.

i

U. S. NUCIEAR REGULATORY CO? MISSIONOFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION IV

Report No. 99900522/79-04 Program No. 51200

Company: Bechtel Power CorporationSan Francisco Power Division425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94119

Inspection Conducted: September 10-11, 1979

f \

Inspectors: ) L(h( g - (1 ~2[o-[hR.H.Brickley,PrincppalInspector \ DateProjects Evaluation SectionVendor Inspection Branch

N. k{_fL I24\ O.--

rW T- 2 C-79L.Modenos,Rsactor| Ins'pector

''Date

Region II

P.J.Morrill,lteactog In5pector % ~6 -2fa- Mi e/ 1# Ot.

'DateRegion V

i

fr's.

) pA MA MP __ (Ms 9-2.C'7SCons 61tants: i

R.G.LaGrange,MbchanipalEngineer \( DateNRR/ DOR f

r.Q! e.

Approved by: ]# 10 , PLd/> - C% b - 2_ C l }C. J. Hale, Chief'~

\Program Evaluation SectionVendor Inspection Branch

Summary-

Inspection on September 10-11, 1979 (99900522/79-04)

1519 342.

79121004-O]

.

%

2

Areas Inspected: Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, in the area of IEBulletin 79-14. The inspection involved forty-eight. (48) inspector-hourson-site by four (4) NRC inspectors.

Results: In the one area inspected there were no deviations or unresolved itemsidentified.

.

8

,

.

3

DETAILS SECTION I

(Prepared by R. H. Brickley and L. Modenos)

A. Persons Contacted

B. B. Belin, Stress Group Leader*G. Borsteins, Assistant Project EngineerW. J. Castagnaro, Supervisor Designer

*J. L. Carton, Project Manager*M. Clary, Mechanical Engineer, Arkansas Power & Light Company (APSL)*M. Z. Khlafallah, Plant Design Staff*M. O. White, Licensing Engineer

* Denotes those present at the exit interview.

B. Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems

1. Objecitves

This was a special inspection of the Bechtel Power Corporation /San Francisco Power Division (BPC/SFPD) activities with respectto IE Bulletin 79-14. The inspection consisted of two (2) phases.

a. Phase 1 -

The objectives of this phase of the inspection were to determinethe followir.g:

,

(1) The licensees that are inspecting systems to the latestdrawings and comparing the results with the seismic analysisinput used.

(2) The number of people that will be comparing the marked-updrawings with the seismic analysis input, a general descrip-tion of their qualifications, and the schedule for theseactivities.

(3) The guidelines that will be used to identify the noncon-formances of the marked-up drawings to the siesmic analysisinput used.

(4) The identification of units where eccentric masses havebeen modeled.

.

1519 34$L

'

,

.

4

b. Phase II

The objectives of this phase of the inspection were to select aplant (ANO-1) and determine that:

(1) The IE Bulietin 79-14 activities are being conducted in adocumented, planned and systematic manner.

(2) The inputs to-the seismic analysis for this system can bereadily identified.

(3) Identified nonconformances are analyzed and the resultsproperly documented.

(4) Personnel conducting the e activities have received indoc-trination and training.

2. Metbod of Accomplishment

a. Phase I

The preceding Phase . objectives were accomplished by discussionsbetween the inspection team and BPC/SFPD representatives, andexamination of the following:

(1) BPC/SFPD tentative schedule for completing the~79-14activities.

(2) BPC/SFPD field procedure for "As Built" verification forNRC Bulletin 79-14.

(3) BPC/SFPD document, " Comprehensive Implementation forOperating Plants," and its updates Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

(4) BPC/SFPD document, " Guideline.for the Verification of theSeismic Analysis for the Safety Related Piping Systems forArkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1."

(5) BPC/SFPD document, " Eccentric Mass Modeling."

b. Phase II

The preceding objectives were accomplished for ANO-1 by anexamination of:

(1) AP&L letter dated August 31, 1979, to the Director, Region IV,in response to IE Bulletin 79-14 for Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 (ANO-1).

.

1519 34a

.

~

..

.

