ML19254D253
| ML19254D253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1979 |
| From: | Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910230229 | |
| Download: ML19254D253 (29) | |
Text
.
- ; TOLEDO EDISON Rosmo P. Cnoust w.9 .ms Docket No. 50-346 1 2 221 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1-93 October 1, 1979 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Director, Regicn III Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
IE Balletin No. 79-14, dated July 2, 1979, requested that we develop and implement an inspection program to verify that the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 seismic analysis input for safety related piping systems conforms to the actual field configuration. Attached is our response to Item 2 of Bulletin No. 79-14.
Our inspection of normally accessible safety related piping was completed September 21, 1979. Discrepancies found during the inspection are being reviewed in accordance with the guidance provided in Eupplement Nos. 1 and 2 to IE Bulletin 79-14. Preliminary evaluations oi walkdown discrep-ancies indicate that none adversely affect system opera tlity. Detailed engineering reviews of the total field packages are currs ntly 50% complete and support these preliminary evaluations. The remaining reviews are being completed and will be reported to you by a supplement to this report by October 19, 1979.
Based on completion of these engineering evaluations sustaining the present high degrce of confidence in Davis-Besse's seiamic analysis conforming to the as-built safety related systems, Toledo Edison will 1196 016 1979 0CT 3 THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHIO 43652 7 0102 3 0 z eq,
delay the inspection of normally inaccessible piping systems untilThethe currently planned spring outage scheduled to begin March,1980.
October 19, 1979 supplement will provide schedules for any detailed analytical work to be done to support the engineering reviews per item 4B of the bulletin.
Yours very truly, ff ^ '
RPC:CLM Attachment ej e/7-8 CC:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement Division of Reactor Operations Inspection Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Operating Reactors Washington, D.C. 20555 1196 017
) . .
, Dockat k'o. 50-346 License No. NPF-3
(, Serial No 1-93 ei October 1, 1979 Seismic Analysis For As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems Response to NRC IE Bulletin No. 79-14 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station unit 1 I. Introduction NRC IE Bulletin 79-14, dated July 2, 1979, Revision 1, dated July 18, 1979, Supplement 1, dated August 15, 1979, and Supplement 2, dated September 7, 1979, require all power reactor facility licensees to verify that the seismic analysis of safety-related piping systems applies to the actual as-built configuration of systems. The action items identified in the bulletin apply to all safety-related piping, 2-1/2 inches in diameter and greater, and to Seismic Category I piping, regardless of size, which was analyzed by computer.
The response to Item 1 of the bulletin was submitted on August 1, 1979 (Serial No. 1-81). This report is a response to item 2 of the bulletin, describing the inspection procedures and findings for normally accessible piping systems, as defined by the bulletin.
II. Action Item 2 For portions of systems which are normally accessible, inspect one system in each set of redundant systems and all non-redundant systems for conformance to the seismic analysis input information et forth in design documents. Include in the inspection: piping run geometry; support and restraint design, locations, function and clearance (including floor and wall penetration); embedments (excluding those covered in IE Bulletin 79-02); pipe att schments; valve and valve operator locations and t. eights (excluding those covered in IE Bulletin 79-04). Within 60 days of the date of this bulletin, submit a description of the results of this inspection.
III. Response A. Summary and Conclusions Inspection of all normally accessible safety-related piping, including both redundant trains, was performed as described in our response to Item 1 of the bulletin. The inspection teams began the walkdown inspections at the site on July 30, 1979 and completed the effort on September 21, 1979.
Preliminary evaluation of the discrepancies discovered by the inspection team have been completed and the results indicate that none of these discre-pancies adversely affect system operability. Detailed engineering reviews of the tield packages are currently fif ty percent (50%) complete and support the preliminary evaluations.
Ii96 018
B. Inspection Packages As described in the response to Action Item 1, all normally accessible safety-related piping systems were divided into sixty eight inspection packages.
Where a system contained redundant trains, both trains were inspected at this time rather than delaying the inspection of one train until the Item 3 inspec-tion effort. Included in each inspectict- package were the following items:
- 1. The current revision of the physical piping drawing and a checklist to verify the piping run geometry and the location of pipe fittings, tees, elbows, branch connections and concentrated masses, such as valves.
- 2. A valve drawing for each different valve on the piping drawing and a checklist to verify that the valve installed in the piping system is the valve indicateu on the valve drawing and that the orientation of the valve and operator with respect to the pipe axis is as shown on the piping physical drawing.
- 3. A inspection checklist for each floor and wall penetration for checking the type of penetration closure (grout, rubber, etc.) against the design drawing. If the penetration was open, or filled with soft foaa, the clear-antes were checked.
- 4. The pipe support detail drawing and a checklist for each pipe support and pipe anchor in the piping system was used to verify location, orientation (direction), type, proper size, and that the support installation is in accordance with the design document. Attachment of the support to the pipe was also checked. Proper installation of concrete expansion anchors has been verified under the response to NRC IE Bulletin No. 79-02 (Serial No.
1-78), and therefore, was not an inspection element in this effort.
C. Inspection Procedure To ensure that all systems were uniformly inspectti, an inspection procedure, PDP-2 entitled " Inspection Procedure for As-built Configuration of Nuclear Safety-Related Piping Components, IE Bulletin 79-14", containing guidelines, system tolerances, and component tolerances was prepared for use by the walkdown teams.
The procedure outlines the steps to be followed, the piping components to be examined, the level of detail to be inspected during the walkdown inspection program and the means of inspecting each component. This procedure also includes the method for proper documentation and reporting of the discrepancies identified by the walkdown teams.
The NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III, has audited the procedure for conformance with the bulletin and the field inspection activities wer2 audited by Bechtel Project Quality Assurance to ensure compliance with the procedure.
D. Inspection Teams and Training A team consisting of two qualified personnel was responsible for the inspection of all piping and supports contained in one inspection package. The average experienceofthewalkdownthamswasfourteenyearsinthenuclearindustry with no one person having less than three years. The field effort was directed by a Group Supervisor having sixteen years of nuclear industry experience and a Professional Engineer's License.
1196 019
~
s .' .
P Extensive in-class and in-field training was given to all the walkdown team members by qualified and experienced pipe stress and pipi g engineers. The itema covered in the trainin included o elements to be checked, methods of checking, documentation of the findings, etc.
The qualifications, experience level and training for each member of the walkdown team is documented and available for review.
A pipe stress analyst was located in the field for the first three weeks of the inspection to ansver any questions raised by the team personnel.
