Text

Provides Requested Documentation Re Disposition of Const Deficiency Involving Weld Indications on Pipe Whip Restraint.Ie Repts,Documenting NRC Acceptance of Util Evaluation/Disposition of Matter,Encl.W/O Encl
	ML20083N265
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/16/1984
From:	Horin W; BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	NUDOCS 8404190131
	Download: ML20083N265 (88)
	v • d • e

1

'A LAW OFFICES OF

. BISHOP,' LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS laOO SEVENTEENTH STR E ET, N. W. IN NI YORK WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 i O La AN & COOK as amoADWAY

, (aoa) es7-seco

.Ncv roma New vomK ioco.

TELEX 440574 INTLAW Ul a.seco BRANCH April 16, 1984 Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan.

Atomic Safety and 881 West Outer Drive Licensing Board- Oak Ridge, Tennessee U.S. . Nuclear' Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C. 20555

'Dr..Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering,

. Architecture.S Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater,. Oklahoma ~.74078 Subj:- Texas Utilities-Electric Company, et al.

(Comanche ~ Peak' Steam Electric Station, Units-1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445 and-50-446 Gentlemen:

In accordance with the Board Chairman's request, Applicants .

hereby provide documentation regarding the. disposition of a construction deficiency involving weld indications on a pipe whip. restraint which was reported to the NRC as a potentially.

reportable deficiency-(pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 550.55(e)) in September, 1982. As. indicated by this documentation, Applicants

~

, determined, upon engineering evaluation..of the-weld indications, that,the matter was not a reportable. deficiency and~so notified

.the NRC on December 27,.1982.- Applicants note that this potential deficiency'. involved' welds onLthe large pipe ~ whip restraint-located.outside containment which has been labelled the " George:-

Washington Bridge." The Board will.. recall it viewed this. structure--

during itsEsite-tour in. June, 1983.

Also enclosed are copies'of NRC I&E Reports documenting

=NRC' review and acceptance:of Applicants'. evaluation and-.' dis 1

. position'.of the matter. . I&E Report 83-12/83-07'- documents'NRC

' acceptance;of Applicants evaluation.of the> weld indications.'.

IEE Report 83-24/15.' addresses.the significance of.two cracks.-

i0 -

ps .

I I

in the_ subject welds, finding they would have had no adverse structural impact if they had not been detected. Also enclosed is the NCR documenting the disposition of the weld indications. :

I

- Sincerely, William A. Horin Counsel for Applicants cc: W/ Attachments: Board and parties cc: W/O Attachments: Remainder of Service List e

4 e

Y S

g,- -i- y , w 4 t- e -

,t -

-(pN h4 @ CORRESPONDENCE TED law OrricCs or BISHOP, LIBERM N, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH STR E CT, N. W. 6N NEW YORM WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 eT eW. Li s E R M A N & COO K as anomoway

_ (aO2) es7-seOO * *"" "cw'o""'ooo*

TELEX 44es74 INTL 4w v' n~ C;

%.CM. 5 E c gt",c, p',I

iTING & SEPVirF BRANCH

''I'*****

April 16, 1984 Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Dr. Walter H.. Jordan Atomic Safety and 881 West. Outer Drive Licensing Board Oak Ridge, Tennessee U.S. Nuclear Regu?,atory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecture & Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 Subj: Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.-

-(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Gentlemen:

In accordance with the Board Chairman's request, Applicants hereby provide documentation regarding the disposition of a construction deficiency involving weld indications on'a pipe whip restraint which was reported:to the-NRC as a potentially reportable de'ficiency (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 550.55(e)) in-September, 1982.- As indicated by this-documentation, Applicants determined, upon engineering evaluation of.the weld indications, that the matter. was :not a reportable deficiency and so notified the NRC.on December 27, 1982. Applicants note that this potential deficiency involved welds on_the large-pipe whip restraint?

located outside containment.which has been Iabelled the " George Washington Bridg.e."- The Board will recall.;it viewed this structure

'during its site tour'in June, 1983.

+

Also enclosed are copies'of NRC I&E Reports documenting NRC: review and acceptance of Applicants'; evaluation.and dis-position of the matter. I&E Report 83-12/83-07' documents NRC

- acceptance of Applicants' evaluation of the: weld' indications.

I&E' Report 83-24/15: addresses.the significance of two. cracks M Woynomi

s

.- 2 --

d in the subject welds, finding they would have had no adverse structural impact if they had not been detected. Also enclosed is the NCR documenting the disposition of the weld indications.

Sincerely, t

William A. Horin Counsel for Applicants cc: W/ Attachments: Board and parties cc: W/O Attachments: Remainder of Service List i

I 7

4 h'

i l .-

L

[

y.

e o *

-1419 TEXkS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPdNY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM -

To J. B. Goerce Glen Rose, Texas September 30, 1982 Subject Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station CP-82-12 The' attached form documents a construction deficiency recently verbally reported to the NRC. Please assign an engineer to evaluate this deficiency working directly with C. T. Brandt to resolve this problem.

We need to jointly determine by October 21, 1982, if this deficiency is formally reportable under 10CFR50.55(e) .

Thank you for your cooperation.

m

' ~

R. G. Tolson

+

TUGCO Site QA Supervisor RGr/bil

. Attachment cc: D. N. Chapman G. R. Purdy B. C. Scott C. T. Brandt M. R. McBay L

o REChry ED DCs 5 gg

- 10000QA DALLAS ee M / 6

c t .t DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS REPORT ....

mm 09.c g;.:g g stre e Tt1C SY%TF1f etiat*o*:6 *.T , s e rrev e, .w Y.

l Descripeten of Defletency:

gg(,95 y perr ,qcgr- Au) s DA /- fo.kO estan

~"c" dA'f& ,

_g pc/L M f1. - 0/S~M (a 6 <.I 4 ,

Identtited by Time Date TUCCO OA Notified Time Date/ Formst

@ws r. ~ - 6 T 844,@r /o 3o Tz9 f6fm .

AEALTb1St ,

1. Preliminary engineering analyste indicates safety of plant operations adversely af fected had Yts O to 8 deficiency gone undetected. ...CCW u ':'n

'~"r.

gns. Ave.y'cic is opwnMw .

2. Deficiency considered significant ES O No' @5tbd :

s. Ceneric pitcations on other plants _ , , ,_ , , , , ,_ _ _ _ , , , ,_ _ _ ,_ _ , Yt3 O yo $(h h

b. 0A Program Breakdown _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,,,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , YES O NO !

c. Design per SAA performance criteria ,_ ,, , , _ , ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,_ _ _ , , ,

Yt

d. Construction not as spectited and extensive evaluttien or repair required to meet design criteria. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , , , YES O so

e. Constructton Deficiency discovered after QC acceptance ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ YES Q N0

f. Could deficiency have gone undetected , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,_ _ _ _ _ , YES O N0 3

Sys tem te st meste SAR pe rformance crite ria_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,O tts O No M

h. Systes test results require entensive evaluation and redentsn_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _O tzs O No Md

1. System test fatture can be corrected by internal adjustmnt or replacement etch s tand a rd component _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ p TIS O so f.

h J. Does def tetency require testing and analysts to answer part 1 above, , , , , , _ _ _ ,, ES Q NO

/. .

Sys CONCLtfSION:

7b d_c.

Deficiency reported t ' - ^ 7, o e its O uo oste Timer -

/ ,

,_ - n.r., <,,_ ,_ s r..-r,-1,m t... _ .

K G.Mut %i~ 9% . -

6 7 fj a >> r OLfH2-

.. n.C -

s F t I /QC Manamer/Superviser

[ y

C,OMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS UTIL: TIES NCR Na CENER TING CO.. j L NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (!\ .') M-82-01589

)

. l l

UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /lO NUMBER LOCATION OR ELEVATION RIR NO.

Pipe Whip 1 Safeguards Bldg. Restraint See Attached 852' (floor) N/A 1 NONCONFORMING CONDITION Pipe whip restraints supplied by NPS industries (See Attached) have weld indications Ej that are not acceptable per AWS D1.1-80.

z z .

~8 5

c.

e 4 Hold tags applied.

z i:

C 2

w C .

NPSI Ref. Dwg. E-117 & 118

~~

REFERENCE DOCUMENT. AWS D1.1-80 ggy p3g3 REPORTED BY: .

DATE:

.. B. Baker 9 , 29 , 82 OE REVIEW / APPROVAL: DATE:

w '

f/N/ \

O ACTION ADDRESSEE DEPARTMENT ,

I J. B. Georce/Kissincer Engineering DISPOSITION: -

REWORK REPAIR USE AS IS SCRAP w

!3 8

O g .

[3 e -

ENG. REVIEW / APPROVAL DATE:

/ /

GE REVIEW APPROVAL: DATE:

W / /

O OlSPOSITQN VERIFICATION & CLOSURE: DATE:

/ /

COMMENTS: .

. i

~~'#

1 g g Sept. 28.1982

i

- Page 1 of 4

'. D-120 1. W between D-121-14 & D-150-10.' U.C.

2. W-29 U.C.

f - 3. W-18 U.C.

4. W-43 I.F.

5. W-42' U.S.

6. W-40 I.F.

7. W-41 I.F.

8. W-6 U.C.

9. W-10 U.C.

~. 10. W-35 I.F.

11. 'W-8 U.C.

12. .W-1 I.F.

4. - 13. W-15' '

. U.C.

.. 14. W-2 -

U.C.

T D-149 : 1. W-36 U.C.

2. W-20

~3. W-15 I.F.

2' 4. W-46 U.C.

. 5. W between D-150-10 &

-T ' ' ' D-150-1 U.C.

.. 6. W-4 C.L.

.D-151 1. W-4 '

U.C. ~

2. W-28. U.S.

. " c. 3. W-49 U.C.

. 4. W-3 U.C.

D-153 1. W-15 C.L. & U.C. (Plate stamped as D-150-10

. 2. -W-50 U.C. . shown revised on DWG. as

3. W-49 INC. W. D-150-12)

4. W between D-154-1 &

D-121-14 INC. W

.-, 5. W-51 U.C. & B.M.D.

.. 6. W-52 U.C. & INC. W.

7. W-47

~.-

8. B.M.D. to Plate D-150-11 (east)

9. B.M.D. to Plate D-154-1 (east

_ of Plate D-150-9) p

)./ D-155 1. W-48 U.C.

T '- 2. W-47 U.C.,C.L., POI!.

3. 3. W-46 U.C.,C.L.

. 4. W-45 U.C.,C.L. .

5. W-19 U.C.

6. W-42 U.C.

7. W-43 U.C.

8. W-14 U.C.

9. W-9 U.C.

D-157 1. W-48 Crack 2'. W U.C.

. . . - 3. W-46 U.C.

4. W-45 I.F.

'. 5. W-20 U.C.

6. W-32 B.M.D.

7. W-26 U.C.

4 Page - of 4

< cont'd 1 \,

D-157 8. W-14 .

U.C.

9. W-25 - U.C.

D-159 1. W-2 U.C.

2. W ,._ U . C .

3. W- 5 ' U.C.

4. W-33 I.F.

5. W-51 s

^

11. C .

6. W-37 x U.C. .'

7. W-20 U.C.

8. W-22 O U.C. .

U.C.,0.S.(th.roat)

9. ~W-28 , '

10. W-26

, . U.S.

. ^

D-138 1. W-58 U.C;

2. W-161

, - icontdurs ;-

3. B.M.D. on Plate D-139-5 i' c.-

.(above 2nd col. from N., west side) 'N s .

4. B.M.D. on Plate D-139-4 (2nd col . from N;, west side) ~ s.,

~'

5.' B.M.D. on Plate D-133-1-4 &

-(Adj. to' W-162) I Y ; ' ';

- - 6. B.M.D. on Plate D-139-4 --

M' _

(3rd col. from N., east. side) U'

7. W-74 '

..g. U.C. ,

8. W-149. U.C.

. _ 's .\- s' .'

D-122 & ( assuming looking eastion prints , . ,

i D-175 & that D-122 describes top half &~ _

D-175, describes bottoni half) \' ,

1(Northern-most) -

t t

D-122-1 1. W-9 l;.e s U.C. ,

4

2. W 'x"g 9.O. c C

D-175 1. W-2

' ' " i U.S. - . N\

.y K : . ~

~

' ' ' Y

2 (3rd from N.)

D-122-1 1. W-8 '

Lt v .- s . U26.N ' s~

a- 7> y'o&xl;\ ;.

l D-140 ' . i 'O M '

' 'l % , + 4 D-140-1-A East [

1.: W-147

-s.

J' '

d"_' '

'y - s U.C..

U.C'. (N. and S. sides) -

2.i..W-10' e- '

e 3 1 W-12.. U.C.

4.* W-145 7 U.C. (N. & S.)

-5. W-.143 U.C. (S.)

-6. W-141 throat & 4.C. (N. & S.) ,

7. ; W-22' \ U.C.~ g'

- 8. ; W-139 '

Basemetalu#amage D-148-1, cold lah, , U.C. 4*

' F,

d -

Q " - s A.

Adj!, to W-139 (S.) ,5- A

r D-140-1-B East <

East stoe' of W-2 Adj. to J[-135;(Sh' \ -

~

-d" ' _

U.C. , cold lap f;-r d e.

^

Basemetal damagd D '148-4 Adjgto.W2131- ~ '

.)is Adjs to W-30 f ' ji W '

-gsometal damage D-140-1-1petween'W-133,(f.) &f131 (N.) -

< .. . a ,2 . . _ ,_ . _ _ .

- . - .. =.. .- - . . - _

- - z. .. !

T' .

Paga 3 of 4

contId \ \

9-140-1-8 East U.C.(S.)

. 1. W-131 - ~

2. W-31 U.C. '

3.. W-129 U.C.(.S.)

4. W-125 U.C. ( N.)

5. W-121' throat ( N.)

6. W-119 I.F.,U.C.(N.&S.)

7. W-117. U.C. (S.) -

Basemetal damage D-140-1-1 Adj. to -

~;

fC W-117 ,

U.C. (S.)

D-140-1-C East .

. g. 1. W-111_. U.C. (S.)

.J:/&.2.e W-107- U.C. (N. & S.) '

il5 ;

'A%:'Basemetal. 3. W-512.:.-~ damaged-148-2betweenW-107(N.)&W-109(S.)

U.C.

I.Gl. . 4. --W-6Z ' , U.C.

V.cT- 5. W-61.: - 7 . U.C.

.w .-6. W :

U.C.

r .: 7. U-101: U.C. (N.)

8. W I.F. (N.)

N9:- W-972 % '

I.F. & U.C. (S.)

10. W-66 '

U.C.

~~ ' . 1:E11. W-73' .

U.C.

12; W-95 U.C. (S.)

13. W-93 -

- U.C. &. POR. (N. & S.) -

+ ., - 14. W-76: U.C.

Basametal'. damage D-140-1-1 adj. to W-115 (N.)

.' 15 . W-115 ' ^

U.C. (S.)

16. W-86 U.C.

17. W-89 ,

I.F. (S.)

D-140-1-C West' Basemetal damage D-148-2 adj. to W-88 (S.)

1. W-80' U.C.

2. W-82 U.C.

. 3. W-114 U.C..(N.)

l- .- Arc strike 0-148-4 between W-82 & W-114 (N.)

. 4. W-2 U.C. (Between W-114 (N.) & W-90 (S.))

(And between W-92 (N.) & W-94 (S.))

-5. W-92' U.C. (N.)

6. W-94 U.C. (N.)

L

~

.7. 'W -

U.C. ~

~

,; . '.'8. - W U.C. (N.)

% ' 9. W-69 U.C.

.Basemetal damage D-148-4 between W-96 :(N.) & W-70

~

'10. W-98 U.C. (S.) & undersized weld

~11. W-100 U.C. (S & N.)'

12. W-2 . U.C.betweenW-96(N.)&W-98.(S.)'

' Basemetal damage.D-148-2 between W-98 -(N.) & W-100 (S.)

- Arc strike D-148-1 between W-98 (N.)~ & W-100 (S.)

~

13. W-102- POR. (N.).

- 14 ._ W-104 U.C.(S.&N.)

15. W-55 U.C.

16. W-57 .

U.C;

' 17. . W U.C.betweenW-104(N.-)&W-106(S.).

.18. 'W.106. U.C.4POR(S.)

g y n -~- e ,. -w.,.,-. ., ,

- ^ ^

. i Page 4 of 4

. ; cont'd D-140-1-C West

( (

Basemetal damage Plate D-140-1-1 between W-104 (N.) & W-106 (S.)

B.M.D. Plate D-148-4 adj. to W-104 (N.)

19. W-59 U.C.

20. W-110 U.C. (S.)

21. W-116 POR.(S.)

Arc strike D-148-4 adj. to W-118 (N.)

Basemetal damage D-140-1-1 between W-118 (N.) & W-120 (S.) & adjacent to W-113 (N.)

22. W-122 POR (S.)

23. W-2 U.C. between W-122 (N.) & W-124 (S.)

24. W-124 INC. Weld (N.)

25~. W-2 U.C. between W-124(N.) & W-126(S.)

26. W-126 U.C.(S.)

27. W-2 U.C. between W-128 (N.) & W-130 (S.)

B.K.D. D-140-1-1 adjacent to W-130 (S.)

- D-140-1-A West B.M.D. D-148-2 between W-134 (N.) & W-136 (S.)

1. W-138 U.C. (S. & N.) -

2. W-25 U.C.

3. W-23 cracked tack 4., W-140 , . U.C. (S.)

5. W-13 U.C.

.- 6. W-146. U.C. (N.)

4

7. W-4 crater e

J 4

4 e

f 4

3-o :

e f

' *. r_ . , , - , _ , .

DATE: 9 / 30 / 52 -

Date: _

[LITY 110TIFICE. .i ITDi OR EVENT , ._

REGI0llAL ACT.cli .

i LEPORTS } LUST INCLUDE SlEECl S ( POLICY CUIDE H0. B-26 REY.1), PAD }!EETINGS, OTilER IMPORTANT is (IH REGION OFFICE), ' AliD A LISTING OF IMPORTANT VISITORS (INCLUDING APPLICABLE HRC PERSOHl{EL). -

lK OF PAGE FOR ADDITIO!!AL -SPACE

- - . . . - . - - . - - . - . - =_-

SRUCTION ,

i.

lch] Peak Verbai to SRIC on POTENTIAL 50.55(e) Item: The licensee's welding -

1 9/30/82 engineering department has initiated a non-conformanc ! e l-445 report indicating that a substantial number of vendor welds in large safety-related pipe whip .

restraint do not meet the requirements of AWS D.l.1, -

the specified welding code for the component. The '

component was supplied by NPS Industries and was . .

inspected and accepted at the vendors facility by the licensee's source inspection o,rganization. The -

reported defects include undercut, lack of fusion, cracks although the amount per weld has:not been documented nor evaluated by the design engineer for structural effect. The licensee will file a

report on this matter within thirty days.

r IOTEt STATUS OF UNUSUAL SPECIAL INSPECTIONS OR IINESTICATIONS ARE TO'BE* JHCt.UDED IN Tile DAILY REPORTS EVERY TIIURSDAY.

BRANCll SICHATURE n

CHECK llERE IF DACK OF PACE C0llTAlllS INFORl!ATION

>u.:. . .. . ,

CPPA-24,150 i 3 UTILITIES SERVICES INL )

OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM Glen Rose, Texas October 21, 1982 r, R. G. Tols~on COMANGE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION subice SDAR CP-82-12 PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT UNACCEPTABLE hELDS REF: "IUQ-1419 In response to your direction fonearded per the referenced correspondence, pledse be advised our investigation is incomplete at this time. Ne are continuing ouc evaluation and anticipate completion within sixty (60) ddys. A complete report shall be forwarded by bbnday, December 20, 1982.

I M. R. McBay f Engineering Maffager MR\f/RPB/PC/cp cc: AR\tS J. B. George R. A. Jones R. M. Kissinger J. D. Hicks R. D. Gentry

nne, a a ., <.,

TEA. 3 UTILITIES GENERATING C4,#ANY somi,ma nmox.n e m n.oi. .

R. J. SARY

%.llll' ~"""

October 25, 1982 TXX-3584 -

Mr. G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Inspection and Enforcement 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Docket Nos.: 50-445 Arlington, Texas 76012 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT WELD INDICATIONS FILE NO.: 10110 .

Dear Mr. Madsen:

On September 30, 1982, we verbally informed your Mr. R. G. Taylor of a deficiency regarding weld indications in certain pipe whip restraints.

We are continuing our evaluation and anticipate completion by January 3, 1983.

. Very truly yours, R. J. Gary

.RJG:aq cc: NRC Region IV -~ (0 + 1 copy)

Director, Inspection & ' Enforcement (15' copies) .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington,.DC 20555 7

~ "

9

.

3r s . ~

CPPA-25.096 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. Page 1 of 8

.[-

OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM U

1 j h M.R. McBay - Enaineerina Manaaer ca no T November 24. 1982 w COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 4-j PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT UNACCEPTABLE WELOS l SDAR-CP-82-12 i

. NCR-M-82-01589 e

Attached is a copy of the detailed descriptions of the defective welds on the George Washington Bridge Restraint

. Structure. This infonnation has been reviewed by G & H Structural and found to have no adverse affects on the de-sign function of the structure (Ref. GTT-9241).

Cracks in welds are attributed to field erection and .

would be repaired inaccordance with normal project procedures. '

': The NCh will be dispositioned accordingly.

5 Y

R.M. Kissinger '

Project Civil Engineer

/sgf

~

ARMS C.R. Hooton e

4

.I z,

e A

, _ . . . - - , , . . - , - - , - , , . --e, ,,c, ,,,n-,, , , . , . - . , . , ,,..,w,.. - ,.,.....-.,,,._.y ,, - , . , - . . _ ,- , , . , , . . .<

,.,. . Page 1 of'4 v s.

j..

t U.C.N~^732*Nf w,Y*82aN~k E.

' ~ '

20 1.. W befwee D-121-14 & 0-150-10

- U.C. W ~a % *

W 'amar 2* W-29 CPPA-25,096l U.C. W'M. . g wp

'3* W-18 I.F. '/s*

E.'a g war Page 2 of.;81 4, W-43 j' ' f " f y, , g , g, ' p ,p I 7. W-41 g I.F. U.S. b'e Fs's hiw'r0 ^) l'* 8 ~* N.MS U.C. W " a V4

a A ~ me I-

8. W-6 :

U.C. %'a'%:"a b ">wt*

10.

9. W-10 W-35,' !.F. Ma'sW*s *parr ' -

.[l ld.

'M-

C

11. W-8

U.C. V4

a M' a k' >mrr

.l'

12. W-1 !.F. W 'a b "

W aaer ;

13. W-15 U.C. Vs** % *

E 8sse *

-14 . W-2 U . C . W ~ ^ % * * *

War py9 1. W-36 U .C. l' a %s~5 W WP, N ~^ 78 '" hiW , 1,

i. .'.4

2. W-20 u.c.. .W we.= W 'uur ? I44'

3. W-15 I.F. A "a %

ar swa** '***

~5.14# .C . %'4%~a #*****, W~a M Ma*, #* Wd NW$

4.

5.

