ML19344D723
| ML19344D723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Maine Yankee, 05000495 |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1980 |
| From: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Moskovitz D MAINE, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344D724 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900509, RTR-NUREG-75-087, RTR-NUREG-75-87 NUDOCS 8004280065 | |
| Download: ML19344D723 (2) | |
Text
, - -
[
UNITED STATES
~ F[
! Y' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555 5
' f February 5,1980 7C
"[;.....f e
r David Moskovitz, Esquire State of Maine Public Utilities Comission 242 State Street State House Station 18 Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Mr. Moskovitz:
Your letter dated January 28, 1980 requested information relating to my testimony before the Public Utilities Commission. By telephone conversation on February 4,1980, you agreed to an amendment of your request that deleted items 2, 4 and 5 and added a request to provide a copy of the Beaver Valley LER 78-53/0lT-0 and a copy of a backup report dated December 6, 1978. By telephone conversation on February 5, 1980, this was further modified by a request to provide a listing of documents on the Beaver Valley docket for the period October 1978 to March 1979 and on the Maine Yankee docket for the period March 1979 to May 1979.
I am please to provide the information you requested in the enclosure to this letter.
Sincerely, hMbThM William T. Russell, Acting Chief Technical Support Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Harvey Salgo, Esq.
Adamo, Lee & Salgo 120 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Enclosures:
As stated e
i 80042800 @
r i
.s i
REJEST 1.
Please provide a copy of Licensee Event Report (LER) 78-53 which was stibmitted to NRC Region I on or about October 27, 1978; also provide any subsequent LER--or continuation, update, addition to, or supplement to LER 78-53--concerning the problems or questions with piping stress analysis.
With respect to.this request, please note the following:
(a) the problems or questions referred to are i
those found in or about October 1978 at Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, and which were the subject of subsequent licensee and NRC concern and review; (b) this request is for LER's from the licensees of Beaver Valley, !!aine Yankee, Fitzpatrick, and Surry 1 and 2;
RESPONSE
Enclosed are the following documents on the Beavar Valley Power Station docket in response to this request:
a.
Interim report, LER 78-53/01T, dated November 9,1978.
i b.
LER 78-53/01T-0 dated December 6, 1978.
c.
Update of LER 78-53/01T-0 dated March 13, 1979.
d.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Reports:
1.
50-334/78-30 2.
50-334/78-33 3.
53-334/78-34 e.
Update Report - LER 77-6/01T-1 dated March 14, 1979.
Additional documents enclosed are:
s f.
Memorandum for File:
D. A. Beckman, Reactor Inspector;
SUBJECT:
Record of Telecon with Mr. Dan Ford, Union of Concerned Scientists, March 20, 1979. Memorandum dated April 10,1979.
g.
LER's regarding Maine Yankee (79-005/01X-0), Fitzpatrick j
(79-014/01T-0), and Surry Unit No. 1 (79-004/01T-0)
J l
l 1
l
e I-
\\
s e%
Cuquesne Ucit 435 s.sta Avenue DUQUESNE LICHT COMPANY geren. Pennsylvania Beaver Valley Power Station 4
Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077 i
Novenber 9, 1978 i
BVPS: JAW:609 i
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 l
l LER 78-53/OlT Mr. B. H. Grier, Director of Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Grier:
In accordance with Technical Specification 6.9.1.8.1, the following interim report is submitted.
Further investigation by the Beaver Valley architect-engineer into the discovery of apparent errors in the stress analysis for safety injection piping inside containment has determined that the original The line stresses were thought to have been hand L
report was erroneous.
calculated only, when in fact they were subsequently computer calculated I
I and found acceptable.
l A full report on the situation is being prepared by the architect-engineer for Duquesn's Light. A follow-up report will be submitted after a review of the architect-engineer report by Duquesne Light engineers and the Onsite Safety Committee.
Very truly yours, kJ hJ.A.Werling Superintendent 781117 0 1/7 7,;... r ---* r I
o
,W
..... i- - - -- '
- ~ '
g hI
({i I
i
O d
{
s.
