IR 05000249/1977009
| ML17252B134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  (DPR-025) |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1977 |
| From: | Fiorelli G NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | Brian Lee Commonwealth Edison Co |
| References | |
| IR 1977009 | |
| Download: ML17252B134 (8) | |
Text
- e*
UNITED ST/\\TES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Ill 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN,ELLYN, ILl_lr~Ol:i 60137 Docket No. 50-249 l"r)- /
Commonwealth Edison *Company ATTN:
Mr. Byron Lee, J Vice President P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
.MAY 11 1977 CENTRAL FILES This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. ~. Cook of this office of activities at Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-25, and
- to the discussion of our findings with Mr. Stephenson at the conclusion of the inspectio The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspectio Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personne No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified *
during the course of this inspectio In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, 1 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, except as follow If this report contains information that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosur The application must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is consideredproprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the applicatio i i I I --
I
!
I I
I I I I I
I I
I I i COJl.ll'mimJ/9'.,'.0~t h. Ed is on Co111p:p,ny
~*
Ml\\.Y~rr 197t
.;.
We will gladly cliscuss any que:iationa*you have concerning this inspectio
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/77-09
REGION III==
Report of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/77-09 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 6069a Dresden Nuc;lear Power Station, Unit 3 Morris, IL Type of Licensee:
BWR (GE) 810 MW Type of Inspection:
Special, Announ~ed Dates of Principal Accompanying Inspectors:
None Reviewed Licens_~ No. DPR-25 Category:
C
_/;,L
~
Inspection Sununary An inspect ion was performed on April 7 and 12, 1977, (Unit 3, 77-09):
regarding the review of high energy pipe break and impingement*
restraints which were not accessible during the inspection of December 7-9, 197 Construction prints were reviewed for compati-
bility of design intent and accessible feedwater and mainsteam line break proteetion installations were physically examine Enforcement Items Non Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items None inspecte Other Significant Items Systems and Components Non Facility Items (Plans and Proc-edures)
None inspecte Managerial Items Non Deviations Non Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items None inspecte Management Interview A management interview was conducted with Mr. Stephenson, Station Superintendent and ~ther members of the staff on April 12, 1977, at the completion of the inspectio The following items were discusse *. The* i1ispe.ctor stated *that* the***engineet:lng evaluat:ion for"'the U-bo1t" 1:c~s.traint for* llPCI 1 appears* to indicate that the restrain is adequ~te for postulated pipe break loadin The licensee acknowledged the commen (Paragraph 4, Report Details)
I The insp~ctor stated that installation of correct bolting size at impingement protect~on restraint JICV-I and bolt material certi-fications had been examined on February 22, 1977, and found to be installed as designe The licensee _acknowledged the commen (Paragraph 5, Report Details)
C. *
The inspector acknowledged that additional engineering evaluations had revealed that pipe whip and impingement protection for Essen-tial Service Cable Pan ESS-2 are require The licensee stated that design of the restraints is being performed and that instal-lation will be planned at a later tim The licensee stated that the need for the additional restraints would be addressed in their Phase II Supplemental Repor (Paragraph 3, Report Details) The inspector stated that during the examination of impingement protection installation JIFW-3 at the feedheater bay area, it was noted that a 1/2-inch wedge anchor bolt was missing from.a wall mounted angle iro The licensee stated that the need for the bolt would be evaluated and corrective action taken if require (Para-graph 7~ Report Details) The* inspector stated that during the examination of pipe whip res-traints PWFW-1, PWFW-2, and PWFW-3 it was noted that feedpump suction valve gland leakage was dripping on the floor mounted attachments for attachments for PWFW-2 and PWFW-3 and had caused corrosion (rusting)
of the attachmen The licensee stated that an evaluation would be made to determine the degree of corrosion protection needed and take appropriate actio (Paragraph 8, Report Details)
-
3 -
--
REP,ORT-' DETAIL,
Persons Contacted I
I B. Stephenson, Station Superintendent B. Shelton, Administrative Assistant R. Zentner, Station Construction Engineer R. Weidner, Technical Staff Engineering Assistant B. Spelde, Quality Control Inspector P. Donnelly, Sargent and Lun~y Field Engineer General During the Fall 1976 Refueling Outage, the licensee installed a.<:iditional pipe whip res.traints and impingement protection at critical locations to reduce the postulated consequences incurred from high energy pipe.break An i~pec~ibn was ~erf~ymed in
.December
.197 6 to review the restraint -installation.-
However, because of plant operation, some areas weri: not accessible during the December 1976 inspectio~.