W-46 W'-^- ' ' ~ ' ^ ^ -3 2 v.c. Ye~a ya"n %~une W*W'& !- 1: .I '

W-3I C "O E -'tr-C- 2.P. M C e % '.x % ~#sur

6. W-4 C.L. 14 % =4 .. . .! ' '. I

')~- 151 1. W4 U.C. 'h i" W * ~8#

2 W-28 U.S. l~a % W '**" ..

U.C. %a~a Ma'a N ~ W 3 .' W-49 .' ,

4* W-3 h

U .C . W ~a %~ a k~8#

')- 153 1. W-15 C . L . & U .C(Plate .O ystamped a p.s.)ys. des.), W=

as 0-150-10

2. W-50 Mi h*"k W n. Wa *."'r i

- U.C. shown revised on DWG. as.

~

3. W-49 INC. W. Mahas, l'h'aag 0-150-12) * *,

. 4. W between 0-154-1 &

0-121-14 !!ic' W '%.M * '" M '88'# -

5. W-51 %~a W'a %* WS*.).W'44*W U.C. & 8.M.D .,Mc.w.-* Wa *h~Mb ".

6. W-52 3

7. W-47 ' U.C.

O. C . & INC. --*-)6W.Wa, % a hWa h*merM,Fe*4 /4'amsde. ,

esse

8. B.M.D. to Plate 0-150-11(east) 2 st** ** W8mr !.

9. B.M.D. to Plate 0-154-1 (east

, .of Plate 0-150-9) ' %'*R*ha~"*,*~*%.# W -- .--

D -155 1. W-48

2. W-47 .v.9 ',I,p,,c.g , y , g -(s.,.h 8/c.=,u S 44u

3. W-46 U.S.,U.C. .C.L. 24 = %*sume, t ra.M 4~'%bYv.sJ,*s

4. W-45 U.C.,C.L.aq

5. W-19 U .C. M's W=dc.a.) Wwar , % =Wa g *"'l**), W ' M

6. W-42 U.C. %'a W*a fe'Mur

. 7. W-43 U.C. W'a 74's WW

8. W-14 . w r.M. h'afs 4 W aar , :.

9. W U . C . % ~a % "* % 'Hur U -

! h 5

)-157 1. W-48 Crack 4 h '

1. 2: W-47 U.C. %a' a %s~ a h 'N'r b 3. W-46 U.C. M '= % ~" W ~"""

f: 4. W-45 1,p, rA . k a W mer u -5. W-20 U .C . % 's M ' a % ' 88'P

[ 6. W-32 6.M.D. 8k n~d N~8"P l' 7. W-26 U.C. %** % "a %~8*#f i

'P** - _ _ . . . , _ _. _. . ._ .. ., , , j

.lodtd: , Py42J+

U.C. sa ' a $ 's %:" amp i

'J E !9;W-25-8' W-14 ~ _ U. C. %"* 'd6"' %'9"' CPPA-25.096 .

9" I

1. W-2 U .C C .%

-~8 W" $#

8 -9:f:" *- d4

).159f2'Wg6

'l 3,. . W- M M D l~4 N'^ M ""# ;- l - I.- l

' 4.. W-33 I.F. 8 N

N d M*~ " I, , .uj P U.C.9h~rw* *4**N

M.* # :

'I 5. W-51 !

6.lW-37;3 U.C. A "a W'a WW il

6 Ijy! l U . C . t *

986'" W "8F fi[s5.',',gN.-

7. W-20 r

.l 8." 22

C .

U.C . .U. S. ( throa t) %.~4 '4 . 4'assr6s.d,sy E -M=

m

9. W-2,8

,,,e ,,e i ,

'l

-]t*T, 7 E-3 ~'.E.sc"a u k'= S use '- '

p-138 ' 1. W-58 U.C. s/, . af, 4 %g www

2. W-161 contour Ys"4 $"4 M' NEP ,'

3. B.M.D. on Plate 0-139-5 # T..:l ,' ,:;

(above 2nd col. from N.. west side)' 1 n~8/s'*%1"s88P ,[.7 ~ T

4. B.M.D. on P1 ate 0-139-4 .i (2nd col. from N., west side) r J ** S's N *Nur, N "* %.. a fs W

5. 0.M.D. on Plate D-138-1-4 ..

co a N st side) *

7. W-74 , U . C . % "s % * = '46* wur ' ,

8. W-149 5 U.C. l W'vems wr= = W^ WM8' #* 'IP -

1-122 &

'p- W ( assuming & that 0-122looking east on describes topprints half &

0-175describesbottomhalf) i(Northern-most) Uc

' }-122-1 1. W-9 U.C. S 's %'4 Es

W ~

2. W-20 U.C.,x.P. h "* % % Ye4 a 6 4. fs~4 %'= 4 . W )

}-175 .l. W-2 u,3, ga.sy, 4 g mar , , ' :-

lh ., -(. :'

r. 'j g -

- (3rd from N.)

P-122-1 1. W-8 ' U .C . Va E* ~* E' il '

i pJ ,.j. .ai ..

. i l- -

l ) 140 D-140-1-A East '

,ll: :1, '.I

. i.

1.

2. W-147 %~a W'=74 W.U.C.IW~~me===<Mr~a W-10 W' @ Ma*wf'4-U.C. 'esch (N.%"4P84 and S.

! 3. W-12 ~.C.lW U e e *#8waar$-

U.C. (N. & S.) M'a%**a %*aar, %"* N'a N8P.

l 4. W-145 i

,. 5. W-143 U.C. (S. ) 9 4 'As"*Wwar l 6. W-141 C.L., throat ' L'.0. (N. & S.)%"m k 6MM N. . " "

7. W-22 . - U.C.1"vern. 4mam n 4'sWwur4

.8. W-139~

Basemetalf damage 0-148-1. !d ig.

U.C .,c.L . I'4 *ror m u ne4 m = 4 's W aa r G.s.

h. 'ai!h8i i uldfM lI r"'

Adj. to W-139 (S.) -

.j e'l l _

g ~;,4,, g .g l

l p - 140-1-B East

! East side of W-2 Adj. to W-135 (S.)

l U.C. cold lap - - j ~tw (c 4..),4F/s". %"4 g *'asse (u.c.)

! Basemetal damage 0-148-4 Adj. to'W-131 w W'w.a b uur (10ad-sk),%"a %'s L'hreld% -

l gs.) & Adj. to W-30 --

! ometal. damage 0-140-1-1 between W-133 (S.)' & W-131 (N.)'M"m %"* Ma"aer, U ff= h W H Mahest hans, Dettu er hespnsr my , 'N .

c + - MW .

~ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~

'weaor4 e

!'~-

1 8 East

~g' g.131 U.C. L S. L8'ML i 'Desf d e 38h 3

. 2 iW-31 - U.C.J E*X S*x he*0m CPPA-25,096 . :

l 3. W-129 l'KM'X? Page 4 of 8 .

U.C.(.S.)#'*.'Jgsyge '

U.C. ( N.)

. '4. W-125 ,

{

5. W-121 throat ( N.)y [

i ,a 6. W-119 , I.F.,U.C.(N.&S. 8 7g 'glp :

7. W-117*# U.C. (S.) W J M ') dy . K[!;;;; f 8 :Basemetal damage 0-140-1-1 Adj. to :

iiV

.{ W-11MN.F U.C. (S.)i"d'.@'?j^3('xDl%YX(Md '

'I.

'p,-140-1-CEast #Mogf .

. 1.- W-111 U.C.(S.).41(# # :! . ,D !

2. W-107 U.C. (N. & S. 4'#4'0mg M )'e t,'0=f 'i .

Baseme 1 damage 0-148-2 between W-107 ) W g 483'd8g x g, .

j

4. W-62 ' U.C.I'Wh48 .

"k5 .

5.

6.

W-61 W-53

' U.C.4YNX%'

' O.C.%M'4.*

.h. fiy d '

#fl,N'8hp

7. W-101 U.C. N.) 35, M mp 3.I-

[c'M ;ii

":!! ")

i:l: & U C. ( . w4w i ,; t

. 10. W-66 U.C.W4 *Nb' 8

i.

X Y X M b,, S p u J i:

11. W-73 I*

12. W-95 U.C.('XS)dU.C. t (S. k .h ui .

I

13. W-93 U.C. JEL'Se(

& S.)es i % 4 6 Mth"(by : g..T ,.

14. W-76/ U.C

. . ;l

Basemetal damage 0-140-1-1 adj. to W-115 (N.) ,IM l 15. W-115 U.C. Omf

,j'.Pi -

t 16. W-86 - U.C. - -

17. W-89 !.F. S.) * -

p W W ,t 2 % A W '4 k , M % N 8'P 8s etal. damage 0-148-2 adj. to W-08 (S.) N '

3 3 W X

1. !..

U.C.tHt'IId, 8 I -

2. -W-82 ' -

U.C.g'Mir -

~ -i} , s -

3. W-114 U.C. (N.) 4 bauaWye A W" M88"' M *

(N.) & !'W-90 [111.

/

Arc

4. W-2 strike 0-148-4 between W-82 U.C. & W-114 Between(N.)(.9(*gi'8,$'fhip W-114 .,

(S )

(And between W-92 (N.) & W-94 (S.)):

5. W-92 ". . . . -

': ":n U.C. (N.)3'X%%*I"M 7j:

":!: M # 1

8. W-96

9. W-69 U.C. (N.)fy U.C .W'34*X )$a (y ,' II: :

Basemetal damage 0-148-4 between W-96 (N.) & W-70 X4*%M' j e' l

10. W-98 U.C.(S.)& dersized ' '

11. W-100 .

U.C.(S&M.NdlAstW

l'6L%dikt):,'!'.J' d 'X D M ' - -

12. W-2 U.C. between W-96 (N.) & W-98 (S.)(4 f ht:!il J

q Sasemetal damage 0-148-2 between W-98 (N.) & W-100 JS.

Arc strike 0-148-1 between W-98 (N.) & W-100 (S.)ti Xj)8Xh Senf % . . W;' :

13. W-102 POR. (N.) sl88 i }d .e

14. W-104 U.C. (S.& N. i

15. W-55 U.C.ta*ygdyJg 3

d'ff'g(J.)iDh'gI"Omfi.,;,

l i.

16. W-57 . U.C .easin,*y .gu

17. W-2 U.C. between W- 4(N.)&W-106(S.)g-Q'yg8

. 18. W-106 U.C. A. POR (S. ) $t.-}"yj' .,.

i M. .}*Q$Qaq ' i>:!+ ("l 16, .r .

. ~.. ., .._..... ..l. '.

d

~

Pa.3 e Z A off '

g~ 3-IT1 &.wr.) . W-M 1.F.,0.5. '/4 s '/4">s)f "w(zr.), Al' sus (v.s.),

h- 46 l *4 ~ l

, U.S. Page 5 of 8 - .l d ' 4'l U. c.,c . L . J 's % 's %'ser, a . y, 4 N w l

.24~ < Ye 's %" pat . ;l 0-48 0.e.

us.a senws9 R D-150-to ** 2 D-118-14 181.D.4E %~* N' ear j i

W -3 4 www es usa (* 5-),8 & ~^ /*4 k' sere

U.S. > I. f:.

. --j t

I I

e I

i 9

I i

k

< ~** ?

s l

l ..

I i'

t s

P

, e p t. u , , t

P48 e 4ohf-M@-1-C Wes_t ggI.-gr-.Sasemetalidamage

' Plate 0-140-1-1 betweenW-104(N.)&'d-106(S.) CPPA-25,096 8.M.D. Plate D-148-4 adj. to W-104 (N.)9*W

- $$2 X M' X>$1*(uf'Mref Page 6 of. 8,. p

19. W-59

20. W-11a u.c. (s U

'U.C.h*>fth'4 th1*Due

o t i

, vido+a.sr 21. W-116 Arc strike 0-148-4 adj. to W-118 h M(S.)a,g(gg g - W k 24'

Asf(N.)yA

~

i ;j --

j,,,8,W.y8aseme'tal" damage 0-140-1-1 between W-118 (N.) & W-120 8 (S.) & adjacent to W-118 ' (N.) iJ4- T-

22. W-122 ,

', 23. W-2 .

!POR(S.)ig'-122(

U.C. between d )&W-124(S.)4fj#gi ' !.

24. W-124- INC. Weld (N.).(" . .

25. W-2 U.C. between W-124

~26. W-126 U.C. (S.) Ok'y 248 )Sep,&W-126(S.)t%'g.lD(48g!. .

27.~W-2 U.p .) & W-130 (S.)t'g % ,'

.M.D. 0-140-1-1 adjacenttoW-130(S.).%i[,.betweenW-128 x gdggag ge ,, ,

. i ;i.ip2' D-140-1-AWest 8

('

O. .

8.M.D. C-148-2 between W-134 (N.) & W-136 (S.)d'XYXYv def :th',(!-

1. W-128 U.C. S. & N. 'xjlf7g8

2. W-25 U.C.d('d";(4 , i$' . j ' ,

3. W-23 cracked tack '

Ni '.li " , . '

4. W-140 U.C. (S.) 'y 8 yt sg !i - l.

6 6 N. N )l

~

g a m

.{. -

7., W4 cratergryg n , .

. . . , p-

' G beRll. WG h-NO-H YuleeS Y104 ($.) t N*l0G (SN .

f WW Q**n & in la<f,t'io didthplefb#qss4'nntitu,,N; e

. 4 m ap, bypar\,e g,,g

, n.,

e., -140- H k m/acq W.y g ,) g ,g g g .

g M'$. MM'48%x,qy,y,yg tiydhr

.- ;a'} {w} .

., ;! i .n b},'

.; ~ h .' a e i.

l' 1 N $r i .

-l 8 '.i -i 0th A

[ .

!8tI p hj

[ .

l- I !!, .. Itti f FiF

_ !L$

l ~'i <,i i.

y~.>.m-

~

i. IjH l.

i i- - i :hig-1. , !

- - ' .:g j,i .

[*M4kWNIhNkhhibh4 %*84T )_hM_'1"__'21u -- .a3

9

end e

g (

Tdal d .L coae, marks d hi4 orm 0) Lata /WM P At tijg' j[7Pd'! i 6tillds D d

Wdn'AgW !

Wu.4t'wtwaquY '

a 6) LA4Y WA" dyd45 (slu Av #Ar ut' ;

(4 di wtly a

at' :

I 4

.I i

I,

'\

t

, , , , .e . .m m .. e-.

og O

e 9

O 9

_ m c.---.------v-e- - - - -

.c

.s .

(

.. CPPA-25,096

- ' Page 8 of- 8 ' 7 :

e. .

. y t'

.-- e ,

w

_- .. t -

~ ' -

[

'b. .

. W ' .3 .

1UGCO GRSE -

t -. ...

. :.M v .]:l b.. -

,(R ..~n,'.

. . . ' >:lg.Q ... ig .. .. ::. : .i.

, ., f .> L.. ...

7 . . . ,. : .:

i

a2 8813 GHN.Y U. . aI'. . *'; *. *}u'-G, '. ~*.' s . ;&, ...J ... ' .

./ -

. .C. e e'

-MSG JOtt M , . N... M b ,. 7.i.... :fr-...V; 4 .',. . ,,," -

?

. . - . , . . p. * -

,i . .. .- .. -

. '..R a

."':.Tt .,'. ;., W.:g 4 .* .s. . M, ,;t.:...'. . .. . .

" ~ '

~M

. !.* i .f.i./ ;; Me.'- ..

INVEM.PE.

, . . ..y -.s..a . .

.R., s.. ;.225 . .....

... .~.I . 982.i . . ,:

. T N'. .o.

.v q..

W, y . ..e ;z . . .. . . . .. . . , **

u . . .u . .. . . . to y n..',1 +,. i >r% :?, a.,M . . *** ,: .

- fUS1. 5.I1E u .,ig ..e . .?*

g a, - . n. . . u,

.: .M.

, ,e.. rr..: ,.....;. . . .-: . . '. ' '.

. . *~ .-'

. .: .. =': ,: L '". .: . .

e . - .

g s. . ' ..f...a : .~, ; :. -;; L ,g. .,

.- .;.::.w.a!

.?. :. : .. v . -

. ": m. .GTr-nam. ... ..

m, s..s ...

.ow. s.r,. n gr,a>h...v. . .,ae.. ". 4 9. :.,.

..*. . r.

.,. .. f.. . , . , . . .. . ,.y a.

. ... . <v.e , , . ... - A

h. 'g .. .. . y 'z..

) .~ . ; ' & I.* .' ' . " . l ' Y Y, .

W-Q

nt'

.. = : %. 4 8' 3 3 W

k. W.Wi$n%..:.$5 ... . ,-=mgQsg.$4m; M ; :...:3 .. ..." n a. ' '.:l.' .. *.;;, .

M :t

.- lATTEMT J,.p."J.OKORG.E/R. M. : KI55 INGER '.&,..a..,,,.... - L ..

5 A .sa

....IONr::

. t., ...

.ww-:- aw .yu 3.,. a.;y. ., < a.;. r. :.p:.

9,g.;.; . . ..: .

.. 4. .* e* 'l'.i...,*'.,... .

.~.

f . ' . .....V.. y. n e ... 7 . 3 ,r y. 3 '

. . ,. ,J: .

.,,M*'. i, A.SSUSECTr#.LSIACCEP' TABLE,'bt4DS %g$ht[' '

7.-.Y' I7,.[ b*-)[d' ..[* 'Irjii.[9.* ' < y.f d.

," A*~a@d9.k.D N$$N!!/,$h.YU,Ni%u S,<,*: .. .. ,

. . .' : s ~.

Jd'i

. :a 7

. ,C'e-A 6 -D.*:.' 'h: .'.'.-

.- . IEFESENCEnf NCE M-42q01SSR.; '

' .?.$ t.'N/IM.$$Yi6.N1MS / 5.N.' ' w.)YNil.IY'!DENTIF IED IN .,THE #.Y 5Y *-

%e. .Y,.N y 9* p*;* **. '*

4

-l .-' i.i AS?REGUESTED.94.? NhWEa.REMIEEED

J 'MFERENCE'NCR.'3MSE' bELD5 HAW,E ?

TkE bELDS SEEN '!DENTIFIED AS' NOT '

d' 0

g' . ,..*TY

" hT.21'.fA

*J.f.E ING', ACCEPTAEEI,PEKfAW SD11i 80. 'ht. WAVE INVESTIG ATED THE '.# ' . ,b'l

" : - ~f b .- -

,."..',t.

-(. S MAVE"M'ITRMINED: THAT THESE. WELD ~

'.'..# "s . EPICIENCIES; YGt2.D.'WOT

' STRUCTURE 5' INVpLVEB *A1,%UER$ELyiAFFECT. THE DESIGM' '

FUNCTION . "7 ' .f * *

"*?,'.

\

W 'C. i * ; * 'J. '. * . .% 4 ..

Wn.R..E. Whl' a.t. *Z'. ".i.**<v,..%.n: ...*.7:.,., . F. ..: .

.T. RUC.T. ,U . .. . ;'

. 4..~Y .W ? .TE. .' ... . 'S.%:y:n.';

.s ..~

.s

"'..W~.'...r**~

, L ,.;,.::':,

T v.d'p. . . . ~. ' .

.!- .

1N THOSE'EEM* CASES INHERE ~ CRACM5 IN.bELDS HAVE PEEM OBSERVED *.

4 1ET ARE'TO WFIEI D' REPAIMD AND ARE. NQT. !NCl,UDED* 1N .OUR

~ '

. .. p. . . .

.N. ' . E

.. w.*$ ks. s; W : . @," M. B/K..'LS.g,4.p.h.h .$c..a . . * .s$.on.$~k!.;.fs u .2. 2. ~ .--~. s .. < - . [ *

. .;./ .R.E.3..-

. . M$C.LA. . . BEZ..MO,.R(A.M. .- .

&C.**M ,lMENMRE. '.; . . ./:.' 5 .5.ENGUPTA

. c

~4

~ .

k. l A%.*:: . W n ..

..s .

. . *~ . . ~. v...,. . . v. .~ nr;y~.%- :-

.n. :4: .c..,.. .

v *..- ..; -

W..'.,.: ',. N. -; ..,, ... p . . :e . ..

. , . .. 05 E856tlLL )NEkT.0RW @a.,%.. $.M. .r e r.. .*

4t88 ~ . . ..e 5 3:;Gkti%*^D1l9:W..i.,1. vs .i" W' ' . .

^ % .

. *g . .

.0. ,. .g. : ,:s,.M..v ,*,.-e. jf N. ,, *,(*. a. .

M.s >. ., *.. .. . . ~r0 .J

. .'w .c. . .

",IUGC3. -

G RSE .,..- s +.,. q .: .. '. .

c. . . + . . . -

5 . ,,,,.;.~...- .. .

.. . ,s , .

ness t 3..G.H.N T~. . .u,l.':.<n . :~ . 'M. " .;;.~ . . ;,. . < . ,. . .,

.s . . .i . . , , , C /..l5 FC e. *.'Ys.c. .T..

.. . . i.. , . . . , -

4.2 J. ,*.. i. .% : c. ' + . . .

. .i I

\ .

l I ,

i

/* q

IP t

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

-s g; . , -

., ( k

- t INTEROFFICE MEMO December 2, 1982

./

TO: W. E. Baker FROM R. Blackett

SUBJECT:

Reinspection of Pipe Whip Restraints 2323-SI-0671 Drawing E-117, Unit #1, Safeguard Building Reinspection of the subject restraints has revealed discrepancies in addition to those previously reported.

The additional discrepancies are detailed on Attachment #1 The following abbreviations are applicable.

AS Arc strike on base metal adjacent to the weld.

E East FS 'Far side .

IF Incomplete fusion either'between weld and base metal, or between weld beads.

.IP ~ Incomplete penetration NS Near side S South T

.. Insufficient _ throat-dimension

,UC . Undercut US Undersize weld.

WP Unacceptable weld profile Note: All undercut dimensions'are given as: length x width x depth.

~

If no third dimension is given, depth is greater than 1/32".

R. Blackett

, Staff Assistant, Special-Projects

.

I cc: R. Tolson ~ D.

Tom Brandt DEC LG ;;;3 TU;;0 ;,A DalU.S .

o_

h.

