IR 05000302/1985016

Insp Rept 50-302/85-16 on 850325-28.Violation Noted:Pipe Support Installation Dimension Did Not Conform W/Applicable Approved Engineering Drawings

ML20127G822
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	04/10/1985
From:	Ang W, Blake J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127G809	List: IR 05000302/1985016 ML20127G806 ML20127G811
References
50-302-85-16, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8505210155
Download: ML20127G822 (5)

Text

o

[ , . , gy g

1. 3 {- )/ ~

he tg'o,, UNITE'3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ o REGION 11 <

{o $ 101 MARIETTA STREET, '

', 3

1. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 x

-

s ... /

.

'

..

.

j

- ,

s

, Report _No.: -50-302/85-16 '

~'

Licensees Florida Power Corporation '

3201 34th' Street, South

, .St. Petersburg, FL 33733 l'

Docket'No.: 50-302 License No.: DPR-72- -

g Facility'Name: Crystal River 3 ,

,

T- ~

Inspection Conducted: March 25 - 28, 1985

'

Inspector: 'lO 8k +-ic f Y .

W. P. Ang .

Date-Signe JApproved byi N & 4 so-fr '

,

J. J. Blake, section Chief Date Signed-Engineering Branch '

Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY ,

-

Scope: This-routine,announcedinspectionentailed53 inspector-hoursonsite:in the areas of pipe ~ support baseplate designs using concrete ^ expansion anchors (IEB 79-02)'and seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping ' systems (IEB 79-14).

-

Results: One violation was identified - Pipe support installation discrepancies, paragraph '

-

/f 3

,. s a

!

!

[ .'

-

s PD$

.

. -

.

~ REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• E. C. Simpson, Director, Nuclear Operations Engineering and Licensing

• J. T. Telford, Director, Quality Programs E. M. Howard, Director Site Nuclear Operations

'

• G. R. Westafer, Manager, Licensing

• R. C. Widell, Manager, Nuclear Operations Engineering

• P. R. Tanguay, Supervisor, Nuclear Engineering

• A. Petrowski, Nuclear Structural Engineer

• K. R. Wilson, Supervisor, Site Nuclear Licensing V.A.Hernandez,SeniorNuclearQualityAssurance(QA) Specialist

.

Other Organization Gilbert / Commonwealth-J. B. Muldoon, Manager, Piping Department C. N. Rentschler, Section Manager, Piping Department

• T. A. Cuba, Crystal River 3 (CR3) Project Piping Engineer NRC Resident Inspector

• T.-Stetka

• Attended exit interview , Exit Interview 1The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 28, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph.1 above. The inspector described the-areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed-below. No dissenting comments were received from the license , Violation 302/85-16-01 - Pipe Support Installation Discrepancies, paragraph 6.

.

. Unresolved Item 302/85-16-02 - Justification of Concrete Expansion Anchor Design Calculation Capacities, paragraph Proprietary material was reviewed during the inspection. However, informa-tion used in this inspection ^ report was not considered to be proprietary by the. licensee during the inspectio .. . . . . - - - _ _ - ._ - .-- --

3: ' .

.

i3. ' Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters-(Closed) Unresolved Item 302/84-32-01 - Compliance Regarding WEJ-IT Reduced Capacity. 'The unresolved item identified concerns regarding licensee corrective' action resulting from reduced concrete expansion anchor capacity detennined by testing. The unresolved item also identified ' associated .QA

. program concern On . March 14, 1985, the' licensee ~ submitted letter-3F0385-14,- IEB 79-02 -Supplemental Information and IE Inspection Report 84-32. . 'The letter outlined the -licensee's corrective action for the

reduced concrete' expansion anchor capacities and addressed the associated QA program. concern During this inspection (see also paragraph 6), the Linspector determined that the licensee had commenced implementation of the

. corrective ' action committed to in the above noted lette In addition, a

review

of Safety. Related - Engineering Procedure 8, Revision 4, Temporary-

-Change 1, and Quality Programs Surveillance Report 84-RJC-30 indicated that the' . licensee was also addressing the above noted QA program concern ' Unresolved Item 302/84-32-01 was close .- Unresolved Item

. Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to-determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. One new unresolved item identified during this inspection is

' discussed in paragraph ~5.- Independent . Inspection (92706)

fThe' inspector conducted a general inspection of the CR3 control room. The

' inspector. observed. and discussed plant _ status with licensee personnel, reviewed the control room ' log and observed control room - activity and

'

decorum.' No violations or deviations were identifie . . Pipe-Support Baseplate Design Using Concrete Expansion Anchors (IEB 79-02)

.and Seismic Analysis for.As-built Safety-Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14)

On October 8,1984, the licensee submitted to NRC Region II supplementary information for IEB 79-02 'on Florida Power Corporation (FPC) letter 3F1084-0 The . letter stated that licensee site-specific testing of WEJ-IT type concrete expansion anchors showed a 40% to 60% reduction of capacities from the 1982' catalog capacities. The 1977 catalog capacities were used in Crystal River 3 concrete expansion anchor calculation The lette identified that further licensee evaluation of Crystal River 3 safety-related seismically analyzed pipe support concrete expansion anchors was being performed. An NRC inspection documented on RII Inspection Report 50-302/84-32,

.

was ~ performed to . follow-up on the licensee's report and to verify licensee compliance. with IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee-commitments. On March 14, 1985, the licensee submitted a revised corrective

-

action plan to provide for IEB 79-02 requirements. A follow-on inspection to the.above noted inspection was performed to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-02 and 79-14' requirements and its revised commitment ,

<

_ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ ___ w

. _ .__ -_ . _ . _ _ . . _ _

• - .

