ML20195H931

Summary of 980626 Meeting with Bg&E in Rockville,Md Re Bg&E Structures & System Walkdown Program for License Renewal. List of Meeting Attendees & Bg&E Presentation Slides Encl

ML20195H931
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	11/13/1998
From:	Dave Solorio NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
TAC-MA2156, NUDOCS 9811240152
Download: ML20195H931 (200)

Text

.

t

@\\

No ember i3,1998 0

LICENSEE:

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company FACILITY:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF JUNE 26,1998, MEETING WITH BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (BGE) REGARDING LICENSE RENEWAL ACTIVITIES FOR CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 (TAC NO. MA2156)

On June 26,1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a public meeting with representatives of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) at Rockville, Maryland, to discuss BGE's structures and system walkdown program for License Renewal. A list of meeting attendees is provided in Enclosure 1 and slides used by BGE for the discussion are provided in Enclosure 2.

During the meeting BGE provided a comprehensive overview of its structures and system walkdown program. Additionally, BGE concluded its presentation with an overview of how the structures and system walkdown program eier ents related to the diesel fuel oil system compared to the NRC's Draft Standard Review Plan for License Renewal program elements related to aging management programs. Wnile not discussed at the meeting, BGE's presentation slides also included a cornparision of how the structures and system walkdown program elements related to the auxiliary building and safety related diesel generator building strucutres compared to the NRC's Draft Standard Review Plan for License Renewal program elements related to aging management' programs. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr.

Doroshuk, from BGE, offered that BGE would be willing to provide presentations on other programs if doing so would benefit the staff's review.

WOf David L. Solorio, Project Manager License Renewal Project Directorat'e Division of Reactor Program Management i

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[

i Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 W'i0\\

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. BGE's Presentation Slides cc w/ encis: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page

'-}

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ WORKING \\SOLORIO\\JUME. 26.MTG Tm receive e copy of this document, indicate in the box: *C* = Copy without ettschment/ enclosure

• E* = Copy wrth attachment / enclosure

• N* = No copy OFFICE LA:PD1-h()

l PM:PDLR:DRP,.M D:PDLR:DFfM l p, l

l NAME SLittleP DSolorio:sg @

CGrimes ( [9ff DATE lll'5 /c8 A / 5 /98 li / W98 * (

)

s OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

]

9811240152 981113 i

PDR ADOCK 05000317 P

PDR j

m J

.a 3

I Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant cc:

Unit Nos.1 and 2 Presidant Mr. Joseph H. Walter, Chief Engineer Calvert County Board of Public Service Commission of Commissioners Maryland 175 Main Street Engineering Division Prince Frederick, MD 20678 6 St. Paul Centre l.

Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 James P. Bennett, Esquire Counsel Kristen A. Burger, Esquire i

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Maryland People's Counsel P.O. Box 1475 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21203 Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202-1631 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge Patricia T. Bimie, Esquire L

2300 N Street, NW Co-Director Washington, DC 20037 Maryland Safe Energy Coalition P.O. Box 33111 l

Mr. Bruce S. Montgomery, Director Baltimore, MD 21218 NRM L

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Mr. Loren F. Donatell L

1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway NRC Technical Training Center f

Lusby, MD 20657-4702 5700 Brainerd Road Chattanooga, TN 37411-4017 Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David Lewis -

P.O. Box 287 Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge St. Leonard, MD 20685 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Mr. Richard I. McLean Nuclear Programs Douglas J. Walters L

Power Plant Research Program-Nuclear Energy Institute l

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources 1776 i Street, N.W.

Tawes State Office Building, B3 Suite 400 i

- Annapolis, MD 21401 Washington, DC 20006-3708 DJW@NEl.ORG Regional Administrator, Region i t

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Barth W. Doroshuk 475 Allendale Road Baltimore Gas and Electric Company l

King of Prussia, PA 19406 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant l

1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway

. Mr. Charles H. Cruse, Vice President NEF ist Floor Nuclear Energy Division Lusby, Maryland 20657 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway.

NationalWhistleblower Center Lusby, MD 20657-47027 3233 P Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20007 L

M.

l 4

V i

I DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY (w/ enclosures 1&2)

3. Docket.E@

PUBLIC PDLR R/F OGC MEl-Zeftawy DISTRIBUTION: E-MAIL:

(w/ enclosure 1)

FMiraglia (FJM) i JRoe (JWR)

DMatthews (DBM)

CGrimes (CIG)

TEssig (THE)

Glainas (GCL)

JStrosnider (JRS2)

GHolahan (GMH)

SNewberry (SFN)

GBagchi(GX81)

RRothman (RLR)

JBrammer (HLB)

CGratton (CXG1)

JMoore (JEM)

MZobler/RWeis, man (MLZ/RMW)

SBajwa/ADromerick (SSB1/AXD)

LDoerflein (LTD)

BBores (RJB)

SDroggitis (SCD)

RArchitzel (REA).

. CCraig (CMC 1)

LSpessard (RLS)

RCorreia (RPC)

RLatta (RML1)

EHackett (EMH1)

AMurphy (AJM1)

TMartin (TOM 2)

DMartin (DAM 3)

GMeyer (GWM)

WMcDowell(WDM)

SStewart (JSS1)

THiltz (TGH)

SDroggitis (SCD)

DSolorio (DLS2)

PDLR Staff J

8 a

NRC & BGE PUBLIC MEETING SYSTEM ENGINEER WALKDOWNS "MN-1-318" JUNE 26,1998 NAME ORGANIZATION DAVID SOLORIO NRC/NRR/PDLR PAUL SHEMANSKI NRC/NRR/EELB ALEXANDER DROMERICK NRC/NRR/PDI-1 THOMAS CHENG NRC/NRR/ECGB YUEH-LI C. Li NRC/NRR/EMEB SHOU-NIEN HOU NRC/NRRIECGB CHRIS GRIMES NRC/NRR/PDLR MIKE SNODDERLY NRC/NRR/SCSB CHRIS GRATTON NRC/NRR/SPLB BOB PRATO NRC/NRR/PDLR KRIS PARCZEWSKI NRC/NRRIEMCB LEE BANIC NRC/NRR/EMCB DON SHAW BGE GOUTAM BAGCHI NRC/NRR/ECGB CHARLES BRINKMAN ABB-CE ALICE CARSON BECHTEL POWER PRAKASH PATNAIK NRC/NRR/ECGB RICK BRANCH BGE CHUCK GEPFORD NUS HANS ASHAR NRC/NRR/ECGB DAVID ROTH VIRGINIA POWER DEBORAH STAUDINGER WINSTON & STRAWN GEORGE GEORGIEV NRC/NRR/ECGB LYNN CONNOR DSA DOUG WALTERS NEl HAl-BOH WANG NRC/NRR/PDLR STEVE LOEPER BGE l

MICHAEL A. WIBLE BGE MATTHEW CARR BGE JOHN CARBY EPRI C.A. NEGIN EPRI RAJ ANAND NRC/NRR/PDLR SAM LEE NRC/NRR/PDLR MARVIN BOWMAN BGE BARTH DOROSHUK BGE s

1

_---__ J

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project Structure and System Walkdowns i

for 8

License Renewal (MN-1-319, formerly PEG-7)

Presentation for NRC Marv Bowman Rick Branch Matt Carr l

Steve Loeper Mike Wible i

June 26,1998 Slide 1 LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project t

Purpose & Ob.iectives Purpose f

- Provide NRC with a overview of MN-1-319 a overview of use of MN-1-319 for LR t

. Objectives l

- Promote consistency & efficiency of staff reviews & RAls a MN-1-319 is credited in 14 LRA chapters n Draft SRP Elements 7,8, and 9 are addressed in a manner l

common to all programs

- Determine what additional information NRC needs l

Slide 2 LCM 98-041

o o

o i

I Life Cycle Management Project Presentation Overview

)

Review MN-1-319 and discuss plant experience j

Review BGE use of MN-1-319 for LR

- Identify Applicable LRA Sections & ARDMs

- Review LRA examples and note related Draft SRP elements t

Summarize how Draft SRP elements are addressed l

Define any additional NRC information needs

?

I i

i l

l

?

Slide 3 LCM 98-041

O O

O h

Life Cycle Management Project I

s i

Review MN-1-319 and Discuss Plant Experience i

i i

l I

i l

t i

i i

I Slide 4 j

LCM 98-041

,n C,,

U by 1

a Life Cycle Management Project t

MN-1-319 - Overview

- 1.0 Introduction n 1.1 Purpose l

n 1.2 Applicability l

- 2.0 References n 2.1 Developmental a 2.2 Performance i

- 3.0 Definitions

- 4.0 Responsibilities

- 5.0 Process i

n 5.1 Walkdown Purposes i

n 5.2 Walkdown Objectives i

n 5.3 Structure Walkdowns f

n 5.4 System Walkdowns i

n 5.5 Piping Inspection Notes I

a 5.6 Outage Work Scope Changes I

- 6.0 Bases

- 7.0 Records Slide S LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Overview (Continued). Mechanical System Walkdown Report

• , Electrical System Walkdown Report

-, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Containment Structure

• . Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Concrete Structur_es Other than Containment, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Masonry Walls

,, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Intake Structure

-, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Buried Piping, Pipe Supports, and Anchorages l

l l

l Slide 6 i

LCM 98-041 4

o o

o Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Overview (Continued)

,, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Steel Structures and Connections

,, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Storage Tanks

. 0, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Dams, Embankments, Retaining Walls, and Canals 1, Structural Monitoring Walkdown; Large Equipment j

Supports and Anchorages and Seismic Gaps j 2, Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet

' 3. Pipe Support inspection Guidelines 4, Refueling Equipment Walkdown Report - Refueling Machine Walkdown Report i

Slide 7 LCM 98-041 i

d O

O j

=

Life Cycle Management Project 5

MN-1-319 - Purpose and ADDliCabilitV EageS i

i

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this procedure is to provide direction for performing structure and system walkdowns and reporting / documenting the walkdown results. This procedure meets the requirements for evaluating structure and system material condition in accordance with the Maintenance Rule at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP).

l t

1.2 Applicability

This procedure applies to all structure and system walkdowns performed by Plant Engineering Section personnel. The level of detail may vary based upon the purpose of the walkdown, but the general intent and method of reporting walkdown results are i

standardized within this procedure. The assessment of the condition of structures and systems that are in the scope of the Maintenance Rule shall be performed using this procedure.

k b

Slide 8 l

LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - A.policability (Continued,)

Attachments to this Procedure A. Attachment 1, Mechanical System Walkdown Report, and Attachment 2, Electrical System Walkdown Report, are intended to capture the results of walkdowns on mechanical and electrical systems.

B. Attachments 3 through 11 are intended to capture the results of both baseline and ongoing walkdowns on structures at CCNPP that have been included in the scope of the Maintenance Rule. The attachments are applied on the basis of structure functions (functional elements) as follows:

Containment Structure - applies to the interior and exterior of the containment building (Attachment 3, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Containment Structure).

• Concrete Structures other than Containment-applies to Auxiliary Building, Fuel Handling Building, Spent Fuel Pool Areas, Diesel Generator Buildings, etc.., (Attachment 4, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Concrete Structures Other than Containment).

Slide 9 LCM 38-041

O O

O

/

Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Applicability (Continued)

Eagel

- C. Attachment 12, Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet, is a continuation sheet that can be used with the Walkdown Record sheets for Attachments 1-11.

- D. Attachment 13, Pipe Support inspection Guidelines, provides guidance based on a CCNPP engineering standard (ES-002) for the assessment of pipe support functionality. This guide can be used in conjunction with any of the walkdown attachments to demonstrate the capability of the pipe supports associated with a specific walkdown.

- E. Attachment 14, Refueling Equipment Walkdown Report - Refueling Machine Walkdown Report. Provides guidance for performing a visual or video inspection of Fuel Handling Equipment.

Slide 10 LCM 98-041

\\,

d

O O

O L

Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Developmental References i

Eage_I A. MN-1-101 Control of Maintenance Activities B. MD-1-100, Temporary Alterations C. OM-1-300 Outage Management D. MN-1-112, Managing System Performance

[

E. PR-1-100, Preparation and Control of Calvert Cliffs Administrative

[

Procedures F. Administrative Procedures Writer's Manual G.10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of l

Maintenance At Nuclear Power Plants H. Reg. Guide 1.160, Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance At i

Nuclear Power Plants l

l. NUREG-1528, Lesson Learned from Early implementation of the Maintenance Rule at Nine Nuclear Power Plants J. NUREG-1522, Assessment of Inservice Conditions of Safety-Related l

Nuclear Plant Structures l

i Slide 11 l

LCM 98-041 l

O O

O i

/

i Life Cycle Management Project t

MN-1-319 - Performance References Eagel i

A. EN-1-100, Engineering Service Process Overview B. ES-002, Pipe Support inspection Standard C. ES-005, Civil / Structural Design Criteria D. ES-040, Piping Design Criteria E. ES-042, Piping Functional Evaluation Criteria 3

F. ES-201, BGE Environmental Standard G. MN-1-112, Managing System Performance l

H. NRC Region i Integrated Performance Assessment Team inspection Report 50-317/91-82 and 50-318/91-82. Dated January 1992. (CT9009554) j l.

OM-1-100, Managing Outages J. PEG-13, System Turnover i

K. QL-2-100, Issue Reporting and Assessment L. QL-3-102, Program Deficiency Report Program i

s t

Slide 12 LCM 98-041 E

i Life Cycle Management Project t

i MN-1-319 - Walkdown Purposes easea i

i A. System Engineers shall periodically walkdown their structures and i

systems as mandated by structure or system performance. plant operating conditions. scheduled materialcardition assessments for l

the Maintenance Rule, or as required by the responsible Principal

(

Engineer.

t B. Structure and system walkdowns shall be cond_ucted every refueling outage to assass_the materiel condition of those structures included in the scope of the Maintenance Rufo program at CCNPP. The purpose of these walkdowns is_to establish whether the structure or system is cap 3ble of performing its intended function. The structural system engineer (System 102) is responsible for performing / monitoring these walkdowns and ensuring that the requirements of the Maintenance Rule are i

followed.

j!

I Slide 13 LCM 98-041 I

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 -Walkdown Purposes (Continued)

Eage_R C. An inspection of 11 FOST (Fuel Oil Storage Tank), shall be conducted at least once per month according to ES-201. The diesel oil system engineer (System 023) is responsible for performing this walkdown and documenting it on Attachment 12, Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet.

D. During the performance of a walkdown the material condition of l

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) should be assessed such that any degraded condition will be identified. documented.

l cause determined. and corrective action initiated before the degradation proceeds to failure of the SSC to perform its intended function.

3 I

t I

l 1

i Slide 14

[

LCM 98-041

Life Cycle Management Project i

l MN-1-319 -Walkdown Purposes (Continued)

Pace 9 i

E. The scope of a structure or system walkdown may vary based on j

the condition of the plant and the intentions of the System Engineer.

The duration and level of dStail of a walkdown will depend on the intent. Following are reasons for which a walkdown could be i

conducted:

1. Maintenance Rule (SSC) Material Condition Assessments I

The Maintenance Rule requires condition monitoring to be f

performed to ensure that the material condition of a struc_ture or system is maintained. For structures that are in the scope of the Maintenance Rule at CCNPP, a walkdown that determines the status

(

of the materiel condition of the structure or system may be the only practical way to demonstrate that the structure is capable of performing its intended functions.

2. System Readiness Review A walkdown should typically be performed toward the end of a ma_ior i

outaae to verify the readiness of the system to function. Some i

~

equipment may be in service, but equipment is typically not at normal

(

operating conditions.

Slide 15 LCM 98-041

)

i a

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 -Walkdown Purposes (Continued)

Eagej

3. Start-up Review A walkdown should be oerformed when the system is initially pressurized. energized or placed into normal service. This is typically performed at Mode 5, but may vary.

4. System Engineer Familiarization Acceptance of a new system assignment according to PEG-13, System Turnover, should include a walkdown of the system. This will aid in familiastation with equipment locations. arrangements.

operatina temperature. noise levels. Drocess parameters. and material conditioA

~

5. Pre-Outage Review Subsequent to a major, planned outage, a walkdown typically will help verify the completeness of the documented system problems. An in-plant review of both system and major equipment performance characteristics will help to identify additional outage work scope and may preclude subsequent forced outages.

Slide 16 LCM 98-041

=

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 -Walkdown Purposes (Continued)

Eaged

6. ~ Job-Specific Walkdowns Job-Specific walkdowns can be performed as required, to wttness work i

or modifications being performed on the system, or as part of the modification process as detailed in EN-1-100, Engineering Service Process Overview. This walkdown should be narrow in scope and focused on the work or modification at hand.

7. Periodic Walkdown At regular intervals (typically monthly, or as negotiated with the responsible Principal Engineer) the System Engineer shall perform a walkdown of the system. The extent of the walkdown shall be negotiated with the Principal Engineer. The intervals and extent of the periodic walkdowns shall be slocymente_d to the GS-PES _in a memo. Specific areas walked down shall be noted on Attachment 1, Mechanical System Walkdown Report, or Attachment 2, Electrical i

System Walkdown Report, as applicable. The intent of this walkdown is to ideistify and record any new or existing condition that could prevent the system or a component from performing its i

intended function. Any or all of the above mentism_ed walkdowns (s_te_ps 5.1.B.1 through 5.1B 5han be accampJi_shed as part of the P_eriodic Walkdown l

m Slide 17 LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project 3

MN-1-319 - Walkdown Obiectives Eagelq A.

The objectives of Structure or System Walkdowns include:

- 1. Functionality n The primary obiective of a structure or system walkdown is to assess the condition of SSCs, ensure the safety and power generation functionality of the_ SSCs (i.e. the system will perform when called upon), and ensure that the SSCs. This includes identifying missing components, safety tags, Issue Report tags, incomplete maintenance, temporary modifications, unavailable support systems, de-energized equipment, or other tags that are potential indicators of functionality concerns.

j Slide 18 LCM 98-041

}

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project i

MN-1-319 - Walkdown Obiectives (Continued)

P_agelQ t

- 2. SSC Stress or Abuse a Thermal insulation damage, bent or broken hangers, distress to equipment anchorage, excess piping motion or vibration, and l,

damaged tubing or flex conduits are examples of potential stress or abuse to the system. Excessive vibrations, unusual noises, excessive temperatures, discolored fluids, relay chatter, indications

(

of flow through closed valves, external leakage of fluids, corona discharges, or arc paths are some examples of potential equipment stress. The purpose of this objective is to assess the condition of l

SSCs.

j b

l i

l l

SHde 19 LCM 98-041 l

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Walkdown Obiectives (Continued)

Eage_u '

- 3. Safety / Fire Hazards i

> Broken doors or hardware; inappropriate breaches of fire or flood barriers; broken, loose, or missing grounding devices; personnel injury hazards; and missing equipment guards are examples of safety or fire hazards.

- 4. General Housekeeping Condition Debris, cleanliness, nondition of painted surfaces, lightmg, o

n inappropriate use or storage of materials or tools, covers not in place, and unreadable, out-of-date or missing labels and signs are examples of housekeeping concerns. Poor housekeeping can lead i

to loss of Foreign Material Exclusion (FME) control.

3 L

k i

l N

Slide 20

\\

/

LCM 98-041 l

i

O O

O E

Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Walkdown Obiectives (Continued)

Eagel2 I

- 7. Structure Degradation if structure degradation is observed during the performance of a n

structure walkdown, an IR should_be issued to ensure that cause is determined _and corrective action is initiale_d_. Additionally, the l

assessment of materiel condition performed after the walkdown is l

completed will serve as the demonstration of acceptable performance per the Maintenance Rule and will be used to disposition the structure as either (a)(1) or (a)(2).

+ a. If a structure is determined to be (a)(1) all of the requirements of MN-1-112 apply, i

. b. Structures pl_ aced in (a)(1) will require increased monitorina (walkdowns) and materiel condition assessments to ensure i

thatthe corrective _ action is effective _and that the graded material condition of the structure is arrested or eliminated and l

the structure will be capable of performing its intended function.

I f

Slide 21 I

LCM 98-041 l

l

O O

O f

Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Structure Walkdowns Eagel12 l

i A. The 1n1101 of the structure walkdown is to perform a visual inspection of the l

structure for the purpose of sintermining if any degradation that is noted could potentially cha]LemgeJhe_ ability of the structure to perform its intended functions. These walkdowns and the subsequent assessments of structure e

condition meets the intent of condition monitoring as identified in NUMARC 93-01 for compliance with the requirement of the Maintenance Rule.

i B. The walkdowns should be as intrusive as necessary to ensure identified deficiencies or structuMestadation will not result in structure failure or loss of structure function. Following completion of the walkdowns the system engineer shall make a determination of the structure's status from a performance basis such that the structure may be characterized as either (a)(1) or (a)(2) per the Maintenance Rule.

C. If structure degradation or component failures are noted_during the walkdown, the system engineer should involve the Principal Engineer -

LW_laintenance Component Enaineering Unit (PE-MCEU) to ensure that the structure is cap _able of Derforming its in_ tended function. Degradation of l

structures or structure components / elements should be documented and resolved through the issue Report process.

{

Slide 22

[

LCM 98-041

O O

O 8

~

Life Cycle Management Project i

MN-1-319 - Structure Walkdowns (Continued)

Eage_12 f

D. As_ttessments of structurelegra_d_ation should_be based on previou_s

__alkslowns. This should consist of a comparison of the last walkdown with w

the results of the current walk down to determine if the degradation is i

dynamic or static. Dynamic degradation should be the subiect of an IR and should have a plan of corrective action. Typically degradation will proceed at a slow rate that over time will result in a failure or loss of structure function.

Therefore, if a dynamic mechanism of degradation is involved, the structure should be considered for (a)(1) designation.

An example of dynamic degradation of a structural element would be a safety-related pump pedestal that has extensive cracking and the pump anchor /mo_unting bolts ale _p_ piling loose _such that the pump is exhibiting abnormal vibration and movement during surveillance tests. Static degradation of a structure would be degradation that is arrested _or_that is l

proceeding at such a sjftw rate that the functional capability of the structure would not be challenged. Cracking of a concrete wall that shows no other indications of failure and is not a threat to other SSCs meeting intended l

functions would be an example. In either case good engineering practice and reviews of each individual instance of structural degradation that has been

{

identified should be applied.

t i

Slide 23 l

LCM 98-041 l

O O

O l

Life Cycle Management Project t

i MN-1-319 - Structure Walkdowns (Continued)

Eaae 13 E. The performance of a structure walkdown will be documented by the use of the appropriate checklist in the attachments section. The structure walkdown checklists are Attachments 1 through 11 and should be used in by the system t

engineer to record the condition of the structures as noted during the walkdown.

F. Upon completion of the structure walkdown, the system enaineer and the PE-I MC_EU will determine if the performance of the structure is acceptable by l

reviewing any degraAation identified against acceptable limits contained in industry standar_ds. industry codes. or design / license basis documents. This i

evaluation will provide the basis for the assessment that the structure is either (a)(1) or (a)(2) within the context of the Maintenance Rule.

j G. The completed structure walkdown package including the observations and performance assessment will be forwarded to the Maintenance Rule Coordinator (MR.). The MR. will schedule the package and the performance i

assessment results for Expert Panel review and approval. The system j

engineer and the PE-MCEU should attend the expert panel meeting and provide technical input during the review process.

j l

i Slide 24 I

s LCM 98-041 i

O O

O

/

Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Structure Walkdowns (Continued)

P_agem H. Documentation associated with the disposition of the structure walkdowns will be retained by the MR for future reference and the results will be included in the (a)(3) periodic assessment report required by the Maintenance Rule.

l.

Situcture walkd_ow1Ls should be_ performed every refueling outage and scheduled to ensure that every structuie_at CCNPP will receive a walkdown as a minimum everv third refueling optage. Hence, a structure performance assessment will be performed on each structure once every 6 years (minimum). Each struntural element thalls_a component of a given structure should be reviewed during the 6 year interval such that items such as exp_ansion ioints. moisture _ Seals. metal coatings and insulation that can glegrade the overall performance of a structure are assessed in a timely _

manner. Any extension of the inspection frequency beyond the 6 year interval requires an_ approval from the_G_S-PES. The attachments to this procedure provides a sampling of the types of structural elements to be assessed.

Slide 25 LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management ;'roject MN-1-319 - System Walkdowns Eage_la A. The intent of the walkdown is to perform a VISUAL INSPECTION. not nes_es.s_arily a complehensive pay _sical inspection. If during the inspection, d_eviations from design conditions are noted or suspected, the System Engineer shall further investigate _the condition. The detail of the inspection and the investigation is left to the discretion of the System Engineer.

B. The System Engineer _should nortn_ ally be aware of changes to his system; if necessary, he should perform a review of open documentation for the system prior to the field walkdown. This should include the latest " system report card" (SSIP), open MOs, PDRs, approved temporary modifications, major and minor modifications in progress, deferred PMs, previous System Walkdown Reports, and other open items or issues.

C. Conditions adverse to functionalify, indications of system or equipment stress or abuse, safety or fire hazards and housekeeping deficiencies shalLtte documented on Attachment 1, Mechanical System Walkdown Report;, Electrical System Walkdown Report; (and Attachment 12, i

Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet), as required, and an issue Report, if required.

Slide 26 LCM 98-041

O O

O l

Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - System Walkdowns (Continued)

Eaae 14 i

F. All conditions requiring corrective action must be accompanied by an " Action l

Taken" statement and documented on the System Walkdown Report (Attachment 1 or 2) in the " NOTES" section. Examples of Action Taken are initiation of an issue Report... Detailed documentation such as an lasne Report number shall also be recorded on the attachments. Suitable i

compensatory action should be taken for safety hazards prior to walking away from the area.

i G. Areas visited _during the walkdown shall be documented on the System Walkdown Report.'

l t

H. Completed System Walkdown Reports shall be provided to the unit Principal Engineer. Work Group _Le_ader. and the system file (Section 1).

l l

l l

{

I Slide 27 LCM 98-041

{

- =. -

O O

O M

Life Cycle Management Project MN-1-319 - Piping Inspection Notes Ease 14 i

A. While performing system walkdowns, it is important to look for problems thal can lead to fatigue __failur_es_of piping. These failures can cause personnel and plant safety risks and the forced outages that accompany them. It is especially important to watch for problems on unisolable lines, or lines that if pressure is lost, a trip will occur such as Instrument Air, EHC (electro-hydraulic control), drains to the condenser, etc.., Failures on high energy i

lines are particularly glamgeroms to plaat_pgrsonnel. ISI (in-service inspection) i inspects piping hangers and performs UTS (ultrasonic testing) to determine if l

wall thinning is taking place on selected lines. System Engineers need_to look at the overallsy_slem. Thes_e notes are meant to be a guide of things to Look for and think aboRituring wallLdowns.

B. Most piping failures are due to FATIGUE. Look for the following conditions, which can set up vibration or harmonic motion of the piping-

1. Valve cycling or chatter.

2. Cavitation noise.

3. Inadequate support of a smaller branch line off of a larger pipe (also cantilevers).

j

\\

i Slide 28 LCM 98-041

O O

O i

Life Cycle Management Project i

i MN-1-319 - 6.0 Bases eagels i

r l

None (currently)

LRA to be added i

L i.

i i

i Slide 29 LCM 98.n43 i

i

O O

O i

Life Cycle Management Project f

I MN-1-319 - 7.0 Records Eage_tz I

r A. Records generated by this procedure include:

l

- Attachment 1, Mechanical System Walkdown Report

- Attachment 2, Electrical System Walkdown Report

- Attachment 3, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Containment Structure

- Attachment 4, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Concrete Structures Other than Containment

[

- Attachment 5, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Masonry Walls t

- Attachment 6, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Intake Structure

- Attachment 7, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Buried Piping, Pipe Supports, and Anchorages

- Attachment 8, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Steel Structures and Connections i

I l

Slide 30 LCM 98-041 i

G N

\\

\\

(G J

Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 1. MECHANICAL SYSTEM WALKDOWN REPORT Page 18 NAME:

DATE:

/

/

SYSTEM:

UI MODE: 12 3 4 5 D U2 MODE: 12 3 4 5 D l

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP DESCRIPTION (IR / MO NUMBERS) i 1.0 VALVES NOTES:

- Installed in proper flow direction?