\\
\\
G
\\g IB.H.Grier
/vember9,1978 BVPS: JAW:609 Page 2 b
cc: Director, Office of Management Information & Program Control United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 E. A. Reeves, BVPS Licensing Project Manager United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 W. J. Raymond, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, King of Prussia, PA l
G. A. Olson, Secretary, Prime Movers Committee - EEI l
h i
9 5
0 0
0 0
w e
0 0
~
C.
REGULATORY DOCKE" FIE
.@A n...a" M Vm Duqu,esne Us1t m..
[$$"'"'#'""*"*
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY Beaver Valley Power Station Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077 December 6, 1978 BVPS: JAW:615 Beaver Valley Power Statien, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 LER 78-53/01T-3 Mr. B. H. Grier, Director of Regulation l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Grier:
In accordance with Appendix A, Baaver W.11ey Technical Specifications, the following Licensee Event Report is r amitted:
LER 78-53/01T-0, Technical Specification 6.9.1.8.1, Error In Safety Injection System Piping Stress Analysis.
Very truly yours, bW J. A. Werling Superintendent Attachment l
e 9
1
\\ {\\
781210/'(3 q
l
l 4
0 s.
t t
i i
l Mr. 3. H. Grier December 6,1978 i
BVPS: JAW:615
[
l Page 2 i
l i
I cc: Director, Office of Management Information & Program Control United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington,~ D. C.
20535 E. A. Reeves, BVPS Licensing Project Manager /
r i
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D. C. 20555 W. J. Raymond, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, King of Prussia, PA j
G. A. Olson, Secretary, Prime Movers Committee - EEI i
t i
i I.
1 t
t Ii I
4 t
I t.
t i
1 t
I i
i l
l g
I i
t
}
P k
l t
se NRCPtR54386 U.* NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION
,.m LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CCNTROL SLCCX: l l
l l
l l
l
- PLgA$g PRINT OR TYPE ALL REQUIRED INPoRMATICN)
I e
lo l i l l P ! A I 3 I V I S l 1 l@l 0 10 l-l 0 10 l 0 l 0 10 l-l0 10 j@l4 11 l1 11 11 l@l l
J si car sa @
7 a
ucaussa ccca is is ucausaNwussa
- s
- s ucaust Tves ao CON'T
@y% l L @l 015 i 0 l 0 l01313 la Ql 11012161718'@l1121016 I 718 l@
10til I
8 40 6:
QCCKET NUMaan 64 64 tvENT QATE P4 n
AGPCMT QATE 40 EVENT CE3CRIPTICN AND PRC8A8LE CCNSECUENCES h t o 6: 1 l As a result of ar error in vendor-sucolied data for the veicht of check valves in i
I o i s # l the SI System, a review of SI piping stress calculations was perfor=ed. Uoon i
I o e 41 l completion of-the review, an error in the original minine stress analvsis for one l
I o 6 s i I SI'line had been discovered. A further review of containment annulus oicine was I
l o es i 1 conducted with the review limited to oicine 2 1/2 to 6 inch OD because ehese sf-es I o I 71 1 =ay have been analyzed by *he chsrt =ethod.
This pioing is seceptable as inctslied.l la tal I I
7 es so sysnu cause cause ceMe.
vAtve coca ecos suecoos CoMPCNENT CODE susCGCE suSCOQE loist lS lF l@ lB l@ l A l@ lS IU lP lO IR IT l@ lD l@ lZ l@
I e
s to si 12 is is is o
sacusNTiAL oC umagNet mePenT mtVfS3cN l
LIRimo EVENTYEAR MEPQRT NC.
CCc3 TYPG No.
i
@,a,8,Poy l2i7l8l l-l 10 15 f 3 l d
10 I1 l lT I
(--J W
2a 2.
- s 27
- s
- s
,o si sa ACTtCN PUTumE SP8EC?
sNUTOCwN ATTACMutNT Nemo.4 Pmtut CCup.
COMPONENT TAKEN ACTICN oN Pt. ANT METHCo MouRS sueMITTto PORM hue.
suP*utA MANuPACTumER a
[ L@l z l@
L.z.J@
l zl@
l 01 01 01 of IrI@
171@
l Ai@
i xi 91 vi ai@
l 22 2.
