ML17139B040

Investigation of Unit 1 Small Piping Sys Design Installation & Insp Program Adequacy & Implementation.

ML17139B040
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/23/1982
From:	Gulliver W, Shovlin R, Swoyer B PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17139B041	List: ML17139B040 ML17139B042 ML18031A396
References
NUDOCS 8209240287
Download: ML17139B040 (99)

Text

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPORT DP/ESTIGATION OF UNIT ONE SMALL PIPING SYSTEM DESIGN INSTALLATION Ai%) INSPECTION PROGRAM ADEQUACY AND IMPLEMENTATION f . H. Gulliver B. . oyer Investigation Team Leader Investigation Team Leader R. J. Shovlin nvestigation Manager 82p9Zpp+87 9pp908 9

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1 REPORT INV/ESTIGATION OF SMALL PIPING SYSTEM DESIGN INSTALLATION AND INSPECTION PROGiU48 ADEQUACY AND IMPLEMENTATION AUGUST 3 12, 1982 I. INVESTIGATION OBJECTIVES The ultimate objective is to ensure Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company that recently encountered problems in the design, installa-

~

tion and inspection of small pipe'ystems do not pose a threat to the safe and reliable operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

In support of the ultimate objective, there are several principle objectives:

A. To assess the adequacy of small pipe design/installation/in-spection programs and their implementation for a representative sample.

B. To document inadequacies (in the form of Findings and Obsezvations).

C. To address the program implications of specific concerns raised by the NRC, and in the allegation letter dated May 3, 1982.

D. To transmit all Findings/Observations (defined in Section III of this report) to the independent Rev"ew Committee with an assess-ment of broader implications for other design/installation/in-spection activities.

II. CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION The conduct of the Investigation was handled in accordance with Nuclear Quality Assurance Procedures 9.1 and 19.0 to the extent that Plans, Checklists and Findings/Observations were documented and a full Investigation Report was to be developed.

Two Investigat-on Teams were assembled. Their responsibilities were:

A. Investi ation Team //1 The primary responsibility of Investigation Team //1 was the design/installation program. They reviewed all relevant docu-ments, specifications, and procedures, and a representative piping system to determine:

1. How the original/revised design intent was developed and documented.

2. The format for conveying design intent, verifying its implementation and evaluating the functionality of as-built designs.

3. If the individual Design and Installation Program/Pro-cedures were unique and exclusive to each function, or were they complementary?

4. The impact of a transfer of certain design responsibilities to various field organizations.

5. The strength and weaknesses of the Design/Installation Programs.

Investigation Team 82 The primary responsibility of Investigation Team 82 was the Inspection Program. They reviewed all relevant documents, specifications, procedures, a representative piping system, and the Bechtel and the PPSL Inspection funct'ons to determine:

l. If the Bechtel Inspection program is complementary to the D'esign/Installation Program.

2. If the Bechtel Inspection Program provides adequate feed-back to the Design/Installation organizations to assure hardware implementation in accordance with design intent.

3. If the Bechtel Inspection functions'esponsibility to verify "as-built" documentation is adequate and provides a feedback loop in the design verification process.

4. To determine if there are appropriate interfaces estab-lished between the Bechtel and PPKL Inspection functions.

5. The extent to which the Bechtel and PPSL Inspection func-tions are responsible to verify the functionality of hardware as installed.

6. The strength and weaknesses of the Inspection Programs.

Pinin System Nalkdown Coincident with the "Invesrigations, two representative small pipe systems were selected'or, walkdown. The Investigation Teams "'ointly developed a'alkdown plan to verify that the I

'7

design intent was implemented in the specific hardware of those systems.

D. Processin of Investi ation Team Findin s When either of the Investigation Teams developed Findings during their investigation, those Findings were to be forwarded immedi-ately to the Investigations Hanager, who was in turn responsible to:

Immediately inform the Plant Superintendent of Findings which may impact the safe operation of Susquehanna, Unit 1.

Inform the independent Review Committee of the Findings so that they may be considered for applicability to other Design/Installation/Inspection programs.

III. Definitions Items identified by the Investigation Teams were broken down into three categories with the following definitions:

A. ~Fdnddn A Findint is an item that impacts the adequacy cf small pipe design, hardware, or the quality program, or has potential generic implications that may impact other aspects of design, installation or inspection. It may or may not impact the safety of the plant.

B. Potential Findin A Potential Finding is an item that requires further investigation and may impact the adequacy of small pipe design, hardware, or the quality program, or may have potential generic implications and impact on other aspects of design, construction or inspection. It may or may not impact the safety of the plant.

C. Observation An Observation is an item that does not impact the adequacy of small pipe design, hardware, or the quality program and does not impact the safety of the plant. An Observation implies the inconsistent application of practices in the small pipe program or the application of less conservative practices in the small pipe program that those normally used in other design/installation/inspection programs.

IV. SCOPE The scope of the Investigation included the following:

e

~ ~

A. ~Sam le The sample selected consisted of the following small pipe lines and included the investigations as listed under each sample item:

1. Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pipe as defined on Bechtel Project Engineering Stress Isometric drawing number SK-P.-5418, Rev. C, and Bechtel Fabrication Isometric drawing number SP-HBC-78-8, Rev. 13, was investigated for:

a. Program adequacy for the design, installation and inspection functions,

b. Program implementation during the design, installation and inspection functions,

c. Effectiveness of the design, installation and in-spection process in achieving original design intent,

d. Adequate final installation determined through a walkdown to assess:

(i) The "as-built" system hardware configuration for compliance to the design drawings identified as "as-built,"

(ii) The "as-built" system for functionality and compliance to design intent.

2. Suppression Pool Water Level Instrumentation -"Field Fabri. cation Isometric drawing numbers SP-HCB-133-1, 2, and 3, Revisions 16, 8 and 8 respectively and SP-HBD-1538-1, Revision 8, was investigated for:

a. Program implementation during the design and installa-tion functions,

b. Adequate final installation determined through a walkdown to assess:

(i) The "as-built" system hardware configuration for compliance to the design drawings identified, as "as-built,"

(ii) The "as-built" system for functionality and compliance to design intent.

3. Drain from Core Spray Pumps as defined on "As-Built" Isometric ESP-GBB-102-2, Rev. 7, was assessed for the

effectiveness of the design of the vent and drain criteria, Bechtel Specification 8856-M-242.

4. Wetwell Atmospheric Sample Supply System as defined on "As-Built" Isometrics f$ 's SP-HCB-109-1, Rev. 14, and SP-HCB-109-2, Rev. 16, was investigated for various aspects of the:

a. Program adequacy and implementation of the design functions.

b; Effectiveness of the design process in achieving original design intent.,

B. Controllin Documents

1. 10CFR50 App. B, Criteria III, V, VI, X, and XIV

2. Bechtel NOAH Construction - I-8 (2), I-9 (1), II (2),

(4), (5),,IV-1 (2-C), 5 (3-A), 7 (1-A), 10 (O-B), 12 (1-A)

'3. Bechtel gCNH SF/PSP G-6.3, Rev. 1

4. FP-P-11, Rev. 6 (Bechtel Field Procedures Hanual)

5. FP-P-16, Rev. 2 (Bechtel Field Procedures Manual)

6. FP-P-20, Rev. 2 (Bechtel Field Procedures Manual)

7. Bechtel Specification 8856-H-213, Rev. 11

8. Bechtel Specification 8856-H-241, Rev. 3

9. Bechtel Specification 8856-H-391, Rev. 3

10. Bechtel EPM Rev. 10 App. B. Int. Chg. 45 VI ASSESSMENT OF SHALL PIPE PROGRAM A. General The objective of Bechtel's small pipe program to insure safe and reliable design and installation of small pipe systems is based on the "as-built" reconciliation portion of their program.

Initial "as-built" information was utilized to recalculate loads and stresses to the latest design criteria. The changes insti-tuted into the final "as-built" configurations were to be reconciled against these revised calculations. This resulted in three (3) phases of this "as-built" program that were important

to meet the objective. The following constitutes an assessment resulting fr'om the investigation of these areas.

1. Design The purpose of the design portion of the "as-built" reconciliation was to assure that the stresses and loadings of the final piping system configuration met the original design intent. To do this, it was necessary to have controls in place to transmit the latest design criteria and the latest configuration to the engineers performing the evaluation of the adequacy of the piping system. The Investigation indicated that there were some aspects of these design controls that lacked the appro-priate controls or definition. For the samples chosen, the Investigation indicated that there was no direct impact from these deficient controls, except for the indeterminate condition described in Investigation Item 81-2.

The general areas that lacked the proper controls are:

a~ The design criteria as outlined in Bechtel Specifica-tion 8856-~if-241, Rev. 3, was supplemented, clarified, and changed by numerous uncontrolled and informal memos. There is no assurance that all this informa-tion had been available to all design personnel, who were to utilize the latest design criteria.

b. The interface between the Resident Engineering Group (a field arm of San Francisco Project Engineering),

who performs the "as-built" reconciliation calcu-lations and has the design responsibility, and the Field Engineering Group (a group within the field Construction organization), who performs the "as-built" configuration, is normally outlined and controlled procedurally. Cases were found where an

,undocumented, unofficial interface system was insti-tuted and utilized, particularly during the first half of 1982 when efforts were acceleratej to achieve schedule milestones. This would indicate that design/document control system in some instances is inadequate to assure that documents are processed correctly and were readily available 'to all personnel.

There is no assurance that all the latest "as-built" configuration/reconciliation information was transmitted or received by the appropriate personnel, or, in some isolated instances, used to perform reconciliation, calculations.

c. Various conditions indicated that the Residen" Engi-neering Group did not have the latest documentation by

which to perform their duties, including the small pipe standard hanger supports and details issued from San Francisco Project Engineering showing support load allowables.

d. The "as-built" design calculation relied on the individual Resident Engineer and the Resident Engi-neering Checkers to utilize their judgment in areas where definition or direction may have been appropriate.

2. Definition and Documentation of Hardware "As-Built" Config-uration The Investigation Team noted, based on a review of Bechtel Specification 8856-M-213, Rev. 11, that the definition and documentation of hardware "as-built" configuration actually consisted of three (3) distinct walkdown efforts.

a ~ Field Engineering performs a walkdown of the piping system as installed and documents the actual dimen-sions and physical condition of the lines and hangers via a mark-up of Field Fabrication Isometric and Unique Hanger Detail drawings.

b. A Stress Engineer (Resident Engineering Group) per-forms a thermal walkdown of the piping system using the Field Engineering prepared "as-built" Field Fabrication Isometric drawings. This walkdown is intended to ensure adequate clearance from adjacent objects for thermal expansion and identify any thermal interferences.

C ~ A Stress Engineer (Resident Engineering Group) per-forms a stress walkdown of the piping systems to assure that all supports are performing their intended designed function.

The Investigation Team's assessment is that ths walkdown program was adequate. Specifics regarding the implementation of these walkdowns are:

a ~ The Field Engineering walkdown was determined to have been 'implemented satisfactorily. Puring the Investi-gation Team's walkdown activity, it was found that Field Engineering was able to reproduce the dimen-sional measurements as shown on the current "as-built" Fabrication Isometric and Hanger drawings with excel-lent correlation.

b. The thermal walkdowns were performed in accordance with requirements. During the Investigating Team's

.walkdown, two (2) areas were identified (Ref.

Investigation Item 81-15) which were questionable in terms of thermal clearance. Although these two (2) clearance problems were assessed to have no impact on the sample piping system investigated, it was noted that these diminished clearances were related to work that was performed after the system was jurisdictionally transferred to PPKL. The assessment of the Team was that controls over the installation of adjacent. components or structures must include criteria for maintaining the thermal clearances of piping systems intact. The Investigation Team did not pursue these installations (such as electrical con-duits and supports) due to time constraints.

Co The Investigation Team walkdown results led to an assessment that the Bechtel Resident Engineering Stress Vialkdown (which had been determined to have been performed in accordance with program require-ments) was effective in ensuring that the piping system supports were performing their intended func-tion.

As a result of the Investigation Team's own walkdown, they observed that any -"fixes" identified during the stress and thermal walkdowns were implemented.

