ML20237F105

Insp Rept 50-271/87-14 on 871005-09.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Response to USI A-7 Re Mark I Containment Program,Including Review of Design Analyses & Work Plans for Mods to Torus Suppression Chamber

ML20237F105
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	12/18/1987
From:	Chaudhary S, Strosnider J, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237F090	List: ML20237F088 ML20237F105
References
REF-GTECI-A-07, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-07, TASK-A-7, TASK-OR 50-271-87-14, NUDOCS 8712290359
Download: ML20237F105 (30)

See also: IR 05000271/1987014

Text

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ -_ _

. .-

,

,

n

.- . .

. *

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-271/87-14

Docket No. 50-271

,

License No. DPR-28 Priority -

Category C

1

Licensee: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Company

Ferry Road

Brattleboro, Vermont 05301

Facility Name: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Inspection At: Framingham, Ma sachusetts and Vernon, Vermont

Inspection Conducted: October 5-9, 1937

Inspectors: .

.

( 4 D" I S IT b

A. A.'Varela, Lead Reactor Engineer date

(1 % f o/' /2[/F/[(7

S' LR. 'Chaudhary, Senier Reactor Engineer 'date

NRC Contract Personnel: M. E. Nitzel, EG&G Idaho, Inc.

M. J. Russell, EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Approved by- k- <x ~fA,

. R. Strosnider,~Cpief, Materials and

_

/ /ff/W

6 ate'

Processes Section EB, DRS

Inspection Summary: Inspection on October 5-9, 1987 (Inspection Report

No. 50-271/87-14

Areas Inspected: A special announced inspection by two regional-based

inspectors and two contractor personnel was conducted at the Yankee Atomic

engineering office and the Vermont Yankee plant site. The inspection encom-

passed review of licensee completed actions in response to Unresolved Safety

Issue (USI A-7), Mark I Containment Program. The inspection included reviews

of design analyses and work plans for unique modifications to the torus sup-

pression chamber, torus attached piping and instrumentation. A walkdown

inspection verified selected samples of 19 significant modifications

Results: No violations were identified

8712290359 871218 1

PDR ADOCK 0500

0

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

-- -_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

. .-

,

,

'

l ,.- . .

..

l

l

DETAILS

l 1.0 Persons Contacted

, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation and

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

• + C. Greeno Senior Engineer

I

R. Grippardi QA Supervisor

S. Jefferson Assistant to Plant Manager

l + R. L. Martin Vendor QA Supervisor

• + D. K. McElwee Engineering Program Manager

A. M. Mete 11 Engineering Support Supervisor

S. Miller Project Manager

• + R. P. Oliver Principal Engina r

R. D. Pagodin Technical Services Superintendent

l J. Pelletier Plant Manager

'

+ J. K. Tayer Engineering Manager

l + R. E. White Senior Mechanical Engineer

S. C. White Senior Engineer QA

Teledyne Engineering Services

+ N. Celia Vice President

NRC Contractor EG&G Idaho, Inc.

• + M. E, Nitzel Engineering Specialist

• + M. J. Russell Engineering Specialist

Attendees at plant exit meeting on October 9, 1987, at plant.

+ Attendees at Engineering Office meeting on October 5, 1987.

NRC Region I

G. Grant Senior Resident Inspector /P' ant

+ D. Haverkamp Project Engineer

2.0 Inspection Purpose And Scope

The purpose of this inspection was to verify that the licensee has

modif-f ed the Vermont Yankee containment consistent with their commitments

.to NRC concerning Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-7 and that these modi-

fications have been performed using appropriate procedures and with an

acceptable level of quality. The scope of this inspection was defined

by Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/85. Technical issues in USI A-7

involved suppression pool hydrodynamic loads on the Mark I containment

that were not considered in the original Mark I containment design basis.

These loads affected the torus shell, torus support structure, torus

..

.

___-___ _ __ - _ _ -

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

. .-

,

,

' .

. .

.'.

3

.

internal structures, and torus attached piping. This issue was addressed

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

programs. Under the short term program, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation (NYNPC) submitted on September 30, 1979 their Mark I Containment

Short Term final report and performed modifications that were reviewed

against criteria established by NRC (NUREG-0408). Based on this review,

and submission of additional information requested, the NRC concluded on

January 13, 1981 that continued plant operation was acceptable until the

completion of the long term program. The long term program addressed in

USIA-7 required additional analysis and modifications to satisfy the

acceptance criteria established in NUREG-0661. These criteria provided

increased margins of safety and higher containment reliability. NYNPC

submitted on April 27, 1984, Revision 2, of the Plant Unique Analysis Report

(FUAR) and performed modifications to meet the requirements identified by

the above criteria.

T h t. 'AC itsued its safety evaluation regarding the Vermont Yankee long term

eva iaation on July 2,1984. This evaluation concluded that the Vermont g

Yankee containment design as modified satisfies the NUREG-0661 criteria. l

The modifications made to the Vermont Yankee Containment as part of the

short term and long term programs are summarized in the Table ~belcw.

