ML20153D074
| ML20153D074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1988 |
| From: | Carrasco J, Chaudhary S, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153D054 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-88-30, 50-278-88-30, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8809020032 | |
| Download: ML20153D074 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1988030
Text
<
.
.
u,
,
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<
REGION I
Report Nos.
50-277/88-30
50-278/88-30
Docket Nos.
50-277
50-278
License No.
OPR-44
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19101
Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3
Inspection At: ' Delta Pennsylvania
Inspection Dates: August 15-19, 1988
Inspectors:
N
F/2 h 83
S. K. Chaudhary, Lead Reactor Engineer,
date
~
MPS,
S, Re
n
,
f t27fako
t/s s/as
-
J. LL.Cattasco, Reactor Engineer, MPS, EB,
date
DRS Region I
Approved by:
det
e-Mr.)
f/S
[
os ,
l
[Jf. Str2fnide'r,~ Chief, Materials &frocesses
date
/
v5ection, Engineering Branch, DRS,6R1
'
.
,'
Inspection Summary: Routine unannounced inspection on August 15-19, 1988
{ReportNos. 50-277/88-30 and 50-278/88-30)
l
Areas Inspected: Adequacy of licensee actions in response to NRC IE
l
adequacy of corrective actions in response to violation
i
87-16-01; and to review additional information to resolve the unresolved
item 87-16-02.
Results: One violation with several examples was identified.
The violation
,
consisted of inadequate inspections of modifications to masonry walls to
'
j
assure quality.
l
fj[0ggob
'$h
Q
L
,
.
.
.
, .
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted
Philadelphia Electric Company
- J. Franz, Plant Manager
- 0. McGarrigan, Superintendent, Quality Control
- J. Pratt,. Perch Bottom Atomic Power Station, Manager, Quality
- J. Netzer, Superintendent, PS&R for Projects.
- 0. Smith, Vice President, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
- T. Cribbe, Regulatory Engineer
- G. Hanson, Regulator Engineer
- A. Hegeohs, Site Project Engineer, Nuclear Energy Division
- 0. Torone, Modification Installation Engineer
- P. Hinnbnuamp, Administrative Assistant, Modifications
Bechtel Power Corporation
- E. Patel, Project Engineer
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting.
The inspectors also contacted other administrative and technical personnel
during the inspection.
2.0 Inspection Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this inspection was to review the adequacy of: licensee
actions in response to NRC Bulletin 80-11, Masonry wall design; adequacy
of corrective actions in response to violation 87-16-01; and to review
additional information for the unresolved item 87-16-02.
Particular
emphasis was placed on determining the technical adequacy of design and
installation of modifications to the identified walls, and the status of
licensee commitments made to the NRC during the last inspection in this
area (19 87-16).
The documents reviewed during this inspection are listed
in Attachment A.
3.0 Liceasee's Actions on Previous NRC Concerns
(Closed) Violation (87-16-01):
This violation pertained to a lack of
written procedures describing the scope and qualitative /quantitatiYe
acceptance criteria for walkdown surveys of block walls performed in
response to IE Bulletin 80-11.
,
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
,
~
.
.
3
The licensee has developed, approvea, and implemented a procedure to
document the scope and acceptance criteria for block wall surveys, and
has resurveyed block walls according to the requirements of this
procedure.
This item is closed. (50-277;50-278)
(Closed) Unresolved Item (87-16-02);_ This item pertained to the
separation of masonry walls from reinforced concrete walls at the boundary
interface. These separations (through cracks) were at the boundary where
positive connections had been assumed in the analysis to evaluate the
safety of the wall..
The licensee has implemented a program of chipping and drilling of block
walls at interfaces to positively identify if connections between block
walls and reinforced concrete walls do exist.
This item is closed. (50-277; 50-278)
4.0 Installation of Modifications
Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts
The inspector performed a walk through inspection of Units 2 and 3 to
4
!
visually examine the status of masonry walls and blockouts.
The
'
inspection consisted of random verification of walls and blockouts to
determine whether their configuration and location matched those shown on
q
i
the design drawings and survey results. An independent verification of
torque values for the concrete expansion anchors was also performed.
i
The inspector selected wall numbers 76.6 and 76.10 in the reactor
building, and wall number 16.1 in the reactor core isolation cooling
(RCIC) room in Unit 2.