- In correct position for current mode?

- Properly labeled?

- Any maastalDickine lesk_att?

- Bent stem or missing hand wheel?

- Stem threads properly lubricated?

- Any air, steam or hydraulic leaks noted?

l Continued 2.0 PUMPS NOTES:

- Any u__n.ultalanists noted?

- Properly labeled?

- Properly lubricated?

- Unusual packing or seal leakagt?

- Motor amperage normal?

- Discharge pressure normal?

l Continued Slide 31 LCM 98-041 l

/ __

V Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 1. MECHANICAL SYSTEM WALKDOWN REPORT P_ age __18 N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP DESCRIPTION (IR / MO NUMBERS) 3.0 CONDUIT & PIPE SUPPORTS NOTES:

- Spring cans bottomed / topped out?

- Proper eyebolt engagement on sway strut?

- Good bearing surface contact on base plates?

- Do snubbers have sufficient fluid in reservoir?

- Structural concrete _sRalline/damare?

- Binding? Proper alignment? Too loose

-Are SuBD0rtS PRIR[Cd?

-Vents / drain lines properly supported?

SEEA 77. 4 & 13 FOR GUIDANCE l Continue No Slide 32/

LCM 98-041

[\\

f~h (j")

\\

N Life Cycle Management Project i

2 ATTACHMENT 1. MECHANICAL SYSTEM WALKDOWN REPORT Eage_18 l

6.0 GENERAL NOTES:

- Insulation properly installed?

-IIeat tracing installed and operational?

- Significant process parameter values consistent with current mode?

- Components / rooms 9dequately cooled / ventilated?

- Operator um signs, temp notes and label plates corre aif posted and logged?

- IR tags in the field still appropriate?

- Is gentr3I housekeeping within set standards?

- Are there any safety concerns?

l

- Are coatings >pplied_andintac1?

l Continued l

l t

f Slide 33

/

LCM 98-041

O\\

O V

V V

M Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 4. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN:

CONCRETE _ STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT 1 ease _2a UNIT PLANT MODE ~

RFORMED BY:

DATE:

/A l

/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION SP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT l

.0 CONCRETE SLABS, BEAMS, COLUMNS, BASE PRESENT PRESENT IR #

PLATES, AND FOUNDATIONS OR N/A 1,_

Excessive envirammental degrala_Imin Concrete crackinRZ B_,_

_ Concrete Spalling?

C,_

y_isible Siens of water intrusion?

D,_

blineral denosits?

11.

Unacceptable Corrosip_n of embedded steel /rebar:

A.

Ilairline cracks?

B.

Rust Staining?

{

C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

i 1This categ ny of structure is meant to include Auxiliary Buildings, Fuel Handling Buildings, Spent Fuel l'ool Areas, Diesel Generator buildings, Spent Fuel and refueling Pool, etc.

Slide 34 LCM 98-041

T

._ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ ~ _ _ _ _..

O O

O-Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 4. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN:

CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT 1 Ease 2A

/A

/I.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION SP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN(IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT

.0 CONCRETE SLABS, BEAMS, COLUMNS, BASE PRESENT PRESENT IR #

PLATES, AND FOUNDATIONS OR N/A 111.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attachtd_mtlal h

cmnpentnis:

A.

Corrosion of bolts?

B.

Corrosion of metal support plates?

i C.

Corrosion of anchorages / supports?

IV.

Unacceptab!e stillement of foundations and slabs:

A.

Misalignment of major components in the structure?

B.

Cracking or warping of structural f

elements due to settlement?

(

V.

Misc Observations:

s Continued? YES NO-Attach Notes to i

IThis category of structure is meant to include Auxiliary Buildings, Fuel llandling Buildings, Spent Fuel Pool Areas, Diesel Generator buildings, Spent Fuel and refueling Pool, etc.

t Slide 35 LCM 98-041

o O

()

U V

v Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 4. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN:

CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT i Paae 25

/A

/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TA SP STRUCTUR AL ELEM ENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUM BERS)

NOT

.0 EQUiPM ENT SUPPORTS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

AND MOUNTING OR N/A I.

Equipment support capable of transferring all loads:

l A.

GApJ between equipment and base?

B.

Support lose or not secured to base?

C.

Base cracked or degraded?

II.

Equipment anchorage system functional:

A.

Grout support chair not in tact or degraded?

B.

DJLit_P. late missing or degraded?

C.

Anchor Bolts missing or degraded?

D.

Nuts missing or degraded?

III.

Unacceptable corrosion of metal

{

components:

A.

Corrosion of anchor bolts?

B.

Corrosion of anchorages?

C.

Corrosion of support plates?

IV.

M isc. O bservation s:

[

t Continued? YES NO -- Attach Notes to i

Slide 36 LCM 98-041 r

l

's uJ l

Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 4. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN:

CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT 1 P_ age 26 NOT

.0 FOUNDATIONS, UNDERSIDE OF GROUND PRESENT PRFEENT IR #

l FLOOR SLAB, AND ROOFS / CEILINGS OR N/A

)

1.

Excessive environmental degradation A.

Concrete crackine?

i B.

Concrete Spalling?

C.

Visible Signs of water intrusinn?

D.

Mineral deposits?

II.

Unacceptable Corrosion of embedded steel / reb 1C h

A.

IIairline cracks?

B.

Rust Staining?

{

C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

III.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attached metal components:

l A.

Corrosion of bolts?

l B.

Corrosion of metal support plates?

I C.

Corrosion of anchorages / supports?

i' Slide 37

\\

LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 4. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN:

-CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT 1 Eage_22

/A

/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TA 1

SP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT

.0 FOUNDATIONS, UNDERSIDE OF GROUND PRESENT PRESENT IR #

FLOOR SLAB, AND ROOFS / CEILINGS OR N/A IV.

Unacceptable water intrusion:

A.

Rainwater / groundwater intrusion through roof or ceilings?

B.

Groundwater intrusion through i

floors, structuraljoints or walls i

j C.

Failure of the groundwater dramage 4

system?

D.

Failure of the floor drain system?

V.

Misc. Observations I

i Continue @ YES NO - Attach Notes to Slide 38 LCM 98-041

O 1

i Life Cycle Management Project l

1 ATTACHMENT 4. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT 1 i

P.R99 2Z f

/A

/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TA SP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT l

.0 STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

}

(INCLUDES PIPING / EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS)

OR N/A l

I.

Unacceptable corrosion of structural steel.

A.

Corrosion of metal structural elements?

B.

Corrosion of metal beams?

f C.

Corrosion of steel support l

members?

II.

Degradation due to corrosion:

A.

Rust stains?

B.

Flakine/bubbline of nrotective l

contines?

E III.

Misc. Observations Continued?' YES NO - Attach Notes to Slide 39 LCM 98-041

U Ow U-n Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 4. STRUCTURELMONITORING WALKDOWN:

CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT 1 ease 2n

/A

/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TA SP STRUCTUR A L ELEM ENT ASSESSED (IR/M O N UM BERS)

NOT

.0 CEILINGS. M OISTU R E B A RRIE RS. SE A LS, PRESENT PRESENT IR #

AND EXPANSION JOINTS OR N/A 1.

Loss or damage of barriers to moisture intrusion?

A.

Absence of sealing material or d a m a e e io e x pisulo.nEn_I.s?

B.

Presence of standing water or accumulated moisture?

C.

Corrosion of metal structural elements?

D.

Corrosion of metal beams?

E.

Corrosion of steel support m em bers?

F.

Corrosion of steel plates?

II.

Degradation of Roof / Ceiling:

A.

Standing water or water intrusion from ceiling or walls?

B.

W ater m arks on ceilings, floors, or equipment surfaces?

Ill.

M isc. O bservations Continued? YES NO -- Attach Notes to Slide 40 l

LCM 98-041

O O

O i

Life Cycle Management Project t

ATTACHMENT 13. PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION GUIDELINES f

Eage 46

[

"The following guidelines are summarized from ES-002 i

Pipe Support inspection Standard, and are intended to be a reviewed for a quick refresher just prior to performing a walkdown. If a more comprehensive review is desired.

refer to the original document. In all cases the reviewer shall defer to the performance standards contained in ES-002 as the determining element for concluding that a structural feature does not meet design requirements and is degraded to the extent that the requirements of Paragraph (a)(1) of the Maintenance Rule applies (ref. MN-1-112).

l Determinations should be consistent with the intent and

[

content of ES-002."

j Slide 41 LCM 98-041

/n)

)

i 3

LJ m)

Lifa Cycle Management Project i

ATTACHMENT 13. PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION GUIDELINES i

A.

General Conditions 1.

The general condition of the pipe support should be assessed. Problems may include any of the following.

Damage deformation or structuraldegradation of fasteners, springs, clamps or l

a.

other components.

b.

Missing, detached, or loosened components.

Indications ofscaling on any pipe support components, welding surface c.

indications or signs ofscaling due to corrosion that may reduce the load hearing capacity ofthe support.

l d.

Arc strikes, weld spatter, paint, scoring, roughness, or general corrosion on

^ -

close tolerance machined or sliding surfaces.

e.

Dented or cracked spring hanger housings.

f.

Indications ofconcrete or grout deterioration such as erosion, corrosion, chipping, cracking or spalling within 12 inches from the edges ofpipe support i

base plates.

g.

Fluid loss beyond specified limits or lack of fluid indication (Snubbers only).

l l

\\

Slide 42 LCM 98-041

p n

"x b

Life Cycle Management Project ATTACHMENT 13. PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION GUIDELINES Eage 48 H.

Concrete Attachment Plates 1.

Concrete attachment plates consist of embedded plates or plates attached to concrete surfaces using various types of bolts or embedded anchors. The purpose of these plates is to transfer loads to the concrete structure.

Check that bolts or nuts are at least hand tight, properly engaged per step B.I.b a.

of this attachment, and that the bolt head, nut and washer are in uniform contact with the base phte.

b.

Check that the plate is flush with the concrete surface to within 1/8 inch unless it can be determined that the gap occurs outside the perimeter established by the outside surface of the anchor bolts.

[

i f

q so. o LCM 98-041 l

\\

I;

'iI t

ifi

[I!!

!i f

O tce j

44 o

e r

d P

i lS tne m

l

~

a eg w

a e

na n

M e

e R

lc e

y C

sn e

f e

iL c

i 14 L

0-8 r

9 M

o C

0 f

L 9

1 3

1

-N M

fo es U

0

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project Use of MN-1-319 for License Renewal MN-1-319 provides frequent and systematic attention from system owners It is integral to the BGE Maintenance Strategy

- Discovery

- Assessment / Analysis

- Corrective Action

- Confirmation / Documentation

. It provides a top-down approach to complement other bottom-up activities Slide 45 LCM 98-041

- - - - - = - - - -

0 J

Life Cycle Management Project I

f LRA Sections & ARDMs that credit MN-1-319 i

LRA i Title ARDMs Section j 3.1 l Component Supports corrosion, dynamic loading, elastomer

(

degradation 3.3A Containment Structural and System corrosion Components 3.3B

' Turbine Building Structure corrosion

~~

i 3.3C Intake Structure corrosion i

3.3D Miscellaneous Tank and Valve Enclosures corrosion I

3.3E Auxiliary Building and Safety Related Diesel corrosion i

Generator Building Structures I

~

t 5.1 l Auxiliary Feedwater pitting, general corrosion, & crcvice corrosion 5.7 l Diesel Fu-I Oil pitting, general corrosion, & crevice corrosion

[

~

5.10 Fire Protection corrosion 5.11 A l Auxiliary Building HVAC pitting, general corrosion, & crevice corrosion 5.11B

Primary Containment IIVAC pitting, general corrosion, & crevice corrosion, radiation damage _

l 5.11C i Control Room IIVAC pitting, general corrosion, & crevice corrosion, l

MIC i

5.15

! Safety injection weathering, stress corrosion cracking f

6.4 r Instrument Lines general corrosion i

Slide 46

~

LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Manaoement Project Review Examples where BGE Credits MN-1-319 Review Related LRA Sections

- DFO

- Auxiliary Building & EDG Structures

• Map LRA information to draft Standard Review Plan elements l

i i

Slide 47 t

J LCM 98-041 h

I

O h

O I

Life Cycle Management Project i

l i

Draft SRP Requirements for Credited Programs i

1.

Scope ofpmgram shouldinclude the specific structures and components subject to an aging management review for renewal.

i 2.

Preventive actions should mitigate or prevent aging degradation.

l 3.

Parameters monitored orinspected should be linked to the degradation of the particular structure and component intended function (s).

l 4.

Detection of aging effects should occur before there is a loss of the structure and componentintended function (s).

S.

Monitoring and trending shouldprovide predictability of the extent of degradation and timely corrective or mitigative actions. The monitoring, inspection, testing frequency, and sample size should be appropriate for timely detection of aging etfects.

l 6.

Acceptance criteria, against which the need for corrective action will be evaluated, should i

ensure that the structure and component intended function (s) are maintained under all l

CLB design conditions during the period of extended operation.

l 7.

Corrective actions, including root cause determination and prevention of recurrence, should be timely.

i 8.

Confirmation process should ensure that preventive actions are adequate and that appropriate corrective actions have been completed and are effective.

9.

Administrative controls shouldprovide a formal review and approvalprocess.

10. Operating experience of the aging management program, including past corrective actions resulting in program enhancements oradditionalprograms, shouldprovide objective

\\

evidence to support that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the structure and components intended function (s) will be maintained during the period of extended operation.

i LCM 98-041 I

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project Example 1. Diesel Fuel Oil i

j 4

Slide 49 LCM 98-041 i

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project t

i Rea.uest for Additional information (DFO #9) e i

"Please expand on the summary description for PEG-7...The summary should provide information addressing the specific elements described in Subsection ll.C of Section 3.0 l

of the working draft standard review plan...For example,...should include... operating experience... inspection frequency, outline of inspection j

procedures, techniques used, acceptance criteria, i

l assessment and reporting requirements, and guidelines for corrective actions."

J t

i 1

Slide 50 i

LCM 98-041 I

O O

O 1

Life Cycle Management Project LRA Response to Draft SRP Rea.uirements for MN-1-319 i

• The-following slides show how each Draft SRP l

criterion is addressed by the DFO LRA for MN-1-319 l

}

i 1

i I

E I

k Slide 51 LCM 98-041 f

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project i

Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mannina to Draft SRP i

Element # 1. Proaram Scope i

i BGE LRA:

- The discussion on page 5.7-7 defines the grouping attributes for l

the DFO device types j

- Table 5.7-2 on page 5.7-8 identifies the plausible ARDMs for

}

each of the DFO groups

- The discussion on pages 5.7-10, and 5.7-19 and the information in Table 5.7-3 on page 5.7-21 identify the groups for which PEG-l 7 manages aging l

These LRA eternents address SRP Element #1

(

Slide 52 LCM 98-041 I

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP

_ Element # 2. Preventive Actions BGE LRA:

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 identifies PEG-7 as providing visual inspections for discovery of degraded paint for Group 1

- The discussion on page 5.7-19 identifies PEG-7 as providing visual inspections for discovery of degraded paint for Group 4 These LRA elements ~ address GRP Element #2 i

i i

Slide 53 LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project l

Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 3. Parameters Monitored BGE LRA:

a

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 identifies the parameters to be monitored for Group 1 as the paint on external surfaces and housekeeping conditions

- The discussion on page 5.7-19 identifies the parameters to be monitored for Group 4 as the protective coating on the accessible metal surfaces of the tank

=

These LRA elements address SRP Element #3 Slide 54 LCM 98-041

O O

O 1

M Life Cycle Management Project l

Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 4. Detection of Aging Effects k

BGE LRA:

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 identifies the conditions under which walkdowns are f

n conducted, including periodic and situational walkdowns identifies the system engineer as the performer of the walkdown i

a identifies the system engineer's familiarity with the system I

as providing extended attention to plant material condition beyond that afforded by operations and maintenance personnel

- The discussion on page 5.7-19 refers to the Group i discussion with regard to the PEG-7 attributes These LRA elements address SRP Element #4 i

3 Slide 55 LCM 98-041 i

O O

O I

Life Cycle Management Project Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP j

Element # 5. Monitoring & Trending BGE LRA:

l

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 l

n identifies the conditions under which walkdowns are conducted, including periodic and situational walkdowns l

identifies the system engineer as the performer of the

[

n walkdowns n identifies the system engineer's familiarity with the system

[

as providing extended attention to plant material condition i

beyond that afforded by operations and maintenance personnel

- The discussion on page 5.7-19 refers to the Group 1 discussion with regard to the PEG-7 attributes These LRA elements address SRP Element #5 Slide 56 LCM 98-041 i

1

O O

O i

/ M Life Cycle Management Project Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP l

Element # 6. Acceptance Criteria I

BGE LRA:

l

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 for Group 1 i

a identifies that corrosion of carbon steel exterior surfaces cannot occur without degradation of paint n identifies observing the paint for degradation as a means for trigg'ering corrective action before component degradation affects intended functions

- The discussion on page 5.7-19 for Group 4 repeats the Group 1 discussion These LRA elements address SRP Element #6 i

i i

k i

Slide 57 LCM 98-041 I

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 7. Corrective Actions i

BGE LRA:

l

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 for Group 1 indicates that 3

conditions identified by walkdowns as adverse to quality are documented on issue Reports in accordance with QL-2-100

- The discussion on page 5.7-19 for Group 4 refers to the Group 1 discussion of the attributes of PEG-7 and QL-2-100 i

- The discussion on page 5.7-20 for all groups a indicates that the corrective action process for License Renewal is in accordance with QL-2 and BGE's 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B corrective action program n indicates that the corrective action program covers all structures and components subject to AMR These LRA elements address SRP Element #7

}

l I

Slide 58 LCM 98-041 f

O

'O O

g Life Cycle Management Project l

Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 8. Confirmation Process l

i BGE LRA:

i

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 for Group 1 indicates that l

conditions identified by walkdowns as adverse to quality are l

documented on issue Reports in accordance with QL-2-100 1

- The discussion on page 5.7-19 for Group 4 refers to the Group 1 discussion of the attributes of PEG-7 and QL-2-100 l

- The discussion on page 5.7-20 for all groups n indicates that the corrective action process for License Renewal is in accordance with QL-2 and BGE's 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B corrective action program l

n indicates that the corrective action program covers all structures and components subject to AMR These LRA elements address SRP Element #8

\\

Slide 59 LCM 98-041 1

O O

O l

Life Cycle Management Project Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 9. Administrative Controls BGE LRA:

l

- The discussion on page 5.7-20 for all groups indicates that the aging

[

management programs discussed for DFO are listed in table 5.7-3 and i

are administratively controlled by a formal review and approval process.

l

- The discussion on page B-1 (Appendix B, UFSAR Supplement) indicates I

activities credited for aging management are implemented through a

procedures within the BGE Nuclear Procedures Hierarchy r

hierarchy consists of Policies, Directives, Administrative n

Procedures, and Technical Procedures jt role of the hierarchy includes addressing regulatory commitments l

a each program and activity credited for aging management is n

controlled by site procedures i

a changes pertaining to aging management require review prior to implementation to ensure activities continue in accordance with the l

current licensing basis

- Page B-12 provides a brief summary description of PEG-7 which will become part of the UFSAR 1

These LRA elements address SRP Element #9 Slide 60 t

LCM 98-041 t

l

0 0,-

J y

1 M

Life Cycle Management Project CCNPP Procedures Hierarchy Pyramid 6

Administrative Procedure Numbering System

'~ c5E.,~.~,i <

et Autherty A8'**swer've paceene mentwwo we asse es fasons g,,,,y,,p,,,,,,,

AB-X-YU Stasmen of A.

o

~

.-e.,

E,,7,,,,,,

I edurenselhe escove fusnher l

Y Inscales thopocoeme swet t = treeregwtrnental.

n 2 = Dupseneres. rus 3 = Sectenuut j/

a

~s ram,a-mesu m j

sw

- Q i EXAkiPt.E MN-1-302

.n scruar*en-e s.c one. Pmeed-

,,, y

---

=.c

> ~. -

/ _-_ /.

• ssense that eus ederenes Wet regenwneres levenes en as a

_\\_

I

\\

pmc.nse eiosernwes s== v.om w. u re co uoven-re s.:1.w e

.e e

p usene.ca Pdicy Pmesen Dwochee urut sever processe e**caur o**c "*

\\

y_

/

\\

i

• NUCLEAR PROGRAM POLICIES

\\

j j

vice Miners - seuc esr Energy s empectahme for metnr sus. ness Funcnons c

/- -- /.

___ \\. _

___\\_ _

l

• NUCt. EAR PROGRAM DIRECTMES

=

Respanatismos auf Reedromer#S for Pmgrarns apparting tein Pchc.es

/

-g

• ADMINISTRATNE PROCEDURES

..l-

)

Process -e act.mee ew enviem-* Pm,.r muere.o.i e. o or$m,/

"lllllllllll*

• TECHNICALPROCEDURES

/

._ i-.______..._

wneen to cperme. enerwaa. sea. - paract pire systens ow wt -

'twed P eines e att meme W. Aemstanwe Nuclear Procedures II,ersrcity i

Slide 61 l

LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project 1

i l

Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP

-Element # 10. Operating Experience f

BGE LRA:

- The discussion on page 5.7-1 indicates the process followed for reviewing operating experience for the DFO system

- The discussion on page 5.7-2 indicates that the DFO system has exhibited no age-l a

related degradation to date that impaired the system i

functions l

n indicates that recent inspections of tank internals and of l

excavated segments of buried DFO piping found them to be in good condition

- The discussion on page 5.7-10 indicates that PEG-7 has been improved as a result of experience gained to provide guidance regarding specific standard activities to include in walkdowns These LRA elements address SRP Element #10 Slide 62 LCM 98-041 l

Life Cycle Management Project Diesel Fuel Oil - LRA Mapping to Draft SRP SifP51ement l LRA Page(s)