1975 Two-Phase Approach Established to Resolve Containment

Integrity Questions

1. Short-Term Program (STP)

-

Plant-unique evaluations

-

Established a safety factor of 2.0 for

containment functional integrity

2. Long-Term Program (LTP)

-

Restore original design safety margins

1976 STP Modifications

-

Column reinforcement and tiedown

-

Torus /drywell pumpback system

-

These modifications satisfied STP requirements

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

,

- - - - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _

.

. .

-

..

4

]

LTP Modifications

i

1980 Refueling Outage 1

Major Modifications Installed, EDCR 80-11

-

Saddles l

-

Tee Quenchers and Supports {

-

Downcomer Ties  !

-

RHR Return Elbows I

-

SRVDL 10-Inch Vacuum Breakers

-

Minor Internal Modifications

-

Vent Header Deflectors

1983 Refueling Outage

Completed Modifications

-

Catwalk

{

-

Additional 10-Inch SRV Vacuum Breakers

-

Upgraded Temperature Monitoring System

-

Attached Piping Support Modifications

Submitted Plant-Unique Analysis Report to NRC

1984 NRC completes post-implementation audit review of Vermont

Yankee PUAR and concludes that modifications have restored

the original design safety margin.

Inspections were conducted at the corporate office and the plant to verify

the completeness and quality of the licensee's program and plant modifi-

cations performed in response to USI A-7 commitments. The scope of the

inspection included a review of engineering design and quality assurance

documentation relating to inspection, testing, analysis and modifications

satisfying NRC requirements and licensee commitments with respect to the

USI. A walkdown inspection of the plant verified the acceptability of

samples of repairs and/or modifications made as part of this program.

3.0 Review Criteria

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

requirements. Also, the NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the

licensee's Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) and applicable sections

of the Code of Federal Regulations were used to define additional NRC

requirements and licensee commitments.

l

l

t

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

' '

.o

'

. . .

.'.

5

.

4.0 Documentation Reviewed

Prior to.the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the Vermont Yankee

PUAR, pertinent technical specification changes, and related licensing

correspondence. The inspection team reviewed copies of the NRC staff SER,

previous Region I inspection reports, NUREG-0408 and NUREG-0661. The

inspection team members also performed a docket search of licensing

documentation to identify any additional correspondence relating to USI

A-7. This docket searct identified other information addressing the

methodology, acceptance -iteria, procedures, specifications, schedules,

and programmatic details concerning the licensee's response to this issue.

The documentation described above that wr' reviewed prior to the inspec- __

tion is listed in Table 1.

After reviewing the information listed in Table 1 the inspection team

members developed a list of requests for additional information (RAI).

This request was transmitted to the licensee to serve as a preliminary

agenda for onsite review activities and to aid in the efficient retrieval

of information for onsite review. The requests for information are

included in Appendix A of this report.

During the inspection at the licensee's engineering offices and plant site,

the inspection team reviewed modification design calculations, drawings,

engineering procedures, engineering design change requests (EDCRs) for

plant modifications, quality control and quality assurance records,

and additional correspondence. .The information described above provided a

comprehensive sample of the licensee's USI A-7 efforts. This information

allowed the inspection team to address the programmatic review, technical

specification review, and design modification review requirements listed

in TI 2515/85. The documents described above which were reviewed by the

inspection team members are listed in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Results of the

docket search showed that partial coverage of the TI 2515/85 requirements

for programmatic review had been addressed by certain previous Region I.

inspections. The areas covered were described in inspection reports

contained in the matrix that follows.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

7

1

- XXXXX

8

7

)

1

- XXXXX

0

s 7

r

di l

llllI

l a

ep 1

We 1

s

R - XXXXX

8

uk 7

r c

oa

Tr

C 0

1

- XXXXX

8

7

S

N

9 O 7

Q I

2

- XXXXX T - XX

8 A 3

7 C 8

l

f

i

2 D 2 7

2 O 2 1

T - X XX M - XX - X

N 6 0 3

E

M

7 S 1 8

L G

E A N

C N I

R 4 R 7 P 4

E O 0 E 1 I 1

E F - X T - XX P - X X X

k N 6 N 0 3

N I

/ 7 I

8 D 0

A E 1 E

Y R 7 D H

6 2 N C

T T - ) A 6 A 3

N R 0 0 1 T 1

O O 5 - XX XX XX E - XX T - X

M P 6 R 0 A 3

R P 7 U 8 6

E U T S

V S i

C U

S U S R S

S T R T O T

U N T N T N

R E S E E

O M ._ M . M

T O. U T O_ U o U

N C R N C h C

O O O O

T D P T D T D

R P R R

O D U O D O D

P SE S P SE P SE

E ET E ET E ET

R I A S R l A R IA

TL U iL TL

I E R lE IE

VR O VR VR

I

T I I

S TY S TY S TY

N CT N Cl N CT

0 AI 0 Ai O AI

1

.L l L I

L

T NA l NA T NA

A OU A OU A OU

C I Q C I Q C IQ

I

T I T I

T

F AR F AR F AR

S I LE S i

LE S I

LE

.I L LH T l LH T L LH

N A AT N A AI N A AT

E U T O E U TO E U T O

M Q S M Q S M Q S

S U N& S U N& S U N&

N C & l N C & I

N C & I

O O iS O O /S O O /S

I

D S NN I

D S NN I

D S NN

T NSOO T NSOO T NSOO

A T ONI I A ,I

0NI I A T ONI I

C N I OTT C .N 1 OTT C N I

OTT

I E TIAC I E TI AC I E TI AC

F M ATCE F M ATCE F M ATCE

I E CAI P I

L CAIP I L CAI P

_

.

