IR 05000266/1980011
| ML19330B296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1980 |
| From: | Brickley R, Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330B291 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-80-11, 50-301-80-11, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8007310316 | |
| Download: ML19330B296 (5) | |
Text
f~')
e V
i U.S. NUCLEAR REG'ILATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-266/80-11; 50-301/80-11 Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, CA Inspection Conducted: June 16-17, 1980
[O Inspectors:
I. T. Yin
r i
/
.
R. H. Brickley, RIV Inspector Accompanying Personnel:
J. Bistulfi
/
tw 0 3d [o
/
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on June 16-17, 1980 (Reports No. 50-266/80-11; 50-301/80-11)
Areas Inspected: Licensee actions relative to IE Bulletin 79-14, including general discussion en NRC requirements, work procedure review, and review of analysis and calculations. The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspector s.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
80 07310316
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
DETAILS Persons Contacted Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEP)
- D. L. Dill, Project Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- D. H. Clark, Project Engineer C. B. Hogg, Group Supervisor
- J. L. Carton, Project Manager
- H. B. Norris, QA Supervisor
- S.
Chitais, Stress Engineer
- L. E. Shipley, Stress Staff The inspector also had discussions with other Bechtel management, technical, and QA personnel during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes some of those present at the exit interview.
Functional of Program Areas Inspected 1.
Open Items Identified in NRC - IE: RIII Reports No. 50-266/80-03; 50-401/80-02 (Closed) Paragraph 1.b.:
The WEP procedure did not provide indirect measurement control. The inspector reviewed the updated WMTP 12.6,
" Piping Inspection Procedure for NRC IE Bulletin No. 79-14", Revision 1, dated April 10, 1980, where Paragraphs 5.2.8, 5.2.9. 5.2.10, and 5.3.1 provided procedural requirements to make note of the location where indirect measurements had taken place, the type of tools (such as telescope)
used, or visual estimates, and reasons stated as to why direct measurements were considered infeasible.
(Closed) Paragraph 2: Not all safety related seismic Category I systems were included in the inspection package. The inspector reviewed the WMTP 12.6, Revision 1, dated April 10, 1980 and identified the systems in question, such as portions of the radioactive waste and spent fuel pool coolant systems had been included in the Appendix A of the procedure.
The last revision of the Appendix A was issued on March 25, 1980.
(0 pen) Paragraph 3: The personnel qualification requirement was not established for all subcontractor personnel. During review of records and in discussion with the responsible technical and QA personnel, the inspector stated that he considered Bechtel's control of its own permauent employees and temporary hires to be adequate. However, in review of the
'
present procedures and Bechtel Audit of JB, dated April 28-30, 1980,
,
-2-
'
--
,
--
_
.
Report No. 236, and Bechtel Audit of EDAC, dated May 5-6, 1980, Report No. 243, the inspector noted that the Bechtel audits areas included computer program adequacy review and the training program for the involved personnel, however, there appeared to be a lack of written program to address the following n 'as:
The qualification of the sub ontractor AE personnel handling stress a.
calculctions and evaluations are at least equivalent to the Bechtel's own task force.
b.
There is sufficient length of employment of subcontractor permanent employees so that their performance could be checked and evaluated by the subcontractor management to establish a required confidence.
The subcontracted A-E has sufficient control over the " Job Shoppers" c.
including verification of the individua1r.' education background and the previous work experience.
Since the Westir.ghouse work was directly contracted to the licensee, the above comments are consider.ed applicable to the WEP program also. This is considered an unresolved item.
(266/80-11-01; 301/80-11-01)
2.
Review of Piping Analysis In conjunction with efforts documented in NRC-IE:RIII Reports No.
50-266/80-03 and 50-301/80-02, Paragraph 5, the inspector select additional calculations for review.
Packages reviewed included:
Bechtel Work Bechtel Calculation No. 1-2, " Main Steam Loop B, 30" EB-1-9", dated
.
April 25, 1980. This calculation superseded the EDAC Calculation No. 249-051-03, which contained a number of questionable problem areas identified by the inspector during the last visit at Bechtel.
In review of the new calculation, all items contained in the RIII inspection reports had been adequately resolved.
Bechtel Calculation No. 2-3, "Feedwater System Loop A Inside Containment,
.
16"-EB-9", dated March 3, 1980. The following two deficiencies were identified as a result of the review:
The pipe anchor was modeled at the surface of the containment a.
instead of at the flue head weld joint.
b.
Pipe coordinates at one offset location were incorrectly modeled in the computer program. Subsequent to the inspection, Bechtel engineers presented additional information to show that the questionable coordinates were correct. The matter will be reviewed further during a future inspection. This is considered an unresolved item.
(266/80-11-02; 301/80-11-02)
I-3-t N
~.
.i
.
.
.
t'
JB Work Bechtel Calculation No. 14-13, " Auxiliary Coolant to and from RHR
.
Heat Exchangers 11A and B",
dated June 5, 1980. One deficiency was identified as a result of the review, i.e. the location coordinates of pipe anchors at containment penetrations were not calculated correctly. This appeared to be a generic problem after reviewing several other related calculations. Two open items were also dis-cussed with licensee representatives. These are:
Combination of loads"for the common anchor from two different a.
calculations will be reviewed further by the inspector.
b.
Seismic effects on containment penetration expansion joints including possible torsional moments on the joints will be examined by Bechtel design engineers.
This is considered an unresolved item.
(266/80-11-03; 301/80-11-01)
Bechtel Calculation Nos. 14-1, and 14-2 as described in RIII Reports
.
50-266/80-03 and 50-301/80-03 identified two problem areas, one involved incorrect modeling of the piping configuration that was evaluated by a Bechtel engineer as being acceptable and not causing significant stress increase. The other one involved pipe offset at a containment penetration not correctly modeled and considered by Bechtel. This item remains open.
EDAC Work
)'
Bechtel Calculation No. 2-8, EDAC Calculation No. 249-051-05 (f),
.
" Emergency Feedwater from DB-3 to Containment Penetration P-5, 3" EB-10".
As a result of the analysis review and the review of the
Bechtel calculations performed for the three required additional l
pipe restraints, the inspector stated that no structural defects were considered in these. calculations. The licensee representatives and the Bechtel engineers stated that criteria for structural de-i f1tetion limit on spring stiffness will be developed for:
(1)
component supports where new calculations showed load increase, (2)
modifying supports because of load increase, and (3) new supports added iecause of the pipe system overstress. This is considered an unresolved item.
(266/80-11-04; 301/80-11-04)
Westinghouse Work
Based on the limited information provided, the inspector could not deter-mine the acceptibility of the work. This continues to be an open item.
During discussions, the inspector stated that Bechtel's proposed checking j
of the isometric drawings used for the Westinghouse computer input against the present up-to-date Bechtel isometric drawings and also performing
!
-4-
.
.
-
-
-
.-,
..
.
.
-
. -.
.
duplicate calculations to verify Westinghouse calculation results appeared to be acceptable. This is considered an unresolved item.
(266/80-11-05; 301/80-11-05)-
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
-5-
!
l I
l
. _.
.
-
...