ML20062H404

Final Significant Const Deficiency Rept 20 Re Inadequate Design/Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic & Support Drawings.Rework of 124 Supports Complete.All Documentation Reviewed & Approved by Jul 1982

ML20062H404
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	08/05/1982
From:	Mclendon G LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, W3K-82-0483, W3K-82-483, NUDOCS 8208160038
Download: ML20062H404 (7)

Text

'

e l_0 UISI AN A f 24a OctAnONoe Sinur P OWE R & LiG H T/ P O DOX 0008

• NEW OntEANS. tOUISIANA 70174 * (504) 366 2345

$$fNtI,s*EsYEO Aujust 5, 1982 G D McLENDON Senior V:ce President W3K-82-0483 Q-3-A 5.07.20

. , , ~ .

Mr. John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV  !- L U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission /

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012

/ ky

SUBJECT:

Waterford SES Unit No. 3 ^' W g b Docket No. 50-382 Final Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20

" Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrtimentation Seismic Support Drawings"

Reference:

LP&L Letter W3K82-0354 to USNRC dated June 17, 1982

Dear Mr. Collins:

In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e), we are hereby providing two copies of the Final 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, Gnw /

G.D. McLendon CDMcL/LLB/grf Attachment cc: 1) Director Of fice of Inspection 6 Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 (with 15 copies of report)

2) Director

• Office of Management Information and Program Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 I (f' (with 1 copy of report) I 8208160038 820805 PDR ADOCK 05000382 S PDR

IDUISIANA POER & LIGHT COMPANY NATEREDPD SES UNIT NO. 3 Final Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20 Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings Reviewed by A ~7fIdhV R. J. MilhiiW( - Site Manager Date Reviewed by J. L.' W '

ks-F /

Superintendent

/[Jo((2--

Dfate Reviewed by ,

Ar j$W SM 1)y 7- $d-$ 2 J. p - Pr6 ject LicJi!nsiri JEngineer D-to Reviewed by //% 7/3d/ga, W. Yaelger - St. Rdsident Engineer '

Jkite A

Reviewed by ,/ EM 7/w/g 2 J. DgBrtun - ESSF 'ect Engineer / Date Reviewed by V a f,/ 'l- 70' $ &

J. Gperrez " Q. A. Sij;d Supervisor Date July 30, 1982 O

. FINAL REPORT SIGNIFICANT CONSffRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 20 INADB2UATE DZSIG/DESIG REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTATION SEISMIC SUPPORT DRAWIFES INTRODIXXION ,

This report is subnitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e) . It describes deficiencies in Ebasco design review and acceptance of typical drawings of seismic supports for instrunentation impulse lines. This probim , in turn, has resulted in Mercury Cmpany of Norwood (Mercury) insulling instrumentation impulse line seismic sup-ports which do not cmply with specification requirements. This problem is con-sidered reportable under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e) . To the best of our knowledge, this probim has not been identified to the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnis-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 instrunentation installer. Mercury's detailed seismic supports are then re-viewed by Ebasco field engineering personnel for cmpliance with the approved design criteria.

Mercury encountered field installation situations for which there were no design approved typicals, generated seismic cupport drawings for these applications and subnitted then to Ebasco for review and acceptance. 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 then for installation. There was no design engineering approved basis for these drawings. More specifically, no seisnic evaluation had been performed for these supports to confirm that the sup-ports met specification requirments.

A total of forty-five (45) Mercury seismic support drawings identified to date, showing typical seismic supports, are being reviewed by Ebasco for empliance with design specifications, including seisnic analysis. It is estimated that between or.e thousand (1,000) and twelve hundred (1,200) instrunentation 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 scismic design criteria. Therefore, if this defi-ciency is left uncorrected, sme of the supports could conceivably fail during a seismic event, damaging the safety-related instrumentation syst m . Additionally, upon failure of such a seismic support, the support and associated instrumentation could fall on other safety-related equignent, causing further damage. Either of the above possible conditions could result in a degradation of safety-related systas.

t

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 these six hundred (600), one hundred twenty-four (124) were found to require modification.

b) Rework of the one hundred twenty-fo'ur (124) supports is complete.

c) Nonconformance Report W3-2333, which was used to track and document this work, has been closed.

d) All documentation to support this rework has been reviewed and approved as of July 1982.

This report is submitted as the final status report.

a 1

i .

IDUISIANA POER & LIGHT COMPANY NATEREDRD SES UNIT No. 3 Final Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20 Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings Reviewed by ~7 d[/4-R. J. M11h1E Q - Site Manager 'Date Reviewed by ,/ /Jok2--

Ifate J. 4 .' W ' 1s Superintendent Reviewed by , Ar}/N Sgs' N f cfl/ 7- $0 ~ $ Z J. Hpft - Project Licynsini JEngineer Date Reviewed by // 7/3d gA W. Yae%6r '- St. R6sident Engineer hte Revised by OLOh J. DgBruin - ES 'ect Engineer

-wsn

/ Diate Reviewed by V uM1l/ 7- Td"8L J. G brrez " Q. A. Sij;d Supervisor Date July 30, 1982 1

l . j I

e

W .

FINAL REPORT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 20 INADB:)UATE DESIGN / DESIGN REVIIM OF INSTRUMENTATION SEISMIC SUPPORT DRAWINCE INTRODUCTION This report is subnitted 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 Cmpany of Norwood (Mercury) installing instrumentation Impulse line seismic sup-ports which do not cmply with specification requirements. This proble 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 Cnrmk-sion pursuant to 10C a21.

DESCRIPTICN 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 Percury, the instrumntation installer. Mercury's detailed seisnic supports are then re-viewed by hm field engineering personnel for cmpliance with the approved design criteria.

Mercury enmuntered field installation situations for which there were no design approved typicals, generated seismic support drawings for these applications and subnitted the to Ebasco for review and acceptance. Mercury also found that ad-ditional typical designs were required for their insFa11ation activities and gen-erated drawings for these cases. Ebasco field engineering reviewed these latter two categories of Mercury drawings and accepted the for installation. There was no design engineering approved basis for these. drawings. More specifically, ao seismic evaluation had been perfomed for these supports to confirm that the sup-ports met specification requirments.

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 seisnic 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.

SAFErY IMPLICATIONS Ebasco Design Engineeri .g's evaluation has concluded that certain of the installed seismic su:rorts do rot met seisnic design criteria. Therefore, if this defi-ciency is left uncorrected, sme of the supoorts could conceivably fail during a seismic event, damaging the safety-related instrumentation systs. Additionally, upon failure of such a seicmic support, the support and associated instrumentation could fall on other safety-related equipment, causing further da: rage. Either of the abcre possible conditions muld result in a degradation of safety-related systcns.

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 these six hundred (600), one hundred twenty-four (124) were found to require modification.

b) Rework of the one hundred twenty-four (124) supports is complete.

c) Nonconformance Report W3-2333, which was used to track and document this work, has been closed. ,

d) All documentation to support this rework has,been reviewed and approved as of July 1982.

This report is submitted as the final status report.

O h

i l

L l

_ - .- - _ -