' ,l

PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT DISCREPANCItS ATTACHMENT #1 ASSEMBLY f WELD # DISCREPANCIES REHARKS 4 D-120-1 3 FS UC 3/8" x 3/32" x 1/16" UC 3/8" x 3/32" x 1/16" UC 14" x 3/32" x 3/64" 15 D-120-1 ~

3 NS UC 4 " x 1/16" x 3/64" UC 1" x 1/8" x 3/64" 1

UC Sh" x 3/16" x 1/16" 3 D-120-1 ,

11 UC I b" x 3/32" x 1/16" 14 D-120-1 12 NS UC 20" x 3/16" x 1/16" 2 D-120-1 13 FS UC 7/8" x 3/32" x 1/16" UC 1 3/4" x 3/32" x 1/16" 7 D-120-1 13 NS UC 19h" x 3/16" x 1/16" UC 3/16" x 3/16" x 3/32" 9 D-120-1 13 NS UC 18h" x 1/8" x 1/16" 8.D-120-1 14 NS UC 8 " x 3/16" x 1/16" 12 0-120-1 lb IF 1 " LENGTH 11 0-120-1, 17 IF 4 3/4" LENGTH 1 D-120-1 18 UC h" x 3/32" x 1/16" UC 5/8" x 1/8" x 1/16" UC 3/4" x 3/32" x 3/32" 10 D-120-1 18 UC 1/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" 5 D-120 19 UC ik" x 3/32" x 1/16" 6 D-120-1 40 IP LENGTH INDETERMINATE 17 D-120-1 , 41 IP 3/4" WIDE, LENGTH' INDETERMINATE IP. k" WIDE, LENGTH INDETERMINATE 16 D-120-1 46 NS US 2h" LENGTH

% ~

r 215 D-138-1-D 148 IP 3/8" 191 D-138-1-B 167 IP k" 200 D-138-1-B 173 UC Ik" x 3/16" UC (" x 1/8" 228 D-138-1-B ,

175 UC ik" x k" 227 D-138-1-B 177- UC k" x 1/16" 202 D-138-1-C 178 UC 3/8" x 3/16" x 1/16" 224 D-138-1-C 185 UC k" x 1/16" x 1/16"

~

207 D-133-1-D 188 UC 3/16" x 3/32" 214 D-138-1-D 281 CKACK 7/16" LENGTH 178 D-140-1-C 1 UC 7h" x k" 175 D-140-1-C 2 IF 1 1/8" LENGTH 185 D-140-1-B 2 UC 3/4" x 3/16" IF 2" IF 2 3/8" 161 D-140-1-B 31 UC 3/8" x 1/16" 182 D-140-1-B 43 UC 14h" x 1/8" 181 D-140-1-8 45 IF 1h" 173 D-140-1-C- 89 S UC " x 1/16" 174 D-140-1-C 89 N UC 3/8" x 1/16"

\-

~

. l 17o D-140-1-C 90 UC 3/4" x 3/16" UC 3/16" x 1/16" 170 D-140-1-C 93 N UC 7/8" x 3/16'"

171'D-14U-1-C 93 S UC 3/8" x 3/16" UC 1/8" DIA. X 3/32" UEEP UC 3/16" x 3/32" x 3/32" 177 D-140-1-C 94 UC 17" x 3/16" 169 D-140-1-C 95 N US 6" UC 1/8" DIA.

1 179 D-140-1-C 96 UC 4" x 3/16" 163 D-140-1-C 97 S WP 4h" LENGTH UC 3/8" x 1/16" . .

167 D-140-1-C 99 S UC lh" x 1/16" IF 3 3/4" 166 D-140-1-C' 101 S UC 2h" x k" 104 D-140-1-C. 103 N UC (" x k" 165 D-140-1-C 103 S UC 7/8" x 4" x 3/32" 163 D-140-1-B '111 UC 3/16" x 1/16" UC 3/4" x 1/8" 180 D-140-1-B 112 UC 3/16" DIA. X 1/16" DEPTH 172 D-140-1-C 115 UC 32" x 4" T 3/16" x 3/32"

. 162 D-140-l'-B 117 UC 3/16" x 1/16" 183 D-140-1-B 124 UC 3/8" x 1/16" UC . 3/16" DIA. X 3/32" DEPTH a

e ..

160 D-140-1-B 125 UC h" x 3/32" 184 D-140-1-8 126 N UC " x 1/16"

. UC 3/4" x 1/16" 159'D-l'40-1-B 127 IF 1"

, UC 3/8" x 1/16" 158 D-140-1-A 141 UC 'k" x 1/16" 186 D-140-1-B 144 UC k" DIA. X 3/64" DEPTH (2 PLACES) 157 D-140-1-A 149 UC 1(" x 3/16" UC 1" x k" 35 D-149-1 3 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" UC 1" x 1/16" UC 4k" x 1/8" 32 D-149-1 4 IF 3/8'_' LENGTH 36 D-149-1 5 FS UC 7" x 1/8" 37 D-149-1 5 NS UC h" x 1/8" UC (" x 3/32" x 3/32" 9

20 D-149-1 -11 UC 3/8" x ~1/8'_'

UC " x 3/16" (2 PLACES)

UC %" x 1/8" (2 PLACES)

UC, 26h x 3/16" 39 D-149-1 11 UC 3/8" x 1/16"

a

\ '-

18 D-149-1 13 US 1" x 1/8" UC 1 3/8" x 1/8" UC 3/4" x 1/8"

. UC 1" x 1/8"

~

. UC 3/4" x 1/8" .

UC k" x 1/8" 40 D-149-1 13 FS UC " x 1/16" UC 3/8" x 1/16" 41 D-149-1 15 IF k" WIDTH IF Ik" LENGTH 26 D-149-1 16 UC 1" x 1/16" x 1/16" 30 D-149-1 16 UC 3/8" x 1/16" - ~

UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/32" 28 D-149-1 22 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" UC " x 1/16"

. 29 D-149-1 25 UC 3/4" x 1/8" 27 D-149-1 30 UC \" x 1/16" 38 D-149-1.

43 NS UNIDENTIFIED LINEAR INDICATION 5" LENGTH I

31 D-149-1 45 FS IF 1 " LENGTH UC k" x 3/32" 33 D-149-1 46 WELD IS " SHORT OF BEING FULL LENGTH UC k" x 1/16" x 3/32" f

6

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

a ~

$ 8 &

4 21 0-149-1 47 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/32" UC 3/4" x 4" x 3/16" UC " x k" x 1/8" 34

D-l'49-1 47 NS IF 1 3/4" LENGTH' UC k" x 3/16" (2 PLACES) 19 D-149-1 48 US *3" LENGTH UC 3" x 1/8"

, UC 3/8" x 1/8" x 3/64" UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" 24 D-149-1 50 IP LENGTH INDETERMINATE 23 D-149-1 53 IF LENGTH INDETERMINATE .

22 D-149-1 54 IF LENGTH INDETERMINATE 25 D-149-1 55 IF 3/8" LENGTH IF k" WIDTH, LENGTH INDETERMINATE 00 D-151-l' 3 NS IF 3/8" 62 D-151-1 4 NS UC 1/8" DIA. '

57 D-151-1 5 NS UC 1 1/8" x 1/16" IF ' 2h" LENGTH 46 D-151-1 6 IF k" LENGTH 49 D-151-1 8 UC " x 1/8" UC k"'x 1/8" UC 3/16" x 1/16" l

e m._ . .- _ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._R_..

. \- \

1. .

59 D-151-1 9 NS UC 3/16" DIA.

61 D-151-1 9 NS UC 2 " x 1/8"

~

66 D-151-1 9 NS UC h" x 3/16" x 3/16" 48 D-151-1 10 UC 11 " x 1/8" UC 3/8" x 1/8" 53 D-151-1 11- UC 29" (INTERMITTANT) x 1/8" 45 D-151-1 12 UC k" x 1/16" UC 3/8" x k" UC 2k" x 5/16" x 1/16" 47 D-151-1 12 FS UC k"DIA. ,

~

4.'. D-151-1 - 13 FS UC 3/16" x 3/32" x 3/64" UC 1/8" DIA. x 1/16" DEPTH UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/6'" 4 54 D-151-1 13 NS UC 1" x 1/16" 42 D-151-1 29 FS UC (" x 1/8" x 1/16" 52 D-151-1 29 NS WP 6" LENGTH UC h" x 1/16"

-51 D-151-1 33 NS UC h'." x 1/8" 43 D-151-l' 34 UC 3/4" x 3/16'.' x 3/64"

'67 D-151-l' 46 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 1/16" UC h" x 3/4" x 1/16" 9 8 9

9

,-k& W -m- ; em C.n e 4.94 - -&6 A6.- .- ,-wat- a-** &- S WLJ-An --.+'k, ,n- >-4 -Ai2^+<m-->w2A - L-J.,--1 A,a-,.-n _,m,4 +w+w,

! 3..

65 D-151-1 47 UC - 84" x 1/8" f 50 D-151-1 48 UC 9 1/8" x 1/8" ;

64 D-151-1 '

49 NS UC 4" x 1/8" IF h" LENGTH 63 D-151-1 50 NS UC 3/8" x 1/8" 56 D-151-1 51 NS HOLE IN WELD 3/16" DIA. X 1/16" DEPTH 58 D-151-1 51 FS IF 1 1/8" LENGTH 55 D-151-1 52 NS IF 1" 130 D-153-1 2 FS UC 3/16" x 1/16" t

76 D-153-1 3 NS UC Ik" x 1/8" UC h" x 1/16" ~(2 PLACES)

UC \" x 1/16" WP 1 " LENGTH UC 5" x 1/16" UC " x 1/16" (2 PLACES) i 126 D-153-1 3 FS UC 3/16 x 1/16" 129 D-153-1 5 NS UC. 3/16" x 1/lb" 132 D-153-1' 6 FS UC (" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) i' l' 127 U-153-1 . 7 FS UC k" x 1/8" i

71 D-153-1 . 10 NS UC k" x 1/8" AS 3/16" DIA., DEPTH INDETEltNINATE

~136 D-153-1 10 FS UC " x 1/8" x 3/32" UC 1/8" DIA..X 1/16" DEPTH' h'

/

t g-- -. , , -- -

s - + , . . , v. y ,

i - .

i 70 D-153-1 11 NS AS " x 3/16" DEPTH INDETERMINATE 134 D-153-1 11 NS UC lh" x 1/16" 135 D-153-1 12 FS UC " x 1/16" (2 PLACES)

(" x 1/16" UC UC 2 " x 4" 68 D-153-1 ,13 NS -UC 1h" x 1/16" 137 D-153-1 15 FS UC k" x 1/16" (3 PLACES) 79 D-153-1 16 NS UC 1 1/8" x 5/16" x 1/8" 73 0-153-1 18 NS UC 2h" x 1/8" 125 D-153-1 20 FS UC 2 " x 1/8" 80 D-153 21 NS UC - 3/8" x 3/16" '

~

77 D-153-1 23 NS IF 6" LENGTH CRACK 3h" LONG 122 D-153-1 23 FS UC - k" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) 123 D-153-1 25 FS UC k x 1/16" (4 PLACES)

-124 D-153-1 28 UC 3/16" x 1/16".

128 D-153-1 46 NS 2" WP, IF, UC CONCURRENTLY l

131 D-153-1 46 FS IF 3/8" 133 D-153-1 47 FS UC 3/4" x 1/16" (5 PLACES)

. 69 D-153-1 SU NS UC %" x 1/16" 73 D-153-1 -50 FS UC k" x 1/8" (3 PLACES) .

, AS 3/4" x k" x 3/32" s '

b

- - ~

72 0-153-1 51 FS UC k" x 1/16" UC 3/16" x k" AS 3/4" x "

AS 1 " x 3/16" 75 D-153-1 51 NS UC k" x 1/16" 74 D-153-1 52

WELD IS 1" LESS THAN REQUIRED

' LENGTH ON EACH END.

UC 4" x " x 1/8" 138 D-153-1 57 FS UC 3/4" x 3/16" x 1/8" UC 3/8" x " x 1/8"

.149 D-155-1 1 FS UC k" x 3/32" 146 D-155-1 7 FS UC k" x 1/16" 143 D-155-1 11 FS UC " x 1/16" (3 PLACES) i UC 1" x 1/8" x 3/32" l 139.D-155-1 13 NS UC' 3/16" x 1/16" i

142 D-155-1 13 FS UC 3".x 1/8" UC 2 " x 1/8" UC 3/8" x 1/16" UC '1k" x 1/8"

UC 3/16" DIA. x 1/16" DEPTH i

I 148 D-155-1' 20 FS UC " x 1/16 .

UC 3/8'.' x 3/16" i

UC k" x 1/16" l

l- 147 D-155-1 22 FS. UC k" x 3/32"'

l ,

144 D-155-1 41 FS UC k" x 3/16" x 3/32" 140 D-155-1 48 FS UC- 5/8" x 3/16"

'141 D-155-1 48 NS 7" WP, UC, IF CONCURRENTLY -

, UC 3/8" x 1/16"~

L

e 73 . x \

145 D-155-1 52 FS UC " x 1/16" 93_D-157-1 1 NS UC 3/4" x 1/8" 92.N157-1 8 AS 4" DIA.

97 D-157-1 8 NS UC 3/4" x 1/8" UC 4" x 1/16" 94 D-157-1 9 NS IF " LENGTH 91 D-157-1 11 FS UC k" x 1/16" (4 PLACES) 87 D-157-1 13 FS UC 3/8" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) i 100 D-157-1 13 NS UC k" x 1/16" (2 PLACES)

UC 3" x 1/16" 90 D-157-1 14 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/32" IF 1/8" DIA.

86 D-157-1 15 UC k" x 1/8" 102 D-157-1 15 NS UC (" x 1/16" 101 D-157-1 16 NS UC 3/4" x 1/16"-

103 D-157-1 18 UC " x 1/8" (2 PLACES)

UC Ik" x 3/16" UC, 3/4" x 1/8" 83'D-157-1 19 FS UC 5/8" x '3/16" 85 D-157-1 19 FS UC- 4" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) 9 4 - , , . - -

~, < + - ,

7 .

o 82 D-157-1 22 FS UC k" x 1/16" UC 3/8" x 1/16" (2 PLACES)

UC 4" x 1/16" 154"D-157-1 22 FS UC 1 1/8" x 3/16" 155 D-157-1 ,

22 NS UC 3/16" Dia. x 3/32" deep '

UC ' " x 3/8" x 1/16" 104 D-157-1 23 NS UC 23" x ,1/8" x 1/16" di D-157-1 25 FS UC k" x 1/16" (2 PLACES)

UC 3/4" x 1/16" UC 3/8" x 1/16" 156 D-157-1 25 FS UC 3/16" x 1/8" US 2" LENGTH 89 D-157-1 38 IF 5/16" LENGTH 153 D-157-1 45 NS UC 1 5/8" x 3/16" 99 D-157-1 46 NS WELD IS 1 1/8" SHORT OF REQUIED LENGTH AS 14" x 3/16" '

UC " x 1/8" (5 PLACES)

WP 24" LENGTH 152 D-157-1 46 FS 2" UC, IF CONCURRENTLY. k" LESS THAN THAN REQUIRED LENGTH 96 D-157-1 47 NS UC '1k" x 3/16" x 1/16" IF 2" LENGTH AS ,k" DIA.

3 -

98 D-157-1 47 FS UC " x 3/32" 95 D-157-1 48 FS UC k" x Y' x 3/32" (2 PLACES)

UC h" x 1/8" (3 PLACES)

UC 1\" x 3/16" 4

84 D-157-1 49 FS UC k" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) 88 D-157-1 50 UC k" x 1/16" (2 PLACES)

UC " x 1/16" (3 PLACES)

. IF 5/16" WIDTH 151 D-157-1 54 IF lb" 105 D-159-1 3 NS UC 4" x 1/8" UC " x 1/8" .

120 D-159-1 3 FS UC " x 3/16"

~

106 D-159-1 4 NS UC 1 " x 3/16"

' UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" 109 D-159-1 4 FS IF 24" LENGTH 118 D-159-1 5W UC 3/8" x 3/16" x 1/16" 119 D-159-1 5E IF 1/8" x 1/32"

~

121 u-159-1 7 FS UC k" x 1/16" -

117 D-159-1 9 UC 3/4" x k" x 1/16" 114 D-159-1 IU NS UC 3 3/4" x 3/16" 115 D-159-1 12 UC 3/8" x 1/8" AS 3/8" x %"

110 D-159-1 21 Bot. UC 3/8" x 1/16" G

r v

v -

,. .x

. s 1

~

h 111 D-159-1 21 Top UC , , 2" x 1/8" 113 D-159-1 33 N 'IF ' - /4" LENGT11 108.D-159-1 45 NS '

UC

(" x 1/,16"-(4 PLACES) s s .

UC s b" x 3/lb" -

107 D-159-1 46 FS IF 3/4"

' N.s UC- -

" Ik" x 1/8" s

~

112 D-159-1 47 FS t UC ,

~

. 1.1/8", x 3/16" UC ,

, ' 3/8" x 1/16"'

IF 3/8",xLENGTH s s s j, .-

116 D-159-1 '48 FS UC 3/1'6" x l'/1'6" s.cq

=

230 D-122-1 #1 2 BOT. UC '

3/16" x 3/4" .,, .

s c

y\\'

.%s- % . ' % i, ~, <,

,, s 'o 188 D-122-1 #1 s34 s' ,_--[y ,,

.1C 3 1/8"J 4 3/16"

' p s

t+ ' UC 4" x 5/16"s

. ("

UC "

x'3/16"

__.- s,y', -

Q S.

i s ~

.- ..N,- g 187 D-122-1 #1 1 1/8" x 3/15" ^ Q 11 ' UC N

- ~' '

, ,p 'y \ '

189 D-122-1 #1 23 W .

UC , ~% 1 1/8" x k'.' -

(i C.

,s-226 D-122 12 2 I,% UC ... k"x3/32"x_1/1ti'j '3 1

se - i-

. , 4 194 D-122-1 #2 5 BOT.l .g Uc .. 3/4" x k" x ,3/32" ,- s

( -

198 D-122-1 #2 '5 UC 1 1/8" x 3/8" x 3/32"

.y * 'sl &

197'u-122-1'#2 .8-

, 4 h HOLE IN IJELD 3/16" x 1/16" 3

'196'D-122-1 #2 . - 12 i l'C - 3/16"-x y - 1/lf"'

c n.

, s; k ' -

~

- Q, g' g 195 D-122-1 #2 k 22 bdT. .v .g

( -

-w UC ' ' 14" x 3/16'.' x 3/32"

,T '3 v i '

s\

~ ~' '

f, .

' \ / y '

216 D-122-1. #3 4 80T. < \ UC ' J (l*1/8S x'3/16" o

' ,s;5,p g.

, wO, y _,s. -w -

h .u

.xs

.+ s. \s s

), w -Y_ , ,

S-lg' '

a j', ( ^I .

s g

= (kI j **

. ( -. , ,

]., s.f .

-w '; . s\, , , -

), .( '-k-u(Vs ,q *(.

, - .k. (T

- ce - o.

. ,3.

,,+ y g .

s. _ ;'s; f.% k_Y k__ n _ _ .-

es r

j .

4 222 0-122-1 #3 4E IP 1/8" 210 D-122-1 #3 5 UC 1 1/8" x k" 218,D-122-1 #3 6 BOT. UC 2k" x k" UC Ik" x k" 219 D-i22-1 #3 6 TOP UC 1 3/4" x 5/16" UC k" DIA.

UC 7" x 5/16" x 3/32" UC 1 3/4" x k" 223 D-122-1 #3 6 BOT. UC 6k" x h" x 1/16" UC Ik" x " x 1/16" 217 D-122-1 #3 9 BOT. UC 3/8" x 3/16" 22l 0-122-1 #3 9E UC 5/16" x 4" UC 3/8" x 1/16" .

209 D-122-1 #3 10 80T. UC 1" x 3/16" 220 0-122-1 #3 13 E IP~ 3/16" 208 D-122-1 #3 14 US 3/8" x h' 205 D-122-1 #4 20 US k" DIA. X 3/32" DEPTH 229 D-122-1 #4 '23 TOP UC .

I 1/8" x k" 150 D-152-1-2 UC 2" x k" x 1/16" Plate D-161-1-2: Base metal damage lh" x 3/16" x 1/8" Plate D-138-1-4: Unacceptable base metal repair, 6" Dia. (2 places) e G

~,

z -__ .s .D UT.I ._

sa 1 y,

.r. . .

..r.*' .,' '

DECEMBER 9, ,'1982 ..

,} as m + c o .

e. ety W % . g.t

,M.

~

.- gg g _y yC ' $ s l TUS'I SITE- }'. .i s 158.37 m .- ,

^

38( p2 + 82

.OTT-9291 ,

M K Klag ,,.

O' #8 "" ' '

II CMENT.IONt J.B. GEORGE /R.h. KISSINGER/C.R. HOOTON

'O SUBJECTI UNACCEPTABLE WELDS .

C.

REFERENCE:

1) NCR M-82-01589 ..

2).0T7-9241 ,

e REFERENCE (2) PROVIDED RESPONSE TO NCR'IN REFERENCE (1).

FOLLOWING IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE. INPUT RECEIVED FROM CITE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF CONCLUDING THAT THE AS BUILT .

WELDS WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DESIGN FUNCTION OF ' '

O -

THE STRUCT'JRES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS TELEX IS TO CONFIRM -

1

/ .

!T- THE CLARIFICATIONS OBTAINED VI A TELECONS. .

O

' ~

1) U.C. - UN1?ER CUT IN BASE METAL. DIMENSIONS.GIVEN ARE * -

LENGTH X WIDTH X DEPT OF THE UNDERCUT IN THE .

BASE METAL.

g .

' U.S.,- UNDER SIZE OF WELD. DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE

- 2)

' LENGTH X WIDTH X DEPTH = DESIGN DEPTH - U.S.

O '

3) BMD - BASE METAL DEFEDT.' DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE LENGTH 8 g ,

X WIDTH'X DEPTH OF THE DEFECTIVE PART OF METAL.

--- 4) -IF- '.NCOMPt:ETE -PUS 10N- BETWEEN THE WELD AND ~ BASE -

METAL. DIMENSIONS GIVEN PERTAIN .O T THE LENGTH,. ,

C,- '

X WIDTH X DEPTH OF THE WELD. IT IS ASSUf1ED THAT '

FOR THE LENGTH GIVEN. THE SUBJECT WELD IS '

OUESTIONABLE AND IS IGNORED.

{, .

lIfA 5) CL COLD LAP - INADEQUATE FUSION BETWEEN DIFFERENT PASSES

OF WELD - SPECIFIED,BY LENGTH ONLY; ' ',

C

6) POROSITY: . POROUS WELD - DIMENSIONS- GIVEN ARE LENGTH X WIDTH DEPTH OF POROSITY. ,

Q . . .

7) CRATER

DISCONTINUITY IN WELD - DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE THE, LENGTl+ X WIDTM X' Db *TH OF THE CRATER.

'Q '

C) ARC.STRIKEt ARC STRIKE IN BASE METAL - DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE

' " THE LENGTH X WIDTH X DEPTH OF THE STRIKE IN BASE- .,

5 Q.

METAL. .

grrr . . .

GOUGE MARKS IN BASE METALS -- DIMENSIONS OIVEN p .9) OOOOINGt .

Y AllE THE , LENGTH X WIDTH X DEPTH IN . BASE. METAL. '

) .

. . PLEASE. RECONFIRM. .

,R.E. BALLARIi/E.L.* BEZKOR/A.M.'KENKRE/S. SENGUPTA . .

Q .GIBBSHILL NEWYORK> . . ,

.. . . ~

429769 OHNY UI -

p.. -

s5$

.:4.y J~f . ,. i Jeg m: 2523

'\ s .

Does No. 3 $Q -ItS C $6T f R.Gv.2, fH. we : 2Ge

% YYW

? ~ .*, lut To n TEC Otf

}

'W*

. YSRME:O by: M Als tsfgl Q

_, 8lDev t 42IM/2.OOOo6 Line: 2A ,

OH ENO A NYK TUCCO ORSE

DECEMBER 9, 1982 ! o /

l No TWX 14035 -

ATTN: R.E. BALLARD ,

y GTTN: ED BEZKOR 3

-- D 0-SUBI ADDITIONAL WELD ANOMALIES ON G.W.B. **

h REF3 1) NCR-M-82-01539 .