~ ~ ~ ~

1 5.7-7,8,10,19,21 2

15.7-10,19 l

l5.7-10,19 i3 i4 j5.7-10,19

~~~ ~~ ~ ~

f

'5

5.7-10,19 i

6

! 5.7-10,19 i

7 l5.7-10,19,20 8

5.7-10,19,20 l

~

~

9 5.7-20 and UFSAR Supplement Pages B-1 & B-12 l

i 10 5.7-1,2,10 Slide 63 LCM 98-041 1

O O

O i

i Life Cycle Management Project Example 2. Auxiliary Building & SR Diesel Generator Building Structures I

i 1

t i

l Slide 64 LCM 98-041

O O

O M

Life Cycle Management Project AB & SR DG Buildina Structures LRA Mapp;ing to 6 raft SRP Element #1. Program Scope BGE LRA a

- Table 3.3E-2 on Pages 3.3E-8 and 3.3E-9 identify the structural j

components that required aging management review

- The discussion on Page 3.3E-10 and Table 3.3E-3 on Page 3.3E-11 identify Group 2 as addressing corrosion of steel for components marked with an asterisk in the above tables

- The discussion on page 3.3E-19 indicates program modifications will be made to specifically identify the carbon steel component types to be inspected l

- Table 3.3E-4 on Page 3.3E-26 identifies MN-1-319 as the I

program credited for managing corrosion of steel for Group 2 j

These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #1 l

i l

Slide 65 i

J l

LCM 98-041 I

O O

O i

Life Cycle Management Project i

P AB & SR DG Buildina Structures

.LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 2. Preventive Actions BGE LRA

- The discussion on pages 3.3E-17 and 18 indicates that n Steel corrodes in the presence of moisture and oxygen &

l the potential for corrosion of carbon steel components was l

recognized in the original design n protective coatings were incorporated into the original

)

design a damage to protective coatings can be visually detected well in advance of significant degradation of the steel

- The discussion on page 3.3E-18 indicates that n coatings serve as a protective layer, preventing moisture and oxygen from directly contacting steel surfaces

- The discussion on page 3.3E-18 identifies MN-1-319 as providing visual inspections for discovery of degraded paint for Group 2 These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #2 siio.

LCM 98-041 i

O O

O t

Life Cycle Management Project r

AB & SR DG Building Structures LRA Manoina to Draft SRP

+

Element # 3.' Parameters Monitored

~

~

BGE LRA

- The discussion on page 3.3E 18 identifies MN-1-319 as providing visual inspectione for discovery of degraded paint for l

Group 2 These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #3 I

i l

i 1

[

I I

i Slide 67 i

LCM 98-041 f

u o

o o

N l

Life Cycle Management Project AB & SR DG Building Structures LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 4. Detection of Aging Effects

)

l f

BGE LRA

- The discussion on page 3.3E-18 n identifies MN-1-319 as providing visual inspections for discovery of degraded paint for Group 2 l

n identifies the conditions under which walkdowns are f

n ent es he e orme of wa kdo s as pcts nne responsible for assigned structures and systems n identifies the responsible person's familiarity with the system as providing extended attention to plant material condition beyond that afforded by operations and maintenance personnel j

These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #4 l

f I

Slide 68 t

LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project AB & SR DG Building Structures LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 5. Monitoring & Trending BGE LRA

- The discussion on page 3.3E-18 a identifies MN-1-319 as providing visual inspections for discovery of degraded paint for Group 2 a identifies the initiators for walkdowns, including periodic and situational needs identifies the performers of walkdowns as personnel n

responsible for assigned structures and systems n identifies the responsible person's familiarity with the system as providing extended attention to plant material condition beyond that afforded by operations and maintenance personnel Slide 69 LCM 98-041 w

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project AB & SR DG Buildina Structures I

LRA Mapping to Draft SRP t

Element # 5. Monitoring & Trending (Continued) l

- The discussion on page 3.3E-19 indicates that I

a structure performance assessment is required for a

Category I structures at least once every six years and includes a review of each structural component that could degrade the overall performance of the structure

\\

n guidance will be added regarding approval authority for significant departures from the specified walkdown scope l

or schedule i

These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #5 i

i l

i Slide 70

}

f LCM 98-041 i

O O

O i

Life Cycle Management Project AB & SR DG Buildina Structures i

_LRA Mapping to braft SRP_

Element # 6. Acceptance Criteria BGE LRA

- The discussion on page 3.3E-18 n identifies a visual examination by a person familiar with the l

components to determine general mechanical and structural condition and to check for rust f

- The discussion on page 3.3E-19 indicates that the program provides guidance for identification of specific types of l

degradation or conditions and that inspection items related to l

aging management include i

n items related to specific ARDMs such as corrosion i

n effects that may have been caused by ARDMs such as concrete and anchor bolt degradation and leakage of fluids n conditions that could allow progression of ARDMs such as degraded protective coatings, fluid leakage, standing water, accumulated moisture These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #6 Slide 71 i

LCM 98-041

o o

o i

~

Life Cycle Management Project AB & SR DG Building Structures LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 7. Corrective Actions L

BGE LRA

- The discussion on page 3.3E-18 indicates that a the purpose of the program includes providing guidance

(

for documentation of walkdown results a objectives of the program include assessments such that abnormal or degraded conditions will be identified, documented, and corrective action taken before failure of intended functions a conditions adverse to quality are documented and resolved i

by the CCNPP Corrective Actions Program

- The discussion on page 3.3E-26 indicates that corrective action j

4 process for license renewal is in accordance with QL-2,

" Corrective Action Program" which is pursuant to 10 CFR Part j

50, Appendix B and covers all structures and components j

subject to AMR These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #7 l

Slide 72 LCM 98-041 i

O O

O I

N i

Life Cycle Management Project

[

AB & SR DG Building Structures LRA Mapping to Draft SRP l

Element # 8. Confirmation Process BGE LRA l

- The discussion on page 3.3E-18 for Group 2 indicates that conditions adverse to quality are documented and resolved by the CCNPP Corrective Actions Program 4

- The discussion on page 3.3E-26 indicates that the

)

analysislassessment, corrective action, and i

confirmation / documentation process for license renewal is in i

accordance with QL-2, " Corrective Action Program" which is pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B and covers all structures and components subject to AMR These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #8 i

{

Slide 73 LCM 98-041

---

t

O O

O

/

Life Cycle Management Project i

AB & SR DG Buildina Structures LRA Mapping to Draft SRP l

Element # 9. Administrative Controls BGE LRA i

i

- The discussion on page 3.3E-26 indicates that a the programs relied on for the Auxiliary Building & EDG Structures are administratively controlled by a formal l

review and approval process

- The discussion on page B-1 (Appendix B, UFSAR Supplement)

{

indicates I

a the activities credited for aging management are i

implemented through procedures within the BGE Nuclear i

Procedures flierarchy i

n the hierarchy consists of Policies, Directives,

[

Administrative Procedures, and Technical Procedures i

t t

Slide 74 LCM 98-041

0 O

O Life Cycle Management Project AB & SR DG Building Structures

_LRA Mapping to Draft SRP Element # 9. Administrative Controls (Continued) the role of the hierarchy in addressing regulatory a

commitments a that each program and activity credited for aging management is controlled by site procedures n that changes pertaining to aging manageme>d require review prior to implementation to ensure activities continue in accordance with the current licensing basis

- Page B-12 provides a brief summary description of PEG-7 which will become part of the UFSAR These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #9 Slide 75 LCM 98-041

.. _ _ _ _.... ~

O O

O t

Life Cycle Management Project i

\\

AB & SR DG Building Structures-LRA Manoina to Draft SRP

_ Element # id. 'Operatina Experience BGE LRA

- The discussion on page 3.3E-19 indicates that the program was i

recently improved through incorporation of significant additional guidance on specific activities to be included in i

structures walkdowns l

These LRA elements address Draft SRP Element #10 i

i

(

f Slide 76 LCM 98-041 i

O O

O

~

Life Cycle Management Project L

AB & SR DG Buildina Structures LRA Mapping to draft SRP "SRP Eiem~ erst LRA Page(s)

~

~ ~~

~ ~

~~

1 3.3E-2,8,9,10,11,19,26

~

~

~'~~

[

.2 3.3E-17,18

~

3 3.3E-18 5

3.3E-18,19 i

6 3.3E-18,19 7

3.3E-18,26

~

~

~ ~

.8

- 3.3E-18,26

9 3.3E-26 and UFSAR Supplement Pages B-1 & B-12 10 3.3E-19 4-

-,gia

+e-bae -e Slide 77 LCM 98-041

O O

O Life Cycle Management Project i

Presentation Overview i

1 Review MN-1-319 Review BGE use of MN-1-319 for LR

- Identify Applicable LRA Sections & ARDMs l

- Review LRA examples and note related Draft SRP elements Summarize how Draft SRP elements are addressed Define any additional NRC information needs l

i i

I i

2 I

Slide 78 i

I LCM 98-041

~.

. - ~

FOR INFORMATION Ot'LY Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Administrative Procedure i

STRUCTURE AND SYSTEM WALKDO.WNS MN-1-319 Revision 2 I

Effective Date U

Tech Spec-Related Management-Related X

Writer: T. W. Singer 1

i Sponsor: E. "R" Zumwalt, Principal Engineer-Maintenance Component Engineering Unit Approved:

/

General $spervisor. Plant Engineering Date O

"N

i-FOR INFORMATION Ot'lY MN-1-319 Structure and System Wclkdowns Revision 2 j

Page 2 of 52 RECORD OF REVISIONS AND CHANGES l

Revision Change l

Summary of Revision or Changes 2

i Section 1.2.E. Added reference to Attachment 14, Refueling Equipment Walkdown Report -

Refueling Machine Walkdown Report.

1 Section 7.0. Added Attachment 14 as a record.

j Added Attachment 14.

i N

k 1

\\

V

'~

Structure cnd System Wdkdowns FOR INFORMATION OM R sion Page 3 of 52

[~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(

SECTION TITLE j

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

...........................................6 1.1 Purpose.....................................................................................................6 1.2 Applicability / Scope.................................................................................... 6

2.0 REFERENCES

....................................................................................................7

,7.1 De v elopm ental.........................................................'.......................... 7 2.2 Performance..............................................

....................................'......8 3.0 DEFINITIONS..................................

...........................................8 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES....

................................................8 S.0 PR OCESS........-..........

....................................................................8

.1 Walkdown Purposes =

...............................8 0.2 Walkdown Objectives -

10 O

S.3 Structure Walkdown

.................12

\\\\

S.4 System Walkdown....

...................13 5.5 Piping Inspection Notes-

..........................I4 S.6 Outage Work Scope Changes...

.............................15 6.0 BASES.........

....................15 7.0 R E C O R D S................................................

............................I7, Mechanical System Walkdown Report...

....~..........................................I8, Electrical System Walkdown Report.................................................................... 20, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Containment Structure..................................... 21, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Concrete Structures Other Than Containment.... 24, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Masonry Walls.............................................. 29, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Intake Structure................................................. 31 t

_, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Buried Anchorages, Pipe Supports, Underground Cathodic Protection System, And Buried Piping......-.............................. 35 f, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Steel Structures And Connections...................... 37

- tL

,..mm.

Structure and Systrm Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION Ot'!.Y R isi n Page 4 of 52

~

[

TABLE OF CONTENTS

\\

SECTION TITLE PAGE

., Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Storage Tanks..........

=39

............. 0, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Dams, Embankments, Canals, And Retaining Walls

............................................................................................................41 1 Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Large Equipmentl Su Seismic Gaps..................................................................pports And Anchorages A

.....................................43 2, Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet................................................................. 45 l

l 3, Pipe SupportInspection Guidelines.....

..'.... 4 6 i 4, Refueling Equipment Walkdown Report......

........... 5 0 1

\\

l i

i

,i l' %

e

_.. _ _.~.-

i-l MN-1319 Structure and System Welkdowns FOR INFORMATION' Ot*LY Revision 2 Page 5 of 52 1

}

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page No.

Change No.

Page No.

Change No.

Page No.

Change No.

1 0

26 0

J 2

0 27 0

3 0

28 0

4 0

29 0

l 5

0 30 0

6 0

31 0

7 0

32 0

8 0

33 0

9 0

34 0

10 0

35 0

11 0

36 0

~

12 0

37 0

13 0

38 0

14 0

39 0

15 0

40 0

16 0

41 0

17 0

42 0

18 0

43 0

19 0

44 0

20 0

45 0

21 0

46 0

22 0

47 0

23 0

48 0

24 0

49 0

25 0

50 0

e k

--. ~.

-+-..

e e.

e

MN-1-319 Structure end System Walkdowns Revision 2 FOR INFORMATION Ot'LY Page 6 of 52

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

)

The purpose of this procedure is to provide direction for performing structure and system walkdowns and reporting / documenting the walkdown results. This procedure meets the requirements for evaluatmg structure and system material condition m accordance with the Maintenance Rule at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP).

j 1.2 Applicability / Scope i

This procedure applies to all structure and system walkdowns performed by Plant Engineering Section personnel. The level of detail may vary based upon the purposeof the walkdown, but j

the general intent and method of reportin,g walkdown results are standardized within this procedure. The assessment of the condition of structures and systems that are in the scope of the Maintenance Rule shall be performed using this procedure.

l Attachments to this Procedure A., Mechanical System Walkdown Report, and Attachment 2, Electrical System Walkdown Report, are intended to capture the results of walkdowns on mechanical and electrical systems.

l' l

B.

Attachments 3 through 11 are intended to capture the results of both baseline and ongoing walkdo.vns on structures at CCNPP that have been included in the scope of the Maintenance Rule. The attachments are applied on the basis of structure functions (functional elements) as follows:

1.

Containment Structure - applies to the interior and exterior of the containment building (Attachment 3, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Containment Structure).

2.

Concrete Structures other than Containment - applies to Auxiliary Building, Fuel Handling Building, Spent Fuel Pool Areas, Diesel Generator Buildings, etc., (Attachment 4, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Concrete Structures Other than Containment).

3.

Masonry Walls - applies to any walls that serve to separate equipment important to safety or that support equipment important to safety (Attachment 5, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Masonry Walls).

4.

Intake Structure - applies to the structure that houses the equipment that serves as the source of water for the ultimate heat sink (Salt Water Pumps and Salt Water Bays) as well as the source of circulating water for the condenser (Attacament 6, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Intake Structure).

l S.

Buried Pi i Pipe Supports, and Equipment Anchorages - applies to all buried piping ci sN,ed as important to safety, cathodic protection systems, pipe supports that are attached to equipment and piping classified as important to safety, and any anchorages that are used to secure equ,ipment important to safety (Attachment 7, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Buned Piping, Pipe Supports, and Anchorages).

6.

Steel Structures and Connections - applies to cranes, crane rails and supporting structures, and blowout panels (Attachment 8, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; p

Steel Structures and Connections).

dB m

t,..

-,u,-

l MN-1-319 Structure cad System Walkdowns Revision 2 FOR INFORMATION OL'tY Page 7 of 52 1.2 Applicability / Scope (Continued)

7. Water Storage Tanks - applies to any fluid retaining tanks that serve equipment important to safety (Attachment 9, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; % ater Storage.

Tanks).

8. Dams, Embankments, Retair ng Walls, and Canals -applies to any features of the facility intended to contain, restrain or channel water, other fluids, or soil from effectmg the functions of equipment important to safety (Attachment 10, Structure Monitormg Walkdown; Dams, Embankments, Retainmg Walls, 3

and Canals).

9. Large Equipment Supports and Anchorages and Seismic Gaps - applies to supports for such equipment as steam generators, reactor vessel, and NSSS piping. Seismic gaps refers to those features of the civil construction that allow for sway and movement during seismic events (Attachment II, Structural Monitoring Walkdown; Large Equipment Supports and Anchorages and Seismic Caps).

C. 2, Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet, is a continuation sheet that can be used with the Walkdown Record sheets for Attachments 1-11.

D. 3, Pipe Support Inspection Guidelines, provides guidance based on a CCNPP engineering standard (ES-002) for the assessment of pipe support functionality.

This guide can be used in conjunction with may of the walkdown attachments to demonstrate the capability of the pipe supports associated with a specific walkdown.

E. 4. Refueling Equipment Walkdown Repon - Refueling Machine Walkdown Report. Provides guidance for performing a visual or video inspection of Fuel Handling Eqmpment.

2.0 REFERENCES

2.1 Developmental A.

MN-1-101, Control of Maintenance Activities B.

MD-1-100, Temporary Alterations C.

OM-1-300 Outage Management D.

MN-1-112, Managing System Performance E.

PR-1-100, Preparation and Control of Calvert Cliffs Administrative Procedures F.

Administrative Procedures Writer's Manual G.

10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance At Nuclear Power Plants H.

Reg. Guide 1.160, Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance At Nuclear Power Plants I.

NUREG-1526, lesson learned from Early Implementation of the Maistenance Rule at Nine Nuclear Power Plants J.

NUREG 1522, Assessment ofinservice Conditions of Safety-Related Nuclear Plant Structures d

\\

MN Id19 Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION Ot'LY Revision 2 P ge 8 of 52 i

2.1 Developmental (Continued)

K.

NRC Inspection Procedures #62706 - Maintenance Rule, #62707 - Maintenance Observation, and #62002 - Inspection of Structures, Passive Components, and Civil Engineering Features at Nuclear Power Plants L.

NUMARC 93-01, Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants M.

NEI 96-03, Guideline for Monitoring the Cor.diticn of Structures at Nuclear Power Plants 2.2 Performance A.

EN-1-100, Engineering Service Process Overview B.

ES-002, Pipe Support inspection Standard C.

ES-005, Civil / Structural Design Criteria D.

ES-040, Piping Design Criteria E.

ES-042, Piping Functional Evaluation Criteria F.

ES-201, BGE Environmental Standard G.

MN 1-112, Managing System Performance h

H.

h NRC Region I Integrated Performance Assessment Team inspection Report 50-317/91-82 and 50-5.8/91-82. Dated January 1992. (CT9009554) 1.

OM-1-100, Managing Outages J.

PEG 13, System Tumover K.

QL-2-100, Issue Reporting and Assessment L.

QL-3-102, Program Deficiency Report Program 3.0 DEFINITIONS None.

4.0 RESPOSSIBILITIES Responsibilities are as directed in the Process section of this procedure.

5.0 PROCESS 5.1 Walkdown Purposes A.

System Engineers shall periodically walkdown their structures and systems as mandated by structure or systera performance, plant operating conditions, scheduled material condition assessments for the Maintenance Rule, or :es required by the responsible Principal Engineer.

tU

MN-1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 FOR INFORMATION O'*LY Pzge 9 of 52 i

5.1 Walkdown Purposes (Continued)

(

B.

Structure and system walkdowns shall be conducted every refueling outage to assess the materiel condition of those structures included in the scope of the Maintenance Rule program at CCNPP. The purpose of these walkdowns is to establish whether the structure or system is capable of performing its intended function. The structural system i

l engineer (System 102) is responsible for performing / monitoring these walkdowns and ensuring that the requirements of the Maintenance Rule are followed.

C.

An inspection of 11 FOST (Fuel Oil Stobe Tank), shall be conducted a r

month according to ES-201. The diesel system engineer (System 023) is respons for performmg this walkdown and documentmg it on Attachment 12, Walkdown Report Contmustion Sheet.

D.

During the performance of a walkdown the material condition of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) should be assessed such that any degraded condition will be identified, documented, cause determined, and corrective action initiated before the degradation proceeds to failum of the SSC to perform its intended functic" E.

The scope of a structure or system walkdown may vary based on the condition of the plant and the intentions of the System Engineer. The duration and level of detail of a walkdown will depend on the intent. Following are reasons for which a walkdown could be conducted:

1.

Maintenance Rule (SSC) Material Condition Assessments The Maintenance Rule requires condition monitoring to be performed to ensure that the material condition of a structure or system is maintained. For structures that are in the scope of the Maintenance Rule at CCNPP, a walkdown that determines the ses of the materiel condition of the structure or system may be the only practical way to demonstrate that the structure is capable of performing its intended functions.

2.

System Readiness Review A walkdown shoald typically be performed toward the end of a major outage to verify the readiness of the system to function. Some equipment may be in service, but equipment is typically not at normal operating conditions.

3.

Start-up Review A walkdown should be performed when the system is initially pressurized, energized or placed into normal service. This is typically performed at Mode 5, but may vary.

4.

System Engineer Familiarization Acceptance of a new syster. assignment according to PEG-13, System Turnover, should include a walkdown of the system. This will aid in familiariretion with equipment locations, arrangements, operating temperature, noise levels, process parameters, and material condition.

i aumb

a-a-,

v

.J.-,

,au.

m,en a mma-

,m.

,-_a,--

--ou-A

,aSA-A

-sg 4--

R 5

95M04->A- - -4

-mammhm,4

.e.,4 M a M AAJ-6A,-Ma.,a 6-4a-a.4--em wM-4a,m_.,_en + b.

6e4 s w h me m a 4,m A_ s_

d i

d 4

d J

N J

1

.e i

i l

}

)

t b

i e

t h.

I d.

4 k

1' 1

i T

2 1

4 e

f f

+4 9 4

4 t

d 4

d p

t

)

i

?.

Iij 4

J*

4 4

e o

a h

1 I

l 1

i m

MN-1 319 Structure and Syst;m Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION OMLY Revision 2 Page 10 of 52 fm 5.1 Walkdown Purposes (Continued)

(V) 5.

Pre Outage Review Subsequent to a major, planned outage, a walkdown typically will help verify the completeness of the documented system problems. An in-plant review of both system and major equipment performance characteristics will help to identify additional outage work scope and may preclude subsequent forced outages.

l 6.

Job Specific Walkdowns Job Specific walkdowns can be performed as required, to witness work or modifications being performed on the system, or as part of the modification process as detailed in EN-1-100, Engineering Service Process Overview. This l

walkdown should be narrow in scope and focused on the work or modification at hand.

7.

Periodic Walkdown At regular intervals (typically monthly, or as negotiated with the responsible Principal Engineer) the System Engineer shall perform a walkdown of the system. The extent of the walkdown shall be negotiated with the Principal Engineer. The intervals and extent of the periodic walkdowns shall be documented to the GS-PES in a memo. Specific areas walked down shall be noted on Attachment 1, Mechanical System Walkdown Report, or Attachment 2, Electrical System Walkdown Report, as applicable. The intent of this walkdown is to identify and record any new or existing condition that could prevent the system or a component from performing its intended function. Any or all of the p) above mentioned walkdowns (steps 5.1.B.1 through 5.1.B.5) can be g

accomplished as part of the Periodic Walkdown.

V 5.2 Walkdown Objectives A.

The objectives of Structure or System Walkdowns include:

1.

Functionality The primary objective of a structure or system walkdown is to assess the condition of SSCs, ensure the safety and power generation functionality of the SSCs (i.e., the system will perform when u%.! upon), and ensure that the SSCs.

This includes identifying missing compo7 ems. safety tags, Issue Repoit tags, incomplete maintenance, temporary moMicmim.s, unavailable support systems, de-energized equipment, or other tags th At on e rotential indicators of functionality concerns.

2.

SSC Stress or Abuse Thermal insulation damage, bent or broken hangers, distress to equipment anchorage, excess piping motion or vibration, and damaged tubing or flex conduits are examples of potential stress or abuse to the system. Excessive vibrations, unusual noises, excessive temperatures, discolored fluids, relay chatter, indications of flow through closed valves, external leakage of fluids, corona dischar es, or are paths are some examples of potential equipment stress.

The purpose o this objective is to assess the condition of SSCs J

MN-1-319 j

Structure end System Walkdowns R"'"

FOR INFORMATION OMLY ag of52 5.2 Walkdown Objectives (Continued) 1 4

3.

Safety / Fire Hazards

}

Broken doors or hardware; inappropriate breaches of fire or flood barriers; j-broken, loose, or missing groundmg devices; personnel injury hazards; and missing equipment guards are examples of ufety or fire hazards.

[

4.

General Housekeeping Condition i

i-i-

Debris, cleanliness, condition of painted surfaces, lighting, inappropriate use or storage of materials or tools, covers not in place, and unreadable, out of-date or i

missing labels and signs are examples ofhousekeeping concerns. Poor

{

housekeeping can lead to loss of Foreign Material Exclusion (FME) control.

5.

Conditions Adverse to Quality 1

l Conditions adverse to quality are conditions outlined in QL-3-102, Program f.

Deficiency Report Program, and are first documented by issue Re,rmrts according to QL-2-100, Issue Reportir.g and Assessment.

6.

Unauthorized Temporary Alterations An unauthorized Temporary Alteration is any plant configuration change that has not been evaluated for operational acceptability by an approved process. If such conditions are identified during the walkdown, the following course of action shall be followed:

Verify that the condition is a:. unauthorized temporary alteration by a.

consulting MD-1 100, Temporary Alterations. The Design Engineering organization should be consulted for guidance.

b.

If the condition is concluded to be an unauthorized temporary alteration, document the condition on an Issue Report according to QL-2-100.

After the condition is documented on an Issue Report, perform one of c.

the following, as applicable:

(1)

If the condition is not required for continued safe operation, IMMEDIATELY have the unauthorized temporary alteration removed.

(2)

If the condition is required for continued safe operation and is temporary in nature, IMMEDIATELY initiate a temporary l

alteration according to MD-1 100.

1 (3)

If the condition is required for continued safe operation and is permanent in nature, IMMEDIATELY initiate an Engineering Service Process (ESP)iew.according to EN-1-100, Engineenng Service Process Overv Q

w e

,.,-.r y-,y f

Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION OMLY

[e$3;on$

I'3 Ptge 12 of 52 5.2 Walkdown Objectives (Continued)

(

7.

Structure Degradation If structure degradation is observed during the performance of a structure I

walkdown, an IR should be issued to ensure that cause is determined and l

corrective action is initiated. Additionally, the assessment of materiel condition l

performed after the walkdown is completed will serve as the demonstration of acceptable performance per the Maintenance Rule and will be used to disposition the structure as either (a)(1) or (a)(2).

If a structure is determined to be (a)(1) all of the requirements of a.

MN-1-112 apply.

b.

Structures placed in (a)(1) will require increased monitoring (walkdowns) and materiel condition assessments to ensure that the corrective action is effective and that the graded material condition of the structure is arrested or eliminated and the structure will be capable of performing its intended function.

5.3 Structure Walkdown A.

The intent of the structure walkdown is to perform a visual inspection of the structure for the purpose of determining if any degradation that is noted could potentially challenge the ability of the structure to perform its intended functions. These walkdowns and the subsequent assessments of structure condition meets the intent of condition monitoring as identified in NUMARC 93 01 for compliance with the requirement of the Maintenance Rule.

7.

3 (V)

B.

The walkdowns should be as intrusive as necessary to ensure identified deficiencies or structure degradation will not result in structure failure or :oss of structure function.

I Following completion of the walkdowns the system engineer shall make a determination of the structure s status from a performance basis such that the structure may be characterized as either (a)(1) or (a)(2) per the Maintenance Rule.

C.

If structure degradation or component failures are noted during the walkdown, the system engineer should involve the Principal Engineer-Maintenance Component Engineering Unit (PE-MCEU) to ensure that the structure is capable of performing its intended function. Degradation of structures or structure components / elements should be documented and resolved through the issue Report process.

D.

Assessments of structure degradation should be based on previous walkdowns. This should consist of a comparison of the last walkdown with the results of the current walk down to determine if the degradation is dynamic or static. Dynamic degradation should be the subject of an IR and should have a plan of corrective action. Typically degradation will proceed at a slow rate that over time will result in a failure or loss of structure function. 'Iherefore, if a dynamic mechani:m of degradation is involved, the structure should be considered for (a)(1) designation.

i 1

MN-1-319 Structure and Syst m Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION Ot'LY Revision 2 1

Page 13 of 52 i

j 5.3 Structure Walkdown (Continued) 1 J

An example of dynamic degradation of a structural element would be a safety related pump destal that has extensive cracking and the pump anchor / mounting bolts are i

i pullin loose such that the pump is exhibiting abnormal vibration and movement during surve lance tests. Static degradation of a structure would be degradation that is arrested 1

or that is proceeding at such a slow rate that the functional capability of the structure would not be challenged. Cracking of a concrete wall that shows no other indications of j

failure and is not a threat to other SSCs meeting intended functions would be an j

example. In either case good engineering practice and reviews of each individual instance of structural degradation that has been identified should be applied.

4 i

E.

The performance of a structure walkdown will be documented by the use of the appropriate checklist in the attachments section. De structure walkdown checklists are i

Attachments 1 through 11 and should be used in by the system engineer to record the 1

condition of the structures as noted during the walkdown.

F.

Upon completion of the structure walkdown, the system engineer,and, the PE-MCEU will determine if the performance of the structure is acceptable by reviewmg any degradation i

identified against acceptable limits contained in industry standards, mdustry codes, or design / license basis documents. His evaluation will provide the basis for the assessment that the structure is either (a)(1) or (a)(2) within the context of the Maintenance Rule.

ii~

G.

The completed structure walkdown package including the observations and performance a

assessment will be forwarded to the Maintenance Rule Coordinator (MR.). The MR.

will schedule the package and the performance assessment results for Expert Panel j

