Text

Insp Repts 50-277/88-04 & 50-278/88-04 on 880201-11.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Licensee Action in Response to USI A-7, Mark I Containment Program
	ML20153B883
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	04/28/1988
From:	Chaudhary S, Kaplan H, Strosnider J; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20153B872	List: ML20153B868; ML20153B883;
References
	REF-GTECI-A-07, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-07, TASK-A-7, TASK-OR 50-277-88-04, 50-277-88-4, 50-278-88-04, 50-278-88-4, NUDOCS 8805060103
	Download: ML20153B883 (11)
	v • d • e

.

..

-

.

__. .

._

,

'

s

,.

-

.

!

r

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!

REGION I

50-277/88-04

,

Report No.

50-278/88-04

[

r

50-277

!

Docket No.

50-278

.

?

DPR-44

License No. OPR-56

Category C

Li::ensee:

Philadelphia Electric Company

j

2301 Market Street

'

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101

j

t

Facility Name:

Peach Bottom Atomic Station, Units 2 and 3

,

1

i

j

Inspection At: Delta and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

l

Inspection Conducted:

February 1-11, 1988

i

Yh88

!

Inspectors:

v

1

(/S/ K. Chiudhary, Senior Reactor Engineer

date

-

/MPS; EB; DRS

!

d

a

}

LWTan,SeniorReactorEngineer,MPS;

aff a,p {Q

L0m

H. Kap

date

(

j

1/28//6 _

Approved by:

_/ R. Strosnider, Chief

date

[

h

gNaterialandProcessesSection,EB,DRS

i

,

?

Inspection Summary:

Inspection on February 1-11, 1988 (Combined Inspection

l

Reports Nos. 50-277/88-04, and 50-278/88-04)

Areas Inspected: A special announced inspection by two region-based inspectors

l

4

?

was conducted at the Philadelphia Electric Company's engineering offices in

!

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and at Peach Bottom Atomic Station, Delta,

l

Pennsylvania.

The inspection covered review of licensee action in response to

!

4

Unresolved Safety Issue (USI A-7), Mark I Containment Program. The inspection

'

included review and examination of design analyses and calculations; design and

l

.

construction / erection drawings and schedule; modification to the torus,

t

!

torus-attached piping; temperature monitoring system instrumentation; and Plant

!

Unique Analysis Report. A visual examination of installed items verified the

!

"as-built" condition of modifications,

l

,

Results: The licensee's actions in response to Mark I Containment Program met

1

the requirements of NUREG-0661 and licensee commitments in PUAR.

No violations

i

l

or durations were identified.

!

I

t

j

]

8805060103 G80502

'

PDR

ADOCK 05000277

l

0

00D

f

-

- -

-

- .

.

-

?

. _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - .

,

'

.,

.

,

.

4

f

a

l

DETAILS

!

l

J

,

1.0 Persons Contacted

'

Philadelphia Electric Company-

W. T. Baxter, Supervisor, Nuclear Quality Assurance

W. C. Birely, Senior Licensing Engineer

C, B. Boyce, Licensing Engineer

i

A. R. Diederich, Manager, PECO-Nuclear

John Franz, Station Manager

D. M. O'Rourke, Branch Head, Civil / Structural Engineering

i

H. W. Vollmer, Manager, Civil-Architecture

U.S. - Nuclear Regulatory Commission

!

T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector

R. Urban, Resident Inspector

,

L. Meyers, Resident Inspector

i

!

In addition, the ir.spectors contacted other engineers, techniciar.s, health

physicist and chemists, and quality assurance personnel as their work

i

4

interfaced with the scope of this inspection.

Personnel marked with (*)

i

attended the exit meeting at the conclusion of the inspection.

1

i

2.0 Inspection Purpose and Scope

l

-

i

,

'

j

The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the licensee had

i

modified the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 & 3 containments

!

consistent with commitments to NRC concerning Unresolved Safety Issue

f

(USI) A-7, and that these modifications had been performed using

t

,

appropriate procedures and with an acceptable level of quality.