C R I CRS C R 6 CRS C R l CRS

_

_ ESU FI BN ESU f I BN ESU fIBN

_ PT C I FAI PTC l FAI PT C iFAI

_

.

_ SNO T IF SNO T I F SNO TI F

_

ER 9T . ER RT ER RT .

ERSN.

_

_

_

NMP ERSN NMP NMP ERSN

_ OU CENO OU CENO OU CE N ?.

C& S I C& S I C& S

.

_

_

I

COI COI C0'

_

TO EL IT T O EL IT T O EL

_

-

-

ADTSRELTA

L CGUNAAL

ADTSRELT A

L CGUNKAL

ADTSRELl

L CGUNAAL

l"a

_

_

LNANDNI VL LNANDNIVL LNANDNI VL

_ AGRI E RRA AGRIEORRA AGRI EORRA

TWC5EET WCSEET

_

_ TI T I T WCSEET TIT

_

_ SSNAORTSS SSNAORTSS SSNAORTSS

NEORREADN NEORREXBN NEORREABN

I DCDPPMOI I DCDPPNOI I DCDPPMOI

, ll l!

.

. .-

,

~. .

. ?.

7

No unacceptable findings were identified during the inspections shown in

the above matrix. However, on June 28, 1978, the licensee notified the

resident inspector that cracking was observed in welds made as part of

torus structural modifications. Close attention was paid to this problem

by the NRC. Inspections 78-09, 78-10, 78-11, 78-13, and 78-17 include

coverage of all aspects of the licensee's repair program and its suc-

cessful conclusion. Inspection and Enforcement (IE) Bulletin 78-11

(Examination of Mark I Torus Welds) was issued as a result of this problem

at Vermont Yankee.

Samples of documentation describing the licensee's activities regarding

engineering, design, construction, quality control inspection, quality _

assurance verification, operating procedures, and technical specification

compliance pertinent to USI A-7 were inspected as described above. Samples

of modifications made to satisfy USI A-7 commitments were inspected in the

plant and verified to conform with the appropriate design documents and

programmatic requirements. Based on the documents reviewed and the results

of the field inspection, the inspection team concluded that the licensee's

plant modifications and operating procedure changes made in response to

their Mark I containment program have been implemented with appropriate

regard to safety, administrative and procedural cc'ntrol, quality control,

and USI A-7 programmatic commitments.

Findings

Based on the documentation review, the inspectors concluded that the

structural analyses and design of containment modification were performed

in a well controlled, technically adequate manner with acceptable levels

of Quality. Instrumentation was tbcrough and complete. No unacceptable

conditions or unresolved items were identified.

5.0 Verification Walkdown Inspection

A physical inspection of a sample of the modifications made in response

to USI A-7 was conducted. The purpose of this walkdown was to verify that

,

modifications made in the plant matched those shown on plant design draw-

ings and in design documents. The items shown in Table 5 were examined.

Examples of those items spot checked during the walkdown include overall

modification location and geometry, member dimensions, torus attached

piping system geometry, boundary conditions, attached equipment, and

general quality of workmanship.

Findings: No violations, deviations, or unresolved items resulted from

the plant walkdown.

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

-_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

. ..

.

.

. .

.

8

6. Operability and Conformance to Technical Specification (TS) of the 1

'

Modifications

The inspector reviewed the modifications to suppression pool monitoring

system (EDCR-82-37) including TS to confirm the following:

The placement and number of temperature monitoring devices are in

accordance with PUAR commitments.

• Suppression pool temperatures are indicated in control room.

• Instrumentation alarm set points have been established consistent

with TS pool temperature limits.

• TS temperature and differential pressure control limits are con-

sistent with PUAR.

• Control room instrumentation is adequate to assure that requirements

are met.

The inspector reviewed the engineering design change package (EDCR) No.

82-37 to determine the technical adequacy of modification.

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

inspector determined the following:

The controlled drawings in the control room indicated that the

temperature indicators were placed at four points in the suppression

pool as required by the EDCR-82-37.

= The suppression pool temperatures were indicated and recorded in the

control room by two separate and independent channels.

• Indicators 16-19-33A and 16-19-33C were powered by instrument AC

(vital bus).

• The other two indicators were powered by non-vital instrument bus.

• The alarm set point was 85 F for the vital and non-vital powered

instrumentation bus.

• The differential pressure (AP) was indicated by PVC-1/156-3 indicator

with an alarm set point of 1.85 psi.

• The above set points for temperature and AP were consistent with

PUAR and the Technical Specification amendment No. 96. (This

amendment is in process of submittal to NRC.)

1

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

_ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _

.

'

. .

..

9

The inspector determined that the design and installation of the modifi-

cations were technically adequate to assure a safe and reliable monitoring

of suppression pool temperature and differential pressure.

No deviation or violation was identified.