E. Inspection Summr In the accessiole portions of the facility 27,000 feet of piping and approxi-
, mately 3000 pipe supports were inspected. Areas of high radiation and physical inaccessibility were not inspected. High-rad'stion areas will be included in the inspection required by Item No. 3 of IE Bulletin No. 79-14, if radiation levels permit. The inaccessible piping totaled 600 feet, approxim2:ely 2%,
of the normclly accessible safety-related piping. During the inspection, 779 inspection items (pipe supports and/or penetrations) were fou2d to be covered by insulation and, as required by Supplement 1, a program of insulation removal, inspection, and re-insulatica was initiated to inspect these items. Approximately 89% (690) were inspected. This inspection did not include portions of the Main Steam piping which was at operating temperature and therefore did not allow removal of insulation. This piping will be inspected as part of Item No. 3 of the bulletin.
F. Field Review After each inspection package was walked down in the field, it was reviewed at the site for discrepancies (i.e., missing or extra supports, missing piping, missing or wrong valves, etc.). These discrepancies were evaluated at the site by either the stress analyst.or the supervisor.
All noted discrepancies have been categorized by system on a Master Punch List.
Each punch list item has been identified with the data package number prefix and a sequential number. Items requiring drawing changes or field rework were noted on a Nonconformance Report (NCR).
The completed inspection package was then forwarded to the Engineer (Bechtel Power Corporation) for review by a stress analyst to determine if the as-built conditions conform to the seismic input design documents.
G. Engineering Office Review The stress analyst reviews the Master Punch List Ltems and the marked-up piping drawings for the following:
- 1. Pipe routing
- 2. Pipe diameter
- 3. Pipe Supports - location, type, function and direction 6 020
F,
)
I
- 4. Penetrations - floor tad wall
- 5. Valve orientation Further, the analyst confirms if the weight of the valves used in the seismic analysis agrees with the valves supplied by the vendors. Discrepancies outside the allowable tolerances that are identified by the stress analyst will be included on a separate NCR generated by the Engineer.
The pipe uupport and the civil engineers responsible for pipe support and anchor design will compare any deficiencies identified on the checklists for these components against the original design.
H. Evaluation If nonconformance(s) are found in a system, an evaluation of the significance of the nonconformance is performed in two phases involving an engineering judgement (fielo review) wir.hin two days followed by an engineering evaluation within thirty days (office review). If the thirty day evaluation shows that a nonconformance adversely affects the system operability, applicable technical specification action statements will then apply.
The extent of any reanalysis required and schedule for the reanalysis will be provided in the supplement to this report.
I. Dis position After the final reanalysis, disposition of the nonconformance will be by one of the following methods:
- 1. Changes will be made on the drawing to reflect ce-built conditions.
- 2. Changes will be made to calculations and reference documents to reflect as-built conditions.
- 3. Field modifications will be made to the components so that the component reflects the as designed condition.
IV. Conclusion Inspection of all the normally accessible Seismic Category 1 piping was completed on September 21, 1979. A total of sixty eight inspection packages were used in the walkdown and have been forwarded to the Engineer for evaluation.
Discrepancies identified by the detailed engineering reviews completed to date are listed in Attachment 1.
The preliminary evaluations required by lE Bulletin 79-14, Supplement 1, have been completed. Results of these evaluations indicate that operability of the systems will not be affected by the noted descrepancies. Detailed engineering reviews completed to date support these evaluations.
I196 021 a
- f ,
ATTACHMFNT 1 Response to NRC IE Bulletin 79-14 The discrepancies identified by the field inspection effort and the detailed engineering reviews completed to date are listed on the following twenty four sheets.
The stress calculations are grouped by system and the description of all the discrepancies identified that appear in each stress calculation are tabulated accordingly.
If, for a given stress calculation, no discrepancies are noted, reanalysis of the calculation is not required.
If the discrepancies are of small significance and affect only a pipe support or anchor, the support itself is reanalyzed If found adequate, a drawing change may be required. This required reanalysis is indicated by a single asterisk (*).
If the discrepancies include moving of supports beyond the tolerance, a simple hand calculation to evaluate the affect on the pipe and adjacent supports is performed. This required reanalysis is indicated by two asterisks (**).
If the discrepancies include preliminary valve weights used in the analysis, different response spectra that must be considered, missing pipe supports, etc., the stress calculation will be given a complete reanalysis.
This is indicated on the following sheets by three astericks (***).
I196 f)22
.. , _ , - _.. - -- - ~ _~ . . _ ._ . . . . ._ a -- ... _
PAGE 1 UP 7'
. 3y DATE IE BULIITIN 79-14 DESCRIFTION OF INSFECTION RESULTb . ,,
- ~~'
CHECKID DA1T /f7i
__v U 5 system
> SYSitM AUX 111 ARY FEttWA1TR 3$ . OPERABILITY A
m2 U v, f. 0 IF ATFECTEf h UNU U 0 REFER TO "g
7 gU e g$d Uh$ U U REMARK
=c D DIS *REPANCIES 3 NO.
o' N M o'
' 56 u8 k$ I No YES IF YES, DESCRIPT10N OF DISCRIPANCIES 13 6 ESD-14-81 Welds not in accordance with M-190-R06F-1400-8 .
,#, EBD-14-R7 not in accordance with M-19' 106F-1406-6 e
1 Evaluation Yes 1 1C 6 EBD-14-R17A Welds not in accordance with M-190-517A-14163-4 EBD=14-B19A Welds not in accordance with M-190-806F-1418A 4 EBD-14-R16 Spans Areas 7 and 8 ee.
I Evaluation Tes K s- -
- 23 6
- 1 l EBD-14-E35 noved 14" South
, .l
. Envelope of areas 7 and 9 should be used in the analysis t . I Evaluation Tes =
2C 6 Fxtra Banger located on 6" - EBD-137 between Anchor A8 and RBD-137-R8 EED-14 H90 noved l'-9" South
! EBD-14-R74 noved 2'-10" East
+- w .
I Evaluation Tes I N Y;'
r
. .i 4
.e"
. .a-s *
- O.,1, \
.9 ' i 196 023 -
p: .
s
- W"' , .
m.
e e
e-*9
,$a &
. . l
I rAcg 2 tir 24 _
BY k DATE h M_
~
IE SULIITIN 79 14 DEscRIFTION OF INSPECTION RESCLTS "
cutextD _ DA, '7f D SysTrn gg 5 gpg g gg, D sysTEN rEttvATER ,
a W 0 -
a
- 8. E -O 1r . ,ccTrn U 0 REFER To O2 U *
. "UfU 50 E OREnARx 0 'S 52 d a y' Eho.
ad d DiscREPAscitS 50 8 E Q2 J Q 5
mu 3a
- F<c a admM. o.