- s
- s si ao aa 4a a
47 i
CAUSE CEtCRIPTICN AND CCRRECTIVE ACTICNS 27 Ii t o t i The error has been attributed to the misacolication of the si=olified aralysis I
[
Ii,i1I technione (chart method) e=cloved durine ori21nal desitn. Based uoen daes f m =
I t
,,,,, l re-analysis of the SI line, corrective action included = edification to one succor I
l
,,,3; I and addition of one snubber. Corrective action has been reviewed, amoreved. and l'
t ii,A, I satisfactorily cocoleted.
I se ao etuenST4tus @
5E*cfs5v' oiscovany assCnirfieN @
's' TINY i
seawan IiI5l J @ l0l0l0l@l N/A l
l D l@l Architect-Engineer review l
j a gny,,, eg,,,,
iz n
a as as so 7
4MouMTCP acnviTv @ l LOCATION cP netsAss @
l t 6 a l l I l @s -a astaiseLzj@l est Asa N/A l
N/A l
io
,i PtmsCNNEL EXPOSURES atuwetR Tv't OtsCMIPTiCN l i t t l 1010 l 0 l@l Z l@l N/A l
PinseNNe'd uv'lia$
CascairricN@
Nuusen It 6 a l 10 l 01 O l@l N/A l
7 4 9 11 i2 So Loss CP CA cAMACE To FACluTY Q TV*t SEscalPTICM v
i l i i s t l I l@l N/A l
i l
7 4 1 So 17c8'rTroN @
N CNLY issut i : i 31 13161 N/A 1
ll lLflIII1 IIl}
F 4 9 to 58 69 30 3 I
~
- DAME CP PREPARER PMCNE:
l a
e l
Attachment To LER 78-53/01T-0 Beaver Valley Power Station DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-334 The following is a brief history of the events which initiated the review of the SI System piping stress calculations:
1.
The SI system NPSH modification included the installation of cavitating venturi. To generate the required data prior to installation (venturi forcing function effect on pipe), the 6 inch SI lines were coded into the pipe stress analysis computer program currently in use (NUPIPE) rather than using the code for the original plant design (PSTRESS).
i l
2.
Subsequent to the venturi analysis, Beaver 7 alley Power Station was l
notified by a vendor that an incorrect valve weight had been l
provided for check valves in the SI system during construction.
l Because the NUPIPE model was available, the increased valve weight was input to the model and an engineering review was conducted to i
assure the piping design was not affected. The architect-engineer determined the hanger designs were satisfactory with the new check valve weights. However, errors in the original pipe stress analysis were discovered which resulted from a misapplication of the hand calculation (chart) method. These lines had originally been stress analyzed using the chart method (FSAR B2.1.9).
It wa s determined that a local overstress condition existed on several anchors. These stresses were not normal pipe stresses, but were local stresses at the j
anchor-pressure boundary interface. In all cases, the piping analysis did not show an overstress condition for the pipe alone.
3.
A more thorough evaluation was initiated to deter =ine if any other annulus piping originally designed using the chart method were locally overstressed. While the review was continuing, Duquesne Light reported the initial findings to the NRC on October 27, 1978. During the evaluation, it was determined that these SI lines were subjected to an as-built review in 1974 and, at that time, two of six of the SI lines were coded into PSTRESS. These analyses were regenerated to include the incre: sed check valve weights. The results wars acceptabla s
stress levels (jur ANSI B31.1, 1967) in the SI piping.
4.
The models run in PSTRESS and UUPIPE are geometrically similar; however, the mass distribution and supporr stiffness are different. Further, the method of force summation (intra-modal) is different. NUPIPE utilizes l
more conservative techniques for intra-modal combinations of generalized loadings. These never techniques arose following establishment of Beaver Valley Unit No. 1 design criteria. In December,1974, the USNRC published Regulatory Guide 1.92, applicable to facilities docketed after April, 1975, which required the use of the more conservative combinations.
The PSTRESS methods used were accepted dynamic analysis techniques for Beaver Valley Unit 1 generation plants, and is the basis for all computer 1:ed Category I pipe stress analysis perfor=ed.
e e
s Attachment To LER 78-53/01T-0 Be, aver Valley Power Station DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-334 Page 2 r
t 5.
A reanalysis of the SI lines determined that only one SI line required modification. The modification included the addition of a snubber and the redesign of one support.