7. Review of Licensee Administrative Controls, Quality Assurance,

and Quality Control

The inspector performed a review during this inspection of documentation

l

'

to evaluate the licensee's QA/QC involvement in the overall effort to

address the Unresolved Safety Issue (USI A-7), Mark I Containment Program.

'he pertinent documents examined are identified in Table 6. Microfiche

copies were provided by the licensee in response to the Item No. 5,

Requests for Additional Information, in Appendix A to this report. These

records were evaluated for completeness, for thoroughness in follow-up of

corrective actions and for formal acceptability and closecut of

documentation.

Records of management involvement and control in assuring quality of

contractors' construction and QC activities were reviewed and discussed

with cognizant and responsible engineers who performed the in process

surveillance. These surveillance reports are also identified in Table 6.

The records provide consistent evidence of licensee's prior planning and

assignment of priorities. Additional detailed review and follow up of

corrective actions identified in re-audits and resolution of NCRs were

also performed. Further review and evaluation included the licensee's

continuous Operational Quality Control audit of CB&I activities inside

and outside the torus suppression chamber. This represents full time sur-

veillance coverage by the licensee of all work performed by CB&I between

September 5 and November 10, 1980. Included in the licensee audit report

is CB&I's certification by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (Hartford

Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company) attesting to completion of

all field modifications to the torus suppression chamber as outlined in

CBI procedures and contact drawings. The required final QA documentation

satisficd the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division I,

with a: enda through Summer Section 1977 and Code Case N-197. The modi-

fications conformed to Section XI of the ASME Code and meet the Summer

1978 Edition of Section III for design, materials and fabrication.

In the area of quality control, the review covered welding procedures

(WP), welding procedures qualifications (PQRs), qualification of welding

and NDE inspection personnel, material certifications, in process inspec-

tions, and final acceptance criteria for the work. The modification for

which the above records were reviewed were: for EDCR-82-37, microfilm

rolls 2537 and 1963; and for EDCR-80-11, microfilm rolls 2975, 1976, and

1977.

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

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

. ..

. . .

..

10

The inspector also reviewed engineering drawings and specifications (see

Tables 2 and 3) to determine the technical adequacy of design, and design

conformance to the generic resolution acceptable to the NRC as stated in

NUREG-0661.

Based on the above review and discussions and a visual examination of

accessible work, the inspector determined the following:

• Contractors and subcontractors were selected from properly qualified

supplier list.

• Each contractor / subcontractor had a quality assurance program which

was reviewed and accepted by the licensee.

Special procedures such as welding and NDE were properly controlled

and qualified for use.

• There was a program of in process and final inspections to assure

conformance to requirement by properly qualified QC inspectors.

• Material certifications from suppliers and manufacturers were

reviewed for material conformance to engineering requirement and

approved for use.

Nunconformances in material and work were properly documented and

resolved.

Field changes were properly evaluated and approved by engineering.

• Inspection reports were properly filled out and retained to provide

evidence of acceptance and conformance to technical requirements of

the finished work.

The inspector also noticed that the licensee has maintained extensive

documentation to verify the quality of modification work. These docu-

ments are in the form of microfilms stored at site and also at the

corporate offices. Although the documents are not categorized on the

basis of activities, they are retrievable from the comprehensive pur-

chase order (PO) package maintained by the licensee.

No deviation or violation was identified.

8. Summa ry

Based on the information examined during this inspection and on the

results of field walkdowns, the inspectors conclude that Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Corporation has given full attention to safety and quality

assurance to resolve the safety issue (USI A-7), Mark I Containment

Program.

____________________________-___________w

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

7_--_-_

..

l

,

l' ' .....

..

11

l

9. Exit Meeting

An exit meeting was conducted on October 9, 1987 at the Vermont Yankee

Plant by the NRC' inspector. Attendees at this meeting are listed in

paragraph 1. The NRC inspector summarized the inspection findings and

the licensee acknowledged these comments. No written material was

furnished to licensee personnel.

- - ,

l

i

l

l

1

_ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _a

.

me B00BV

~' _ _ _ . .

EGiG LCB E2

- - - . ~ - - - _ _ ~

__

006

,

.

, i

, . .

\

-

'

l

l

lable

1 - DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED PRIOR TO INSPECTION

Document _

__

Description

--

7-2-04 letter,

-

transmitting NRC staff SER for VermontSER Yankee.D.

ano

Vassal

supporting Technical Evaluation Reports (TER's)

included as attachments.

TR-5319-1 Revision

chamber. 2 of t'he PUAR of the torus suppression

Report prepared for VYNPC by Teledyne

l Engineering Services (TES).

TR-5319-2

PUAR of the torus attached piping. Report prepared for

VYNPC by TES.

NUREG-0661

Safety Evaluation

Program, July, 1980. Report - Mark I containment Long-Term

- --

VYNPC Mark I containment program licensing

correspondence log.

{ ---

j

VYNPP torus attached piping and supports summary sheets

! provided by R. Oliver on 9-23-87.

)

NVY 85-164

R. Hermann (NRC) letter to R. Capstick (VYNPC) dated

8-7-85 regatting VYNPP license amendment number 88.

NVY 85-137

,

D. Vassallo (NRC) letter to R. Capstick dated 7-1-85

! regarding proposed technical specification change.