No YES 1F YES, DESCRIPTION Or DISCREPANCIES 423 9 EBD-12-SR20 Structural Member not in accordance with*
C-619 EBD-12-5K21 Structural Member not in accordance with C-619
' Extra Support L't.1 located between EBD-12 tR27 and.
ESD-12-Sh13 12 -S R3 0 moved l' -8"S .
12-$R39 moved 12k'*E.
12-SR40 moved 12k"E.
12-SR42 moved l'.4 3/4"W.
I The weight of valve 15-1 used in seismic analysis dif fers from vendor supplied weight.
e I. Evaluation Yes I j K i
, m .m o
.a--.i 9
O O
e
,O $
= M oo48,-
ak%
- ~..
e 4
,*&Y I -
' I FAcr 3 _ 0F 26 BY DATE
'g .
IE BUL11 TIN 79-14 DESCRIPTION OT INSFECTION RESULTS , ,,
, CNECRED __
DATE 4!IOk v
u g SYSTEM
- dS OPE RAP 1LITT
- SYSTEM MYDROCEN DII.t' TIM .*
ac U U
- O O IF AfrECTi' b e N U IE H f,, pg UO u Ei PEFFR TO Qw ,o g, g U REMARK g$ go *3N3 fS U NO.
Nd . . DISCREPANCIES oD u$ 42 D h3E E NO YES ,1F YES, DESCRIPTIO*n OF DISCREPANCIES 1198 25 HBC-44-H3 Additional Loaf Attached HCB-49-H1 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 3-4v00 BCB-49-N2 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. B-4901, HCB-44-H-10 moved 13" South BCB-44-H-7 moved 14\" South HCB-44-B-2 moved 15" Up .
Support RCB-44-H10 Spans areas 7 & 9 Envelepe of these
- 2 areas should be considered in analysis.
Evaluation yes a z
\
119D 23 RBC-74-H3 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7402 HBC-74-H10 Welds ot in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7409 RBC-74-H11 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7410 BBC-74-H13 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7412 BBC-74-H14 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7413 HBC-74-H17 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7416 Extra Support No. 2 located next BBC-74-H3 RBC-74-H18 moved 13" South
. BBC-74-H11 moved 20" South ee Evaluation yes x z
~~
119E 5 Hi,B-16-H1 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H29-1600-3 HSB-16-E2 moved l'-10" North Evaluation yes a
- x 1193 25 Extra Support No.1 located peut to BBC-73-h9 ,
Evaluation k no z x
1191 25 .
x no x x Evaluation
- * " ' 119J 25 RBC-73-H4 Welds not in accordance with Grinnett SK. 11-7303 RBC-73-H7 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7306 BBC 73-H8 Welds not in accordance with Grinnell SK. 11-7307 ew e Evaluation ves r x
119K 25 HBC-73+ Welds not in accordance with Grinne11 SK.11-7305 s
- Evaluation yes s m ,
,/
1196 025 m
I
FACE 4 0F 24 BY * "f DATE NM IE EULLETIN 79-14 DESCRIPTION OF INSFECTION RISULTS ~
DATE N OtECKED Sv T g 5 g SYSTEM QUENG TANK DRAIN g 6 E=R*.= O tr ArrtCin.
U M UM HN U U O REFER TO 5 U e W
EE U U U REMARK 0as na$ s "'5 """c'
- 5 IF YES, DESCRIPT10's OF DISCRIPANCIES
$s !! $$ 3 5"'
NO -55 584 48 Envelope of 7 and 9 should be used in seismic anarysis x Evalration yes a 58C 48 40 HCC-85-H5 noved 12V down Envelope of 7 and 9 should t e used in seismic analysis x Evaluation yes a 58D 48 HSC-19-H5 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H405-1904-2 HSC-19-H7 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H403-1906-2 HSt,- ? ' 98 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H403-1907 1
. ESC-19-H9 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H405-1908-2 40 RSC 19-H2 moved *.s'-8" West 40 HSC 19-H6 moved 13" West 40 HSC 19-H9 moved 14" West
- e
~ " '
s Evaluation yes x
.u-os w-=-.
e a
e i
- . e , y- g
. .--w-d
.e..,
9 e
i
- 1196 026
.g.,
e ,
rAct s er p SY 1_CATEfrMh it scLizTin 79-16 erscattitoN or INsreen0N MsULTs 7 cuccxte _ oATr9 n edl, 3 sysm:
5 sysun wArrer ANo restricATto" 38 ort u stttiv
= :t 6
.S O tr Arrtetro N ?-
USu up.f Uh g
U O RErER To g g pg,g g ,
en d jjnig u
- -1" tr YEs, DEsCR1rTt0N Or DisCRrrANCIES is!! !! I s -
NO YES 27 31-L x u5 towered 15k"
$1 Yes X g
Evatuation t -
1196 02/
bbh O
O a-9 O
e-J' W.. h!"n *:.
d aw&
O m
F e
P?CE_ 6 er O t.
BT PATE Mk IE suurt1N 79-14 DEsCalrrion Or IssrECT10n mEsutts
. CnECxro_M a
mrrfhht sYs1En oYsTEM Pf e AY M AT erwM' A' u$
3 ,5,, ppggggggg7y gM E 0 h e 0 tr ATTECTU
" t w UN HN Uh U O REF~R TO
$ in " "E U- I U RLM *d DISCRErANCIES . '3 3 .
NO YES 1F YES, DESCRIPTION Or DISCRE*ANCIES _
32E 30 GCB-8-H2 Spring travel stops still installed 31 GCB-7-H7 Structural member not in accordance with H 390-H33C-706A-3 GCB-7-H9 Configuration not in accordance with M-190
- 4C-708-3 I GC3 8-H6 . ed l' 10" south CCB-8-H5 noved 2' 4 5/16" south
~~
Weight of valves HV-Dit98 and 897-1 used in the analysis differs from the vendor supplied weight. .
