IR 05000266/1981009
| ML19352A809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1981 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352A808 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-81-09, 50-266-81-9, 50-301-81-10, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8106020154 | |
| Download: ML19352A809 (5) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-266/81-09; 50-301/81-10 Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; CPR-27 I,icensee: Wisconsin Electric Ccapany 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: May-8, 1981 Inspector:
. T. Yin
[/l/8l8/
/
w Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief
// /
Materials and Processes Section Inspection Summary Inspection on May 7-8, 1981 (Reports No. 50-266/81-09; 50-301/81-10)
Areas Inspected:
Licensee actions relative to IE Bulletin 79-14, including general discussion on NRC requirements, work procedure review, and review of analysis and calculations. The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours at the A-E's office by one NRC inspector.
l Results: No item; of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l
,
8106020 6Y
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEP)
- D.
L. Dill, Project Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- C.
B. Hogg, Project Engineer
- S.
S. Chitais, Project Coordinator F. Plutchak, QA Manager - Projects
- L. E. Whitson, QA Engineer
- J. D. Laurie, Project QA Engineer
- E. Jadelrab, Stress Group Leader
- D. Zwicky, Project Quality Engineer
- S. Cozzens, Quality Engineer Supervisor
- L. E. Shipley, Piping Stress Staff
- M.
Z. Khlafallah, Piping Stress Staff
- J. L. Carton, Project Manager
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on May 8, 1981.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (266/80-11-01; 301/80-11-01)i The personnel qualifi-cation requirement was not established for all subcontractor personnel. This item was reviewed and closed by the RIV Vendor Inspection Branch inspector.
Details were documented in RIV Report No. 99900522/80-23, DetailsSection I, i
l Paragraph B.2.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (266/80-11-02; 301/80-11-02):
Improper computer modeling of feedwater system in the stress analysis. This item was reviewed and closed by the RIV Vendor Inspection Branch inspector. Details were documented in RIV R:pstt No. 99900522/80-03, DetailsSection I, Paragraph B.3.
(Closed) Open Item (266/80-03; 301/80-02): Paragraph 5 of the RIII report stated that JB Calculation No. 14-1 required further review. Followup inspec-tion was documented in RIII Inspection Report No. 50-266/80-11; 50-301/80-11, Paragraph 2, "JB Work".
This item was reviewed and closed by the RIV Vendor i
Inspection Branch inspector. Details were documented in RIV Report No.
i 99900522/80-03, DetailsSection I, Paragraph B.4.
,
(Closed) Unresolved Item (266/80-11-04; 301/80-11-04): Criteria for structural deflection limit or structural spring stiffness had not been developed by Bechtel. This item was reviewed and closed by RIV Vendor Inspection Branch inspector. Details were documented in RIV Report No. 99900522/80-C3, DetailsSection I, Paragraph B.S.
i-2-
-.
.
.
.
__
.-..-.-
-..
.
_ _-
__ _
_
._.
_
.
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (266/80-11-05; 301/80-11-05):
Bechtel verification of Westinghouse pipe stress calculations. The inspector reviewed the measures taken by the licensee and Bechtel engineers, and had no further question.
See Paragraph I for details.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (266/80-11-03; 301/80-11-03):
Issues relative to the combination of loads for the common anchor and the seismic effect on containment penetration expansion joints. The inspector reviewed the Bechtel procedure and the implementation documentation and considered the matter closed. See Para-graph 2 for details.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected Inspection of licensee implementation of IEB 79-14 activities conducted at Bechtel, San Francisco office on May 7-8, 1981. Previous RIII insp2ctions relative to the subject matter were documented in RIII Reports 50-266/80-03; 50-301/80-02; 50-266/80-11; and 50-301/80-11. As a result of this inspection, the licensee implementation of IEB 79-14 is considered to be adequate. No further review in these areas is planned at this time.
1.
Westinghouse Work Most parts of the Westinghouse (W) stress calculations, such as computer configuration models and output details were considered to be proprietary info rmation. To verify the adequacy of W evaluations Bechtel re-ran two of the stress calculations on their ME-101 computer program. W Calculation, No. P-136, "SI From Penetration P-22 to RPV (SI-601R-2, SI-2501R, RC-2501R-5):
dated January 3,1980 was compared in the areas of system modes / frequencies, stresses, forces, moments, and defections, on January 14, 1981 and was determined to be acceptable by the Bechtel engineers. The second W Calcula-tion, No. P-120, "SI from P27 to RCS", dated November 21, 1979 was deter-mined to be unacceptable, and the W calculation was subsequently superseded.