As a result of a plant outage, access to these areas was afforde Therefore, an inspection was performed to examine the pipe whip restraints and impingement pro-tection. installed around the.main steam and feedwater piping in the vicinity of the pipe tunnel and H.P. feedwater heater bay are.
Essential Service Cable Pan ESS-2 Protection During the inspection the licensee indicated that further examina-tio.n and review of the physical loca,tio.n of the HPCI turbine steam line with respect to the essential service cable pan ESS-2 revealed that additional pan protection is required for a postulated pipe at the first 45° bend upstream of the south wal The licensee indicated that designs of the protection are in the process of being develope The licensee stated that the installation of the additional ESS-2 cable pan protection would be addressed in a
. Phase II analysis of Effects of Pipe Break Outside the Primary Containment Supplemental Repor.
U-bolt Restraint for HPCI Turbine Steam Line D
.
h
.
.
.
f h" h
.
b k
uring t e previous inspection-o. ig energy pipe rea res-traints, it was noted that *the HPCI turbine steam line was not 1/
IE Inspection Report No. 050-249/76-2 I./
Ibi i
,.___
I
-1 geo~eLr17ally cente~ed within the confines of.a restrain~ng U-bolt.-
Examination of additional engineering evaluations hy the licens~e revealed that the design is adequate to restrain 1the pipe during po~tulated pipe break conditions
- without t 1he pipe being-cente-re I Impingement Protection from Condensate Booster Line I
'
d d
.
h
.
i
.
.
.
b k
t was note uring t e previous nspection-to examine pipe rea protection installation> that adequate bolting was not installed at jet impingement protection designated JICV-1 on Sargent and Lundy Drawing While on a visit to the site on February 22, 1977, per-taining to another matter, the installation of adequate bolting at JICV-1 was examine It was found that proper sized bolts of certi-fied ASTM A-325 material had been installed as intended by the design specification.
Steam Tunnel Protection To afford protection against main steam line break locations MSC 1, MSC2, MSC3, andMSC4 upgrading of the support system for the blowout panels in the steam tunnel was require The additional wide flange I-beams and structural steel members added to upgrade the panel support systems were examined and compared with the intended design p:rint No discrepancies were note Feedwater Line Jet Impingement Protection Feedwater line jet impingement protection installation designated JIFW-2 on Sargent and Lundy prints and located in proximity to the*
feedwater regulating station was examined and compared to design print This examination included the floor strut support plates located in the ceiling below and above the feedwater pump No discrepancies were noted in this JIFW-2 protection installatio Feedwater line jet impingement protection installation designated JIFW-3 on Sargent and Lundy prints and located near the feedwater heaters was examined and compared to design print During this examination a nominal 1/2-inch wedge anchor bolt used to attach the impingement protection assembly to the vertical wall was found mis-sin This bolt is one of two through a 4-inch angle iron layed horizontally against the wall and is intended to assume partial assembly dead*loa The licensee indicated that the need for this bolt would be established and appropriate action take / Designated PWHP-1 on Sargent and Lundy Drawing No. B-88 II Ibi *---... -.
. -;-
-'>
- '.-
r e Feedwa_t_cr Li.nc Pipe, Wh.ip. f'_r.:.ot:;e~ tfp.i1
'
Feedwatcl li_n_e pip.c.wJiip r,qs_t:.raint.s designated as PWFW-1, PWFW-2,
.
.
I
.
.
.
and PWFW-:3 on Sargent and Lundy prints and located around the dischargJ-line of each feed p_urnp and physically loc-at-ed-above eac;:h pump were examined and compared to design print No discrepancies were not~d with ~he physical installatio However, leakage f~om the packing gland of the suction valves of twb of the feed pumps had dripped upon the floor a-ttachment of one of the struts for PWFW-2 and PWFW-This* packing gland leakage dripping on the floor attachment appears to have created a wetting and drying situation which has caused rusting and subtle corrosion of the floor attachmen The floor attachment (and strut) is required to mitigate the consequences of a postulated feed line brea The licensee stated that an evaluation would be made to determine the degree of -corros.io,n protection ne,eded.and_ t:ake appropriate action bas.ed on these: evaluation