Envelope of areas 7 & 8 should be used in setaat. analysis a Evaluation yes a 32C 31 Envelope of areas 7 and 9 should be used in analyste x Evaluation yes a 325 31 g Envelope of areas 7 and 9 should be used in analys ta x , Evalua tion yes x i
'al.4M% O e%rw e
w O
O 9-
,**ee*
e dup YWM j 104 l /O D79 t) d v i
e e
a b' g 4
I 7 Cr 21 FACE 3Y [A ML/ PATE g
hf IE SL'L12 TIM 79 14 DESCRIPTION OF INSPECTION RESULTS ,
CurCup ___ cATr8LL o systrn 5
avsnn tru ettssun innerto" EB . ortmitin E E e O" 0 IF ATFtctr'
- EM gl E h. v 0 RErtR To Nh kU e" g- U. E v stMARK DISCREPANCIES 3 ee NO.
g'. j No YT5 1F YES, P'ScalPTION OF DISCILIPANCIES 188 33 GCs-1-us moved 8 3/4" west CCB 1-M7 moved 8 3/4" West CCS-1-M11 moved 2'.1"
- Jest
- e Evaluation Yes a I
18F 33 CCn.10 n17 moved is 3/4" vest CCB-10-n16 moved 11" West CCB-10-R10 noved 15" North Envelope of areas 7 & 8 and 9 should be used in the analysis I Evaluation Yes I e
- - - - hh b 0
)
i
. g .
O
. en
' OPE *S W.m 4 tref gd o
"63 e
8 race 8 ce v. SY CATE
- V 1E SULdTIN 7914 DESCRIFTION CF IN$rECTICN RESUI.TS "
CHECTIP _ CATT 7f
\
U g SYSTEM SYSTEM HICM PPI!!rpI toEntM dS - CFE RA SILITY E E 5 E g 1r ArrtcTri
@l -
,g g .f, ,,. ,g-u w SEFER To 6- g. . O ninA,x
.5 go " 15 23 d fy NO, UM DISCREPANCIES 3 %
N W cA,d # h . UO O$ QM N Q m u e. a e. mo ' IF YTS, DrtCRIPTION OF DISCREFANCIES 50 Yt$ 53 32 Anchor A055 moved up 14%" CCB 19 H12 moved up 2'=1h" CCB-2-H18A moved up 10)" CCB-19-H9 su>ved 13 " east 0"B 19 il7 moved 2 *-6k" north CCS 19-MS moved 18h" north
- F1pe CCS 19 (H7 & H8) was 7'-8%" long
- CCS-19-H6 moved 12k" east CCB-19-H5 noved 12 7/8" east Anchor A054 in area 8.
Envelope of 7 6 8 needs to be used in analyste Weight of the valves 37-1 & B7-4 used in the seismic analysts differs from vendor supplied weight. Evaluation Yes I 1 I S4 32 CCB-2-H17 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H33D-216-8 CCB-12-H1 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H33D-1200-2 CC3-19-H2 Configuration not in accordance with M-190-H33D-1901-8 CCV-19-H3 Welds not in accordance with M-190-B33D-1902-8 CC3-19 H3 moved 6 5/8" east New hanger H-2 installed 4'-11k" east of CC3-19-H1 CCB-12-H1 moved 14 3/8" west l
't Support H3 spans joint.
Envelope of 7 & A needs to be used in analysis m -3 . Evaluation Yes 1 I u 56A 32 CCB-2-H7 Structural Members not in accordance - with M-190-H33D-206 5 CCB-2-H11 Welds not in accordance with M 190-H33D-210-6
. Extra Banger UH-1 located between Anchor A-46 and HCC-124-H4 l
Envelope of Ar648 7 & 9 needs to be used in analyst 9 CCS-2-H12 moved 12 3/4" North u. Evaluation Yes K t X 5631 32 CC3-2-83 Welds not in accordance with M-190-B33D-202 5 Extra Hanger CH 3 located between CCB-2-H4 and CCB-2-H5
---a*
CCB-2h4 moved 23h"noNh n
~ . .
Anchor A-055 moved up 14k" Evaluation Yes x s l 5682 32 The weight of the valve HV HP28 used in the analysis dif fers from the vendor supplied weight. Envelope of Areas 7 & 9 should be used in the analyste. I Evaluation Yes 1 1196 030
FACF 9 er 24
. 8Y DATE A/M 15 set 12 TIN 7914 DEscalFTION or INSMCTION RESULTS , ,, V
~~
CHECKED - CATE sisTEM uten tusseu 1NitCY1oM jg Q QT m C E
$ a E" S tr 4rrtcir.
Uw W W :S U S serra in "3a =
" g5 05 t; atMAu 23 DiscarrAsCtrs *3 $3 j3 4 : no, gS adSl= My2 Ed 85 km D 4 F0 '35 Ir YEs, tr%CRIPTION or t15C IFANCIES 56C 32 aCC-h -n2 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H33D-9101-4 MCC-91 R3 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H330-9102-10 1 Evaluation Yes I 56D 32 BCC-91-H9 W Ids not in accordance with M-190-K33D-9108-7 MCC-91-R12 Walde not in accordance with M-190-03D-9111-6 BCC-91-H9 noved 13 1/8" west BCC-91-M8 moved 13 1/8" west /
I,
' I Evaluation Yes K 56E 32 BCC-91-H13 Configuration not in accordance with M-190-H33 D-9112 -4 ECC-91-H17 Welds not in accordance with Crinnell 14-9116 RCC-91-H19 Welds not in accordance with M-190-R33D-9116-6 p':C-91-R21 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H33D-9120-6 RCC-91-R23 Welds not in accordance with M-193-R33D-9122-4
*I
, 3"-HCC-91 E1. 580'-3"(J-3) increased length by l' 10 3/16"
. % .a . ,.
I Evaluation Yes X 56F 32 RCB-2-R36 Welds not in accordance with M- wu33D *35 2 BCB-2-R38 Welds not in accordance with f 9-H33 D-23 7-2 BCB-2-H39 Welds not in accordance with . 90-R3 3 D-238-3 t RCB-2-H40 Welds not in accordance with n-190-H330-239-2 BCB-2-H41 Welds not in accordance with M-190-R33D-240-2 BCB-2-H43 Walds/ Plates not in accordance with M-190-R33D-242-2 I Minor nodification from origina11, analyzed ' -]
- - w.<- . piping configuration.
New Ranger installed 7" from eas*. elbow at El. 559' 9" 4"HCC-124 ,
<---w, **
a g,aluation Yes
~..
