IR 05000255/1979018
| ML18044A514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18044A513 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-79-18, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8002120616 | |
| Download: ML18044A514 (8) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-255/79-18 Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
NRC Region III Office Palisades Site, Covert, Michigan Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan NRC Headquarters Insp~ction Conducted:
October 26, 1979 at NRC RIII November 8 - 9, 1979 at the site November 15 - 16, 1979 at Bechtel November 21, 1979 at NRC IE:HQ
/
'
,.*
.,/
/'~~
Inspector:
I. {. Yin
/mLL~J~
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Sunnnary Office Inspection on October 26, and November 8-9, 15-16, and 21, 1979 (Report No. 50-255/79-18)
Areas Inspected:
Licensee actions relative to IE Bulletins No. 79-14 and No. 79-02, including general discussion on NRC requirements, work procedure review, record, review, and observation of wor The inspection involved a total of 24 inspector-hours onsite, at the NRC offices, and at the li-censee A-E's office by one NRC inspecto Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie I~
DETAILS Persons Contacted Meeting in RIII office on October 26, 1979 Consumers Power Company (CPC)
J. G. Lewis, Plant Manager D. P. Hoffman, Licensing Representative K. E. Osborne, Project Engineer D. N. Noble, Director of Operation Service Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (BAPC)
T. E. Johnson, Chief, Civil Engineering S. Kapur, Civil/Structural Supervisor USNRC RIII D. W. Hayes, Section Chief E. Gallagher, Reactor Inspector I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector Inspection at Palisades on November 8-9, 1979
- K. E. Osborne, Senior Engineer
- E. Cooper, Staff Engineer
- R. Rinsma, QA Engineer
- G. Petitjean, Technical Engineer
- A. J. Palmer, Technical Superintendent
- H. W. Keiser, Operation/Maintenance Superintendent BAPC
- J. Dotson, Project Manager
- P. K. Smith, Engineering Supervisor
- S. Kapur, Civil/Structural Supervisor
- K. Graves, Project Field Engineer Engineering Review at BAPC on November 15-16, 1979 CPC
- R. W. Huston, Senior Licensing Engineer
- J. Dotosn, Project Manager
- P. K. Smith, Engineering Supervisor
- W. H. Schwartz, Project Quality Engineer
- C. H. St. Onge, Project Engineer J. V. Rotz, Civil /Structural Staff
- G. L. Richardson, Project QA Engineer
- 2 -
- D. S. Riat, Stress/Support Supervisor
- S. Kapur, Civil/Strucutral Supervisor
- W. Lavoie, Stress Engineer T. Passmore, Layout Staff
- S. Sobkowski, Civil Staff Meeting ar NRC Office, Bethesda, MD on November 21, 1979 CPC K. Osborne, Senior Plant Engineer R. Jenkins, Staff Engineer D. Hoffman, Nuclear Licensing Administrator BAPC J. Dotson, Project Manager R. E. Johnson, Civil Chief Engineer J. V. Rotz, Staff Engineer S. Kapur, Project Civil Group Supervisor NRC H. J. Wong, IE:HQ's J. R.. Fair, NRR:DOR H. Ashar, NRR:SD R. Di Silver, NRR:DOR *
I. T. Yin, IE:RIII
- Denotes those attending the inspection exit meetings at the site and at the licensee A-E's offic Functional or Program Areas Inspected Inspection of licensee implementation of IEB No. 79-02 and No. 79-14 was performe This report documents meetings at RIII and at IE:RQ's, inspec-tion at the Palisades site, and inspection at the A-E's offic.
Meeting at RIII A meeting was held at the RIII office on October 26, 1979, at the licensee's request to discuss implementation requirements of IEB 79-02 and for CPC to present a proposed new test program developed as a result of deficiencies identified during field measurement and verification of various installation parameters pertaining to base plate and anchor bolt. The new program basically included: (1) 100%
inspection on general configuration, anchor to plate connection and general condition, (2) 100% pull test at twice the design allowable (where pull tests were not possible torque test would be utilized),
and (3) rework and retest where require Region III accepted the
- 3 -.
licensee's proposal during the meeting and their position was subse-quently concurred with by the IE:HQ's responsible staf.