The scope

l

'

of this inspection was defined by the instructions contained in the NRC

j

Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/85.

j

Technical issues in USI A-7 involved suppression pool hydrodynamic loads

on the Mark I containment.

These hydrodynamic loads were not considered

!

a

in the original design of these containments.

The newly identified loads

i

.

'

affected the torus shell, torus support structures, internal structures,

'

and piping attached to torus (torus attached piping, TAP).

The issue was

addressed through a two phased approach consisting of short term and long

term programs.

Licensees with plants having Mark I containments were

i

required to submit a plant-unique analysis report (PUAR) to provide a

basis for the plant specific modifications.

For Peach Bottom the NRC

+

'

staff reviewed the PVAR against acceptance criteria contained in

l

NUREG-0661. The staff issued safety evaluation reports (SERs) for the

i

l

Peach Bottom plants in March 1984.

i

'

!

,

>

.

-

.,

.

3

As part of the STP, the licensee performed two (2) modifications in each

unit:

1.

Installation of torus support saddles at 16 support locations in

each unit, and,

2.

Installation of supports on the four (4) longest safety relief

valve (SRV) discharge lines in each unit.

As part of the LTP, the licensee scheduled the following modifications

in each unit.

The schedule covered the period from September 1979 to

December 1981. Modifications were:

1.

Vacuum breakers and new supports on SRV Lines in the drywells:

(Mod. 536)

2.

Rerouted, resupported SRV piping in the torus, and installed

quenchers; (Mod. 537)

3.

Installed Downcomer Ties; (Mod. 539)

4.

Installed Vent Header Deflectors; (Mod. 538)

5.

Torus temperature monitoring systems; (Mod. 603)

6.

Installed elbows on RHR lines; (Mod. 605)

7.

Performed MSRV discharge test in Unit-2 only; (Mod. 611)

8,

Modified torus internal structures; (Mod. 649)

9.

Installed torus nozzle stiffners; (Mod. 650)

10.

Installed torus tiedowns; (Mod. 651)

11.

Installed torus shell stiffners; (Mod. 653)

The modifications were implemented on the following schedule:

Modifications

Outage

Unit 2

Unit 1

1980

536

537

538

539

603

605

611

1981

536 & 605

537 & 649

538 & 650

539 & 651

603 & 653

1982

649

650

651

653

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. ' .

-

.

4

3.0 Review Criter:a

Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/85 was primarily used to define inspection

requirements.

The NRC staff SERs, licensea's PUAR, and applicable

sections of the Code of Federal Regulations also were used to define

additional inspection requirecents and licensee commitment.

4.0 Documentation Reviewed

Prior to the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the docket files

(50-277/50-278) for pertinent te'chnical information and related licensing

correspondence. The PVAR was revi(wed to identify the licensee

commitments. The inspectors also reviewed NRC staff SERs, previous

inspection reports, NUREG-0408, and NUREG-0661. The above docket search

identified information addressing the methodology, acceptance criteria,

procedures, specifications, schedules and other programmatic details

related to the licensee's response to this issue.

During the inspection at the licensee's engineering / corporate of fices and

at the plant site, the inspectors reviewed modification design calculations,

design and installation / fabrication drawings, engineering specifications,

installation / erection procedures, quality assurance and quality control

records, and additional correspondence.

The inspectors also reviewed the

photographic record of the progress of modifications maintained by the

licensee as a control record.

Based on the above review, the inspectors determined that design

calculations were sufficiently detailed and contained references and

technical assumptions / bases to permit review. Appropriate requirements

from applicable codes and standards were incorporated. There was evidence

of independent checks and design reviews, and design input controls.

The

design drawings were properly checked, reviewed, and approved for

'

constraction; and the drawing had adequate details for proper installation /

erection.

The engineering specification adequately described the technical and

quality assurance requirements for procurement of material and sources,

construction / installation, and inspection / verification with acceptance /

rejection criteria.

The documents reviewed to determine the above findings

are listed in attachment 1 to this report.