1196 031 1
FACE _ 10 or 24 IE BULLITIN 79-14 CESCRIPTION OF IESPECTION RESULTS ST H4ir- l'h OIT.CYED_ __ e d17 S YSTEM CovrAINWNT SPRAY g h 7 k 0 __ b e S E tr Arrr.CTit
" U "x wj U0y
- U 8 RErra in "3u @wg m" ti - p t umu u - DISCREPANCir5 ]{ }{ dSNU
?
b {4 NO. m b s..zmn ou uu EO YES IF YES DESCRIPTION Or DISCptPANCIES ,, 19A 36 CCB-5-H3 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H34D-502-8 CCB 5-H4 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H34D-503 7 CCs-5-H33 moved 7" East
- Weight of valves 32410 and 331-2 used in the anal'sts differ from vendor supplied weights.
et e K Evaluation Yes K 19s 36 CCB-5-H7 lead-Carrytas Member not in accordance with M-190-H34D-506-9 CCB-5-H9 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H34D-508-5 CCB-5-H35 not in accordance with M-190-H34D-534-1 HCC-38-H3 Structural Member not in accordance with M-190-H34 D-3802 -5 Extra Hanger c',-3 located between Anchor A80 and RCC-38-85 Weight of the valves B24-11, E31-3 and B981 used in analysis differ from vendor supplied weight Envelope of Areas 7 & 9 eeed be considered in analyste I Evaluation Tes K
...a 19C 36 BCC-38-H7 Clearances and additional loading not in accordance with SK-14-3806 HCC-38 HS Welds not in accordance with SK-14-3807 BCC-38-H9 Confisuration of additional Ranger not in accordance with SK-14-3808 HCC-38-d11 Structural Member tise, shim size, and clearance not in accordance with M-190-834D-3810-6 HCC-38-812 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H34D-3811-4 HCC-38-H13 Additional loads attached to Banger Anchor A-81 moved l'-6" West ECC-38-ES moved l'-7" East s'O..W,.
i Support BCC-38-H12 Spans Areas 7 and 9 Envelope of Areas 7 & 9 should be used in analyste
--a.-
K Ivaluation Yes K
~
~
, 1196 032
.g
! FACE 11 0FJL
- SY DATE kN IE B;;LIITIN 79-14 DESCRIFTION OF INSPECTION RESULTS CHECKID DATE_
SYSTEM COMyNENT COOT 1NC WATER Er 0 ILITY of E m O" O IF ATFECTL ' N U O REFER To Qwo 0N W gf E;, y, h, g 0 gy gg py Ch g DISCREPANCIES cr NO. NO WS 1F YES, DESCRIPTION OF DISCrEFANCIFS s 20D 43 X Evaluation X No X 554 39 RBC-2-M1 Configuration not la accordance with M-190136A-200-9 I Evaluation Yes X 553 39 RSC-2-H3 Weld's not in accordance with M-190-H36A-202-7 supper 36HBC-2-H4 moved 1*-0" east extra clamp added (not included in the analysis) X Evaluation Yes X 55C 39 - Jf Evaluation g go 3 55D 39 EBC-27-H4 Welds not in accordance with M-190-836A-2703-7
~~ %alve F6-3 Welded directly to elbow i
e k , Evaluat on K Yes X 61D 39 Anchor A-095 moved 2'-8!, east l 40 Esc-52-H3 moved 3'-1" south 1 42 , valve B41-4 is relocatad beyond the problem
, 1 Evaluation Es K
..-j,
! 61J 41 Anchor A-398, Welds / Structural Membera not in accordance with C-674
~ ~ " " - 1-R14 moved 8" down 1-H17 moved 11%" South 1-H18 moved 9(* South ee I tvaluation Yes K g
1196 033
i PArt 12 erj4_
- SY DATE f IE BUL11 TIN 79-16 DESCRIPTICN OF INSPECTION RESULTS ~
CHECKED _ _ _ DATE_ [ SYSTEM C0"PONINT C00tlNC WATER g h Y 0 A m O O IF ATrr.rirst O UN gN N U O PEFER Yn W e" E$- U U REMApX N hhg,jpg h DISCREPANCIES jou v6 m 3 % 6 U Q NO.
"umamm IF YES, DESCRTPTION OF SISCPIPANCITS EO YES 61K 41 Anchor A-399 Welds / Structural Members not in accordance with C-672 ,
EBC-1-H7 Configuration / Structural Member not in accordance with M-190-H36C 106-5
- HBC 1-H2O configuration / Structural Member not in accordane
~
with M-190-0 6C-119-4 RBC-1 R21 Configuration / Structural Member / Weld not in accordance with M-190-06C-120-3 t-H23 moved l' 2h" South 1-H21 moved 8%" North-West Evaluation Yes x 1 l 61L 41 Anchor A-400 Welds / Structural Member not in accordance with C-675 E EBC-1-R25 Structural Members not in accordance with M-190-06C-124 3
. RBC-1-H26 Structural Members / Welds not in accordance with M-190-H36C-125A-7 1-E25 noved 9" down 1-u26 moved 11 5/16" mort'-East a
Evaluation Yes x I
. .e .
617 41 EBC-28-R11 Welds not in accordance with M-190-a36C-2810-4 Weight of the valve 581-2 used in the analysis dif fers from vendor supplied weight i
~
I Evaluation Yes I
' 61V 41 valve B81-1 Orientation not !n accordsace with M-236C I
f
- Weight of the valve 381-1 used in the analysts differs from vendor e elied weight
- s. . ***
t 1 Evaluation Yes K 61W 41 BBC-80-H1 Configuration not in acEordance with M-190-06C-8000-6 1 Evaluation Yes K 1 1196 034
rArt 13 t'UL SY! *
/ DATE IE 8LLETIN
. 79 14 DCSCRIPTION OF INSPECTION RESULT 5 , /
o:ECKED J DATE (/f Il g sysTtM sysitM unter um a8 - Ort,As tLITv 2 g
- 5 Ea e Ir arrr.cTre.
;: -., "y gj *$ $ $ arrca in
.5 go . % >.. m u aEMAn Ld DiscerenCirs *3 22 #5 $ E NO-E"U"daWJ Bu 88 22 s %
yo l yrs t r Yts , erscillPTION OF DISCREPANCIES ~
$1 31 Extra Hanger "HA" located between RBD-96-H4 & HSD-966HS Hanger RBD-90-H4 sketch calls for weld all-around, but welded at 2 of 4 sides.
