency of the analysis piping / support structural system was
| |
| 5.8 Hz, while the deflection corresponding to the 1 inch assumed
| |
| deflection used in the laboratory simulation was 0.4 inch. The
| |
| stress levels of some of the members proved to be well above
| |
| those nomally accepted as allowable, but they did remain in the
| |
| elastic range, indicating that no plastic deformation should be
| |
| expected even under the most severe postulated loading
| |
| conditions. Therefore, from the strictly technical standpaint,
| |
| operability of the Service Water Pump Lube Water Piping and its
| |
| - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1
| |
| | |
| _ _ _ - - _ _. _
| |
| .-
| |
| 4
| |
| .
| |
| -
| |
| . .
| |
| 5
| |
| associated support was maintained. However, it must be
| |
| emphasized that its success was based on the ability to
| |
| incorporate structural properties of the piping itself and an
| |
| attached ladder into the analysis, which is rather unorthodox in
| |
| general, but most fortuitous in this particular case.
| |
| Corrective actions and management's response to this issue will
| |
| be addressed in an upcoming Resident Inspectors Report.
| |
| Therefore, this issue remains open.
| |
| c. Followup on Inspector Following Items (IFIs)
| |
| (I) (0 pen) IFI 50-325, 324/88-36-02: " Final Safety Summary
| |
| Report For IEB 79-02"
| |
| (2) (0 pen) IFI 50-325, 324/88-36-03: "Hilti Anchor Bolt
| |
| Allowable Review and Justification Per IEB 79-02, NRC
| |
| Information Notices 86-94 and 88-25"
| |
| The inspector discussed these two open items with the cognizant
| |
| licensee engineer. The final summary report is being prepared
| |
| and will address the Hilti Anchor Bolt issues as well as those
| |
| of the original IEB 79-02. Therefore, pending completion of the
| |
| report, these two items remain open.
| |
| (3) (0 pen) IFI 50-325, 324/88-36-05: "QA Auditing of the Supports
| |
| in As-Built Phase II Piping System Walkdown Verification Program
| |
| and the Modified Systems with QC Inspections"
| |
| This item is closely associated with UNR 50-325, 324/88-36-04
| |
| (See paragraph 2.b.(3)). The inspector spoke to the Director of
| |
| QA/QC and the QC Supervisor, who said that they preferred to use
| |
| the term " surveillance" rather than " audit" to describe their
| |
| on going efforts in reviewing the walkdown Verification Program
| |
| throughout is life. An audit is usually conducted after the
| |
| fact and is more formal in nature. The surveillance is j
| |
| proceeding on schedule and no significant breakdowns of the i
| |
| program were cited. It is scheduled to be continued through the
| |
| end of the Walkdown Verification Program in 1992. Therefore,
| |
| this item remains open.
| |
| 3. Exit Interview j
| |
| The inspection scope and results were summarized on July 28, 1989, with
| |
| . those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas l
| |
| l inspected and discussed in detail the inspection re sul t s . Proprieta ry J
| |
| information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not
| |
| received from the licensee.
| |
| ___
| |
| }}
| |