Quality Control The overall assessment of the Investi-gation was that, with the exception of Investigation item numbers 2-2 and 2-4 (see Attachment A and Section IV-B of this report), the Bechtel QC Program and its implementation for small pipe and small pipe hanger installation is effective in providing the desired independent verification of the quality of small pipe line installations at SSES.

The basis and justification for this assessment is provided in Section VI.

Based on the Investigation Stems 2-'2 and 2-4, the Team noted that there are, weaknesses in the engineering defini-tion of attr'butes to be*:inspected by Bechtel,QC. However, the Team's general assessment is thatmost of'.the: small-"

pipe system attributes and acceptance criter'a.have*been.

provided in Bechtel Specifications, Drawings and Procedures and referenced in Bechtel Inspection Records.

The Investigation Team also assessed that the documentation and records reviews were adequately performed by Bechtel QC

including all required inspections of piping systems'nd hangers. The documentation of these inspections and their results, to provide assurance that the "as-built" piping lines and hangers have been installed in accordance with the design definition of the "as-built" configuration, was also adequate.

In addition, Bechtel gC had adequately completed documenta-tion to prov"'de assurance that in-process activities were adequately assessed involving piping and hanger instal-lations, including welding.

B. Summar of Investi ation Items (See Attachment A for detailed descriptions)

Item Prl-1: For the small piping system "as-built" design performed by simplified analysis, Bechtel Specification N-241, Revision 3, was used. In addition, numerous informal and uncontrolled memos and notes have been wr'tten with the intent that the information they contain be used in conjunction with or in lieu of the criteria established in i&241. From the investigation sample, no impact could be determined on the "as-built" calculations reviewed.

2. Item f/1-2: Various discrepancies were, found on the Fab Iso ESP-HBD-1538-1 and associated Hanger Detail tr'SP-HBD-1538-H-1. See Attachment A for specif'c details of this finding. These discrepancies indicate that the design/document control system was not adequate to assure proper processing of the documents in question and availability of these documents to the appropriate personnel. It also appears that the interface between the Resident and Field Engineering groups are not clearly defined and controlled. The impact of not using the latest revision of the Hanger Detail during the "as-built" reconcil'ation could not be determined during the time of the Investigation.

3. Item f/1-3: Identification of major and minor changes and how these changes are reconciled are based on Resident Engineering's conception/judgment. The 'sample investigated showed that some calculations contained major changes that were reconciled using engineering judgment, while others contained specific calculations (including computer calcu-lations) for both major and minor changes.

4. Item fil-4: The Stress Engineer's (Resident Engineering Group) Thermal Interference Walkdown requirements do not conte'n the controls to assure that the latest revision of

~I

~

~

the "as-built" iso is being utilized. See Attachment A for specifics. Further investigation revealed that there was no impact for the discrepancy identified.

5. Item Pr1-5: Combining several Findings and Observations identified during the Investigation lead to this Finding.

Some areas in the small pipe Program itself and in the Program's implementation are deficient. As a result, Bechtel cannot assure design and installations in every instance were carried out in accordance with Program commitments. Reference Attachment A - Items /!1-5 for more detail. (Note that Investigation Items (f1-6 through 1-14 pertain to this Finding.)

6. Item Pl-15: During the Investigation Team's walkdown of the Diesel Generator Over-Flow Line, three (3) areas were identified as resulting from work performed after final Bechtel inspection and the system was transferred to PPSL jurisdiction. These items were determined to have no impact, but this observation was noted to make all organizations (PP&L and Bechtel) aware of the requirement to maintain the design intent of the systems.

7. Item //2-1: Small Pipe Hanger Standard Support and Detail (SP and SPA) drawings issued from San Francisco were not processed and distributed in accordance with Field Pro-cedures. Two hundred seventy-four (274) drawings were received in the field and not processed for distribution because the Lead Field Small Pipe Hanger Engineer (Field Engineering Group) determined that these were not useful for installation or hanger design by Field personnel. The hanger installations were completed and were designed using unique hanger detail drawings. It was not recognized that some information contained on these SP and SPA drawings impacted Resident Engineering's final "as-built" reconciliation. This inforrmtion was the support load allowables which had been revised to include the increased Phase III loads.

This finding was verified to have had no adverse impact on the design of the selected sample because it was verified that any SP and SPA drawings referenced in the reconcilia-tion or original calculations did contain Phase information.

III load The safety impact was classified as indeterminate because of the potential that incorrect (pre-Phase III) load allowables might have been used for other small pipe

~

~

\

systems. (Note Phase III reconciliation was performed in late 1981.)

8. Item 82-2: Bechtel Specification 8856-M-213, Appendix F, was issued by Project Engineering to provide Bechtel gC with definition of the inspection attributes and acceptance criteria required to be verified to assure that hangers are installed correctly. These are the critical attributes defined by Project Engineering. A review of Appendix F revealed that it contained no criteria for clamp ear gap" measurements for friction type anchor clamps to assure positive contact of the pipe by the clamp. The Investi-gation Team noted that this deficiency resulted in PL-NCR-728 which identifies that there are anchor clamps installed without adequate pipe gripping. The team deter-mined this to be a Potential Finding with no safety impact because the clamps in question have been identified for correction and the only question remaining regards any other critical attributes that may be omitted in Appen-dix F.

9. Item 82-4: Identified that the criteria for inspection of attributes associated with vendor fabricated components was not contained in Bechtel Specification 8856-M-213. Spe-cific examples .were the criteria for inspection "Detail 600" anchor clamp gaps and the criteria for in-specting sway strut installation and jam nut tightening.

This was identified as a Finding with safety impact because of the generic implication of this finding on small pipe installations and the installation of other systems and components. There was no safety impact identified on the sample included in the Investigation.

IV INVESTIGATION ITEMS IN COMPLIANCE For the sample investigated, the following Xnvestigation aspects were found to be in compliance. (Reference Attachment B for documents sampled.)

A. Bechtel Desi n Control

1. The design criteria listed in Bechtel Specification H-241, such as support load tables, maximum pipe spans, response spectra curves, piping flexibility, proper "SIF" and other original design definitions and intents, were checked.

Based on a limited sample reviewed, they were found to be properly utilized so as to have a technically adequate "as-built" calculation.

11

2. "As-Built" calculations for the sample considered recon-ciled all the changes reflected in the final "as-built" drawings with the initial "as-built" calculations.

3. The vent and drain criteria, Bechtel Specification 8856-N-242, was properly implemented.

4. Based on discussions with R.E. Group Supervisors, the personnel involved in the "as-built" program appears to be qualified in the appropriate engineering activities. Ho qualification records were reviewed.

5. The Stress Engineer's (R.E. Group) Stress walkdown used to ensure that all supports are performing their intended function was found to be implemented properly.

6. All "as-built" calculations checked contained the appro-priate level of signatures and checks.

7. Field Engineering's "as-built" walkdown was performed to the criteria outlined procedurally.

8. The transposition of redline information into final "as-built" drawings were investigated and found to be in compliance with procedural requirements.

B. As-Built Walkdown Performed b Investi ation Teams

1. The Team verified Zield Zngineering's walkdown to have been performed effectively in that all "as-built" dimensions were reverified to be consistent with the current revision of as-built fabr'cation isometrics and hanger details.

2. The team generally (with the exception of Investigation Item fi'1-13) verified the effectiveness of Quality Control Inspections as defined in applicable Quality Control Instructions.

3. The Teams genera'ly verified the adequacy of the Resident Engineering Stress and Thermal Walkdowns to establish compliance with the requirements of Bechtel Specification 8856-H-213.

C. Bechtel Oualit Control The following aspects of Quality Control were investigated and found to be in compliance with the controlling documents.

1. QC Instructions (QCIs) 12>>

a~ QCIs were found to exist to cover all aspects of piping system installation including anchor plate installation, grouting, piping subass'embly, piping installation and rework', piping system completion verification, pipe support installation, pipe system leak testing inspection and pipe support final review.

b. QCIs were found to contain adequate description of the various inspection tasks associated with the in-spection subject, reference to governing procedures and specifications, identification of references containing inspection criteria, identification of the method to be u'sed in completing inspection tasks, identification of any supplementary records pertaining to each inspection task.

C ~ QCIs were verified to 'be controlled documents and showed evidence of required approvals.

2. Inspection Records (IRs) a ~ Inspection Records were found to exist for each QCI showing that all aspects of the piping system selected were inspected. This included, as applicable, in-process and final inspections of all hangers and piping installation.

b. IRs were found to establish that QC final inspections were done to the drawings identified as "as-built."

Ce ~ IRs established that inspections performed during the design and installation process were completed in accordance with the applicable revision of design documents.

IRs show the acceptability of the inspection tasks verified.

e. IRs are approved for close-out.

IRs reference the item inspected.

go IRs reference the documents which provide the'ccep-tance criteria.

h. IRs reference the applicable QCIs.

IRs document and reference nonconformances identified during inspect"ons.

13

~

I ~

Hold Points are established where required; e.g.,

welding, completion of weld records, hydrotesting application of pressure.

3. Engineering/QC Interface

a. QC was found to be receiving all necessary drawing revisions as evidenced by correct references to revisions on IRs.

b. QC was found to be receiving Project/Resident engi-neering dispositions for nonconformance when required.

c. QC,hold points were found to be completed in a timely manner.

4. Drawing Control Logs, Inspection Record Logs, Installation Review Form Logs and the Hanger Punchlist (MAPPER) were reviewed and found to be maintained according to procedural requirements.

V. CONCLUSIONS Within the time constraints of the two-week review, the Investigation Teams conducted numerous interviews, assessed the adequacy of Bechtel small pipe program and its implementation, and" completed a walkdown of two small piping systems. Based on their joint effort, the conclusions regarding the small pipe Program and the potential generic implication for other design/installation/inspection programs follows:

A. Small Pi e Pro ram

1. Due to the loosely implemented program controls for design criteria, specifications, "as-built" drawings, and recon-ciliation calculations, the Investigating Teams conclude that additional investigation of other small pipe systems is required.

2. The, problems encountered in managing and administering the small pipe design program indicate that program controls were not sufficient for the size of effort and time frame required for performance. The Investigating Teams 'conclude that the small pipe design program for Unit,P2 needs to be evaluated for implementation practicability and should be redefined on the basis of such an evaluation. The Investi-gating Teams also conclude that increased attention is required in defining the organizational interface respon-sibilities in design particularly between Project r

14

~ ~ ~ ~

Engineering in San Francisco, Project Engineering in its role as Resident Engineering, and the Field Engineering organization within the construction group.

3. Olhile the scope of the Investigation Teams'ctivities did not include an assessment of training, the Investigating Teams, based on the complexity of the small pipe program and the number of contract personnel, particularly in Resident Engineering, conclude that a review of program-matic training is required.

4 ~ awhile the scope of the Investigating Teams'ctivities did not include an assessment of the Quality Assurance coverage of this effort by Bechtel and PP8L, a concern exists regarding Quality Assurance coverage, particularly during the final hectic period. The Investigating Teams conclude that Quality Assurance coverage for the small pipe program needs to be evaluated.

5 ~ As a result of the Investigation Teams'alkdowns; they concluded that the Bechtel walkdown program was adequate.

Thermal interferences and dimensional problems were con-sistently picked up and resolved. The Teams'alkdown also showed that Bechtel Field Engineering's "as-built" program is adequate from a field dimension/hardware standpoint.

6. As a result of the Investigation Teams'eview of Bechtel's inspection efforts, they concluded that Bechtel's Quality Control program was adequate, effective,and fully. met all commitments.

~ B. Generic Im lications Based on the problems encountered in the small pipe program at the interface between Resident Engineering a'nd Field Engineering, the Investigating Teams conclude that all such safety related design/installation areas need to be investigated as a separate effort. The Investigating Teams also conclude that similar programs with "split" design responsibilities should be investigated.

2.. As, a result of the difficulties encountered in controlling,

.;:,'-".';: "::: "dist'rib'uting and utilizing all types of documentation relative to the small pipe program, the Investigating Teams conclude that a review of the documentation control program is required.