The review of the conc =inment annulus piping was limited to piping 2 1/,2 inch OD to 6 inch OD because these lines may have been analyzed using the chart method. A total of 103 seismic lines were identified, of which 55 were reviewed and found acceptable. A large portion of this piping was analyzed during the as-built review using computer progran PSTRESS. PSTRESS results are available for all or portions of 48 of the 103 lines and are acceptable.
t Corrective' action has been reviewed by the Onsite Safety Committee and 7
satisfactorily completed. The Duquesne Light Engineering Department is continuing a review of the architect-engineer findings.
If any additional infor=ation is developed as a result of this review, an update report will be initiated.
i t
F t
i I
i i
i I
^
i I
l
l l
3 o
l
(
(4ta et-coe
$7 ^ - ---
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 3eaver Valley Power Station P.ost Office Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077 March 13, 1979 BVPS: JAW:646 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 Updated LIR 78-53/01T-0 l
Mr. 3. H. Crier, Director of Regulation i
United States Nuclear Regulatory Connaission l
Region 1 i
631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Dear Mr. Crier
- i l
j This is to confirm telephone discussions <ith R. Keizig and D. Beclaman of l
your office by the undersigned at about 10:30 a.m. on March 13, 1979 regarding l
potential pipe stress problems at Beaver Valley Power Station.
j
\\
As a result of the continuing review by the Duquesne Light Company Engineering Department of the architect-engineer pipe stress design calculations discussed in LER 78-53, a meeting was held by the NRC with representatives of Duquesne Light Company and the architect-engineer. At this meeting, a concern developed that there was a possible misapplication of seismic stress terms to various safety system piping during plant design stages. On March 9, their concern was presented to Corporate managenent and the plant Superintendent. A decision was made to e
assemble a review cask force of Duquesne Light Company and consultant engineers i
and send them to the home offices of the architect-engineer. This task force i
arrived at the architect-engineer's offices on March 10 and inanediately began review of the plant engineering pipe stress calculations.
I 7903210o21
b e
t Mr. B. H. Crier March 13, 1979 l
BVPS JAW:646 Page 2 l
t
\\
In an effort to conservs fuel and because the Duquesne Light Company system l
load was not critical, the plant was shut down to the hot shutdown mode the l
afternoon of March 9.
It remained in this mode until the morning of March 13, at which time the Superintendent was notified tha': the review cask force had identified piping with potential stress problems. The Superintendent called an Onsite Safety Committee meeting and notified the Committee of these potential problems. The Committee recommended cold shutdown of the plant until the potential problems were identified and resolved or exonerated. At 0900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br />, the Superintendent implemented the recommendation and ordered operations to cool down t
the plant to the cold shutdown mode.
l The Offsite Review Committee was in.? hately advised. The consictee met and concurred in the Superintendent's action. The plant shall rettsin in the cold shutdown mode until the results of the task force review are presented to both safety committees and further recomwndations made.
This letter serves to place in writing notification to the Region 1 Director
[
l of the foregoing events. If any further information is required, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours, J. A. Werling Superintendent l
cc: Director Of Management & Program. Analysis /
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 D. L. Wigginton, BVPS Licensing Project Manegar United States Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission l
Washington, D. C.
20555 D. A. Beckman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, King of Prussia, PA i
G. A. Olson, Secretary, Prime Movers Committee - EEI I
L I
e
e 0
W OS g** "%4 UNITED STATES d
NIJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON I W( ) S REClON I I
'k
'/
E 431 PARK AVENUE
.a 3,
i KING OF PRUSSI A. PENNSYLV ANI A 19406 gv.....f Docket No. 50-334 4 DEC 1978 Duquesne Light Company ATTN: Mr. C. N. Dunn Vice President Operations Division 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 L
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection 50-334/78-30 This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. W. Raymond of this office on October 31 - November 3,1978, at Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania, of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-66 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Raymond with Mr. H. Williams and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no items *of nonccmpliance were observed.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part a
2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document i
Room.
If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) i believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure. Any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the infonnation, which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a statement of reasons which addresses with specificity the items which will_be.
considered by the Commission as listed in subparagraph (b) (4) cf Section 1
2.790. The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.
If we do not hear frcm you in this regard within the specified period, the repert will be plac'ed in the Public Document Room.