review and approval. The system engineer and the PE MCEU should attend the expert panel meeting and provide technical mput during the review process.

H.

Documentation associated with the disposition of the structure walkdowns will be j

retained by the MR for future reference and the results will be included in the (a)(3) periodic assessment report required by the Maintenance Rule.

I.

Structure walkdowns should be performed every refueling outage and scheduled to er.sure that every structure at CCNPP will receive a walkdown as a minimum every third refueling outage. Hence, a structure performance arsessment will be performed on each 1-structure once every 6 years (minimum). Each structural element that is a component of a given structure should be reviewed during the 6 year interval such that items such as expansionjoints, moisture seals, metal coatings and insulation that can degrade the

}

overall performance of a structure are assessed in a timely manner. Any extension of the inspection frequency beyond the 6 year interval requires an approval from the GS-PES; The attachments to this procedure provides a sampling of the types of structural elements J

to be assessed.

5.4 System Walkdown A.

The intent of the walkdown is to perform a VISUAL INSPECTION, not necessarily a comprehensive physical inspection. If during the inspection, deviations from design conditions are noted or suspected, the System Engineer shall further investigate the condition. The detail of the inspection and the investigation is left to the discretion of the System Engineer.

B.

The System Engineer should normally be aware of changes to his system; if necessary, he should perform a review of open documentation for the system prior to the field walkdown. This should include the latest " system report card"(SSIP), ope,n MOs, PDRs, approved temporary modifications, major and minor modifications m progress, O

w-

Structure and Systrm Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION Ot'LY R

sion

~

Page 14 of 52 deferred PMs, previous System Walkdown Reports, and other open items or issues.

5.4 System Walkdown (Continued)

\\

/

C.

Conditions adverse to functionality, indications of system or equipment stress or abuse, safety or fire hazards and housekeeping deficiencies shall be documented on Attachment t

1, Mechanical System Walkdown Repon; Attachment 2, Electrical System Walkdown Report; (and Attachment 12, Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet), as required, and an issue Report,if required.

D.

l The System Engineer may organize a walkdown team as appropriate to report to the area to be visited. This may include personnel from; PES, Maintenance, Operations, Fire and Safety, Building Se vices, Radiation Protection, Chemistry, or other interested groups.

Craft sup rt should be considered appropriate to facilitate access to system equipment orto orm minor tasks authorized by rover MOs. All craft actions shall be.according to station procedures. One-person walkdowns are not prohibited, however, whenever practicable, System Engineers are encouraged to do walkdowns in pairs. The second mdividual can be another System Engineer doing a walkdown in the same area, or the Work Group Leader. Planning for a walkdown should include special work permita and considerations of ALARA, as well as an elevated awareness of any trip-sensitive equipment to be encountered. Walkdowns should be scheduled for plant conditions that provide good indicatior.s of systr.m functionality.

E.

The walkdown team should visit as much of the system as was negotiated with the Principal Engineer (see step 5.1.B.7), that is reasonably accessible. Consideration l

should be given to ALARA, safety, plant conditions, and other inspections of the same areas. All unusual conditions should be recorded on Attachments 1,2, or 12, as l

applicable.

l C F.

All conditions requiring corrective action must be accompanied by an " Action Taken" statement and documented on the System Walkdown Report (Attachment 1 or 2) in the

" NOTES" section. Examples of Action Taken are initiation of an issue Report and a GOLD card. Detailed documentation such as an Issue Report number shall also be recorded on the attachments. Suitable compensatory action should be taken for safety hazards prior to walking away from the area.

G.

Areas visited during the walkdown shall be documented on the System Walkdown Report.

H.

Completed System Walkdown Reports shall be provided to the unit Principal Engineer, Work Group Leader, and the system file (Section 1).

t 5.5 Piping Inspection Notes A.

While performing system walkdowns, it is important to look for problems that can lead to fatigue failures of piping. These failures can cause personnel and plant safety risks and the forced oatages that accompany them. It is especially important to watch for problems on unisolable lines, or lines that if pressure is lost, a trip will occur such as Instrument Air, EHC (electro-hydraulic control), drains to the condenser, etc., Failures on high energy lines are particularly dan erous to plant personnel. ISI (in-service wall thinnm) inspects piping hangers and orms UTS (ultrasonic testing) to determine if inspection 1

g is taking place on selected ines. System Engineers need to look at the overall system. These notes are meant to be a guide of things to look for and think about during walkdowns.

l B.

Most piping failures are due to FATIGUE. Ieok for the following conditions, which can

[

set up vibration or harmonic motion of the piping:

ik a.o

,%e

,._r-e

MN-Idl9 Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORwm' N O'lY Revision 2 l

Page 15 of S2

{

p 1.

Valve cycling or chauer.

2.

Cavitation noise.

5.5 Piping Inspection Notes (Continued) i 3.

Inadequate support of a smaller branch line off of a larger pipe (also cantilevers).

4.

Discharge of a positive displacement pump.

l S.

Vibration of another piece of equipment or rotating machine to which the pipe is attached or by which it is supported.

i.

l 6.

Piping or piping supports exhibiting excessive motion.

C.

Other items that can contribute to fatigue failure or result in overstress of pipes include:

i 1.

Cantilevers (relatively heavy components hanging off others with little support).

i l

2.

Piping interference with other piping or components.

3.

Evidence of rubbing or corrosion causing wall loss.

4.

Hangers that are broken or out of adjustment.

5.

Pipe supports welded directly to the piping.

D.

Other considerations in piping problems are:

1.

Failures eften occur at weldjoints. Socket welds provide high stress risers.

2.

Pipe wall thickness: usually thick-walled piping is less susceptible to fatigue than thin-walled pipe.

3.

Piping grows thermally: an inspection of cold piping often will not reveal a problem that is occurrmg in the hot position.

4.

Adding supports may increase stress (not all shaking piping is bad).

E.

If a potential problem exists, but additional guidance is needed, contact supervision or another experienced member of PES or DES to aid in the determination. Reference L

piping and support drawings during the review. Involve DES immediately and document the condition in an Issue Report when a problem is confirmed.

5.6 Ominge Work Scope Changes A.

As a result of walkdowns, System Engineers may identify equipment def;ciencies that, in their opinion, reduce a system's capability to carry out its design fur clons. These l

deficiencies may also require the system to operate without all ofits desired indications and annunciation. Along with the action noted on Attachments 1,2, or 12, the System l

Engineer may include equipment deficiencies in a planned or forced outage work list j.

according to OM-1-100, Octage Management. On the other hand, the System Engineer may identify activities that should not be included in planned or forced outages.

6.0 BASES r-f-

i i

Rev:s.'$l9

1. 3 Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORl/. ATIC',' 0"LY

+

i ion 2 4

Page 16 of 52

None, j

l i

J 9

J 1

l.

i 1

,i I

i l

ii i -

1 i

4 t

E' d

4 2

i i

f,

.b 8

5 1

i 4

4 d

amm 4

4 s

Y

Structure and System Welkdowns FOR INFORMATION 051Y

1. :1.~319 Revision 2 Page 17 of 52 7.0 RECORDS A.

Records generated by this procedure include:, Mechanical System Walkdown Report, Electrical System Walkdown Report, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Containment Structure

\\, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Concrete Structures Other than Containment

', Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Masonry Walls

., Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Intake Structure, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Buried Piping, Pipe Supports, and Anchorag:s, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Steel Structures and Connections

,, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Storage Tanks i 0, Structure Monitoring Walkdown; Dams, Embankments, Retaining

)

Walls, and Canals i 1, Structural Monitoring Walkdown; Large Equipment Supports and l

Anchorages and Seismic Gaps 2, Walkdown Report Continuation Sheet 4, Refueling Equipment Walkdown Report Refueling Machine Walkdown Report B.

Upon completion of a walkdown, completed forms and instructions shall be forwarded to Document and Information Retrieval Services according to PR-3-100, Records Management. A copy of the documentation should also be sent to the Maintenance Rule Coordinator.

C.

The Maintenance Rule Coordinator should record the performance of all structure and system walkdowns and include the results as part of the Periodic Assessment required by Paragraph (aX3) of the Maintenance Rule.

b

-m i

a i

FOR INFORMATION OVlY 1

MN-1-319 1

Structure end System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 18 of 52 0

(

ATTACHMENT 1, MECHANICAL SYSTEM WALKDOWN REPORT MECHANICAL SYSTEM WALKDOWN REPORT i

l NAME:

DATE:

/

/

4, j

SYSTEM:

U1 MODE: 1 2 3 4 5 D U2 MODE: 1 2 3 4 5 D N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN

=

j INSP DESCRIPTION OR / MO NUMBERS)

-1.0 VALVES NOTES:

-Installed in proper flow direction?

In correct position for current mode?

i Properly labeled?

l Any unusual packing leakage?

d Bent stem or missing har d wheel?

Stem threads properly lubricated?

i Any air, steam or hydraulic leaks noted?

lContmued? Yes No j

2.0 PUMPS NOTES:

j Any unusual noises noted?

- Properly labeled?

Properly lubricated?

Unusual packing or sealleakage?

Motor amperage normal?

l Discharge pressure norma!?

Ontmued? Yes No j

3.0 CONDUIT & PIPE SUPPORTS NOTES:

j 5prms cans bottomed / topped out?

f

! /

Proper eyebolt engagement on sway strut?

! k Good bearing surface contact on base plates?

)

Do snubbers have sufficient fluid in reservoir?

?

Structural concrete spallmg' damage?

4 Binding? Properalignment? Tooloose 4

Arc supports painted?

Vents / drain lines properly suppTted?

SEE ATT 4 d /J EOR GU/ DANCE (Contar d? Yes i

No j

4.0 INSIRUMENTATION& BREAKERS NOTES:

j Properly mstaucd and funcuonal?

Leaking fittmas?

8

- Any missing components on tubing supports?

Components oroperty labeled?

Breakers in proper position?

IContmued' Yes No i

5.0 TEMPORARY ALTERATIONS NOTES:

Are exisung temp alts property posted?-

i j

Are there any unauthonzed temp alts?

(Un. evaluated installation, removal or 4

modification of plant configuration)

SEE SECT. J.J.A.6 TOR GUIDANCE lConunued? Yes No j

6.0 GENERAL NOTES:

]

insulation properly mstalled?

- Heat tracing installed and operational?

Significant process parameter values consistent with current mode?

Components 4coms adequately 2 -'

cooled / ventilated?

j Operator sids, signs, temp notes and label i

n N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

' f N/l:

Not Inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

~

4 2

= - ~

)

l 1

+

l FOR INFCRMATlON 05'LY MN-1-319 Structure and Systzm Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 19 of 52

./O plates conectly ported and logged?

IR tags in the field still appropriate?

- Is general housekeeping within set standards?

Are there any safety concerns?

- Are coatings applied and intact?

IContinued? Yes No l

l l-I i

l i

l l

t l r i

(\\

l l

i

~

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not Inspectable INSP: -Inspected s

l-SHEET OF

r FOR INFORMATION OMLY MN.1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 20 of 52 b

ATTACHMENT 2, ELECTRICAL SYSTEM WALKDOWN REPORT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM WALKI)OWN REPORT NAME DATE:

/

/

SYSTEM:

Ul MODE: 12 3 4 5 D U2 MODE: 1 2 3 4 5 D N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP DESCRIPTION (IR /MO NUMBERS)

-1.0 TRA'NSFORMERS -

- NOTES:

- Oil leaks?

. Fans operating?

. Oil pumps operating?

}

Temperatures correct?

l Pressures correct?

Control panels in good condition?

All hardware intact?

Paint degraded?

ICommued? Yes No 2.0 MOTORS NOTES:

. Any unusual noises noted?

Any unusual vibrations?

- Motor emperage normal?

Properly labeled?

lConunued? Yes No 3.0 BREAKERS NOTES:

Cabmets are mtact - no loose parts?

No broken indicators?

I No dropped flags on relaying?

Breakers properly installed?

. lf breaker out of cubicle, is it restrained from rolling around?

Are supports painted?

- Are vents and drain lines properly supported?

Flex conduit connected?

IContmued? Yes No 4.0 INSTRUMENTATION NOTES:

No broken paru?

. In calibration?

IContmued) Yes No 5.0 TEMPORARY ALTERATIONS NOTES

. Are existmg temp alts iWy posted?

r

- Are there any unauthorned temp alts?

(Un evaluated installation, removal or modification of plant configuration)

SEE SECT. J.J.A 6 fox GUIDANCE IConunued? \\ es No 6.0 GENERAL NOTES:

C-

.w.

adequately 2

cooled / ventilated?

. Operator aids, signs, temp notes and label piases correctly posted and logged?

- Do IR tags in the field identify existing deficiencies?

(

ls general housekeeping within set standards?

. Are there any safety concems?

IConunued? Yes No

[

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not Inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

\\

FOR INFORMATION' OklY MN-1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 i

Page 21 of 52 l

d ATTACHMENT 3, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE (Page 1 of 3)

UNIT CONTAINMENT STRUCTIJRE PLANT MODE PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 1.0 CONTAINMENTSUPPORTS AND.

PRESENT PRESENI' IR #

PRESTRESSING ELEMENTSA'ENDONS ORN/A 1.

Excessive environmental degradation (exterior and interior):

A.

Concrete cracking?

B.

Concrete Spalling?

C.

Visible Signs of water intrusion?

D.

Mineral deposits?

i 11.

Unacceptable Corrosion of embedded i

steel /rebar:

l l

A.

Hairline cracks?

l B.

Rust Staining?

C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

111.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attached metal components:

A.

Corrosion of bolts?

B.

Corrosion of metal support plates?

C.

Corrosion of anchorages / supports?

IV.

Unacceptable Degradation of Tendons and Associated Equipment:

A.

Buttress Degradation?

B.

Tendon Grease leakage?

l V.

Misc. Observations:

i Continued? YES NO-Attach Notes to this form NOT 2.0 SETTLEMENT OF PRESENT PRESENT IR #.

i l

CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE OR N/A 1.

Observed settlement of the containment i

structure:

l A.

Excessive misalignment of pipes i

and penetration hardware?

B.

Excessive cracking and stress fractures of concrete?

C.

Excessive warping of steel parts / liner?.

D.

Excessive misalignment of major equipment?

E.

Test results indicate excessive settlement?

11.

Misc. Ooservations:

Continued? YES NO - Anach Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable

+

l \\

INSP: Inspected i

SHEET OF i

~

l.

l _ _ _ _ _.. _ _. _. _. _

FOR INFORMATION Ot'LY t

MN 1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 22 of 52 ATTACHMENT 3, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE (Page 2 of 3)

}

CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE i

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN(IR/MO NUMBERS) s NOT (3A iPOUNDATION DRAINAGE SYSTEM

PRESENT, PRESENT

IR #.

l w

ORN/A IV.

Draage s)ei... capable of transfernng water from stnicture:

Standm' g water or watermarks at l

base of buildina?

Standmg waterin building exterior pits and below grade equipment areas?

Evidence orpresence of ground water mtrusion?

Excessive standing water or evidence of standmg water (rust stains)in undesirable areas??

i D g.dstion of concrete, grout, or metalcomponents(corrosion)due to submeraence? -

Missing moisture exclusion, gap seal and-or expansionjoint material?

11.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO-Anach Notes to this form NOT 4.0 INTEGRITY OF FOUNDATION STRUCTURES PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A IV.

Equipment suppon capable of transferring all i

loads:

Gaps Mween equipment and base?

Support lose or not secured to base?

Dase cracked or degraded?

V.

Equipment anchorage system functional:

Grout suppon chair not intact or degraded?

l Base Plate missing or degraded?

l:

Anchor Bolts missing or degraded?

l1 Nuts missing or degraded?

l Continued? YES NO-Attach Notes to this form l

111.

Unacceptable corrosion of metal l

components:

l Co...sion of anchor bolts?

Corrosion of anchorages?

Corrosion of support plates?

IV.

Misc. Observations:

~~

j.

Continued? YES NO-Anach Notes to this form t

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

)

N/l:

Notinspectable

%_/

INSP: Inspected r

SHEET OF

Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION OLY MN-1,-319 Revision 2 Page 23 of 52 O

ATTACHMENT 3, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE (Page 3 of 3)

CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN(IR/MO NUMBERS)

STRUCTURALSTEEL COMPONENTS

.NOT

.5.0

- (INCLUDES PIPING / EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS -

.PRESENT PRESENT IR W AND LINER)

OR N/A 1.

Unacceptable corrosion of structt'ral steel:

A.

Corrosion of metal structt ral elements?

B.

Corrosion of metal beams?

C.

Corrosion of steelsupport members?

11.

Degradation due to corrosion:

A.

Rust stains?

B.

Flaking / bubbling of protective coatings?

111.

Misc. Observations Continued? YES NO-Anach Notes to this form NOT 6.0 REVIEW OFINTEGRATED PRESENT PRESENT IR #

LEAK RATE TESTING RESULTS (yes)

(no)or N/A 1.

ILRT results acceptable?

11.

Misc. Observations Contmued? YES NO - A.1ach Notes to this form NOT 7.0 MOISTURE BARRIERS, SEALS, PRESENT PRESENT IR #

AND EXPANSION JOINTS OR N/A 1.

Loss or damage of barriers to moisture intrusion?

A.

Absence of sealmg material or damage to expansion joints?

B.

Presence of standmg water or accumulated moisture?

C.

Corrosion of metal structural elements?

D.

Corrosion of metal beams?

J..

Corrosion oJ steel support members?

F.

Corrosion of steel plates?

11.

Degradation of Equipment enclosures (RoOCeilina):

A. ' Standmg water or water intrusion

, _ from ceiling or walls?

B.

Water marks on ceilmgs, floors, or equipment surfaces?

111.

Misc. Observations Conunued? YES NO - Anach Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF e

h -

m v-

=

k I

Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION OMLY MN 1,-319 Revision 2 3

Page 24 of 52

\\

ATTACHMENT 4, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONCRETE STRUCTURES i

OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT (Page 1 of 5) i 2

CONCRETE STRUCTURFR OTHFR THAN CONTAINMENTI UNIT PLANT MODE l

PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

l N/A

' N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN(IR/MO NUMBERS) i NOT I.0 j

~

CONCRETE SLABS, BEAMS, COLUMNS, BASE PRESENT PRESEN'T IR #

> PLATES, AND FOUNDATIONS

-O R N/A j

1.

Excessive environmental degradation:

j A.

Concrete cracking?

j B.

Concrete Spalling?

C.

Visible Signs of water intrusion?

i D.

Mineral deposits?

j 11.

Unacceptable Corrosion of embedded j

steel /rebar:

j.

A.

Hairline cracks?

B.

Rust Staining?

3 C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

I 111.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attached metal components:

A.

Corrosion of bolts?

l B.

Corrosion of metal support plates?

i C.

Corrosion of anchorages / supports?

j IV.

Unacceptable settlement of foundations and j

slabs:

4 A.

Misalignment of rnajor components j

in the struerure?

B.

Cracking or warping of structural j

elements due to settlement?

j V.

Misc. Observations:

1 Continued? YES NO-Ansch Notes to this form I This category of structure is meant to include Auxiliary Buildings, Fuel Handling Buildings, Spent Fuel Pool Areas, Diesel Generator buildings, Spent Fuel and refueling Pool, etc.

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

h N/I:

Not Inspectable d

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

i i

Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION OMLY MN 1-319 Revision 2 Page 25 of 52

\\

ATTACHMENT 4, STRUCTURE ?,ONITORING WALKDOWN; CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER TILW CONTAINMENT (Page 2 of 5)

CONCRETE STRUCTURER OTHFR TRAN CONTAINMENT N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN i

INSP STRUCTURAQtJgjjf ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 2,0 EQCWfR1LT$UPPORTS ~

PRESENT PRESENT IR #

AipyyMTING OR N/A 1.

Equipment support capable of transferring allloads:

A.

Gaps Miween equipment and base?

B.

SuppeG lose or not secured to base?

C.

Base cracked or degraded?

11.

Equipment anchorage system functional:

A.

Grout support chair not in tact or degraded?

B.

Base Plate missing or degraded?

C.

Anchor Bolts missing or degraded?

D.

Nuts missing or degraded?

111.

Unacceptable corrosion of metal components:

A.

Corrosion of anchor bolts?

B.

Corrosion of anchorages?

l C.

Corrosior, of support plates?

IV.

Misc. Obsenations:

Continued? YES NO - Attach Notes to this form NOT 3.0 WATER RETAINING STRUCTURES PRESENT PRESEhT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Condition of metallic and non-metallic liners:

A.

Excessive corrosion and cracking?

B.

Excessive differential settlement?

l C.

Excessive degradation or corrosion of underwater parts?

i D.

Excessive L.eakage from tell-tale drains?

l f

l N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

i N/l:

Not inspectable h

INSP: Inspected i.

SHEET OF

FOR INFORMATION' OMLY MN 1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 26 of 52 ATTACHMENT 4, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT (Page 3 of 5)

CONCRETE STRUCTURF5: OTHFR THAN CONTAINMENT N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT "3.04 A WATER RETAINING STRUCTURES PRESENT.

PRESENT-IR #

OR N/A 11.

Condition of concrete sumps and fluid liner structural supports A.

Cracking and degradation of concrete?

7 B.

Degradation of reinforcing steel?

C.

Separation or differential settlement between structural support and liner?

111.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO-Ansch Notes to this form

.NOT 4.0 FOUNDATIONS, UNDERSIDE OF GROUND PRESENT PRESENT IR #

FLOOR SLAB, AND ROOFS / CEILINGS O R N/A O.

1.

Excessive environmental degradation A.

Concrete cracking?

B.

Concrete Spalling?

C.

Visible Signs of water intrusion?

D.

Mineral depotits?

11.

Unacceptable Corrosion of embedded steel /rebar:

A.

Hairline cracks?

B.

Rust Staining?

C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

111.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attached metal components:

A.

Corrosion of bolts?

B.

Corrocion of metal support plates?

C.

Corrosion of anchorages / supports?

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

O N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

Structure and System Walkdowns OWJMOU

$jsion Page 27 of 52 ATTACHMENT 4, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONCRETE STRUCTURES i

OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT (Page 4 of 5)

CONCRETE STRUCTURFR OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT

= 4.0 -

- FOUNDATIONS, UNDERSIDE OF GROUND'

~ PRESENT.

PRESENT-IR #

FIA)OR SLAB, AND ROOFS / CEILINGS OR N/A IV.

Unacceptable water intrusion:

A.

Rainwater /groundwaterintrusion through roof or ceilings?

B.

Groundwater intrusion through floors, structuraljoints or walls j

t C.

Failure of the groundwater drainage system?

i D.

Failure of the floor drain system?

V.

Misc. Observations Continued? YES NO - Attach Notes to this form NOT 5.0 STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

(INCLUDES PIPING / EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS)

OR N/A i

(,

1.

Unacceptable corrosion of structural steel:

A.

Corrosion of metal structural elements?

B.

Corrosion of metal beams?

C.

Corrosion of steel support members?

11.

Degradation due to corrosion:

A.

Rust stains?

B.

Flaking / bubbling of protective coatings?

Misc. Observations Contmued? YES NO-Attach Notes to this form I

i~

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspect loie INSP: Inspectec' SHEET OF l

i I~

1

-,mv w

e-n m,

,~

--r

---

m

FOR INFORMATION Ot.Y MN 1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 7

I Page 28 of 52

(

{

ATTACHMENT 4, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; CONCRETE STRUCTURES i

OTHER THAN CONTAINMENT (Page 5 of 5)

CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHTR THAN CONTAINMENT N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

I NOT

~ 6.0

' CONCRETE PRESTRESSING SYSTEM PRESENT PRESENT' IR #

OR N/A 1.

Degradation of grouted prestressing j

elements:

A.

Excessive moisture intrusion?

j B.

High stress cracking / corrosion of anchors present?

C.

Corrosion of tendons?

I 11.

Degradation of greased prestressing j

elements:

l A.

Excessive grease leakage?

]

B.

Excessive Corrosion of metal parts?

C.

Tendon / concrete / anchor i

degradation?

111.

Misc. Observations 4

l Continued? YES NO - Attach Notes to this form 1

NOT l

7.0 CEILINGS, MOISTURE BARRIERS, SEALS, PRESENT PRESENT IR #

AND EXPANSION JOINTS OR N/A 1.

Loss or damage of barriers to moisture intrusion?

e A.

Absence of sealing material or damage to expansion joints?

l B.

Presence of standing water or accumulated moisture?

i C.

Corrosion of metal structural elements?

D.

Corrosion of metal beams?

E.

Corrosion of steel support j

members?

F.

Corrosion of steel plates?

11.

Degradation of Roof / Ceiling:

A.

Standing water or water intrusion from ceiling or walls?

l B.

Water marks on ceilings, floors, or equipment surfaces?

Ill.

Misc. Observations i

Continued? YES NO-Attach Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

FOR INFORMATION OP.LY MN 1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 29 of 52

\\

ATTACHMENT 5, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; MASONRY WALLS (Page1of2)

UNIT MASONRY WALIS PLANT MODE j

PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

l N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT I

1.0 SURFACE CONDITION PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Excessive surface degradation of walls:

A.

Deficiencies in joints?

B.

Differential movement ofjoints?

C.

Evidence of warping, bulging, or sagging of components?

11.

Misc. Observations:

l Continued? YES NO - Attach Notes to this form NOT 2.0 CRACKING WALLS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Cracking of masonry walls:

A.

Presence of extensive cracking?

B.

Presence of extensive shifting of base joint?

C.

Presence of extensive shifting of ceiling joint?

D.

Loss of grout or mortar?

11.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO - Attach Notes to this form NOT 3.0 MASONRY WALL SUPPORTS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Support structures that anchor walls to minimize movement:

A.

Lateral supports not anchored properly B.

Excessive differential settlement?

C.

Excessive degradation or corrosion of support elements / parts?

11.

Misc. Observations:

Contenued? YES NO-Attach Notes to this form

(

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF m

,w yr-

• r-i w

r r

rw v

r-

FOR INFORMATION O'lY MN-1-319 Structure and Systern Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 30 of 52 O

ATTACHMENT 5, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; MASONRY WALLS (Page 2 of 2)

MASONRY WAl 1 A N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED

/IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 4.0

. METAL COMPONENTL PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Unaccsytable Corrosion of embedded steet/rebar:

A.

Hairline cracks?

B.

Rust Staining?

C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

11.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attached metal components:

A.

Corrosion of bolts?

B.

Corrosion of metal support plates?

C.

Corrosion of anchorages / supports?

lit.

Misc. Observations Continued? YES NO.. Attach Notes to this form NOT O

5.0 BOUNDING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Unacceptable condition ofjoints at ceiling

~

and floor interface with walls:

A.

Cracking or excessive gaps between ceiling interface with wall?

B.

Cracking or excessive gaps between floor and interface with wall?

C.

Absence ofjoint sealant material between wall and ceiling or floor?

D.

Cracking of ceiling or floor at wall boundary indicating excessive loading?

11.

Misc. Observations Continued' YES NO - Attach Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

D 3

N/l:

Not inspectable j

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

FOR INFORMATION OMLY MN-1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 31 of 52 ATTACIBIENT 6, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; INTAKE STRUCTURE (Page 1 of 4)

UNIT INTAKE STRUCTURE PLANT MODE PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 1.0 FLUID RETAINING WALLS AND SLAB PRESENT PRESENT IR#

OR N/A '

l.

Excessive environmental degradation (salt water corrosion):

A.

Concrete cracking?

B.

Concrete Spalling?

C.

Visible Signs of water intrusion?

D.

Mineral deposits?

11.

Unacceptable Corrosion of embedded steel /rebar:

A.

Hairline cracks?

~

B.

Rust Staining?

C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

111.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attached metal components:

p A.

Corrosion of bolts?

(

B.

Corrosion of metal suppon plates?

C.

Corrosion of anchorages / supports?

IV.

Misc. Observations:

Contmucd? YES NO. Ansch Notes to this form 1

l l

I l

I

('

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

{

(

N/l:

NotInspectable l

N INSP: Inspected i

SHEET OF

FOR INFORMATION OLY MN-1 319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 32 of 52

.p ATTACHMENT 6, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; INTAKE STRUCTURE (Page 2 of 4)

INTAKE STRUCTURE N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 12.0

~ EQUIPMENTSUPPORTS AND MOUNTING.

PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A j

1.

Equipment suppon capable of transferring all loads:

A.

Gaps between equipment and base?

B.

Suppon lose or not secured to base?

C.

Base cracked or degraded?

11.

Equipment anchorage system functional:

A.

Grout suppon chair not intact or degraded?

B.

Base Plate missing or degraded?

^

C.

Anchor Bolts missing or degraded?

D.

Nuts missing or degraded?

111.

Unacceptable corrosion of metal components:

A.

Corrosion of anchor bolts?

B.

Corrosion of anchorages?

C.

Corrosion of suppon plates?

IV.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO a Ana:h Notes to this form NOT 3.0 INTAKE AND DISCHARGE TUNNELS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Intake and discharge tunnels serviceable and functional:

A.

Excessive debns?

B.

Excessive differential settlement?

C.

Excessive Degradation or corrosion of underwater pans?

D.

Corrosion of embedded steel?

E.

Cracking circulatmg water 108" pre-stressed piping? Note size, location, direction of travel (axial, i

circumferential)in pan 11 below, Misc. Observations F.

Damaged or degraded pipe joints?

II.

Misc. Observations:

~

Continued $ YES NO. Ansch Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not Inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATC! 0'!Y MN-1-319 Revision 2 Page 33 of 52 ATTACHMENT 6, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; INTAKE STRUCTURE (Page 3 of,4)

INTAKE STRUCTURE N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT

. 4.0 -

FOUNDATIONS AND UNDERSIDE OF '

.PRESENT

~PRESENT'

. IR # ~

1 GROUND FLOOR SLAB OR N/A '

i 1.

Excessive environmental degradation (salt water corrosion):

A.

Concrete cracking?

B.

Concrete Spallmg?

C.

Visible Signs of water intrusion?

D.

Mineral deposits?

11.

Unacceptable Corrosion of embedded steel /rebar:

A.

Hairlme cracks?

B.

Rust Staining?

C.

Evidence ofincreased cracking?

111.

Unacceptable Corrosion of attached metal components:

A.

Corrosion of bolts?

B.

Corrosion of metal support plates?

C.

Corrosion of anchorages' supports?

g IV.

Misc. Observations Continued? YES NO. Attach Notes to this form NOT 5.0 STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

(INCLUDES PIPING / EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS)

OR N/A 1.

Unacceptable corrosion of structural steel:

A.

Corrosion of metal structural elements?

B.

Corrosion of metal beams?

C.

Corrosion of steel support members?

11.

Degradation due to corrosion:

A.

Rust stains?

B.

Flaking / bubbling of protective coatings?

111.

Misc. Observations Contmued' YES NO. Anach Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF _

M

FOR INFORMATICN O'*LY MN 1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 34 of 52 ATTACHMENT 6, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; INTAKE STRUCTURE (Page 4 of 4)

INTAKE STRUCTURF N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT-6.0' CEILINGS, MOISTURE BARRIERS, SEALS, PRESENT.

PRESENT IR#

AND EXPANSION JOINTS

- ORN/A 1.

Loss or damage of barriers to moisture intrusion?

A.

Absence of sealmg material or damage to expansion joints?

B.

Presence of standing water or accumulated moisture?

C.

Corrosion of metal structural elements?

D.

Corrosion of metal beams?

E.

Corrosion of steel support members?

F.

Corrosion of steel plates?

Degradation of Roof / Ceiling:

A.

Standing water or water intrusion from ceiling or walls?

B.

Water marks on ceilings, floors, or

\\