~

2) OTT-9291 ,

(; INITI AL E1.DN 1" 44ERE.1DENTJFIED -IM-REF 1 AND ACCEPTED.. '

BY REF. 21 HOEVER. ADDITIONAL INSPECTION HAS IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL

)

. E LD ANOMALIES NOT PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY REF. 1 AND 2. THIS '

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS HAND CARRIED BY PR. K.L. SCHEPPELE ON 7 12-7-82. PLEASE PROVIDE AN IMMEDIATE REVIEW OF THESE ADDITIONAL 4 IDENTIFICATIONS. THIS REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR PREPARATION OF THE 1 FINAL RESPONSE TO SDAR-CP-82-12 WHICH IS DUE ON 12-20-82. YOUR T REVIEW SHOULD BE COMPLCTE BY 12-16-82. OR SOONER 7 ,

R.M. KISSINGER ,

1 PROJECT CIVIL ENGR. (

CPSES JOBSITE A 1 g jag GH ENG A NYK .

..g Time: 14:34 12/09/e2 PST

/

! Connect Time s. 116 seconds ,

. ~~-

l I

^ . _

~.a e -y

) - '

$$ S-t%5'CI W T $-

Nitr. If N i TUSI SITE -

gg q,4, Iff. ,

g g dt D*U b

910-8908-660 .

- EM 8 S/s./ E, DECEMBER @;i ) 81 8 ED" eTT

_ es.

JOB 2323 ATTENTION: J.B. GEORGE /M. McBAY/R.M. KISSINGER[$0. M. C RO WE-

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL WELD ANOMALIES ON G.W.B.

REFERENCE:

1) TWX-14035 THE HAND CARRIED INFORMATION ON THE ABOVE REFERENCE ITEMS NEEDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION AND AMPLIFICATION.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ITFJ13 :

1) DEPTH OF UNDERCUT NOT GIVEN ON ALL UC DEFINED ON SHEET 2 TO 16.

Ci' 2) CLARIFICATION BY SKETCH NEEDED ON 'NS' AND ' FS ' FILLET WELDS AT " CROSS" JOINTS WITH 4 FILLET WELDS. THIS PROBLEM ARISES IN ALL SHEETS.

3) CONFIRM THAT NUMBER PRECEEDING THE ASSEMBY NO. IS NOT RELEVANT.

4) FOR D-138-1-D, PROVIDE DETAILS OF UNDERFILL FOR THE FULL PENETRATION WELD.

I

5) FOR D-138-1-D, THE WELD NO. 281 SHALL BE 221.

PLEASE CONFIRM.

'6 )' FOR D-140-1-C WELD 1 AND D-140-1-B WELD 2, PLEASE PROVIDE THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF 'UC' AND 'IF' DUE TO THE CRITICAL NATURE OF THE AREA.

d y

# 8 43'l.S _

SsC-yg,5(,$gy} '1{$

/ 9 S0'1. -

E-2 '

O t i% P 'L.

()' ..

""ov2"= "oaz 2"rox"^T2o" od '"" rotto"'"o ^^=^s-O -7> .

A) D-149-1 WELD #15 EKN l LEV

B) D-149-1 WELD 443 NS BATEI2N bt CSIO. If _ w C) D-149-1 WELD 450, 53, 54 OAIf 12/se/ft. -

CIICIIKIH4 l

D) D-153-1 WELD 446 NS E) D-155-1 WELD #48 ,NS F) D-157-1 WELD 425 FS G) D-122-1 WELD #14 H) D-s2o-s sect.0

40 M b A I FOR D-159-1 WELD #4FS, WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH THE INTER-8)

PRETATION THAT THE TOTAL 24" LENGTH OF WELD HAS 'IF' DIFICIENCIES. PLEASE CONFIRM. ,

(- 9) WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST TWO ITEMS (BMD AND UNACCEPTABLE BM REPAIRS) PLEASE CONFIRM THAT NO G&H REVIEW AND DISPOSITION IS REQUIRED.

) &%

R.E. BALLARD/E.L. B ZKOR/A.M. KENKRE/S. SENGUPTA CONFIRMATION: Helen Leong, lith floor 4- ,

V . .

O

~

N h .

b . .

8%,$ .

.. . . . . . . ..) ...,...,,,,1,2, . s. , R % . .s.. .

h .3y.4

% *4-

,.? <..

@ ,~ :4 .,.'. C . g..r. . . g.E.r.:( :: . p.. {. .pj .. ,,', " ' Q A *s g . g. . 3 .-

s . . . . ..

. g,;.g.;... t ,<-

gtu g

.g

. , ~ . . g.

m.,;; .. ..~

.*'.%. l i

'& .: ..?.t.;" ., ...c q. .g

.. % . p. .f' :,. ;

4i. &. w .;, -;'..Z. , .; ..f , a ,..y.. .

-)

. ... o..

j.. id.g,. . 9 .. .,...

,,.,y..

. ,:. ge.1. g,

,., a.

v. .

. . .::n. : ,,s ,. ,.

,/

c

's c .

b' ~ * -

Rev 22IM/2.0011.7l'Lin4: -

2A .

.v-

.,.,~v... . .

. . .. o .c. 7 , .;> ..... ,

. ,...r.v....

. s

. i .

b ,., p.

g j . :; w,g;.7.:7,,,;.g.g,'p.u.g..3.g,,Q.;,,... .y ,, ,

A .,' (".G H , E;. N . G A,.(

N YJy,j.u, gg,;. .gg, ....gg,,

. : . . . - . . w .. . . .. . ~ .... .

. .'Akh w..y, .s&'?O@.:'i..q:~i.f.' ,' 'N. . { & 'Q.] f . *. ' C &: '-s.n?..'.:,N .: "-

d ... l.~* ::- . .'TUGC0.nG$

.l.[:'; DECEMBER :1%~f1,982{-&._ %y'j

p. .

. . . -. b. '

fsSED:(ft , ;

'~

h:i.:,

% " { ,'.yr;?(.:),

f;}';.>:_1Q

.a.

q . , *Y :;.:.. .'::.

t..;. :f... y

.h

9,i

< 't.Q.:

. .. . ,' [7 k . . Q s .*.@.4c . ~ 5 ~4,;, > ',1d,.t, Q

,2 TWX M14.,055.* - ;,. :. >- 'f : o.

N ATTN: R.. E. iBALLARDch. .E.. .t.;.; BEZKOR , /1 A. - M.T KENKRE'.'j'.u:

3- .

. i + c '.:..; ' < s . ~ .. . .

. t o u,,. .;.w, t

.t ..,

-l .

..SUB: .;G J.:i .B.c4NCR:M-82-01599.3 :. .w *' i.x... N. *'. M, ' ' ' -.

~ '

- e '

{ REF: ' GTT -9291. - ( . . .Yj , .

. .o:_ : w..

['.. .

. ' . . '.Yrf.. 7p' .24. A . ' .. . . . -

a.

m

. -.THIS TWX :IS TO CONFIRM iTHAT..YOUR.

~

INTERPR$TATIONS .IN :GTT-929L' ARE '

@ F-CORRECT. ./

(.:.,'.:.f.

~y ,

'...3 .

IF MORE ' INFORMATIO'N' IS NEEDED PLEASE ADVISE. . '.;. ? " 4 i'- . .. . /.

.) M. R. MCDAY 1' Y.. '.#'

~U.N'.@ N.

' ~- .

t. ENGINEERING MANAGER. N. '. '

, CPSES JOBSITE .c.. 7,.. . .* . ,. ., . 3:4 . ,

.' - i ,. :.. ?; ,. . - ,

o ,, .. ... .....

.a.. . , . _

y 1 ,.

g, ,g ,.a3,~.

. ,. . . , 3. .,. , , , . . .

.'.:,, , 1:: -.' cl . f o. v . ,<;.'..

W. ;' MRM: RMK: WHC: ERY 'c ,P. . . ~ . . > . . ~ c. r.:.. .

. .c . ...;.

',CC: . ARMS . / FIL6. . ; t . T '.. - .,-

".^

.1

? .. * . . . . . y,..:.. f. .. ...h' .:-* Qt.;

s.

{' f~ ~ A, ~' .. '

'r". '

- ' - 7' .

7.' '

. GH ENG A~NYM f. ./ ;" 5 .<.W. ..t.** .

, 7.1..' .. . 1. c . .i?.. ..' ;;. ,

. Time: 10:09 12/15/G2 EST - -

~.. , .

56 sec6nds

.. Connect ,Time.: s -

s. .n.. .

~ .: . .

". :. p ..-:.

, t. *.j.

.. y F. .'r.:.c ';. , . , ,

. . . .. . r .:., . :.. '. :.. .., .. .

.: . .c , -

n . . ,

.j.. , . ,

- n .: , . . .o, . ..

+.

.v , . ., .

~

..<, .-);.. . ,e Vr.vr.:..

.t . . . . .: n . . -Q. .v:'.. . \,,%. , .. .. . .. ~... .M. :. ,. ?. %,.. . ?~ . . s ?: -%. s :. w .i. . ..

C L.. i. . .. .

. . ... .. ... ..~. .. .

..e...,.,. .. . . ,

... ......- w.. 1. w e.g.. . 4. 3

. . . , . . ;, i y<.

c.

. n:4

. . :;,ni .;i.

. . y.9, ..

....e., e. .pn..

.s..;. . ,, . . ..,

. . . 9 . .> . . .'...

. ~. . . . . ;, . . . . ' .. . ... . , ,.

p . Q. g .. r .3. s.1, ;.; . ,, ;;,5.,,?q:,a, .j .

... g.. + ,

~ '

r, ,Yv9ya%...:.y.. . ;: . ,f .

L jo .- ** c y;fj, ,.. . o . ,.

_.,..,. 5.nl9.y',.,_.. .-. .

( '?(

r >

g.'

c.,

'6.p. ,.* . 's .I** -

,1, t . ,[., .

c_____

.n . h .* . .ge,, .

' w M .. . ., .

o g

o, A.

TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.

P. O. SOX tess . GLEN ROSE. TEXA8 1esta CPPA-25,810 December 16, 1982 R.E. Ballard Gibbs & Hill. Inc.

393 7th Ave.

New York, NY 10001 l COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ADDITIONAL WELD ANOMALIES ON G.W.B. NCR M-82-01589 REF: GTT 9302

Dear Mr. Ballard:

This-letter is to clarify itemis 1 through 9 on the referenced GTT letter.

Items:

l 1. See attached sheets for depth of under cut.

2. See attached sketch for clarification of notation for fillet welds

. at " cross" joints.

3. The number preceding the assembly number is a number assigned on site and is not revelant for your purposes.

4. See attached sheets for depth of underfill.

S. The weld number is 221 instead of 281.

6. See attached sheets for locations.

7. The under-cut depth is given on the attached sheets, and the IF, IP and linear indication will have to be evaluated by exploratory grinding.

8. Weld No. 4FS is to be changed to 12FS and 1/4 fillet weld may be used for eval,uation.

9. The BMD and unacceptable BM repair will have to be reviewed. The locations of the welds will be furnished on TWX-14.067.

Very truly yours, R.M. Kissinger

/ Project Civil Engineer s0K G RMK/$1C/sgf ec: ARMS OL

e

- %. )

. l

. . l

~

l s b am 1

' l 1 . '

A A IS NS l+ NS PA R TIA L D-157-f

, 1 l

g-i it E3 - h -

is F3 '

I t W n

\ M E // / f fi ff fr IA I4 N.S g y$ .

4 i

- S E*CTION A-A r .

t enmnemoounc.

nyss I TCM 1. CLA Al fl( ATiOA/ OF W ELO NOT ATIOML

-.... ..... e '-' .; ,,.

==e. ae.

ms. T== unuties see_ use. cPPA-15; 910 6...,-, c. p. a. a. a. =te= Tuxm

., - f ,. l ,.

l

. I

-l C2) 7; . ,

}

v -

13 0-i20-1 47 FS UC 84" x 3/16" x 1/16" .

UC 4" x 3/16" x 1/16" .

2U1 D-138-1-B PLATE ADJACENT TD WELD 173. .

BASE METAL DAHACE 3/8" x 4" ,

x 1/4" .

1 225 D-138-1-C 2E UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" :

211 0-138-1-D 31 US 7" (UNDERFILL - 3/32") .

IF 3/8" .. P, US 6" LENCTH (UNDE 1 FILL 1/16") ','

US 3" LENGTH (UNDERF112.1/16")

US 2ia " LENCTH (UNDERFILL 5/32")

US 1 1/8" LENGTH (UNCERFILL 1/16") -

us 14" LENoru (uuDhkIILL 1/16")

212 D-138-1-D 33 W IF 4" 213 D-138-1-0 33 E IF 1" x 1/16" *

. UC 5/8" x 4" x 1/16" UC 3/4" x 3/32" x 1/16" 231 D-138-1-4 37 IF 5/16" 190 D-138-1-A 60 UC 1 1/8" x 1/8" x 1/16" -

UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" 192 D-138-1-8 74 E UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" 193 D-138-1-5 79 UC 1" x 4" x 1/16"

~ 203 D-138-1-C 97 UC .124" x 3/16" x 1/16"

! UC 10" x 3/16" x 1/16" 199 D-135-1-C 99 UC 1%" x 3/16" x 3/32" l

204 D-13'8-1-C 111 W UC " x 1/8" x 1/16" ,

206 D-13a-1-D 127 UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 1/16" I

1 l

~ :_ ,

~.

g 215 D-138-1-0 14e IP 3/8" 191-D-138- 1-4 167 IP \"

29u u-1Ju-1-3 173 UC ik" x 3/16" x 1/16"

UC 4" x 1/8" x 1/lb" 228 D-138-1-a 175 UC 14" x 4" x 1/16" 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" 227 D-138-1-B 177 UC 202 D-138-1-C 178 UC 3/8" x 3/16" x 1/16" ,

~

224 D-138-1-C 185 UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" .

207 D-138-1-0 188 UC 3/16" x 3/32" x 1/16" ,

214 D-138-1-0 221 CkACK 7/16" LEETH 178 D-140-1-C 1 UC 7h" x 4" x 1/16" (Best. W-92 & 94) 175 u-140-1-C 2 IF 1 1/8" LENGTH (l' S. ot W-W) -j 185 D-140-1-A 2 UC 3/4" x 3/16" x 1/16" (l' S of W-136 IF 2" (6" 3. of W-140) .,

IF 2 3/8" (3" N. of W-142 .

161 0-140-1-8 31 UC 3/8"-x 1/16" x 1/16" '

182 D-14u-1-8 43 UC 14 " x 1/8" x 3/e4" ist D-140-1-a 45 . IF 1" 173 1>140-1-C 89 S UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" 174 D-140-1-C 89 M uc 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" w wa m - w - w e .- e e- 4, -p- -

L 176 D-140-1-C 9u UC 3/4" x 3/16" x 5/64" UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 5/64" -

170 0-140-1-C 93 N UC 7/8" x 3/16" x 1/16" e 171 0-140-1-C 93 S UC 3/8" x 3/16" x 1/8" UC 1/8" DIA. 1 3/32" DEEP ',

UC 3/16" x 3/32" x 3/32" 177 D-140-1-C 94 IF 17" x 3/16" 179 D-140-1-C 96 UC 4" x 3/16" x 1/16" 16s D-140-1-C V7 S WP 4 " 1.ENCTH (UF - 1/16") ,.

UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" -

167 D-140-1-C 99 S UC 1 " x 1/16" x 1/16" .*

IF 3 3/4" <

166 D.-140-1-C 101 S UC 24" x 4" x 1/16" .

164 D-14U-1-C 103 M UC k" x k" x 1/16" -

.i 165 D-140-14 103 S UC 7/8" x 4" x 3/32" -

163 0-14u-1-5 111 M. UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 1/16"

UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 1/16" ,

150 D-140-1-4 112 UC 3/16" DIA. X 1/16" DEPTH .

172 D-140-1-C 32" x k" x.3/64" 115 UC -

Im2 D-140-1-8 117 UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" .'

183 D-140-1-B 124 UC . 3/a" x 1/16" x 1/i6" -

l UC 3/16" DIA. X 3/32" DEPTH leu D-140-1-s 125 UC %" x 3/32" x 1/16" 184 D-140-1-B 126 M UC " x 1/16" x 1/16" UC 3/4" x 1/16" x 1/16" f .

. ~

. 5 l

139 D-14u-t-B L27 If 1" Ltc 3/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" 15s u-140-1-A 141 UC \" x 1/16" x 3/04" 186 D-14u-1-B 144 UC (" DIA. 1 3/64" DEPTH (2 PLACES) 35 D-149-L -

3 PS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 1/16" UC 1" x 1/16" x 1/16" ,

UC 44" x 1/8" x *1/1t" .

32 0-149-L ' 4 IF 3/8" LENGTH 37 D-149-1 5 MS UC " x 1/8" x 3/64" UC 4" x 3/32" x 3/32" -

20 D-149-1 L1 M. UC 3/8" x L/8" x 3/64" '

UC " x 3/16" x 3/64" (2 PLACES)

UC 4" x 1/8" x 3/64" (2 PLACES)

UC 20h" x 3/16" x 3/64" +

L 39 D-149-L- 11 S. UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" l- . . ,

! 18 D-149-1 13 NS UC 1" x 1/8" x 3/64"

[

UC 1 3/8" x L/8" x 3/64" UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/64" , .

UC 1" x 1/8" x 3/64" UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/64" .

UC - 4" x 1/8" x 1/16" t

L 40 D-149-1 13 FS UC _ " x 1/16" x 3/64" l UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" 41 D-149-1 L5 IF 4" WIUTH (W and of weld)

IF 14" LENGTH (depth indeterminate)

[

, - A 26 D-149-1 16 UC 1" x 1/16" x 1/16" 30 D-149-1 16 UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/8" ,

UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/32" .

28 D-149-1 22 PS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/64" .'

UC \" x 1/16" x 3/64" .

3/4" x 1/8" x 1/16" :-',

29 D-149-1 25 uC 27 D-149-1 30 UC \" x 1/16" x 1/16"

f, UNIDENTIFIED LINEAR INDICATION I 3d D-14u-1 43 MS 5" La.hCTH - .

31 0-149-1 45 FS IF 1\" LENGTH ."

UC 4" x 3/32" x 3/64" :-

33 D-149-1

46 WELD IS 4" SNORT OF 881NG FULL LENCTH UC k" x 1/16" x 3/32"

~

l 21 D-149-1 47 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/32" UC 3/4" x %" x 3/16" ,

UC h" x 4" x 1/8" .

34 ' D-149-1 47 NS IF 1 3/4" LENCTH

(" x 3/16" x 1/16" (2 FLACES) ,'

UC 19 D-149-1 48 US MORE THAN 1/16" UNDEAS!ZE, h"- .

(1/8" FILLET)

UC 3" x 1/8" x 3/64" l UC 3/8" x 1/m" x 3/64" l UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64"

_ , . y . - ..- _

s, N. .

~

i

'4 l ~

e .

! 24 D-149-1 50 IP LEhCTH INDETEMINATE (W und of wid) l 23 0-149-1 53 IF LENGTH INDETEMINATE :

22 D-149-1 54 IF LENGTH INbETEMINATE .

25 0-149-1 55 IF 3/8" LENGTH IF %" WIDTH, LLNGTH INDETEMINATE

~

60 D-151-1 3 MS IF 3/8"

. 62 0-151-1 4 NS UC 1/8" DIA. x 3/64" .

57 D-151-1 5 us UC 1 1/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" IF 24" LENGTH

~

46 D-151-1 6 IF 4" LENGTH 49 D-151-1 8 PS UC " x 1/8" x 1/16" UC %" x 1/8" x 1/16"

UC 3/_16" x 1/16" x 1/16" .

59 D-151-1 9 NS UC 3/16" DIA. x 1/16" DhEP 24" x 1/8" x 1/16" 61_D-151 9 MS UC 66 D-151-1 9 MS . UC " x 3/16" x 3/16" .

48 D-151-1 10 UC 11h" x 1/8" x 3/64" i[ ,

UC 3/8" x 1/8" x 3/64".

[ 53 u-151-1 11 MS UC 29" (INTEMa11TTANT) x '1/8" 5/04" -

l:

I:i l

$~

f .'

f-e

. s

.c

~

. ;X 45 D-151-1 12 FS bC %" x 1/16" x 3/64" * '[ l UC 3/8" x 4" x 3/64" .-

UC 24" x 5/La" x 1/16" .: .

47 D-151-1 12 FS UC k"DIA. x 1/16" .:

44 D-151-1 13 FS UC 3/16" x 3/32" x 3/64" .

UC 1/8" DIA. x 1/16" DEPTH ..

UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" ; ,.

54 D-151-L 13 MS UC 1" x 1/16" x 3/,64" ;I[ ,

42 D-151-1 29 FS UC %" x 1/8" x 1/16" ,-,

52 0-151-1 29 NS WP 6" 1.ENGTH (%" FII.I.ET)

UC %" x 1/L6" x 1/L6" 51 I>-L5L-L 33 NS UC i'" x 1/8" x 1/16" .

43 u-151-1 34 IK 3/4" x 3/16" x 3/64" ,

67 D-L51-1 46 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 1/16" '

UC h" x 3/4" x 1/16" 65 D-151-1 47 UC 84" x 1/8" x 1/16" ,

50 D-151-1 4e UC y 1/8" x 1/8" x 1/16" -

64 D-L51-1 49 NS UC 4" x L/8" x 1/16" :

IF \" 1.ENGTE :* ,

. 63 0-151-1 50 NS - UC .3/8" x 1/8" x 3/64" .-

Se u-151-L 51 MS m.'t.E IM WE1.D 3/16" DIA. I 1/16".DEFTH

58 D-151-1 5L FS IF i 1/8" I.ENGTH .

y --

, , -. -.m4 w .- - . o -. m , -.-~w.

- A

.~

55 D-151-1 52 NS IF 1" -

130,D-151-1 2 FS UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 1/16" -

76 u-l'53-1 3 NS UC 14" x 1/8" x 3/64"

UC g" x 1/16" x 3/64" (2 PLACES) :

UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" -

WP 14" LENGTH (%" FII.LET)

UC 5" x 1/16" x 3/64" -.

UC %" x 1/16" x 1/16" (2 FLACES) -

126 D-153-1 3 PS UC 3/16" x 1/16" .x 3/64" 129 D-153-1 5 NS UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" 132 D-153-1 6 FS UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" (2 FLACES) ,

127 D-153-1 7 FS UC 4" x 1/8" x 3/04" .,

, 71 D-153-1 10 NS UC \" x 1/8" x 3/64"

AS 3/16" DIA., Dh,FTH x 1/64" 136 D-153-1 10 PS UC h" x 1/4" x 3/32" UC 1/8" DIA. I 1/16" DEPTH .

- ~.

70 D-153-1 11 NS AS h" x 3/16" DEFTH 1/64" 134 D-153-1 11 NS UC 1 " x 1/16" x 3/64" k 135 D-153-1 12 FS UC %" x 1/16" x 1/16" (2 PLACES)

UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" .

l. UC 2h" x 4" x 1/16" .