7901100G%
i n
Duquesne Light Company 2
4 DEC 1973 i
No reply to this letter 1s required; however, if you should have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
i Sincerely, i
j E dp 'V. Brunner, Chief l
Re' actor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Enclosure:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection f
Report Number 50-334/78-30 cc w/ enc 1:
.4 F. Bissert, Technical Assistant Nuclear R. Washabaugh, QA Manager t
J. Werling, Station Superintendent G. Moore, General Superintendent, Power Stations Department J. J. Carey, Nuclear Technical Assistant g.
I
}s E
p e
- ihic:
...g I
l
l o
o U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 1
Report No.
7p_an l
i l
Docket No.
50-334 Category C
l License No.
DPR-66 Priority i
1 Licensee:
Duouesne Light Comoany 435 Sixf.h Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 li Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 f!
Znspection at:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania
~
,W Znspection conducted: October 31 - November 3,1978 A, h hoyff/f7/h
/2//f*)8 8nspectors:
A W.J.Raymond?Reacto'rInspector date signed I;j.
l:i i#
j cate signed
!E l
cate signed l
- b
/2 "/- 2 d k
Approved by:
R. R. Kei
- Chief, actor Projects -
cate signed
((
/ Sectio
(
. 1, RO&P ranch F
t i
%nseection Summary:
inspection on October 31 - November 3,1978 (Recort No. 50-334/78-30)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of BVPS fire protection program; license event report on SI system piping supports; and review of Unit 2 containment liner weld problems for applicability to Unit 1.
The l
inspection involved 25 inspector hours on site by an NRC region-based inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
i Region I Form 12 790110CO SE (Rev. April 77)
1 g/xxxTIsg zzzz[4
+++
%'+4
,M eE ev <e 1,e~
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
' l.0 lll M M p "32 p=2
.: m
=
l-l b
kN
\\
u l
1.8 1.25 IA 1.6 6"
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART 4
++A A$g)! bp
, 4y{h h
4 Qp 2,,,
3,.
.._..._..._.2_
.A - -
-1 L..__._
l b
e N
DETAILS
[
1.
Persons Contacted 4;i-l Duquesne Light Company Mr. J. Carey, Technical Assistant - Nuclear
- Mr. J. Hrivnak, Station QA i5 l
Mr. A. Mosso, QA - NDE Specialist
[ll Mr. W. Sikorski, QA - NDE Supervisor Mr. R. Swiderski, Superintendent of Construction IK
- Mr. H. Williams, Chief Engineer j
Stone and Webster Corocration E
Mr. P. Ward, Lead Engineer
- denotes those present at exit interview 2.
Fire Protection Program Review The inspector acccmpanied the fire protection prov :m review team i
during inspection tours of the facility and meetings with licensee personnel to ascertain the status of the licensee's fire protection l
program and to verify conformance with applicable codes, standards and regulations.
l The following plant areas were examined: control rcom; diesel j
generator and battery rooms; cable spreading areas; switchgear areas; safety related pump areas; intake structure; and, general areas in the auxiliary building and the containment. The above areas were examined for (as applicable):
general conditions, j
including accessibility and congestion; cable tray and conduit g
i separation; fire barrier and stops; fire detection and suppression td l
equipment; ventilation systems and controls; ficor drains; communi-cation equipmant; lighting; combustible caterials; equipment pro-I tection from water damage; means for :antaining oil spills; and ability to contain fire, or isolat: from external fire.
A detailed sumary of the review team findings will be presented'in a separate report from the NRC. Within the scope of this inspection, the inspector had no further coments on this item at the present.
I
1 l
o i
3 3.
SI System Sucoorts The licensee submitted LER 78-53 to NRC: Region I on October 27, 1978 to report errors identified by the licensee's A/E in the piping stress analysis completed for safety injection piping inside of containment. The analysis errors reportedly stem frcm errors made in hand calculations for 6 inch diameter and smaller piping
~
and affect the six hot / cold leg injection lines. The errors were discovered during an A/E review of the stress calculations after fi receipt of new information from the NSSS vendor which corrected the Q
weights of check valves installed in the injection lines. The
[g check valve weights were determined to be about 450 lbs. versus the h
250 lbs. assumed in the original analyses. The stress levels were recalculated by the A/E and were determined to be in excess of the allowable stresses of ANSI B31.1, 1967. The yield stress level was exceeded in one case out of six flow paths. However, the A/E has g.-
concluded that no loss of safety function would have occurred under ij accident conditions even with the recomputed stress levels.