equipment surfaces?

111.

Misc. Observations Continued? YES NO. Attach Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

~.__ _. _ _

\\

FOR INFORMAllON OklY MN-1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 l

Page 35 of 52 ATTACHMENT 7, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; BURIED ANCHORAGES, PIPE SUPPORTS, UNDERGROUND CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM, AhT BURIED s

PIPING (Page 1 of 2)

UNIT BURIED PIPING. PIPE SUPPORTS. AND PLANT MODE EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGER PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 1.0 BURIED ANCHORAGES AND PIPE SUPPORTS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Excessive degradation of anchorages and

]

I supports:

l A.

Separation of grout material beneath equipment suppotts?

B.

Corrosion of anchor bolts and associated hardware?

C.

Corrosion of support plates?

l D.

Looseness or extensive free motion of anchors or supports E.

Evidence of warping, bulging, or sagging ofcomponents?

11.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO. Anach Notes to this form NOT 2.0 UNDERGROUND CATHODIC PROTECTION PRESENT PRESENT IR #

SYSTEM OR N/A 1.

Status of Underground Cathodic Protection System:

A.

Presence of extensive / excessive corrosion of buried metal piping or structures?

B.

MWOs on cathodic protection open greater than 90 days?

C.

Results of surveillances, testing, or inspections of Cathodic Protection?

11.

Misc. Observations:

(

Contmued? YES NO. Attach Notes to this form I

4 N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable q

i INSP: Inspected I

SHEET OF

... _ -. -. -.... ~ - = _... - - - -.

_ ~ ~. _ _. -. -.. -.

. - -... -. -.. ~. - -. -

MN-1 319 Structure and System Walkdowns FOR !!#ORMATION' O' i.Y Revision 2 Page 36 of 52 g

ATTACHMENT 7, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; BURIED ANCHORAGES, t

l PIPE SUPPORTS, UNDERGROUND CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM, AND BURIED PIPING (Page 2 of 2)

BURIFn PIPING. PIPE SUPPORTS. AND EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGES N/A l

N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 3.0 BURIED PIPING PRESENT PRESENT IR#

l OR N/A 1.

Results of visual exams when pipe is l

accessible:

l A.

Separation of piping joints?

B.

Indications of environmental degradation?

C.

Excessive degradation or corrosion of support elements / pans?

{

D.

Leakage out of pipes or pipe seams?

E.

Leakage into pipes or pipe seams?

F.

Degraded coatings?

G.

Wall loss due to corrosion?

H Electricaljumper across mechanical l

joints missing or damaged?

11.

Results of observations of pipe fill and fill support adequacy:

A.

Erosion of surroundmg/supportmg soil?

B.

Excessive sentement of piping due to erosion of supporting soil?

C.

Presence of sinkholes?

D.

Water flowmg from ground or constant flow of water in drainage system?

E.

Presence of standing water or moisture?

F.

Improper backfill composition and compacting that could damage protective coatings or increase corrosion rate, e.g., stone or clay clods mixed with backfill?

111.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO Attach Notes to this form r

l

{.

N/l:

Not inspectable N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

i INSP: Inspected i

l SHEET OF i

~ _ -.

FOR INFORMA'iiON OMLY MN-1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 37 of 52

(~

ATTACHMENT 8, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; STEEL STRUCTURES AND CONNECTIONS (Page 1 of 2) l UNIT STEEI STRUCTURES AND PLANT MODE l

CONNECTIONS PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTIONS TAKEN

.INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT

.1.0 L

' STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMES -

PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Excessive degradation of structural steel elements A.

Degradation due to chemical or environmental corrosion?

B.

Degradation due to physical damage?

C.

Degradanon due to fatigue?

)

D.

Degradation due to excessive loading conditions?

E.

Degradation due to improper welding or heat treat?

i F.

Degradation due to exposure to extreme heat or fire?

G.

Evidence of warpmg. bulgmg, or

\\

sagging ofcomponents?

11.

Degradation of cranes, hoists, trolleys, monorails and supports:

A.

Excessive corrosion of metal components?

B.

Signs of stram or stress loadmg imposed by vibration or movement j

of attached components?

C.

Loose, broken, or missing j

anchorages or securing hardware?

D.

Signs of stress due to improper or excessive loading of equipment?

111.

Blowout panel functionahty:

A.

Blowout panels secured with proper connectors?

B.

Blowout panels attached to the structure in such a way that they will not perform their function?

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

p\\

N/l:

Not inspectable (d

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

i Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATIO 4 OMLY MN 1,-319 7

i Revision 2 Page 38 of 52 ATTACHMENT 8, STRUCTURE MONrrORING WALKDOWN; STEEL STRUCTURES AND CONNECTIONS (Page 2 of 2) j STEEL STRUCTURES AND CONNECTIONS 2

i N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTIONS TAKEN i

INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

I NOT L

L 1.0.,

6 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMES PRESENT PRESENT' IR #

OR N/A IV.

Excessive corrosion of metal connectors or i

metal components:

s A.

Corrosion ofmetal structural j

elements (e.g.1-beams, struts, braces, and etc.)?

,j B.

Corrosion of metal connectors (e.g.

welds, rivets, bolts, rods, studs, and wire ropes)?

C.

Degradation of structural elements 1

q.

due to loss of protective coatings?

]

V.

Misc. Observations:

Contmued' YES NO Anach Notes to anis fonn i

a W

s i

i 1

^

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/I:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

Structure and System Walkdowns F C,R IN F Oh!,, Al i,' O' 'L Y MN-1-319 Revision 2 Page 39 of 52 m

ATTACHMENT 9. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; STORAGE TANKS (Page1of2)

UNIT STORAGE TANKS PLANT MODE PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTIONS TAKEN INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 1

LO VISUALINSPECTION OFTANKS PRESENT

PRESENT 1R #

OR N/A 1.

Excessive degradation of anchorages and supports:

A.

Degradation / Corrosion of anchor bolt chairs?

B.

Degradation / Corrosion of anchor bolts and associated hardware?

C.

Degradation / Corrosion of support plates and saddle supports?

D.

Missing anchorage components / hardware (e.g. nuts, bolts. and etc.)

E.

Looseness or extensive free motion of anchors or supports F.

Evidence of warping, bulging, or sagging ofcomponents?

(/

11.

Degradation or mterference from attached or i

proximate metal components:

A.

Excessive corrosion of metal attachments to the tank?

B.

Signs of stram or stress loading imposed by vibration or movement of attached components?

C.

Attached metal components are secured to the tank - no signs of damage?

D.

Pipes near the tank are not leaking water or chemicals onto tank?

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

,O N/l:

Not inspectable

(,)

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

Structure r.nd System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION ONLY MN-1-319 Revision 2 Page 40 of 52 O

ATTACHMENT 9, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; STORAGE TANKS

. (Page 2 of 2) 4 i

STORAGE TANKS N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTIONS TAKEN j

INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 4

1.0.

VISUALINSPECTION OFTANKS.

PRESENT PRESENT IR#

l OR N/A j

111.

Settlement or base mat degradauon:

j A.

Cracking or degradation of concrete base?

B.

Excessive settlement of concrete base / tank?

I C.

Bulging or depressions near base of steel tanks or at points of small radii i

ofcurvature?

3 IV.

Degradation of perimeter and penetration i

seals:

A.

Caulking or sealant degradation due t

to aging, weathering, etc.?

B.

Absence of penmeter or penetration sealing materials?

[

V.

Misc. Obsen ations:

v Continued' YES NO. Attach Notes to this form N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

[

N/l:

Not inspectable

\\

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

FOR INFORMAhCN ONLY g,3,3 3 9 Structure t.nd Syt.ern Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 41 of 52 ATTACHMENT 10, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; DAMS, EMBANKMENTS, U

CANALS, AND RETAINING WALLS (Page 1 of 2)

UNIT DAMS. EMBANKMENTS. CANALS. AND PLANT MODE _

RETAINING WAI.I Si PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION JNSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN(IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 1.0 DAMS, EMBANKMENTS, AND CANALS PRESENT PRESENT.

.IR #

OR N/A 1.

Excessive degradation of fluid-retaining structures:

A.

Settlement -- presence oflocahzed l

or overall settlement, depressions, or sinkholes?

i B.

Slope Stability - presence of slope i

irregularities that would indicate internal movement or shifting of

(

embankments?

C.

Seepage -- presence of or indications of seepage or degradation that could lead to seepage t.nd degradation?

D.

Drainage 5 stems -indications that 3

t there have been failures of the f

drainage system that have resulted 1

in degradation?

E.

Slope Protection -- degradation of the slope protection features as evidenced by the formation of gullies, notches, and etc., or loss of l

vegetative cover?

~

F.

Differential Settlement - presence of differential settlement such as i

concrete cracking, loss of sealant or fill material. excessive joint gaps, and etc.?

l N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

I N/l:

Not Inspectable j

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF I

e

. Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION ONLY MN-1-319 Revision 2 Page 42 of 52

(

ATTACHMENT 10, STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN DAMS, EMBANKMENTS, CANALS, AND RETAINING WALLS (Page 2 of 2)

DAMS. EMBANKMENTS. CANAIR. AND RETAINING WAI.I A N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN(IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 2.0' RETAINING WALLS PRESENT PRESENT IR #.-

- OR N/A 1.

Degradation of fluid retaining walls:

A.

Excessive corrosion of metal components?

i B.

Cracking of concrete wall structure?

C.

Cracking or excessive clearance at base of wall (wall to floor l

interface)?

D.

Missing grout, mortar, or holes in the wall?

11.

Berm retaining wall degradation:

A.

Excessive loss of berm matenal due to erosion?

j B,

Breaches in the berm retainmg walls?

111.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO. Anach Notes to this form I

l l

l l

t h

e N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/I:

Not inspectable y(

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF M

w

=

FOR INFORMATION OVLY MN-1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 43 of 52 O)

ATTACHMENT 11. STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; LARGE EQUIPMENTI 5V SUPPORTS AND ANCHORAGES AND SEISMIC GAPS (Page 1 of 2)

UNIT LARGE EOUIPMENT1 SUPPORTS AND PLANT MODE ANCHORAGES AND SEISMIC GAPS PERFORMED BY:

DATE:

N/A

. N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN (IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT I.0 LARGE EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS AND PRESENT PRESENT IR #

- ANCHORAGES OR N/A 1.

Excessive degradation large equipment supports and anchorages:

A.

Presence of cracking of concrete near embedded plates and structural steel?

B.

Presence of support anchorage degradation for supports for Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and structural supports?

C.

Presence of thermalinduced degradation of concrete such as general cracking or spalling and loss (Q) of dynamic stiffness?

D.

Excessive corrosion / degradation of b

metal components associated with the support structures including the absence of hardware such as bolts, washers. nuts, and etc.?

NOT 2.0 SEISMIC G APS PRESENT PRESENT IR #

OR N/A 1.

Degradation of gaps between structures intended to mitigate the effects of excessive motion, thermal expansion, or seismic events:

A.

Excessive loss or absence ofjoint filler material?

B.

Loss of clearance at the joint as observed by direct measurement of the width of the joint?

C.

Condition of thejoint and fill materialindicates excessive movement or distress?

I arge equipment includes steam generators, reactor vessel, and NSSS piping L

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKIX)WN:

m)

/

N/I:

Not Inspectable C/

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

... ~. _ _

\\

Sttucture and System Walkdowns MN-1 319 c (in.. c 1

,, e. v.. ri' y

Revision 2 Page 44 of 52

\\

NITACHMENT 11 STRUCTURE MONITORING WALKDOWN; LARGE EQUIPMENTI SUPPORTS AND ANCHORAGES AND SEISMIC GAPS (Page 2 of 2)

LARGE EQUIPMENTI SUPPORTS AND ANCHORAGES AND SEISMIC CAPS N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDIfIGS/ ACTION INSP STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ASSESSED TAKEN(IR/MO NUMBERS)

NOT 2.0

SEISM 1C GAPS PRESENT

.PRESENT IR #

OR N/A D.

Degradation of the fill material as observed by the presence of moisture or debris filling the seismic gap?

111.

Misc. Observations:

Continued? YES NO. Attach Notes to this form 1Large equipment includes steam generators, reactor vessel, and NSSS piping Ov N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF

n '.

'P Y MN 1-319 Structure end System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 45 of 52 O

ATTACHMENT 12, WALKDO(VN REPORT CONTINUATION SHEET WALKDOWN REPORT CONTINUATION SHEET NAME:

DATE:

/

/

SYSTEM:

SECTION/

SPECIFIC SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN COMPONENT IR / MWO NUMBERS

)

j I

\\

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA COMPONENT SHORT COMPONENT SHORT ID DESCRIPTION VALUE ID DESCRIPTION VALUE SYSTEM ENGINEER GUIDANCE

1. Momtor and investigate system weepage; report any leakage.Section XI systems may require operability determination.

2. Report ALL safety concerns to the responsible supervisor Document on Issue Report, Gold Card or Safety Audit Form.

3. Verify that an observed condition has not been previously identified and evaluated.

4. Investigate and report significant discrepancies and or changes in system parameters.

p N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/I:

Not inspectable

(

INSP: Inspected x

SHEET OF M

FOR INFORMATION OMLY Mg.1319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2

- O Page 46 of 52 i

ATTACHMENT 13, PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION GUIDELINES (Page 1 of 4)

The following guidelines are summarized from ES-002 Pipe Support Inspection Standard, and are intended to be a reviewed for a quick refresherjust prior to performing a walkdown. If a more comprehensive review is desired, refer to the original document. In all cases the reviewer shall defer to the performance standards contained in ES-002 as the determining element for concluding that a structural feature does not meet design requirements and is degraded to the extent that the requirements of Paragraph (a)(1) of the Maintenance Rule applies (ref. MN-1-112). Determinations should be y consistent with the intent and content of ES-002.

A.

General Conditions 1.

The general condition of the pipe support should be assessed. P' oblems may include any r

of the following.

Damage deformation or structural degradation of fasteners, springs, clamps or a.

other components.

b.

Missing, detached, or loosened components.

Indications of scaling on any pipe support components, welding surface c.

indications or signs of scaling due to corrosion that may reduce the load bearing capacity of the support.

d.

Arc strikes, weld spatter, paint, scoring, roughness, or general corrosion on close tolerance machined or sliding surfaces.

Dented or cracked spring hanger housings.

e.

f.

Indications of concrete or grout deterioration such as erosion, corrosion, chipping, cracking or spalling within 12 inches from the edges of pipe support base plates.-

g.

Fluid loss beyond specified limits or lack of fluid indication (Snubbers only)._

B.

Threaded Connections 1.

Threaded connection.; on pipe support components should be inspected to confirm the engagement and tightness of the attachment including, but not limited to; concrete anchor bolts, rod hanger turnbuckles, weldless eye nuts, rod couplings, sway struts and load pins. For example, the following are ways in which the connection can be verified (refer to ES-002 for applicable standards):

Visible threads can be confirmed by verifying that the male thread is at least a.

flush with the top of the female thread.

b.

For threading with tubular devices, such as sway struts, the proper engagement car be confirmed by the observation of threading surfaces withm the sight hole.

sasm.

l L_

Structure and System Walkdowns FOR INFORMATION OMLY h3;on I'3

'O Page 47 of 52 ATTACHMENT 13, PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION GUIDELINES (Page 2 of 4)

C.

Structural Frames / Support Steel 1

1.

This refers to pipe suppons composed of structural members such as wide flange, angle, channel, tube sections, plate or bar sections. Usually a member is in direct contact wth a pipe (restraint) or in close proximity. Also referred to as a " box" frame, it may wori; in i

con, Junction with other pipe support components. Typically, the " box" frame is used to restram piping in more than one direction. As a two-way restraint, this support allows i

movement in the axial direction. When used in combination with pipe lugs, it can restrain movement in the axial direction also. For example, the following are features of structural frames that should be examined (refer to ES-002 for applicable standards).

These suppons typically have gaps in the horizontal and venical (upward) a.

3 directions. The pipe will be resting on a member in the venical (downward) direction. The required gap will be generally shown on the pipe suppon i

drawing. The two types of gaps used are " restraint gaps" and " clearance." If unsure what type is being examined, refer to the pipe support drawing, which will generally show the required gap.

(1)

" Restraint gaps" are not greater than 1/16 inch, and are between the pipe and the nearest structural member. This gap is provided for the radial expansion of the pipe and to allow initial installation.

q (2)

" Clearances" are usually greater than 1/16 inch in " cold" conditions and allow pipe movement within the frame.

(3)

Shims may be used to achieve the design gaps. Gaps less than 1/16 inch on cold pipes should be further investigated. Gaps greater than 1/16 inch on hot pipes should also be investigated.

b.

Check general design geometry and weld configuration and size, for conformance with pipe support drawings (if used).

D.

Rod Hangers 1.

Rod hangers restrain the pipe in the venically downward direction only and are composed of various threaded components attached to the piping system by a pipe clamp. Rod hangers are designed to articulate, allowing free motion of the piping system in the horizontal plane. The assembly is generally limited to a " swing

• angle of 5* total travel.

Check that rod components are loaded (tight). This can be confirmed by a.

atter7 ting to manipulate the rod assembly by hand if accessible, or visually checking for loose or vibrating parts. If the system is drained, verify any observations after it's been refilled.

b.

Check that the pipe surface is contacting the pipe clamp.

c.

Check to see that the Rod hanger " swing" angle is less than 5' from venical.

(Five degrees of swing is approximately 1 inch per foot oflength.)

e.w

,,n-

m _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _

FOR INFORMATION ONLY MN.I.319 Structure and System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 48 of 52 A'ITACHMENT 13, PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION GUIDELINES (Page 3 of 4)

E.

. Spring Supports 1.

Spring hmgers are similar to Rod hangers, they support the " dead weight" of the system allowmg ime movement in the horizontal plane, however, they also allow it limited vertical freedom of motion. Spring hangers are engineered so that they are never bottomed or topped out. Check Spring supports in the same manner as for Rod hangers (4) with the following additions:

Check for spring settings on the spring can. Rese consist of marks located on a a.

calibrated plate (spring scale) adjacent to the s

' g posi ate. The, tion indicator. Hot and cold setting marks should be indicated on the normal operating position should indicate between the hot and cold settings if the piping.is flooded. If the sp ng scale is missing, defaced or not clearly marked, or the indication is outsi e of the marks, contact MCEU and initiate and Issue Report.

b.

Verify that travel stops (pin blocks) are not installed during normal operation.

F.

Constant Support Hangers

'l.

Constant Support hangers accomplish the same function as spring hangers and are checked according to Rod hanger (4) and Spring hanger (5) guidelines. These hangers consist of a mechanical linkage tied to a sprmg similar to a spring hanger.

G.

Sway Struts 1.

Sway struts perform a similar function as Rod hangers in that they restrict motion in one

(

plane while allowing free movement in other planes. Because of their construction, b

sway struts are not limited to vertically downward loads. They can resist motion in compression as well as tension, regardless of orientation.

Check that the Sway strut ball bushings (one at each end of the strut) are:

a.

(1)

Not dislodged, loose, or missing.

(2)

Not protruding more than one quarter of the ball bushing thickness from the side of the sway strut assembly.

(3)

Tight and free to rotate.

b.

Spacers must be present, but not welded to the attaching bracket and the pipe clamp assembly.

The pipe clamp assembly must be tight and making good contact with the pipe.

c.

d.

Check for thread engagement (see step B.l.b).

H.

Concrete Attachment Plates 1.

Concrete attachment plates consist of embedded plates or plates attached to concrete surfaces using various types of bolts or embedded anchors. De purpose of these plates is to transfer loads to the concrete structure.

s v

m

->-w a

y

FOR INFORMATIOY O'*l.Y MN-1-319 Structure end System Walkdowns Revision 2 Page 49 of 52 I

ATTACHMENT 13, PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION GUIDELINES (Page 4 of 4)

H.

Concrete Attachment Plates (Continued)

Check that bolts or nuts are at least hand tight, properly engaged per step B.I.b a.

of this attachment, and that the bolt head, nut and washer are m uniform contact with the base plate.

b.

Check that the plate is flush with the concrete surface to within 1/8 inch unless it can be determined that the gap occurs outside the perimeter established by the outside surface of the anchor bolts.

I.

Piping Welded Attachments

~

1.

Piping welded attachments are lugs welded directly to the pipe, intended to tra' sfer axial n

loads to a support structure or pipe clamp. These lugs must be installed extremely close to the,adjccent pipe support structure or clamp, o minimize dynamic loading during a i

seismic event.

Check that the gap between the lug and adjacent suppon structure or clamp is a.

less than 1/16 inch downward loading. generally and 0.0 inches for lugs transferring venically' b.

Check that any shims used to achieve these dimensions are less than 1/4 inch l

thick and welded.

J.

Viscous Dampers (Snubbers)

(T

,Q l.

Viscous dampers (Snubbers) are used on piping systems to control vibration or rapid movements dynamically. They do not transmit static loads or restrict slow movements (thermal expansion). They generally resemble shock absorbers with an attached fluid

)

i reservoir. These are speciahzed components and any unusual appearances should be discussed with MCEU, including any of the following Missing rubber boots, straps or bands, a.

b.

Leaking fluid or suspiciously low fluid levels.

Travel-bound conditions, Snubbers that are completely extended or compressed.

c.

d.

Loose pipe clamps attaching a snubber to the pipe.

l' A

U l

SED.

--._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _

^

l J

MN 1-319 Structure and System Walkdowns FOP adORMATION OL'LY Revision 2 Page 50 of 52 ATTACHMENT 14, REFUELING EQUIPMENT WALKDOMW REPORT j.

A. SPENT FUEL HANDLING MACHINE WALKDOWN REPORT (Page 1 of 3)

NAME:

DATE:

/

/

SYSTEM:

i UI MODE: 1 2 3 4 5 D U2 MODE: 1 2 3 4 5 D N/A 4

N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP DESCRIPTION (IR / MO NUMBERS) 1.0 SFHM BRIDGE AND TROLLEY NOTES:

l.

A. Damaged?

B.- Corrosion?

j C. Deterioriation?

l l

l Continued? Yes No

]

2.0 SFHM HOIST CABLE ASSEMBLY NOTES:

A. Broken strands or kinks?

B. Sheaves worn or damaged?

C. Load cell wom or damaged?

IContinued? Yes No i

3.0 SFHM PNEUMATIC COffIROL PANEL NOTES:

A. Hydraulic lines worn or damaged?

B. Missing or damaged gauge glasses?

C. Loose or leaking fittings?

f IContinued? Yes No 4.0 SFHM LIMIT SWITCHES AND CAMS NOTES:

A. Damaged?

i\\

B. Obstructions that impew operation?

5.0 SFHM BRIDGE, TROLLEY, HOIST, NOTES:

GEAR MOTOR DRIVE MECHANISMS A. Lubncant leakage?

B. Worn or loose couplings?

IContinued? Yes No 6.0 SFHM RAIL SURFACES AND GEAR NOTES:

RACK TEETH A. Clean and free of debris?

IContinued? Yes No 7.0 SFHM ELECTRICAL NOTES:

A. Motors condition? Noise? Vibranon?

B. Cables condition? Damaged?

Chaffed? Connections tight?

C. Wiring condition? Broken strands?

Chaffing? Embrittled insulation?

D. Control panel condition? Switches?

Wiring? Lights?

E. Rad monitor secure?

IContinued? Yes No N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/I:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF M

W-

i I

j Structure and System Walkdowns COR INFORMATION OMLY W-l.~319 Revision 2 Page 51 of 52 l

ATTACHMENT 14, REFUELING EQUIPMENT WALKDOWN REPORT B. REFUELING MACHINE WALKDOWN REPORT)(Page 2 of 3) l NAME:

DATE:

/

/

SYSTEM:

)

UI MODE: 12 3 4 5 D U2 MODE: 12 3 4 5 D i

N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP DESCRIPTION (IR / MO NUMBERS) 1.0 RFM BRIDGE AND'IROLLEY NO1ES:

4 A. Damaged?

l B. Corrosion?

! ~

C. Deterioriation?

D. Festoon cable wom or damaged?

IContinued? Yes No 2.0 RFM HOIST CABLE ASSEMBLY NOTES:

{

A. Broken strands or kmks?

B. Sheaves worn or damaged?

C. Load cell worn or damaged?

IContinued' Yes No 1

3.0 RFM MAST COLLISION RING NOTES:

1 A. Damaged?

l.,

B., Tag lines for limit switches properly l

Installed?

IContmued? Yes No 5

4.0 RFM PNEUMATIC CONTROLPANEL NOTES:

}

A. Hydraulic lines worn or damaged?

f B. Missing or damaged gauge glasses?

,/

C. Loose or leaking fittings?

(

IContmued? Yes No 5.0 RFM LIMIT SWITCHES AND CAMS NOTES:

A. Damaged?

5 l

B. Obstructions that impede operation?

(Contmued? Yes No j

6.0 RFM BRIDGE, T ROLLEY, HOIST, NOTES:

AND MAST ROTATE GEAR MOTOR DRIVE MECHANISMS A. Lubricant leakage?

B. Worn or loose couplings? -

lConttnued? Yes No 7.0 RFM RAIL SURFACES AND GEAR NOTES:

RACK TEETH A. Clean and free of debras?

(Contmued? Yes No 4.0 RFM ELECTRICAL NOTES:

A. Motors condition? Noise? Vibration?

B. Cables condition? Damaged?

ChafTed? Connections tight?

C. Wiring condition? Broken strands?

Chaffing? Embrittled insulation?

D. Control panel condition? Switches?

Wiring? Lights?

lContmued? Yes No A

N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

N/l:

Not inspectable INSP: Inspected SHEET OF enum

+

Structure and Systern Walkdowns FOR INFORMATioN oqy MN-1-319 Revtston 2 f'

Page 52 of 52

(%

ATTACHMENT 14, REFUELING EQUIPMENT WALKDOWN REPORT C. FUEL TRANSFER EQUIPMENT WALKDOWN REPORT (Page 3 of 3)

NAME:

DATE:

/

/

SYSTEM:

UI MODE: 1 2 3 4 5 D U2 MODE: 12 3 4 5 D N/A N/I SPECIFIC FINDINGS / ACTION TAKEN INSP DESCRIPTION (IR /MO NUMBERS) 1.0 FUEL TRANSFER CARRIAGE NOTES:

A. Operates smoothly without binding?

B. Cable has no broken strands or kinks?

l Continued? Yes No 2.0 FUEL UPENDER NOTES:

A. Bearings worn or damaged?

B. Sheaves worn or damaged?

C. Sheaves operate smoothly?

D. Welds at the hydraulic cylinder gussets and attaching points intact with no cracks?

IContinued? Yes No 3.0 SFPELEVA~IORS NOTES:

A. Cables have no broken strands or kinks?

B. Rollers worn or damaged?

C. Rollers operate smoothly?

D. Roller tracks worn or damaged?

E. Roller track welds intact with no cracks?

IContinued? Yes No 4.0 TRANSFER CARRIAGE AND NOTES:

ELEVATORS ELECTRICAL A. Motors condition? Noise? Vibration?

B. Cables condition? Damaged?

Chaffed? Connections tight?

C. Wiring Condition? Broken Strands?

Chaffing? Embrittled insulation?

D. Control panel condition? Switches?

Wiring? Lights?

IContinued? Yes No N/A: Not Applicable AREA OF WALKDOWN:

(q3 N/l:

Not inspectable

(/.

INSP: Inspected SHEET OF m

r l

ATTACRfEYr m FOR INFORMATION ONLY APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION

\\

5.7 - DIESEL FUEL OIL SYSTEM TABLE di.71 DEVICE TYPES REQUIRING AMR FOR DFO SYSTEM i

Above and Underground Piping

• Check Valves

• Hand Valves

• DieselFOSTs" 1

Includes those hand valves, check valves, and piping that are not included in the scope of the Fire 4

Protection Commodity Evaluation; and only those hand valves that are not included in the scope of the Instrument Line Commodity Evaluation.

" FOST for new EDG not included in this technical report.

i 5.7.2 AgingMaangement ne list of potential Age-Related Degradation Mechanisms (ARDMs) identified for the DFO System components is given in Table 5.7-2. [ Reference 4, Table 4-2], with plausible ARDMs identified by a check mark (/ ) in the appropriate component type column. For efficiency in presenting the results of i

these evaluations in this report, ARDM/ device type combinations are grouped together where there are j

similar characteristics, and the discussion is applicable to all components within that group. Exceptions l

N are noted where appropriate. Table 5.7-2 also identifies the group to which each ARDM/ device type combination belongs. The following groups have been : elected for the DFO System.

I Group 1 includes the external surfaces of aboveground piping (pipe, fittings, flanges, bolts, nuts, welds),

l check valves (body / bonnet, bcits, nuts), and hand valves (body, nuts, stem), and covers crevice corrosion, general corrosion, and pitting.

Group 2 includes the external surfaces of underground carbon steel piping (pipe, fittings, and welds), and covers crevice corrosion, general corrosion, pitting, galvanic corrosion, and microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC).

Group 3 includes the diesel FOST internal surfaces, and covers crevice corrosion, general corrosion, l

pitting, fouling, and MIC.

Group 4 includes the diesel FOST shcIl and bottom external exposed surfaces, and covers crevice corrosion, general corrosion, pitting, and weathering.

i Note that the internal surfaces of piping, hand valves, and check valves were determined to be not subject to any plausible ARDMs because DFO with negligible water content is non-corrosive for the carbon steel piping and carbon steel and alloy steel fastener materials.

De following is a discussion of the agiag management demonstration process for each group identified above. It is presented by group and includes a discussion of materials and environment, aging mechanism effects, methods of managing aging, aging management program (s), and aging management demonstration.

k Application for License Renewal 5.7-7 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

ATTACmWENT m FORINFORMATlON Oqy APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 5.7 - DIESEL FUEL OIL SYSTEM TABLE 5.7 2 POTENTIAL AND PLAUSIBLE ARDMs FOR THE DFO SYSTEM

$d@Q@lp WhiceTphNEMhPMy

'g _

PotentialARDMsg_jj;pA

-Q7l. j$eckyj$ sBandidik hk$ht.

Nb f$tP E Q6MA %.

v>a w.y 4 ~ #cs - xmzew e

Systemv Cavitation Erosion x

Co. vsion Fatigue x

Crevice Corrosion

/ (1,2)

/(1)

/(1)

/(3,4)

Erosion Corrosion x

Fatigue x

Fouling

/ (3)

Galvanic Corrosion

/(2)

Cer.e.al Corrosion

/ (1,2)

/(1)

/(1)

/ (3,4)

Hydrogen Damage x

In^ y.riular Attack x

MIC

/(2)

/(3)

Particulate Wear Erosion x

Pitting

/(1,2)

/(1)

/(1)

/(3,4)

Radiation Damage x

Rubber Degradation x

Saline Water Attack X

Selective Ieaching x

Stress Corrosion Cracking x

Stress Relaxation x

'Ibirual Damage x

Thermal Embrittlement x

Wear x

Weathering

/(4)

1. -Indicates plausible ARDM determination

(#)-Indicates the group (s) in which this ARDM/ device type combination is evaluated OV Application for License Renewal 5.7 8 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant -

. ~... -

F ATTACHMENT m FOR INFORMATION Oqy APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 5.7 - DIESEL FUEL OIL SYSTEM Group 1 (External Surfaces of Aboveground Piping, Check Valves, and Hand Valves) - Materials and Envimament:

De aboveground piping material in the DFO System is seamless carbon steel with forged fittings and flanges. He weld material for piping is carbon steel. De body / bonnet material for check valves and hand valves within the scope of AMR is cast or forged carbon steel. Alloy steel is used.for valve stems and bolts. [ Reference 4, Attachment 4]. For the purposes of aging management discussion, all materials in Group 1 are conservatively assumed to be carbon steel.

The external surfaces are exposed to humid, moist, or wet environments. He external coating of the pipe is exposed to sun, weather, and ambient air. [ Reference 4, Attachment 6]

l Group 1 (External Surfaces of Aboveground Piping, Check Valves, and Hand Valves) - Aging Mechanism Effects:

Carbon steel is susceptible to general, crevice, and pitting corrosion mechanisms in a humid or wet

~

environment. Dese ARDMs are plausible because the external carbon steel surfaces are exposed to a humid, moist, or wet environment. Sun and weather will deteriorate the protective paint coating of the

==A pipes and could lead to accelerated corrosion mechanisms of steel components exposed to moisture. He check valves and some pipes are protected from the direct effects of sun and weather by a concrete enclosure or pit with a cover. However, the steel surfaces are still exposed to changes in humidity and temperature, requiring the protection of paint. [ Reference 4, Attachment 6]

