IR 05000278/1979013
| ML19253A737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1979 |
| From: | Feil R, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253A732 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-278-79-13, NUDOCS 7909110091 | |
| Download: ML19253A737 (4) | |
Text
6
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 79-13 Docket No. 50-278 License No. DPR-56 Priority -
Category C Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Inspection at: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: April 16-20, 1979 b
- 8
_ /'4/79 b
Inspector:A 40*
fcoR. A. Feil, React'or Inspector date signed
.
a2[I tE Edd/77 Approved by:4 L. E. Tripp, Chief, Engineering Support date signed Section No. 1, RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 16-20, 1979 (Report No. 50-278/79-13)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of the spent fuel rack modification including receipt inspection and procedural control. The inspection involved 35.5 inspector-hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
qa.-c.e,;g
.
.w~
7909110
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Mr. W. Ullrich, Station Superintendent
- Mr. R. Fleischmann, Assistant Station Superintendent Mr. W. McFarland, Mechanical Construction Supervisor Mr. W. Easterday, Construction Rigger
- Mr. J. Moore, Mechanical Engineer The inspector interviewed other licensee personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-277/79-07-04). Receipt procedure not in accordance with ANSI N18.7.
The licensee has modified the receipt procedure by incorporating it into the overall spent fuel rack installation procedure.
The new procedure conforms to ANSI N18.7.
3.
Tour of Work Area The inspector toured the work area on the refueling floor.
Sixteen spent fuel racks have been received and are being stored on the refueling floor. Four racks have been receipt inspected; however, the four racks have QC " Hold" tags affixed t; them awaiting receipt and verification of records.
In addition, one rack had an additional
" Hold" tag attached because of a chip in one foot of the rack.
The deficiency is being analyzed by the vendor.
The inspector observed the underwater divers removing the shackles for the swing bolts which were attached to the bottom of the spent fuel pool and used to hold the old spent fuel racks in place.
The inspector observed the adequate dosimetry was used and procedures were adhered to.
The divers used 5 body and 4 finger dosimeters.
In addition, a radiation monitor with an audible alarm located on the refueling floor was connected to the diver.
Thirty-two of 74 old fuel racks have been removed from the spent fuel pool.
The licensee has shipped 16 old spent fuel racks off-site.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
EY (\\
o O a.',la.fw.;u
.
s-2-4.
Spent Fuel Rack Modification a.
Receipt Inspection The inspector reviewed the receipt inspection records for four spent fuel racks.
The review consisted of verification of the requirements in Appendix D, " Spent Fuel Storage Rack Replacement, Recommended Criteria for Receiving Inspection of High Density Racks". Boral presence verification was reviewed for the four racks. All records appeared to be in order except that identi-fication tags were not affixed to the racks in accordance with ERD Procedure 7.1, Procedures for Receipt, Inspection and Storage of Materials and Equipment. The licensee corrected the deficiency by attaching the required tags when this item was brought to his attention.
The inspector checked 100 percent of the tubes in rack #A-22565-48E for tube identification serial numbers in order to verify boral traceability.
In addition, the inspector accompanied the licensee in checking 100 percent of the tubes in rack
- A-22565-49E for tube identification serial numbers. The tube identification serial numbers were then checked against the vendor's records. Significant discrepancies were found.
Rack #A-22565-48E had one tube where the identification serial number did not match that in the vendor records.
Also, one tube identification number could not be traced to the vendor records because the identification serial number had been omitted from the vendor record.
Rack #A-22565-49E had 5 tubes where the identification serial numbers did not corr (spond with the vendor's records. Also, the tube in cavity #67 did not have any identification serial number. The records from the vendor show that the identifica-tion serial number for the tube in cavity #87 was checked and verified by "Pak QC-15" The tube number verification for boral traceability is unresolved pending clarification by the vendor and the licensee of the discrepancies (50-278/79-13-01).
The inspector reviewed some vendor records for traceability of boral sheets.
Significant discrepancies were found.
In the " Cavity Inspection Sequence Sheets" the outer tube serial numbers were missing for cavity serial numbers P946 through P960.
Traceability of boral sheets could not be accomplished.
.
u t3 J.L,ura
.
.
-3-Tubes numbered P1109 and P1110 were repaired by welding; however, the weld procedure used for the repair was not identi-fied as required by the sequence sheet.
The omission of the tube serial numbers and the weld procedure number is an unresolved item pending correction and validation by the vendor and the licensee (50-278/79-13-02).
b.
Procedural Controls The Procedure for the Removal of the Existing Spent Fuel and Control Rod Storage Racks and the Installation of New High Density Spent Fuel Storage Racks has been revised and incorpor-ates all aspects of the spent fuel rack operation. The procedure complies with ANSI N18.7.
The inspector verified that the Plant Operation Review Committee reviewed the revised procedure.
The inspector verified that the Off-Site and Safety Review Committee had reviewed and approved the modification package.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraph 4.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on April 20, 1979. The inspec-tor summarized the findings of the inspection. The licensee repre-sentative acknowledged the inspector's findings.
.
W Y
m.a d dl*40