No additional information was available from the A/E regarding the i
analysis and its consequences as of November 3, 1978. The inspector j
stated that the NRC position was that the integrity of the SI i
system be demonstrated to conform with the FSAR requirements prior i
to startup of the plant at the end of the current transformer outage. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments. The p
inspector submitted to the licensee the following items which E
should be addressed during the licensee's review of subsequent E
information provided by the A/E:
~
what segments of the SI piping were affected by the analysis t
errors? identify lines and locations of pipe supports; gp identify the hand calculations employed in the analysis; C
address how the hand calculations interface with other (computer) t analysis; discuss the details of the hand calculation errors; I
what are the recalculated stress levels? what are the margins to the B31.1 allowable stress levels? to the yield stress
[
levels? to thenultimate stress levels?
l provide a basis for the conclusion that there would have been no loss of safety function.
what assurance can be given to show that the calculational i
error applies only to the six points in question? to only the SI system? to only the BV facility?
+
6 l-I
l
.o 4
i i
provide the ietails of any pipe support modifications that may be requiredi what will be the new stress levels and the argins to the allowable stresses?
The licensee acknowledged the above information and stated that the 14-day followup report would address these items. This item is unresolved pending subsequent review by NRC: Region I of the licensee l
actions in this area (50-334/78-30-01).
4.
Containment Floor Liner Welds i
During discussions with licensee personnel regarding the require-ments applicable to the Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test being conducted on SV Unit 1, the inspector noted that problems had developed during the fabrication of the containment floor liner on BV Unit 2.
The inspector interviewed licensee personnel and reviewed selected records to determine the nature of the problems experienced i
on Unit 2 and to ascertain whether the Unit 2 problems were appli-cable to the Unit 1 floor liner welds.
Licensee evaluation of the Unit 2 weld problems was documented in an internal A/E report entitled " Final Report on Reactor Contain-l ment Liner Floor plate to Bridging Bar Welds and Associated Backing i
Bar Butt Welds". The problem was first recognized in 1977 when Unit 2 craft personnel noted flaws in welds where liner plate had been joined to heavier gauge bridging bar in the neutron shield tank, crane wall support and component support areas.
In most cases, the f
weld flaws were found to develop as long as one week after welding had been completed, and subsequent to successful NDE on the subject welds.
Laboratory analysis of samples taken from the Unit 2 site indicated the flaws were attributable to hydrogen induced embittle-ment, as evidenced by the' delayed nature of the cracks and from a study of flaw structure. Other factors contributing to the cracking were determined to be: high weld stresses caused by high construc-tion stresses and the highly restrained configuration of the weld joint; poor welding performance due to inadequate drying of the weld area and application of heat treating; and, the use of high strength weld materi?ls which are more susceptible to hydrogen induced cracking. Tne licensee developed a program to correct the Unit 2 liner weld problem which has been successful._J1ocumentation of the corrective actions adopted will be found' 13 NRC:R'egion I'RC5ES Branch inspection reports for 1977 and 1978; resolution of the Unit 2 problem has been reviewed and found acceptable by NRC: Region I.
5 In response to this inspector's queries regarding the applicability of the Unit 2 problem to the work performed on the Unit 1 containment floor liner welds, the licensee stated that, based upon an evaluation completed in conjunction with the A/E, the Unit 2 weld problems were deemed to be unique to Unit 2 and were not applicable to Unit 1.
Some of the factors supporting this conclusion were cited to be: the smaller quantities and different geometry of the structural steel used in the design of Unit 1, which produced lesser construc-r tion and configuration stresses than in the Unit 2 design; and, the l
weld materiais, used during Unit 1 construction. The inspector noted that al; hough this evaluation has been completed through a joint effor'. by the licensee and his A/E, the evaluation had not been formally documented. The inspector stated that a formal documentation of the evaluation appeared to be appropriate.
The inspector stated that this item would be further reviewed by I
the NRC and is considered to be unresolved (50-334/78-30-02).