General corrosion is thinning (wastage) of a metal by chemical attack (dissolution) by an aggressive environment at the surface of the metal. He consequences of the damage sre loss of load-carrying ability due to loss of cross-sectional area. If unmitigated, general corrosion could eventually result in the loss of pressure-retaining capability under current licensing basis (CLB) design loading conditions.

[ Reference 4, Attachment 7]

Crevice corrosion is intense, localized corrosion within crevices or shielded areas. Crevice corrosion is closely related to pitting corrosion and can initiate pits in many cases, as well as lead to stress corrosion cracking (SCC). If unmitigated, crevice corrosion could eventually result in the loss of pressure-retaining capbility under CLB design loading conditions. [ Reference 4, Attachment 7]

l

(

Pitting is a form of1=N attack with greater corrosion rates at some locations than at others. Pitting produces holes of varying depth to diameter ratios in steel. If unmitigated, pitting corrosion could eventually result in the loss of pressure-retaining capability under CLB design loading conditions.

1

[ Reference 4, Attachment 7] -

l Group 1 (External Surfaces of Aboveground Piping, Check Valves, and Hand Valves) - Methods to l

Manage Aging Effects:

Mitigation: De effects of corrosion can be mitigated by minimizing the exposure of external surfaces of carbon steel and alloys to an aggressive environment, and protecting the surface with paint or other ymaeive coatings.

l L

Application for License Renewal 5.7 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

ATTACHMENT m i

FOR INFORMATION' octy APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL IhTORMATION f

5.7 - DIESEL FUEL OIL SYSTEM J

)

Dineoverv: The effects of plausible aging mechanisms are detectable by visual techniques. Since j

corrosion of the carbon steel exterior surface of the piping and valves cannot occur without degradation of paint / coating, observing and confirming that this paint /coatmg is intact is an effective method to 1

ensure that the effects of the plausible ARDMs have not occurred. Since the paint / coating does not j

contribute to the piping and valves' intended function, observing paint / coating for degradation provides 1

^

an alert condition which triggers corrective action before degradation that affects the piping's or valve's l

ability to pedonn its intended function could occur. He degradation of paint that does occur can be discce..d and managed by periodically 4=,=+hg the paint on exposed ext.ernal surfaces, and by carrying out repairs as necessary.

}

l Group 1 (External Surfaces of Aboveground Piping, Check Valves, and Hand Valves) - Aging j

Management Program (s):

M*= dam The CCNPP procedure " Paint and Other Protective Coatings," MN-3 100, mitigates crevice corrosion, general corrosion, and pitting by addressing degraded paint areas discovered through visual inspection techniques under the CCNPP Plant Engineering Guideline, PEG-7, Plant Engineering Section, System Walkdowns" and the CCNPP " Issue Reporting and Assessment Procedure," QL-2-100, which defines requirements for initiation, review, and processing ofissue reports. [ Reference 4, Attachment 8]

Discoverv: CCNPP Plant Engineering Guideline, PEG-7, " System Walkdowns," provides for discovery of degraded paint that could permit crevice corrosion, general corrosion, and pitting by providing for system walkdowns by visual inspection, reporting the walkdown results, and initiating corrective action.

Under this program, inspection items typically related to aging management include identifying poor housekeeping conditions (such as degraded paint), and identifying system and equipment stress or abuse (such as thermal insulation damage, bent or broken hangers, etc.). Excessive vibration, unusual noise, and excessive temperatures are some other examples of potential equipment stress. Conditions identified as adverse to quality are documented on Issue Reports in accordance with QL 2-100. [ Reference 5]

Under PEG-7, the system engineer performs periodic walkdowns; walkdowns before, during, and after outages; and walkdowns related to a specific plant modification (s). [ Reference 5, Section 5.0]

PEG-7 promotes familiarity of the systems by the system engineers, and provides extended attention to plant material condition beyond that afforded by Operations and Maintenance alone. As a result of experience gained, PEG-7 has been improved over time to provide guidance regarding specific standard activities that should be included in program walkdowns.

Group 1 (External Surfaces of Abovegronad Piping, Check Valves, and Hand Valves) -

Demonstration of Aglag Management:

Based on the information presented above, the followmg conclusions can be reached with respect to general corrosion, crevice corrosion, and pitting of external surfaces of aboveground piping, check valves, and hand valves of the DFO System.

De external surfaces of the aboveground pipier., check valves, and hand valves contribute to the pressure boundary function.

Application for License Renewal 5.7 10 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

7-FOR INFORMATION ONLy APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION f.7 - DIESEL FUEL OIL SYSTEM The construction material for components in this group is carbon steel. De external e.

surfaces of piping and valves are coated with paint.

Crevice corrosion, general corrosion, and pitting are plausible ARDMs for this group of e

components because external carbon steel surfaces and coating are exposed to sun, and to a humid, moist, or wet environment. If unmitigated, these ARDMs could eventually result in the loss of pressure-retaining capability under CLB design loading conditions.',

Dese effects will be managed by employing a combination procedures MN-3-100, PEG-7, e

and QL 2-100.

%erefore, there is a reasonable assurance that the effects of aging will be adequately e

managed for the aboveground DFO piping, check valves, and hand valves such that they will F

be capable of performing their intended functions, consistent with the CLB, during the period of extended operation under all design loading conditions.

Group 2 (External Surfaces of Underground Piping)- Materials and Environment:

De material used fc urJ ym d piping (buried piping) in the DFO System is seamless carbon steel with forged fittings. The weld material for piping is carbon steel. [ Reference 4, Attachment 4]. For the purposes of aging management discussion, all matetials in Group 2 are conservatively assumed to be carbon steel.

he extemal surfaces of the piping are protected, per standard industry practice, with external coating and wrapping and an impressed current cathodic protection system. The underground piping is surrounded by soil. De backfill material is compacted soil. [ Reference 4, Attachment 6]

Group 2 (External Surfaces of Underground Piping)- Aging Mechanism Effects:

Carbon steel is susceptible to crevice corrosion, general corrosion, galvanic corrosion, MIC, and pitting corrosion mechaniema when buried tmder soil. The aggressiveness of these ARDMs is dependent on soil resistivity (or conductivity), chloride and sulfate presence, oxygen content and soil aeration, pH, moisture content of soil, wet / dry cycles, and microbe activity. [ Reference 4, Attachment 6)

Holidays (thin spots, skipped areas, or areas where coating degradation has occurred) or disbondd areas of the wrapping can lead to crevice corrosion, generaf corrosion, pitting, and MIC given a conducive environment. [ Reference 4, Attachment 8)

General corrosion is thinning (wastage) of a metal by chemical attack (dissolution) by an aggressive environment at the surface of the metal. De consequences of the damage are loss of load-carrying cross-sectional area. If unmitigated, general corrosion could eventually result in the loss of pressure-retaining capability under CLB design loading conditions. [ Reference 4, Attachment 7)

~

Oaivanic corrosion is an accelerated corrosion caused by dissimilar metals in contact in a conductive solution.. It requires two dissimilar metals in physical or electrical contact, a developed potential (material Mt), and a conducting solution. If unmitigated, galvanic corrosion could eventually Application for License Renewal 5.7-11 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant O

T-t FOR INFORMATION'ONLY ATTACIIMENT d)

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 5.7 - DIESEL FUEL OIL SYSTEM

./

~

Group 4 (FOST Shell and Bottom External Exposed Surfaces ) - Demonstration of Aging Management:

Based on the information presented above, the following conclusions can be reached with respect to the FOST externalsurfaces:

De external surfaces of the FOSTs contribute to the presure boundary function provided by the tanks.

Crevice conosion, general corrosion, and pitting are plausible ARDMs for the external surface of the FOSTs. Crevice conosion, general corrosion, and pitting can lead to uniform or localized wall thinnirig, which in turn can lead to a loss of pressure boundary integrity.

Providing a barrier (i.e., protective coating) to prevent contact bet;ccca the carbon steel external surfaces of the tanks and the external environment precludes the occurrence of the plausible

+

ARDMs.

Re external surfaces of the tanks are painted. The combination of PEG-7, MN-3-100, and QL-2-100 ensures that the paint applied to the external surface of the FOST is maintained in order to prevent long-term exposure of the tank material to the external environment. Since the construction material will not be exposed to the extemal environment for extended periods of

)

time, the effects ofcrevice corrosion, general corrosion, and pitting will be managed.

Re external surfaces of tank bottoms are comprised of carbon steel coated with bitumastic superblack. The tank bonoms are also protected by an impressed current cathodic protection system. The tanks are set on a three-inch layer of oil soaked, compacted sand which provides a l

benign environment for aging of any carbon steel that would contact it. Therefore, the FOST bottoms are determined to be not subject to any plausible ARDMs.

Recent visual inspection of No.11 FOST, performed after 20 years of operation, observed no deficiencies in the exterior of the tank. Ultrasonic testing of the tank bottom observed minimum thickness of.251 inches for 1/4 inch plate.

Derefore, there is reasonable assurance that the effects of aging on the external surfaces of the FOST will be adequately managed such that the FOSTs will be capable of performing their intended functions, consistent with the CLB, during the period of extended operation under all design loading conditions.

l 5.7.3 Conclusion De aging management programs discussed for the DFO System are listed in the following table. These programs are administratively controlled by a formal review and approval process. As demonstrated l

above, these programs will manage the aging mWi==s and their effects in such a way that the intended functions of the components of the DFO System will be maintained during the period of extended operation, consistent with the CIE, under all design loading conditions.

De analysis /eeeeeement, conective action, and confirmation / documentation process for license renewal

~

is in accad-sce with QI 2, " Corrective Actions Program." QL 2 is pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Ag--dk B, and covers all structures and components subject to AMR.

t

!'(

Application for License Renewal 5.7-20

'Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

l I"

FOR INFORMATIOYONLY i

ATTACRMENT (n APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION

)

5.7 - DIESEL FUEL OIL SYSTEM

\\

i j

TABLE 5.7-3 1

1 IJST OF AGING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR THE DFO SYSTEM i

l WQtems entemme##EregramW mms v epw aCredited As 4 ^ c:a x

i F"ieia:

CCNPP Plant Evaluation Guideline Discovery of the effects of general corrosion, l

" System Walkdowns," PEG-7 crevice corrosion,. and pitting of extemal e.ufaces of (Group 1) piping, (Group 1) valves, and (Group 4) tank extemal surfaces.

Eximia CCNPP Chemistry Program Procedure, Mitigating the effects of crevice corrosion,

" Oil Receipt Inspection and Fuel Oil general corrosion, pitting, fouling, and MIC j

Storage Tank Surveillance,"CP-226 of(Group 3) tank internal surfaces.

i Fri*iag CCNPP Plant Evaluation Program Mitigating the effects of crevice corrosion, Procedure

" Operations Performance general corrosion, pitting, fouling, and MIC i

Evaluation Requirements - Drain Water of(Group 3) tank internal surfaces.

l-from #11 and #21 FOST per 01-21,"

j PEO-0-023-2-O-M j

Existmg CCNPP Chemistry Program Procedure Mitigating the effects of crevice conosion,

" Determination of Particulate general corrosion, pitting, fouling, and MIC

}

Contamination in Diesel Fuel Oil,"

of(Group 3) tank intemal surfaces.

CP-973 l

New Diesel Fuel Oil Buried Pipe Inspection Discovery of De effects of general conosion, i

Program crevice corrosion, galvanic conosion, MIC, l

and pinig of extemal surfaces of(Group 2) l buried pipe.

i New TankIntemallnspection Program Discovery of the effects of crevice corrosion, general corrosion, pitting, fouling, and MIC of(Group 3) tank intemal surfaces.

New Caulking and Sealant inspection Program Discovery of the effects of weathering of l

(Group 4) tank perimeter seal.

l l

i

}

4 4

l--

1 I

b 4

Application for Lacense Renewal 5.7-21 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

P

(-

ATTACRMrn m FOR INFORMATION oety APPENDIX B - UFSARSUPPLEMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This supplement to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Updated Final Saf Report (UFSAR) provides information required by 10 CFR 54.21(d) to accompany the License R Application (LRA) filed by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). Part 54.21(d) requires UFSAR supplement to contain "... a summary description of the programs and activities the effects of aging and the evaluation of time limited aging analyses for the period of extended operation..."

~

Section2.0 presents a smnmary A;ydon of the programs and activities that BGE credited for managing the effects of aging. Section 3.0 summanzes the evaluation of Tim > Limited Agmg Analy (TLAAs).

2.0 AGING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES This section summarizes the activities that the BGE Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA) credited to demonstrate that intended function (s) will be adequately maintained during the period of extended operation.

The individual activities credited for aging management are associated with programs implemented through the BGE Nuclear Procedures Hierarchy. The hierarchy consists of Nuclear Program Policies, Nuclear Program Directives, Administrative Procedures, and Technical Procedures. Each program consists of a directive and the administrative procedure (s) necessary to support the directive. Directives O

assign responsibilities and state management requirements and regulatory commitments for each

(

progrum area supporting the Nuclear Program Policies. Administrative procedures specify the processes used for compliance with the Nuclear Program Directive and the actions necessary to implement the program. Technical procedures are written to operate, maintain, test or protect systems tnd related equipment, and are controlled by administrative procedures.

Summary descriptions of the programs credited for aging management are presented in the subsections listed in Table B-1. Each of these programs and the associated activities credited for aging' management for the period of extended operation are controlled by site procedures. Changes to these programs and activities in the areas of methods,==+;a- = cntena, and frequency of performance, as they pertain to aging management for license renewal, are required to be reviewed prior to implementation to ensure that the activities authonzed by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis.

i l

l i

I i

Application for License Ranewal B-1 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

3 k

I I e ATTAG. Dm APPENDIX B - UFSARSUPPLEMENT TABLE B-I LISTING OF AGING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARIES Directive Areas Prograin Summary Descriptions 2.I Design Authority 2.I.1 Engineering Service Process Overview 2.1.2 Design Change and Modification Implementation 2.13 Control of 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification of Electrical Ev;y...cr.:

2.1.4 Implementation of Fatigue Monitoring 2.2. Testing Program 2.2.1 Comdination ofTesting 2.2.2 ASME Pump and Valve Testing l

2.23 Surveillance Testing 2.2.4 Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program

{

23 Chemistry Program l

2.4 Maintenance Program 2.4.1 Preventive Maintenance Program l

2.4.2 Load Handling j

2.43 Instrumentation Calibration Program 2.4.4 Structure and System Walkdowns

{

2.5 Pressuse Boundary Codes and 2.5.1 Painting and Other Protective Coatings l

Special P.w. Program 2.5.2 Materials Testing and Evaluation l

2.53 Inservice Inspection of ASME Section XI Components 2.5.4 Erosion / Corrosion Monitoring of Secondary Piping l

2.5.5 Control of the Comprehensive Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program

[

2.5.6 Boric Acid Corrosion Inspection Program

{

2.5.7 Controlof the Alloy 600 Program Plan I

n 2.6 Nuclear Cr.aions Pre..m 2.6.1 Conduct ofCgietions m

o s

2.6.2 Ownership of Plant Operating Spaces E

2.63 ControlofShift Activities o

2.6.4 Calvert Clifts Operating Manual 2.6.5 Operations Section Performance Evaluations 2.7 Fire Protection Pre i-n I

s o.

l 2.8 Nuclear Safety Pre se-2.8.I Use of Cg.. ting Exg.!c..ce and the Nuclear Hotline o'

l s

Apolication for License Renewal B-2

?

Calvert Clifts Nuclear Power Plant

NNW m F0R INCOT4MATCN ON1,y N

APPENDIX B - UFSARSUPPLEMENT the deficiency to funber use. Dese activities provide reasonable as ce that aging of FHE and HLHC will be manag uring the period ofextended operation.

2.4.3 Instemmentation CaHhra Pmeram An instrument calibration progam has 'X.at,lished to ensure that installed process instruments used to record data in tests, survehh

- ocsiures are properly calibrated. His program is credited for managing the certain cables

• the scope oflicense renewal. His program provides for mitigation o *

'on resistance reduction octs by performing periodic calibration of instrument loops.

an instrument is found to be out-of

'on, the user is directed to determine whether the

-calibrr. tion instrument could effect any surveil test. De BGE LRA identified com

~ m the Cables commodity group for which this program pro s reasonable assurance that

agin, be managed during the period of extended operation. (Reference 1

./

2.4.4 Structum==d Svs*== Wa&Aawns A structure and system walkdowns program has been established to standardize the general intent and method of reporting walkdown results and is credited for managing the aging of many systems, structures, and components within the scope oflicense renewal. His program meets the requirements for evaluating structure and system material condition in accordance with the Maintenance Rule at CCNPP, and replaces the previous CCNPP plant evaluation guideline for system walkdowns. Walkdown activities provide for discovery and mitigation of aging effects.

ne BGE LRA identified components in the following system (s) and commodity group (s) for which this program (or the guidelines that were its predecessor) provides reasonable assurance that aging will be managed during the period of extended operation:

AFW System (References 6 and 13)

Component Supports (Reference 8) e CC System (Reference 11) e Compressed Air System (References 12 and 13)

Condensate System (Reference 13)

Containment H&V System (Reference 14) e DI Water and Condensate Storage System (Reference 13)

DFO System (Reference 7)

Instrument Lines (Reference 23)

Liquid Waste System (Reference 13) e Main Steam System (Reference 13) e Plant Drains System (Reference 13) e Plant Heating System (Reference 13) e SRW System (Reference 13) e Well and Pretreated Water System (Reference 13) e Application for License Renewal B-12 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

- =

{:. -

FORINFOMMTION ONLY j

ATTArmfENT m s

l i, -

APPENDIX B - UFSAR SUPPLEMENT i

The BGE LRA also identified program modificationt ut will ensure aging is managed duringi j

/

of extended operation for certain additional componem in the fo!!owing system (s) and structu{

i Auxiliary Building and Safety-Related Diesel Generator Building Structures; (Reference 5) 3 l

]

Auxiliary Building H&V System; (Reference 9)

Containment Structure; (Reference 32) c

{

Control Room HVAC System; (Reference 16) j Intake Structure; (Reference 4) i i~

Miscellaneous Tank and Valve Enclosures; (Reference 34)

Safety Injection System; and (Reference 1)

Turbine Building Structure. (Reference 3) 1 2.5 BOUNDARY CODES AND SPECIAL PROCESSES PROGRAM

[

A L d.iy codes and special processes program directive covers activities performed on items within the pe of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Division I, items cred by i

!'~

the Mary iler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act and amendments, and piping that plies with

{

j design seg

• ts of the American National Standards Institute Power Piping eB31 series

{

standards. This gram also applies to application of certain special processes to '

s covered by the L

pressure boundary es above and any other plant equipment where contro o ensure quality and 4

safety would be deem rudent.

!(

i 2.5.1 Palatine and Other tactive Contines A protective coatings program been established to control pa* mg and protective coatings activities i'

- performed inside Caa*=iament to they comply with cable regulatory guidance and industry standards. 'Ihis program provides or discovery of co sion by performing periodic walkdown inspections. This program provides le ce that aging of steel components inside j-

. Containment will be managed during the

'od of ded operation.

2.5.2 Ma'andal= Testine==d Evnimation The requirements for materials testing ev tion have been established to: control testing performed to determine material and

'ons; and provide a process for determining the i

significanoe of examination or test

. These are credited for managin6 aging of several i-components within the scope o renewal. Imp entation of several new programs and l~

additional activities credited f management of aging in the E LRA require materials evaluations.

AwdL. gly, completion of following analyses will ensure that g is adequately managed for the affected system (s),

s), and aa==adi y group (s) during the ofextended operation:

t

[

Evaluation o cast austenitic stainless steel, consisting of delta calculations and/or 5

replacem ahernatives, to address thermal embrittlement for com ts in the RCS and the RVI S

(References 30 and 31,respectively)

' of SCC of control element assembly shroud bolts, to address SCC for ponents of the e

System; (Reference 31)

{

Analysis of stress re'exation, to address certain components of the RVI

and j

(Reference 31)

Application for License Renewal B 13 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 4

w w

.w.

~s>

p

,-g3

--e

NITANMENT (1)

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES

/

structural intended functions listed in Table 33E-1 for the associated structure. Table 3JE-2 lists t structural component types and the associated functions that apply to the Auxiliary Building, the adjacent EDG Rooms and RWT Pump Rooms, the SR Diesel Generator Building, and the ductbank for EDG 1 A.

Unless otherwise noted, structural components that are part of the structure, but do not contribute to any of the intended functions of the structure, are not listed in Table 33E-2. [ References 4 and 5; Reference 7, Table 2-1; Reference 12, Appendix B4, Section 2.0; References 14 through 17]

Per the license renewal rule, "... Structures and components subject to an' aging management review shall encompass those structures and components (i) ht perform an intended function, as described in 154.4 without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties... and (ii) ht are not subject to periodic replacement based on a qualified life or specified time period... " From reviewing the generic list of structural functions, it is clear that none of the intended structural functions requires moving parts or a change in configuration or properties. Plant structural components are not normally subject to periodic replacement programs; therefore, they are considered to be long. lived unless specific justification is provided to the contrary. [ Reference 1, Section 5.4]

Of the 47 structural component types within the scope oflicense renewal for the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures, one unique component type, Pipe Encapsulations, was evaluated in the AMR for the Main Steam System; the results of the AMR for these components are presented in Section 5.12 of the BGE LRA. 'Ibe remaining 46 structural component types, listed in Table 33E-2, are habject to AMR and are evaluated within this section. [ Reference 7, Table 2-1; Reference 12, Appendix B4, Table 2-1 and Section 4.2.4]

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company may elect to replace components for which the AMR identifies that further analysis or examination is needed. In accordance with the License Renewal Rule, components subject to replacement based on qualified life or specified time period would not be subject to AMR.

Application for License Renewal 33E-7 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

m.

. -..- _.-. _ --_._._ _.m i

ATTACIIMENT (I)

[

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES TABLE 3.3E-2 STRUCTURAL COMPONENT TYPES REQUIRING AMR FOR TIIE i

AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SR DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES j

~

5 h..

Concrete (Incianting iteinforcing Steel)

?

w Foundations (Footings, beams, and mats)

I,5 1,5 NA l

Columns, I,5 I,5 NA Wefis I,2,4,5,6,7 1,2,4,5,6,7 NA

}

Beams, I,5 I,5 NA I

Gecond Floor Slabs I,5 I,5 NA

-< Pads I,5 I,5 NA

"'-v Elevated Floor Slabs I, 2, 5, 7 I, 2, 5, 7 NA f

RoofSlabs 2,4 2,4 NA Cast-in-Place Anchors /Embedments*

I I

I, 2, 4 Manholes NA NA 1,2 Ductbanks NA NA 1,2 1

Grout I,5 I,5 NA Concrete Blocks (Shielding) 2 NA NA Fluid Retaining Walls and Slabs I

I NA j

Masonry Block Walls I,2,5,6,7 NA NA Post-Installed Anchors

• I,5 1,5 2, 4 l

StractarrelSteel i

i Columns *, Beams *, B,:stes*, Floor Framing

• 1, 5 1, 5 NA l

Roof Framing *, Roof T.

a*

1, 4, 5 I, 4, 5 NA Bracing *, Platform Hangers *, Decking

• I,5 1,5 NA Jet I...,/_.e...;.. Bamers*

2 NA NA c

13,w.s*

3 NA NA ArchitecturelComponents Fire D ig Jambs, and Hardware

• 7 7

NA Access Dov. A Jambs, and Hardware

• 2 2

NA

{

Caulking and Scalants 2,6,7 2,6,7 NA i

A

'3 cation for License Renewal 33E-8 Calvert Clifts Nuclear Power Plant t

i

e s

J, O

ATTACHMENT ft)

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES TABLE 3.3E-2 (continued)

STRUCTURAL COMPONENT TYPES REQUIRING AMR FOR THE AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SR DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES 5'

b.

.t Unique C_,..--.^.

New Fuel Rock Assembly *, S,~.. Fuel Storage Rocks (Cai'esiundum sheets, Boraflex sheets)

I NA NA Monorail' 5

5 NA Cask Handling Crane RailC#n*

I,5 NA NA Lead Brick Shiekhng, Pipe Whip Restraints

• 2 NA NA Roll-Up Doors

• 2 2

NA F.,

_ Joints 2,7 2, 7 NA Watertight Doors

• 6, 7 NA NA Pipe ,..lations 2 (Note 1)

NA NA Missile Protection Doors' 4

4 NA Oypsum Board 7

NA NA Handholes NA NA 1,2 He'e Framing *, Manhole Covers *, Cover Plates

• NA NA 2, 4 Missile Shields

• NA NA 4

- Indicates the m..r,.a..; type is included under the heading " Steel Components ** in the discussion addressing the results of AMR in Table 3.3E13 -

- Indicates the component type provides the following intended function for the corresponding structure:

(#)

I - Provide structural and/or functional support to SR equipment; 2 - Provide shebi aaion to SR equipment; r

3

- Serve as a pressure boundary or a fission product retention barrier to protect public health and safety in the event of any postulated DBEs; 4

- Serve as a missile barrier (internal or external);

5

- Provide structual and/or functional support to NSR equipment whose failure could directly prevent satisfactory accomplishment of an required SR fbnctions; 6 - Provide flood protectica barrier (internal flooding event); and 7

- Provide rated fire barriers to confine or retard a fire from spreading to or from adjacent areas of the plant.

none - Indicates the component type does not contritzte to the intended functions of the structure NA - Indicates the component type is not part of the corresponding structure Note 1 - These structural component types are also identified as device types in the Chemical and Volume Control, Feedwater, and Main CCNPP. The results of the AMR for these components are presented in Section 5.12 of the BGE LRA. [ Reference 7, Table 2-1]

...... :... c_., :- _ _ n

..a

,,e n

i i

f A*ITA('INENT m a

l APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION

{

j 3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR 1

BUILDING STRUCTURES I

3.3E.2 Aging Management l

)

'Ibe list of potential Age Related Degradation M~baiems (ARDMs) identified for components in the Auxiliary Dailding and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures is given in Table 33E-3, with plausible ARDMs identified by a check mark (/) in the apprepste column. [ Reference 7, Attachments 1 and 2; i

Reference 12, Appaadiv B4, Section 4.0) For efficiency in presenting the results of these evaluations in j

this report, ARDM/ component type combinations are grouped together where there are similar 0.i.sstics and the discussion is applicable to all components. Table 33E-3 also identifies the group to which each ARDM/ component type combination belongs. 'Ibe following groups have been selected for the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures:

Group 1:

weig of caulking, sealants, and expansionjoints; j

Group 2:

corrosion of steel (for components marked with an asterisk in Table 33E-2);

1 I

Group 3:

corronian of the SFP liner (sensitized zones); and 1

j ~

derrad=+ inn of neutron-akarbing mat *Iials (for SFP storage racks),

1 Group 4:

i Aging mechanisms that are not plausible are generally not discussed further in these BGE LRA sections, unless they are considered noteworthy. For the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building g

Structures, settlement is considered noteworthy and is discussed below.

Industry technical reports conclude that settlement is a potentially significant ARDM for pressurized-water reactor Containment Structures and for other Category I Structures at some plants. [ Reference 18, Section 5.5; Reference 19, Section 5.1.2)

Settlement occurs both during construction and after construction. The amount of settlement depends on the physical properties of the foundation material.

[ Reference 7, Appendix J] Excavation unloading and structural loading during construction caused a small change in the void ratio of undisturbed soil. This change results in a very small or negligible amount ' of time-dependent settlement.

[ Reference 6, Section 2.7.6.2; Reference 7, Appendix J)

Compacted soil is subject to some degree of settlement in the first several months after construction.

[ Reference 19, Section 4.63.1) Settlement directly related to construction work is readily evident early in the life of the structure and is not considered to be an ARDM. Settlement may occur during the design life of the structure from changes in environmental conditions, such as lowering of the groundwater table. Sites with soft soil and/or sites with significant changes in underground water conditions over a long period of time may be susceptible to significant settlement.

[ Reference 7 AppendixJ; Reference 18, Section 4.53.2; Reference 19, Section 4.63.2) Concrete and stee! structural members can be affected by differential settlement between supporting foundations, within a building, or between buildings. Severe settlement can cause misalignment of equipment and lead to overstress conditions within the structure. When buildings experience significant settlement, cracks in structural members, differential elevations of supporting members bridging between buildings, or both may be visibly detected. [ Reference 7 AppendixJ) At CCNPP, long-term settlement was determined to be not plausible for the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures based on the following site-specificjustification:

Application for License Renewal 33E-10 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

- _. -. ~. _.

I I

s A~ITACHMENT ft)

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES TABLE 3.3E-3 POTENTIAL AND PLAUSIBLE ARDMs FOR THE AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SR DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES j,. S :-

w-

-Concrete,,

p. Steel. 3 :q Speht Feelle.it:Et in yy"'FetitJ f

e BHell (Gtposin Beefd

c.. Q t. g g g g

F ;p

,1 (IncleAlng n

;-f PoolIJntr9

.i h.i.

• 2

. Cdh@id *.

y.p+p'!:Q$

ts*

ph

' Qi ;;, j t

t, aML4@,N,'.,:",[.$ff%j!

W :a

~ lf0fd hsler. Ming

• O.T T;M16.. g Re&s W *9

~ 1 rf i

e 3

. 4;. J d? irk E:seeet)h

1. Or mit w

i;. n.J b Yh? %.fp l

~

^ iij TiMinnis&*.

Freeze-Thew Leaching ofCalcium Hydroxide Ass.Jr. Chemical Attack on Concrete Corrosion of Embedded Steel /Reber Cracking of Masonry Block Wells Settlement I

Corrosion ofSteel

/(2)

Cormsion of Liners

/(3)

WJ.e...s

/(3) l Elevated Ti...,~. ;.

j Irradiation t

Fatigue I

Dvs..d ::v. ofCarborunden Meterial f(4) l s

f(4) f Cc..d. ion of Boreflex Meterial

- Steel Components" represents all items marked with an asterisk (*) in Table 33E-2

- Concrete (including Reinforcing Steel)" comprises Foundation Mat, Concrete Columns, Ground Floor Stabs, Equipment Pads, Elevated Floor Slabs, Concrete Walls, Concrete Beams, Roof Slabs, Manholes, Doctbanks, Handholes, Grout, C,oncrete Blocks (Shielding),

Masonry Block Walls, Fluid Retaining Walls and Slabs