~

68 D-153-1 13 NS UC 1h" x 1/16" x 3/64" 137 D-153-1 15 PS UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" (3 PLACES) -

79 D-153-1 16 NS UC 1- 1/8" x 5/16" x 1/d" ,

g *%'.

.. . r.

< s 10 7s D-153-1 18 NS UC 24" x 1/8" x 3/64"

~

123'D-153-1 20 FS UC 24" x 1/8" x 3/64" 30 D-153-1 21 Ns UC 3/a" x 3/16" x 3/64" 77 D-153-1 23 NS 1F 6" LINCTM CMACK 34" LONG 122 D-153-1 23 FS %" x 1/16" x 3/M" (2 PLAUES)

UC 123 D-153-1 25 F3 UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" (4 PLACES) .

~

124 D-153,1 28 UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" -

12m D-153-1 46 NS 2" WP, IF, UC CONCUKPJ.NTLY (WP 5/le" FILLET, UC 1/1b")

131 D-153-1 46 FS IF 3/8" .

o .

'133 D-153-1 47 F3 UC 3/4" x 1/16" x 1/16" (5 PLACES) 69 D-153-1

50 NS UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/M"

, 73 0-153-1 Su FS UC 4" x 1/8" x 1/16" (3 PLACES) .

, AS 3/4" x 4" x 3/32" ,

72 D-153-1 51 FS UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" UC 3/16" x 4" x 1/16" AS 3/4" x 4" x 1/32" .

AS 1 " x 3/16" x 3/32" ,

' ~

75 D-153-1 51 NS UC %" x 1/16" x 3/32" 74'p-153-1 52 WELD 15 1" LESS THAN REQUll?ED

[i LENGTH ON EACH END.

UC 4" x 4" x~1/m" 135 D-153-1 57 FS UC 3/4" x 3/16" x 1/8" UC 3/s" x 4" x 1/s"

, s A -

. II .-

146 D-155-L 7 FS UC k" x 1/16" x 1/16" 143'D-l'5-L 5 11 FS UC 4" x L/16" x 3/64" (3 l' LACES) l UC 1" x L/8" x 3/32" 139 D-155-L 13 NS UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 1/16" 142 0-155-1 13 PS UC 3" x 1/a" x 3/64" ,

UC 24" x 1/8" x 3/64" UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" .

UC 14" x 1/4" x L/16" ' '

UC 3/16" DIA. x 1/16" DEFTH .

n 154 D-155-1 18 FS UC 1 1/8" x 3/16" x 3/64" 155 u-155-1 19 ks UC 3/L6" Dia. x 3/32" deep .

UC h" x 3/8" x 1/16" 148 D-155-1 20 FS UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" UC 3/8" x 3/16" x 3/64" UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" 147 D-155-1 22 FS UC 4" x 3/32" x 3/64" -

t. . :

l: ..

156 u-155-1 23 FS UC 3/16" x 1/u" x 3/64" US 2" LENGTH, MORE THAN 1/16" UNDERSIZE (5/L6" FILLET) 144 D-155-L~ 41 FS UC 4" x 3/16" x 3/32" 153 D-155-1 45 NS UC 1 5/u" x 3/16" x 3/64" L52 D-L55-1 46 PS 2" UC (1/8"), IF CONCUlulENTLY.' \" LESS TMAN THAN REQUIRED LkETH UC 4" x 1/16".x 3/64" 14D D-155-1. 48 FS UC 5/8" x 3/16" x 3/64"

+-s- 9- -

T-- --

M--* e' es =*et C 1 M w w-ey

4

. . . , . . . - - I o

i 141 0 155-1 48 NS 7" WP, UC, IF CONCURRENTLY *

. (UC 1/16". WP 1/4" FILLET)

UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" 145 D-1'55-1 52 FS UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" ,,

93 D-157-1 1 NS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/64" -

92 D-157-1 8 N. AS 4" DIA. x 1/32" ::-

97 u-157-1 8 NS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 1/16" .,, [

UC (" x 1/16" x 3/64" ,,

94 D-157-1 y NS IF h" LENGTR f

91 D-157-1 11 FS UC_ 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" (4 PLACES) [**

87 D-157-1 13 PS UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) -

5.

10u D-157-1 13 NS UC k" x 1/16" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) ,

UC 3" x L/16" x 1/16" 90 D-157-1 14 FS UC 3/4" x 1/8" x 3/32" IF 1/8" DIA.

46 D-157-1 15 UC 4" x 1/8" x 3/64" ,

w 102 !> 157-1 15 NS UC V x 1/16" x 1/16" -

101 D-157-1 16 NS UC 3/4" x 1/16" x 1/16" 103 0-157-1 18 UC h" x 1/8" x 3/64" (2 PLACES)

UC 14" x 3/16" x 1/16" UC 3/4" x 1/s" x 3/64"

3 D-157-1 19 FS UC 5/8" x 3/16" x 1/16" -'

85 D-157-1 19 FS UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" (2 PLACES) .

a s A -

y 82 D-157-1 22 FS UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" (2 PLACES) ,

UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" "

104 D-157-1 23 NS UC 23" x 1/8" x 1/16" .-

81 D-157-1 25 PS UC (" x 1/16" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) ,

UC 3/4" x 1/16" x 3/64" UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" ,,

89 D-157-1 38 IF 5/16" LENGTH i 99 D-157-1 46 NS WhLD IS 1 1/8" SHORT OF REQUIED

LENGTH -

AS 14" x 3/16" x 1/16" -

UC h" x 1/8" x 1/16" (5 PLACES) f, WF 24" LENGER (3/16" FLLLET) '.

96 0-157-1 47 NS UC 14" x 3/16" x 1/16" '.-

IF 2" LENGTR .

AS' 4" DIA. (1/16" DEEF) ,.

98 D-157-1 ;-

47 FS UC h" x 3/32" x 1/16" l 95 0-157-1 4a FS UC k" x 4" x 3/32" (2 PLACES)

UC h" x 1/8" x 1/16" (3 PLACES)

.UC 14" x 3/16" x 1/16" 84 D-157-1 49 FS UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" (2 PLACES) 88 D-157-1 50 UC 4" x 1/16" x 3/64" (2 PLACES) .

,- UC " x 1/16" a 3/64" (3 PLACES) .

l IF 5/16" WIlyfM i 151 D-157-1 54 IF ' 14" 105 D-159-1 3 MS UC 4" x 1/8" x 1/16" .

UC " x 1/8" x 1/16" i

o

t

' ~ -

.s h" x 3/16" x 3/64" 120 bl59-1 3 FS UC 1u6'p-15E-1 4 NS UC 14" x 3/16" x 1/16" UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" 118 D-159-1 5W UC 3/8" x 3/16" x 1/16"

119 D-159-1 5E IF 1/8" x 1/32" .

I 121 D-159-1 7 PS UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" ,

117 D-159-1 9 UC 3/4" x 4" x 1/16" . ..

114 0-159-1 10 MS UC 3 3/4" x 3/16" x 1/16" 109 D-159-1 12 FS IF 24" LENGTH (4" FILLET) .

115 D-159-1 12 UC 3/8" x 1/8" x 1/16" ,

AS 3/8" x 4" x 3/64" 110 D-159-1 21 Bot. UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 3/64" ;

111 D-159 21 Top UC 2" x 1/8" x 3/64" .

!b 113 D-159-1 33 IF 3/4" LENGTH -

l 10e D-15V-1 45 MS UC 4" x 1/16" x 1/16" (4 PLACES) l' UC 4" x 3/16" x 3/32" -

107 D-159-1 46 FS IF 3/4" UC 14" x 1/8" x 1/16" I 112 D-159-1 47FS UC 1 1/8" x 3/16" x 1/16" UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/lb" IF ' 3/8" LINGTR 116 D-159-1 48 FS UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" l O s' .

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

- - , ,,-- - - + y

L \. -

. I

~ \

Las D-122-1 #1 5 UC 3 1/u" x 3/16" x 1/16" .

UC 4" x 5/16" x 1/16" UC 4" x 3/16" x 1/16" 157 D-122-1 #1 11 UC 1 1/8" x 3/16" x 1/16" 159 D-122-1 #1 23 W UC

1 1/8" x 4" x 1/16" -

226 D-122-1 #2 2 UC 4" x 3/32" x 1/16" 19e D-122-1 #2 5 UC 1 1/s" x 3/8".m 3/32" '.-

197 D-122-1 #2 8 HOI.E IM WELD 3/16" x 1/16" 196 D 122-1 #2 12 UC 3/16" x 1/16" x 3/64" .

222 D-122-1 #3 4E IP 1/8" LENGTE ,}

210 0-122-1 #3 5 UC 1 1/8" x 4" x 1/16" *!

o 219 D-122-1 #3 s UC 1 3/4"~u 5/16" x 1/16" UC 4" D1A. x 1/16" UC 7" x 5/16" x 3/32"

UC 1 3/4" x 4" x 1/16" 221 D-122-1 #3 9E UC. 5/16" x 4" x 1/16" UC 3/8" x 1/16" x 1/16" . . ,

220 D-122-1 #3 13 1 IF 3/16" '

l

,- 2u5 D-122-1 f4 9 US %" DIA. 1 3/32" DEPTH 1 .

229 D-122-1 #4 23 TOP UC 1 1/8" x 4" x 1/16" 1

i: 150 0-152-1-2 UC . 2" x 4" x 1/16" 232 0-161-1-2 PLATE D-161-1-2: BASE METAL DAMAGE th" x 3/16" x 1/s" PLATE D-138-1-4. UNACCEPTABLE

! 5ASE METAL EkPAIX, 6" DIA.

(2 PLACES) l

^

4 6

\ .

l 23U D-175-1 #1 10 UC 3/16" x 3/4" x 3/64" 196 0-175-1 #2 1 ,

UC 3/4" x 4" x 3/32" 195 D-175-1 #2 13 UC 14" x 3/16" x 3/32" 218 6-175-L #3 2E UC 24" x 4" x 1/16" ..

UC Ik" x 4" x 1/16" {

223 0-175-1 #3 2E UC 6k" x 4" x 1/16" UC 1\" x 4" x 1/16" 217 D-175-1 #3 8 UC 3/8" x 3/16" x 1/16"

~

216 D-175-1 #3 12 UC 1 1/u x 3/16" x 3/64" 209 D-175-1 #3 21 UC 1" x 3/16" x 1/16" s

we60 l

4 e

e

9 -

t I

h .**f"E

. ; m -v ., ,/ M h 12. - .;

.' .. :.h - 7 M - . .

) ,.s. TWI SITE, .3 4 685 8

hu

-8 MW U MEE -

~

'H -

q 91btleh660.--sy "q.=t ..*-- . 8.'*. -

x ., . . g fj f, f g.g., .3 s -

y d*

3

. .) (,): \"I f L DeCassER l g...i.'.. .,

s%D. *

'4.

OTT -" D L "

I ~ Y' .W

. Jos 2323 .E' -

j.

- ? ATTWTIQti J.S. GEORCE/M. McBAY/R.M. KISSINGER/W.R. CRotf5 E$Nk' c s.

I

--' 2- -* 4 .1=* N MOr1M3 )

.; -w.

SUBJECT:

1) ADDITICIEAL WEID Am0 MALI 58 CII G.W.S.-tBIIT 1 lM n 4/sl5A 3; w

2

REFERENCE:

1) TWE-14035 CIEtt BETIII n' ,. .

as.

f.r , 2) OTT-9302 , , .

.J::.<, ..r.

- -g *

'-?,

AS DISCUSSED IN TEE TELaccel, FLEASE PROVIDE 300RE DETAIL 5

h*l

-- **5 '

3,: A.

.r WITE RESPECT TO 5.M.D AND 13tACCEPTABLE RASE BERTAL REPAIRS O u0TED cm TER IAst FACI or TEz List or WELD AmoseAI.Its.

P .

yt.8h/..g --

ALSO PROVIDE 08 TER ACTUAL USABLE WELD SIII AND LOCATION ,+

-(.g *

.s . 3.-

OF TIE POLI 4erING 'IF' AND 'IP' CASES. *f 7 -- L

c. . .b+* g _--

.1)' D-140-1-C WEIb 094 '

L.'

' (s '>l .

2) D-149-1 WELD 443HS k ..

4 ;;" . '

I

3) D-149-1 WELD $50, 53, 54, 55 v p' '.~d 4) D-159 WEZo #12 7.

v * *q . ,, p*c.c 4...--. .

TErs Is Am EmIM macDEst. MORz C0cLD roLIcer sEonTI.T IF

.N ; .r. . ,,,*.:., ,I .

ZD w~.w; WE CANNOT ACCEPT AS BUILT DISCOUNTING TEE TOTAI. 'IF'[IP'

b .* [; j.'"./

[. LINGTE OF THE WEID. . .D,,'(('.Q

. '[ y.

,z ..fm

u. . - -

- - n '.a. . ..

,j,,';Q ~.;-) TELECote asoCEST TO BILL CROWE BAS ALREADY BREN MADE Ott ~ ~ ', ,,; , '

.. w i 12/15/82. ' ". M. . . $h ." *

, ~.-*-, . 's

,.h . *; ys .,

\

..? *

&5.,** '

. D). . 1.E. BALIAED/I.!,. a j DR/A.M. EBIERE/8. SENGUPTA f-4, %.Nl.

r. - :: .

l, . . 9

,l g te .[ ~ t-

,g ? ; - ( ....... _

i. . 4. ig hg,

b g L,b . .,

CottrIRMATI0tle Relen Leong, lith floor V

' . n'[,

c

:- *.(

" d.f eM..i. . ,l ser-431 l- *e .'

4 1, i ,' f.*f: 1..,.,. , , x . .

st.-a m w - . - -- ., u. . - . - - -

. , $. 0'

*'** : . L:. -: ; i . . . -

p.

..:.d to.. .

. ~; ..N.i :. a e,.: :.$' 'l.. .ds6 . g.':Q&* . *&. .F fs : ;- ~%., ,,,_,,,,,, .

j q ':tl:.c . .a

% .pb.y. .. .

e,e.i}::,.,. . . 4- @ . ,*

4 , ~ ; .. :. P.s

%.g . Eg . A.;j .. Es .% q4g p -l$t. ; J.Q.4 j - . . :. - .

a .. ' ' .i - '. ; ; ..;. :. . .c ,

~7.' .

./ ' . $.hy

~

M. T.} $..... .

.( g% T,,y ,U.$,Md'M/;.!.$:0.$[15 ,

".w.,...

a,,w .

.g. ,w ..;; . . y . .,.,. -.. .. . . ,

u :.,

g

.(, 2

- = .< ; . .,

p, ..I.r.: .. ;., .a ng,y': -<.

e ;... .

..,>..~;- > ;;

.. . [-

4 = . ..

. g 1...r s..,

, . v. - .

. N . - . ; s. ' ' . ng.'ce... ..-

.W % ,. a.

k.y:A., -- . . ; . . %. s . 4 .,'.v. - 'a. *A.8 : e.e,. , .

i.-

. A .y -

i . .-

.,., w e ~ . - . c .. . . ;,:

;, y s . . -c

.r.

.. ...; _ . . , . * .,.:~...'.

. . n .e . A ,'s- .. . , . .~ 3.

4 ,;. .

I .

f -

r . ;. .-: , . .

Y

.? . , . .;. < ;.

N

,5~* *

] 4.if.

4 ..,...p.-:e ..

. - .-,'.:U:,j..,%?.y,:<.

.,,.,... , q ., ,.1 ,y.. g ; .

a,,. ..

.c.....

, ;f .,', .. , . ,., t,

! *. ,.:y. % , s: u. t ' . , .-

O4 W$.J.* :$. !a. n @.$v.H

W,'. .%.$u' . .V r..' . . . :$$N$W..h,;

v.. % 'n y v,.,

ff'n:* .

c&W.

4 1

, R :. (, 7. e W ..,

r* C. . .;,'.J 4 V ty,b. ,% , ..J . ' . 3 .,

~

- &,7 e,.Y'!* h ~.h * ' {',':0h N,h.h'S W X ? ." .

5 p..~.e....,;,w :.94,W...:p W .y,yq c a a, ..p w .9 ,'y.Q $hi,$a-g.g..j.A.,.. c ,...

(.7

' u - -

z .sr : .. .,..

3 r *. . ,.y r.,.r.r:.,,.9 _..Qg.;v.;9 g. /,_ , 3 .**..

l

__} Y_ ~ ~a _ - __ .__._ _ 3 g. .. .$-(

...1 .

g,Y.nr.f v% .

c.

,g , . . . , ,

. , :.y , .

l -tos M'L5th ssg vg C, 5 ET .J.

sn* 2Gi gg gy yg,g:gpy

~

IET. escomber 17 1982

.s - TE %

) '

3. If E p, g,

4. , , s TE 12-ze-8 L geoember 17, 1952

.: W K #t4.057 KT15 L. E. Ballard / E. L.. Becker / A.. IL. Neakre REV tS EO IW FOR M4 Tied C BTA tN EO p.Rotvg t icts

'g M: Addftfemel Bald Anomeifts en W8-tait 1 oM 12lt7l82. Fieto To

MF- 67T-4352 cew ; tta v Ty is. (soc. ' l l .

The fo11 swing hfermatfe is the addttfonel details en the defectfve welds '5 s' N )

l: requested err 877-9317.

1.. 3. - On pleoe 5 161-1-4.. attached to W. annection plate on Fiece up from bottom east earnrt,_and en N, edge _of plate.

-55 7 N eotTm % c.copropn#i2. nam --

2. shpt~atde nose metaT iFiipeir -AF N.NM CeluBn ffM~IW e 167, from E..edys sed depth of defect is .465",10" N. of 4th column from the north 13" from N.. edge, and depth of defect is 8W..

3. 5-149-1-C N.94 - 3/8 Nin. fillet can he uset 4.. B-149-1 W. 43 M - Befect removed by light griding, meterial thicimess not reduced, no defect.

d 5.. D-1411-1 E 50. - Top and. of we.1d, depth of defect .21F.

E. 53 - Top and. of weld, depth af defect 1/4"..

E 54 - Top and of weld, depth of defect .2M".

W 55 - Tap and of weid, depth of defect 3/16". ,

6- D-159-TyW 12 :1/4 N11et weld may he used for cap on full penettstion weld.

l l 7. B-120-1.'W .40 - Top and of weld, depth.ef defect 1/4*. . , ,

z .

8. B-120-1t.W '41?- Betten end of weld, depth of defect.1/8"..

l .

9. D-138-li D N'31 W - 3"fFrom top of vertical weld.' 4":long, and" maximum depth '

.' of defect .039". . ,. '

y . ,; . .'

If pos need soce.h$sesstion, please' advise. T' 3

,..p:

92

. N.. E. NcSep I s. - f:' ^

~

'UNID; i a - I-

't m*.

Engineering M neger .

s CP5ES Johstte -

A. f Q/

6-007.r 1 NAMd0m:WNCrery ..t. 'i0

, $q ,) LITE TE mir:gg

).

cc: ARNS:/, Fila. ! p'. . 7. >

..ggy.yT; S '. , .

.. ?. :-

.9 u. m-l N;.

.~ ' 'N '"

, :' .' .;i@h.W.."..%:i h,w.... w .- .c-

.; . {, 4:y: , , c ', ., ,

y. *[ * . f

,.- }, }: y .:l

1

- ';.:5 :

. :.s.g. '

Joe A 2.3%

MLO ss$-tas c, g7 per.R N ggy, MM BAtt 1219 %%

CED. 81 WS OATE iS//f/h.- .f TUSI SITE 910-8908-660 ,

DECEMBER \ ~} j \ $ T 1 GTT - 9 S \ *)

JOB 2323 ATTENTION: J.B. GEORGE /M.R. McBAY/R.M. KISSINGER/

C.R. HOOTON

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL WELD ANOMALIES ON GWB UNIT-1

REFERENCE:

1) TWX-14035 2) GTT-9302

3) GTT-9312 FURTHER TO REFERENCE 3) PLEASE PROVIDE US THE ACTUAL USABLE WELD SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE FOLLOWING 'IF' AND

'IP' CASES.

1) D-12-1 WELD #40, 41

2) D-138-1-D WELD #33W l

I THIS HAS BEEN ALREADY REQUESTED BY TELECON WITH W. CROWE ON 12/16/82 AND 12/17/82.

M 4H"- -

R.E. BALLARD/E.L. B ZKOR/A.M. KENKRE/S. SENGUPTA

f CONFIRMATION: Helen Leong, lith floor.

[ _

ST-4237' AMK-245

- '. . . , . e i y p . .. ,

" . ;;.. .. . t .. . y p',,,n g . .

a pyg .7-

,: . . .; ; . z .. .

,. .g. ~. '-..: n. , .:. .. .;9.. . @&q. e. ..Ya

,.-n m -

w+, . .v.- . .g.z.w- ' Wp:-

. yyg,h.- w ..; m'w.y:s pyk %;. ' .4.#yy..

.9n%. , y c. . .,=. m .h w".wx.ew.winx. -a;sfg., ...

f:p:. v.m. . . . . '.; w

','%p/;*f *; ~ ,f,pn.g?--

)* . 'E .". ):" ~ ~ 'I 3,hig, ;. g g $ }k '

- .k ..if' :l f. " :., . : L. ..:*Q;n,[,jf. W nNg j;-: L f, >:,. ,o. .

s!

unn ~ - ..

..., . ~ -

3,,'RevNdIM/2.00058[*Line: ' 2A '

' 7. '<hf MMi>it. ~ .

.: *. ^ h N ' l ,, *

- [g...I-t.'4: -b ' .,

. r. .

~.. .w. gh

.. . g. a GHlENGaA NYK. . . ' -

. . * ,. :g.y --

w ~

- -r . .:. ~ :- 1 .

. TUGCO ORSE. . . . 4 :. ,; 4

. . ,,. .['Q, ,

DECEMBER 1?. 1982 * '~ S NN * -

TWX #14.067 (CORRECTIONS)- 'r. M. KENKRE .' i , -

ATTN: R. E.- BALLARD / 'E.' L. BEZKOR / A.

l s

,,,7',_. '

., M { . h SUS: ADDITIONAL WELD ANOMALICS ON GWB-UNIT 1 . '

15'

[.<'..{

~

REF: GTT-4312' / TWX .#14. 067. ..

l .

.~...

[ ,

g' THE FOLLOWING ARE CORRECTIONS TO TWX.#14.067 SENT DECEMBER 1982:

y,,- .r .. 17',

PLEA 9E NOTE THESE CORRECTIONS ON YOUR COPY OF THEl -

REFERENCED

,. : 4 .,-.-tgTWX.- g- ~*

ALL OTHER INFORMATION IS CORRECT AS.IS. . .

,.c e

n p .. . . .

~. , , . ' , c

..I

1. B.M.D. - ON PIECE.D-161-1-4, ATTACHED TO W. CONNECTION. PLATE ) J.',. ~ ...

ON PIECE D-157-1*. 3" UP FR.OM. BOT.. T. OM, EA._ST.' CO.RN.ER. . .

.%._ .L...:,

. +3 ' ..Q 7,.;

' ON N. EDGE.OF PLATE.- ..