No violation or deviation was

identified.

.

-

- -

_ _ _ _ __ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

___ _

_

_ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ - _

_ _ _ _

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ .

'

.

-

.

5

,

5.0 Erection / Installation Procedures and Practices

The inspector reviewed portions of documents on microfilm that were

!

generated by Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I), the subcontractor for the

-

"

Unit 2 & 3 containment suppression chamber (Torus) modifications .

The

microfilm reels reviewed were identified as 1-83-0255 and 1-83-0258, for

Unit 2 and 1-83-0209 and 1-83-0210 for Unit 3.

The microfilm reels

'

contained engineering specifications, welding procedures, NDE procedures,

inspection records, certified material test reports and engineering

calculations.

The quality of the film was acceptable and retained records

were comprehensive in scope and readily retrievable.

The Unit 2 work was

performed under CB&I contract 94410; the Unit 3 work under CB&I contract

99412.

Installation of the new quencher assembly was performed in

accordance with the applicable portions of the ASME Code,Section III and

j

XI (1977 edition & Summer 1978 Addenda) as specified by Code Case N-236.

!

,

Classification of assemblies included subsection NF-Class 3 component

'

supports, subsection ND-class 3 piping, and subsection NE-Class MC.

The

)

CBI documents consisted of certified material test reports, visual,

radiographic and magnetic particle test reports, welding procedure

specifications, and welding procedure and welder qualification records.

.

Also included were shop release reports, job site receiving and inspection

check lists, material heat number (traceability) sheets, nonconformance

,

!

reports, master check (traveller) lists covering operations inspections

,

t

and eu minations, welding and coating records and repair check lists.

The

r

principal materials employed in the modification were SA 516 Grade 70

4

steel plate, SA 36, structural steel plate and shapes, and SFA 5.1-E7018

weld filler metal.

The inspector verified that the material certifications for these materials

conformed to the applicable SA and SFA mate * 'al specifications including

satisfactory impact test results obtained at temperatures between -15*F

'

i

and -50*F.

The minimum specifieJ test temperatures were -10*F for

component supports and 0 F for materials welded to the existing containment

'

vessels. The principal welding procedure employed was WPS-W1-7018-1,

4

using the manual metal are process with E7018 filler metal. The inspector

verified that WPS-W1-7018-1 was qualified in accordance with ASME IX and

!

III requirements.

Documentation included ample evidence of welder

'

qualification and NDE personnel qualification records along with detailed

visual and magnetic particle test reports of structural welds required for

modification.

Radiographic reports were also available for the safety

,

relief valve piping butt welds.

The inspector reviewed both shop and

'

field weld history records that included part identifications, weld

,

procedure specifications, weld fit up inspections, and welder identifications.

1

The inspector noted the absence of preheat entries.

Preheat was required

l

.

l

for thicknesses greater than 1" since welding was performed without stress

'

l

relief.

The licensee '.mmediately contacted CB&I who stated that preheat

,

was employed when required and that the QA sign off indicated that it had

!

,

been performed.

l

I

'

!

'

,

i

---n__,,,

..v

.

_ _

_

. _

_

_ - _ .

_

_ _ _ _

_ _ _ .

._

l

.,

'

-

.

,

.

6

I

P

It should be noted that unlike the initial modification in 1978 all

welding by CB&I was performed when the torus in both units was dry.

In

l

1978, with the torus partially filled with water, CB&I utlizied specially

devloped welding procedures featuring preheat and electrode control to

minimize moisture. No rejectable magnetic particle indications were

i

.

reported after welding.

[

1

The inspector reviewed non-conformance reports and found no significant

deficiencies or problems

The vast majority of the reports addressed

,

dimensional problems and were satisfactorily dispositioned.

4

>

l

The inspector reviewed the licensee's audit reports OP-176, OP-133, OP-150

and CP-84 covering Bechtel and CB&I activities.

-

The audits were found to cover a wide spectrum of activities including

i

!

purchasing, design control and QA and welding.