FVY 84-130

W. Murphy (VYNPC) letter to H.

Denten (NRC) dated

11-2-84 regarding proposed license change to

incorporate results of PUAR.

l

FVY 80-19 R. Capstick letter to V. Rooney (NRC) dated 3-10-86

regarding torus to drywell vacuum breaker l

modifications. \I

FVV 33-76

!

J. Sinclair letter to 0. Vassalle dated 7-20-63 '

regarding proposed change number 101 to the VYNPP

technical specifications.

FVV 84-58 {

J. Sinclair letter to D. Vassallo dated 7-19-84 i

(

l

-egarding consultants conformance to procecures

cutlined in NUREG-0661. f

-- -- {

D. Vassallorequests letter to for J. Sinclair dated 4-14-83 {

forwarding additional information.  !

j

7

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

}

. _ _ . w -

. r*

I ,'.

.

'I Table 1

.00 CEMENTATION' REVIEWED PRIOR TO IRSPECTION (Continueo)

-

_ Document Description

---

D. Vassallo letter to J. Sinclair dated 6-9-83

transmitting requests for additional information.

---

D. Vassallo letter to J. Sinclair dated

6-13-84regarding plant specific analysis to_ determine

gas and water clearing thrust loads following safety

relief valve (SRV) actuation.

---

T. Ippolito (NRC) letter to R. Smith (VYNPC) dated

11-25-81 regarding the extension of completion dates

for Mark I containment modifications.

---

D. Vassallo letter to R.R5mith deted 1-14-82 granting

an extension of completion dates for Mark I containment

modifications. .

---

J. Sinclair letter to D. Vassallo dated 6-17-83

providing responses to prior NRC requests for

additional information.

80-13 USNRC Region I inspection report 80-13, docket number

50-271, Septeber 19,1980.

80-15 USNRC Region I inspection report 80-15, docket numoer

50-271, Novemoer 21,1980.

I

80-16 USNRC Region' t inspection report 80-16, docket number

50-271, November 24,1980.

80-17 USNRC Region I inspection report 80-17, docket number

50-271, January 30,1981.

80-22 USNRC Region I inspection report 80-22, docket number

50-271, February 23,1981.

8

__ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

-

l

1

• .

. .

4

.

l Table 2 - DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED DURING INSPECTION

_

Document Description

EDCR VY-78-2-S1 Specification for VY SRV line vacuum breakers.

TG-35 Verification document for computer code TORPEN

(STARDYNE post processor written by TES).

Mark I containment program for VY. Responses to

requests for additional information prepared by Yankee

l Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) Nuclear Services

See Appendix A Division (NSD). - These Responses were formally

presented as Documentation during the inspection.

Licensee November 23, 1987 submission to the NRC,

Letter FVY 87-109, responds to requests identified in

Appendix A to this report.

Report Paragraphs Number 6, 7 and 8 also contain references to

documentation reviewed during this inspection.

Installation Specifications:

EDCR 76-1 Torus Column Reinforcement and Tie-Down.

EDCR 80-11 Mitered Joint Saddle, Vent Header Deflector, SRV

Tee-Quencher and Supports, Saddle Anchor Bolts.

PDCR 76-9 Drywell/Wetwell Differential Pressure, STP

EDCR 80-56 Drywell/Wetwell Differential Pressure, LTP

EDCR 82-37 Pool Temperature Monitoring System

i

_ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ __m_----- __-___ -

. , ~ _ m_,,. . . _ _

. ; ym _ _ , , . _ , .

.

.

-,m,,_.. y

,

..

.

.

. .

Table 3 - DDIGN ORAWINGS REVIEWED DURING INSPECTf 0N

.

Drawing Subject

l

5920-6042 Drawirig of torus column support assembly.

5920-6044 Draning of torus reinforcement base attachment.

5920-6045 Drawing of torus reinforcernent for column 11L.

5920-6046 Drawing of torus reinforcement details for column 6L.

5920-6049 Orawing or turus reinforcement base attachment details.

5920-9179 Drawing of 10 inch SRV line with 12 inch T quencher

installation assembly.

5920-9132 Torus saddle modification

through <

5920-9144

5920-9240 HPCI piping, part 6 (numercus associated support drawings I

not listed)

l Note: The drawings above were used to verify the applicability of

l the design calculatioris for the respective modifications.

l

l

l

l

10

1

___ _ __

J

e , - , , ,, n,,_,,---- , ,-, - ..:nny v m_

_

,, ,~. .,,,n,, .,- - - - - - . - - . - ,

..

'

'

..' 'TablO 4 - CALCULATION PACKAGES REVIEWED

-

Subject

'

Calculation No.

Torus column reinforcement

5319F-240

SRV tee cuencher

5319-36

SRV tee ottencher support beam

5319F-220 ~

Torus saddle modifications f

5319-23

2 inch concrete anchor bolt analysis

5319-230 (Williams rock bolt load rating calculations)

Saddle support load rating

5319F-231

Vent header and supports load rating

5319F-211 calculations

Torus internal instrumentation and conduit

VYC-165 supports

TAP problem number 64 (HPCI, cart 6)

$319-X221

TAP piping support HPCI-H0103

OW-61

Small bore TAP attached to penetration X210A

5319-X210A

Small bore TAP attached to penetration X211A

5319-X211a

Torus penetration analysis generic study

TG-30 __

-w_

11

_

h"- - - - - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ ,

m- -

u - ., ey -_ . . ._ -m- -c 1 - = -% -_ y

.