3. The character of the discussions with Bechtel field per-sonnel point out that some Bechtel and .PP&L managers 15

~ ~

lt involved in the day-to-day activities were not sufficiently sensitive to the schedule pressures and their impact on a highly complicated quality effort. The Investigating Teams conclude that increased management attention to these aspects of the Susquehanna project is required.

Vl. GENERAL INFORMATION t

A. Investi ation Makeu

1. Team Pl B. M. Swoyer NQA (Team Leader)

C. L. Dvorscak NPE W. R. Kline NPE J. Saranga NQA D. B. Ritter Project Construction

2. Team if2 W. H. Gulliver NQA (Team Leader)

D. M. Sattar NPE F. X. McCreesh NPE J. D.-Murray Project Construction

3. Investigation Manager R. J. Shovlin Asst. Project Director B. Persons Contacted Rajan Parekh Plant Design Gp. Sup. (SFHO)

Basudeb Mukherjee Resident Engineering Gp. Sup.

A. T. Morrow Resident Engineering, Hanger Gp. Ldr.

Mohammed Kazoun Resident Engineering Stress Gp. Ldr.

Wayne Huynh Stress Engineer (RE)

Ruthann Zeitler Plant Admin. (RE)

Jules Colker Piping Field Engineering Ken Buchanan Field Engineering (Hangers)

Tim Minor Field Engineering Dan Good Field Engineering Dan Montreuil Document Control Dan Hollingshead Admin. (Piping Hangers)

Dave Yenson Field Engineering (Piping)

Terry McHenry Bechtel OC Greg Gelinas Bechtel QC James A. Dahnert Bechtel QC Jitendra Khandha" Bechtel QA George Bell Project QA Engineer 16

Gene Glorvigen Bechtel QA Robert Slaughter Lead QCE Hangers Dave Cronomiz Field Engineer Unit I Completion Team Charles Kircher QCE - Piping Bruce Hells Asst. Lead QCE - Piping and Mechanical Mike Scarcella Small Pipe Engineer Sal Di Pippa Small Pipe Engineer Bruce Bailey Small Pipe Hanger Engineer George Drummer Small Pipe Hanger Engineer

~

~

0 ATTACEIENT A INVESTIGATION ITEMS: Nos. 1-1 through 1-15 and 2-1 through 2-4

Pg. 1 of 2 Xtem gl-1 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEED LL P1PE SYSTEM PROBLEMS ESTIGATION ITEM DATE: 8-12-82 J

I OBSERVATION 1, ~

POTENTiAL FINDING FINDING 4 ~

TT ~

S'AFETY IMPACT YES NO INDETERMINATE DESCR1PTION:

Small piping system design. which.was not accomplished by detail analysis (i.e. ME-101) was performed in accordance with the requirements of Revision 3 of Specification M-241, Design Criteria for Simplified Analysis of Small Pipe. Revision 3 of M-241 was issued n 5/21/81. Since that time numerous informal and uncontrolled memos and notes have been written with the intent that the information the contain be used in con'unction with or in lieu of the criteria established in M-241.

An .initial cursory review of the information contained in these informal documents INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER: Jason Saranga, cd/~~. i 8A~

C.L. Dvorscak, W.R. K ine, D.B. Ritter+(I3ff~

INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER: B.M. Swoyer 13 d)

INVESTIGATION V~AGER: s lD I concur that this item is a

Pg. 2 of 2 I ~

Item 01-1 indicates that Spec. M-241, Rev. 3 did not provide the Resident Fngineering Group with pertinent technical direction in certain areas of small pipe design.

Note: Revision 4 of Spec. M-241 was .also reviewed. As of 8/11/82 the spec was in a final state, but lacked final sign-off (per Bechtel).

Pg. 1 of 2

\

~ ~

Item N1-2 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATlON Si~L P ZPE - SYSTEYi PROBLEMS ZB~STZGATION ITEM DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATION POTENTIAL FINDING s

FINDING 1

?p ~

SAFETv IMPACT NO .

INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

As a result of the walkdown of tne piping shown on SP-HBD-1538-1 (Rev. 8, 5/7/82) and review'of the associated documents the following discrepancies were noted:

A.. Fab ISO SP-HBD-1538-1 (1) "Final As-built Drawing" stamp, required by PP-P-ll, Paragraph 8.0, was signed-off on 6/7/82 approving rev. 7. ( One month after'issuance'f rev. 8, which does not contain the ."as-built revision/reconcilliation" stamp)

(2) Hanger 51 had been removed on revision 9 (dated 8/3/82) on final SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER:

INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER: n-/ - 2 a

INVESTIGATION MANAGER:

I concur that this item is a

go oz Item 51:1-2

~ ~ ~

~ e I

(3) Subsequent to the walkdown the team 'was advised that rev. 9 (8/3/82) had been issued to show deletion of Hl. Rev. 9 contained a 2nd "Final As-built Drawing" sticker approving rev. 9 which was signed off on 8/4/82. This violated paragraph 8.5.2 of FP-P-ll which requires a revision stamp and not ~

an as-built stamp.

Comment: Rev. 8 was given to the team by the RE group who apparently thought it was the latest revision even though they had signed-off rev. 9..

The FE group, who had revised the drawing, produced a copy. of rev.

9 only afte questioning.

B, Hange Detail, SP-HBD-1538-H1 (1) Rev, lF3 given to team for walkdown.

(2) "Final As-built Drawing" sticker for rev. 1P3 did not have RE approval sign-off.

(3) RE Calcs (final as-built reconcilliation) were done to rev. 1F3.

(4) Rev. 1F2 was issued'or cancellation.

Note: The document control system has no mechanism for assuring a cancelled drawing does not re-appear.

(5) During the program for removing the "Q" from the first support after the end of a Seismic I line, this hanger detail was up-rev'd to 1P3 and identified as "insp. As-Built".

(6) After considerable investigation the original drawing, which had been up-rev'd to lF4 to "Reissue For Cancellation", was located on the desk of a field engineer'ho had neglected for several weeks to put it back into the system.

(7) Rev. 1F4 had both a "Final As-built Drawing" and a revision reconciliation stamp. Both stamps had RE sign-off.

(8) The revision reconciliation stamp indicated that there was no affect on calcs.

(9) RE failed to enter the signed-off as-built in the log required by EPM rev.

10 Section XII Paragraph 5.

(10) On 4/22/82 and on 5/21/82 the RE stress group walkdown revealed that hanger Hl did not exist'.

(11) As of Thursday 8/12/82, the RE group was revisin loads on hanger Hl and the engineer was not aware that the hanger had been deleted.

" .Conclusion: The discrepancies noted above indicate that the design/document control system was not adequate to assu e the pr'oper processing of the documents in question. It appears that the interface between the FE group and RE group was not clearly defined and that communicat'ons within the RE group was not uniformly established.

SUSQU ".-:ANNA ST AM ELECTR'C STATXQN TEAM SMALL PXP- " SYST"M PROBLEMS ESTIGA'XON ITEM DATE OBSERVATXOiV POTENTIAL FINDING N:

FlNDING ~ ': 1- 5 SAFETY XMPACZ'ES NO .

X INDETERMINATE de ~

44$ 'lS.

DESCRIPTION:

The use of en ineerin .iud ement to reconcile as-built conditions in the small piping program is not defined in either M-241 or 8-213.

Discussions with R. E. Group (Bechtel) indicated that distinction between major and minor changes defined in P.-213 Sections 4.15 and 4.16 were applied to large piping ()2") only, Identification of ma or and minor chan es on small i in is based solelv on Resident enaineer's conception th calcu ud ement.

is reconcilled, SIGNATURES: attached calculatio On by engineering t'hange er to attac ed des C./

r)r judgement and that for major changes - refe ence

~

'XNVESTXG TION TEAM HEMPER: i3/g~

INVESTXGA'TXON TEAM LEADER: B.M. Swover ZNVESTXGATION MANAGER:

X concur that this item is a

Item 41-3 Page 2 of 3 The investigation team reviewed and walked down two small oiping systems.

These two lines are summarized below as an example of how two different engineers perceived major and minor changes to the design intent of small piping systems.

Line 81: SP-HBC-78-8 Rev. 13 Day Tank Overflow to Main Oil Storage Tank in Diesel Generator Bay Length of Line aporox. 81'-8" PHangers: Spring ~ 0 Rigid ~ 3 Anchor ~ 3 (lanchor not numbered Civil Anchor)

Guide 9 15 Total Supports Reconciliation Covered 14 Total Supports

• Conclusion of comparison between engineering intent and as-built condition:

No difference 9 Minor Difference 2 Major Difference 3 14 Total In'only one (1) case was a hanger (H49) reconciled using calculations to show that the as-built hanger was accept-able. All others were dispositioned by engineering judge-ment. A copy of the ABH (As-Built Hanger) calculation is attached for reference.

• The anchor identified as a civil anchor was not reviewed in ABH calculation since it did not have a unique hanger detail associated with it. The reason for this was due to the fact that the anchor was actually the concrete used to seal the hole in a vertical wall made by the pipe.

Line Pr2 SP-HCB-133-1 SP-HCB-133-2 SP-HCB-133-3 SP-HBD-1538-1 Suppression Pool Water Level Instrumentation Length of Line" - Approx. 80'6 3/4" f/Hangers = Spring - 4 Rigid 1 Anchor - 0 Guide 18 23 Total Supports

item 01-3 Page 3 of 3

~ ~

~

Reconciliation Covered 23 Total Supports Conclusion of comparison between engineering intent and as-built condition:

No Difference 5 Minor Difference - 8 Major Difference - 10 23 Total This engineer did detail design calculations 'for each of the changes categorized as Major (including the use of engineering judgement within parts of the overall calculation). No discussion was provided for any of the minor differences so...the reviewer was unaware of what the cha'nges were by looking at the calculation. A copy of ABH calculation is attached for reference.

It is evident by looking at the two calculations that a clear definition or direction on how to handle major and minor changes was not made available to Resident Engineering. Further investigation indicated that the engineers working in the Resident group all possessed approximately 'the same level of expertise.

I 0

I OwLcULiTioN STREET 4 RIG lNATDR

+z+OJEl-,

SUSJECT SQSQQiZA]~

Z/

/

ELE~C DATE STATION ~i CHEC)CED SHEET ND 8

DATE 1 ~ SX-8 4/ A'fV. C 2 ~ FAB ISO p- A/A - 8-7 A'//

3~ CO~ITS SUPPORTS AS BUILT &Co CONL USTOH OF COHPARZSQH B~i~ ACR+ fc AS BUXL S RVa RZV o DE~ACE ~~nOR DZ~ VC= e+HQOR DX'0

>P P8C-78 -ff4 O'P -//8C- >8 - HSO Zi -HBC-7(9 "h'5/P H8C 78 "HSZ /'/sz

-ffBC -7' H53 S -//8C ff54

-ffBC<<74 -h'5'5 S -ffaC-rd Z/ -H8C "78 -845 /'lrsA I 2 ZP -HBC-Z -HS I Z/r~h.