, o

'

-

.

The following related documents' were reviewed:

Safety-Related Engineering Procedure Number 8, Revision 4, -Temporary '

-

Change 11, Corrective Action

- '*

Quality Programs Surveillance Report 84-RJC-30, Evaluation of -the

~ WEJ-IT Testing Program

• '

Interoffice Correspondence NEA-85-0014, Dated February 4,1985, Report of Concrete Anchor Deficiency

• ' Modification Approval Record (PER) 84-10-08-01, Seismic I Large Bor Pipe Support Redesign-

Work Package 60571-53, Modification of Pipe Supports SWH-84, MUH-556 and DHH-521 '

! . Maintenance Procedure MP-132, Rev. 11. Erection of Piping

'*

- Nuclear Modification and Outage Procedure M0P-408, ' Installation of-Concrete Anchor Bolts

. MAR 84-10-08-01: and M0P-408 provided inspection requirements for modifica- p

, tion . and ~ installation of pipe supports and concrete expansion anchors.-

However, specific requirement to verify concrete expansion anchor embedment

,

depth, spacing.and edge distance had not been . included.' During the inspec- -

tion,: the licensee prepared Field Change Notice 13 to MAR 84-10-08-01. to .

~

ensure that the . required verification of . proper installation of ' concrete expansion anchors ' included specific verification .and. documentation :of

. acceptable concrete expansion anchor embedment depth, edge distance and

- spacin The following pipe supports were randomly selected. ' Installation drawings and concrete -expansion anchor design calculations, if applicable, were reviewed to determine licensee-compliance with its written commitments in

+ its March 14, 1985 letter regarding ' safety' factor _ evaluation, operability evaluation and pipe support modification.

t MSH - 143 MSH - 147

~ EFH - 65

[ EFH -.71

- EFH - 77. MSH - 158A

'

' MSH - 230 EFH - 530 EFH - 532 DHH - 538 DHH - 602 MSH - 182

,,,..w,--

-

o , , - .---, - - , - - - , . , , , - - , . , , . - . , , . , . . . . , . - - , - , . - - . , - - , , , , + , , - - - , - - - . , - . - - - , - - .

,

s A' , ' _ ' Or ,__

i

P  :!

- Concrete expansion anchor capacities' used in-the calculations were compared with the resultslof~the-licensee's~on-site testin It was.noted that some lof the calculations utilized concrete expansion anchor capacities that were interpolated fran the test dat The licensee was informed- that :the '

calculations.should clearly document the source of the capacity used (i.e.,

-interpolated test:value) and justify the value used. Furthermore, it was .

noted that the calculation for pipe support MSH-230 utilized capacities for-1 1/2" diameter. concrete expansion anchors that had been extrapolated from test data. jThe licensee was requested to justify extrapolated data used in-calculations. The above noted items regarding justification and documenta-tion .of interpolated and extrapolated data- were identified as Unresolved Item. 50-302/85-16-02, " Justification of Concrete Expansion Anchor Design

' Calculation Capacities." '

The lic nsee stated that modification packages were being prepared for the large ' are safety-related seismically analyzed pipe supports whose concrete expansson~ anchor safety factors were between two and four. Ninety-nine pipe-supports were identified as requiring additional corrective action. 'Of the

.

99, three pipe supports had been modified. Modification of the remainder of-

'

the pipe supports had not been. started during the_ inspection. Documentation of. inspections for modified pipe supports DHH-521, MUH-556 and SWH-084 were reviewed. MUH-556 and DHH-521 were reinspected by the NRC inspector.and the licensee.' -SWH-084-was not readily' accessible but was partially visible and was' visually inspected for obvious discrepancies. Completed, installed, modified, inspected .and Quality Control' (QC)' accepted pipe support MUH-556 -

piece cH" installation dimensions did not " conform" with the applicable

. approved engineering' drawing In. addition, unauthorized. loads (scaffolding).

were being partially supported tar =the pipe support. No: procedure or '

instructions were available -authorizing or prohibiting installation of scaffolding / staging :on permanent plant equipment. This Jappears to be .in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix "B"', ~ Criterion V, and was identified as Violation 50-302/85-16-01, " Pipe Support Installation Discrepancies."

Pending licensee completion of IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee. commitments, the Bulletins were left ope .

!

e I

'

V