. .. . ... . . .'- Ww I * ; W,'. 2.1 * ...'.2-];,..'.h.[,t.Es.j:;;

~-

y., _..o*

,D

7 ' (ARECO qd l.hjj UNACCEPTABLE BASE METAL' REPAIR - BOTH REPAIRS t' 2.

TOP HORIZONTAL ' BEAM *s 7" -N. ' OF 3RD COLUMN"fROM$

'.I FROM E. EDGE A'ND DEPTH OF DEFECT' IS .065",:10.d!' N. 'OF' 4THyCOLUMN 9dy' ".t f;-

.' J -

- FROM THE NORTH .~ .....:.

18".JFROM'.N. -

.y.

-EDGE..i w , q . -, $. :->;.w;.

AND'; DEPTH" ,:pa . ;OF

..,:314 i. DEFECT:

yr : *.>. .

j yIS. 070"a.1 ...

,1... . ,

J # DENOTES WHERE CORRECTIONS WERE'..MADE .;y- 'IN -THE PARAGRAPH.p' .

r r' g r.; . <, r.c f;. J.7 -,:p . e /

.c a)t . .a :Cg,~,;'.~ or;*.* :;a ...f.is,s.:. . . : ~:.~

1 .

.~. .-n .

~. . < r . d 1 ; . . c '.$ g.s6 ..; .t'I'a . .

. :- .ADVIS(. . . :# ?; " , .'c:

!) IF YOU NEED MORE'..INFORMATION. , .

.,....:__,.?_

.g

-y. PLEASE ,;. . e. , ..

';- . r - .

.,; ' z. ',.s.,Q-

.9;Q s

.M . R. MCBAY ENGINEERING MANAGER A

$ . ,i.' . . , c' : A K, i ,'",-: .

c,Vl

% Q'[~ ' r.' ' ' f. t " *c.

D

.- ~~

CPSES JOBSITE

.,. , . g' ., .

,i a.. .

- 4 i

! MRM:RMK:WHC:ERY ~

'J ..- .

.CC: ARMS / FILE CORRECTION: FIRST WORKD IN SECOND LINE IN NUMBER 2. SHOULD READ " TOP".' ,

GH ENO A NYK .

Time: 12:49 12/19/82 EST ,( b.

Connect Time : 154 seconds .

t l ) .

g, .g ;. - * .

. . .,5 a f:,. .

a.'

-- . y. . ', ,

. . .' q . .. . l .. ..,.:. y. -, .: . .-.

.. g .

, y. 5 *] g._ f g ., ,. 4 .:n. I s '.*'. g,

...~,"_ .

. ' . ., o; ;.. t f L_ . . . -.

=, . .. : .

, s-, s MK, W u;/i QClf-s'. ,

i

.,s -

TUSI SITE -

910 R046- 660- i g TRA'.a:2;E] py : , ,. . . ; y DECEMBER 2 0, t 9 Ph -

_ M GO ff2

~

GTT - 93 LL s

s' JOB 2323 ATTENTION: h.B. GEORGE /R.M. KISSINGER/C.R. HOOTON

SUBJECT:

WELD DEFICIENCIES UNIT #1 G.W.B.

N .s

REFERENCES:

1) NCR M-82-01589

' 2 ) ..GTT-9 2 41 '

3) GTT-9291' , ~. <

4) TWX-14055^ s Y-

, ' -5 ) ' TWX-14 0 37 ' ' -

s

',( '

6) TWX-14035 s

7) GTT-9302'

8) 14 SHEETS TELECOPIED ON 12/14/82 s

FROM. SITE ,' ~

9) GTT-3312:

10) GTT-9319Jl .

C ,,

11) TWX-14007l- s s ,

s n .

AS REQUESTED WE HAVE REVIEWED ,TME WELD DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED

. s .

IN REFERENCE 'l ALONG WITH ADDkTIONAL' , ss WELD ANOW\K.IES IDENTIFIED s

DURING SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION PER REFERENCE 6.

m. ,

ADDITIONAL DETAILED INFORMATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS WERE

%. 5' . e REQUESTED BY-US VIA REFERENCES 3,7,9 A'iD'10, AND'WEEE PROVIDED BY THE SITE'VIA RFFERENCES 4,5,8 AND 11., >

WE FAVE INVESTIGATED THE STRUCTURES

s. AUD HAVE CONCLUDED 7 BY ANALYSIS AND STRESS COMPUTATIONS THAT THE\ NELD DEFICIENCUS h'OULD NOT AD-

% p i y_ s VERSELY AFFECT THE DESIGlfFUNCTION OF THE STRUCTURES,;- ALL WELD N m- .; s . i STRESSES REMAIN WITHIN T.HE ALYdWABLEi VALUES., RELEVANTiCALCULATIONS

. y '

ARE IN OUR BOOK #SSB125C SET 1. t ti ';. . 5;-

, a [., ,

s-

'gs AS NOTED EARLIER INiREF. 27.IN THOSE.F3W " CASEN1WHERE ' - CRACKS g , . . i

3 _ ,

IN WELDS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED THEY'ARE TO'BE FIELD REPAIRED {

s -

AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN-CC v s INVES?ICATION. 7

, 4,

N o ,

b

( '.

T1L1 021 GTT PAGE-2 IT MAY BE OF INTEREST TO NOTE THE FOLLOWING REASONS THAT MADE THE e

STRESSES REMAIN WITHIN THE ALLOWABLES EVEN WITH THE NOTED DEFICIENCIES:

1) INITIAL DESIGN HAD USED NORMAL PRACTICE TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS WELD FOR THE FULL LENGTH OF CONTACT EVEN THOUGH TOTAL WELD LENGTH WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SATISFY STRESS ALLOWABLES. THIS PROVIDED INITIAL DESIGN MARGIN.

2). WHERE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED A CERTAIN WELD, S AY 0.26", THE WHERE CALCULATIONS LARGER PRACTICAL SIZE OF 3/8" WAS USED.

~1.1", THE NEXT AVAILABLE REQUIRED A PLATE THICKNESS OF SAY THIS PROVIDED 1 " PLATE WAS CALLED FOR IN THE DESIGN' DRAWING.

ANOTHER MARGIN. .

3) IN.SOME C.P. WELD CASES THE ACTUAL AS BUILT WELD SIZE WAS LARGER THAN THAT CALLED FOR IN THE DESIGN, AND THE WELD DEFECT WAS WITHIN THE EXTRA THICKNE3S OF THE. WELD.

'"O SI"O UURING e ALL THE ABOVE IM5'ODFATIO'T "AS "'NA'IS.ITTM 12/19/82 TELECON BETWEEN A.M. KENKRE AND C.R. HOOTON ON k -

4NU . Y-R.E. BALLARD/E.L. BE K R/A.M. KENKRE/S. SENGUPTA-i Helen Leong, lith floor CONFIRMATION:

o e

e

, w = - -

r y y

' CPPA-25,877 '1cXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INCF >

OFFICS MEMOR ANDUM To R. G. Tolson ci.a no T.u December 20. 1982 subjes CCPMNCHE PEAK STEN! ELECTRIC STATION

. SDAR CP-82-12 PIPE MIIP RESTRAINT UNACCEPTABLE WELDS

, REF: 1)'IUQ-1419

2) CPPA-24,150

3) CPPA-25,868-attached We have completed cur evaluation of che subject deficiency sulznitted per Reference 1. ' Our evaluation has concluded the weld irdications will have no adverse effects on the design function of the structure and, therefore, is not reportable per the provisions of 1.0CF50.55(e).

Our evaluation included a composite review by analysis and stress ccmputations of all weld anomalies by the G6H Structural Engineering Groups. Reference 3 documents this review and cites specific condi-tions which provide acceptance for welds which appear in nonconformance.

Please contact this office if additional infotuation can be provided regarding this issue.

i f W M. R. McBay Engineering 6} r

>Rf/RPB/cp cc: AMIS .

J.,B. George R. M. Kissinger ,

R. A. Jones J. T. Merritt. '

Wi 4

~ -

s

-- i 9 / ,.

\

RECE'"'

DEC 37 '

Tti!.' -

0 --

.s ,

- e

' CPPA-25,868 aXAS UTILITIES SERVICES IA. .

OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To M.R. !!cBay ~ Engineering Manager on.n aa T.na. December 20. 1982 C.0MANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION m _^ PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT UNACCEPTABLE WELDS SDAR-CP-82-12 -

NCR-M-82-1589 CPPA-25,096 Initial weld anomalies were evaluated and accepted per CPPA-25096; however, subsequent inspection identified additional weld anomalies not previously covered by the first engi-neering review. A composite review of all weld defects has been completed by the Gibbs & Hill Structural Group and found to have no adverse affects on the design function of the structure (Ref. GTT-9322).

Cracks in welds are attributed to field erection and would be repaired in accordance with nonnal project procedures.

The NCR will be dispositioned accordingly, k

hR.it.Kissinger Project Civil Engineer RMK/sgf cc: ARMS C.R. Hooton

~

TELJ UTILITIES [,ENERATING COh.nT R. J. GARY

- X,;*.i:L*:~~2" December 27, 1982 TXX-3604 Md.G.L.Madsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Office of Inspection and Enforcement 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Docket Nos.: 50-445 Arlington, Texas 76012 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT WELD INDICATIONS SDAR-95; CP-82-12 FILE NO.: 10110

Dear Mr. Madsen:

On September 30, 1982, we verbally informed your Mr. R. G. Taylor of a deficiency regarding weld indications in certain pipe whip restraints.

We submitted an interim report logged TXX-3584 on October 25, 1982.

We have completed our investigation and concluded that the matter is not reportableunder10CFR50.55(e). Records supporting this determination are available for your. Inspector's review at the CPSES site.

Very truly yours, R. . Gary RJG:eaq Lcc: NRC REGION IV - (0 + 1 copy)

Director, Inspection & Enforcement (15 copies)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washington, DC 20555

1 3 89 " 4, , UPo:TED STATri 7 . -

NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMM:SSION I , , . . . . .y f PE GIOf. h "h [

^

f11 RY AT. P; AZ A DRIVE SU!T: W

- ARLINGTO*. TE A AL 7F" In Reply Refer To: g2 4ggg3 Docket: 50.-445/83-24 SC-446/83-15 Texas Utilities Generating Company gcavr ucENsiNG y ATTA: .R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President & General Manager AM 35 283 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 TEXAS UTIUTIES SOMCES Mg.

NucLLut sEnvicts civ.

Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by our Senior Resident Inspector, Construction, Mr. R. G. Taylor, during the period March througn July 1983, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for COTanche peak, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings witn Mr. R. G. Tolson, and other members of your staff during the inspection.

Areas examined durinc the inspection included review, inspection, and evalua-tion of several allegations made to various NRC persons, including trie Atonic Safety and Licensing Board in their proceedings regaroing the operating license for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). Within these areas , the in~scettion consisted of 2 elective examination of proteoures and representative records , interviews with personnel, anc observations by the inspector. These findings are documented ir, the enclosed inspection report.

During this inspectior., it was founc that certain of your activi ies t were i

in violation witn fRC re:W rements. YOU were notified of one such violation by our letter of May 31, 1983, to whicr you have responded. Details of tne item enclosed with our May 31, 1983 letter are inclucec in the enclosed inspection report.

One unresolved item is identified in paragraph 15 of the enclosed inspection report.

We have also examined actions you have taken with regard to previously

.identifieo inspect.an findings. Tne status of these items is identified in paragraph 2 of the enclosed report.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the' enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless_ you notify this-office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter, and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require-ments of 2.790(b)(1).

Texas Utilities Generating 2 Company ~

AUG 2 4 1933 Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discu'ss them with you.

Sincerely,

})d'M%5>"

'G. L. f'adsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1

Enclosure:

' Appendix - NRC Inspection Report 50 445/83-24 50-446/83-15 cc w/encls: -

Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTh: H. C. Schmidt, Project l'.anager 2001 Bryar. Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Texas Ltilities Generating Cor.pany ATTh: E. F.. Clements, Vice President, Nuclear 2031 Bryar Tcwer, Suite 173E Lallas. Texas 75201

J8 M--

1 APPENDD.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/S3-24 50-446/83-15 Docket: 50 445 Cateaory: A2 50-446 Licensee: Texas. Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) 2001 Bryan Tower

. Dallas, Texas, 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: F%rch through July 1983 Inspectors:'

s f?') 8 R. G. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector h// Z 3 DE te '

Construction (SRIC) 4 presed: . 55,' U MC_lc.:# $// '7/@3 D . !J. . hunnicutt, Chief Da te '

Reactor Frc,iect Section A Insoection Surr.ary Inspection Conducted thrch throuah July 1953 (Recort 50-445/83-24 and 83-446/E3-15)

Areas Inspected: Special inspections,- announced and unannounced, related to allegations mace to various NRC persons including the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in their procedings regarding the operating license for Comanche Feak Station. The inspections involved'449 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.

Results: The inspection confirmed the need to issue four violations initially-icentified bysthe Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) (NRC Inspection l Report 50-445/83-18;-50-446/83-12). These involved the areas of.HVAC Equipment Installation, Document Control, and Storage of Equipment.

+ 2 Detail s

1. Persons Contacted Princioal Licensee Emoloyees

R. G. Tolson, Site CA Supervisor

C. T. Brandt, hon-ASME QC Supervisor

J. R. !*erritt, Engineering, Construction and Startup Manager

J. B. George, Project General l' anger

D. N. Chapman, OA Manager

B. R. Clements, Vice-President, Nuclear Brown & Root (BS:.)

G. R. Purdy, Project QA Manager

D. Frankum, Construction Project Manager Tne SRIC also interviewed many other licensee, B&R, and subcontracter personnel during the course of the inspection.

Deno es those persons whc attended one or rare management interviews with the SRIC.

2. Licersee tecier. on revious Inscettior. Fincines (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/82-22-02), " Analysis of Weld Discrepancies.'-

This unresclved item concerned a substantial number of identified defects in a large whip restraint essentially surrounding the mainsteam and feed water lines located several feet outside of the ASf!E code boundry point.

The device was engineered by the licensee's A/E and manufactured by NPS Industries. Due to the overall size of the structure, it has been nick-named " George Washington Bridge" by the site labor and ouality forces. The licensee nad reported the finding cf the defects as a potential 50.55(e) item to the SRIC on September 30, 1982, which was subsequently stated not reportable in a letter dated December 27, 1982. An NRC inspector followed up on the matter during a visit to the offices of the A/E,-as documented in NRC-Inspection Report 50-445/83-12. This review pertained to all of the defects involved with the exception of two cracked welds that had not been analyzed at the time of the inspection. The engineer has recently analyzed these two defects and has detennined Ethat had they not been detected, the structure could have fulfilled it's function. The SRIC has reviewed the location of the_ cracks and their length in relation to the site of the welds and the functional application of the structure. Since the structure has no continuous service application and is essentially subject to a one-time loading, the cracks would not have' the potential for further propagation.

Further,-the cracks are at points in the structure that would receive rela-tively low stresses in the one-time impact based on their small size in relation to the members being welded. It appears that the cracks formed due to the stresses developed during the tightening of high strength-bolting in

D i

3 the immediate vicinity of the welds during the site assembly of the structure.

Taken in conjunction with the earlier documented review of the engineers calculations and the SRIC's review of these-cracks, the SRIC has concluded that the engineer's overall analysis was adequate and that deficiency (s) were not reportable under 50.55(e). Both the licensee's initial report (CP-82-12) and the above identified unresolved item are considered closed.

4 It should be noted for the record that this closure only applies to the reportability aspects under 50.55(e) and not to the correction of the defects.

The defects, including the cracks, have been documented on a nonconformance report. The final disposition and closure of the NCR will be evaluated during future routine inspections.

3. Review of Licensee Self-Evaluation (Usine INPO Criteria) 4 The SRIC has reviewed a report of the licensee's self- evaluation performed during October 1932 which was based on criteria that has been developed for the purpose by INPO. Tne evaluation was perfonned in behalf of the licen-i see by personnel in the employment of Sargent & Lundy, an architect-engineer firm with substantial nuclear power involvement. A copy of the report was furnished to the NRC, and subsequently, to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of Comanche Peak Station operating license by letter dated May 2, 1923. The purpose of the review by the SRIC was-to determine -

if any cf the 47 findings in tne. report were'of a type and'of sufficient significance to have been reported to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e).

Tne SRIC reviewec each of the 47 findings and the supporting documentation

.ir, the report pertaining to each finding. This review revealed that none .

of the 47 items were based upon identified deficiencies in structures, systems, or components nor were there any-significant deficiencies in design, engineering, or testing that would constitute conditions reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).

4. Car Wash In Containment Durina'the limited appearance statement portion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. hearing on F.ay 16, 1983, a person stated at-transcript page:6152 that he understood that the containment looked something .like a

. car wash, .The person stated that it was his understanding that the situa-l tion developed at about the same time that there was a meeting at the D/FK

' Airport between the NRC and any interested parties to discuss NRC decen-For the purposes tralization. That meeting- took- place on April 5,1983.

of ' evaluating this allegation, the SRIC expanded the period .of . interest to 4 include the-3 weeks prior to the meeting. During this entire. period, the' Unit 1 reactor system was undergoing what is referred to as~ " Hot Func. -

tional Testing". This particular-test-is'an accurate simulation of the operation of;the reactor ' system and its appurtenances but without a reactor core being in place. The heat.and pressure in -the systen is generated by~

the reactor coolant pumps in conjunction with the chemical-and volume ' con -

Ltrollsystem charging pumps. The test'couldJreadily be construed to be a pressure test but in fact-is~ an operationalctest at pressure. This parti -

cular: test extended overallsfor. about 90 days beginning late in February

- - , . , , , - - , , - , - . , - y +,,..-,r,- , , ., .

O.

l 1

l 4

and continuing until late f'ay. The SRIC monitored the test but was by no means continously in the containment. The SRIC interviewed personnel in tne licensee's startup test group, QC inspectors who had reason to be in the building and others to obtain a picture of the events that occurred in the Unit 1 Containment Building during the period of interest. The SRIO also reviewed the licensee's control room logs for any indication of oper-ational problems indicative of a major leak in any of the fluid filled systems unoer test. The picture obtained was that there were several small leaks, generally at the gaskets between valve bodies and their bonnets. In addition, there was a considerable amount of condensation dripping from the reactor coolant pump motor cooling coils. This was caused by the cold water in the coils condensing the humidity from the atmosphere within the building and was not indicative of a leak in the reactor coolant system. The SRIO found from the control room logs that on March 29, a steam leak occurred during one phase of the test when a drain valve was partially open. perhaps this valve should have remained closed. The room in which the valve was located was apparently filled with stearr vapor which would have condensed out on the cooler walls as water. On t'aren 30, tne reactor sessel head vent valves were partially opened, which in turn would give some amount of steam blowoff into the reactor refueling cavity area and would rise up into the building until cooled and condensed out as water. hone o' these events are typical of any najor leak incicative of piping or piping component (such as a valve) failure. The tyos of small events described above are, within the experience of the SRIC, typical of wnat would be expected curing such a test and is one cf tne reasons for performing tne test.

5. Design c' the HVI.: Syste" Sucocet!

C., letters, .botn catec !' arch 11,19E3, Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) notified the NRC's Offices of Inspection and Enforcement and tne Executive Legal Director of a concern that the HVAC system for Comanche Peak had not been properly supoorted, nor had it been properly consicered in regard to seismic load conditions or its treatment as potential mis-siles. CASE specifically states that frorr their review of the FSAR, it appears that the licensee has not analyzed the HVAC supports for a seismic load condition. Specific refe'rence is made to Sheet 21 of Table 171 In addition, the personal observations of t'essrs. Walsh.and Doyle are relied upon to point out that there are no lateral supports on the HVAC

. systems within the containment. CASE also states that all HVAC components and supports'inside containment should be treated as missiles under Cri-terion 4 of the General Design Criteria ~ for Nuclear Power Plants, 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.

Sh.eet 21 of Table 17A 'of the FSAR lists the. containment ventilation sys-tems as being Seismic Category II. Apparently, it has been assumed by CASE that this category excludes seismic loading in the design. This assumption is incorrect since the FSAR, Section 3.2.1.2 defines Seismic Category II as being those portions of systems or components whose

5 h

l continued function is not required but whose failure could reduce the func-tioning of any Seismic Category I system or component required to satisfy the' requirements of C.I.A through C.1.Q of P.egulatory Guide 1.29 to an unacceptable safety level or could result in incapacitating injury to occupants of the control room. These systems are designated Non-Nuclear Safety (NNS) Seismic Category II and are designed and constructed so that a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) will not cause such a failure.

CASE also states that if the HVAC systems within the containment failed during a SSE, this would allow the temperature within the containment to rise quickly to unacceptable levels which could over time cause compon-ents and monitoring equipment to fail and which could also mean that it might be impossible for workers to enter the containnent due to the heat.

Containment heat removal is required by Criterion 38 of the General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. The system to remove heat from the reactor containment at Comanche Peak does not rely on the HVAC system but rather is composed of two separate containment spray recirculation trains each with 100 percent capacity. Each train contains two separate' pumps, one heat exhanger, and seven spray headers, and each system is fed from its individual electrical Class IE bus. The containment heat removal system is designed to ensure that tne failure of any single active compon-ent, assuming the availability of either onsite or offsite power exclusively, does not prevent the system from accomplishing its planned safety function.

CASE's concern with being able to enter the containment following certain cesign basis accidents is unfounded in that it is not a requirement.

Ir. order to assess the adequacy of the design of HVAC supports, an inspe:-

tior, was conducted at the home office of " Corporate Consulting & Develop-rent Company, LTC.," the support design <onsultant. It.was determined that all permanent HVAC supports ar analyzed for seismic loading. Two metnocs are utilized: Zero Peak 'Accleration (ZPA), or 1.5 Times the Peak Accelera-tior, Wr.en the Fundamental Frequency Falls Below 20 Hertz. Of the latter

~

method of desigr., only about 6 out of 4000 supports have been designed that way. A typical HVAC duct run is supported axially at every thiro support This may explain why tiessrs. Walsh and Doyle may have felt that there were-no lateral supports on the HVAC systems. The NRC inspector reviewed the -

design of a typical HVAC duct run at elevation 852'-6" in the Auxiliary Building. Suoports were designed utilizing two computer programs entitled FEASA-20 and FEASA-3D. The acronym stands for frame eigenvalue and stress analysis. The -2D version is used on the transverse supports and the -3D version is used on the axial supports. The inclusion of equivalent weights from both up and downstream transverse supports and accesories such as vol-ume dampers and vane turns in the design of the axial supports was verified.

This inspection verified the adequacy of the siesmic design techniques being utilized for the ' design of HVAC supports at Cemanche Peak.

The concerns expressed ~by CASE have been-found'to be without merit.

Persons contacted during the course of the inspection at Corporate Consulting

+

6

~

& Development Company, LTD. were:

J. Roland Yow, President & Chief Executive Officer i i

Gary Hughes, Vice-President for Operations David Lindley, Principal Engineer Stephen Lehrman, Seismic Department Manager '

Daryl Hughes, Project Engineer

6. Heatine, Ventilation, and Air Conditionino System (HVAC)

During the CAT inspection (NRC Inspection Report 50-45/83-18;50-446/83-12),

the CAT inspectors noted that a significant portion of the welds on the ductina support structures were deficient in relation to the applicable welding code ~

requirements. Tne dominate deficient condition noted was that the welds were significantly undersized. Based upon this information the SRIC toured various areas of the f acility with special emphasis on the ducting in the Unit 2 Containment Building since that was one of the more recent areas of installation by the HVAC contractor. In accordance with the design-drawings, the bulk of the welds should have been fillet welds with hinch leg size. The SRIC noted by visual comparison to.

the hinch thick base metal that very few of the welds were of proper size. The CAT inspectors also found cases where the bolting and gaskets between ducting sections were loose and/or missing.