The inspector verified

through review of OP-84 that all fifteen findings from these audits were

,

j

resolved satisfactorily.

In summary the inspector concluded that the modifications in the Unit 2

and 3 containment suppression chambers had been accomplished under an

!

,

acceptable QA program.

!

6.0, Physical Verification and Visual Examination

.

The inspector visually examined a sample of modifications made in response

-

!..

to USI A-7.

The physical inspection and examination were performed to

verify that the "as-built" modifications matched those shown on plant

i

design drawings and in design documents.

Examples of the items visually

i

examined included saddle support, column tie downs, torus attached piping

'

i

nozzle reinforcements, and reinforcements to pump supports in core spray

i

line.

These items were inspected for general location and geometry,

i

!

member ditnensions, boundary conditions, and general quality of workmanship

l

and corrosion protection. The items examined are listed in Table 1.0 in

i

-

,

the attachment 1 to this report.

!

'

7.0 Review of Licensee Administrative Controls, Quality Assurance,

and Quality Control

'

J

!

The inspectors reviewed documentation, and held discussions with cognizant

,

j

licensee engineers and management personnel to evaluate the licensee's

QA/QC efforts and administrative controls.

The pertinent documents that

,

i

were examined are listed in Paragraph 9.0 of this report.

These documents

I

are maintained by the licensee on microfilm in the plants record

management / control system.

Records reviewed in this effort provided a

sample of the licensee's QA/QC effort,

The licensee's efforts were

i

directed toward assuring the effective implementation of designers and

contractor's quality assurance program.

These records provided evidence

of licensee's efforts in surveillances and audit of contractor's program

i

and workmanship. The audits were performed annually and were

I

comprehensive in scope.

The quality of the contractor's work was evident

i

!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

7

by the lack of any technical and/or QA adverse finding.

The audit team

included at least one technical specialist / Engineer in the audited area.

The inspector reviewed three audits covering the areas of Welding /NDE, QC

inspection coverage, and procedural compliance of the contractor.

There

were some minor findings which were resolved in timely manner with adequate

dispositions.

The audits reviewed are listed in attachment 1.

The engineering services were provided by the licensee's approved

Architect / Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation, and erection / construction

services were provided by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (CBI).

Both of

these contractorswere on the licensee's approved vendor list for their

services, and were audited by the licensee's QA department for their

effective implementation of the QA/QC program.

The inspectors verified

that the procurement documents issued by the licensee and/or the A/E

contained detailed requirements for QA/QC and applicable codes and

standards for the purchased materials and services.

8.0 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System Modification

The inspector reviewed the modifications to the suppression pool

temperature monitoring system, including the technical specifications to

confirm the following:

The placement and number of temperature monitoring devices were in

accordance with the PUAR commitments.

Suppression pool temperatures were indicated in the control room.

Instrumentation alarm set points had been established consistent with

TS pool temperature limits.

Control room instrumentation was adequate to assure that requirements

could be met.

The inspector also reviewed drawing No. 6280-E-2394-3, Rev. 3, and

engineering specifications to determine the technical basis of design, and

adequacy of modification / installation.

Based on the above review and visual examination of completed work, the

inspector determined the following:

The controlled drawings indicated that two independent channels of

temperature indicators have been placed at their ten locations in the

suppression pool.

The suppression pool temperature is indicated and recorded in control

room by digital indicators and strip chart recorders.

The low alarm set point was 95 F for the vital-bus powered

instrumentation; the high alarm set point was 120 F.

.

8

The above instrumentation and temperature set points were consistent

with PUAR commitments, and TS requirements.

The inspector determined that the design and installation of the

temperature monitoring system in the suppression pool met the licensee

commitments and the requirements of NUREG.0661.

No deviation or violation was identified.

9.0 Exit Interview

An exit meeting was conducted on February 11, 1988, at the corporate

engineering officers by the inspector.

Attendees at the meeting are

listed in paragraph 1 of this report.

The inspector summarized the

purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.

