ML20086Q195

Final Significant Deficiency Rept SDR-1 Re Reactor Pressure Vessel Top Fuel Guide.Nicks & Scratches on Beam B Were Ground Flush to Surface.Beam a Replaced

ML20086Q195
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	10/25/1973
From:	Boyer V PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Knuth D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20086Q191	List: ML20086Q195
References
SDR-1, NUDOCS 8402270467
Download: ML20086Q195 (4)

Text

~n O O LJ \.)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 MARKET STREET l

PHILADELPHI A. PA.19101 (215)841 45oo VICE PetE5tDENT October 25, 1973 Dr. D.F. Knuth, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545

Subject:

Significant Deficiency Report Reactor Pressure Vessel Top Fuel Guide Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station - Unit 3 AEC Construction Permit-No. CPPR-38 File: QUAL 2-10-2 SDR 1

Reference:

a) Interim Report of Ihmage dated July 7, 1972 b) Supplementary Interim Report dated August 16, 1972 c) Supplementary Interim Report dated December 22. 1972

Dear Dr. Knuth:

In compliance with 10CFR50 55 paragraph (e), we are subnitting our complete Significant Deficiency Report concerning the subject Top Fuel Guide.

Interim Reports (references a, b and c) were pre-viously submitted to your office.

We trust that this satisfactorily resolves this item. If further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

/  %

Copy to: J.P. O'Reilly, USAEC - l', q(';

< ], O 1087 8402270467 731102 '

PDR ADOCK 05000278 S PDR ,

O o Significant Deficiency Report - SDR No. 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel Top Fuel Guide Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station - Unit 3 AEC Construction Permit No. CPPR-3_8 Description of Deficiency on my 16,1972 a dropped structural steel diagonal brace pierced the Top Fuel Guide shipping container and caused localized damage to two of the beams which make up the cells of the Guide. The brace (8" x 6" x 9/i6" angle,13'-10 3/4" long, weighing approximately 360 lbs.) slipped from its choker and dropped from an approximate height of 30 ft.

1 The Top Fuel Guide was shipped to a repair facility for detailed inspection, evaluation, and repair.

Inspection (see attached sketch)

Various dimensional inspections confirmed that the damage was confined te one intersection between two perpendicular beams and that no sagging along the length occurred in any of the beams. At the damaged intersection, the beam parallel to the 900-2700 axis (hereinafter called Beam A) was heavily damaged, but the beam perpendicular to it and parallel to the 00-1800 axis (hereinafter called Beam B) was only lightly damaged with some amil deformation (relative to the cross section dimensions),

nicks, and scratches.

The slot in Beam B adjacent to the point of impact was Liquid Penetrant inspected with satisfactory results. It was determined that the null deformation to this beam does not affect slot clearances.

The asemblies which pin the beams to the ring were inspected and no indication of damage was found.

Corrective Action The nicks and scratches of Beam B were ground' flush to the surface. Beam A was replaced except for short lengths at its ends (see attached sketch). This was accomplished by cutting the beam close to the ends where the beam intersects the ring and removing it. An identical beam was fabricated and put into I the structure by pinning to the short end lengths using the '

same pinning design that is used to pin all of the beams to the ring.

O O

_2_

Corrective Action (Continued)

Following completion of repairs a dimensional inspection with optics was satisfactorily performed on all cubicles adjacent to Beam A, all cubicles adjacent to Beam B, and on other randomly selected cubicles.

As indicated in our initial report, reference a, a procedure for prompt reporting of apparent "significant deficiencies" has been implemented.

Safety Implications Beam B.does not contribute to the structural strength of the Top Fuel Guide. Therefore, based on the satisfactory Liquid Penetrant inspection of the slot and verification of adequate slot clearances, no safety implications exist in regard to these repairs.

The damaged area of Beam A was removed and an identical beam was pinned in its place. This repair is judged to be satisfactory and without safety implications due to the following:

1. The design strength of the pinning assemblies exceeds that of the beams.

2. No sagging along the length occurred in any of the beams.

3 Post repair inspection verified that the structure has been returned to its original configuration except for the additional pinnings.

/, ~~S

,j .-

)

g C' ll l'N %

i

, /

'll- li U _IN N ~~

a- '

O , s y

[]  : j .

4 -

i

__ _ _t 'l J. _ .. d OA l 7N

.d l' '

. I s

[ (*

H{

v i e

I; \ -

41: >

17 -,

i J

!' M' ll l(

-j / O i

/  !

/ (j BE'AfA*gj bA$AGEO I' s\ !i INTE.R5 E.6 TID N

/ 16 11

\

/,?,/

i i

BEAM'X' J' '

x.

s.

u .

-- t=

j j

1::[mi m [ i[--

n i n 1

/A m

[  ; (,/

Y o

p 7 }

-- f- i j , , 9l l

~

19 7 lf70h. ph ml E.

._ Plr4NIMCa HE l

\h -

PINN1%__g It '

\ \\

(! a i r

l 1 ll. !

3!

\1 '

i I I .

i l

! i l .?j/

/ !

l i

%xr  ! -

t r

o'

/

a w1 ,

/ '

N ~x- - C ll ,/ A, il #/

I I l ., _

i SKETCH REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL TOP FUEL GUIDE

,i L