, ,

.

Tablo 5 - 051 A-7 ITEMS FIELO VERIFIED

___

_

Comment

,

i

Component / System _Locat on__

__

Verified drawings 6920-6042

R.B. through 6049

Torus column reinforcement

and tie down

Verified drawings 5920-9132

R.B. through 9144 at torus column

Torus saddle modifications

sections 4, 5, 6, and 7.

i

R.B.

Verified portion of piping

TAP, problem 1 (atmo. iso on drawing 5920-9200.

control, part 1) Vertfled support drawings

59?0-9603 and 5920-9600.

Verified piping iso on drawing

R.B. 5920-9240. Verified supports

TAP, problem 64 (HPCI, 4

cart 6) on drawings 5920-6721, 6722,

6723, 6427, 6432.

Verified piping iso on drawing

5920-9255. Verified supports

R.B.

TAP, proolem 100 (core

spray, part 1) on drawings 5920-6436, 6437,

6439, 6440, 9746.  :

Verified TAP small bore pipe

R.B. attached to penetration

TAP small bore pipe

at pen. X-206A X-206A.

I

Verified TAP small bore pipe

R.B. attached to penetration X-223

TAP small bore Dipe

at pen. X-223 and extending into RCIC room.

R.B. Reactor Building

Note:

Torus penetrations for the TAP systems above were also field j

l

inspected. '

__

--

12

_

-a- - - , - - - - , , - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - . . - - , . _ - . - - -

- - _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ ___ . - - - _ _ _ _ ,

..

-

,

. .

bt{miE $lNhv2 (e!) Yr*c/3

-

TahR s - Docuinenta Woh Reviewed ofLiansee-.. A

Mercury Company

Roll / Blip

Vendor Evaluation Report 75-1 (VER 75-1) April 3, 1975 88/14

l Surveillance Report 76-8, February 19, 1976 81/1186

GE - Installation and Service Engineering (I&SE)

' ~<

VER 79-7, January 26, 1979 149/438

L Teledyne Engineering Services (TES)

VER 79-29, September 5, 1979 ,273/391

VER 79-29-1, November 30, 1979 273/404

, VER 83-38, January 12, 1984 896/166

VER 83-38-1, March 23, 1984 * 896/187

Surveillance Report (SR) 83-25, February 16, 1983 418/1228

SR 83-25-1, June 21, 1983- 460/507

, SR 83-25-2, July 15, 1983 . ~

., 460/516

SR 83-64 September 16, 1983 460/559

SR 83-64-1, January 5, 1984 877/737

SR 84-54, August 3, 1984 877/1043

Cygna Energy Services -

VER 83-04, Feb'ruary 24, 1983 663/37

VER 83-39, January 27, 1984 896/192 'i

a

VER 83-39-1, m y 7, 1984 896/214 ,

'

VER 83-39-2, September 10, 1984 896/217

SR 83-61, September 8, 1983 460/545

,

SR 83-61-1, October 31, 1983 ..

460/555 j

Teledvne Materials Research (TMR)

Surveillance Report 76-9, February 23, 1976 81/1189 3

i

Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB4I)

Surveillance Report 80-95, August 14, 1980 248/410

Surveillance Report 80-95-1, August 14, 1980 248/410

Surveillance Report 80-95-2 September 9, 1980 248/410

'

5830R/18.101

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ - _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

.

IAb b (Ch ll U(d CCf] SCC h!hilstS fill f/0E (d h l'0/S

.

Quality Assurance Inspection (Surveillance)

EDCR 76-01 (NUREG-0_4.08) Surveillance 76-4

None

EDCR 79-09_(NUREG-0661)

EDCR 80-11 .

80-14

83-24

EDCR 82-24 None

EDCR 82-35 ,, 83-14

EDCR 82-37 83-46

~

~'~~,

~~

EDCR 83-23 None

E_DCR 80-56_ 81 - zo .

,

b t. -0 5

Internal and In-Plant Audits

Internal Audit No. 35 (Mechanical Services Group) included review of

EDCR 82-37.

In-Plant Audit VY-85-07 included review of EDCR 80-56.

Nuclear Safety and Review Committee

EDCR 83-23, Meeting 83-11-S

. 83-13-R

. .--

1

I

l

l

,

l

._ ., _ . .

. . . . - . . , , , . . _ .x-_- . _ , , - - .x., . _ . -

. . - _ . , - _ . _ _ . , _ _ m

.

-

.

.

- l

Appendix A

Reauests For Additional Information

~ - _ - _--__ .

-

.- _ -  : . - -

=g .

.

.

.

'

.:

.

Sepi t nber I6, J187 l

i

USNRC Region I

!

,

i

USI A-7 FOLLOW-Up INSPECTION

'

t

!

L Vermont Yankee

l 1

t for information 2

The following is a list of preliminarye to USI A-7, reques s it is planned that the ,

!

pertinent to actions taken in respons i wed and discussed during the l

responses to these requests will be rev e l

inspection. l

ponse to US! A-7  !

1.