• • • - Includes stainless steel, Carborundum sheets (Unit I only), and Boraflex sheets (Unit 2 only)

/ - Indicates plausible ARDM determination

(#) - Indicates the group (s) in which the ARDM/ component type combination is evaluated i

i

A*ITACHMENT m APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES Stmetures such that they will be capable of performing their intended functions consistent with the CLB during the period of extended operation under all design loading conditions.

Group 2 - (corrosion of steel). Materials and Environment Group 2 comprises those components marked with an asterisk in Table 3.3E-2. Rese ' components are all fabricated fmm carbon steel, which is subject to general corrosion when exposed to moisture and oxygen. They each contribute to one or more of the various passive intended functions for the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures. He environment to which these components are subjected varies with their installed location. Cynent types located indoors are exposed to temperature and humidity conditions inside the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures as described in UFSAR Chapter 9. [ Reference 6, Section 9.8.23 and Table 9-18] Those steel component types located outdoors are subject to the normal outside atmosphere at the CCNPP site.

[ Reference 7, Appendix K] Here is no heavy industry nearby CCNPP to' add chemicals to the atmosphere but, due to the close proximity of the Chesapeake Bay, the steel components located outdoors could be exposed to condensation.

[ Reference 6, Sections 2.8 and 2.10; Reference 7, Appendix C) Some of the steel components are located near the SFP, where condensation in the presence of oxygen could lead to oxidation. Carbon steel located in these areas may be subjected to more severe local environments. [ Reference 7, Appendix K) l Sirice corrosion was recognized as a potential degradation mechanism for all carbon steel components of site stmetures, protective coatmgs were incorporated into the original design. Exposed structural steel surfaces in the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures were coated during the construction phase (e.g., shop-primed, field painted, bot-dipped galvanized). [ Reference 7, Appendix K; References 36 through 43)

Group 2 -(corrosion of steel)- Aging Mechanism Effects Steel corrodes in the presence of moisture and oxygen as a result of electrochemical reactions. Initially, the exposed steel surface reacts with oxygen and moisture to form an oxide film as rust. Once the protective oxide film has been formed, and if it is not disturbed by erosion, alternating wetting and drying, or other surface actions, the oxidation rate will diminish rapidly with time. Chlorides, either from saltwater, the atmosphere, or groundwater, increase the rate of corrosion by increasing the electrochemical activity. If steel is in contact, through an electrolytic solution, with another metal that is more noble in the galvanic series, cormsion of the steel may accelerate. [ Reference 7, Appendix K)

Corrosion products such as' hydrated oxides ofiron (rust) form on exposed, unprotected surfaces of the steel and are readily visible. The affected surface may degrade to such an extent that visible perforation may occur. In the case of exposed surfaces of steel with protective coatings, corrosion may cause the protective coatings to lose their ability to adhere to the corroding surface. In this case, damage to the coatings can be visually detected well in advance of signifwant degradation of the steel. [ Reference 7, Appendix K)

If corrosion is left unmanaged for an extended period of time, the loss of carbon steel material can result in a reduction in the load-bearing capability of the moded parts and increased likelihood of mechanical failure. His could lead to the inability of components identified in Table 33E 2 'to perform their intended functions under CLB design loading conditions. [ Reference 7, Appendix K)

Application for License Renewal 33E 17 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant y

w

-v.--

r-

--m-

i 4

ATNWMENT m 3

l APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 1

3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR

]

BUILDING STRUCTURES Group 2 -(corrosion of steel)- Methods to Manage Aoing Mhigation: The effects of corrosion cannot be completely prevented, but they can be mitigated by l

minimizing the exposure of external surfaces of steel to an aggressive environment and protecting the j

external surfaces with paint or other protective coating. Coatings serve as a protective layer, preventing j

moisture and oxygen from duectly contacting the steel surfaces.

i Dienverv: ne effects of general corrosion / oxidation of carbon steel are detectable by visual inspection.

1 j

A visnl examination by a person familiar with the components can be used to determine general j

mechanical and structural condition and check for sust. Observing that significant degradation of protective ca=d? has not owd is an effective method to ensure that corrosion has not affected the j

intended function of the structural component. Since the coating does not contribute to the components' l

intended functions, degradation of the coating provides an alert condition that triggers corrective action l

before the occurance of corrosion that would affect the components' ability to perform their intended 1

i ~

functions. De degradation of the protective coating that does occur can be discovered and monitored by periodically inspsung the carbon steel structural components. Corrective action for failed protective i

coatings and any actual metal degradation can be carried out as necessary. [ Reference 7, Appendix K]

I Group 2 - (corrosion of steel)- Aging Management Programs I

Mid = tion: ne exposed metal surfaces of carbon steel structural components are covered by protective

?

coatings that mitigate the effects of corrosion. He discovery programs discussed below verify that the j

protective coat;ngs of carbon steel structural components are maintained.

i Dieaverv: Calvert Cliffs Administrative Procedure MN-1-319, " Structure and System Walkdowns,"

i provides for discovery of corrosion of steel (or conditions that would accelerate corrosion, such as pooled water) for the structural components in the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures by performance of visual inspections during plant walkdowns. [ Reference 7, Attachment 4; 4

}

Reference 12, Appendix B4, Section 4.2.5) ne purpose of the program is to provide direction for the i

performance of structure and system walkdowns and for the documentation of the walkdown results.

l

[ Reference 44, Section 1.1)

.' ~

Under this program, responsible personnel perform periodic.walkdowns of their assigned structures and j

systems. Walkdowns may also be performed as required for reasons such as: material condition assessments; system reviews before, during, and after outages; start up reviews (i.e., when the system is initially pressurized, a 42.d, or placed in service); and as required for plant modifications.

(Reference 44, Section 5.1)

One of the objectives of the program is to assess the condition of the CCNPP structures, systems, and

{ ~

components such that any abnormal or degraded condition will be identified, documented, and cornetive 2

actions taken before the condition proceeds to failure of the structures, systems, and components to perform their intended functions. Conditions adverse to quality are documented and resolved by the j

CCNPP Corrective Actions Program. [ Reference 44, Sections 5.1.C,5.2.A.1, and 5.2.A.5)

't Application for License Renewal 3.3E-18 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

!E

ATTAPINTNT m j

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES The program provides guidance for identification of specific types of degradation or conditions when performing the walkdowns. Inspection items related to aging management include the following:

(Reference 44, Section 5.2 and Attachments 1 through 13]

Items related to specific ARDMs such as n -osion; l

Effects that may have been caused by ARDMs such as damaged supports; concrete degradation,

=

anchor bolt degradation, or leakage of fluids; and Conditions that could allow progression of ARDMs such as degraded protective coatings, leakage a

of fluids, presence of standing water or accumulated moisture, or inadequate support of components (e.g., missing, detached, or loose fasteners and clamps).

l The Structure and System Walkdown Program enhances the familiarity of responsible personnel with

> their assigned systems and provides extended attention to plant material condition beyond that afforded by Operations and Maintenance personnel alone. The program has been improved recently through ir.wryu.4 ion of significant additional guidance on specific activities to be included in the scope of structures walkdowns. A structure performance assessment is currently required for Category I structures at CCNPP at least once every six years. He assessment includes a review of each structural component that could degrade the overall performance of the structure. [ Reference 44, Section 53 and At'achments 4 and 8]

He program described above will be modified to: (a) specifically identify the carbon steel component types within the scope of the performance assessments (including those identified in Table 3JE-2 as I

unique structural component types); and (b) add guidance regarding approval authority for significant l

de.aws from the walkdown scope / schedule specified. He modified program will ensure that r

degraded conditions due to corrosion of steel are identified and corrected such that carbon steel components of the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures will be capable of performing their intended functions consistent with CLB design conditions.

Group 2 - (corrosion of steel) - Demonstration of Aging Management l-Based on the information presented above, the following conclusions can be reached with respect to l

corrosion of steel in the structural components of the Auxiliary Building and SRDiesel Generator Building Structures:

l De carbon steel components identified in Table 33E-2 provide various passive intended functions for the associated structures, and failure could directly prevent satisfactory accomplishment of functions that must be maintained under CLB design loading conditions.

Components in this group are exposed to moisture and oxygen in their installed locations.

Carbon steel corrodes in the presence of moisture and oxygen, which leads to a loss of material.

His could eventually result in inability of the affected components to perform their intended function (s).

Cay specified during original construction, mitigate the effects of corrosion by providing a protective layer that prevents moisture and oxygen from contacting the steel.

De CCNPP Structure and System Walkdowns Program provides for periodic walkdowns of Group 2 components. The program will be modified to specify more clearly the scope and Application for License Renewal 33E-19 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

ATTACHMENT (1}

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES control of periodic performance assessments. The program will provide for the discovery of corrosion of steel (or conditions that would accelerate conosion) for the components in Group 2, and ensure appropriate actions are taken in a timely manner to correct degraded components or protective coatings.

Therefore, there is reasonable assuracce that the effects of aging due to corrosion of carbon steel will be managed in such a way that stmetural components of the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building Structures will be capable of performing their intended functions consistent with the CLB during the period of extended operation.

r Group 3 -(corrosion of the SFP liner)- Materials and Environment

/

Th' FP liner at CCNPP is constructed of Type 304 stainless steel material. [ Reference 7, Ap dixL; Refe ce 45) De liner was assembled from a series ofindividual plates that were wel together.

The en steel liner is not a load-bearing structural component; it was designed on as a leaktight barrier ing a pressure boundary function. [ Reference 7, Table 2-1 and Append'

Reference 45]

One side o the SFP liner is normally exposed to the borated water contained ins

• the pool; the other side of the S liner conforms to a reinforced concrete wall. [ Reference 7., Ap dixL]

The concrete be ' d the welds was formed such that a small trough channel was created to allow detection of anyI ge that may occur through the welds or liner. I ividual channels are grouped into leak chases that are h connected to a hand valve through a sb piping sys.em. Here are a total of l

ten such " telltale" valve for the SFP (four for leak chases fro, citical plates and one for the floor leak chase in each Unit's side the SFP). [ Reference 7, Appen

• L; References 46 through 49)

Water has been collected fro these leak chases mo ly for many years. [ Reference 7. Attachment 5 and Appendix L] The totali e measured each onth averages about 0.1 gallons in a 24-hour period.

Due to the small sample size and ther interfe '

factors, it is difficult to conftrm the SFP liner as the source of the water collected during e mon y testing; frequently, no water leakage is observed during the test. [ Reference 7, AppendixL]

1 5, the source of water collected fmm one of the " telltale" valves was determined to be from the U SFP.

Group 3 -(corrosion of the SFP)(ner)- AgiaQ1echaatsm Effects Both the plate material and e associated weld are susceptible to stress corrosion cracking, which is defined as under the combined acts s of corrosion and tensile stresses. The stresses may be applied (

) or residual (internal), and cracks themselves may be transgranular or intergranular. [Ref ce 7, A-AN L) Type 304 staint steels are particularly prone to this ARDM in locations that sensitized, such as heat-affected s in and around welds and at crevice geometries.

is because of the changes in the material's 'crostructure that take place due to the welding and h===*

of high residual stresses in and und the welds.

[ Reference 19, Section 4.. 1) Under such conditions, Type 304 stainless stee ay develop intergranular stress corrosi crackmg (IGSCC). [ Reference 7, A-4 L)

The FP liner was not designed to carry significant structural loads, and the strains induced by orming to deformations in the concrete wall of the SFP are negligible under normal plant operating ditions. The liner is not exposed to a corrosive environment under normal operating conditions.

l Application for License Renewal 3.3E-20 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

ATTACRMENT m l

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3

3.3E - AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SAFETY-RELATED DIESEL GENERATOR I

BUILDING STRUCTURES I

l Herefore, them is reasonable assurance that the effects of neutron-absorbing material degradation w l

be managed in such a way that the SFP storage racks will be capable of performing their intended

]

A-*iaa consistent with the CLB during the period of extended operation.

4 3.3E.3 Coselaston i

j

%e aging management programs db-~i for the Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator Building i-Structures are listed in Table 3.3E 4. Dese programs are adminim tively controlled by a formal review a

and approval process. As demonstrated above, these programs will manage the aging mechanisms and j

their effects in such a way that the intended functions of the components of the Auxiliary Building and j

SRDiesel Generator Building Structures will be maintained during the period of extended operation consistent with the CLB under all design loading conditions.

i ne analysis / assessment, corrective action, and confirmation / documentation process for license renewal j

is in accordance with QL 2, " Corrective Actions Program." QL 2 is pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, j-Appendix B, and covers all structures and components subject to AMR.

1 TABLE 3.3E.4 l

AGING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR THE AUXILIARY BUILDING AND SR DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURES 7.g j t ~

-Cre'dited A$

j Existing CCNPP Technical Procedure Program for discovery and management of i

i STP F-592-1/2, " Penetration Fire weathering effects for caulking, scalants, and BarrierInspection" expansion joints that function as fire barriers in the Auxiliary Building and adjacent rooms by visual j

inspection. (Group 1)

Existmg Ors aions Section Performance Program for discovery and management of IGSCC Evaluation PE 0-67-2-O M, "#11 &

effects for the SFP liner by performing periodic

1. 12 Spent Fuel Pools - Determine leakage monitoring. (Group 3)

Liner Leakage," and associated Operating Instruction Ol-24D, " Spent Fuel Pool Cooling - Infrequent Operations" Modified Structure and System Walkdowns Program for discovery and management of (MN-1-319) corrosion effects for carbon steel components in the

• Spify w and el of Auxiliary Building and SR Diesel Generator g;,,, g Building Structures. (Group 2) assessments i

i l

j I

Application for License Renewal 33E 26 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

]

~

l i

3.0 Generic:-Integrated Plant Assessment REVIEW RFRPONSIBII ITIES

\\

PRIMARY-LICENSE RENEWAL PROJECT DIRECTORATE (PDLR)

SECONDARY-TECHNICAL REVIEW BRANCHES, AS APPROPRIATE i

1.

AREAS OF REVIEW r

This review plan provides generic review guidance for addressing the integrated plan assessment (IPA) requirements in 10 CFR 54.21(a) for systems, stru' ctures, and components that have not yet been addressed specifically in Section 3 of this SRP, The staff review is primarily based on the information provided by the applicant in the renewal application. However, the staffmay perfonn on-site reviews to confirm this information. A summary description ofprograms and activities for managing the effects of aging for the period of extended operation is contained in the applicant's final safety analysis report (FSAR) supplement.

The license renewal treatment of an aging effect which is a subject of a unresolved safe issue (USI) or generic safety issue (GSI) is addressed in Branch Technical Position PDLR 3.0 1.

The license renewal rule at 10 CFR 54.30 speciSes matters that are not subject to review and that may not be contested in a hearing for license renewal. The intent of the provisions in 10 CFR 54.30 is to clarify that safety matters ofnoncompliance for the current operating term should not be the subject of the renewal application or the subject of a hearing in a renewal proceeding, absent specific Commission direction. Issues conceming operation during the currently authorized term ofoperation should be addressed as part of the current license in accordance with the Commission's current regulatory process rather than deferred until a renewal review (which will not occur if the licensee chooses not to renew its operating license). Furthermore,10 CFR 54.30 is intended to make clear that aging issues discovered during the renewal review for the I

structures and components that are reviewed in 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3) or 54.21(c)(1) and that raise questions about the capability of these structures and components to perform their intended function during the current term of operation must be addressed under the current license. However, an applicant for renewal is not relieved from addressing the issue relevant to the period of extended operation as part ofits renewal application.

If a licensee submits for NRC review and approval an aging management program to address an aging management issue for the current term of operation, the licensee has the option to also explain why this program will be adequate to address aging during the penod of extended operation (that is, the renewal period) and request the NRC staff to approve the program for both the current term and the extended term. If the licensee's

!O 3.01 Working Draft, September 1997 l

l~

l

~.,

p request results in an NRC approval for the extended term, no additional NRC staff review is necessary at the time of the renewal application.

The following areas relating to the plant systems, structures, and components are reviewed:

1 A.

Structures and Components Subject to Aging Management Review and Their Intended Function (s)

The identification of structures and components subject to an aging management review in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1)is reviewed. The intended function (s) of these structures and components under the current licensing basis (CLB) design conditions in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(b) are also reviewed.

B.

Applicable Aging Effects on Structure and Comnonent Intended Function (s)

The applicant's discussion of operating experience and other infonnation is reviewed to ensure that the applicable aging effects that should be managed for license renewal are identified.

C.

Aging Management Programs for Renewal

/]

Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3), a license renewal applicant is required to V

demonstrate that the effects of aging on structures and components subject to an aging management review will be adequately managed so that their intended functions will be maintained consistent with the CLB for the period of extended operation. The applicant'sjustification that the effects of aging will be adequately managed, by existing. modified, or new programs, during the period of extended s

operation is reviewed.

j The applicant's description of an existing, modified, or new program, necessary for managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation, regarding the following elements is reviewed:W l

1.

Scope of program 2.

Preventive actions 3.

Parameters monitored orinspected 4.

Detection of aging effects 5.

Monitoring and trending N

6.

Acceptance criteria 3.0-2 Working Draft, September 1997

i t

i 4

I s

7.

Corrective actions 8.

Confirmation process t

9.

Administrative controls

]

l

[

10.

Operatmg expenence i

D.

FSAR Sunnlement The FSAR supplement summarizing the programs and activities for managing the effects of aging for the period of extended operation in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(d)is reviewed.

i j.

II.

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 1'

~

The acceptance criteria for the areas of review described in Subsection I of this SRP i

section define acceptable methods for meeting the requirements of the Commission's

}-

regulations in 10 CFR 54.21.

./

t A.

Structures and Comnonents Subject to Aging Management Review and Their Intended Function (s)

Structures and components are subject to aging management review if they are i

within the scope oflicense renewal, as delineated in 10 CFR 54.4, that perform an intended function without moving parts or without a change in configuration or i

properties, and that are not subject to replacement based on a qualified life or specified time period. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.4(b), intended functions are those j.

functions that are the bases for including the systems, structures, and components

}

within the scope oflicense renewal as specified in 10 CFR 54.4(a). These structures and components are to perform the intended function (s) under all CLB j-design conditions during the period of extended operation.

i 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1) requires the applicant to identify and list those structures and components subject to an aging management review in the renewa' application.

The applicant may provide in the application (1) an item by item list ofindividual i

structures and components subject to an aging management review, or (2) gather similar structures and components subject to an aging management review into commodity groups and provide a narrative description of each commodity group that bounds and identifies the structures and components within that commodity group.

B.

Annlicable Aging Effects on Structure and Comnonent Intend A Function (g 3.0-3 Working Draft, September 1997 r.-

,--..a v

b Applicable aging effects are degradations that have actually occurred and those that potentially could cause structure and component degradation, affecting the structure and component ability to perform their intended function (s).

4 r

r-1 l.._ ;

i i

k 3.0-4 Working Draft, September 1997

C.

Aging Management Programs for Renewal Because aging is a continuous process, aging management being performed on structures and components during the current term may be acceptable for the period of extended operation. However, the demonstration required by the license renewal rule must still be provided by the applicant for these aging management programs.

l This demonstration should consider the aging effects and their impact on the L

structure and component intended function (s). The demonstration also should determine whether the action taken in accordance with the aging management program provides reasonable assurance that the structure and component intended function (s) will be maintained, in accordance with the CLB, for the period of extended operation. The demonstration is not intended to be a reverification of the structure and component design basis; however, in some cases, verification of a specific design basis parameter may be necessary if that parameter or condition is affected by an aging effect and potentially results in a loss of structure and component intended function (s).

The applicant should describe all programs and activities that are credited for aging management of a specific structure or component. For example, the primary program for managing cracking for piping may be an inspection program.

However, a water chemistry program may also be relevant to maintaining the condition of the piping. The water chemistry program would provide additional assurance that the intended function (s) of the piping will be maintained for the period of extended operation.

To be acceptable, the following elements of an existing, modified, or new aging management program should be provided:m 1.

Scope of program should include the specific structures and components subject to an aging management review for renewal.

2.

Preventive actions should mitigate or prevent aging degradation.

3.

Parameters monitored or inspected should be linked to the degradation of '

the particular structure and component intended function (s).

4.

Detection of aging effects should occur before there is a loss of the structure and component intended function (s).

5.

Monitoring and trending should provide predictability of the extent of degradation and timely corrective or mitigative actions. The monitoring, inspection, testing frequency, and sample size should be appropriate for C

timely detection of aging effects.

3.05 Working Draft, September 1997 i

l

~..

6.

Acceptance criteria, against which the need for corrective action will be evaluated, shou)d ensure that the structure and component intended function (s) are maintained under all CLB design conditions during the period of extended operation.

7.

Corrective actions, incl'iding root cause determination and prevention of recurrence, should be timely.

8.

Confirmation process should ensure that preventive, actions are adequate and that appropriate corrective actions have been completed and are l

effective.

l 9.

Administrative controls should provide a formal review and approval process.

10.

Operating experience of the aging management program, including past corrective actions resulting in program enhancements or additional programs, should provide objective evidence to support that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the structure and component l

i intended function (s) will be maintained during the period of extended operation.

D.

FSAR Sunnlemerj The specific criterion for meeting 10 CFR 54.21(d)is:

The summary description of the programs and activities for managing the effects of aging for the period of extended operation in the FSAR supplement provides appropriate description such that any changes to the programs or activities can be controlled by 10 CFR 50.59. The description should contain information associated with the IPA regarding the basis for determining that agmg effects are managed in the period of extended operation.

III.

REVIEW PROCEDURES The staff review is primarily based on the information provided by the applicant in the renewal application. However, the reviewer may perform on site reviews of site documentation to verify and confirm the information submitted in the application.

The applicant may make specific references to documents, such as the FSAR, technical specifications, NRC generic communications, previously issued NRC staff safety evaluation reports, licensee submittals supporting NRC staff safety determination, and l

national codes and standards. The reviewer may take advantage ofprior staffreview to limit the depth of renewal review, as appropriate.

t v

3.0-6 Working Draft, September 1997

C If the applicant chooses to reference a license renewal report previously reviewed and appr6ved by the NRC, the reviewer verifies that the applicant has provided information to show that their plant characteristics are bounded by the referenced report and thus, the conclusions from that referenced report are also valid for their plant. The reviewer reviews all outlier conditions, compared with the referenced report, identified and evaluated by the applicant.

The license renewal process is not intended to demonstrate absolute assurance that structures and components will not fail, but rather that there is reasonable assurance that they will perform such that the intended functions are maintained consistent with the CLB during the period ofextended operation.

The license renewal rule does not require a compilation or reconstitution of the plant-specific CLB. The portion of the CLB that can be impacted by the detrimental effects of aging is the design basis. Thus, from a practical standpoint, an applicant should consult the CLB for a structure or component in order to perform an aging management review for renewal.

For each area of review described in Subsection I of this SRP section, the following review procedures are to be followed:

A.

Structures and Comnonents Subiect to Aging Management Review and Their Intended FunctionM The reviewer verifies that the renewal application contains a general description 4

of the system or structure's purpose and major equipment. The applicant may reference specific sections of the plant's updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) for details.

The reviewer verifies that the renewal application contains a description of what is the boundary of the system or structure considered. The application should contain a simplified system or structure diagram, or reference a specific drawing in the plant's UFSAR, as appropriate. The reviewer also verifies that the applicant has identified where attached structures and components at the boundary interface are evaluated for renewal. If the applicant chooses not to address a structure or component subject to an aging management review for renewal within this boundary, the reviewer verifies that the applicant has identified where this structure or component is evaluated for renewal.

The reviewer reviews the applicant's description of how the system'or structure

' relates to the plant's performing the intended function (s) as required in 10 CFR 54.4(b). The reviewer verifies that the applicant has identified the intended function (s) and CLB design conditions of the stmetures and components.

The applicant's process should evaluate all systems, structures, and components 3.0-7 Working Draft, September 1997 4,.

- -.,. ~,

y

..,+,,

.-.m-,

-r*

.e------

) (%

against each of the criteria under 10 CFR 54.4(a) to ensure that all intended functions and all structures and components necessary to perform them are identified.

The reviewer verifies that, within the boundary of the system or structure.

considered, the applicant has identified which portion or specific structures and components are subject to an aging management review for renewal. The reviewer verifies that the applicant has identified all structures and components that perform the above intended function (s) without moving parts or without a j

change in configuration or properties, and that are not subject to replacement based on a qualified life or specified time period.

The reviewer verifies that the application contains either (1) documentation that i

identifies individual structures and components subject to an aging management i

review, or (2) a narrative description of each commodity group that bounds and identifies the structures and components within that commodity group. The documentation that identifies individual structures and components could be an item by item list or marked-up drawings.

}

The applicant may choose to group certain structures and components into commodity groups. For commodity groups, the reviewer verifies that the applicant has described the basis for grouping these structures and components,

[

such as similar design, materials of construction, aging effects, aging managermnt practices, internal and external operating environments, and operating experience.

For example, cables, terminations, cable tray supports, and pipe supports may be evaluated in commodity groups. Also for commodity groups, the reviewer verifies that the narrative description provided in the application is specific such that each and every structure and component could be identified from plant drawings or a plant walkdown. For example, the narrative, "all pipe supports on a i

certain pipe run between Points A and B," is acceptable. The narrative, "all pipe supports within the scope oflicense renewal," would require exercising the applicant's screening methodology (10 CFR 54.21(a)(2)) before any specific pipe

~

supports can be identified and is not acceptable. If an aging management program is necessary for a commodity group for renewal, the reviewer verifies that the application contains either (1) the basis to show that an item by item identification of the individual structures and components are not necessary for implementing 4

