ML20097J720
| ML20097J720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1984 |
| From: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| References | |
| ANPP-30311-TDS, DER-83-83, NUDOCS 8409210361 | |
| Download: ML20097J720 (5) | |
Text
-
Arizona Public Service Company (CORRECTED COPY)
August 23, 1984 ANPP-30311-TDS/TRB 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:
Final Report - DER 83-83 A 50.55(e) Reportable Condition 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. Parrish on December 2, 1983 B) ANPP-28540, dated January 4,1984 -(Interim Report)
C) ANPP-29247, dated April 6,1984 (Time Extension)
D) ANPP-29584, dated May 23, 1984 (Interim Report)
Dear Sir:
Attached is our final written report of the deficiency referenced above, which has been determined to be Reportable under the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e).
' Very truly yours, ELL L 2/gl E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President Nuclear Production ANPP Project Director-A EE EEVB/TRB/nj
[@
4;,)
Attachment e
o cc:
See Page Two i?
c$
k i
d v
g 8409210361 840823 I
PDR ADOCK 05000528 I I S
((-)l
=
=
~
s Mr. T. W. Bishop DER 83-83 Page Two ec:
Richard' DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection'and Enforcement
. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1
T. G. Woods, Jr.
'D. B. Karner W. E. Ide D. B. Fasnacht A. C. Rogers L. A. Souza D. E. Fowler T. D. Shriver C. N. Russo
. J. Vorees J. R. Bynum J. M. Allen J. A. Brand A. C. Gehr 1
W. J. Stubblefield W. G. Bingham R. L. Patterson R. W. W'lcher 1
e H. D. Foster D. R. Hawkinson L. E. Vorderbrueggen R. P. Zimmerman S. R. Frost J. Self M. Woods T. J. Bloo'm D. N. Stover i
D. Canady Records Center Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30339 f
e
,.--..,v
,,,..,,.,, -,.-- ~.,..,,,, -,
,c.,
l
-N
..L FINAL REPORT - DER 83-83 DEFICIENCY EVALUATION 50.55(e)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (APS)
PVNGS UNITS 1, 2,'3
- I.
Description of Deficiency u
Pipe support drawing 13-SI-193-H008 Rev. 5 requires the installation of an ITT Grinnell sway strut assembly size No. 7 for Item 61 of the drawing. In Unit 2, construction personnel substituted Corner and Lada (C&L) sway strut size No. 7 for the Grinnell size N.~ 7 sway strut. The required design load o
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 and Lada sway. strut size 7 has a Level D maximum load rating of 39,480 lbs.
The problem was discovered during a field engineering inspection in Unit 2.
Specification 13-PM-204 allows the interchange of pipe support components supplied by ITT Grinnell and Corner and Lada, provided they have the same design load capacities. The size designation and associated design load capacity for most pipe support components, such as variable springs, constant supports, and mechanical shock arrestors are consistent between suppliera. The only components for which this does not apply are sway struts. A Corner and Lada sway strut of a given size has a lower load capacity than a Grinnell sway strut of the same size designation. When pipe support 2-SI-193-H-008 was installed, the Grinnell sway strut was replaced with a Corner and Lada sway strut of the same size designation rather than the same load capacity.
To verify that other Laproper 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 Table I.
Of the six undersized supports found, only one had a design load in excess of its capacity.
TABLE l' Description Qty A.
Pipe supports having correct size 262 C&L sway strut i
B.
Pipe supports with undersized C&L 6
sway strut C.
Pipe supports with oversized C&L 4
sway strut D.
Pipe supports not inspected because 52 scaffold was required
r.-
. ~ - - -
Y,ITe:
~
s'
.i
~
i RNr. T. WO Bishop.
Page Two-
-II.
Analysis of Safety Implications Pipe support 13-SI-193-H008 is in the safety. injection system which is, required for safe shutdown of_ the reactor. The substitution of a greatly undersized support would cause excessive loading of nozzles in the piping system.
Based upon the above, this condition. is evaluated as reportable under 10CFR Part 50.55(e) since, if lef t uncorrected, it would constitute a significant safety hazard.
The root cause of this deficiency is attributed, not to a basic component, but to the failure on the part of -
construction and/or field engineering personnel to select for installation ~the component specified on the design drawing.
Based on the above,-this deficiency-is evaluated as not reportable under the requirements of 10CFR Part 21.
III.
Corrective' Action A. NCR PC-7460 was dispositioned to replace the Corner and Lada size No. 7 strut used for a pport 13-SI-193-H008 with another sway strut assembly equivalent to an ITT Grinnell sway strut assembly size No. 7.
B. The six undersized C&L pipe supports identified in the-Unit 2 inspection will be removed and replaced with a sway strut sized per latest design drawings. This will be accomplished by NCRs PA-7744, PC-7823, PC-7826, PC-7827, PC-7841, and PC-7706.
C. The fou'r oversized C&L pipe supports identified in the Unit 2 inspection will be dispositioned Use-As-Is per NCRs PI-7842, PC-7824, PC-7825, and PC-7843.
D. For Unit 1, Bechtel Construction has initiated a reinspection program under WPP/QCI 564.0 for all Corner and Lada supports presently installed. This. reinspection is scheduled to be complete August 30, 1984. A similar reinspection program will be initiated for Unit 3.
Deficiencies found shall be documented by NCR which cross-reference this DER for reportability disposition.
E. To improve inspection standards. in Units 1, 2, and 3. the following training sessions, including specialized training by Bechtel's Material and Quality Services (M&QS) on inspection techniques have been conducted with QC and Field Engineering personnel:
l'
O * ',; : *,
. (
Mr. T. W. Bishop ANPP-30311-TDS/TRB Page Three 1.
ll Corrective Action Reverification Program has been established by Bechtel Jobsite QA. The purpose of this program is to reverify the effectiveness of previous corrective actions taken for selected quality problems which:
a.
were serious enough to have been reported to the NRC (DERs).
b.
have a history of recurrence (trends / audit / surveillance CARS).
c.
may be generic (Bechtel Power Divisions CIDS computer program).
2.
The Field QA Surveillance Program has been upgraded to include a selective sampling of QC-accepted installations on a monthly basis to continually assess effectiveness of the inspection program in vital areas of pipe supports.
3.
Specification 13-PM-204 has been revised to include 4
load capacity data sheets for ITT Grinnell and Corner and Lada sway struts as an additional clarification via SCN No. 3573.
4.
A copy of this report will be sent to the Bechtel Field Construction Manager requesting that this report and Specification Change Notice No. 3573 be used for Construction training to preclude further occurrences.
a 9
4 e
i
,+
3
.c.
r.-
,-.