-HBC- 7a -Hd/

Z - ff<Z SIC H43 rP -//8C ZS4 ieger gp -ABC - 7<9 -ff45 / F2 S -SIC -7d-P44 Jj'fBC 78 -Hg ZP- BC'- 7 -H49 zlzz/

-ffdC - Zd.-ff7O

-tlBC ff7/

SP -ABC 7 h&94 oPsz-HZ'ff8(

3'P -fag ff>N 0/rz

-HaC -7d -ff~4 SP -//BC 7d -ff>o<O ~d// /4

• 7 . 1~~~+ l'O.Z:-~VW Sa ~~V~. m ~ /> /<

C- CR ~iS hZD CLL ZS

~~~OH.

/J p ~ 4/'/ '/-

~g~ S~

~

ewe LA~a R~SEON . ROH

SUMMARY

e

OALf ULAT10N SHEET CAl.C. NO. REV. Na.

I 6 INATDR 2 OJEC i Q~~HA F~~~

-7 z~v. c 3'HEET KZCTRXC SZAX'EON UNIT-1

2. re ZSO Na 8856 AS BUZL gg Pg. ~g+/

3. 'O~TS-

4. SUF. ORTS AS BUXLT ENCE RVe REV+

COHCLQSXOH HO DE~~~

OZ'CHP~~OH B~DP~

~NZHOR DI~K9C=

'~i ~ AS BUTYL S

~~Y3LDOR D DP-PM -z -z~Mz olsi O S -hM-w -a~49

) n/ar 3P -HSC - 78 ffzoct/

-ffc9C -7 ~Q y/ /

-M(- y -'~cS'l~i P . iW~~VG Z~MH~. BO RMaLYSD ~Q ~GZ~M.

S-. s i~Z:OR H-~ CO~ S RR ~L'a OE S~.

~

LA~ HQ u~ RZVTSXOH .ROM SVM~T

o \

I

'<'+ ec%cu~Tiam sH<~TO. o DATE DONATOR PR ECT J'~ r /tN~ -/JCBNo.

SUSJECT SHEET NO 7'A7OR >~FFFRFiYC'z 7HA7 rVZE'AS-Buldl ASFZ A ZWAgZZg 4.7p'Wh'FR rAZ.S. usa+ rivzoEr'WuYAL doADS stol

/

5ETlVEEA'iYE AJ'-8//87 ffA/VCj~R 4 >r A 740 IS ZpWA'Z SPA- PRES/mwAg7 w87 mz su~ET'cuZO Fiid w>S sf'olloeiNQ lZZS conlZ~RVA7/yz.'odDs WsRE &Yah') ZrR~~S-g>> <<Py lP = 2aC7

~x ~Ay <<hQ ~z~+~

cawgxHEo 8ztYo/A'Q 8 cc~+zs+tohf:

Z 2 ( s g ) = Pq'z Otic ~.) (O.~ io) -O Zoll ZQ h'ARLA o (kh) > (~ o6>>)(e.425) RS7$ I

~

~-("r, <(...s r9. rr A'q Fa Fop

~~ ~4 <zw-kg p o~+

(e.>694uv ) (rg.r pzi)

= o. 94 w+ /.O

. - mesa'F8 z7zazSEs AI'zo. g. w'P/z 8,

~

'h'Std STgzsSES /A 7M 4 /ZE O. k. gP Z~irveERWCr Qz~FaEA'7.

HlslaS~ cu SzssR>rt+ %z zeadlzR eoZD (rswr cW eP )ÃMFzS azpz )

2.405 +'2 4dd r )r i//

rW 4 ~

h

o. o >.ooo < tP o ~g

'o.<2

o. i.r9).

~p'.79 ro oooo o.73 SZ sA')g ) +fs 4

r go Wr re Kg JAI r 3r . ~ (nrn

~y$ ecaLcuuz~oN svEET ='Sd DONATOR DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT C C -/ JOB NO.

SUBJECT 'SHEET NO Hw gzmguv'uv4 PYr/zS~ zu~~7-ZZz a. <

., AS-c5C/ll7~~E'RD H<$ 4 H4/ AA'8 O. K'..WR i7/F Lt7FZ7 WADS'IVY&

ASOYF.

h'58 /S 3 AATOR DiFFFREAIC~. BECAuSS AS tailer HAh'+~R Has DF& r AS'rAECeD yh'li.E ZudznlEE'Rzh'$ DrDIV T CALi ~R ll . Adsc7 WE NeZDS oiv 7/tz EBS or

/pe~ 2 ARE /z Ac-A/.'orat'h4) 5'Htl z ENCrezeRIN+ oA'd7 GdlcvlA7FD FoR 4 Fl/ZZT ON TWO S/DFZ. AlSO.ADO'7/WZ g ~ 4'AZOR CpaoHF 7RQ bt~/EZEN<F. HoPEYPR SdPFMT IO'o. k. clap &/4/AEpR/A'+ ~@NFL'EW7, e + ts A HA7OR DIFFFA'FA'CF 8876'FZh'i'F AS-WIL7 ffA~E 4 7ffF cVALJ87FD OrVF,

/A NAT 7/rF'&77'eZ p cmsro~R'zO aoAos ave 7O 4 arracS/wzk7S, Wrote Ac7'uAL AS -atr/8.7 /rAN4.zR /AS zg~acagzw7Z 2/s7za azdoegR'E m'Z ~

,4Z -u'tLT 4 ~vAlttd7 FO cavo/7./AS.

ZoACZ dJBD Ie FYA/vATrcA'x A5'-~IZ7 ~DS j>>

Fz =47 Fe ~47 Ht/ Fx =5g ~gpy>

zsr" HZd~9 Fx ~ 4/4 gx ~

=~o = Wo~

Jr'z Fz ff>os% awZZDÃrb Fx Fy =? P4 Hzo57 pz = ~sO" gyp 8 W~H~R $ 7FESSFS; grrtCE IN~57 ~FJ'~pZ, 7HF &7<87 ECHOES AAF &e~R AHA~ OE aud4L 7VOJF I/SZb W rgZ pyAt.uA 7/a&, Ah'0 7rYZ mEA'8FR ZrsFSJZZ FROrV VYF J 14>DL

~PE7ARF ~ow', /r/F gaorrrorbg/ FFFF<7$ MF'D wF ph'ccvYs/~zEc-b h'o jovzg zTRFZZ 7v wF zxis7/iver@'YF'M8FR2 8Ep'owo ~z Azro/ABLE~,

hah'4'vl.l

'gt:~ eclccuuaioN sH<v CANC. NO.

I NATOR CHECYEO OATE PROJECT /C hl / - JOB NO.

SUBJECT SHEET NO

~+Lac Z'rc7~+;

jp'E'Fjdzc7roh's IppAgl pj'PRE oiz~c7ravs ARz cohzlDegaBD. ~a~<<

i@A~/7fftgd&WABL5 Pch W4 7ftF vAMA7FD +Ah'Q HA~R - 8) zMfPEH~~

jg~z+EA 7 7FF ADDED zppEC7 Cg/Z /23 ~p g pp/7r~gg 44hl&g'//L ><7 M z~s< ezAC o~Pzzc7rohS m acmic wiv ALZowA<cF.

- ~ DzPdzc7roAS ZZE'. K'.

pgzauzwcg >

FZaauzNC ) /S o. g. g) reSp/. c'Trod op ~NZT~~Q $ %4/DZ &7Pd7 4 z+6in ~~RuV$ Ju~wzA7.

~gzg g &fsE 4 Z -auI87 ~~+

MJZHDS'

~ ~

ICALClllATiCNEHEETG INATOR DATE <- >> CHECKED

/ I JOB NO.

) ~ /

PROJECT SUBJECT t - C- SHEET NO rz A wave DID/'FRF~(E. 8'Ec44'Jz As Mil7 ~nv~4 'g/y HAS A A'E+b'ZAP FA4uv'FE4W'+ CALLZ4)

.,:,.;~Cp~ Cud. HO6eYFR P 'ff/L gS ~/g7 ~D/r/oa/3 O. k'. r Z SPA Z7/.

/~~ AA/IVOR'D/FrÃRFiV(Z. cFFC'ASST AS-BCl/Lj WELD iZ O//'

, ~

P~ PrggF 7'aive ~

By'~+ih'WR~~

cAleulgiED Fog'< jidlz;7. Po+zy'M 77//J')iP/&PE/~ , g /g O: rt; gila~ZH 7.

/td4 /SA ~/hgR o/t7FRFA'CF .8FC4!leaf AS-ou/c7 WE'D /S/8/~~

~lcu&rfD~E XIV+:r/E&PrtVg

//if'.

3/~E~&V7; uoezvfR mis or~rRFI/ /

i;@" ~HIER vSM uY87

/S A gi+OE C /SF~RE'~(E . 'BZCAl/SZ AS -~F7 T/rl/ZLD rZ CALCULATED ~R. AOWPV~R'HrZ DlmaPZAC(Z /J O. K: ~j E~ ~~Maw7;

~/r' ISA hllkoR D/~iFRFA'CE. VFGfuSEEiV4/WFFR/w(g CAEZ f/

~4 RF:re~+CEWZ~j

. Of/LF As aurd7 r54v+ER Pds rrlvEF/

- r/' ,). lD . rVORPVFPl.'Z 8u]CQ cONO/Tldpl rS O. K. ~4 SPA 44/.

~rP A /< "r'/QZ7 u~S~ IS A OIAoR o/FFFRF~CF. 8zcduSF z>6ravFFRIN+ c'Al/// hoesVFQ %/S i<~

WFLD oh'F ~~FD g. g"/ZF At -udt WED /S'0+81 O/PPFR~h'CZ /Z O. K. 8f'+rPHR)N$ Su+caZA'/

y ) ME H&099, HZO34 /Z A heaOR D>PFFRE'h!CZ gc(Al/SF'F ~Z SMF ~8><r'/

fYALVATFD ff888C> - mfa -Hilr +NOIR Dbrc7

~aAC IS A ~A~OR O/IFERfefo. 8ECAVSF FWGWZZgrkg ~Z~HZei rA'cO/HF'747. ffoS'EVE/ /4S'7AEZ FQ ffAnlgFR rO'. <y

~

~ ~

e

~

gP"'ALC.

OAIG)NATOA PANDECT SUSQv Rat EA Sl 4 CALI:ULATIGI'"SHEET IRCKC S>>~

DATE ~

OH uaa'

+

N CXECKED IQQ L)Q 8856 C.TE SVmECT P'~~ )

3~ 'Q~~S . JUANA)'7 KQC -I 5 = 6'R~6 F'-Hc6->~- W

~

4 ~ SQPPOBZS AS SUZ - )Co CONC USEOH OP'A~~SON B-8~ =t~e AS BUT S RVo R Vs HO DL~MIC. I ~H NOR

~

DT~DfC. I~<<3JCR E

DI~ HC-SP-4 >Z -H.t 1/W P H 8-i --DM o/~~ I t Hc -> -Ha oft'> l ROC S-le~ V4, t O/

P uC -i -4 I ~/Fl SAVE,a- l="-0 lC I =-/P]

F"-Hgg l- All t, lz F'~C.S W~ uiZj ~/a a -O~lj OIJ-I 9'-llr $ -l~-&mal 0/CI

'IE --Aw

<Cl-o 0r <l Fa -i-~-v~ ~2~ 0/t=f l o j Cr Ic j Ci, I WM lmS-Pr~ j 0/~Z Ie F. Oc,<-l~ - uZmoQ /<Z. j i+

Cj (. w -r -Aza Vi o/F'I Cj JPCR- l -Lj) l 0/~

Ci r VC -l~e-0>>ll CJP'Z F'-H. s- -o~~nl O/Fz.

L4 B. )- llama>5 O/Pa 0/P'l"--HZD>A o/7

• E. ~~",~~~ ZO ~~

see g~~ BBK ~ I" 8 'Iw R=-PSZOH BCH

~

w ap ~

~W pa~e+,e SPMPZ

~ i ~

S~

e' w "~ ~ ~

~ ~

r~<"-"'i' CALDULP TtQf'i SH ~"-T CALC. N REV. NO.

ORIGINATOR~t Al ZC-r3 I

DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO.

SUBJECT P - RZ Od- SHEET NO yg '+X+IYz KFF. L cp~<

12 WG'5)@Al LcA>5 m&a . Rl 13 14 1

1P gl 19 o, oug) 20~ SX ~7.+x/C Xllif or DO 22 pQ = 54-A = o,bcGG)b AB .4 /+X~I @X/D (o Oof 27 C.HGcK lUj~@..TH +Ppx Y~

//~

Mx = ZSo X+% + 5'// xz75 30 31 hllbx Novi@ fL WTPE5.5. = )>A'~ e 5!)

32' 5 7o ~/+

33 ~. = zd-4o,=~: /1)iu Psz 35 o.4 SPP 20168 Aev. I6/76I, 60 69 IQ/y6

C JINNI:U lSTR 0 N St-! EET CALC. N I ~

ORIG INATOR I,N DATE CHECKED PROJECT JO8 NO.

SUB'JECT SHEET NO 8 Ap't RDs puL.t oUT l~e 9

IO p,yo / ~47 wx8 +

12 I

~

3

~SAN = Fii 14 +

15 16 17 t Micah)G &%

'!3 O gg PM X'A'<

20 )1.x w>'I~

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 32.

33 SFP 20766 Rev. I6/76) ED@9 16/76)

p "fl 6" 4~ PC~A tL PM Ic3) fmH '

HT6 c h ~ ps'~I 8Q fi i i ~~,

gE CALC. N

~p ORIGINATOR ~

OATE ~ CHECKEO OATE PROJECT JOB NO.

Sue JECT P- SHEET NO.

@8,SF 'HC8 -I>> -HZcc I 4 Qzoc~

H$ g OP-'HcB-.)~h ~G 9omo<v- FQRp~

4 ~~5 PZmI I

I 5 //

/g~l 9

10 iQ ll 12

$ ~05

~r~

s 13 A 14 k

je 18 ".

19

~

20 21 p'x 22 ~~J GI=F. 39' P

23 5G &if'~a, 25 F

l7 27 5&&/4// " I 4 ..

.30 l 31 'ht-~o5 x'7N 32 RES)QN 35 SF P.207SS Rev. (6/761'D.69 tS/7!

gfjl"" '~I.ALCUL-"<T!Qi'! Sll."E I g ~ CALC. N REV. NO.

P OR I G I NATO R DATE CHECKEO OaTE PROJECT JOB NO, SVSJECT SHEET NO

@gag gzycy c g F.P y GZ l7 X3.~~5 ~ 7x)z 43.

)

9)cz7+xt Ro.>l 3x>7$ N xl 7L 0 ooo27 (o,oog 10 I xaam A xZf.=Z:6 11 I

12 13

< = ~ S'xi J, =o ~'~+

Z->JR. Pl AK

-> PLr.

~'B'>m 18 ' 7z- xQ Y g ~ 7z x/2 4E 19

~ pg z7 fgg) Q/ z7+4/+wl'7D O

20 21 o- co(g (oi ooP 22

~'

23 24 H moo 26 27 PI< -6 =

Ehx'F.b> ~ %Ax~~

g,~y~z7,+gg -

~xz/.+,Wfa x 1/.

30 o oo3-L" (o oog'2 31 I

QHt II. gag, Q+ +X4-W j~

w7>~pp + y~ex+ 5.+.i Tk.xt'43 H x') z '

35 Mx = X = ~~'77

- SF>-207/8 Rev..(6/76)'~ ED 69 I6fr6

)qadi CALa U&7iQ[J:llEEf 0 I ~ ~ 8 CALC. N REY. NO.

P ORIGINATOR OATE ' 8+ CHECKED DATE + ~ EZ PROJECT j JOB NO, SUBJECT zco5 SHEET NO.

Mq = Ap >'+ f +nL>~ ~g = 3+vs rAl; Fg =)7L p = BzG+ E73 = 7g)

Fw =407 +

/+V~ ~ )9~54) I s

7+I C I9(oo

<'0 11 12

~P <AXI/)< L/~I ~ +~ SaZ~-

13 )S AX4-X'.

14 OTH c ~ M & Iv) PER~ 0 Co//AIO'CI /D/JQ W ~84 J.~vgugsgr 18 19 C) 5~+8 @ 6 Agc~F.

20'1

~ psk WIAQE Pvoq~g 22 23

/AT/IQtV(~//-T m g/I X IQT.gggc)ID/.

)

24 25

= o,~Fg (fo 26 ~ >/ P HICVi 27 IK ~g~g ~,y 30 31 "2

35 36 SFP.20766 Rw. 16/76I <0 69 t~/7<

tlat)

. E~~~

))I E I'ALL'LIL'~VI0 M tsf~~(a/

E )EE Yb

~l g)C CAI.C. N REV. NO.

ORIGINATOR DQTE + CHECKED slv Er.

PROJECT JOB NO, SUBJECT P U SHEET NO 8

9 11

,~~Rzooq F~

12' F~ Hzeoe 13

'l4 Ltg Ses7

'0 C) 21 22