5

(2) Nine (9) ANO-1 inspection results and evaluation packagesconsisting of the marked-up as-built isometrics, marked-upstress isomatrics (seismic analysis input), and the en-gineering evaluations (judgements)_ for the Service WaterReturn & Emergency Cooling Water Discharge System; ReactorBuilding Spray System; T1, E24A&B Sample System; Hake-UpPump System; Decay Heat Pumps to B.W.S.T.; Main Steam toEmergency F.W. Pump Turbine Driver; and Main F.W. to SteamGenerator E24A.

3. Findings

There were no deviations or unresolved items identified in thisa.area of the inspection.,

b. All BPC/SFPD projects used the latest drawings for the walkdownand will compare the results with the revision of the drawingused as seismic analysis input.

There will be approximately sixty (60) stress engineers comparingc.

inspection results with the seismic analysis inputs and evaluatingthe nonconformances. These people have an engineering degree andexperience in stress analysis,

d. The following is the tentative schedule for completing the 79-14activities, final scheduling responsibility lies with each client.This presents BPC/STPD's best estimate at this time on the antici-pated completion date. It should be noted that completion of thisschedule is conditioned by the receipt of field walkdown data atthe anticipated dates and the anticipated shutdown date. Otherbas M for this schedule is as follows:

1. 60-day report: based on BPC/SFPD's knowledge of workcurrently in progress.

2. 120-day report (or report for unaccessible areas):

- 30 days to complete the field walkdown after shutdown- 2 weeks to receive last walkdown data from field and to

prepare office packages- 2 days for engineering judgement- 30 days for reanalysis of 120-day report review

-

.

7 [

{

.

..

6 ,

.

60-Day Ancicipated 120-Day Last Day forPlant Report Shutdown Report 79-14

to Client Date to Client Reanalysis *Date Date

Peach Bottom 2 10-15-79 10-31-79 12-16-79 01-16-80

Peach Bottom 3 10-15-19 09-15-79 11-01-79 12-01-79

Pilgrim 1 09-04-79 01-15-79 03-04-80 04-04-80

ANO-1 09-04-79 - 11-04-79 12-04-79

Trojan 09-21-79 (Client wrote NRC to waive this part ofthe Program)

Point Beach 1 10-12-79 10-05-79 11-25-79 12-26-79Point Beach 2 10-12-79 05-30-80 07-20-80 08-20-80

* Extent of the scope and availability of manpover may dicatate resched-uling of this date.

e. The document identified in B.2.a. (4) above provides the toler-ances that the stress engineer is to use in his evaluation ofseismic input rarameter nonconforma-ices that are identified.In addition to these parameters, other aspects such as seismics*ress, system frequencies, mode shapes, etc. from the stresscatenlations are also utilized in arriving at an engineeringjudgement,

f. The following determination was obtained regarding eccentricmasses:

.

1519 347

.

'

.~

8

S. I. Heisler, Manager,' Division QAW. T. Kellerman, QA Supervisor, ProgramsH. B. Norris, QA Supervisor, ProjectsJ. F. O' Leary, Project ManagerF. Pluchah, QA Supervisor, ProjectsR. S. Powell, Chief Plant Design EngineerL. E. Shipley, Engineering SupervisorD. Vanderpol, QC SupervisorE. Y. Wong, QA Engineer

The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Manage-ment comments were generally for clarification only, or acknowledgment ofthe statements by the inspector.

1519 34B-

'

.

*-

.

7

Project Eccentric Masses Modeled.

Yes No

Arkansas Unit 1 XPeach Bottom Units 2 & 3 XPilgrim Unit 1 XTrojan XPoint Beach X*Duane Arnold X X*Palisaides X X*

*When piping system reanalysis is required by other items discussedin the bulletin, the reanalysis effort will consider mass eccen-trr 'y when judged critical. Reanalysis schedule and consequencesmay be reported outside of I.E. Bulletin 79-14 time frames.

g. The document identified in B.2.b.(1) above is not the 60-day reportas required by IE Bulletin 79-14. The 60-day report will be sub-mitted by AP&L approximately 10-days after receipt of the Bechtelreport (See paragraph B.3.d).

h. Ninety-six (96) nonconformances have been identified on theaccessible piping on ANO-1. Fifty-three (53) have been judgedacceptable and the remaining forty-three (43) were judged to beacceptable-calculation required. Acceptable refers to opera-bility of the system during a Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

i. The indoctrination of personnel involved in the engineeringevaluation aspects of IE Bulletin 79-14 took place on August 23,1979, and was documented in Update #3 to the Comprehensive Imple-mentation for Operating Plants document.

j. The examination of the documents identified in B.2.b(2) aboverevealed some documents with inspection resnits that were notvery legible. BPC/SFPD engineers responded that, for those cases,they verify the data via telephone with their field represent-atives prior to their evaluation.

