ML20091J233

Rev 1 to Interim Deficiency Rept DER 83-83 Re Incorrect Sway Strut Supporting Installed Class Q1A Piping.Initially Reported on 831202.Investigation Incomplete.Final Rept Will Be Submitted by 840824

ML20091J233
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	05/23/1984
From:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
ANPP-29584-TDS, DER-83-83, NUDOCS 8406050442
Download: ML20091J233 (4)

Text

f CCas ww Arizona Public Service Company P.O. BOX 21666 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85038 3 ."'J 30 D: D i E May 23,1984 ANPP-29584-TDS/RBic;; 2 -

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V Creekside Oaks Office Park 1450 Maria Lane - Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368 Attention: Mr. T. W. Bishop, Director Division of Resident Reactor Projects and Engineering Programs

Subject:

Interim Report, Revision 1 - DER 83-83 A 50.55(e) Potentially Reportable Deficiency Relating to Incorrect Sway Strut Supporting Class Q1A Piping Was Installed File: 84-019-026; D.4.33.2

Reference:

A) Telephone Conversation between P. Gage and K. C. Parrish on December 2, 1983 B) ANPP-28540, dated January 4, 1984 (Interim Report)

C) ANPP-29247, dated April 6,1984 (Time Extension)

Dear Sir The NRC was notified of a potentially reportable deficiency in Reference A, an Interim Report was transe.itted by Reference B, and a Time Extension was requested by Reference C. At that time, it was estimated that a Final Report would be available by May 25, 1984.

Due to the extensive investigation and evaluation required, a revised Interim Report is attached. It is now expected that this information will be finalized by August 24, 1984, at which time a complete report

- will be submitted.

Very truly yours,

-. h (w N E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.

APS Vice President Nuclear Production ANFP Project Director EEVB/TRB:ru Attachment cc: See Page Two 8406050442 840523

• PDR ADocK 05000529 PDR g_.g\ \

n.'

8

r -.

, ' g-Mr. T. W. Bishop DER 83-83 Page Two cc: Richard DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 s

T. G. Woods, Jr.

D. B. Karner W. E. Ide D. B. Easnacht A. C. Rogers.

B. S. Kaplan L. A. Souza

-D. E. Fowler J. Vorees '

J. R. Bynum J. M. Allen P. P. Klute A. C. Gehr

'W. J. Stubblefield W. G. Bingham R. L. Patterson R. W. Welcher H. D. Foster D. R. Hawkinson L. E. Vorderbrueggen G. A. Fiore111' S. R. Frost J. Self D. Canady Records Center Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 1500

. Atlanta, GA 30339 4

S. 2

i ,

't INTERIM REPORT - DER 83-63 POTENTIAL REPORTABLE DEFICIENCY ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS)

PVNGS UNIT 2

'I. P5tential' Problem Pipe support drawing 13-SI-193-H008 Rev. 5 and Specification 13-PM-204 Rev.12 require the installation of an ITT Grinnel away strut assembly size No. 7 for Item 61 of the drawing. During a.

field engineering inspection it was discovered that a Corner & Lada (C&L) sway strut size 7 was installed and accepted.

The required. design load for the sway strut assembly is 85,895 lbs.

~

The ITT- Grinnell sway strut assembly size No. 7 has a Level D maximum load rating of 86,500 -lbs., whereas ~ the Corner & Lada sway strut size 7 has a Level D maximum load rating of 39,480 lbs.

~

-II. Approach T5'And Status 5f' Proposed'Res51utidn

' No nconformance Report PC-7460 was dispositioned to-replace .the existing' Corner & Lada size 7 sway strut assembly with an ITT Grinnel sway strut assembly size No. 7- as per design requirements. ,

-For the same size designation, the Corner & Lada sway strut has a lower load capacity than the ITT Grinnel sway strut. To verify that other improper substitutions were not made, an inspection of the C&L sway. struts installed in Unit'2 was made. The results of this inspection are given in Ta' ole I.

The inar tion results show that less 'than 1% of the sway struts evalua+ failed to meet the latest design load requirements.

~ A similar walkdown inspection will be made .for the C&L sway strut assemblies in Units 1 and 3. After reviewing the findings'of this inspection, a decision will be made as to any further investigation.

TABLE 1 Description Qty Remarks A. . Pipe supports having correct size C&L zway strut 262

.B. Pipe supports with NCRs stating

~ incorrect C&L sway strut installed 10 see note 1

'C. Pipe supports not inspected because scaffold was required 52

' NOTE 1: The following NCRs were-initiated and dispositioned

.- y Interin Report DER 83-83 Page Two NCR N5.- Problem Disposition PA-7744* Undersized Strut Installed PC-7 823* Undersized Strut Installed Remove installed sway strut

~PC-7826 Undersized Strut Installed and replace with a sway PC-7 827* -Undersized Strut Installed strut sized as per latest PC-7841* U'n dersized Strut Installed design drawings PC-7640 Undersized Strut Installed PC-7824 Oversized Strut Installed Us e-As-Is P C-7825' - Oversized Strut Insta.~ .ed Use-As-Is PT-7842 Oversized Strut Instailed Us e-As-Is PC-7843 Oversized Strut Installed Use-As-Is

• Further investigation by Engineering revealed that the installed sway struts in these NCRs were still able to meet latest design load requirements, so no significant safety problem would exist if they had not been detected.

~ ~

III. Pr5jected 'Completi5n 5f C5rrective Acti5n and Submittal 5f' the Final Report Evaluation of this condition and submittal of the Final Report is 4

forecast to be completed by August 24, 1984.

h l

n i

f -~

i~

1

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