ML20237F105
| ML20237F105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| 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: |
| 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.
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
(
4
D" I S IT b
Inspectors:
.
.
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,
_
/
/ff/W
. R. Strosnider,~Cpief, Materials and
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
ADOCK 0500
1
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
R
-
XXXXX
s
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
7
S
1
8
M
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
T
O.
M
._
M
.
M
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
S
P
P
E
E
E
R
I A
S
R
l A
R
TL
U
iL
TL
I E
R
lE
VR
O
VR
VR
I
T
I
I
S
TY
S
TY
S
TY
N
N
Cl
N
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
F
F
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
O
E
U
TO
E
U
T
O
E
U
T
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
l FAI
PT C
iFAI
_
_
T IF
T I F
TI F
.
_
ER
9T
.
ER
ER
.
_
ERSN
ERSN.
ERSN
_
_
.
OU
CENO
OU
CENO
OU
C E N ?.
_
_
I
C& S
COI
I C&
S
COI
I C& S
C0'
_
-
TO
EL
T O
EL
T O
EL
l"a
_
_
ADTSRELTA
ADTSRELT A
ADTSRELl
-
L
CGUNAAL
L
CGUNKAL
L CGUNAAL
_
LNANDNI VL
LNANDNIVL
LNANDNI VL
_
_
AGRI E
RRA
AGRIEORRA
AGRI EORRA
_
TWC5EET
T I T WCSEET
TIT
WCSEET
_
TI
_
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
1
6.
Operability and Conformance to Technical Specification (TS) of the
'
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
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
lable
1 - DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED PRIOR TO INSPECTION
l
Document
_
__
Description
--
-
7-2-04 letter,
transmitting NRC staff SER for Vermont Yankee.D. Vassal
SER ano
supporting Technical Evaluation Reports (TER's)
included as attachments.
TR-5319-1
Revision 2 of t'he PUAR of the torus suppression
chamber.
Report prepared for VYNPC by Teledyne
Engineering Services (TES).
l
TR-5319-2
PUAR of the torus attached piping.
Report prepared for
VYNPC by TES.
Safety Evaluation Report - Mark I containment Long-Term
Program, July, 1980.
-
--
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
-egarding consultants conformance to procecures
(
l
in NUREG-0661.
f
cutlined
{
-- --
D. Vassallo letter to J. Sinclair dated 4-14-83
{
forwarding requests for 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
5319F-220 ~
SRV tee ottencher support beam
Torus saddle modifications
f
5319-23
2 inch concrete anchor bolt analysis
(Williams rock bolt load rating calculations)
5319-230
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.
Torus column reinforcement
through 6049
and tie down
Verified drawings 5920-9132
Torus saddle modifications
through 9144 at torus column
R.B.
sections 4, 5, 6, and 7.
i
Verified portion of piping
R.B.
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.
TAP, problem 64 (HPCI,
5920-9240. Verified supports
4
cart 6)
on drawings 5920-6721, 6722,
6723, 6427, 6432.
Verified piping iso on drawing
R.B.
TAP, proolem 100 (core
5920-9255.
Verified supports
spray, part 1)
on drawings 5920-6436, 6437,
6439, 6440, 9746.
Verified TAP small bore pipe
R.B.
TAP small bore pipe
attached to penetration
at pen. X-206A
X-206A.
I
Verified TAP small bore pipe
TAP small bore Dipe
attached to penetration X-223
R.B.
at pen. X-223
and extending into RCIC room.
Note:
R.B.
Reactor Building
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
VER 83-39-1, m y 7, 1984
896/214
a
,
'
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
EDCR 79-09_(NUREG-0661)
None
EDCR 80-11
.
80-14
83-24
EDCR 82-24
None
83-14
EDCR 82-35
,,
83-46
EDCR 82-37
~
~~
~ ' ~ ~ ,
None
EDCR 83-23
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
.
.
.
.
'
.:
.
Sep t nber I6, J187
i
l
i
USNRC Region I
!
USI A-7 FOLLOW-Up INSPECTION
,
i
t
'
!
L
Vermont Yankee
l
1
for information
2
t
The following is a list of preliminary reques s it is planned that the
e to USI A-7,
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
!
How was the overall engineering effort for res
organized, coordinated, and directed?
1.
t to address USI A-7?
f
How was QA/QC involved in the overall ef er
2.
firms (if any) were used to develop responses
L
What was the extent
What AE/ consultant
ifications?
and/or perform analyses and design mod
3.
of their involvement (scope of work)?
ial training was provided (or
What personnel qualifications and/or spec
nnel involved in work
required) for licensee and/or consultant perso
4.
'
performed for USI A-7?
t all contract
i
Provide documentation of OA oversight /aud ts e
organizations involved in USI A-7 actions.
5.
Teledyne Engineering
Clarify whether Cygna was subcontracted to
k
Atomic.
Services (TES) or was contracted directly by Yan ee
f
6,
I
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
f
As a minimum, the following information should be included in these
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
inspection
g.
Personnel certification and qualifications for:
.
welding
)
quality control
n.
Material certifications for:
i
structural steel
oiping
I
l
2
)
,
-
.
a
_ _ _ .
. - - ,,
-- - -,,, _ _
. , ,
, , . . , . - . . .
-,,,.,_mn..~
-nn. - ,
_
.,
e
'
e
,
.
- . .
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 =- =-__.;-
.
l
s
.
.
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
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
each support attached to TAP systems:
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?
If so, provide pertinent
I
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
ACSP - H27
ACSP - H031B
j
ACSP - H199
ACSP - HD203E
j
i
Problem 10 -
CS - HD42
CS - H85
2
j
1
-
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
,
,
problem 100 - RCIC - K65
r
'
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
L
4
inspectibe:
[l'
i,
- I'
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