In Unit 3, wall number 413.1 in the reactor
building was selected.
r
The inspector requested the licensee to randomly verify the installed
torque in the concrete expansion anchor bolts installed in the foregoing
listed structural concrete walls.
The licensee provided a Quality Control
inspector and a crew with a calibrated torque wrench (number 54-6028) to
i
perform the requested verifications.
Based on the above examination and
independent torque verification the inspector determined the following:
,
In wall 76.6 at elevation 165'-0" in the reactor building, 11 bolts
--
.
of a sample of 26 failed to indicated the minimum specified torque of
i
I
85 foot pounds.
i
Wall 76.10 at elevation 165'-0" in the reactor building, two out of
--
three bolts failed to indicate the minimum specified torque value.
i
.
~
. .
4
In wall 16.1 at elevation 88'-0" in the RCIC room, nine bolts out of
--
18 failed to indicate the mit.imum specified torque.
l
In Unit 3 wall number 413.1 in the reactor building elevation
--
165'-0", modifications had not been completed. The inspector did not.
verify the torquing.
Based on the above observations the inspector determined that the
licensee's inspection prccedure for verifying the acceptable installation
and torquing of concrete expansion anchors was inadequate to assure proper
installation.
10 CFR 50, Appendix.B, Criterion X, requires an adequate
inspection program to verify conformance with the documented instructions,
procedures and drawings for accomplishing the activity.
This is a
violation of this requirement (50-277/88-30-01).
Furthermore, the inspector observed that the quality control verification
of proper torquing of concrete expansion anchors was based on sampling.
The licensee's procedure CD 5.12, installation of Concrete Expansion Bolts,
requires 1 in 5 installed anchors (20%) to be verified by Quality Control
for proper torquing.
The procedure was developed for IE Bulletin 79-02
which allowed sampling, but the sampling was based on a rigid
statistical analysis of a large population of bolts encountered in the
veri.fication required by the Bulletin.
The sampling plan of Bulletin 79-02 required a 95% confidence limit.
The same sampling method / criteria
used in the modification work without sufficient justification for
determining the 95% confidence limit required by the Bulletin is improper
when the sample size is changed.
Especially, in view of the large number
of bolt failures to meet the specified torque, raises a serious question
as to the odequacy of this inspection criteria.
Installation of Structural Steel
The inspector reviewed the Quality Control documentation (Structural Steel
Installation Form, CD 5.6-111) and visually examined the installed
modification to the interfaces of block and structural concrete walls to
the verify the adequacy of inspection criteria and acceptability of the
workmanship.
These examinations were conducted in conjunction with the
independent verification of anchor bolt torquing in the reactor building,
i
The inspector noted that the licensee's procedure, CD 5.6 Revision 5,
Installation of Pipe Supports and Structural Steel, references the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code for design,
4
fabrication, and installation of structural steel.
The licensee's
1
!
procedure requires inspection and verification of bolt holes for size and
acceptrbility of fabrication of pipe supports but does not require a
,
similar inspection for structural steel.
The procedure also does not
include an attribute for verification of acceptable fabrication and
alignment of bcit holes to the previously installed concrete expansion
anchors.
l
l
n-,
~
.
me----w--------,---,~,m
-en-.
--
,n,--
.. . , , , - - - - , ,
,,,,,re-r--=,-.,.e
-r
,., , , , , - _ , , ,_-rr,enre--www,-,
, - , - - -
.
.
. ~ .
5
The AISC Code for design, fabrication, and installation of structural
steel recommends verification of bolt hole locations and alignment of
connections. The spacing of anchors is primarily controlled by the
reinforcement bars in the structural concrete encountered during the
drilling for anchors. Therefore, structural members must be fabricated so
that the bolt holes are properly aligned with the installed anchor bolts.
The inspector observed that during installation of the shop fabricated
structural members the acceptability of bolt holes had not been verified
by Quality Control.
The structural steel inspection, as implemented for
the modification (modification 2235), was inadequate in that the
installation and inspection procedures do not require inspection /
verification of bolt holes for acceptability; such as, size of hole,
shape of hole, process by which hole was made (drilling, punching,
burning), and the location of holes to match the installed anchors.
This
also is a violation of 10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, which requires
examinations, measurements, or tests of material or products processed for
each work operation where necessery to assure quality. Further,10 CFR 50,
Appendix A provides that structures be designed and fabricated in ac-
cordance with quality standards commensurate with their relative
importance to safety (50-277/88-30-02).
