IR 05000334/1979015
| ML19256E330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1979 |
| From: | Feil R, Lester Tripp, Walton G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E324 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-79-15, NUDOCS 7911020108 | |
| Download: ML19256E330 (5) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
79-15 Docket No.
50-334 Liccnse No.
OPR-66 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Duquense Light Company Attn:
Mr. C. N. Dunn, Vice President, Operations Division 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station Inspection At:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
June 25-27, 1979 Inspectot3:
!) N/,/
'[ / '
'/
R. A. Feil, Reactor Inspector
'
date Y$.
n/$
}6l79 G. A. Valton, Reactor Inspector dite '
date
//7/7f Approved by: 4
'
-
E. E. Tripp, Section Chief ESS#1, RC&ES Br.
date'
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 25-27, 1979 (Report No. 50-334/79-15)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspec-tors of the new high density spent fuel storace rack modifications and feedwater.
piping defects.
The inspection consisted of a review of records and radiographs and observation of work in progress.
The in_sp_eci. ion involved 37 inspector hours s
onsite by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
'
1258 279 Region I Form 167
[
(August 1979)
7911o20 / 0 0
.
.
OETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- G. Beatty, QA Engineer
- B. Hoover, Cognizant Site Engineer
- F. Lipchick, Station QA Engineer
- R. Mafrice, Onsite Engineering Group Supervisor A. flazakna, QC Supervisor J. Werling, Station Superintendent J. Zilka, QC Supervisor The inspectors conferred with other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Tour of Facility The inspector toured the Spent Fuel Pool area.
all seventeen racks (833 cells) have been installed.
The racks are maintained in a clean state by means of plastic sheeting covering the racks.
All edges and openings are taped to preclude contamination of any portion of the spent fuel pool and racks below the level of the top of the spent fuel pool :acks.
3.
Spent Fuel Storage Rack Modification The inspector reviewed the installation procedure and the engineering change notices (ECN) for the 17 spent fuel storage racks.
The procedure and ECNs.were verified to have been reviewed and signed off by the appro-priate personnel.
The procedure covered the site construction, installa-tion and inspection for the high density fuel storage racks.
ECNs pro-vided for changes required during the entire modification.
The inspector verified by sample observation that the seismic restraints were installed.
Records reviewed by the inspector showed that 45 seis-mic restraint.s had a clearance of 1/8" and were torqued to 75 ft lbs and 106 seismic.astraints had clearance between.048" and.075" and were torqued to 10 ft lbs. Three seismic restraints were located in such a position that gapping could not be accomplished.
The clearances and tor-nue values met the requirements of the procedure.
The licensee is not going to install test coupons since the high density fuel racks are made entirely of 304 SS and is the same grade and quality as the spent fuel pool liner.
1258 280
,
.
.
.
The inspector selected Rack #12 for a detailed review of records.
The following records were reviewed.
a.
Rack position in storage pool b.
Cleanliness inspection sheets during installation c.
Support Block bolt torque values d.
Verification of bolts secured, clearance of lock bolt in cell and cell pedestal contact on fuel pool liner.
e.
Plumbness test on four selected cells in the rack f.
Dummy fuel assembly drag test g.
Cleanliness during drag test h.
Weld records i.
Liquid penetrant inspection reports The plumbness test results show that plumbness for the four cells of the rack at the four compass locations was between +5/32" and -1/16".
Accept-ance criteria for the plumbness test was that the centerline of the top open-ing of each corner fixed cell be within 3/8" radius true position of the centerline at the bottom of each fixed cell.
The drag test results for the 49 cells in rack 12 show that the maximum differential between the maximum weight while lowering the dummy assembly into the cell and the maximum weight while raising the dummy assembly out of the cell was 35 lbs.
Acceptance criteria for the drag test was that the maximum weight differential between the insertion and withdrawal be less than 50 lbs.
Drag testing has been successfully accomplished on 798 cells.
Testing remains to be done on 34 cells.
One cell will not be used or tested.
Piping mounted on the south wall of the spent fuel pool prevents inser-tion of any fuel.
P.ecords for the installation of the remaining 16 racks were sample audited.
Minor discrepancies were noted.
These were corrected by the licensee during the inspection.
No items of noncompliance were observed.
1258 2M
.
.
4.
Feedwater Piping Defects The licensee re'orted to the NRC on June 18, 1979 that radiographic p
inspection of the three steam generator nozzle-to-feedwater inlet piping showed cracking in all three inlet elbows.
The inspector audited the following activity associated with the repair of the feedwater line welds.
a.
The inspector reviewed the radiographs of the three nozzle to pipe welds and observed the following.
The cracking is not located in the weld itself, rather the cracks originated at the transition of an existing counterbore, located approximatel.y 1/2" to 9/16" away from the root of the weld.
In several instances the cracks appear very prominent on the radiographic film, indicating significant thru wall dimensions.
The inspector also reviewed the radiography work performed November 12, 1976 as a result of vibrations experienced on the "B" steam generator feedwater line.
At that time the radiographs were reviewed and accepted by the licensee.
The review by the inspector of the radio-graphs of this weld show that the cracks were present at that time.
This was determined by comparing the existing radiographs to the November 1976 radiographs.
The images of the cracks were faint and would not be interpreted as cracks without the new radiographs for comparison.
The licensee was inspecting the rest of the feedwater line welds inside containment and had completed a portion of the welds at the time of this inspection.
The inspector reviewed the following four radiographs.
FW-10-RC-E-IC
.
FW-12-RC-E-IC
.
FW-13-RC-E-1A
.
FW-12-RC-E-1 A
-
The licensee had rejected FW-12-RC-E-1A because the radiographs revealed a 3/8 inch long crack.
The licensee had evaluated this crack as a fabrication defect.
The licensee plans to make repairs of this area.
The inspector reviewed the construction radiographs for the following welds:
1258 282 FW-16-RC-E-1C
.
FW-15-RC-E-1A
.
.
-
No indications of cracks were present in these radiographs.
b.
The inspector reviewed the cutting procedure applicable for removal cf the defective welds.
The defective area is being removed by cutting thru the center of the weld on one side and removing the
,
defective area and the 45 elbow.
The licensee plans to replace the elbow with new material.
The new elbows will contain a counterbore, radiused to reduce stresses at the transition of the counterbore.
c.
The inspector performed a visual inspection inside containment of the feedwater lines after the elbows wer ;emoved.
No apparent dis-crepancies were noted on the systems, the inside sur Oces of the lines looked clean, with no apparent residual buildup and no cracks were noted on the inside of the nozzle or feedwater sparger sleeve.
The elbows removed from "B" and "C" feedwater line revealed visual cracks on the inside surface at the location disavered by radio-graphy.
The "B" elbow cracks appeared visually te extend 360 around the counterbore.
d.
The inspector requested a ring from one of the lines which contained a crack so that NRC could have an independent analysis of the cause of cracking.
The licensee supplied the ring from "B" line.
The sample was sent to " Parameters" for analys.is.
The licensee has reported that based c,n preliminary analysis, the cause of the pipe cracks, located at the steam generator nozzles, appears to be fati-gue failure assisted by corrosion.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 27 1979.
The inspector summarized the findings of the inspection.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's findings.
1258 283