, 23 24 PSGIQA) 25 0 ~oo 30

'DG51Q)J 31 32 33 ~ F rZ.IY)

SFP 20788 Rev, (8/78I 8O.ee land

0

.~pl Cp,( ~;lw~

OR(GINATOR DATE CHECKED 0

~

PROJECT JOS NO, SUBJECT ~~ IW '9 Ztoo SHEET NO. 8 9

10 ~Q FR~gOSA~

I Q4 Jp, l,

7) 7)

~A'~~ god% CAO7 P ooo,g3. +A/ o,oog o.oto72 (o.tooq V7. 7 12 13 R a Far guaÃcy'.

14

~

19 20

- G 21 24 MIGLl>5, &AS.C 8, +@~Ho& Kw7K B/ - 4$ ~ ~Z>glrl~A/7 26 27 28 go(o $ Zo(S-I 30 g rrg'7iM6 $/RrMcp ~j g g rg F~6 G-Z g 8 gf p f coOt 31 32 PZ . (o~rtas cRRsti) f ptzctt tn'csttrc7cd J'5 SFP.20768 Aev.16/76). 6 049 (Sn<

Mj)jf "t ~I:~ LCUt RT!Ut'3 Sl-! EE) ggG ORIGINATOR PROJECT

-Bz ,~

CAI.C, JOB NO.

r OATE SUBJECT - Qt )3E- SHEET NO HQI7+ gP -'WS-)9>-8&, lflO Egest>g 5oF7c R7ZV t= go@ HgZ'~y~ o- SF'-H~~-l~>-P,m H~ly HB .

Hzol4 '

~ic ( yyx+~ 8 If rr

// W 10 I

11 Fx L. zxsx ~/g 12 13 T'I~I+

14 18

'y l

+x4.</0 19 20 GLGu, Lf g., <DL'f78 21 22 23 24 H zen 5 Ifmi4--

25 zesiqA. ~4 26 21

~F 2B .HS EHlo 30 31 32 r ZK6? UGAlC.V H z.ol> 6 I-Imlf PL P~

~ P'l+

35 X y~z.

M~ j9 SPI'.20768 Rev. IS/76) >>I %27.Ix) E7 Bxw7.$p lop E,z. SD 89 (6/76

~ ' r I

ewe ro F r r J J p

rP r r~

f

~r r J

./

r r

('>

g)l "" x~ Q 6 LPi")J lj'PI+ fjI SHEE."

ORIGINATOR ~dA OATE

'I 5/

PROJECT JOB NO.

SUBJECT SHEET NO.

9 A&~ 4: Z AfjcpoR'oL.(N I/

PGK P%')@RAN.f (47 7RCH VENT n ww) 10 ((J(sRAcv(od 11 12

= ~.+~7 ((o 1~

14 IB 1

I f 9(LTI

~N)< &LTD G g~

19 20 21 22 23 24 26 30 31 35 SFP.20768 Aev, Ie/76) 60 69 Iene

g'4444'4'4444444444444444444444444%404ei40e444 UHIVAC 1100 SERIES ICES s APR 29, 1982 ! . '

10i52:14 VERSIOtt 2.9 j

. ~

04444. '44444444444444444444:i4:i4:iW4:if i4:i4:i4'i4

>OADD l:CB1331I2009.

1. .i'(RUDL 'S.S.E.S.'885&'

i 0:i:i 0:I 4:i:C 0:i 444:i 4:i 0:i 4:i 444:i t:C 0:i 44 i:I i:i 4:I i

ICES STRUDL-II THE STRUCTURAL DESIGtt LAttGUAGE CIVIL EHGIHEERIHG SYSTEtIS LABORA MASSACHUSETTS IHSTITUTE OF TEClltlO CAHBRI DOE i HASSACIIUSETTS 10.52.52 29 APR 82 UHIVAC 1100 SERIES EXEC 8 VERSIOH 2.8 444444444444444440 4444444444:if:i4:If 4f:) Cl

~ T I TLE 'SP-HCB-133-II2009 SE ISHHI C CLASS 3~ 0 IHPUT BY) SH. REDDY DATEi CHEC

4. (YPE SPACE FRANE

5. ltHITS IHCH KIP DEG

6. JOItlT COORDItlATES 7~ 00 0S

8. 2 0 0 3&.75 S

9. 3 -3&.75 0 0 S

10. 40550 11 ~ 5 0 55 -40

12. & 7.5 55 -40

13. 7 19.5 55 -40

'14. HEHBER ItlCIDEtlCES

~ 15. 1 1&. 224

17. 334

18. 145 19 ".i 5 &

'0.

')&7

21. i]'-; 5 EHD JOI SIZE STA 2.0

'lu)!t.blalA')

5 6 TAD IAB

'STUDES'T3X3X4'<)HSTAHT

{) {! {.'! '0(! '

'!:! [) n ')

26.

27. L 27400.0 ALL

20. li 10540.0 ALL 29; 'HSITY .000284 ALL

30. i'))I 3 ALL

31. ETA 0.0 ALL ..

32 ~ LOADIHG 1

33. .)l)I 6 LOA FOR X -2?1 Z .220

34. U)I 7'OA FOR X ~ 154 Z ~ 395

35. l OADIHG 2 FREO Z

36. JOI 7 LOA FOR Z .044

37. DEADLOAD.Z FAC 0.5

'8. I.OADIttG 3 'FREQ X'!

39. 0 I 7 LOA FOR X . 028 40 ).:EADLOAD X FAC 0.5 (IFFHESS At)ALYSIS

')

~  :-.

42. I)UTPUT BY HEHBER

43. IIIII PUT DEC 4

44. ).)ST FQ!tCES REACTIOHS DISPLACEHEt)TS ALL 0 I 4:W:I 0:) 'i:j:)4:) 44:h4 f04:i 4404444

'RESULTS OF LATEST AHALYSIS*

4 l ff h 44) 4) 4 I 4) 4 l444$ 44444044

) ROBLE)t - S.S.E.S. TITLE - 8856 ACTIVE Ut)ITS'HCH l(IPS DEGREE DEGF SECOHD ACTIVE STRUCTURE TYPE St'ACE FRAHE ACTIVE COORDIHATE AXES X Y Z i)EHBER FORCES FORCES -HOHEHTS-t)EHi:R AXIAL S))EAR Y SHEAR Z TORS IOHAL DEHDI)IG Y OEHDIHG Z LG .)>IHG JOIH T

0

~ r'I JII ,~v ~ ~ I vugg

'II ~ I u 1' .,-. I? 10~ 0 .') m03S .) .j.03~)I9 7 .2338 ~ ~ VJO I

.1710 -.0038 -.Oa'&8 -.2338 . 220. ~ I J8'1

.11?9 .0367 '.0088

~ 5G5S .143& - .5511

-.1479 .0019 .0088 058 .3413 .4064 1.2269 -.0707 .2&40 3.7814 -5.6029 -1.6817

-1.2269 .0707 -.2640 -3.7814 -11.8602 -2.'9935

.2243 ".0199 .0092 .1317 .2089 ".3193

-. 205'9 -.0077 -.0092 -.1317 -.4021 -.0835

.0123 ".0048 -.0008 .2822 -.1264 -.0957

".0123 .0048 -.0325 <<.2822 -.9233 J'I46 3 -.89&6 .0692 .2617 3.?6 15 "5.4?86 l ~ rIr JO

.896& -.0692 -.2617 -3.?&15 "11.330: 3.G002 3 -.0067 .0020 .0114 .1315 . 032?

4 .0067 -.0020 -.0219 -.1315 10?'.4315 028 3 -.2020 .0225 .0196 .2808 .3725

.1S35 .0051 -.0196 -.2808 ".8603 .2045

.6150 ".0000 -.4250 -.0000 26.3525 -.0000

".6150 .0000 .4250 .0000 "9.3525 ~ ".0000

.0793 - F 0000 .0000 -.0000 .92?9 -.OOOO

".0512 .0000 ".0000 .0000 9');II -.OGGG

-.0000 -.0000 -.0633 -.OGGO 1.9692 -.0000

.0000 '0000

.0352 .OGOO .0000 -.0000

~

5 ".4250 .0000 -.6150 -.0000 9.35"5 .0000 6 .4250 -.0000 .6150 .0000 -4.7400 .0000

~

I 5 .0000 -.0000 ".0512 -.0000 .92?9 -.0000 6 -.0000 .0000 .0484 .0000 -.5545 ".0000 5 -.0352 -.0000 .0000 ".0000 -.0000 -.0000 6 .0324 ..0000 " 0000 .0000 .0000 0000

& -.1540 .0000 -.3950 -.OGOG 4r?40 ) .OGGO 7 .1540 -.0000 .3950 .OGGO ~ 0 nil il .0000 pgssassspaCIIags44saQSIrS 7 -.0000 -.0000 .0440 -.OGOO .0000 .000 6 -.0324 . F 0000 -.0000 ".0000 -.0000 -.000 7 .0280 .0000 .OGGO .OGOO .0000 .000 JOIHT Supl'ORTS LOADS-JOIHT FORCES -HOHEHTS-

,', LOAD IHG X FORCE Y FORCE -5 Z FORCE X HOHEHT Y HOHEtlT 7 QOHEHT

J8'I 4~I IIv V~ Ill I &0 ~ I ~ I 0i~ I GOO ~

~ ) ~

-.003g 0 'i i ;j.0339 1 ".4&89 .2338~ .05G9

-.0367 ~ 1479 -.0088 ".1436 .505i .5511 2- GI.O I .2640 .9809 -.7404 - I . 681? .0311 he?595 2 .0092 .17 5 -.1412 '-.3193 -.0066 - "168 3 -.0008 .00?5 -.0108 -.0957 -.2619

.164'0830

~

GLO I 556 .7071 .2617 6.6451 1.5?50 2 -.0054 -.0044 --0114 ".0161 .1689'.0062

.0327 3 -.13IO ".15S4 .0196 .5147 .3725 SUPPORTS DISPLACEIIEHTS-JOIHT DISPLACEHEHTS- ROTAT IOHS-LOADIHG X DISPL Y DISPL' DISPL X ROT Y ROT Z ROT GLO

.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 ~ OOvv .0000

.0000 .0000 .OGOO .Gvoo .GOGO .0000

.0000 .0000 .OGOO .0000 .oooo .GOGO GLO I .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 2 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .GOGO .0000 3 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 GLO

'I .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 2

'0000

.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 3 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 +000 JOIHT FREE JOIHTS DISPLACEliEHTS-LOADIHG'DISPLACEHEHTS JOIHT X DISF'L Y DISPL Z DISPL X ROT ROTAT IOHS-T rar Z ROT GLO

.0009 .OOG1 .Ovl7 -.0113 -.1158 .0123

".0001 .0001 .0004 -.OGG6 ".0039 .0006

.0003 -.0001 -.OGG1 -.Ooll ".0005 .0012 GLO

-.0078 . .0018 .0113 -.2516 .0123 hhh'7 1 ) Anne nnni nI 'I I nnn l.

(IU I

I'X

.00 I I

.35

".35

56 ()

-.56 I IA ll 3"

"'10.35 I, lf IIL B.'30,)

-8.38 ll I A&I i)'I . PP g

)

2 .00 -P.ll'.48 I.?b 3 F 00 .35 .56 10.35 -8.30 '.70

.00 .35 .56 8.40 "18.38 8.30 1.70

." T A H D STREHGTH DESIGH OF A>>CHORS -- VERSIO>> 01 PAGE' DATE 050402 SW-It t:B" 133 "H2013

.LL IHPuT AHD ouTPUT la IH KIP-rtlCH uHITS "HcuoR Ig GHEcI<ED FDR 4 LGPD co>>DITIGHs As TABULATED BEL'ou LOAD FORCE FORCE FORCE HONEtlT IIOIIEHT tlOHEHT K-COIID X Z XX vv Zz fACTOR 1 F 00 .35 .56 8.48 18.35 8.30 1.700 2 ~ .00 ~ 35 -.56 "8.48 -18.35 8 ~ )a . 1.700 3 .00 .35 .56 a.4S 18.35 -8.3a 1.700

.00 .35 .56 0.48 "10.30 a.3a 1.?00 S T A H D "" STREHGTH DESIGH OF AHCHORS -- VERSION 01 PAGE 4 DATE 050482 SP-HCB"133-82013 ALL I>>PUT htID OU'[PUT IS IH KIP-IHCH UHITS ouipuT Fon LOAD cn>>DITIDH DOLT SIIEAR FORCES htID TEHSILE CAPACITIES I:Ol. T J-"--SIIEhlt FORCE- .- J j TENSILE CAPACITV"-J

>>0 v Z DOLT PLATE I -.107 -.055 1.595 3.143 2 ".107 .333 1.561 3-143 t

.201 .333 l.539 5.650

5'fl(ESS BLOCK ItlFORHATIOH .

/--~ tlOtlEHT YY--"""--/ /- --""-"tfMEttT lZ""--"-"/

ftIDTH(B) LEHGTH(L) DEPTH(A) llIDTII(B) LEHGTH(L) DEPTH(A) 7.057 . 2;000 .175 7.057 6.620 .176 FfttAL RESULTS ~

HOliEHT ItlTERACTIOH CHECK pax liOY tlOZ tfY/IIOY>R IIZ/tfOZ4R SUH CIIECK 39.97 40 13 .2089 .366

-'.27

.4591 OK S T A H P

"- STREHGTll t)ESIGH OF AHCHORS "- VERSIOII 01 PAGE 5 DATE 050482 GP-lfCB" f 33-lf2013 I

~ S, ~ ~

ALL IHPU't AHD OUTPUT IS IH KIP-IHCH UHITS OUTPUT FOR LOAD COtlDI TI OH DOLT SHEAR FORCES AHD TEttSILE CAPACITIES .

BOLT / --SHEAR FORCE / /--TEtlSILE CAPACITY/

HO Y Z BOLT PLATE .

I .107 .055 1.595 3.143 2 '107 -.333 1.561 3. 113 3 -.281 -.333 1.539 5.658

-.281 .055 1.574 10.718 .

fEIISILE CAPACI'IY FROH BOLT IHCLUDLS SHEAR REDUCTIOHS 5'IRESS BLOCK ItlFORHATIOH .

/--- --.---HOIIEH'f YY- / / - --- -HOHEHT ZZ - ----/

illDTII(B) 7.057 LEtlGTH(L) 6.836 DEPTH(A)

.I73 '.057 UI DTH(D) LEtlGTH(L) 3.630 DEPTH(A)

.172

0

, FOX IIOY tlOHEtlT HOZ (Q

HY/HOY'g

~

I tl T ffiAOPI OtDCH ECtf-" .->" ~a---'.'- ..i--~j IIZ/HOZ.-R SU)I

-,"lg

'CIIECi 6.27 3S.03 39.27 .S241 .2134 .437, . OK S T A H D STREHGTH DESIGH OF AtlCHORS -- VERSIott 01 PAGE 6 DATE 050482

-HCB")33-H2013

(!.L IHPUT AHD OUTPUT IS IH KIP-IHCII UHITS OUTPUT FOR Lf)AD COllDITI OH 3 tlOLT SHEAR FORCES AHD TEtlSILE CAPACITIES .

