ML20038C585

Second Interim Deficiency Rept Re Inadequate Design & Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings, Previously Reported 810105.Rework of 44 of 124 Identified Supports Completed.Remaining Completed by May 1982

ML20038C585
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	12/03/1981
From:	Aswell D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, W3K-81-0432, W3K-81-432, NUDOCS 8112110250
Download: ML20038C585 (7)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

sy 142 DELARONDE STREET P O W E R & L 1 G H T! P O BOX 6008

• NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 * (504) 366 2345 UTIUTIES SYSTEM December 3, 1981 gy fl[f d

g N

M/h K-81-0432

$-A35.07.20 Mh

/ UL !L((['p[Q$i Mr. K. V. Seyfrit, Director, Region IV -9(

ggg+; d J38l3. 1)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Inspection and Enforcement b " i% m% .'/

,rlin on ea 012 ) /

Subject:

Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382 Interim Status Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20

" Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings" Second Interim Report

Reference:

LP&L Letter to USNRC W3K-80-0043 dated January 5. 1981

Dear Mr. Seyfrit:

In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e), we are hereby providing two copies of the Interim Status Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20, " Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings."

If you have any questions, please advise.

Very truly yours,

$dY D. L. Aswell DLA/LLB/grf Attachment cc: 1) Director Of fice of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 (with 15 copies of report)

2) Director Of fice of Management Information and Program Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h Y

Washington, D. C. 20555 (with 1 copy of report) h I 8112110250 811203 PDR ADOCK 05000382 S PDR

i 1

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 Interim Status Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20 Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings Reviewed by e./

R. J. Mlfjasr - Site Manager

/2!// Date Reviewed by h 3 /

/ /k J/ L.' Wills - Prpfect Superintendent Date Rsviewed by ,

M -df ,

/M-n/ //M'((

J.<diart - Project Lpensing Engineer Date Reviewed by Y ##, U W. Yaeger 'Sr. Resident Engineer , Date Reviewed by gh/4[d /2 -/- [ /

J /Gutierrez - Q. Site Supervisor Date Reviewed by J.

/

a ruin, ESSE Projec't Engineer J[/ CE -r aw /

/!O Date December 1, 1981

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

e INTERIM STATUb REPORT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 20 INADEQUATE DESIGN / DESIGN REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTATION SEISMIC SUPPORT DRAWINGS INTRODUCTION This report is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e). It describes deficiencies in Ebasco design review and acceptance of typical drawings of seismic supports for instrumentation impulse lines. This problem, in turn, has'resulted in Mercury Company of Norwood (Mercury) installing instrumentation imp,ulse line seismic sup-ports which do not comply with specification requirements. This problem is con-sidered reportable under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e). To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been identified to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion pursuant to 10CFR21.

DESCRIPTION Ebasco, as Engineer for Waterford 3, is responsible for providing Design Engineer-ing approved typical seismic supports for instrumentation installation. These design approved typicals are then detailed to suit field application by Mercury, the instrumentation installer. Mercury's detailed seismic supports are then re-viewed by Ebasco field engineering personnel for compliance with the approved design criteria.

Mercury encountered field installation situations for which there were no design approved typicals, generated seismic support drawings for these applications and submitted them to Ebasco for review and a'cceptance. Mercury also found _that ad-ditional typical designs were required for their installation activities and gen-erated drawings for these cases. Ebasco field engineering reviewed these latter two categories of Mercury drawings and accepted them for installation. There was no design engineering approved basis for these drawings. More specifically, no seismic evaluation had been performed for these supports to confirm that the sup-ports met specification requirements.

A total of forty-five (45) Mercury seismic support drawings identified to date, showing typical seismic supports, are being reviewed by Ebasco for compliance with design specifications, including seismic analysis. It is estimated that between one thousand (1,000) and twelve hundred (1,200) instrumentation impulse line

! seismic supports have been installed by Mercury in accordance with these forty-five (45) drawings.

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS l

Ebasco Design Engineering's evaluation has concluded that certain of the installed seismic supports do not meet seismic design criteria. Therefore, if this defi-ciency is left uncorrected, some of the supports could conceivably fail during a seismic event, damaging the safety-related instrumentation system. Additionally, upan failure of such a seismic support, the support and associated instrumentation

_ ,, . -- , _ < - , - ---_,--y. , - -

could fall on other safety-related equipment, causing further damage. Either of the.above possible conditions could result in a degradation of safety-related systems.