BBC-34-H41 moved 1411/16" southwest along pipe . Anchor A137 inaccessible Weight of the valves E3-14 and E3-15 used in the seismic analysis differs from vender supplied weight, eee X Evaluation Yes 1 g l 51s 31 Weight of the valves PsV-1962 and PSV-3963 in the seismic analysis differs from vendor supplied weigt e+e X Evalua tion Yes X
/
I 110A 55 BBC-37-R27 Welds not in accordance with M-190-R41L-3726-2 s BBC-37-R34 Structural Member not in accordance with M-190-H41L-3733 4 BBC-37-M35 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H41L-3734-2
.w - . RBC-37-R36 Structural Men' ar not in accordance with M-1' M 41L-3735-4 m RSC-37-H37 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H41L-3736-6 RBC-37-H40 Structural Nembers not in accordance with M-190-H41L-3739-4
- EBC-37-H42 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H41L-3741-3 BBC-37.a43 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H41L-3742-4
' ~
37 R46 soved l'-4" p. 37-R36 noved l'_-7" s. 1
, 37-R45 moved l'-4 3/4" St.
p 41 ESC-37 E39 Inaccessible l I Evaluation Yes 1 . n +. 63B 53 41-usC-42-R2 moved 18" East Weights of following valves used in analysis differs from vendor supplied weight: F4-9.F4-10. F4-11. F6-7. F6-8. F6,9. F5-10. TV1429. TV1434 I Evaluation Yes I q7c 110'/b UJJ
PArt 14 erJ4_ SY f1AT FD ~ . V 1E SL'LIITIN 79-14 DESCRIFTION OF INSPECTION RESULTS , CHECKID_ PATE 3d 7/ SYSTEM SLHF FL'NP DISCMARCE g h pf 2 U b a f. O IF ATTECir.' N UN 9N UO U O REFER TO
$wu ,u 3$ pg g 0 gggggg Oh
's *3 %3 N$ D U NO.
*. . DISCREFANCIES Uu u5 NU b D h 2h E WO YES 1F YES, Dr$CRIPTION OF DISCREPANCIES 96A 57 RSC-145 u36 Walda not in accord with M-190-H468-14535-4 HSC-145-M37 Clearances not in accordance with M-190-H465-14536-4 Additional loads attached RSC-145-H39 Structural Members not in accordance wJth M-190-H468-14538-3 HSC-145-H46 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H463-16545-4 K Evaluation Yes K
%C HSC-155-H10 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H468-15509-1 HSC-155-H11 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H465-15510-2 RSC-145-H4 moved l'-6 7/8" north RSC-155-H12 moved up l'-2h" 1 Evaluation Yes K 96D 57 RSC-145-B16 Walde not in accordance with M-190-8465-14515-6 HSC-145-H19 Welds not in acec.__:.-- w e> N-190-R46R-14418 3 HSC-145-M1 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H466-14520 .
" ' ' * " 1 Evaluettoo Yes K 96E 57 RSC-155-H4 Additional toads attached Extra Haager located between HSC-155-E3 and ESC-155-H4
' Anchor A355 has moved to horizontal pipe from vertical position (2i" HSC-155).
' 8" from elbow toward north BSC'-155-K3 moved 3' 5" east a
Anchor A-356 moved 2'-3" west 1 Evaluation Yes K
. ..,s 96F 57 ESC-155-R9 Configuration not in accordance with M-190-B46514508 5 s ,-,.
ESC-155-n16 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H468-18515-2 Anchor A356 moved 2'-3" west Pipe routing changed-elbows added-used to be 28'-5" @ E1. 561'-3" nov 23'-6" @ El. 561'-3" & 5 '-0" @ 559'-3" ESC-155-h18 moved l'-6" west R$i,-455-H9 previously only hanger support-now ragid a support added A.chor A357 moved up 3'-7%" 1 Evaluation Yes K
. Ii96 036 I
PACC 19 OF 24 IE 3llLIZTIN 79-14 CESCRIFTION OT INSPECT 10,N RESULTS
~
PY (/ DAff h) OiECKED DATI o g SYSTEM SYSTEM A"Y tt T ARY STEAM d8 - OPERABILITY
,= -
D 3.. e S" b IF AFlW 11 t
$s $M y *d $ 0 D b Rrrf M 181 e3 v 3gr p$ g G pggAgg e
" y" g
" <g m; o qa 3 w 9{u i'
DISCREPANCIES {g /
] h NO*
P vaQu c., e 3 e a2 < o, 39 yg tr YES, DrtcairT104 0F DISCRIPANCIES -- 68C 21 CBD-12-H4 Walde not in accordaned with M-190-H205-1203-3 Eastraint 20 CBD-12 H6 noved 2'-11" down Restraint 20 CBD-12 H3 moved l'-11" north I Evaluation Yes I i 77A 22 Extra Ranger located next to H8D-37-H77 RBD-44-H2 Configuration not in accordance with Grinnell SK 12-4401 BBD-44-H4 Welds not in accordance with N-190-H20D-4403-2 RBD-44-H11 Structural Member not in accordance with M-190-3120D-4410-3 Anchor A-238 moved 2'-0" east
+e I Eva luation Yes I 778 22 RBD-44-HS Configuration not in accordance with M-190-H20D-4407-3 EBD-44-H9 additional load attached e
+-'** I Evaluatton Yet I
' ~
77C 22 , I Evaluation I No I 77E 22 E3D-86-H3 Additional load attached Support 20 H8D86-H4 moved l'-4" east I Evaluation Yes I w -- l 77F 22
. -.n The weight of the valve HV-2073 used in the analysis differs from the vendor supplied weight
. ~ . .
I Evaluation Yes I 77G 22
- I Evaluation I No I 1196 057
FACg 16 0F 74
- SY DATE f0 IE BULLETIN 7914 DESCRIPTION OF INSFECTION RESULTs , ,,
GiECKID , PA TI _O D 5 srsitn srsitM Ant urry stu" EB . ortustLtTr O O IF ATFICTF b SW d : 0 0 PEFER 10 m,
~
iw * .,
"g5. 0$ t t ntn m 83 tsc- tsctts 'S l2 3 :{ a > l:' so.
y= i4v312 i s3 85 4% d 2 EO I YES IF YFS, Dr*' .!M . 4 OF DIsCR1'ANCIES 7ht 22 Restras . t~ AD.86-H17 moved l'*7 5/8" down s Evaluation Yes I S iD \) .) ) l 4 4 iW* O O e es
,9 6e. $
OM
'l
II cr 24 TACE BY -w - DATE IE BULIITIN 79-14 DESCRIPTION OF INSFECTION *ESULTS ~
- CHECKID DATE f W
S YS TF.M STATION AND INSTRt' MENT ATR { gg U oE o w ir AFfT.flir' d g n ,
"5 t;N , ;a;' S y "ES T" REnAu g w
..5., g. t!
.g, g y-DISCREFANCIES g{ ggp f&
g GY UG MY 2 N m NO. U } m u & 2 e= E. l NO IYES IF YTS, DESCRTPTION OF Li' CREPANCTES 128A 16 Seismic Boundsey location not in accordance with M-215 Support 15 HCD-30 H1 not included in the analysts Support 15 HCD-30 H2 not included 1 , the analysis **
- Evaluation Yes I I
i 1196 039 ism so. -
- Nd%uln*ePk O
1
, w4 . o
&m'fdmf l
.x ~s.
l
I PACE 18 OT 24 IE BULLITIN 79-14 -DESCRIPTION OF INSPECTION RESULTS CnEmeA Darr9/k/g D 5 S SnN SYSTEM VENT Hr_Ato 3$ - OPE
- ABILITY ac U U "w O O IF ATTtrir:
w US g5 EwN Uh o O PETER in U m" U U REMAFK
] U Er r.O .