How was the overall engineering effort for res

organized, coordinated, and directed?

f t to address USI A-7?

L

2. How was QA/QC involved in the overall ef er

firms (if any) were used to develop responses

3. What AE/ consultant ifications? What was the extent

and/or perform analyses and design mod

of their involvement (scope of work)?

ial training was provided (or

4.

What personnel qualifications and/or spec nnel involved in work

' required) for licensee and/or consultant perso

performed for USI A-7?

i t all contract

5.

Provide documentation of OA oversight /aud ts e

organizations involved in USI A-7 actions.

Teledyne Engineering

6,

Clarify whether Cygna was subcontracted k to Atomic.

f

Services (TES) or was contracted directly by Yan eeI

i

1

m e =, -mmm - .~

wpe -r wwww- cr _- --

_ _y

. .

.

.

.

,

..

,

7. Provide a copy of the engineering procedures manual in offect at the

,

time the USI A-7 modifications were designed and installed. This

information should be available during the inspection, j

8. Complete documentation pertaining to the following torus structure and

system modifications is requested:

Torus column reinforcement and tie-down l

l

Mitred joint saddle .!

Vent header deflector

Drywell/wetwell differential pressure control system

SRV tee-quencher and supports ]

Pool temperature monitoring system

Saddle anchor bolts

1

f

As a minimum, the following information should be included in these

f

information packages:

a. Installation specifications

b Structural adequacy calculations

c. Contract and procurement documents

d. Design / construction drawings

e. As-built drawings

f. Procedures governing:

installation work

welding

nondestructive examination

inspection

g. Personnel certification and qualifications for: .

welding )

nondestructive examination

quality control

n. Material certifications for: i

structural steel

oiping

I

l

2 ),

- .

a

_ _ _ . . - - ,, -- - -,,, _ _ . , ,

_

, , . . , . - . . .

-,,,.,_mn..~ -nn. - ,

., e

'

e

,

.

. .

coatings

1. Documentation of QC inspection of fabrication / installation

.

activities

j. Nonconformance reports generated during the modification activity

(if applicable)

A. Feferences to all Technical Specification (TS) sections affected

by each particular modification

9. Provide the surveillance test requirements (for systems, components,

or structures, is applicable) that have been instituted or changed as

a result of USI A-7.

10. Describe the procedure (s) useo to control additions to or changes in

the plant design configurations of systems and structures. provide-

copies for review.

11. List all computer codes used in the USI A-7 efforts. Also, identify

which versions of the codes were used, how they were " benchmarked",

and which groups or organizations used them.

12. Section 1.0 of the structural PUAR states that post processors for

SIAROYNE were written and used. List all such codes and preside a

description of each code's function. Provide documentation of the QC

coverage applied to the development of these codes and copies of the

user documentation.

13. Itemize which tap lines were analyzed by Cygna and which by TES.

14. Clarify whether piping supports were analyzed by TES or Cygna.

15. It is the inspection team's intention to review a sample of the torus

attached piping systems. To enable a reasonable sample selection, the

licensee should provide a table containing the following information

for each tap line:

3

- -~__ __-- -________--. . - _ _

1

- . ,- - -. - - , - - , ,

,,,7 ,7 - , , . .. ,n =- =-__.;- . ;

s l

. .

.

l

.:

pipe line. designation

.

pipe size

pipe schedule

Approximate total length of piping in the line (and in the

analysis models if the line was divided for analysis)

Pipe line location

Description of any piping modifications (if.only support

modifications were made, simply indicate so)

If at all~possible, the information above should be provided prior to

the inspection. This will enable the inspection team to advise the

licensee of the selected lines so that collection and organization of

information can be efficiently accomplished. The following

information should be available at the beginning of the inspection for

each line selected:

Current as-built piping. isometric

Current support drawings

piping analysis

,

Applicable modification packages (including any ddditional stress

calculations, construction drawings, QC documentation,

acceptance test data, etc.) i

l

Any applicable nonconformente reports and their dispositions j

If the licensee cannot provide sufficient information to enable pipe

line selection prior to the inspection, all of the information

requested above should be available at the beginning of the inspection

for all TAP lines.

16. The simple "yes" listed in the modifications column of Table 3-4 in

the piping PUAR does not contain sufficient information to allow for a

sample selection of piping support modifications. In order to provide

for the sampling of all types of support modifications, the licensee

should provide a table which includes the following information for 1

each support attached to TAP systems: l

l

l

4

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

n , ~ . . _ _ , ,  ; :, =, -

- -

. . ,

-

.

,

. ,

pipe line designation

Pipe size

Support designation

Support drawing number

Support calculation number or reference

Support modification description

if at all possible, the information above should be provided prior to

the inspection.

This will enable the inspection team to advise the

licensee of the selected supports so that collection and organization

of information can be efficiently accomplished. The following

information should be available at the beginning of the inspection for

each support selected:

Current as-built support drawing

Piping support stress analysis

Complete modification package (including any additional stress

calculations, construction drawiegs. QC documentation,

acceptance test data, etc.)

Any applicable noriconformance reports and tneir dispositions

If the licensee cannot provide sufficient

information to enable

support selection prior to the inspection, all of the information

ecovested above should be available at the beginning of the inspection

for 3_ach support attached to all TAP systems.