5.0 Engineering and Design Control
The inspector reviewed documentation and held discussions with licensee
personnel to determine the adequacy of identification of block walls,
analysis and evaluation of their current function and design bases. This
review was to assure that the analyses and evaluations were technically
valid and properly documented to support the modifications designed for
walls and blockouts.
The review covered engineering calculations, design
drawings and management controls exercised over the process. Based on the
above review and discussions the inspector determined that:
The licensee had engaged the services of Bechtel Power Corporation
--
for analyses and evaluation of walls and design of modifications.
The licensee identified 22 walls that required modification to meet
--
the requirements of Bulletin 80-11.
l
The analyses, evaluations and modifications were performed properly,
--
were technically valid, and properly documented.
The records were
readily retrievable and Bechtel had applied adequate control measures
to assure the validity of the design process.
However, the inspector determined that no formal mechanism or program
existed to assure that the newly assigned wall and blockout designations
were transferred to permanent design drawings for traceability of records
and modifications.
The licensee initiated an engineering request form
(ERF) to amend the modification package to revise the drawings to include
l
the wall and blockout designations.
This ERF was approved by management
l
before the inspector left the site.
!
L
.
.
-
. ..
6
Configuration Control of Masonry Walls
During a previous NRC inspection (IR 87-16) the inspector was informed
that the licensee was developing a procecere to establish a surveillance
and/or inspection for masonry walls to assure that the walls /blockouts
remained in the same condition and configuration as analyzed.
The
inspector determined that no such program or procedure has been developed
and implemented as of the date of this inspection. The inspector
requested the licensee to provide a schedule for developing and
implementing such a program.
An second commitment for control of additional loads on masonry walls (PE
letter of 12/2/87 Kemper to Johnston) has been fulfilled. The licensee
has initiated procedure M-701, Revision 0, to control new loads.
6.0 Control of Nonconformances
During the review of Quality Assurance documentation the inspector
identified one nonconformance report (NCR), CD-P-1469, which was written
against the grouting operations of structural steel members in the masonry
wall modifications.
The NCR indicated no inspection or verification for
acceptability of grout or the grouting operation had been performed by
Quality Control.
However, the NCR was dispositioned by the licensee's
consultant (Bechtel) as "use-as-is".
The rationale provided for this
disposition was that the grouting operation was acceptable since the
preparation of the concrete surface to be grouted, and mixing placing and
curing of grout was performed in accordance with manufacturers
instructions.
The grout is applied to fill voids and gaps between the
walls and structural steel to ensure load bearing areas are adequate.
The
inspector requested the licensee provide the basis of this rationale in
the absence of any objec;;ve supporting evidence.
The licensee was unable
to produce any objective evidence to justify such a rationale by the
dispostioning engineer.
Visual inspection after installation cannot
provide convincing evidence attesting to the adequacy of the grout.
No
independent, direct inspection, 'xamination or test had been performed to
establish the acceptability of the ; rout and the grouting operation.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, requires examination, measurements or
tests of material or products be performed for each work operation where
necessary to assure quality.
This is another example of inadequate
implementation of the Inspection program of the licensee.
This is a
violation (50-277/88-30-03).
7.0 Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or violations.
Unresolved items are discussed in paragraph 3.0.
- - - -
- - - - - .-
-. -.
.
.
.
-
. . .
7
8.0 Management Meetings
Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the
inspection at the entrance interview on August 15, 1988 The findings of
<
the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the
course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the
August 19, 1988 exit interview (see paragraph I for attendees).
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the
licensee by the inspector.
The licensee did not indicate that proprietary
information was involved within the scope of this inspection.
_ _ _ _ _ _
e
,
Q C*
ATTACHMENT A
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Engineering Calculations
Unit 2
87RE/ACI-25.1
IE-8011/ACI-15.1
87RE/ACI-15.1
87RE/ACI-32.1
87RE/ACI-16.1
87RE/ACI-78.3
87RE/ACI-406.6
87RE/ACI-406.9
Unit 3
87RE/ACI-413.1
Coo _ ling Tower
IE8011/ACI-532.1
Concrete Expansion Data Sheets for Block Walls
Wall Numbers 15.1, 15.2, 16.1 19.2, 25.1,
25.2 76.6, 76.10, 128.1, and 128.2,
Modificaticn Packagg 2235, Section 7, Quality Control Documentation
.
,
L