The CAT inspectors also found ,that some support mer:bers were not

' within the dimensional tolerances on the design drawings. It was noted that the contractor's inspection records did not reveal these various f acts, indicating _ ineffectual QC by the contractor. Furtner, a review of the licensee's audit program indicated that the licensee

' was unaware-of these several problems in the fabrication, installation, and inspection of the HVAC systems. Basec upon the CAT inspectors' findings'and his own observations, the SRIC recommended that a notice- of ~ violation be issued to the licensee pertaining collectively to these matters (Notice of Violation issued on May 31, 1983.

Reference 50-445/83-18 and 50-446/83-12, item 4).

7. Installation of Major Items of Equipment l

The CAT inspectors noted during their inspections of certain major items of equipment that there were several variables ~in how the equipment was fastened to the building equipment pads. In some instances, tanks for. example, CAT inspectors found that there were two nuts (double nuts) on the embedded bolts securing the equipment, l

other bolts had one nut, (single nut)' and some had a combination of

both single nuts and' double nuts on one piece'of. equipment. The CAT personnel also noted that certain heat exchangers had slotted i: h' oles'in one of the mounting bases to allow for thermal expansion during operation. The holddown' nuts' appeared to be installed *too tightly and may have prevented freedom of movement. ~The:SRIC obtained the design and installation-drawings for two of the referenced

" heat exchangers identified in the CAT report. Both were found'to-l

-be horizontal Utube heat exchangers whose function is 'nonsafety, . ._.

but whose pressure boundary in the tubes.is safety-related since the process fluid could be radioactive. The SRIC found that the construction drawings 1 for the mounting pedestals:had a flat steel plate on one

.- . _. - . - = . -- .- . . . . _ --

.. l l

i 7

pedestal that would be suitable for the type of mounting detail

+

on these heat exchangers. The SRIC then reviewed the installation travelers for each heat exchanger and found that these documents did not note or address the slotted details, the plate, or the fact the bolts should be left loose. The SRIC would note that the

~

vendor manual which provides the details does not provide information on how loose or tight the nuts should be nor how these nuts are to be locked at that looseness or some torque value. The SRIC with 4

the assistance of site QC and craft labor had one of six nuts loosened on heat exchanger TCX-CSAHLD-01. On all six of the studs involved, each had only one nut (single nut). The one nut that was loosened had been very tight, as evidenced by the amount of force required to break the nut loose. On another heat exchanger 1

of comparable design, it was found that each stud was double nuted and when the top nut was loosened, the second nut was approximately one flat (about 1/6 of a turn) from being fully tight. This degree of looseness should all m sufficient freedom of movement. During 4

-the document review, the SRIC found that the engineer had specified that all rotating and vibrating equipment should be double nutted and that other equipment. could be secured with only one nut. No document could be located that established the identity of vibrating equipment nor were there any apparent provisions made to lock nuts where they must be deliberataly left loose. This was considered overall to be a violation of. Criterion V of Appen' dix B to 10 CFR 50 (Notice of Violation was issued on' May 31, 1983.

Reference:

hotice of Violation 50 445/E3-18 and 50-446/83-12, item 1). "

l E. Maintenance of Eouia ent In Oatdcor Storage Areas

[ The CAT.found that a considerable amount of equipment such as pipe

[ support struts, clamps, and like items, normally stored outdoors, I

was not being properly maintained in accordance with procedure MCP-10, I " Storage and Storage Maintenance of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment", as evidenced by rusting bolts and' adjustment screws on struts. In addition, the strut bearings were dirty from dust and l the bearing load pins, in some instances, were rusted. By a tour l of the storage areas, the SRIC confirmed the CAT inspectors find-l

-ings. The SRIC would also note that 'the INPO Self-Evaluation Report at page 111 describes essentially the same finding. This L situation was determined to be a' violation of Criterion XIII of l

Appendix B- to 10 CFR 50 '(Notice of Violation issued on 'May' 31, j 1983.

Reference:

Notice of Violation 50-445/83-18 and 50-446/83-12,

i. item 2). The SRIC would note for the record that there is little evidence that any ' items which indicated substantial ' deterioration p from such storage conditions have in fact been' installed in the -

J nuclear power block... It would. appear!that the various items iftvolved

! .have been cleaned and restored prior to installation 'such that they '

( can perform the required function.

9. ' Obsolete and/6r-Illegible Drawings In The Field i' _

L : The CAT ~ inspectors found 'a group of drawings in one particular' area

, adjacent.to the control room that_were found to be out of date by L up to'several: issues :and further, that some drawings in other areas.

!' were incomplete in the title and revision' blocks. The SRIC discussed' e . - - .. .. - .. . . . . -.. - . . - _ _ .

8 the finding with supervisory personnel of the licensee's central document control center who indicated that they had located the drawings identified by the CAT inspectors along with many more that were obsolete in other areas. It was stated that distribution system for engineering drawings had become faulted by the simple

' volume and by the need for so many points of distribution and audit verification thereof. Since problems are obviously still present, it was determined that the licensee had violated Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 (Notice of Violation was issued on May 31, 1983.

Reference:

Notice of Violation 50-445/83-18 and 50-446/83-12, item 3) and that substantial steps would be required to correct the problems.

10. Allegations Relative To Improperly Supported Items In The Control Room The president of CASE in a letter dated March 11, 1983, addressed to Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director of the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment, indicated that CASE had _ received infonnation from an unidentified source to the effect that:

a. There is field run conduit above the control room supported only by wire.

b. There is drywall (or sheet rock) that is supported by wire.

c. There may be lights that are suppo'rted by wire.

The SRIC has examined the suspended ceiling and the area above the sus-pended ceiling in the control roo area and has examined the pertinent engineering drav:ings depicting both in relation te these allegations with the following findings:

a. There is a considerable amount of both safety-related and nonsafety

- related conduit in the area above the suspended ceiling. The safety-related conduit is supported by Seismic Category I supports typical of those used in other areas of the facility. The nonsafety-related conduits are generally supported by simpler and less substantial sup-ports that are typical of those that the SRIC has observed in large open factories and are not designed to seismic standards. In eacn case examined, the non-seismic support was structurally paralleled with a small stainless steel cable that would assume tne full weicht of the conduit were the nomal support to fail in a seismic event'.-

b. The drywall materials were found to be part of the suspended ceiling

.above the central part of the control room and to fom a part of- tne sloping wall area below the control room observation room. These dry-wall materials have been securely fastened to a metal frame work

.(metal batten) which in turn is supported by conventfonal and non-

. seismic straps and wires to the concrete primary building. The frame work is also attached to a system of stainless steel cables which in turn also attach to the primary structure such that if normal sup-ports fail' during a seismic event, the weight of the framing and

. drywall will be assumed by the cabling thus preventing the materials from falling.

4

.c- g

c. The lighting fixtures in the control room are supported from an intermediate substructure of "unistrut" by light-weight conduit.

The substructure is likewise supported by the same type of conduit from the primary structure ceiling. The conduit used appears to be the typical of that supporting the light fixtures in most offices with suspended ceilings. Paralled with each conduit are two small stainless steel cables which would assume the load if the conduit or its attachment were to fail. In the case of the actual light fixtures, the cable is attached to the light fixture at the edge of the reflector assembly.

The SRIC would note for the record that above described design features appear to fully satisfy the intent of the licensee's commitment to comply witn NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification."

The licensee has used terminology in the classification system that is at I variance with that of the regulatory guide but is explained and defined in Section 3.2 of the FSAR. In essence, the licensee has defined all ,

safety-related items that must remain fully functional during and after a seismic event as Seismic Category I. Items not having a safety function :

but whose failure could damage components which have a safety function or cause injury to the occupants of the control room during an event are referred to as Seismic Category II. In the case of the items involved in this allegation, all are Seismic Category II since their falling could cause injury to the control operators. The cabling system described can be expected to prevent such a fall even though the normal supports could pessibly fail. Tne stainless steel cable used in this design feature, which at a short cistance away looks much like bright galvanized comon steel 1 wire , is of relatively- high strength. As an exa ple, the test strength of .

an 1/5-inch cable is in excess of 1760 pounds. Witn four catles attached to a light fiiture, two at each end, the total support capability of the ,

cables is over 7000 pounds. It is apparent that the designers have elected

- to use conventional suspended ceiling and light fixture support techniques in oroer to 'use conventional .and available materials and then provide a high strength backup support system in a seismic event.

No violations or deviations were identified during this special inspection effort.

11. Placement -and Curing of Concrete During- Freezing Weather During the -limited public appearance portion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-(Board) hearing conducted on May 15, 1983, there were two .

references to the' placing of concrete in freezing weather at the' Comanche Peak Station which in turn lead to a question from the Board to the'NRC staff as' to whether the.re were any NRC personnel present with knowledge of the matter. -The two references are at 6106 and '6134.of the -hearing _ ,

transcript while4 the Board question' is at.6109. Also.at 6109, an uni-

dentified voice responded to the Board that the matter had been reported Hin IE inspection reports; . Research ;of.the' NRC inspection reports revealed n

that there had'been such a discussion.in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 which was- categorized as an unresolved item pending the licensee's' review '

and action on'their finding of the problem. The unresolved item was c further discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-04 with the closure of;

. the'itemby'animprovementfintheQAprocedures.: ,

- - -- w-, v-.-r-. v,e e e' a-em., . , ~ e,- ns ,.eu-- ,- , , v ,mi w - -. , , e w .

, 10 The SRIC has reviewed the matter, particularily with a view toward deter-

, mining whether the practices involved actually caused damage to the concrete involved. The primary focus of NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 (Details II, paragragh 5) was directed toward two licensee " Site Surveillance Reports" which had been prepared approximately 2 weeks earlier than the inspection period covered by the inspection report. The first of the licensee's reports (C-134-77) was directed specifically to findings by a licensee inspector that the surface temperature of Concrete Placement 101-280S-001 some 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> after the placement was completed were well below freezing in some locations.

The other licensee report (C-135-77) was directed toward records and was not considered in this review. The SRIC obtained the necessary records to review the matter and found that placement 101-2808-001 had taken place on December 30, 1976, being completed at approximately 6:00 p.m.

Later, the same evening at approximately midnight, the licensee inspector found.that some surface areas were chilled to as low as 200F. The records reflect, however, that there was disagreement between the SSR inspection personnel assigned to monitoring the curing of the placement and the licensee's inspector as to what the surface tenperatures actually were.

- The B&R personnel contended that the licensee inspector was actally mea-suring the air temperature rather than the temperature of the concrete. No resolution of that disagreement was reflected in the records. The SRIC interviewed the licensee inspector of record during the course of this review to gain a clearer understanding of the events which tock place.

The licensee inspector stated during the interview that he was confident that his measurements were accurate anc also stated that there was no phy-sical evidence that the concrete was frozen even though the surface teT.peratures were well below freezing. Tne records also reflect that in

-order to resolve the issue, swiss hammer tests were run on the suspect areas af ter -the concrete had fully cured. Tnese tests indicated tna tne suspect areas had attained strengths comparaDie to known properly cured areas, indicating that the concrete had not been damaged even though the

. possibility exists that it had been fro:en for a perioc of time. Tne records reflect that good concrete curing temperatures, i.e., above 400F-l- were established and maintained shortly af ter the licensee's inspector's observation.

For.the record, the SRIC would note that Placement 101-2801-001 took place in the Unit'11 Reactor Building. The placement became 'the open- area ' floor -

at the lowest full floor in the building. This floor area, .while suppor-

. ting some equipment, serves primarily as a walk area. - As such, it is fully ~

topped with an architural concrete making the . structural . concrete no longer accessable.

NRC. Inspection. Report 50-445/77-01~ also discussed comparable events to that-documented on' Surveillance Report C-135-77. One of these eve 6ts was docu-mented by Surveillance ' Report C-068-76 on January 7,1976, and on-B&R

. deficiency / disposition reports (now titled nonconformance ~ reports).

These documents indicate that on January 7.1976, the surface temperature l of Placement 105-2773-001, the foundation basemat for the Unit 1 Safeguards Building,'were found frozen as evidenced by frozen wet burlap over certain

^ areas that were not covered by insulating blankets. The records also e

= , , . m _ , _,. . , , r.. .,& -- p . # -

4-,... ,m .

y ,,- ,

a 11 reveal that the reported finding took place almost 7 days after the place-ment of the concrete. Although the placement should not have been allowed to freeze in the time frame involved in accordance with the project speci-fication, the placement was accepted "use-as-is" on the premise that the curing temperatures during the 7 days were conducive to a good cure and that after 7 days there would be little free water in the concrete to freeze even though the burlap was froze. This conclusion is considered valid by the SRIC based on his review of publications of the American Concrete Institute and the Bureau of Reclamation. Further, in responding to a separate finding that the field cure test cylinders made for the placement tested lower than allowed by the project specifications, swiss hammer tests were performed.

The swiss hammer tests indicated the concrete placement had full specified strength. Relative to the low reported strengths of the field cure cylin-ders, the SRIC would note that in his experience field cure cylinders will frecuently test low under cold weather conditions. The reason is that the cylinoers' small mass generates little heat of hydration, thus making them either more vulnerable to freezing and/or curing much slower than normal due to their depressed temperature.

The final events covered by NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 included DDR-C-460 which in turn discussed low temperatures during the curing per-iod cf three separate placements that were made during the late December time perioc.of 1976. In each case, the records reflect that the placements were accerted "use-as-is" since the least amount of cure time was 9 days, again with good conditions until the cold weather occurred.

Tne LRC inspector invcived ir. NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-04 which clcsed the unresolved issue has stated tnat he had visually inspe:ted eacn of the placements discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 for evidence of camaaed concrete and.found none. NRC Inspection Report SC-445/77-04 did not reflect those inspections since the NRC inspector was aware that the concerr was for prevention of repetition rather tnar. any specific concern about the quality of the placements involved.

The SRIC would note for the record that there are no regulatory or industry prohibitions on placing concrete in cold weather conditions. The /.merican Concrete Institute and the Bureau of Reclamation both indicate that if the fresh concrete is above 400F at the time of placement, the chemical process of hydration will generate sufficient heat to prevent the concrete from freezing provided that precautions are taken to prevent heat loss. In mass concrete applications, the greatest danger to the concrete is on the exposed surface areas, particularily at corners and other edges of the placement.

It would be exceedingly rare for the mass of the concrete to freeze and sustain damage. These publications also indicate that even if, frozen, the-conc ete will normally cure to full design strengths if temperatures con-ducive to the hydration process are restored.

12. Alleaations Relative To The As-Built Verification and Design Verification Activities.

During April 1983, NRC personnel received allegations to the effect that

1 12 i

the QA group performing as-built verifications were not measuring support member dimensions and therefore, the " Vendor Certified Drawings" of the l supports would not be accurate. A second allegation from the same person indicated that the QA group charged with responsibility for verifying that design changes have been incorporated into the plant and that the inspection records for the installations accurately reflected that incorporation was being required with the use of a computer generated status document to make the verification of records. The allegation was that the computer list-ing was faulty and therefore, the verification effort was equally faulted.

The SRIC has examined each of these allegations as to the factualness of the allegation and as to whether the allegation has or will have an effect on

i the safety of the f acility when operating. In regard to the first allega-tion, the SRIC found that the allegation was and is factual. The allegation, however, does not appear to have any significant impact on safety in that the as-built inspection was not developed to assure that the " Vendor Cer-tified Drawing" was an accurate representation of the support in all aspects.

The as-built program was established to assure only that the support loca-tion on the supported pipe and the direction of support is accurate for the purposes of perfoming the final pipe stress analysis. The responsibil-

ity for assuring that the support members and other characteristics of the individual support reflect the design drawing require ents reside in other 0A crcups associated with the fabrication and installation efforts. To also 4 perforr these functions in the as-built verification inspection would be a recundant inspection that would not contribute significantly to .the safety function of any given support.

Regardin; the second allegation, the SRIC found that it too was -factual but-only at tne specific time the. allegation was made. Wnen making the allega-tion, the alleger provided the NRC _ personnel with a reference to a OC inspection report which he said would fully display. his concern. This report, identified as IR DCV-00421, was found to.contain notation that the verification was based on a computer tabulation and that the report was - -

! being completed at the direction of ~the inspector's supervisor. The orioinal-report was dated April 4,1983. - The permanent file copy was found to have been marked " voided" by the originating inspector as of May 20, 1983, with a notation that the report had been superceded by IR DCV-00423. This latter inspection report was examined by the'SRIC and found to document essentially.the same inspection effort by the same inspector. but without-any notation of having been based upon a computer tabulation ~ and without notation of. apparent protest of. directions given by ' supervision. 'The SRIC interviewed the QC inspector who prepared and signed all of the

- reports noted above in order to ascertain what had and is transpiring in

the .0C design verification program effort. The' inspector stated that the'

. attempt to use toe computer based data in the perfomance: of the, assigned task was .in error:from the-beginning because of errors .by persons genera-ting the computer da+.a. . The interviewee stated that only. the one verifica--

tion effort had been done using the computer based data and that all' prior and subsequent verifications have been done by the assigned inspectors

? directly and personally e/amining the existent quality records in compli--

ance wi_th applicable QC procedures for the task. He stated that the only

,e g- am- am . e , - - -- -.a ~ m,, ~, --r ,.w,

13 procedural deviation was the one instance stated in the allegation. Dis-cussions between the group supervisor at the time the allegation was received and the SRIC indicated that he had attempted to use the computer tabulation to expedite the task on a trial basis by management direction and that he had caused the original inspection report to be filed as it was to give management a picture of the faults in the computerized data. It thus appears that the design verification effort has been performed in accordance with procedures except for the one-time pertubation that was subsequent correctly reaccomplished in accordance with approved proce-dures.

No violation to NRC requirements were revealed during this special inspection effort.

13. Improperly Certified Liquid Fenetrant Examination Materials The CASE informed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by a letter dated May 18, 1983, of a potential problem with the liquid penetrant materials in use at the Comanche Peak Station. The letter stated that CASE had been made aware of the potential problem during a phone conversation with Charles A.

Atchison, who in turn learned of the " problem" from a Dallas area represen-tative of the Magna-Flux Corporation, the orginal manufacturer of the material.

Tne letter states that the problem surfaced only 7 to 10 days earlier. Based or, tne date of the letter, it would seem that the problem arose between approximately May S to May 11, 1983.

, Tne situatior. bears close resemblance tc tne situation outlined beoinninc~

! witn NR: Inspection Report 50 445/82-1E;50-446/82-09 based upon an inspection concucted during the period of September 7-10, 1982. Tne NRC inspector noted that some certified test result cocuments had been altered by " pen and ink" cnanges not immediately explainable. The matter was considered unresolved at that tire. During a second insoection of the matter, conducted during hovember 1952 and documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-446/82-11, the inspector found that previous corrective actions were not adequate and fur-ther that the " pen and ink" changes sometimes didn't match the type of material being certified. A Notice of Violation was issued as part of the inspection report on the matter. The licensee responded to the ~ Notice of

Violation by a letter dated December 21, 1982, wnerein he stated that a supplier'had altered the certificates but that the original manufacturer

~

i had been able to furnish valid certificates and further, that all future purchases would be direct from the manufacturer rather from a " middle-man"-

supplier. The licensee also stated that specific' receiving inspection pro-cedures had been implemented to prevent repetition. NRC Inspection Report 50-445/83-10;50-446/83-05 documented verification that the licensee's actions were acceptable and the matter was closed. ,

It appears that the situation outlined in the CASE letter parallels the NRC findings in all details except for the dates which probably arose as a result of misunderstood or incomplete communications between the y =. -

~

Magna-Flux representative and Mr. Atchison and/or with CASE.

CASE also posed two questions on the matter as follows:

a. Has an NCR been written on this problem?

Answer: The above discussed inspection reports document a total of five NCR's that were issued.

I b. Has either TUGC0 or Texas Utilities or B&R notified the NRC of this probl em?

Answer: The roles of reportability were effectively reversed in that the NRC identified the probleir and notified the licensee.

A need for further NRC action on this matter has not been identified and ~

the matter is considered closed.

14. Fenetration Seals This special inspection was undertaken to-ascertain the valicity ano sia-nificance of allegations received initially by an NPO heacqvarters Duty' Officer on or about March 22, 1983, which were confirmed and added to durinc a telephcne interview with the alleger on March 23,19E3, by the SRIC anc a~

HEC- inspectcr assigned te NRC Region I. The allecaticns, as unce stood t;.

the SR:C,-were:

a. Tne overlac seal for flexible boots should be 3 inches whereas 2 inches 4

is beine used by SISCO.

t. There maybe a problerr. with the strength of tne fabric used in the' flexible boots since the material supplier and BISCO are inv'olved-in a lawsuit.

c. The aggregate used in a radiation seal rey separate giving rise to improper personnel protection.

Since. BISCO was and is'on the Comanche Peak site installina seals, Region IV was selected for the' purpose of this .special inspection although.-the corr-pany has ' involvement at'several ~other nuclear power sites throughout the United States. . The SRIC'o~ctained from~the BISCO site manager all of the p,roduction and quality procedures applicable to the work pt CPSES as'well-as some that are not. The alleger specifically mentioned'that the NRC should_ review Procedures QC-507, SP-504 SP-505, SP-505-1, an( SP-505-2 in regard to the flexible boot overlap problem. - Each of the above procedures was in the books' offered to the SRIC for review. A-brief discussion fol-

~

lows as to:the contents of these~ procedures; a.- ~QCP-507:: This' procedure covers the final' inspection ~of installed

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________.m _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . _ _

15 flexible boots. The amount of overlap is not mentioned in the procedure, although the procedure does require that the seam be examined for evidence of poor sealing such as " fish-mouthing" which is taken to mean that the exposed edge of the overlap is puckered and not adnering to the base fabric.

b. -SP-504: This procedure provides instructions and a calculation sheet to initially cut the fabric into a shape that would subse-quently allow the formation of a truncated cone. The formula on the calculation sheet requires that 1-inch be added at

each edge of the fan shaped fabric which is evidently to pro-vide the overlap. The base formula prior to adding the 1-inch provides a dimension just eque.1 to the circumference i of the pipe and/or sleeve to which the boot will be attached.

Thus, the 1-inch at each edge will provide for 2-inches of overlap, assuming that the pipe and sleeve are concentric.

If pipe and sleeve are not concentric, the resulting cone will be skewed and the seam overlap will be something other than 2-inches.

c. SP-505: This is a generic procedure for the installation of flex -

ible boots. It was noted that the procedure requires that the adhesive for the overlap seam be spread over a 3-inch -

i- cepth frcT the fabric edge prior ~to fitting up the fabric

.where it is te be installed. Altnough not so stated, it apoears that the 3-inch width of adnesive is .to . provide sufficient area of adhesive in the event-the apove men-

~

tioned cone skewing occurs,

d. SF-505-1 and SP-505-2: Tnese are additions to SP-505 having appli-cation when the boots are used as a simple pressure seal only and for when the boot is used as part of a fire pro-

.tection seal, respectively.