{ ,{ . DISCFEPANCIES OU UC [MU I m v 4lJ h z NO YS IF YES, Dr$cRIPTION OF DISCRIPANCICS 124A 47 KSC-29-H17 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H38-2916-3 HSC-29-H2O Configuration not in accordance with M-190-H38-2919 2 HSC-29-H21 Configuration not in accordance with M-190-R38-2920-2 , MSC-29-H22 Configuration not in accordance with M-190-n38-2921-2 HSC-29-M32 Walds not in accordance with M-190-H38-2931-2 HSC-29-H22 moved 12\" Swth RSC-29-H22 moved 19" South I Length of pipe 3HSC-27 0-8) shortened to 2'-3" I Evalua tion Tes I 1196 040
.-% .. -se O
) *-
N s' gp.', e -l eAw 9e== e
- I PACE 19 l'F 2 f.
.,&_ A 4 L -1EWwhr
. . V e IE BCLtITIN 79-14 CESCRIPTION OF INSPECTION RESULTS ~
* ~
CHECFID _ _ DAT d M [ D 5 sysTtM SYSTIM FIRE PROTECT 10N SYSTT:1 g$ . OPERA 811.1TY Y 0 8 E. E O tr Arrrrrr*. U M CN" 5,f Uh U O DETER To
.5 50 - . 0 t t aEnARg hh d) J ots m PAsCtES
}} gg yg g y NO.
u s ;s e. a NO 15 YES, DESCRIPTION OF DISCRIPANCIES YE S_ 118A 20 Valve FP-1 Orientation not in accordance with M-216F, rotated 30* East Estra Support KAE-3-H2 is instal.ad Estt a Support KBE-16-H14 is installed Extra Support E3E-16-H15 is installed , I The weight of the valve FF-47 used in the analysis differs from the vendor supplied weight
' 1 Evaluation Yes I 1196 041
.*%q9 i
e
*as o Oh o' I
4
- i. e m, as**we.
9 e 4
I FAM 0 er
- BY J- CATE h[
IE BULLETIN 79-16 CESCRIFTION OF INSPECTION RESULTS Catert, , oArt9 se / /7f 5
- tty y,y, SYSTEM SCREEN WASH AND CH14RINATION 5" on a g IF ATTECTFT' g ,y H ,o ,
' E 'E " "
g ~ u uN 0> 2.* S #
. 5 ,0 a w-
- v PEMARE
{"
.a p g DISCREPANCIES )ou $ I $ NO.
{y yg vo $ $I mua m{ma IF YES, DESCRIPTION OF DISCPFPANCITS NO YES 103A 14 Anchor A148 moved l'-!%" East Evaluation I No I e 1196 0A2
..c- =
U M O O e M MM
+.er %
e 6
i PACFJQ M 24 EY DATE 8 . " 1E scLIITIN 79-14 DESCRIPT10N OF INSPECTION RESULTS
" ~
CHECKID _ _ DATE k 7f SYSTEM MAKEUP WATTR TREATT4T g g 8 5 OU c g IF ATFl#Tf"
,g e ,a ,
# ~$ Uz "U U U 'E
. g- m u RExAnn ad 6. 3U
]{ g{
$ Er U N0.
DISCREPANCIES {y .yyg ov uo MU i U we G g,3 e. ;s
' NO YES IF '"ES, DFSCRIPTION OF DISCRIPANCIES 102A 12 RSC-23-H1 Welds /Confirguration not in accordance with M-190-H10E-23 00-3 .
BCB-23-H2 Configuration not in accordance with h-190=H10E-2301 5 RCB-23-H4 Structural Members not in accordance with
- M-190-H10E-2303-3 .
RCB-23-H6 Configuration not in accordance with M-190-H10E-2305-4 Envelope of Areas 8 and 9 should be used in analyste
**e Evaluation Yes I K
102B 13 Anchor A185 Configuration not in agreement with C-883
' HCD-4-H73 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10F-472-3 BCD-4-R53 Structural Member not in accordance with M-190-H10T-452-4 Extra Support No. 2 located next to BCD-4-R53 Extra Support No. 3 located between BCD4-R50 and RCD-4-851 Extra Sapport No. 4 located next to BCD4-847 Extra Suppo?t No. 5 located next to RCD-4-R35 Extra Support No. 6 located next to ECD-4-R57 Extra Support No. 7 located next to ECD-4-R60 - u-n.
Extra support No. 8 located next to BCD-4-H61 Extra Support No. 9 located nest to RCD-4-R63 Extra Support No.10 losated between RCD-4-H69 and RCD-4-H70 Extra Support No.11 located next to BCD-4 878 - Extra Support No.12 located. tetween. HCD-4-H80 and BCD-4-H81 i Extra Support No. 13 located next to ECD 4-H62 Extra Support No. 14 located between RCD-4-H73 and RCD-4-875 [ Anchor A-168 moved 1'-1" to East
.' 10B HCD-4-H-76 movei 1*-1" to West
~! 10B RCD-4-H-62 moved 13" to North
* *
- TEE (E-3) moved l'-3" to South 10B HCD-4-E-59 moved l'-6" to East 3CD-4-H61 Spana Seismic Joint
.,;,, /
I Evaluation Yes I g i 102C 12 Anchor A389 Configuration not ta agreement with C-897 Anchor A183 Configuration not in agreement with C877 BCD-4-H39 Structural Members not in agreement with M-190-510E-4'l8-3 RCD-4-R41 Welds / Configuration not in agreement v6th M-190-H10E-440-4 Valve A143-1 Orientation not in agreement with M-210E Envelope of Areas 8 and 9 should be used in the analysis ese X Evaluation Yes X l 1196 00
- FArLy er 7 e
iT L-4 L4- cur 9/WW Ce
- IE BULLITIN 79-14 DESCRIPTION OF INSFECTION RESULTS ' b
~
~
N ECKED 19 ATE [
$YSTIM MAFItP WATER T*r.ATMENT 5 oo o IF AFFt; CDP s ,g H o g e g *6 Uf y,y y g REFER TO m-a w u REMARK *, r,
{}.h,Ny
. {y -
DISCREFANCIES }{ ou uo h d {r Q es > U D NO.