No written material was

provided to the licensee during this inspection. The licensee

representatives did not indicate that this inspection involved any

proprietary information.

. -

-

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

,

4

ATTACHMENT 1

TABLE 1.0

ITEMS FIELD VERIFIED

COMP 0NENT

LOCATION

COMMENTS

Torus Support Saddles

Torus Room

Verified Dwgs. 300, and

(except # 8, 9 and 10)

350 Revisions 3 and

Ring Girders

Torus Room

Orawing 300. Rev. 3

3, 6 and 14

Shell Stiffners

Torus Room

Orawing 300. Rev. 3

(except #8, 9 and 10)

Torus Attached Pipes

Torus Room

Drawing 8 Rev. 3

(Penetration Stiffners)

N 205A, E-B; N-209; N-210:

N 211A; N-214

N 226C&D; N-228A&B;

ORAWINGS/ DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Design (Bechtel).

11187-015

S-816 -

Vent Header Deflectors and Supports and Downcomer Ties; Plans and

Sections, Rev. 4

S-817 -

Vent Header Deflectors - Sections and Details, Rev. 3

S-818 -

SRV Quencher Supports - Plans, Rev. 3

,

S-819 -

SRV Quencher Supports - Plans, Sections, and Details, Rev 6

S-820 -

MSRV Discharge Line - Quencher and Ram's Head Details, Rev. 3

S-821 -

RHR G scharge Elbow Modification and Support Details, Rev. 4

S-822 -

Telescoping Struts for the SE/ Discharge Line in the Torus, Rev. 3

S-823 -

SRV Line Piping Modification in the Torus, Rev. 6

S-826 -

Vent System Modification - Plans, Sections and Details, Rev. 3

S-827 -

Monorail & Spray Header - Plans and Sections, Rev. 4

S-828 -

Torus Stiffeners - Plan, Sections and Details, Rev. 2

S-829 -

External Torus Nozzel Reinforcement (6" and above) Plan and

Sections, Rev. 3

S-830 -

External Torus Nozzel Reinforcement, Rev. 3

-

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _- _ . ____ _ _ ___ ___ - ____-_ - __ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

b

. , -

,

.,.

L

ATTACHMENT 1

-2

!

DRAWINGS

!

S-831

Torus Internal Piping Supports - Plans Sections, and Details,

-

.

Rev. 3.

j

i

S-832

Torus Tiedowns - Plan and Typical details for Columns, Rev. 4.

-

.

S-833

Torus Tiedowns - Sections and Miscellaneous Details, Rev. 4.

-

HPCI and RCIC Turbine Exhaust Support Plans, Sections and

h

'

S-834

-

Details, Rev. 4.

.

S-835

Vent System Modification - Plans,. Sections & Details, Rev. 3.

-

S-836

Torus Tiedowns - Plans, Sections and Details, Rev. 4.

-

External Torus Nozzel Reinforcement (6" and above) Plans and

!

S-837

-

Sections, Rev. 3.

5-838

External Torus Nozzel Reinforcement (6" and above Details),

-

Rev. 2.

S-839

Torus Tridowns.- Plan and Typical Details for Columns, Rev. 6.

-

,

3

Torus Tridowns - Sections and Miscellaneous Details, Rev. 4.

5-840

-

,

!

r

CALCULATIONS REVIEWE0

i

PBM-007

PBAPS - CSC Modification - Analysis & Design of Deflectors,

'

-

Rev. 2

.

t

PBM-008-PBAPS - CSC Modification - Downcomer Ties, Rev.2-

l

!

PBM-005

3-PBAPS-CSC Modifications - SRV Quecher Support, Rev. 2

I

f

PBAPS - Containment. STRUTS for SRV Lines 1n Torus, Rev. 2

PBM-010

-

P

PBAPS - SRV pipe supports, Rev. 1

[

PBM-001

-

!

t

PBM-026

PBAPS - CSC - Modifications - External Torus Nozzels

f

-

Reinforcements, Rev. 0

<

ML20153B883

Text

Navigation menu

Search