ML20153B536

Insp Rept 50-333/87-25 on 871117-19.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Followup of Status of Open Items & Work in Response to IE Bulletin 79-14

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: ML20153B528 ML20153B536
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

IE Bulletin 79-14.

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

PDR

ADOCK 05000333

G

PDR

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

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.

_ . _ . . . . .

.

-