Review of Previously Identified Items at the Site on November 8-9, 1979 RIII Report No. 50-255/79-08 In May 1979, four safety related snubbers were added to the safety injection systems. Paragraph 6 of the report stated that because of immediate plant startup, the inspector was unable to observe the final installation. During this visit, several of the snubbers including the structural systems were inspected by the inspector. The installation was considered to be satisfactor The inspector has no further questions at this tim RIII Report No. 50-255/79-12 (1)
Paragraph 1 of the report stated that, only two of the work procedures for the implementation of IEB No. 79-02 and No. 79-14, had been approved for us During the visit on November 8-9, 1979, the inspector reviewed the following other three work procedures:
BAPC Procedure 12447-033-FP3, "Inspection and Testing Concrete Anchor and Base Plates for Seismic Safety System Pipe Supports and Restraints", Revision 1, dated November 7, 197 BAPC Procedure 12447-033FP4, "Repairing Concrete Anchors and Base Plates for Seismic Safety System Pipe Supports and Restraints", Revision O, dated September 7, 197 BAPC Procedure 12447-033-FPS, "Installing and Repairing Seismic Safety System Pipe Supports and Restraints",
Revision O, dated October 8, 197 The inspector stated that he had no adverse comments re-garding procedure FP4 or FPS; however, the torque valves used for the anchor bolt tests listed in FP3 were not considered to be acceptable to the NRC because these valves were determined by formulation and were not substantiated by site specific tests to obtain the tension and torque correlation data that includes the specific conditions of the bolt material, installation, and concrete propertie ' (2)
A number of items listed in paragraph 2.b of the report were questioned by the inspecto These items were resolved as follows:
- 4 -
- In review of the BAPC,"Operational Sequence Diagram for NRC Bulletins 79-02 and 79-14 Documentation",
Revision O, and in view of the efforts undertaken by the A-E to completely reanalyze all safety. seismic Category 1 systems, the inspector determined that the licensee had met the intent of the IEB 79-14 regarding the two days initial and thirty days followup engineering evaluation requirement The inspector reviewed the CPC Internal Correspondence, JAND 59-79, "Palisades Nuclear Plant Pipe Wall Thickness",
dated October 18, 1979, and concluded the pipe size, schedules, and materials had been properly verifie The requirements for inspecting gap clearance and loosening of bolts and nuts were addressed in FP2, Revision 2, dated October 5, 197 Except for the pre-load requirements during dynamic tension and shear interactions (an ongoing discussion between the A-E and NRC-NRR), other engineering con-siderations in the RIII report have been addressed in the various procedures and engineering document Provisions to indoctrinate and train personnel involved in IEB 79-02 and 79-14 work were included in the latest revision of FP's 2 through Necessary remote indirect measurement of piping configurations were included in paragraph 8.4.2 of FP2, Revision 2, dated October 5, 197 (3)
The inspector reviewed a number of site inspection packages and corrective actions and observed some of the deficiency conditions identified, such as cracks at the support grout under the base plates. Measures taken by the licensee's work group to identify the problem and to improve the condition were considered to be adequat.
Findings of the Site Inspection on November 8-9, 1979 IEB 79-02 The inspector observed some test setups for the direct concrete anchor bolt pull tests including general equipment conditions and instrumentation calibration, and had no adverse comment IEB 79-14 BAPC Stress Problem 03313, "Component Cooling Water Pump Dis-charge to Heat Exchanger, HB-24-16" was reviewed by the inspector.
In observation of the pipe system, the following was identified:
- 5 -
(1)
Some of the dimensions shown on the field walkdown were checked and found to be correc (2)
The following specific FP2 procedure requirements on valve configuration and location measurements were not being im-plemented by the field staf Valve and in-line component idnentification and loca-tion and valve stem orientation as shown on the iso-metric drawin As-built has been prepared showing valve and in-line component identification and location at valve stem orientatio Dimension from centerline of pipe to top of valve motor or air operator has been extended on the as-built drawin During a subsequent review of approximately 15 site inspec-tion packages, the inspector concluded that the lack of valve measurements appeared to be a generic proble Prior to the conclusion of the visit, the licensee committed to review all packages and reinspect all packages and all valves where deficiencies were identifie The inspector stated that he will perform followup review on these corrective action.