17. Describe how the TAP analyses and modifications affected or were

related to the IE8 79-02 and IEB 79-14 work and the resulting

modifications.

18. The structural PUAR states (page 7) that " Analyses are ongoing to

optimi:e the loc. tion of a second set of vacuum breakers on the SRV

!

lines." Have these modifications been made?

I If so, provide pertinent

details. If not, describe the current status.  !

!

!

u-_

._,_ _.

, . _ ,

._ m ._ _cm m__ ._;- _ -. yj

. \

4

.

,

.

19. The

.' licensing correspondence log provided by the licensee appears to

be incomplete.

Correspondence was found that was not included in this

list.

Clarify how documentation which is to be submitted to the NRC

f

and subsoouently docketed is approved, tracked, filed, and maintained

for future reference and retrieval.

I

l I

1 \

l l

l J

f

1

i

! 1

1

I

I

i

1 l

!

i

4

i

i

!

i

6

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

.- - . ~ ,

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

~

.

't

,

• Sepft mbo' 30, /9 0 7

USNRC Region I

Follow-up inspection Of USI A-7

Vermont Yankee

On September 18, 1987. preliminary cuestions were transmitted to the

Vermont Yankee licensee regarding the upcoming NRC Region I inspection of

USI A-7 activities. Questions 15 and 16 in the preliminary list reouested

that the licensee provice information regarding torus attached oicing

systems and supports orier to the inspection so that a sample could be

chosen. This was cone in an effort to make the most efficient use of the

irspection team's time in reviewing documentation and calculations. It

was agreed that the selected sample wuuld be communicated to the licensee

prior to the inspection. The licensee responded to this reouest with an

information pacnage that was receive y EG8G on September, 23.

The information received described 12 piping analysis problems which

included 290 piping supports. The licensee's analyses determined that

numerous pipe support modifications were required. The licensee's

analyses determined that no piping system geometry changes were recuired.

The following lists indicate.the piping and supports selected for

inclusion in the review sample. The licensee should note that the

inspection team reserves the option to reauest additional information ur

Droaden the sample if audit fincings indicate deficiencies.

TAP Large Bore Piping Problems:

1

i

Problem 1 - Atmospheric Control, Part 1

Problem 10 - Core Spray, Part 2 and RHR, Part 7

Problem 64 - HPCI, Part 6

j

Problem 100 - RCIC, Part 1

,

!

l 1

l

L __o

_ - . , . . = . . , _ . . . , . - _ , _ _ . , , . , _ . - . _ . - . _ ,

.

. -

'

.

.- .

V 'v'

,

. TAP Smal_1_ Bore Piping:

.

Liquid level indicator at penetration X-206A

Shutoff valve, instrument tubing at penetration X-200E

Radiation monitor return at penetration X-216

RCIC turbine condensate drain at penetration X-223.

As stated in preliminary question 15, the following information is

expected to be available for these problems at the beginning of tne

dnspection:

Current as-built piping isometric

Current support drawings

Piping analysis

Applicable modification packages (including any additional stress.

calculations, construction drawings, QC documentation,

acceptance test data, etc.)

Any acplicable nonconformance reports and their dispositions.

~ TAP Supports:

,

The following TAP piping supports have been chosen for detailed review.

Problem numbers listed below correspond to the piping problems listed j

i

above. 1

Problem 1 - ACSP - H022A

ACSP - H22

l

ACSP - H27

ACSP - H031B j

ACSP - H199

ACSP - HD203E j

i

Problem 10 - CS - HD42

CS - H85

2

1

j

- 4 = , + m s, ,,,, .c - , , , _ ._ ,

-

.

.-*

.

.

RHR - H98

.

RHR - HQ241

RHR - HD186A

RHR - H188

!

l

problem 64- HPCI - N0103

HPCI - H108

HPCI - H107

HPCI - HD109A

HPCI - HD107B ,

,

r

problem 100 - RCIC - K65 '

RCIC - HOSTA

RCIC - HD63A

RCLC - H63

RCIC - H62

Small Bore Piping - All pertinent calculations and information

regsrrt(ng support modifications.

.

As stated in preliminary auestion 16, the following information is

expected tc be available for these problems;de tite beginn'.$g of the 4

L

i, - I'

inspectibe: [l'

i

'

s

Current as-built support drawing

Diping support stress analysis

Completemodifict[Yonpackage(includinganyauditional stress

Calculations, const uction drawitt';s. QC decurecitatien,

A

acreotarce test data, etc.)

Any applicable rwntonformance reports use their dispositions. (

5

..

.

r

( 1

'

3

,

,

^^^ - - ----- ___.-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - " - * - - - - - - - - m____ _ _ _ _ __

h CCed licEOV

,

d'

.

"

.

Additional Questions Regarding TAP Analyses And Supports

l

20. Confirm wnether all lines listed for the individual piping analysis .

problems ar e included in one analysis model .

l

!

21, Were piping supports to be removed included in EOCR documentation or l

Was another method used to document the sur: pert removal activity? 1

1

22, Confirm the accessibility of the selected pipe systems and supports

for field walkdown.

.

\

l

I

1

1

,

4

, ;-

N

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