the program, or (2) information indicating that an item by item identification of the individual structures and components has been prepared and is maintained on a

site.

There are some structures and components that, when combined, are considered a complex assembly (for example, diesel generator starting air skids or heating, i

ventilating, and air conditioning refrigerant units). An applicant should establish the boundaries for such assemblies by identifying each structure and component O

i 3.0-8 Working Draft, September 1997 n-

, - * +

_ ~ _. _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _._ _._ _ _ _ _ _._._ _ _ _ _ _ _

l that make up the complex assembly and determining whether or not each structure and component is subject to an aging management review.

r i

Although the applicant's screening methodology for identifying structures and components subject to aging management review is reviewed separately in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this SRP, the reviewer verifies that the implementation of. -

l the screening methodology for the particular systems, structures, and components does not result in obvious omissions of structures and components subject to aging management review. The reviewer may perform an on-site review of detailed plant drawings and documentation for confmnation..

B.

Annlicable Aoino Effects on Structure and Comnonent Intended FunctinnM The reviewer verifies that the renewal application contains a description of the materials ofconstruction and service environment (s) of the structures and i.

components being evaluated.

The determination of applicable aging effects is based on the degradations that have actually occurred and those that potentially could cause structure and component degradation. The reviewer verifies that the applicant has considered the materials, environment, stresses, service conditions, operating experience, and

.p other relevant information in identifying applicable aging effects. The applicant I

should also consider the effects of aging on the structure and component intended function (s).

1 Relevant aging information may be contained in, but not limited to, the following documents: plant-specific maintenance and inspection records; plant-specific site deviation or issue reports; plant-specific NRC and Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) inspection reports; plant specific licensee self-assessment reports; plant-specific and other licensee event reports (LERs); NRC, INPO, and 1

vendor generic communications; GSIs/USIs; NUREG reports; and Electric Power J

Research Institute (EPRI) reports.

The reviewer verifies that the renewal application contains a discussion of operating experience and other information related to potential aging degradation of the structure and component. If operating experience or other information indicates that a certain aging effect may be potentially applicable and the applicant determines that it is not applicable, the reviewer evaluates the applicant's basis for that determination.

i The reviewer verifies that the applicant has identified an aging effect as applicable l-for renewal even if there is a preventative or mitigation program associated with that aging effect. For example, water chemistry, a coating, or use of cathodic protection could prevent or mitigate corrosion, but corrosion should be identified L

3.0-9 Working Draft, September 1997 me

r as applicable for renewal and the aging inanagement review should consider the adequacy of the water chemistry, coating. or cathodic protection.

l Specific identification of aging mechanisms is not a requirement; however, the i

applicant has the option to identify specific aging mechanisms and the associated l

aging effects in the IPA.

The applicant may determine, by analysis, that certain aging effects do not need to be managed because they would not affect the capability of the structure and component to perform their intended function (s) during the, period of extended l

operation. The reviewer reviews the analysis discussed in the renewal application and evaluates the applicant's basis for determination. In some instances,.

l additional activities such as an inspection should be considered to confum the L

assumptions and validity of the analysis.

l If the applicant identifies aging effects associated with time-limited aging j

analyses (TLAAs), the review guidance in Section 4.0 of this SRP should be used.

t.

l' The reviewer verifies that the applicable aging effects to be considered for renewal include those that could result from normal plant operation, including plant / system operating transients and plant shutdown. Aging effects from Ley abnormal events need not be postulated specifically for renewal. However,if an abnormal event has occurred in the applicant's plant, the reviewer verifies that the i

applicant has described the abnormal event in the renewal application and has l

l considered its contribution to the aging effects on structures and components for renewal for that plant.

l Design basis events (DBEs) are abnormal events and they include: design basis

- pipe break, loss-of coolant accident (LOCA), and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). Potential degradations resulting from DBEs are addressed, as appropriate, as part of the plant's CLB. There are other abnormal events which should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, abuse due to human error is an abnormal event and aging effects from such abuse need not be postulated for renewal. When a safety significant piece of equipment is accidentally damaged by a licensee, the licensee is required to take immediate corrective action under existing procedures, that is, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, to ensure i

functionality of the equipment. The equipment degradation is not due to aging and corrective action is not necessary solely for the period of extended operation.

However, for example, the applicant may not consider leakage from bolted connections as abnormal events. Although bolted connections are not supposed to j

leak, experience shows that leaks do occur and the leakage could cause corrosion.

F Thus, the aging effects from leakage of bolting connections should be evaluated L

for renewal.

3.0-10 Working Draft, September 1997 L __

,c e-

~

r--e r

r vw--

nme e

(------..

l I

l l

f If an abnormal event has occurred in the applicant's plant, its contribution to the

\\

aging effects on structures and components may have to be considered for renewal for that plant. For example, if a resin intrusion has occurred in the reactor coolant system at the applicant's plant, the applicant should consider the contribution of this resin intrusion event to the aging effects, such as cracking, of the rector coolant system components for renewal.

In addition, an aging effect observed as a result of an abnormal event does not necessarily preclude that aging effect from occurring during normal operation for the period of extended operation. For example, a certain pressurized water reactor observed clad cracking in its pressurizer and attributed that to an abnormal dry out L

of the pressurizer. Although dry out of a pressurizer is an abnormal event, the potential for clad cracking in the pressurizer during normal operation should still be evaluated for renewal. This is because the pressurizer is subject to extensive thermal fluctuations and water level changes during plant operation which may result in clad cracking given sufficient operating time. The abnormal dry out of the pressurizer at that certain plant may have merely accelerated the rate of the aging effect.

C.

Aging Management Programs for Renewal Aging management programs are generally of four types: prevention, mitigation, l

condition monitoring, and performance monitoring. Prevention programs

\\

preclude the effects of aging from occurring, for example, coating programs to prevent external corrosion of a tank. Mitigation programs attempt to slow the effects of aging, for example, water chemistry programs to mitigate intemal corrosion of piping. Condition monitoring programs inspect and examine for the presence and extent of aging effects, for example, visual inspection of concrete structures for cracking and ultrasonic measurement of pipe wall for erosion-corrosion induced wall thinning. Performance monitoring programs test the ability of a structure or component to perform its intended function (s), for example, heat balances on heat exchangers for the heat transfer intended function of the tubes. In many instances, more than one type of aging management programs are implemented to ensure that aging effects are managed. For example, in managing intemal corrosion of piping, a mitigation program (water chemistry) may be used to minimize susceptibility to corrosion. However, it may also be necessary to have a condition monitoring program (ultrasonic inspection) to verify that corrosion is indeed insignificant.

Regardless of whether existing, modified, or new programs are to be relied on for renewal, a demonstration is needed regarding the adequacy of these programs for j

managing the aging effects so that the structure and component intended function (s) will be maintained for the period of extended operation. The elements j

of an aging management program identified in Subsection II.C of this SRP section are applicable. Existing programs may be found acceptable to manage the effects l

3.0 11 Working Draft, September 1997 l

i

[=

I

^

L l

of aging if continued into the renewal temi. If an applicant, through their aging management review for renewal, concludes that these elements have been previously addressed by the licensee and the NRC for a specific existing program in documents, such as the plant's FSAR, technical specifications, NRC generic 4

communications, previously issued NRC staff safety evaluation reports, and licensee submittals supporting NRC safety determinations, the applicant may reference these documents in their renewal application to show that this specific program meets these elements. The references should identify specific sections of the documents that adc'ress these elements. Taking advantage ofprevious NRC reviews of programs can limit the depth of NRC review necessary.

l The reviewer may consider the risk significance of a structure or component in L

evaluating the robustness of an aging management program. The applicant may use probabilistic arguments to assist in developing an approach for aging management adequacy. However, use of probabilistic arguments alone is not an acceptable basis for concluding that, for those structures and components subject to an aging management review, the effects of aging will be adequately managed in the period of extended operation. Thus, risk significance may be considered in developing the details of an aging management program for the structore or component for renewal, but may not be used to conclude that no aging management program is necessary for renewal.

.O Because aging is a continuous process, aging management being performed on

()

structures and components during the current term may be acceptable for the j

period of extended operation.' Conversely. aging managt. ment found necessary for renewal may also be necessary during the current operating term. The renewal review may result in the identification of certain existing programs that need to be i

modified or new programs that are necessary to manage aging during the period of extended operation. If there are potential generic implications for operating reactors, the reviewer should describe the issues in a memorandum to the Event Assessment and Generic Communication Branch (PECB) for their consideration.

Elements of an existing, modified, or new aging management program as described in Subsection II.C of this SRP section are reviewed as follows:

1.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has identified the specific program necessary for renewal in the renewal application. The reviewer also verifies that the applicant has identified the scope of the program in the application and that the scope includes the specific structures and components subject to an aging management review for renewal.

1 2.

For prevention and mitigation programs, the reviewer verifies that the applicant has described the activities for prevention and mitigation in the renewal application. The reviewer also verifies that the applicant has

- V) r" I

3.012 Working Draft, September 1997

,s sN 1,.

,---,,,--.--4 e

e,

L Oh provided the basis in the application to show that these actions would mitigate or prevent aging degradation.

(

)

For condition or performance monitoring programs, they do not rdy on preventive actions and thus, this information need not be provided.

However, in many instances, more than one type of aging management programs should be implemented to ensure that aging effects are managed.

3.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has identified the parameters to be monitored or inspected in the renewal application. The reviewer also verifies that the applicant has provided basis in the application to show l

that these parameters are linked to the degradation of the particular L

structure and component intended function (s).

For a condition monitoring program, the parameter monitored or inspected should detect the presence and extent of aging effects. Some examples are measurements of wall thicknesses and detection and sizing of cracks.

For a performance monitoring program, a link is established between the degradation of the particular structure and component intended functions and the parameter (s) being monitored. An example where a performance monitoring program could link the degradation ofpassive component intended function (s) with the performance being monitored is heat balances on heat exchangers to ensure the heat transfer intended function of the tubes. Fouling of the heat exchanger tubes affects the heat transfer intended function and could be monitored by periodic heat balances.

Whi;e this example only deals with one intended function of the tubes,

)

which is heat transfer, additional programs may be necessary to manage other intended function (s) of the tubes, such as pressure boundary.

A performance monitoring program may not assure the structure and component intended function (s) without linking the degradation of passive intended functions with the performance being monitored. For example, a periodic diesel generator test alone would not provide assurance that the diesel will start and run properly under all applicable design conditions.

While the test verifies that the diesel will perform if all the support systems function, it provides little information related to the material condition of the support components and their ability to withstand design basis event loads. Thus, a design basis event, such as a seismic event, could cause the diesel supports, such as the diesel embedment plate anchors or the fuel oil tank, to fail if the effects of aging on these g-components are not managed during the period of extended operation.

j' _ )

be the specific parameters being controlled to achieve prevention or For prevention and mitigation programs, the parameters monitored should j

3.0-13 Working Draft, September 1997 r -. +. - --- -

c

...s

_m l

)

mitigation of aging effects. An example is the coolant oxygen level which

/

is being controlled in a water chemistry program to mitigate pipe cracking.

4.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has described how detection of aging effects would occur before there is a loss of the structure and component intended function (s) in the renewal application.

Nuclear power plants are licensed based on redundancy, diversity, and defense-in-depth principles. A degraded or failed component reduces the reliability of the system, challenges safety systems, and contributes to plant risk. Thus, the effects of aging on a structure or component should be managed to ensure its availability to perform its intended furiction(s) as designed when called upon. In this way, all system level intended function (s), including redundancy, diversity, and defense-in-6 cpl-consistent with the plant's CLB, would be maintained for renewal. A program based solely on detecting structure and component failure should not be considered as an effective aging management program for renewal.

F The reviewer verifies that the applicant has provided information to show that the parameters to be monitored or inspected are appropriate to ensure that the structure and component intended function (s) will be adequately maintained for renewal under all CLB design conditions.

5.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has described monitoring and trending activities and shown that they would provide predictability of the extent of degradation and timely corrective or mitigative actions in the renewal application. The reviewer also verifies that the applicant has provided information in the application to show that monitoring, inspection, technique. frequency, and sample size are appropriate for timely detection of aging effects. Plant specific and/or industry-wide operating experience may be considered in evaluating the appropriateness of the technique and frequency.

The applicant may use sampling to inspect a group of structures and components. The reviewer verifies that the applicant has provided basis for selecting the inspection population and sample size. The population should be selected based on similarity of materials of construction, fabrication, procurement, design, installation, operating environments, and

. aging effects. The sample size should be selected based on consideration of the specific aging effect, location, existing technical information, system and structure design, materials of construction, service environment, previous failure history, etc. The samples should be biased towards locations most susceptible to the specific aging effect of concern.

Provisions should also be included on expanding the sample size when

/

degradation is detected in the initial sample.

t 3.0-14 Working Draft, September 1997

- 9 m

e,v-g w

!]

k.,/

6.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has described the acceptance criteria of the program and their bases in the renewal application. The acceptance criteria, against which the need for corrective actions will be evaluated, should ensure that the structure and component intended function (s) are maintained under all CLB design conditions during the period of extended operation. The reviewer also verifies that the program l

includes a methodology for analyzing the results against applicable acceptance criteria.

For example, carbon steel pipe wall thinning may o'ccur under certain conditions due to erosion-corrosion. An aging management program for erosion-corrosion may consist of periodically measuring the pipe wall thickness and comparing that to a specific minimum wall acceptance criterion. Corrective action is taken, such as piping replacement, prior to l

reaching this acceptance criterion. This piping may be designed for thermal, pressure, deadweight, seismic, and other loads, and this l

acceptance criterion must be appropriate to ensure that the thinned piping

' ~

would be able to carry these CLB desiga loads. This acceptance criterion should provide for timely corrective action before loss ofintended function under these CLB design loads.

(Od Acceptance criteria could be numerical values. Or, the renewal d

application could contain a discussion of the process for calculating the specific numerical values of the acceptance criteria to ensure that the stmeture and component intended function (s) will be maintained under all CLB design conditions. If references are available, this information may be referenced. The reviewer may perform an on-site review of the implementation of the program to confirm the adequacy of the acceptance criteria.

A renewal applicant does not need to justify any acceptance criteria taken directly from the design basis information that is included in the FSAR because that is a part of the CLB. Also, the applicant does not need to discuss CLB design loads if the acceptance criteria do not permit degradation because a structure and component without degradation should continue to function as originally designed.

7.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has described actions to be taken when the acceptance criteria are not met in the renewal application. The reviewer also verifies that the applicant has provided information in the application to show that corrective actions, including root cause determination and prevention of recurrence, would be timely.

F

\\?

3.045 Working Draft, September 1997

w If corrective actions permit analysis without repair or replacement, the reviewer evaluates the applicant's description and basis of the analysis to ensure that the structure and component intended function (s) will be maintained consistent with the CLB.

Safety related structures and components are subject to Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, which should generally address corrective actions, confirmation process, and administration controls. The reviewer verifies that the applicant has included Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 in the discussion in its renewal application regarding safety related structures and components. For non-safety related structures and components that are subject to aging management review for renewal, the applicant has an option to include these structures and components in their Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 program, in lieu of a separate renewal program. If the applicant chooses to have a separate renewal program for non-safety related structures and components, the reviewer verifies that the applicant's program addressing corrective actions, confirmation process, and administrative controls is surnmarized in the FSAR supplement.

8.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has described the confirmation process in the renewal application. The reviewer also verifies that the applicant has provided information in the application to show that the b

confirmation process would ensure that preventive actions are adequate i

and that appropriate corrective actions have been completed and are effective.

For prevention and mitigation programs, the effectiveness of these programs should be periodically verified. For example, in managing internal corrosion of piping, a mitigation program (water chemistry) may be used to minimize susceptibility to corrosion. However, it may also be necessary to have a condition monitoring program (ultrasonic inspection) to verify that corrosion is indeed insignificant.

When corrective actions are necessary, there should be follow up activities

~

to confirm that the corrective actions are completed, root cause determination is performed, and recurrence is prevented.

9.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has described administrative controls of the program in the renewal application. "Ihe reviewer verifies that the applicant has provided information in the application to show that the administrative controls would provide a formal review and approval process.

Any aging management programs to be relied on for renewal must have regulatory and administrative controls. That is the basis for 3.0-16 Working Draft, September 1997 O

i 10 CFR 54.21(d) to require that the FSAR supplement includes a summary

[

description of the programs and activities for managing the effects of t

l aging for renewal. Thus, any informal programs relied on to manage aging for renewal need to be administratively controlled and included in the FSAR supplement.

i a

10.

The reviewer verifies that the applicant has discussed operating experience with existing programs in the renewal application. The operating experience of aging management programs, including past corrective actions resulting in program enhancements or additional programs, should be reviewed. A past failure would not necessarily invalidate an aging 5

management program because the feedback from operating experience should have resulted in appropriate program enhancements or new l

programs. This information can show where an existing program has

[

succeeded and where it has failed, if any, in intercepting aging degradation in a timely manner. This information should provide objective evidence to i

i support that the effects of aging will be adeountely managed so that the L-structure and component intended function (s) will be maintained during the period of extended operation. The reviewer may perform an on-site review of the plant mair.tenance and operating records to confirm this information. An applicant may have to commit to providing operating I

experience in the future for new programs to confirm their effectiveness.

4 D.

FSAR Sunnlement i

The summary description of the programs and activities for managing the effects of aging for the period of extended operation in the FSAR supplement is reviewed to verify that it provides an appropriate description such that any changes to programs or activities during the period of extended operation can be controlled j

by 10 CFR 50.59. The description should contain information associated with the i

IPA regarding the basis for determining that aging effects are managed in the period of extended operation.

5 For aging effects with specific acceptance criteria in Subsection II.A, information contained in the summary description should be specifically referenced to these acceptance criteria. For aging effects determined under a case-by-case review to require a management program during the period of extended operation, the summary description should contain the basis for the NRC staff determination for the adequacy of the program.

The reviewer also verifies that the applicant's FSAR supplement lists tasks pertaining to aging management programs and activities not yet in place that will be completed prior to or during the period of extended operation. These tasks may include system design changes, replacements, inspections, program enhancements, and establishing new programs. The FSAR supplement should Q-3.0-17 Working Draft, September 1997 M

. - -.. ~ -- - -. - -.

l contain a schedule for each of these specific tasks consistent with the applicant's

/

IPA.

Depending on the significance ofbe aging management programs and activities and certain elements within them, and how the information is relied on in the staff safety determination, the reviewer may decide that certain information regarding aging management programs and applicant commitments should be documented and controlled in the plant technical specification or as license conditions.

l IV.

EVALUATION FINDINGS

'Ihe reviewer verifies that sufficient and adequate information has been provided to satisfy the provisions of this standard review plan section and that the staffs evaluation supports conclusions of the following type to be included in the staffs safety evaluation report:

The staff concludes that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the intended functions of structures and components in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3).

This conclusion is based on the staffs review of the renewal application submitted by the applicant.

1 A.

Structures and Comnonents Subiect to Aging Management Review and Their

'V-Intended Function (s) l The applicant has identified the structures and components subject to an aging -

management review in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1). The applicant has also identified the intended function (s) of these structures and components under l

CLB design conditions in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(b).

B.

Annlienhle Aoino Effects on Structure and Cnmnonent Intended Functinn(s)

The applicant has identified the applicable aging effects of the structures and components for the period of extended operation.

. C.

Aoine Manmoement Programs for Renewal I'

For the specific' structures and components, the applicant has provided sufficient information as bases to justify compliance with 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3) in L.

demonstrating that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the p

intended function (s) will be maintained consistent with the CLB for the period of l-extended operation.

(

. D.

FSAR Supplement 1

IJ

\\

3.0-1 g Working Draft, Sepca.M 1997

.4 w

.e-e n.

-w

..-. ~. - -. -

.-..~ -..

l 1

1/

)

The staff also concludes that the FSAR supplement contains an appropriate

}U summary description of the programs and activities for managing the effects of

{

aging for the period of extended operation in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(d).

l-V.

IMPLFMENTATION l

Except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable altemative method, the method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance

{ ',

with Commission regulation.

i 1

4 i l 4(

N i.

I i

i v

1 3.0 19 Working Draft, September 1997 i

l

~

4 I

i.

J s-1 i

VI.

REFERENCES 1.

NEI 95-10, Revision 0, " Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 - The License Renewal Rule," Nuclear Energy Institute, March 1

1996.

i 5

i

{.

j i

i i!.

1, -

f -.

f d

G r~(.

3.0-20 Working Draft, September 1997

\\

rs y

BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION - PDLR 3.0-1 GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO AGING A.

Backaround Unresolved safety issues (USIs) and generic safety issues (GSIs) are identified and tracked in the NRC's formal generic safety issues resolution process set forth in NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," which is updated periodically.m NUREG-0933 is a source ofinformation on generic concems identified by the NRC.

Some of these generic concerns may be related to the effects of aging or time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs). The purpose of this branch technical position is to address the license renewal treatment of an aging effect or a TLAA which is a subject of a USI or GSI(60 FR at 22484).

B.

Branch Technical Position 1.

The renewal rule requires that aging effects be managed to ensure that the structure and component intended function (s) are maintained and that TLAAs be evaluated for license renewal. Thus, all applicable aging effects of structures and components subject to an aging management review and all TLAAs must be O

evaluated, regardless of whether they are associated with GSIs or USIs.

2.

Appendix B in NUREG-0933 designates generic issues as: issues that have been resolved with requirements (NOTE 3(a), Resolved TMI Action Plan); USI, HIGH-and MEDIUM-priority issues scheduled for resolution; nearly-resolved issues scheduled for resolution (NOTES I and 2); and issues that are scheduled for prioritization (NOTE 4).

2.1 For an USI or a GSI with HIGH-or MEDIUM-priority, or NOTE 1,2, or 4, that is within the scope of the aging management review or TLAA, an applicant may use one of the following approaches (60 FR 22484):

2.1.1 If resolution has been achieved before issuance of a renewed license, implementation of that resolution could be incorporated within the renewal application.

The plant-specific implementation information should be provided in the renewal application. For an aging management program, the renewal application should discuss that the aging management program contains the elements as described in Subsection II.C of Section 3.0 of this SRP. For a TLAA, the renewal application should contain an evaluation of the TLAA for the period of extended operation.

v 3.0 21 Working Draft, September 1997 l

~

I 1

r\\

k_./

2.1.2 An applicant may chcose to submit a technical rationale which demonstrates that the current licensing basis (CLB) will be maintained until some later point in time in the period of extended operation, at which point one or more reasonable options. (for example, replacement, analytical evaluation, or a i

surveillance / maintenance program) would be available to adequately manage the effects of aging. The license renewal application would have to describe the basis for concluding that the CLB is maintained in the period of extended operation and briefly describe options that are technically feasible during the period of extended operation to manage the effects of aging, but it would not have to pre-select which option would be used.

l The applicant should identify the time period that the technical rationale is valid and commit to submitting an evaluation of the issue for staff approval before that time period expires. If an applicant uses this approach, the NRC may impose a license

~

condition or other appropriate licensing controls to document the l

applicant's commitment.

2.1.3 Another approach would be for an applicant to develop an aging

,\\f management program which, for that plant, incorporates a resolution to the aging effects issue.

L

\\-

2.1.4 Another approach would be to propose to amend the CLB (as a separate action outside the license renewal application) which, if approved, would remove the intended function (s) from the CLB.

i The proposed CLB amendment is reviewed under 10 CFR Part 50 and is not a review area for license renewal.

2.2 For other GSis that are within the scope of the aging management review or TLAA, an applicant should consider this information in performing its L,_

integrated plant assessment (10 CFR 54.21(a)) and TLAA evaluation (10 CFR 54.21(c)).

3.

During the preparation and review of a renewal application, an applicant or the NRC may become aware of an aging management or TLAA issue that may be generically applicable to other nuclear plants. Ifissues may have generic applicability (but are not yet part of the formal generic safety issues resolution in-process as identified in NUREG-0933), an applicant should still address the issue H

in its application to demonstrate that the effects of aging are or will be adequately

[

managed or that TLAAs have been evaluated for the period of extended operation.

I l

3.0-22 Working Draft, September 1997

~

am O

., ~~

D C.

. References

~ 1.

NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," Supplement 20, July 1996.

l.

I 1

l l

l 4

L.

l 1

]

i i

l

\\

t l4 l

i I

J l

1 I'

I l

l il-j.

.s.

i.

3.0-23 Working Draft, September 1997 I

i l.

~ _. -.....,

-