I:OLT /"-"-SHEAR FORCE / /"-TERS ILE CAPACITY/'

HO Y BOLT PLATE

".107 ".055 1.595 3.143 2 . -.107 .333 I.S61 3.143 3 .281 .333 1.539 5.658 4 .281 -.055 1.574 10.718 TEHSILE CAPACITY FROH BOLT IHCLUDES SHEAR REDUCTIOtlS srREss BLocK. IHFGRHATIotl .

/""-""tlONEtIT YY-"-"----"/ /"-"-"---"IIOHEttT ZZ ----""---/

UIDTH(B) LEtlGTHlL) DEPTHIA) MIDTHlB) LEHGTHfL) DEf'TlllA) 7.057 2.000 . I?5 7.057 3.630 .172 FIHAL RESULTS ttatIEttr IorEr AcTIoH cllECI, FOX . )IOY tlOZ tIY/IIOY>R HZ/HOZ~R SUH CllECK 6.27 39.97 39.27 .4591 .2134 .369 Ol<

if ~

~s -tiCu- l 3D-tl2v I 0 f.) 0 '.) '~ ..')

/

~ '.)

~ n ALL INPUT AHD OUTPUT IS IH KIP-ItlCII UtlITS OIITPUT FOIST LOAD COND IT IOtl IULT SIIEAR FORCES AND TENSILE CAPACITIES .

i '.LT / -"SIIEAR FORCE-- / /--TEHSILE CAPACITY /

llO Y Z DOLT PLATE I  ;-.107 -.055 1.595 3.143 2 -.107 .333 '.561 3.143 3 .281 .333 1.539 5.650

.281 -.055 1.574 10-718 it tlSILE CAPACITY FROtI BOLT IHCLUDES St(EAR REDUCTIOHS SIRES'LOCK ItlFORIIATIOH .

/ .;IIOtIEHT;YY-/ / . IIOt'Et(T ZZ ,-/

IIIDTH(B) LEHGTII(L) DEPTH(A) WIDTH(B) LEtlGTH(L) 'EPTII(A) 7.057 .: 6.836 . 173 7.057 -. 6.620 ' 176

."ItlAL RESULTS .

-IIOtIEHT . It(TERACT I ON CIIECN- / ~

FOX  :. '(OY llOZ t(Y/ttOY~R t(Z/i(OZ~R SUif CHECK 6.27 ":". 35.03 - 40.13 .5249 .2089 . 435 Ol(

Z gl-4 i~ANNA STEAN ELECTRZC STATXON TEAM

'N I'USQv>>

SMALL PXP'" SYS PROBLEMS ZNVESTXCATZON XTEN DATE: 8-13"82 OBS ERVATX ON POTENTXAL FENDING I o FIND XNG X I:

SAFETY XMPACZ YES NO, XNDETERMXNATE DESCRXPTXON:

Zt was found during review of the thermal interference walkdown (reauired b Ã-213) performed by the Stress Engineer (R.E. Group) that the field ZSO I SP-HCB-133-1 Rev. 9 was used for the walkdown (done on 10-27-81). The latest revision of this ZSO was Revision 12 (issued 9/28/81) ~ There is no procedural guidance criteria that requires the RE latest revision.

SXGNATURES:

ZNUESTXGATXON TEAM MENPER: ~

-RV > 8-t -Sz XNVESTIGATXON TEAM LEADER: - l3-~ ~

XNVESTXGATXON MANAGER:

X concur that this item is a

Item I1-5 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEAM ~ 1 SMALL PIPE SYSTEM PROBL MS ESTIGATZON ITEM DA>E 8-13-82 OBSERVATION POTENTIAL FINDING FINDING X SAFETY IMPACT YES NO .

INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

10CPR50, App. B, Criteria 53 requires that design control measures be established in procedures. Investigation Items 5's 1-1, 1.-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 1- 8 and 2-1 indicate areas that would require procedural definition. .Znvestig'a'tion Items I1-9, 1-10, 1-11, J-t2.

1-'13 and 1-14 indicate areas that there were- breakdowns in the implementation of the cedural controls.

SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER: 8r 8-r .8~

INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER: -r3 -Ox

. INVESTIGATION MANAGER:

I concur that this item is a

~ ~

s

/

Pg, or 2 Item Prl-6 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEL%

Si~ ALL P P E - SYSTEM P ROBLEMS.

I I STZGATZON ITEM DAT ": 8/13/82 OBSERVATION X 1-6 POTENTIAL F ZNDING FINDING Cl ~

SAFETY IMPACT YES No INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION.-,

~ ~

There was no documented evidence to show that as-built ISO ISP-HCB-133-2 Rev. 8 was formally transmitted to the RE Group for reconciliation. The program for As-Built approval required the FE grouo to assemble a document package containing all as-built drawin s (Fab 1 and Hanger Details) related to an SKM, attach a transmittal form, ahd forward it 'to the RE group. he RE rouo would then reconcile the Packa e, sian-off the documents and advise FE.. The team was told that this drawing and approximatel 265 others were handled by. handcarrying the revisions from Field Engineering to the RE Group and not by a SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION,TEAM MEMBER: 5 /3 INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER:

INiVESTIGATION V~AGER:

I concur that this item is ag

Item -"..i-6 transmittal form. The direction for tnis was given in a meeting be-tween the two groups.

As a result of not having a dated transmittal form there is no as-surance that the RE group had sufficient time to perform a substantive review/reconciliation of the as-built packages.

~ or I1-7 S USQUEHANNA STEAM "LECTRXC STATION TE>2i SHALL PIPE - SYSTEM PROBLEMS ESTXGATlON ITEM DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATION X ~ i ~ )-7 POTENTIAL FINDING FINDING 2! ~

SAFETY XMPACZ NO, INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

Calculation 55268 Isometric SP"'HCB-109-1, Rev. 14; SP-HCB-109-2, Rev. 16. Sheet P6 of the above calculation shows that the span len th between suooort H2008 exceeds the maximum dynamic support span by 2". Auditor was told bv A. T. Morrow of the RE Support Group that overspans of up to 6 or 7 inches are sometimes allowed by ineering judgement. 'Spec. M-241 does not indicate any tolerances are to be a nlied to.the maximum support spans.

SIGNATURES:

INVES IGATXON TEAM MEMQER:

~

ez C. L.

a~Dvorscak. - r9ga INVESTXGATXON TEAM LEADER: B. M. Swoyer

'I'NVESTIGATXON MANAGER: R. J. Shovlin

'I concur that this item is a> CP

Page 1 of 2 I ~'

Item il-8 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TE~ <

S~L PIPE SvSTEM PROBLEMS IFF=STZGATZON ITEM DATE: 8/13/82 I

OBS"RVATZON n: 1-8 POTENTIAL FINDING FINDING I 4 ~

~

SAFETY IMPACT YES NO .

INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

SDecif ication 8856-M-241 Rev. 3 paragraph 4. 2.3. requires satisfaction of nrimar stress allowables "b rovidin ~

d namic su orts on strai ht ipe at s acing less than or ecual to the maximum allowable spans given in Appendix B tables B-l. 1 to B-l . 11. " Table B-l . 11 pre-i m all wable span of 9 5'or 2" schedule 80 carbon steel 'pipe located in the diesel generator rooms.

Contrar to .this requirement calculation F5418 sheet 3 does not consider maximum allowable span for the followin oi e runs': 10'-3" s an between sup orts SP-HBC-78-7-H63 and H64;10'-0" SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER: 8/mrs~

ZNV"STIGATZON TEAM LEA'DER:

INVESTIGATION MANAGER: rP~

I concur that this item is aa

Item 51-8 Page 2 of 2

~

(

E

~ ~

span between supports Sp-HBC-78-7-H64 and H65>10'-0" span between supports SP-HBC-78-7-H65 and H66~10'-4j" span between supoorts SP-HBC-78-8-H51 and H52J 9 '-ll 3/4" span between supports SP-HBC-78;8-H52 and H53J 10 '0" span between supports SP-HBC-78-8-H53 and H54. All six of these pipe runs have spans in excess of the 9.5'llowable, by slight amounts.

Investigation indicates that these spans were within the length allowable by an earlier, superseded revision of specification M-241.

As-built reconciliation calculation ABS-5418 does not address reconciliation of these six overlength spans in clear fashion. Only 'a brief general note, "Referenced computer output for calc. SABS-5416" is supoosed to imply performance of this reconciliation. The investigation team was unable to make that inference due to lack of sufficient detail in. this note(shown.

above). Only after a lengthy investigation was the team satisfied that the above span lengths are adequate.

There appears to be no adverse safety impact resulting from this action.

T.tern- 5 l-e APPFN&ix 5 IQN CR)7ERw 8P>(-8->t

~

~

PCVI Sioà 2

~

195 oF MX. OFAY

+~ Ns ~'s -g i,o -80 O.o 7.0 j 0 225 I V~ 80 2Q-80 00 9g

Item Nl"8 Design C" '856-M-241 Revision 3 'I APPe&ix B XNS'LOCI'ICHS FOR UM OF TABL-- B-l,ly 1 CALCIUM SILICATE USM AS INSULATION.

2. PIP WITH NAX7.R.

3~ MVZ~ SPAN FOR STRAIGHT PIPE IS BARD CH EESXGN P~~tJrK O." 2000 PSI FRCH PIPING CEASS SQ'KQK K " TS WZTS CDNSIZKRAION OF U~

EtKiGM Y AND FAUL~ ICED CCYBINKTION FOR GQU3CH ~i~ Q = %000 4,

PSI.

FORCM ~ FOR MAXIMUM SPAN KSIK FORC LCM'OR SUPEORZS AK) FOR 7~ W KQQMUM WAN AND NCKRS AND FORCES FRCH PIPING ON BClIH SIDES OF'AHMDR OR R~~V CGA)

SUPP'.

ARE IF PIPE SPANS OR PXP AND XNRJEATICM PRO~~ ARE NVr TiK SIP ON R7Hi SIZES QF SUPPORT OR ANCHOR, OhE PELF 'DK TAKJLgQM VAU3=-S VD PIP~ CH EAM SIM SHCULD BE ADDED TO OBI'AIN TER ~I&i APPLIC-'BLE 5.

ElRZS.

TiK TKEiIA~ FO~

CCMBImVZON OF (m S ~TSn-~

+ OBE).

AR ~rmCS ON TER COhTBOLLXbG AR mr ZNaZ~.

LMD

6. ~ = 1.3 USED FOR S'~~S EVALUATION.

7. KERMIS Fi1CM FOR MAXQCJH EKSX(K FRY P~KN~S SCADS FOR ANCZBDRS AND ~~7 SPAN AND FOR 75K CF MMQMUM SPM ARE CDHBXhiD ON EVE SIZES CP T.:" ANCHOR. ZF PIP SPANS OR PIPE AND INSULATION PKPERFXES ARE H7I'"

~

SAM" CH iKlZH SEES CF %"

S

ÃZZOR, QHE HMZ 'QK TABULATED VALUE APPLICABLE TO PIPEh6 ON

'EACH SIDE SBX1LD BE ADDED TO OBTAIN TEA AN~ RESIDE ElRES