5.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are those items for which more information is required to detennine whether the items are acceptable or items of noncompliance. Unresolved items are contained in paragraphs 3 and i
4 of this report.
l 6.
Exit Interview A management meeting was held with licensee personnel (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 3, i
1978. The purpose, scope and findings of the inspection were dis-cussed as they appear in the details of this report. The licensee noted the inspector's concerns in regard to the SI system piping i
supports and the Unit 1 containment floor liner welds.
I 1
i l
9
a s
4
,M UNITID STATIS 1
g NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMtsslON 3,SwM
.j REGICN I
,g g
1 f
431 PAAK AVENUE h
KING Ogr PRUS$1 A, PENNSYt.VANI A 19406 I
120EC 1973 Decket No. 50-334 i
Duquesne Light Company ATTN: Mr. C. N. Dunn Vice President Operations Division 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Gentlemen:
l
Subject:
Inspection 50-334/78-33 This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. W. Raymond of this office on November 14-17, 1978, at Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, Shipping-port, Pennsylvania, and Duquesne Light Company Corporate Office, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, of activities authori::ed by NRC License No. OPR-66 and to the discussiens of our findings held by Mr. Raymond with Mr. H. Williams and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection, and to a subsequent telephone discussion between Mr. Raymond and Mr. J.
Werling on November,22, 1978.
i Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and obser/ations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were l
obser/ed.
In accordance with Secti.on 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) t believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure. Any such application must be accompanied by an I
affidavit eucuted by the owner of the infomation, which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a statement k
Duquesne Light Company 2
12DEC F/8 i
of reasons which addr'sses with specificity the items which will be censidered by the Cemission as listed in subparagraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790. The information sought to be withheld shall be incerporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.
If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Roem.
j No reply to this letter is required; however, if you should have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them l
with you.
Sincerely, I
a E don Brunner, Chief Re'a' tor Operations and Nuclear i
c S'upport Branch
Enclosure:
Office of-Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report Number 50-334/78-33 j
~
cc w/ encl:
F. Bissert, Technical Assistant Nuclear R. Washabaugh, QA Manager J. Werling, Station Superintendent i
G. Moore, General Superintendent, Pcwer Stations Department J. J. Carey, Nuclear Technical Assistant i
bec w/ enc 1.
IE Mail & Files (For Appropriate Distribution) l Central Files PublicDocumentRoom(PDR)
Local Public Document Rocm (LPDR)
Nucle.r Safety Information Center (NSIC) l Technical Information Center (TIC)
REG:I Reading Room RegionDirectors(III,IV)(ReportOnly)
Cocmonwealth of Pennsylvania l
f l
a U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE l
Region I I 2 ""#
1 N 0F Recort No. 50-33d/7n 13 REG CN I HAS NOT OBTAINED PROPRIETARYl
~"
C2ARANCE IN ACCCRDANCE WITH 10 CFR 279 Cocket No. c0-334 I
License No.
OPR-66 Priority Category C
Licensee:
Ducuesne Licht Comoanv l
435 Sixth Avenue pittsburch, pennsylvania 15219 Facility Name: Bosvar va11=v onwar Sution. Unit 1 f
Inspection at: Shippingport, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania l
l Inspection conducted:
November 14-17 1078 Inspectors: h / kIw f
[WU N
e?
\\
C a
'd, Rer6 tor ' Inspector date signed
\\h%
\\
1 \\
w
- 0. 'A. Beckman, Reactor Inspector datetsignec t
\\
s l
date signed
/ dendr
/2.//- 76 Approved by:
/. R. Ke g, Ch4
, Reactor Projects cate signed Sectic No. 1 O&NS Branch l
1 i
Inscection Summary.
Inscection on November 14-17,1978 (Recort No. 50-334/78-33) l Areas Inscected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector 1
of plant operations, iceluding:
logs, records, and plant status; in office l
review of licensee event reerts (LERs); observation of a guard training drill; j
onsite LER followup; followup mf licensee actions on IE circulars; status of previous outstanding items; and, followup on previous outage items, including l
qualification of stem mounted switches, RCP underfrequency trips, diesel gener-i ator field flash failure, ou tem i
=
piping supports. The inspec NRC regional based inspecto Results: No itams of noncom DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:
ANO i k / / Y
/[3 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
No. of pages:
/D
.