CORRECTIVE ACTION Ebasco Design Engineering has completed a review and analysis of the forty-five (45) Mercury seismic support drawings and the results are as follows:

a) Of the original supports identified as possibly needing rework or modification, six hundred (600) required reevaluation. Of this six hundred (600), one hundred Ewenty-four (124) were found to require modification.

b) Rework is progressing and forty-four (44) supports are complete at this time, c) The estimated completion date for the remaining eighty (80) supports is May, 1982.

The results of the above evaluations and corrective actions implemented will be included in a Final Report to be submitted to the USNRC on or before June 15, 1982.

~. . - - - . _ _ - . _ . -- . ,

i LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 Interim Status Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20 Inadequate Design / Design Review of i Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings Rcviewed by ./ -

R. J. MC15$ sir - Site Manager

/ 2 !/ /

+

Date Rcviewed by. / 3 J/ L.' Wills - Prpfect Superintendent

/ krDate

/M Rcviewed by

- Y h2 .h /Me-n/ // ~r? L$f J./liart - Project Lpensing' Engineer Date Rcviewed by '

IO '# U W. Yaeger 'Sr. Resident Engineer

, Date Rsviewed by - 4M /2-/- -[/

3 J./Gutierrez - Q. Site Supervisor Date Ecviewed by J }! A a-. w /Yll0 J/ ruin, ESSE Projec't Engineer ' ' Date Decem5er 1, 1981

I .

i INTERIM STATUt REPORT 3

SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 20

INADEQUATE DESIGN / DESIGN REVIEW OF

! INSTRUMENTATION SEISMIC SUPPORT DRAWINGS INTRODUCTION i

This report is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e) . It describes deficiencies in

. Ebasco design review and acceptance of typical drawings of seismic supports for instrumentation impulse lines. This problem, in turn, has resulted in Mercury Company of Norwood (Mercury) installing instrumentation imp,ulse line seismic sup-ports which do not comply with specification requirements. This problem is con-sidered reportable under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e). To the best of our i knowledge, this problem has not been identified to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion pursuant to 10CFR21.

DESCRIPTION i

Ebasco, as Engineer for Waterford 3, is responsible for providing Design Engineer-l ing approved typical seismic supports for instrumentation installation. These-4 design approved typicals are then detailed to suit field application by Mercury,

the instrumentation installer. Mercury's detailed seismic supports are then re-

} viewed by Ebasco field engineering personnel for compliance with the approved i design criteria.

Mercuty encountered field installation situations for which there were no design cpprcved typicals, generated seismic support drawings for these applications and submitted them to Ebasco for review and a'cceptance. Mercury also found that ad-ditional typical designs were required for their installation activities and gen-crated drawings for these cases. Ebasco field engineering reviewed these latter ,

two categories of Mercury drawings and accepted them for installation. There was no design engineering approved basis for these drawings. More specifically, no ceismic evaluation had been performed for these supports to confirm that the sup-i ports met specification requirements.

A total of forty-five (45) Mercury seismic support drawings identified to date, chowing typical seismic supports, are being reviewed by Ebasco for compliance with

design specifications, including seismic analysis. It is estimated that between one thousand (1,000) and twelve hundred (1,200) instrumentation impulse line

! seismic supports have been installed by Mercury in accordance with these forty-five (45) drawings.

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

, Ebasco Design Engineering's evaluation has concluded that certain of the installed

, seismic supports do not meet seismic design criteria. Therefore, if this defi-3 ciency is left uncorrected, some of the supports could conceivably fail during a seismic event, damaging the safety-related instrumentation system. Additionally, upon failure of such a seismic support, the support and associated instrumentation

_2-

) could fall on other safety-related equipment, causing further damage. Either of the above possible conditions could result in a degradation of safety-related systems.

CORRECTIVE ACTION Ebasco Design Engineering has completed a review and analysis of the forty-five (45) Mercury seismic support drawings and the results are as follows:

a) Of the original supports identified as possibly needing rework or modification, six hundred (600) required reevaluation. Of this six hundred (600), one hundred twenty-four (124) were found to require modification, b) Rework is progressing and forty-four (44) supports are complete at this time.

c) The estimated completion date for the remaining eighty (80) supports is May, 1982.

The results of the above evaluations and corrective actions implemented will be included in a Final Report to be submitted to the USNRC on or before June 15, 1982.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ - _ - - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -