ML20082R645
| ML20082R645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1983 |
| From: | Sorensen G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082R634 | List: |
| References | |
| GO2-83-1084, NUDOCS 8312130248 | |
| Download: ML20082R645 (15) | |
Text
-
HTIEiVtd UN Washington Public Power Supply System
~ P.O. Box 968 3000 GeorgeWashington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 C33 ll07 25 fl !: 22 Docket No. 50-397 DEiCN ',' t F November 22, 1983 G02-83-1084 Mr. J. B. Martin Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Subject NUCLEAR PROJECT 2 NRC INSPECTION REPORT 83-38 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Reference :
a)
Letter G02-83-874, dated September 29, 1983, C. S. Carlisle to J. D. Martin b)
Letter GI2-83-194, dated August 30, 1983, D. M. Sternberg to C. S. Carlisle Reference a) transmitted to Region V Washington Public Power Supply System's response to the Notice of Violation designated "F" in Appendix A of reference b).
In Attachment I to reference a), Washington Public Power Supply System committed to provide a copy of the Westinghouse report on electrical raceway walkdown and evaluation. Attachment I to this letter is a copy of the Westinghouse report.
X s a%&
G. C. Sorensen Manager, Regulatory Programs HAC/fl
Attachment:
Westinghouse Raceway Walkdown and Evaluation Summary cc: Mr. R. T. Dodds, NRC RV Mr. A. D. Toth, NRC Resident, WNP-2 0312130248 831206 PDR ADOCK 05000 W
)
)
[
' t.
\\e )
WCQAP-006 E'M SM-SA-212 liPL Westinghouse Water Reactor 8 3 f:07 ? m ea m y cg misia Electric Corporation Divisions 3, 333 PittsburghPennsylvania15230
~mm, q16VhiEe~r 15, 1983 Mr. C. S. Carlisle, Program Director Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way Richland, WA 99352
Dear Mr. Carlisle:
Re: Westinghouse Raceway Walkdown and Evaluation Summary Attached herewith is the final report on the 42 electrical raceway supports inspected by Westinghouse. Although a number of minor discrepancies were noted during the inspection, subsequent evaluation showed all supports to be acceptable with no modifications required.
Sincerely yours, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION
$sekcad R. S. Orr
- emu, Technical Assistant Structural Mechanics RSO/kmc Attachment cc:
-H. Crisp P. Shen W. Stockdale R. Sanan e
f WESIJNGBOUSE_B6CEW6Y_W8LEDOWN_AND_EYALU6Il0N_SUMMoBY 1.0) SUMM6BY_and_ CONCLUSIONS A sample of the electrical raceway supports was selected and reviewed by Westinghouse to assess the quality of construction and prior quality control inspection and documentation.
This report describes the methods by which Westinghouse sclected the
- sample, obtained the required documentation, and evaluated raceway support construction.
As a
result of the inspection several d!screpancies were found between the Installed support and the as-built documentation.
- However, by comparison of the installed support to the original design calculation, or by alternate calculations, the surveyed supports were shown to be adequate with no modifications required.
From the sample size selected (42) and the results obtained (no modifications required) the Supply System can be 90%
confident that a
5%
electrical raceway support deficiency level does not exist.
2.0) SCOEE Westinghouse inspected a diversified sample of 42 Quality Class I,
Solsmic Category I
conduit and cable tray supports.
The inspection was limited to a
comparison of the as-I n sta l l ed condition to the as-built documentation.
Westinghouse assessed the impact of any differences that were noted in the inspection.
Investigation of the design basis and its documentation were not within the scope of this evaluation.
The inspection was planned as investigative in nature rather than formal conf irmation of a specific quality level.
In light of this Westinghouse elected to use a team of engineers experienced in various disciplines rather than formally qualified Q.C.
t inspectors.
l 3.0) MEIBOD Preliminary walkdowns were conducted to obtain a
diversified random sample of accessible supports located throughout the plant at various elevations.
As-built hanger drawings and previous inspection documentation for the supports listed in Attachment 2
were obtained from Supply System Records Management and Bechtel Q.A. files.
In addition, the documents listed in the references below were obtained from Bechtel Quality Assurance.
These documents defined the general requirements for support installation, construction tolerances, weld thickness and allowable variations in configuration.
These i
t L
attributes encompass the major structural features of the supports.
The following attributes were inspected and compared with the as-built drawings and applicable standards; 1)
Member sizes and lengths.
2)
Weld size and configuration (length, spacing,
~
locations).
3)
Location of bolts connecting tray supports to the trays.
4)
Visual inspection of baseplate and anchor bolts for tightness, thread engagement where
- visible, spacing between anchors and required hole-to-edge distances.
Spacing between anchor bolts in adjacent baseplates was not verified.
Spot checks were also made of other attributes such as support span.
For each support the drawing dimensions were check-marked or annotated and a
field inspection and comment form was completed (attachment 1).
All potential findings were reviewed with Bechtel Q.C.
Westinghouse personnel then investigated any deviations between the supports and as-built documentation by comparison to original design calculations and/or by alternate calculations.
A typical evaluation is shown in Attachment 4.
me w.m 4.0) BEEEBENCES 1.) As-Built Tray and Conduit Support Drawings
(
2.)
Fischbach/ Lord Electrical Company Raceway Installation and Inspection CP/QAP 402, Rev. 3 (Oct. 16, 1979) 3.) Fischbach/ Lord Electrical Company Visual Weld Examination and Inspection Procedure CP/QAP 303, Rev. 6 5.0) EINDINGS. BEG 8BDING_CONSIBUCIl0N_QuaLIIY
, summarizes the findings by support.
Attachment 3
lists the resolution of these findings by support.
The following discussion is an overall summary of relevant findings and their impact on construction quality.
Of 42 hangers inspected, none were found to have any unacceptable deficiencies in construction.
PG 2
5.1) Welds Upon inspectlpn all welds appeared to be of good qtalIty and in conformance with the designs in
- length, spacing and configuration.
However, eight supports were f ound to have a
weld undersized by 1/16" (3/16" vs 1/4").
Upon comparison to the original design calculations it was found that several of the welds were not required or were originally designed as 3/16".
This indicated that many of the surveyed welds were adequate as installed.
For those undersize welds not resolved in the above manner new stress calculations were performed.
These calculations verified that these welds are adequate as Installed.
5.2) as: Built _ Dimensions Dimension deviations from the drawings in excess of the tolerances allowed by CP/QAP403 (2" for dimensions exceeding 2 feet) were noted for five supports.
On support TS-2196 the member was actually shorter than shown on the drawing and is adequate by inspection.
On support TS-5346 the member was found to exceed the original as-analyzed length by approximately 1/2" inch.
On a
5 foot long member this increase in length was insignificant.
The deviations on the other supports were also found to be insignificant.
5.3) CoDilgura11oD For support TS-5358 the as-built drawing showed a cantilever member that did not exist in the field.
This cantilever member was provided in the design for support of condult.
Since no conduits were supported the member was not required and the support is adequate as installed.
i Support TS-4829 was found to have some variations in geometry from the original generic design.
Calculations with the generic design provided for some variations but did not cover the observed installation.
Additional calculations performed for the as-built support showod it to be adequate as installed.
5.4) Bolting It was noted during the hanger inspection that several bolted l
connections had less than full thread engagement and/or Inconsistent use of washers.
Upon investigation of the installation criteria it was found that in all observed cases the use of washers was not required and/or an acceptable substitute was present (i.e. a serrated nut).
In addition l
only a 4 thread nut engagement was required.
All observed cases satisfied these criteria.
l i
PG 3
+
Another observation was that the minimum center to center and center to edge distances for cable tray hold down bolts were not satisfied.
Review of the design assumptions and reenalysis of the generic loads resulted in reduced minimum bolt spacing and minimum edge distance requirements.
With the new analysis all observed bolt spacings were adequate.
5.5) Condult_ Attachment it was noted that the number of conduits shown on the as-built drawing did not match the number Installed in the field.
It was determined that conduits installed on cable tray supports were not required to be as-built.
The field engineer was responsible for determining if a support could resist the conduit load.
if he was unable to make that decision he submitted the information to the responsible design engineer for analysis.
Westinghouse did not verify how the work was performed.
Instead, several supports were selected for verification of the installed conduits by Westinghouse.
Generic conduit loads were calculated by multiplying the conduit weight per unit length by the maximum allowable span of 6.758 The sum of these generic loads was then compared to the load given on the drawing.
In several cases the sum of the generic conduit loads exceeded the value shown on the drawing. However, when the point of load application, and the relative magnitude of the load in comparison to the total support design load were considered, the effect of the increased conduit load was negligible.
The attachment of conduits to the supports Investigated was therefore found to be acceptable.
.. mma w..
I I
+
l l
l l
PG 4 e
[
. g.....
ATTACHMENT 1.
CausTttocTao w qt)At t y Ass s sss e %y p g,,o g g g E 8 2TE2 C A k-rat-aii wAy si.jp pog,7 s i
P t,oceDua.e Fce it.
Post it s e G(. c., I.
ca.u s os sia v s w spe c. n.
l s u ppo i?.T
- 10. we.
s ase r _
es-APPLicA 8 l E DW 6.
_ DW6. IP.Ed. WO.
REV.DATC,
iM S P ac;rto N l
I W Cpt CT a w 2 ATE (pi.Au-:-
WAL.ac,Dob4a )
C,H A1 TAC T airt.1CTt c.5 W
SE E%^ M i w r.D (MDIc4Te cic
$a/A (ucer 3
- woT v et:4rie.n",
- w eT-or .
A,. A e. w.
co ws ey r e epi u.a si.c.), VWfL iI" t ED' PGs1
- MCT -
C5"4
' uor og' oa s upp g,s g gwyn p.y s agyT3
'HAR.o w*E es c.
Ptec.s ss C.M A st Ad-TER 15Ta <
A s-cassi susD'.
crrsevi.es tF M A5 - Des ts.we3
. yopport. -
blMEWTiowS f.! FA89.ac.Avsaw h/9Lb n=428.ac M A u.s M 68>
tre 4 h Dih*WS tow 3
$(egg a ft,,
Di Mr.w 3 s 4W S O
SU PPO R.T Tta TRAY olt couDeAT ATTAC.H M t uT FAXTa wett.5 A5 Desi6w E D L 0c.lc.a N G D e u c.5 5 AS D ET8 6,@
PhSTs W wat Ti 6 HT>.a E 55 o
5 OPpc 2.T AWC194 R,.IN C' m Twt 5 f e n sv...,,e (.
Ta <
FASTewe(s As Desm 9tn TH ft. e A D E wG hc Mt WT Scx T/5 Tub Loc.ATi 041 L o c.tC e.a G
, bEve cE
. 3 r t-+ E (2.,,,,,
CBScitt/ATn aw3 cj)(t.ta E:c T
,oF si/PPCAT
.._ __,.____...-.._ _ ___._, _ _._ _,___._.._____ _'L T *. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _
-i' W t.vD a u 6
ATTACHMENT 2 RESULTS OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRICAL RACEWAY INSPECTION I.D. N0.
TYPE LOCATION (ELEV.)
FINDINGS RADWASTE BUILDING 1.
OK 2.
OK 3.
OK 4.
OK 5.
OK 6.
OK 7.
TS-1816 Tray RW (484)
OK. Unistrut added with some washers under bolt heads, some under nuts.*
8.
TS-1817 Tray RW (484)
OK 9.
TS-1818 Tray RW (484)
Torque paint broken.
- 10. TS-2017 Tray RW (484)
OK
- 11. TS-2134 Tray RW (484)
Diagonal support had 3/16" weld, one side of attichmer to base of tube.
- 12. TS-2195 Tray RW(484)
Torque paint broken.
- 13. TS-2196 Tray RW (484) 1)Torquepaintbrokunon anchor bolts.
- 2) Horizontal memoer is 2' 6 3/4", v3 2' 9" dwg.
Ditterenc' slightly exceeds 2 ' tolerance specified. CP/QAP 402, Rev. 3, P.17.
4 Generic Drawing TS-528 mentions only bolt and nut; no lockwasher specified.
PG 1
_s 6
~_w.-
RESULTS OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRICAL RACEWAY INSPECTION I.D. NO.
TYPE LOCATION (ELEY.)
FINDINGS RADWASTE/ REACTOR BUILDING CORRIDOR 14.
RWRB6-3047 Conduit RW/RB (467)
OK
- 15. RWRB6-3048 Conduit RW/RB (467)
OK
- 16. RWRB6-7027 Conduit RW/RB (467)
OK
- 17. RWRB6-7522 Conduit RW/RB (467)
OK
- 18. TS-6207A Tray RW/RB (467)
Weld in Dwg. Section C-C appears undersized but is inaccessible to weld gage.
- 19. TS-6217 Tray RW/RB (501)
OK
- 20. TS-6289 Tray RW/RB (501)
Undersized weld, attachmen of Items 2/3.
- 21. TS-6292 Tray RW/RB (501)
Undersized weld, attachmen-of Items 2/3.
- 22. TS-6297 Tray RW/RB (501)
- 1) Undersized weld, attach ment of Items 2, 6.
- 2) Holes on tray 4 9/16" c.-
from edge.
l 23.
RWRB 46-7015 Conduit RW/RB (467)
OK l
24.
RWRB4-7565 Conduit RW/RB (441)
Angle / plate attachment has only 3/16" weld.
l 25.
RWRB4-7616 Conduit RW/RB (441)
OK (3x3x3/8) substituted for 3x3xl/4 in accord with GENERIC DWG TS-501).
26.
RWRB4-7617 Condu t RW/RB (441)
OK l
PG 2
[
RESULTS OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRICAL RACEWAY INSPECTION I.D. NO.
TYPE LOCATION (ELEV.)
FINDINGS REACTOR BUILDING
- 27. TS-4045 Tray RB (422)
OK
- 28. TS-4829 Tray RB (471)
- 1) Weld at top of tube 1/16" undersize.
- 2) Holes on tray are < 9/16 from edge.
- 29. TS-4830*
Tray RB(471)
- 1) Undersized weld.
- 2) Damaged washer, one anchor bolt.
- 3) Holes on tray section 9/16" from edge.
- 4) Anchor bolt appears to be inclined > 5'.
3C. TS-4905 Tray RB (501)
- 1) As-built dwg. does not refic:t substitution of larger angle.
(Accept-able per TS-S07, Note 14).
- 2) Added 15" 3x3 angle for l
conduit not shown in documentation package.
- 31. TS-5131*
Tray RB (522)
OK; conduit location not clear on dwg.
l
- 32. TS-5132 Tray RB (522) 3x3 tube actual wall thick-ness agrees with Dwg.- Rev.1 but not "as-built" Rev. 5.
- 33. TS-5308 Tray RB (548)
OK
- 34. TS-5346 Tray RB (548)
Rev. 4 "as-built" shows a 5' 1" member vs 5' 5" actual (Rev. I shows 5' 4")
- 35. TS-5347 Tray RB (548)
Two anchor studs not fully engaged by nuts.
- Not fully inspected due to complexity of support.
I 1
PG 3
y 3
I RESULTS OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRICAL RACEWAY INSPECTION j
1 I.D. NO.
TYPE LOCATION (ELEV.)
FINDINGS REACTOR BUILDING
- 36. TS-5358 Tray RB (548)
- 1) Actual dimensions of top horizontal member differ from dwg.
- 2) Support configuration differs from dwg.
e
- 37. -TS-5359 Tray RB(548)
Tray to tube clearance greater then shown on the drawing.
- 38. TS-5360 Tray RB(548)
Dwg. lacks weld callout for top angle; Item 2 is 4' 4" actual, not 4'.
Retrieved dwg. shows Unistrut on wrong side of tube (dwg. not marked "As-Built").
OK
OK
-.m,42.
OK PG 4
^
SuMBABLDE_BESQLilI.LDNS TS-1816 Washers are not required by the instal lation criteria.
TS-1818" Not eval uated.
TS-2134 Origi nal ly designed as 3/16" wel d.
TS-2196 Shortened cantilever reduces loads.
TS-6207A Wel d qual if ied by al ternate cal cul ation.
TS-6289 Wel d adequate by ccmparison to original design cal cul ati ons Other items adequate by alternate calculations.
TS-6292 Wel d adequate by comparison to the original design cal cul ati ons.
TS-6297 Wel d qual if ied by al ternate cal cul ation.
Edge distance adequate by al ternate cal cul ation.
RW RB 4-7565 Wel d qual ified by as ternate cal cul ati on.
TS-4829 Support qualified by al ternate cal cul ations.
TS-4830 Wel d qual lf led by al ternate cal cul ati on.
- r..n Basepl ate adequate by comparison to original design calculation.
Edge di stance adequate by al ternate cal cul ations.
TS-4905 Support adequate by comparison to original design cal cul ati on.
i TS-5131 Not ev al uated TS-5132 Tube section qual ified by al ternate cal cul ation.
TS-5346 Support adequate by comparison to original design cal cul ati on.
TS-5347 Per the appl icable Installation criteria the nuts have adequate engagement.
TS-5358 Support is adequate
'y comparison to the or i g i nal de si gn cal cul ati on.
TS-5359 Support adequate by comparison to original design cal cul ati on.
TS-5360" Wel d qual if ied by al ternate cal cul ation.
Increased member length not eval uated.
PG 1
a RB 4 7 -7 3 4 Not Eval uated.
These items were judged to h av e no impact on support a deq ua cy.
)
i i
l l
l l
l I
l l
l l
PG 2 l
WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR TECHNOLCGY DIVISION
(
" WNP-2 ELECTRICAL SUPPORT DESCREPANCY EVALUATION
'Y
,, L AUTHOM p AT E DATE CH K'D, B Y DATE WNP-2 ffy/;h~ 9/z3,f3)f K'D. 8 GRDUP PROJECT f/d/gj 5.0.
CALC NO.
FILE NO.
RWNPWR04
-r.s - e/g 3 0 SE-I i
PURPOSE-
.-}
During the Westinghouse Task 2 electrical support walkdown and inspection discrepancies were noted between the as-built document and the as,-installed condition. Herein is the evaluation of these discrepancies and the conclusion as to the impact on design.
- ,,j,.py,4,,,,,,,,, g,q,,,,- f/,,6a,i'A,,,,,,, & q J y (,f,g,,
REFERENCES e
.P ye.cfl*n fAe* #.1/Z?/81 i
1.
~
2.
NPS Drawing TS-V830 Revision Y
3.
Design Calculation AZ#' g,ve. //0 639-/4 7 x'ev /.
J DESCREPANCY
SUMMARY
s)Trw g Jo i/em 19 wr/cl 0veleesiesel by V,f Y
- 2) Old ANCHOR. m (TEh 12 hAS A bROkl.O lack WASbER (ob Y WP j!
l 3)'/'Anelaes a i/e, %. at ix< clef aus l fc,,.,aso,eea And cmpnaed -lo PED YSvo A//oev44/es.
+)' fo' 5 cNshtar fee. Ao/d' des.d' boll1 h leSS $40 NC h V 8
9 quaed G.~ d'%cc %, c' lay Agd less -//
kr svaie-psble
- z n~J e
o u d d n. U /s.
IMPACT ON DESIGN
\\)SEE fRyf.R f}X d4k-wsda covu
,z)gnse pink cnk. considus ove 6// wgJwg, gg aww,F.47u/m nke His 40// awJi<c.;pxensi w/agekw x4h,
toll hse /ive is o.se.
3)No #Cb*9 Ad A A4 9AP oAdetour,,s,f li(c. /!g %// A,xJ.: so b
wy e oF 8 aids. Pep-cs- <,<sro i c,,,o, c., /As a, w,,,,, s s,w,p s. J -
l fan AucA0Y MSEh ANll6 buh -hES&~ ANc/ggr$ gj
/ Qgg fg-g insinlled us:-/4 bevrled wddas. 3w.r, -fje ;> tis-,d i4J;w
(
g4ha is.c71f,e AUde>vs/.5 *co,fla,,/it be,c4.]wstu f ET i.t ak.
DATE C H K'D. B y DATE "L 1 ;;#Ma QATHQt'/ sg DATE e'D. B Yu,a 0.,.,i.,tn CHK x
v)see Groat F20Alem y2 m.1,~e DU.E,o -., m n
'l WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DIVISION TITLE PAG (
Y/lf *h [$tIkl{kb $Yh/
Yf&d')
$C S OF f
D$T y C K'D. 8 DATE CHK'D. S V DATE PROJE C T AUTHOR WAlP-2 f!! SPK n f /Z J/ D g
S.O.
C ALC. NO.
FILE NO.
GROUP AWHPwto</
TS-V830 se -J Pisc *i) Wftp A?~ 77/d co,ve'uripw wiu. BE EML UMTFD ccos,>wes rw wo r,ouer wnps 04/l '/.
h*fl.S lb" WO Jh* O y
=x r, 27se /. t = VVo *
- y : rmar 77soa.;
- 3 fg =r ifx /,4 c VVD #
ft1y = yi/0'/Z f*=776 4 "
t k-s---y b/= f*3 /.f~
S' 1700-LT 912
- 3ll 4,/
S,, g, g993 v3 33
'o f, = ??"* ' * *'~ + g. Vgg "/.a Tc 5'+ 3 fx1*
y,y 333 (3= f" r A.+7'" - = 1ff %
to l5 g.373
~.,
.12.9n '
70m: x.s >. w.zr = s.ngp
.rcw' = xze 4.e t w or in&u < z.rus %.. ga/ u.
J AU MOM ATE C H K ' D. B Y DATE CHK'D. B Y DATE REV./
f'Ag f s,d!4% Llud 0 elwles RFV.
NO..
oATE WESTINGHOUSE FORM $5213D
- - - _ _