*n u r.. :s a. r. IF YES, DESCRIPTION OF DISC 9FPANCIES NJ YES' 102D 12 BCC-50-H1 Welds not in accordance with if-190-H10r-5000-3 BCC 50-H2 Welds not in accordance with Crinnell SK 14-5001 HCC-50-H3 Configuration not in accordance with M-190-H10E-5002- ,
- HCC-50-H4 Welds not in e cordance with M-190-H10E-5003-3 Supponce located in areas 7 & 8 should be analysed for displacement Evaluation Yes K I
102E 10 RCC 30-H44 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5043-3 BCC-50-H10 *> elds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-$009-3 HCC 50-811 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5010-3 BCC 50-H12 Welds not in accordsace with M-190-h10C-5011-5 BCC 50-H12 Welds not in accordance with M-190-810C-5012-4 BCC-50-H15 configuration / Structural Member not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5014-4 EC-50-B17 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5016-5 BCC-50-H18 Welds not in accordance with M-190-810C-5017-4 RCC-50-H19 Welds and clearances not in accordaace with M-190-B10C-5018-4
-w$ , LCC-50-823 Welds not in accordance with M-190-810C-5022-5 BCC-50-H25 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5024-5 BCC-50-H27 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5026-5 HCC-50-H28 Welds and attachment not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5027-5 BCC-50-H32 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5029-4 BCC-50-H33 - Not installed BCC-50-H34 Welds not in accordance with M-190-810C-5033-4 BCC-50-E35 Welds not in accordance with M-190-B10C-5034-5
- ECC-50-H36 Welds not in accordance with M-190-810C-5035-4 ECC-50-H37 Welds not in accordance with M-190-810C-5036 7 BCC-50-H39 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5038-5 ECC-30-H40 structural Members not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5039-5
~~ BCC-50-H42 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10C-5041-6 BCC-50-HA3 Welds tw,
- in accordance with M-190-M10C-5042-5 Extra Hanger CH-1 located next to HCC-50-H9 Extra Banger UH-2 located between RCC-50-H10 and BCC-50-H11 -
Extra Band r UH-3 located between RCC-!O-P.11 and BCC-50-H12 1 ,: Extra Ranger CH-4 located next to HCC-50-H19 Extra Ranger UH-5 located next to RCC-50-H2O Extra Ranger UH-6 located next to HCC-50-H31 1196 044
- , F A ..t. *1 ei JL . . 1E 8llLIITIN 79-14 DESCR1FTION OF INSFECTION RESULTS ,,
BY 6 DATE h DiECKED DATT 4 SYS FEM MAKEUP WATTR TREATm? g g oE E a S , ,g +- , w IF ATFFJTF.D
. 3 58 "5 0 Y :,;; 2 $ g, "" W ""
EFE' 1"
*2 L Eua MU IU J&
w 24 . -. ud . - DISCREPANCIES =- % w NO.
$32$dE $UvrT ED 5 %
NO YES IF YES, DEsrNIM10N OF DISCpf?ANCIES 102E 10 Extra Hanser UH-7 located between HCC-50-H43 and HCC-3' , *4 Cont. Extra Hanger UH-8 located between HCC-50-H47 and Anch6. % d4 HCC-50-H9 sewed l'-6 5/8" West MCC-50-H10 moved l'-8 3/8" West HCC-50-HI? moved 2' 9" South HCC-50-H18 moved l'-7 3/4" up 6 HCC-50-H21 moved l'-7 7/8" East RCC-50-H30 moved 13" East HCC-50-H33 is missing HCC-50-H42 moved 12 7/8 North BCC-50-H43 moved 14 1/8" South . .
\
HCC-50-H44 moved 12\" North HCC-50-H45 moved 2' 2%" North HCC-50-H46 moved 2' 2 1/8" West Support HCC-50-r 1 Spana Seismic Joint 1 Evaluation Yes I 102F 10 1 Evaluation I Ho X 102C 11 Anchor 3".23 Configuration / Structural Members not in
- -$ accordance with C-831 Anchor A424 Structural Hes.bers not in accordance with C-837 a
HCC-51-H102 Welds not in accordance with M-190-B10D-A5101-2 BCC-51-H103 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10D-A5102-2 HCC-51-H104 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10D-A5103-3 108 HCC-51-H103 mo d l'-2 1/8" to West Anchor A424 moved 2'-3h" to North-West e+ I Evaluation Yes I
' ' 102H 11 BCC-69-H104 Welds not in acccrdance with M-190-H10D-A6903-2 HCC-69-E105 Welds not in accordance with M-190-H10D-A6904-3
-%.r: Extra Hanger UH-1 located next to HCC-69-H101 m- ,
105-HCC-69-H102 moved I'-1" to West 10B-HCC-69-H104 moved l'-0 3/4" to South Anchor A-426 moved l'-4 5/8" to North-West
=
I Evaluation Tes I 1021 12 Anchor A427 Structural Members not in accordance with C-657 BCC-40-H103 Corfiguration not in accordance with M-190-H10E-A4002 1 Anchor A-428 moved l'-6k North-West I - Evaluation Yes I
- -- . ~ _ - - - .__ _. __ _,. , _ , ,
. . ' TAcr j 4 _ ,_ erm_
- sv kV DATE IE BULIITIN 7914 DESCRIPTION OF 1h$rECTION RES1;LTS ~
~ *
~
CllECKED PATE o 5 l sysits SysTrn_rpr , witra imm' a8 - ' OrtnAs1LITY wI U
= S 1r Arrrnr.'
" ' "E" S g5 "d"S U S perra to v:l 'w' - y 05 0 0 penAns "3 -
015CRrrANCitS [{ g{ j Ev f h NO. 3g g ou vo 4U a < wuamma IF Yts, Dr%CRIPTION or DISCRIPANCits NO YES 102J 13 Anchor A430 Structural Member not in accordance with C 837 Extra S oport No. 1 located between HCC-53-H101 and Anchor A429
- 105-HCC-53 H104 moved l'-4" down ,
Anchor A430 moved 1' 11" Morth-we st Evaluation Yes X I 107K 13 los HCC-53-H-111 moved l'-11" to West 8 10B HCC-53-H-112 moved l'-1" to East 10B HCC-53-H-116 mcved 1*-8 1/8" to East 10B HCC-53-H-126 moved 2'-2 9/16" North-East i RCC-53-H115 Spans Seismic Joint i Envelope of Areaa 7,8, & 9 need be considered X Evaluat' -t Yes K l
*O,.g%
.e -
0 S ee
' O .#I s --, -ei e
!!96 046 i
I}}