C. Exit Interview

An exit interview was held with management representatives on September 11,1979. In addition to those individuals indicated by an asterisk in para-graph A of each Details Section those in attendance were:

R. C. Anderson, Engineering ManagerD. L. Damon, Project EngineerC. W. Dick, Manager of Engineer }hW. D. Greenwell, QA SupervisorD. W. Halligan, Vice President and. Deputy Division Manager \D. B. Hardie, Supervisor, Quality Engineering

,

-

. ..

9

DETAILS SECTION II

(Prepared by P. J. Morrill)

A. Persons Contacted

Bechtel Personnel

*S. Cozzens, Project Q. E.*S. Chitais, Asst. Bechtel Stress Group Supervisor*A. Ayod, Trojan Project Stress Group LeaderT. Flickinger, QA Engineer

PGE Personnel

*A. Robe, Mechanical Engineer

* Denotes those present at the exit interview.

B. Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems

1. The inspector reviewed the Index of Seismic Class I isometrics to beinspected per IE Bulletin 79-14. It appeared to adequately identify drawingsper PGE response to the bulletins (dated 8/1/79 and 6/31/79) and tofurnish a means to track the same.

2. Nonconformances identified by the licensee letter of 8/31/79 andtheir resolution / evaluation were examined by a review of the relatedisometric drawings, evaluation sheets (tabulations of geometrydifferences), and stress calculations; and discussions with Bechteland PGE Personnel.

3. Selected engineering evaluations were also examined and discussed withlicensee personnel to verify the criteria utilicad and compliance toQA requirements.

4. Examined the documents listed below to verify that inputs to seismicanalysis can be readily identified and that QA program requirementsare satisfied.

a. Marked up Fabrication Isometric Drawings

Approximately 200 drawings sent from the licensee to Bechtel -all were examined with the e yhasis on the following drawings.and a follow through to specific seismic analysis on selecteddeviations.

.

1519 350

.

.

-. ..

,

10

(1) Isome*.ricsCS-15 R-6-1 (Room 167)DBD-5 2 (Room 90)CS-151R-6-2 (Area 12)HBD-50-2 (Room 183)HCC-48-2HCC-49-3 (Room 255)HFD-4-8 (Room 86)HFD-5-6 (Room 86)HED-7-3 (Room 157 & 90)

(2) " Tabulation of Geometry Differences RDC79-075"

Calculations /re .ution/ bases - examined the followingr

calculations:

10-15 evaluated 8/30/79 (CS-151R-6-1)2-13 & 2-14 evaluated 8/14/79 (DBD-5-2)2-12 evaluated 8/28/79 (HBD-50-2)11-19 evaluated 9/1/79 (HCC-48-2)13-17 evaluated 8/30/79 (HCC-49-3)7-18 evaluated 8/31/79 (HFD-4-8)7-5 evaluated 8/21/79 (HFD-5-6)7-1 evaluated 8/29/79 (HFD-1-3)

(3) 'The following seismic analyses were examined:

Stress Calulation 10-15/ Problem 35dated 11/11/78 (CS-151R-6-1) (OK low stress)

,

Stress Calulation 7-5/ dated 10/10/75 (EED-5-6)(OK low stress)

Stress Calculation / Operability Study dated 8/14/79(DBD-5-2) (Upset stress was 900 PSI over code allowable butthis appears acceptable in that emergency stress was 3 KSIbelow code allowable - in any case the missing sutport wasreportedly replaced within the Technical Specificationtime frame)

Stress Calcula. ion 10-26/ Problem 35 dated 7/21/79(CS-151R-6-2) (included modeling for lumped mass for valveM08100) (all stresses acceptable)

5. Findings

There were no deviations or unresolved items identified in thisarea of the inspection.

.

1519 351