Program Review at BAPC on November 15-16, 1979 An extensive effort on behalf of the licensee and its A-E to upgrade the analyses and documentation for all safety seismic class 1 pipe systems, which were above and beyond the requirements of IEB No. 79-02 and No. 79-14, had been undertake All new stress isometric drawings and calculations including thermal, weight, seismic and mechanical loadings were drawn and performed based on field identified as-built condition At the time of the RIII inspection, approximately 50 technical personnel were stationed at the Palisades site to 'inspect, test, and document the system inspection finding This effort was initiated in July 1979, with staff built-up to the present leve The BAPC home office engineering staff involving the project included:
(1) Six layout personnel preparing the stress isometrics and hanger drawings, (2) 15 stress analysts, (3) 20 pipe support designers, (4) eight base plate and anchor bolt evaluation personnel,
~nd (5) three mechanical e~gineers issuing instructions to field and to the above personnel assignments, EDS, Inc., New York office was also contracted to do some of the stress analysis and pipe support design and evaluation wor The inspector reviewed the following documentation and had no adverse comments:
Palisades Nuclear Plant Criteria for Re-Analysis of Safety Pipe, Revision 1, dated November 12, 197 *
Palisades Nuclear Plant Criteria for Evaluation of Supporting Structures for Safety-Related Piping Systems, Revision O, dated October 26, 197 BAPC Audit of EDS, Inc. NY office, performed on November 7-8, 1979, Audit No. EDS-033-1, dated November 15, 197.
Specific System Review at BAPC on November 15-16, 1979 The BAPC stress problem 03313 inspected at the site, Paragraph of this report, was reviewed at BAPC to determine the adequacy of the evaluation in accordance with the IEB 79-14 requirement The documents reviewed by the inspector included:
Newly drawn stress isometric drawings:
03313(Q) sheet 1 of 1,
"Component Cooling Water", Revision D, dated November 12, 197 Stress Calculation No. 03313 including thermal, weight, and seismic analyse BAPC review of as-built hanger base plates and anchor bolts, dated November 1, 197 BAPC review of as-built supports, dated November 2, 197 Engineering recommended dispositions on discrepancies and potential discrepancies noted during field piping system walkdown inspection After the review, the inspector stated that he had no adverse comments except two areas that will require further clarification and review. These are: The BAPC criteria for evaluating base plate flexibility needed further review. Recent cd.teria and formulation developed by the Teledyne En*:*
~ ::\\er.vices (TES) were considered to be acceptablE
'*ff. How does BAPC methods compare with TE:1:
, -' the BAPC determination will be reviewed during a
- lLtb~,i::~quent visi This issue was subsequently addressed and resolved at NRC Headquarters, see Paragraph 6.b of this repor The operators on the butterfly valves near heat exchangers E-54A and E-54B were not identified on the new stress iso-metri Further, the valve drawings for the valve assem-blies were not available at the BAPC offic Since a reinspection program for valve configuration and location were committed to by the licensee, see Paragraph 3.b of this report, BAPC was requested to re-evaluate their calculations when new valve data is submitted from the site.
- 7 -
- Meeting at NRC Headquarters on November 21, 1979 A licensee presentation on previous and present anchor bolt inspection and test programs was made on November 21, 1979 at the NRC Headquarters Bethesda, Maryland. The present program includes plans for continuation of work after plant start-up and future meetings with NRC to review progress and any reduction of the scope of the progra The licensee further stated that the anchor bolt testing work per IEB 79-02 inside the containment and in some normally high radiation areas should be completed by January 12, 1979, and that the rest of the concrete expansion anchor bolts will all be tested by March, 197 Besides the licensee presentation, two focusing issues and the NRC positions were as follows: The present 200% bolt design load test program that had excluded the shell shoulder to cone installed dimension measurements were not considered acceptable by the NR The licensee was advised to measure.the shoulder to cone dimension for the shell type expansion concrete anchor bolts until reduction factors on bolt tensile loads due to deviation from manufacturer's values were developed based on test data and evaluatio Regarding the BAPC pipe support base plate flexibility analysis and calculation techniques that were submitted to NRC for review, the NRR staff stated that they were in concurrence with the results documented in the submittal for the specific plate size and thickness and the anchor bolt stiffness consideration Plate dimensions and bolt sizes other than what had been submitted should be evaluated on a case by cas*e basis including the possible prying effects on the bolts due to plate configuration.
- change under loa Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection at the site and at the licensee A-E's offic The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknow-ledged the findings reported herein.
- 8 -