The SRIC interviewed the BISCO site manager as to-whether the procedures had ever required a 3-inchJoverlap. The site manager indicated that 3-inch seam had been used up to sometime in 1979.and that his homeoffice engin-eering.had'then chanced the seal seam detail. The.SRIC reviewed the i;

results of a pressure differential ' test performed by BISCO 'in September 1979 which indicated that the fabric boot would withstand a differential pressure of 44 psig.without sustaining'danage. The project specification (2323-MS-38F) requires that the pressure seal maintain its integrity only up to 2 psig.

While-the BISCO' test data does not> specifically state what the overlap seam width was on the test boot, it would strongly appear that the astrength mar-

. gin is so high: that even. a reduction of 1/3 in -the ' area of1the overlap would -

.have fthe effect of changing the safety factor from 22:1 to approximately 14:1.

It' is the SRIC's conclusion that while' the allegation relative to the reduction'in seam from 3 to' 2 inches is correct, the reduction would have no significant effect en_ the performance of the boot in service at CPSES and that, therefore,-the allegation has.no technical merit.

4

, - ,. . ,, ,s y -

2e.~ ,. , . , - , . - ,

O 16 Regarding the matter of the possibility of some undefined problem with the boot. fabric, the BISCO site manager stated that his company has been engaged in a law suit with the supplier of the fabric but only in regard to the per-formance of the fabric in one application which is understood to involve the tearing of the fabric after being punctured. It is understood that the puncturing has occurred when a gel type radiation seal hardens under radia-tion. Since the specific design involved is not scheduled for use at CPSES, the allegation has no technical merit.

Regarding the matter of possible separation of the radiation seal aggregate r.aterial from the carrier material, the SRIC can only conclude that the al-legation is potentially correct but without apparent merit. The BISCO test reports indicate that the seals involved met the engineers specification.

The separation of the aggregate (powdered lead) from the carrier (a silicone material) would appear to be process sensitive in that if they are not well mixed, pockets of lead might form with resulting pockets of silicone without sufficient lead. Since the specification and the BISCO procedures require careful control and monitoring of the mixing process, the SRIC can only con-clude that these measures are effective in production operations as they were in preparation of the test samples.

15. Electrical Cable Solicina Tne SRI: beca e aware that the Comanche Peak project electrical encineer bac authorized tne splicing of safety-related and auxiliary electrical cables witnir several control panels during the inspectior period. !ince tne licer.see has committed in FSAR Section 8.1 to comply with IEEE 420,

" Trial-Use Guice for Class lE Control Switenboards for N; clear Power Gene -

ating Stations," which forbids sp-licing of wiring ir. such panels, the SRIC judged that the licensee was deviating from these commitments. The licen-see encineer indicated that he interpreted the IEEE standard to prohibit such splicing only between the cabinet terminal boards and the cabinet devices and did not prohibit such splicing in the field run cables attach-l ing to the terminal boards. Tne engineer stated that action had been initiated with the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to clarify the issue in the FSAR. The SRIC confirmed that such action had been initiated by a telephone conversation with the NRR Licensing Program Manager for

. Comanche Peak. Pending action by NRR, this matter will be considered as an i

! unresolved matter.

16. Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in.

' order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-compliance, or deviations.

One such item, disclosed during the inspection, is discussed in paragraph 15 above. This item is identified as " Splicing of Electrical Cables in Ca bi nets'." (8324-01)

f~

17 (7. tianacement Interviews The SRIC met with one or more of the persons identified in paragraph 1 of this report at frequent intervals during the inspection period to discuss the licensee's position and proposed actions on a significant number of issues which occurred during the period.

t v-f i'

e r

9

, , , .. - , , , -r - ,

D Bkx

c# %<

i UNITED STATES y@

~

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g :j REGION IV

- 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. sulTE 1000 l

- [ '

ARLINGTON, texas 76011 May 13,1983 l I

In Reply Refer To:

Dockets: 50-445/83-12 50-446/83-07 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President & General Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:

This refers to the special inspection conducted by Mr. J. I. Tapia of our staff and Dr. W. P. Chen of the Department of Energy's Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) during the periods of February 22-March 8 and March 22-23, 1983, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.

Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.

Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identified.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

w. = -

h G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1 1

D

. . _. -. . . . -. . . - . . . = - . ~ _ - . . . . . - . . - - - _ . - . ..

O,

(

i

.o.

( ,

i Texas Utilities Generating Company 2 i

i 4

Enclosure:

Appendix - NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/83-12 !

50-446/83-07 i.

! cc w/ enc 1:

i Texas Utilities Generating Company

ATTN: H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager j 2001 Bryan Tower '

j. Dallas, Texas 75201 i

b i

i 1

4 I

t k

i I

i f ,

l L

I T4 # -N '*+ + *

Tv- -4.7g ,c .. r_ ,., , __ _ , . _ _ _ _ , , , _

- . - - - = .

( (

APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV 1

Report: 50-445/83-12 50-446/83-07 Dockets: 50-445; 50-446 Category: A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 i Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station; Gibbs & Hill (G&H) in New York City; and ITT-Grinnell Corporation in Providence, Rhode Island Inspection Conducted: February 22-March 8 and March 22-23, 1983 Inspectors k)

J. I. Tapia, Reactor Inspector, Engineering

.2.7!83 Irate '

Section, Reactor Project Branch 2 .

bl &

W. P. Chen, Manager, Stress Analysis Unit, A Y85 1 Tate /

f Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) i Approved: h){ h n h

0. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Engineering Section Y/.2 7/8 3 Dtte '

>=.-_ O .$ $~E k T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Project Section A Date Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted durino periods of February 22-March 8 and March 22-23, 1983 (Report 50-445/83-12: 50-446/83-07)

Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection in response to concerns expressed at the ASLB hearing by witness Mr. J. Yost'and to-follow up on open and unresolved items identified in Reports 50-445/82-26; 50-446/82-14; and 50-445/82-22. The inspection involved 80 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector and one NRC consultant.

(

2 Results: No violations or deviations were identified. Of the five specific concerns expressed by Mr. James Yost in his limited appearance statement, four were found to be without technical merit. One concern was, in part, verified, but does not have technical significance. Two previously identified unresolved and one previously identified open item were closed.

h 6

P

- - - .-. - , 4,

~

\"

<- . u.

'n

.- o,

{- ,

{ s s.

. .3 , ' y3 '

s

. N , r s x ,

\ \

. o

~

N Details h.

t g 4

1. persons Contacted ',% '

t

-n -

. a g, J. C. Finneran, pipe Suppoic Engineering Supervisor ~ I

V J. S. Marshall, Licensing Manger ;' ' '

s R. M. Kissinger, Project Clyf1-Engic.aer -

D. Rencher, Technical Suppor'tJDpf gehfieview Supervisor n 1 G. Krishnan, Site Stress,Analysjf;5apervisor S. Lakdawala, Small Bore $ trest Ana;!yfis, Supervisor , y

. 's Other Personnel 9 '. g '

s. . i s .

C. Ingalls, Analysis Engineer'\? tilt-GrinnellCorp.

D. E. Powers, Engineeringf.inance, 'ITT-Ghiinell Corp.

P. M. Salcone, Qua1{ty Assuran'ce' Er.gineer, ITT-cc innell iCorp. Q' '

V. Kumar, Supervisor of Structural Analysis, 'ITT-Griencl,1 ~ Corp. '

E. R. Eramian, Site Engineertig Manager, ITT-Gdfnnell' C C. I. Corban, Chief Engineer, Applied Mechanics,- G M \, eep.

P. R. Rajan, Senior Project Engineer, G&H 4

i-s N. N. Keddis, Quality Ass'uta.1ce Manager, G&H a ,

, 3 ,, ,,

\ ,

M. S. Miller, Pr6fect Q Q upariisor, G&H , . ' N' H. W. Mentel, Applied 14echinics Engineer, G&H ' \ 's" B. Czarnogorski, Senio.r Q'lality Ass ~urance Engineer, G&H J. A. Tesoro, Technicdi Ihformation Manager;iG&H '

, J. Hanowitz, Technical Infqrmat on Senior Engi6eer, _G&H J_.

M. Tipismana, Librar$4r.s Administrator, G&H s. E', s s,

J. F. K. Lee, Applied.;,..; Hnntnics<sEngineer, G&H' (s g

2. Concerns Raised by Jame's Y'ost' s

,, , s, During the Septerzber 1982 ASLBsComanche Peak evidentiary beap r};, sir. James Yost presented a limited.ap~oeargnc'e statement wherein he pre: rtti!d the following five specUfe. conceindelated to the desigrj of p1pe 's'Upports:

j .. g, 3

a. FUB-II Base-Plate Prograv ' %' '

\3 6 s'

s\ T'e '

Mr. Yost alleged that thit prograin das never va, Tidata'ddnd 'that the program only checked'one tolt out of, four for 't'ension', load.i An inspection was conducted at the ITT-Gyir.nell , engineering office in Providence, Rhode Island, in or'a,tt to address the-concern. The NRC inspector reviewed the ITT-Grinnell Benchmark Ver.tfication Study which documents the validation of'the FUB-II program against finite element analyses utilizing the Stardyne computer code.

The Benchmark Study was originally performed in August 1980 for Revision 2 of the prograra and again performed in September 1982 for Revision 3 utilizing the Base-Plate II finite analysis computer code.

. - - - . - - -,a -

- . _ . . - ~. -..a - - ..- , _ , --nn. -_.. - . - - -

( (

.s-4 This program, which stands for Field Unsymmetrical Bolts, was developed

, for a rapid determination of the adequacy of bolt and base plate designs where the pattern is unsymmetrical.

i In January of 1981, in response to a site generated question as to

whether the program only analyzed the tensile load on bolt No. 4, an analysis was performed which censidered the direct tensile load and the results showed that this was not the case. However, it was

discovered that in the equations developed to convert bending moments i

to equivalent pull-out force couples, the program bypassed a com-i parison step intended to identify the desired smaller moment arm. An analysis was then performed to quantify the effect of the programming error. This analysis involved the comparison of 25 supports utilizing 1 FUB-II Revision 2, FUB-II Revision 3, and a finite element analysis

utilizing the Base-Plate II computer code. Revision 3 of FUB-II was

. developed to always select the largest moment arm.

i The analysis showed that Revision 3 of FUB-II was approximately

. 25 percent more conservative when compared to the finite element analysis. The programming error was therefore considered to be of no l significance with respect to past calculations utilizing Revision 2.

Revision 3 of FUB-II was adopted for use since it removed some of the

, excessive conservatism in Revision 2 identified in the comparative i

analysis. Revision 3 of FUB-II still contains the following conserva-tisms: . it does not account for plate rigidity; it sums shear stresses in all directions algebra.ically and not vectorally; it always lists l the maximum shear and pull-out as occurring in the same bolt; and .

l finally, as the deviation from symmetry increases, the eccentricity l component of shear goes.up. '

The concern expressed by Mr. Yost was correct, in part, although the i technical reason he g. ave as the basis for concern was not substantiated.

l

'It was concluded that, although the program bypassed a comparison step intended to identify the desired smaller moment arm, it does not represent'a problem which impacts on the adequacy of the design of base plates utilizing the_ FUB-II Revision 2 program at Comanche Peak.

b.- Corner & Lada Base-Plate Program Mr. Yost alleged that the Corner & Lada base plate program erroneously assumes rotation about the center of attachment and that this' program has not been validated.

i The NRC inspector reviewed documentation of the Benchmark. Studies.of l the Corner & Lada program which were based on the Teledyne Engineering Services finite element analysis and on 'a Corner & Lada finite element analysis. Two analyses were performed, one on a 0.375-inch-thick. plate and one on a 0.750-inch'. thick plate. Respective vari- .

ations of maximum bolt tension from the finite slement analyses were '

9.5 and 3.3 percent. These results confirm the validation of the l

i

( ( l 5

4 Corner & Lada program for base plates. Mr. Yost's statement that the program assumes rotation about the center of attachment is correct, but it is also a more conservative method of analysis because it represents a larger flexibility in the plate than actually exists.

His implication that a higher rigidity exists is also correct, but if ;

analyzed as such, it would result in lese conservative results. This method of rigid' analysis would represent the center-line moment as a tension / compression couple which would reduce the plate prying action. This would, in turn, result in a smaller bolt pull-out load .

and thus result in a less conservative analysis. Mr. Yost's concern is, therefore, considered without merit.

c. ADLPIPE Computer Program Mr. Yost raises a concern that, "The so-called rigorous pipe analysis is a theoretical computer program, which to my knowled been valida% d," (see hearing transcript at page 4863)ge, . During has an never inspection at the G&H New York engineering office, the NRC inspector reviewed the documentation supporting the benchmark verification of 1 the ADLPIPE computer code The verification of the code was performed in accordance with G&H Engineering and Design Procedure No. EDP-10, Revision 2, " Control and Development of Computer Programs."

During the inspection,.the NRC inspector was shown a letter (Referenc'e:

Benchmark verification of the Pi June 12,-1980) sent to Arthur D. ping Computer Little Inc.

g Code ADLPIPE-3C, (developer of ADLPIPE) dated -

fro:n the Division of Engineering of NRC s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, wherein the NRC staff found acceptable agreement with the

piping benchmark probless' generated to. assure that the computer code will calculate displacement and force responses of piping systems subjected to multi-directional seismic excitation using.the modal superposition / response spectrum techniques specified in Regulatory l Guide 1.92, " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components.in-Seismic Response Analysis." This review by tne NRC staff was of the G&H response to IE Bulletin No. 79-07, " Seismic Stress Analysis of l Safety-Related Piping." .As a result of their inspection, Mr. Yost's l concern with the'ADLPIPE computer code for the dynamic stress analysis of piping systems is unfounded.

d; Seismic Spectra .

~ ~

Mr.-Yost stated that.the seismic-response spectra generated for the-Comanche Peak plant was nonrepresentative-and had poor agreement with the Uniform Building Code.- The' seismic analysis techniques.used by.

the licensee are presented in'the Safety Analysis Report.and were l

previously reviewed by the'NRC staff. During this inspection, the-NRC. inspector reviewed the acceleration' values given'in the.G&H

. npiping design specification No..MS-200. No discrepancies from standard engineering practice for the generation of seismic accelera-tion values at different elevations were identified. With respect to the Uniform Building. Code, it.islthe finding of the NRC inspector

.m- w e e. y -m -w+ ---- 1--w e. mu-.-,,,gw- - - -v- , sy- rwa-w - y w v ,- v--ww-,,-,rerew-, we+

(

C r .

6 that, although not applicable to the design of nuclear plants, if compared to the design techniques utilized at Comanche Peak it is much less conservative. Mr. Yost's concern is unfounded.

e. Interface Between Class 3 and 5 Lines Mr. Yost expressed concern that supports for Class 5 lines adjacent to Class 3 lines could fail and cause a chain reaction resulting in the failure of the safety-related Class 3 lines. The Class 5 designa-tion is used to identify those non-nuclear safety-related piping lines which are located in seismic category I structures. During this inspection, it was verified that based on specific routing a G&H damage study has determined the impact of all Class 5 lines larger than 2 inches for their capability to reduce the functioning of seismic category I systems and components as required by Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification." The design techniques utilized for the design of supports at the interface between class designations on the same line were also reviewed. Since there is an unknown contribution from the Class 5 segment on the Class 3 supports, two supports in the Class 5 segment are included in the Class 3 design. In addition, the rest of the Class 5 line is represented by utilizing the maximum dead weight span recommended in the ASME Code along with the peak acceleration of the response spectra.

The resultant loads are chen superimposed on the last supports. This analysis is performed for.each axis and was verified by the NRC -

inspector for analysis No. SI-1-RB-41 of the Safety Injection System and analysis No. WP-X-AB-084 of the Waste Processing System. The analysis techniques were found to be consistent with good engineering practice. Mr. Yost's concern is without merit.

3. Licensee Action on previous Insoection Findinos

a. The following unresolved and open items identified in Report 50-445/82-26; 50-446/82-14 were reviewed during this inspection:

(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/8226-01; 50-446/8214-01): Bending

, Stresses in Richmond Bolts - On March 22, 1983, the NRC inspectors L witnessed the licensee's testing of Richmond inserts to determine the effect of a loading mechanism that models the actual configuration used at Comanche Peak. The actual configuration incorporates a 1-inch thick washer which was thought to introduce a bending moment in the bolt 'which might adversely influence the load displacement characteristics originally assumed. The result of the tests indicate that even at a load equivalent to a factor of safety of 3.3, suf-ficient ductility in the bolt does not lead to failure. The design factor of safety utilized for this analysis is based on the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code allowable of 17.67 Kips in shear as opposed to the American Society o.f Mechanical Engineers

l :

i'

~

( (

7 (ASME) Code allowable of 19.08 Kips. The ductile load displacement characteristics observed assure that under LOCA thermal expansion conditions, the resultant loads will be self-limiting and the pipe supports will be capable of performing their intended design function which is to carry the imposed loads without failure. Since, the performance of the Richmond insert in shear with a 1-inch washer offset will not be adversely affected, this matter is considered closed.

(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/8226-02; 50-446/8214-02): Sufficiency of Richmond Insert Test Data - As discussed above, the NRC inspectors witnessed the testing of the Richmond inserts which was also~ performed in response to the Special Inspection Team observations of limited availability of test data. The testing involved the following specimens: three tests with the shear plate attached directly to the insert by an ASTM A-490 bolt, three tests with the shear plate '

separated from the insert by a 1-inch washer and employing an ASTM A-490 bolt, and three tests with the shear plate separated from the insert by a 1-inch washer and employing an ASTM A-307 bolt. The first six tests utilizing the high strength bolts were primarily a test of the insert while the last three tests were intended to ascertain the behavior of the typical bolting material. All nine tests resulted in a factor of safety above three when. compared to the design _allowables utilized at Comanche Peak. The conduct of these tests and their satisfactory results closes this unresolved item.

(Closed) Open Item (50-445/8226-03): Support Modifications - The ,

verification of modifications to four Service Water System supports

. spanning from floor to ceiling was performed during this inspection.

During the course of_the special inspection, the licensee stated that the modifications were required because the supports would be unable to withstand differential seismic displacements. It was subsequently

-determined that the seismic response of an adjacent slab was utilized in that determination. In addition, due to the small span of the actual slab, the suspected large differential seismic displacements will not occur. Nevertheless, the proposed modifications were implemented and thus close this open item.

b. The following unresolved item identified in Report 50-445/82-22 was also reviewed during this inspection:

(0 pen) Unresolved Item (50-445/8222-02): Engineering Analysis of Weld Discrepancies - The NRC inspector evaluated the licensee's engineering analysis of the deficient welds on the main steam pipe-whip restraint located outside the Unit 1 Reactor Containment Building.

-The analysis. consisted of determining whether unacceptable stresses would result in either the weld or in the base metal of the.as-found condition when compared to the stress intensities of the original design. This.snalytical comparison is documented in G&H calculation No. SSB-125C, Set 1. As a result of the. review conducted during.this

5

)

( (

8 inspection, the NRC inspector concurs with the licensee's determina-tion that, with the exception of the cracks in welds that are to be repaired, the present weld deficiencies will not adversely affect the design function of the structure. This item remains unresolved.

~

4 9

4 4

I COMANCHE PEAK CT.EAM ELECTRIC STATION

,,,g, lES - .

h'i ~"

, din CO. . NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR)

M-82-01589 R.1

~

JNIT ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /ID NUMBER LOCATION OR ELEVATION RIR NO.

STRUQTUREiSYSTEM 3 Pipe Whip 1 Safeguard Buildings Restraint See Attached 852'(Floor) N/A NONCONFORMING CONDITION Pipe whip restraints supplied by NPS industries (See Attached) have weld indications that are not acceptable per AWS D1.1-80.

Yu g 4 Hold tags applied.

/hBNS gA RECORD

~ ,/ WD l

O

{

at Q"'$ av Fit E NU/

'f b OAN c sua i E p REFERENCE DOCUMENT NPSI Ref. Dwg E-117 & 118/AWS D1.1-80 REV PARA REPORTED BY: DATE:

B. Baker 9/ 29 82 3 7 DATE: i

\ OE REVIEW// APPROVAL:k?/$xi r f/tcM ~w' 4 12 123 1 U ACTION ADDRESSEE DEPARTMENT J.B. George /Kissinger Engineering DISPOSITION:

REPAIR XXX USE AS IS NEE SCRAP REWORK Teniporary waiver: to allow exploratory grinding on weld defects, and to allow y FINAL DISPOSITION

$ The weld deflects excluding the cracks are acceptable to use as is per attached

@! CPPA letters. Weld Engineering is to generate a RPS to repair cracks.

8 Nfjfjg 7 DATE:

ENG. REVIEfViAPPROVAL MMook A W /1 fA J/ .

2i5i85

. " "N'f^'&&c5" SiO (, $"$h)})$ IiY$l89' COMMENTS: R. l' issued to add to the disposition. fwAL IItM5-I-00/643

s

                                              , I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEMAS UTILITIES CR Na NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR)

I

GENERATING CO.
M-82-01589 ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /lO N BER LOCATION OR ELEVATION RIR NO.

[~i UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM Tipe Whip 1 Safeguards Bldg. Restraint See Attached 852' (Floor) N/A NONCONFORMING CONDITIO.4 Pipe whip restraints supplied by NPS industries (See Attached) have weld indications Gi that are not acceptable per AWS D1.1-80. z 8 5

      $         4 Hold tags applied.

Z 2 e NPSI Ref. Dwa. E-117 & 118 ngy p3a3 REFERENCE DOCUMENT. AWS D1.1-80 DATE: REPORTED BY: B. Baker , 9 ,29 ,82 JI n DATE: OE REVIEW / APPROVAL: f IMik [D ACTION ADDRESSEE DEPARTMENT Engineering J. B. Georae/Kissinaer DISPOSITION: REWORK REPAIR XXX USE AS IS SCRAP MXM)600C)000fXMPXXt0(XtXXX)e00tXKte( K)000tKMX)er)C000000h00(tXXM X9htX h w g i

                    *KMEXXW)M3000H0(M)er4kWXXXtXXWK)00000(tXWXM)00tXXXWXI@M                              g        -
                                                                                                                      . /4./g .g y, e

e

      @              Temporary waiver: to allow exploratory grinding on weld defects, and to allow
      <                                         installation pipe snubbers.

z O, _ y - f04 g,

              '""~"'" 7 2)f f lg y e ,9 -                                  ' ""UQmn    -.        .-

n ,"7hn QE REVIEW APPROVAL: Mg D ,

                                                            '                                                              DATE:

DISPOSITION VERIFICATION & CLOSUhE:

                                                                                                                           /   /

s COMMENTS:

-}}

ML20083N265

Contents

Text

Dear Mr. Madsen:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Dear Mr. Ballard:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCES:

Dear Mr. Madsen:

Enclosure:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

ML20083N265

Text

Dear Mr. Madsen:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Dear Mr. Ballard:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCES:

Dear Mr. Madsen:

Enclosure:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search