ML20054H915
| ML20054H915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1982 |
| From: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, ANPP-21153-GHD, DER-81-17, NUDOCS 8206250189 | |
| Download: ML20054H915 (4) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-528/529/530 50.55 (e) Report f; g i g Ng l'9;0 y
f.
STA.
P.o. Box 21666 PHOENIX, ARI2oNA 85036 June 8, 1982 O C.
ANPP-21153-GHD/BSK U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V Creekside Oaks Office Park 1450 Maria Lane - Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368 Attention:
Mr. T. W. Bishop, Chief Reactor Construction Projects Branch
Subject:
Fin'al Report, Revision 1 - DER 81-17 A 50.55(e) Report Relating to Pipe Supports Fabricated Without Required Weld Joint Preparation File:
82-019-026 D.4.33.2
Reference:
(A) Telephone Conversation between W. Wagner and J.E. Cook on June 18, 1981 (B) ANPP-18405, dated July 15, 1981 (Interim Report)
(C) ANPP-19233, dated October 21, 1981 (Final Report)
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is revision one of the subject Deficiency Evaluation Report under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e). This revision provides additional in-formation to support changing the final disposition from reportable to Not Reportable.
]
Very truly yours, t(
kt.
g E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director EEVBJr/GHD:db Attachment ec:
See Attached Page 2 B206250189 820608
~~
l@
PDR ADOCK 05000528
_ Ndhk
U. S. Nuclear Rrgulatory Commission Attsntion:
Mr. T. W. Bishop, Chief June.8, 1982 ANPP-21153-CHD/BSK Page 2 cc:
Richard DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 J. A. Roedel D. B. Fasnacht G. C. Andognini A. C. Rogers B. S. Kaplan W. E. Ide J. Vorces J. A. Brand A. C. Gehr W. J. Stubblefield W. G. Bingham R. L. Patterson R. W. Welcher R. M. Grant D. R. Hawkinson L. E. Vorderbrueggen G. A. Fiorelli Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss 1725 "I" Street, NW Suite 506 Washington, D. C.
20006 R. L. Greenfield Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 l
l i
t
?
I
...., _ ~.,
~.4
FINAL REPORT, REVISION 1 - DER 81-17 DEFICIENCY EVALUATION 50.55(e)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS)
PVNGS UNITS 1, 2 & 3 1.
Description of Deficiency A field visual examination by borescope of Pullman-supplied welded pipe stanchion on ASME Code III piping and reinforcing pads showed that the connecting welds lacked full penetration as specified by the Bechtel engineering drawings. The weld symbol is denoted as a combined single bevel-groove and a fillet veld.
The cause of this deficiency is attributed to weld symbol identification and interpretation problems that Pullman Power Products has with the full penetration weld symbol.
A destructive examination was performed on several of the Pullman-supplied assemblies by cutting the welded attachments and piping to expose the cross section of the weld joint. This examination confirmed lack of full penetration. Based on these findings, it was decided to re-evaluate the pipe support design to determine the load carrying capacity of the support. A total of 450 pipe support shop drawings for units 1, 2, & 3 have been identified as being supplied by Pullman for fabrication.
For purposes of the evaluation, it was assumed that each weld was a fillet only, i.e., no credit was taken for the partial penetration por-tion weld. The results of the analysis using final design loads resulted in classifying these supports into the following four categories:
a.
280 of these were found to be satisfactory using only the existing fillet size as adequate to support the design loads.
b.
69 supports were originally identified as needing increased fillet sizes.
Af ter further evaluation, it has been determined that the original
~
fillet weld sizes for 57 of these supports would have been adequate to support the design loads. The remaining 12 supports of this category require at least 20% groove weld penetration in addition to the original fillet weld to support the design loads. Although these supports did not meet the original project design criteria, the supports would have been adequate to support the design loads since the geometry of the weld joint ensures at least 20% penetration.
Applicable drawings have already been revised to specify increased fillet weld sizes for all 69 supports as indicated In Paragraph III,
" Corrective Action".
c.
44 of the supports submitted were found to have been modiffed pre-viously, either to delete the welded stanchion or to eliminate the support entirely.
Final Report, Revision 1 - DER 81-17 Page 2 II.
Analysis of Safety Implications By further analytical evaluation, this condition is determined to be not reportable, since if left undetected and uncorrected, the welded supports and associated safety related piping systems would have been adequate to support the design loads.
III.
Corrective Action The following are the corrective actions being taken to resolve this deficiency:
The American Welding Society has concluded that the weld symbol a.
used on the Bechtel shop drawings called for a full penetration weld. Pullman has received copies of this correspondence, b.
Except for lined pipe, Pullman has been directed to stop welding the dummy stub pipe to the run pipe or the reinforcing pad. Bechtel Construction will make these welds in the field, Applicable drawings will be revised and reissued to show fillet c.
weld only or increased fillet weld sizes. Supports requiring increased fillet weld sizes will be repaired following the dis-positioned NCR-W-C428.
_ _