8. RES~

RM. l.

SPECTRA XNFORRTICH XS T~ FBCM CEVIL SPM ~ 885&G-24, B-12m P 154/12-3

Page 1 of 2

~ken ~ /-~/

SU UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION T~r&1 PIPE - SYS EM PROBLEMS

~ o S.

IN STZGATION iTEM r

DATE: 81382 OBSERVATION m: /-

F ENDING,. Pr:

0'OTENTIAL FINDING SAFETY IMPACZ YES NO .

INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

o i Air 4 ( v ooendix A ficure A-3.15 oresents ceometrv ad'ustment factors for concentrated weights and.dvnamic loads for one ining geometry. As the figure is self exolanator , no-additional. instructions are provided for its use. The figure states, "F /WL = 0.51 to 1.0 ... Nultiply maximum span L by F 0.33."

Contrary. to this, calculation I5268 (Rev. 2), sheet 4, span "H2000 to H2011" shows for W/WL =

0.78'... multiol'cation of maximum span L b F = 0.42. lnvestiaation indicates that this

'alu'e of F was obtained bv interpolation of the values for F given in figure A-3.15. Such SiGNATURES:

Z~i STIGATION TEAM MEMBER: ri/we~

ZNVESTZGA'TION TEAM LEADER:

INVESTIGATION MANAGER:

I I concur that this item is a>

Page 2 of 2 (I X'+e.m )-5"

~ !~

interpolation of the values for F presented in Figure A-3.15 are not authorized within the specification. Application of this larger value for F, obtained by interpolation, resulted in acceptance of a 2'-5$ " span, which should have been identified as being 4$ " overlength, by spec M-241 criteria.

q'here appears to be no adverse safety impact resulting from this action.

885~2'

~isbn 2 r

Total MeiZht ~ M ~ eh + g (gf a~)

+

Ll L2 ~,FL

.9 lbs/i h (ft)

If no concentrated xeight is present:

For h/L. Hultia1 Maxim . Soan L b 0-, 125 F s .72

. 126 .5 F ~ '55

.Sl- 1.0 F ~ ,33 1.01- ) .0 F g ~ 2

>.Ol- and up Fe ..1 If a concentrated veizht ip present (such as a valve):

For N/xL Multi@1 Raxiamw Span L bv 0- ~ 125 F a ~ 72

.126- .5 F a +55

~ Sl- 1.0 F s .33 1.01- 2;0 F s ~ 2 2.01 and up F a ]

~

' s SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEAM I

SHALL PIPE SYSTEM PROBLEMS ESTIGATION ITEH DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATION X I: I-xo POTENTIAL FINDING FINDING Pr SAFETY IMPACZ YES NO, INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

Support SP-HBC-78-8-H2041, as shown on. the as-built support detail drawing, shows the pipe running along the north-south direction. The pipe actually runs along the east-west d'irection.

SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION TEAM HEHQER:

e.e. 8~

C. L. Dvorscak g- 13-8'A INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER: B. M. Swoyer INVESTIGATION MANAGER: R. J. Shovl in 'a <~8~z I concur that this item is an C5

~ ~

Pg. 1 of 1 I - II SUSQUErIAMNA STEP"I ELECTRIC STATION T" AM S. LL PIPE - SYSTEM PROBLEMS STIGATION ITEM DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVP<ION X P J -/I POTENT'IAL FINDING I:

FINDING SAFETY IMPACT YES NO .

INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

Calculation I5499 Xsometric SP-HCB-133-1, Rev. 16., Sheet I9 of the above calculation shows the minimum span reguired to accommodate oiping thermal expansion and diffe&tial building movements. This calculation does not correctly account for differential building movements as per Spec. M-241.

SIGNATURES:

,INVESTIGATION T"AM MEHQER:

c.y C. L.

S~

Dvorscak - / - 2 INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER: B. M. Swoyer INVESTIGATION MANAGER: R. J. Shovlin g/DCS w I concur that this item is aw

Pg. 1 of 2

.e )-/2 SUSQUEi'.ANNA ST"AM EX.ECTRIC STATION TEAM

~

SMALL PIP SySTEM PROBLEMS

~

STIGATZON ITEM DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATION x z .'-/2 POTENTIAL FINDING FINDING SAFETy IMPACT yES X

NO, INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

Calculation 55268 - Zsometric SP"HCB-109-1, Rev. 14; SP-HCB-109-2, Rev. 16. Sheet I5 of the above calculation shows the reauired span length between H2000 and H2002.

~engineering judgement was used in the distribution of load between the two supports. (See attached for details). The same type of assumotion was applied to the span calculation be ween penetration X-221A and H2011. Spec. M-241,, Rev. 3 does not indicate any tolerances can be applied to the above condition.

SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER:

c..e.

C.

S~

L. Dvorscak INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER: M. - iz -8~

k INVESTIGATION MANAGER: R. J. Shovl in I concur that this item is a~

~ ~

The span between H2000 and H2002 can be represented as shown below.

g [ /ROOFS.

.r The calculations indicate that all of the dynamic loads associated with the concentrated pipe and valve weights is taken by H2000.

Strict interpretation of Spec. M-241, Rev. 3 would indicate that the load should be split up between the both supports and the span adjusted accordingly.

Spec. M-241, Rev. 4 provides direction for this type of condition, that is, when all the load can be lumped on one support and not split up. The calculations noted above appear to go beyond these guidelines also.

~y e I-IQ SUSQUEHANNA S 'AM ELECTRIIC STATION TE Vl SMALL PiPE SYSTEM PROBLEMS I STZGATION ITEM DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATION X 1-lS POTENTIAL FINDING FINDING SAFETY IMPACZ YES NO .

INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

During the walkdown of the Diesel gen. overflow line (SP-HBC-78-8), han er NH2042, on SP-HBC-78-8-H2042 hanger detail, contained a 3" x 3" x 3/8" ancle that was indicated to have a 4" long 1/4" fillet weld on each side in the vertical direction, (Total of 8 inches of. weld). Instead there was a 3". lone 1 4" fillet weld ac~os gle (horizontally) at two locations (Total of 6 inches of weld). Bechtel Q.C. failed to note'this discrepancy. Discussions between NPE and Bechtel RE resulted in this item having no impact on the system.

SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER:

INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER:

INVESTIGATION MANAGER: g pg 72.

I concur that this item is aw

Page 1 of 2 I>

o I SU QU HANNA STEAN ELECTRZC STATZON S L PZP SYSTEM PROBLEMS Z STZGATZON ZTEH DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATZON POTENTiAL FZNDZNG 2 ~

FZNDZNG 4 ~

SAFETY 'ZHPAC1 YES NQ .

ZNDETERHZNATE DESCRZPTZON:

f nces fabrication isometric 8VQ 1 B-109-2 Rev'. 7 as its sources of data.

ation 45268 utilizes sun orts SP-HCB-109-1-H2010 and H2011 (on pages 3, 4, 8, 9, 25, These suooorts were not depicted .on approved revision 9 of this iso. .The following revision 10 to this iso drawing, which added these two supports, was not, issued until 8/06/81. This use of other than an approved iso appears to be contrary to the requirement of specification 8856-M-241 paragraph 2.3.

S ZGNATURES:

ZNVESTZGATZON TEAM MEMBER: rJ(st<~

ZNVESTZGATION TEAN LEADER:

ZMi ESTZGATZON MANAGER: 8r~ IZ i concur that this item is aw

Page 2 of 2 XVc~ sr /-/r/

There appears to be no aaverse safety impact resulting from this action.

Page 1 of 2 a'he~ w 1 - 15 I

~ Q I SUSQUEHANNA STEM4 ELECTRIC STATION TEAM PIP" SYSTEM PROBLEMS INSTIGATION ITEM DAT": 8/13/82 OBSERVATION X 2 lt ~

~

1-15 POTENTIAL FINDING JL ~

4 FINDING ~

SAFETY IMPACT NO INDETERMINATE DESCRXPTXON:

Three .items were found during the walkdown of the Diesel Generator Overflow Line (SP-HBC-78) that would indicate there- might be an oversite in the. area of additional work performed (like repair) after the System has been turned over or after final inspection. It is PP&L's an echtel's responsibilities to make the a ro riate eo le aware of an areas that re uire gt4AL e any additional design review or inspection. The three items are: .(1)~no clearance between the. pipe and unistrut at a point approx. 2'est of hanger 8H53~was repaired (shimmed and bolts tightened) under the SP600 Hanger repair program.

SIGNATURES:

INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER:

INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER:

INVESTIGATION MANAGER:,

concur that this item is a 0

0 t Page

~

2

/-)a oz 2 (2) A conduit was supported by being clamped to piece of unistrut. This unistrut was supported by being clamped to the Diesel Gen. Overflow line.

This work is done afte" turnover.

(3) On Hanger H2047, one of the anchor bolts on the baseplate attached to the wall had the torque paint removed. The Bechtel QC documents had veri ied that the torque paint was intact prior to turnover A second bolt, although extendinp.

slightly above the nut, allowed two threads in the nut to be visible. This condition was a result of the taper at the end of the bolt.

il2-ly Page 1/3 SU~~HANNA STEP% ELECTRIC STATION TEM

-'A~ PIPE SYSTEM PROBLEMS INVESTIGATION ITEM 8/13/82 OBSERVATION O II POTENTIAL ."INDING FINDING SAFETY. IMPACZ YES NO .

INDETERMINATE DESCRIRTION:

Please refer to 'attached.

SIGNATURES:

INSTIGATION TEAiM PLUMBER:~ s'I/9/g k MEMBER I~i STIGATION TEAN LEADER:~ 8 r3 az.

INVESTIGATION TEAN LEADER 8/9 gz INVESTIGATION MANAGER:

I concur that this item is a 0I

'Page 1 of 3

Page 2-1 Page 2/2 Aug. 13, 1982 Team 82 SUSQUEHA.WA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SKKL PIPE SYSTEM PROBLEMS INVESTIGATION ITEM DESCRIPTION:

Field Procedure P-ll, Rev. 6, Section 6.2.7.1 outlines the requirements for the issuance of SP and SPA Details.

The proc dure is as follows:

1. The SP and SPA Details are received by'he site Print Room from SFHO.

-2.. The Print Room logs one copy into a suspense file and forwards one copy to the Lead Field Small Pipe Hanger Engineer for review and comment.

3. The LFSPHE then forwards the document to the Lead Field Welding Engineer for review and comment.

4. The LFWE then returns the document to the Print Room for appropriate distribution to the field, i.e. one copy to the Resident Engineer Group.

Contrary....to the procedure, the L'FSPHE did not forward 274 SPA drawing revisions which he received in January, 1982. Although the procedure does not specify a time limit for the above routing activity, a seven (7) month delay violates the .intent of the procedure.

Bechtel JAR i/8856-F-859 (copy attached) was issued on 7/30/82 to expedite corrective action.

The LFSPHE stated that he "sat on" the SPA's because the field design work was essentially complete at the time he received them, and that the SPA's are used for design guidance (Ref: FP-P-11, Rev. 6, Sect. 6.2.5).

'In discussions with the LFSPHE, he stated that the SP and SPA Details were seldom incorpora'ted as-is in the field, since as construction progressed and the plant became more comples, standard details became difficult to apply in the plant.

Therefore, unique hanger drawings ere developed for each hanger in the plant. The small pipe hanger group generated .the unique drawing, the field installed the hanger on a "risk" basis, and it wasn't until Project Engineering accepted the installed as-built hanger that the "risk" was removed. These steps are described in FP-P-ll, Rev. 6 and M-213 Rev. 11.

I/2-2 Page 1/

IJII 1

~ A SU~EHANNA STEAN ELECTRIC STATION TEAM S? 1RPb PIPE SYSTEM PROBLEMS INVESTIGATION ITEM DATE . 8/12/82 OBSERVATION 5:

POTENTiAL FINDING X FINDZNG SAFETY IMPACT YES x NO Resolution of "potential fn~

.'ould change.

INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

Bechtel specification 88S6-M-213, Rev. 11, appendix F contains Project Engineering definition of the attributes of pipe hangers requiring QC inspection and provides the acceptance criteria. Appendix 'F fails to include friction hanger clamp ear gaps as an attribute to be inspected to'ssur'e adequate gripping of the pipe by the clamp.

J k

This attribute is not identified in any other documents used by QC for inspection.'onsequently, numerous "detail 600" clamps (friction type) .have been installed without

'QC inspection of the clamp ear gaps (Ref. Bechtel FCR-4066, PL-NCR 82-728). The Bechtel FCR does not request a change to Appendix F of M<<213.

SIGNATURES:

ENVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER:

INVESTIGATION TEAN LEADER:

INVESTIGATION MANAGER:

I concur that this item is a Findin

Page 1/1 82-3 SUSQUEHANNA STEMS ELECTRIC STATION. TEAM PIP" SYSTEM PROBLEMS Z~TZGATXON ZT DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATION X POTENTIAL FINDING FXNDlNG SAFETY iMPACT INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTION:

Han er drawin SP-HBC-78-H53; Revision 1, Field Revision 3, indicates the location of Hanger, Number H65. (For reference only). But .the drawing erroneously indicates the hanger number as H69. The proper hanger is installed in the field. Considering the n ~ of "evisions, reviews, and inspections, this error should have been corrected.

SlGNATURES:

Z~i STIGATXON TEAM PKMBER:

iNVESTEGATXON TEAM LEADER:

"NVESTlGATiON 'MANAGER:

i concur that this item is an

4 k

It2-4

~ Sheet' of 2

<<U~~HANiNA STEAM "LECTRIC TERA I'. 2 PIPE SYSTEM PROBLEMS STATION'-:w~

I NVESTIGATION 1TEM DATE: 8/13/82 OBSERVATION r. ~

POTENTIAL FINDING 2

FINDING 1J

~

~

SAFETY INPACZ X YES NO INDETERMINATE DESCRIPTZOH:

SP ecification 8856-M-213 t "Technical SP ecification for Installation Ins p ection and Documentation of pipe supports, hangers and restraints" does not provide criteria with regard to installation and inspection for all vendor fabricated components such as "Detail 600" andswa struts.

Examples:

1... There is no'nspection criteria regarding the gap requirements on installed "Detail 600" Some of these were found to have no gap as documented in NCR No..82-728 (PP&L's)

"=IGNATURES:

I ZbVTESTIGATION TEAM MEMBER:

INVESTIGATION TEAM LEADER: ldll L serlcckorg reg'o,v J PAe ~e,cleric cow Ju'bio< gra~rr fro~ /he J gI C CA ~~Pc'4 A%7 cd:"

i q

I~i STZGATZON MANAGER- rz ~" ~

E concur that this item is a Finding based on the generic implications of not utilizing ve'ndor information for inspections (not spelled out as a requirement in a QCIR),

niche'wo examples cited.

82-4 8-13-82 Sheet 2 of 2

2. There is no criteria for installation and inspection of sway struts. These struts are a complete vendor supplied assembly with jam nut(s). The vendor has specific requirements covering how to install the sway struts and how to tighten the jam nut(s) . Yet many struts are found that have their nut(s) not tightened properly as is documented in PP&L HCR 82-794.

Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT B DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY THE INVESTIGATION TEAMS

1. "As-built" Fabrication Isometric PSP-HBC-78-8 and associated "as-built" Hanger Detail Drawings Diesel Generator Over-Flow Lines.

2. "As-built" Fabrication Isometrics f/SP-HCB-109-1 and PSP-HCB-109-2 and their associated "as-built" Hanger Detail Drawings - Wetwell Atmo-sphere Sample Supply Lines.

3. "As-built" Fabrication Isometrics ESP-HCB-133-1, //SP-HCB-133-2, and

//SP-HCB-133-3 and associated "as-built" Hanger Detail Drawings Suppression Pool Water Level Instrumentation Lines.

4. "As-built" Fabrication Isometrics !ESP-HBD-1538-1 and associated "as-built" Hanger Detail Drawings - Instrumentation Drain from 1" HCB-133-1 to Floor Drain.

5. "As-built" Fabrication Isometric PSP-GBB-102-2 (no hanger) Drain Line from Core Spray Pumps Suppression Pool Instrumentation Line Stress Isometric, SK-M-5499.

6. Diesel Genexator Over-Flow Line Stress Isometric, SK-M-5418.

7. Wetwell Atmosphere Sample Supply Line Stress Isometric, SK-M-5268.

9. Drain Line from Core Spray Pumps Stress Isometric, SK-M-5158.

10. Calculation f/5418, Diesel Generator Over-Flow Lines and associated "as-built" reconciliation calculations (ABS 85418 and ABH 85418).

I Calculation //5268, Wetwell Atmosphere Sample Supply and associated "as-built" reconciliation calculations (ABS //5268 and ASH f/5268).

12. Calculation 85499, Suppression Pool Water Level, and associated "as-built" reconciliation calculations (ABS f/5499 and ABH //5499).

13. The SP/SPA Drawing Book.

14. Stress and Thermal Walkdown Records for "as-built" Fab. Iso. fl's SP-HBC-78-8, SP-HCB-133-1, SP-HCB-133-2, SP-HCB-133-3, SP-HBD-1538-1, SP-HCB-109-1, and SP-HCB-109-2.

15. ualitv Contxol Documentation Sam led QCI P-1:00 Verification of ASME III Documentation and N-Type Code Symbol Stamping

Page 2 of 2 QCI P-1.10 Piping Subassembly Fabrication, Installation and Rework QCI C-1.10 Installation of Grouting and Drypacking QCI C-1.50 Installation and Testing of Expansion Anchors QCI P-2.00 Pipe Hanger, Support, Restraint and Shock Suppressor Installation Final Review QCI P-2.10 Pipe Hanger, Support, Restraint and Shock Suppressor Installation QCI T-1.00 Hydrostatic, Pneumatic and Preoperational In-Service Leak Testing IRs were reviewed and associated with the above QCIs as applicable for the Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pipes as defined on Field Fabrication Isometric and for all (14) the hangers associated with that Isometric (SP-HBC-78-8).

WR-5A forms were reviewed for each weld on the piping system (Iso SP-HBC-78-8) for 2'Inch and Less Socket Welds.

WG:lec GA-7