The inspector reviewed the W letter, WEP-81-10, to Bechtel Power Corporation, dated March 17, 1981, which stated that W performed a thorough comparison between its internal analysis packages and the data previously provided by Bechtel, and had found no differences, except P-120.,The second W submittal of P-120 calculation was evaluated by 9echtel engineers on January 13, 1980, and was considered to be acceptable.
l In review of the W and Bechtel calculation packages, including the com-parison data and in discussions held with the licensee and Bechtel representatives, the inspector considers the licensee measures taken to resolve the subject concern to be adequate. Such consideration was based on:
a.
Since the original 38 W calculations were made, there were some system modifications that invalidated the W analysis. The affected systems were re-calculated by Bechtel. As of the date of the inspection, there were 23 W packages in final status.
.
-3-
--_,
._
-
.
-
- - -
-. -.-
.
O b.
A licensee audit of y was performed at the y Design Engineering office on September 16, 1980. No problem areas were observed by the licensee. The licensee audit included three stress calculations pertaining to piping isometric drawings P-143 and P-128.
The load combination methods utilized by y, i.e., the absolute value c.
summation, was considered more conr.ervative than Bechtel's method of using the square root of the sum of the squares.
d.
For some of the stress values where Bechtel exceeded the y computation, the explanation was that frequencies calculated for y and Bechtel were slightly different in the first five vibration modes. The differences in stress and deflection magnitudes evaluated were not considered to be significant. The inspector concurred with Bechtel's determination.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified as a result of the record review.
2.
JB Work In conjunction with RIII Report No. 50-266/80-11; 50-301/80-11, Paragraph 2, relative to the JB work, the inspector further reviewed Bechtel Calcula-tion hu. 14-13, where the locatian coordinates of pipe anchors at contain-ment penetrations were in question.
It revealed that Node Points B40 and B45 were actually Q40 and Q45, and that Q40 and Q45 Nodal Points were correctly modeled in the computer calculation.
Two generic open items were identified during the last inspection.
These are:
!
Combination of loads for the common anchor from two different
.
calculations.
!
Seismic effects on containment penetration expansion joints
.
including possible torsional moments.
Bechtel Procedure P-503, "USNRC IE Bulletin 79-14 Containment Penetration Anchors and Expansion Joint Seal Evaluation Guidelines for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant", Revision 0, dated April 3, 1981 was issued to address the above issues. The inspector reviewed Procedure P-503 and had no adverse l
comment. The inspector further reviewed the implementation of the P-503
~
as follows:
a.
Piping loads acting on anchors were tabulated in accordance with the format listed in Attachment 1 of P-503.
l b.
Action Request DCN 169, was sent from Point Beach project group to stress group staff on February 27, 1981 based on the existing Bechtel stress group procedural provisions for the evaluation of the tabulated l
piping loads acting on the flued head anchors for containment penetra-I tions P1 to P8, P11, P13, P15 to P18, P27, P31, P54, P55, and P69 thru P71.
l-4-
.
.-
.
-.__-,___
,.
-
.
.
.
- -.- -
..
.
.
.
c.
Evaluation results from the stress group showed that all the flued head anchors were acceptable except P69, P70, and P71 of Unit I and P69, P70, and P31 of Unit 2.
These exceeded the stress allowables.
In discussion with the licensee representative, it was stated that corrective actions will be taken to resolve stress problems described in Paragraph 2.c. above. No followup action is planned by the inspector.
However, the licensee was requested to send RIII a written statement when system modification was completed.
~
3.
EDAC Work The inspector selected the following calculations for review. Review areas included:
(1) Node point coordinates, (2) valve weight data, (3) maximum OBE and SSE stress levels, and (4) application of stress intensification factors.
Calculation No. 15-2, " Cold Leg Injection Line from Penetration
.
P13 to Reactor Coolant System", Revision 1, dated January 7, 1980.
Line systems analyzed included SI-1501R-3.
Calculation No.14-5, " Auxiliary Coolant Outside Containment",
.
Revision 1, dated January 11, 1980. Line systems analyzed included AC-152N.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
4.
Bechtel Work The inspector reviewed Bechtel Calculation No. 5-23, " Volume Control Tank (
to Chargin; Pump Suction", Revision 1, dated August 15, 1980. Areas
reviewed included:
(1) consideration of eccentric motor operator valve weights, (2) computer output maximum OBE and SSE stress levels in compari-son with the Code allowables, and (3) completeness in documentation of piping stresses; weight, OBE and SSE calculations; equipment nozzle reac-l tions; and hanger design verification.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Exit Interview I
i The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the
!
inspection. '13e inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
I f-5-
-
,
,
.-. - - -
-
-
.--
--.
.
- -
-