ML20133B113
| ML20133B113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1985 |
| From: | Barton R UNITED ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133B096 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510030026 | |
| Download: ML20133B113 (28) | |
Text
,-
A FINAL REPORT FOR NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PIPING ANALYSIS / PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN, THIRD PARTY REVIEW PREPARED' BY:
UNITED ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
FOR NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY Rev. Date Prepared Reviewed Date:
November 11, 1983 No.
By By 1
8/30/85 Prepared By:
It. W. Barton Project M nager Reviewed By:
.Riffmonti ChieVPower Engineer 8510030026 851001ADOCK 05000333 PDR PM P
s ABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
1.1 Objectives -
1 1.2 Approach 1
1.3 Definitions 2
1.3.1 Findings 2
l 1.4 -Organizations / Interfaces 2
1.5 Conclusion Summary 3
1.5.1 Damaged Supports 3
1.5.2 As-Built Vs. As-Analyzed Data 3
1.5.3 Original Operating Loads 4
1.5.4 Adequacy of Supports Not Reviewed For I.E.Bulletin 79-07 Program 4
2.0 ' METHODOLOGY AND RATIONALE 2.1 Activities Description 5
2.1.1 Activity 1, Resolution Meeting 5
2.1.2 Activity 2, Develop Selection Rationale 5
2.1.3 Activity 3, Select Lines and Supports To Be Reviewed 5
2.1.4 Activity 4, Perform Procedural Audit 5
2.1.5 Activity 5, Obtain As-Built Isometric and Support Drawings 5
2.1.6 Activity 6, Field Review of As-Built Drawings Vs. Installation 6
2.1.7 Activity 7, Review of As Built Drawings Vs. Analytical Model 6
-2.1.8 Activity 8, Review of Adequacy of
' Support Calculations 6
2.1.9 Recirculation System Review 6
2.2 Selection Rationale 7
l 4
l 2.2.1 Original Systems / Supports Selection Rationale 7
l 2.2.2 Representative Support Calculations 8
l 2.2.3 Additional As-Built Supports 8
2.2.4 Transient Analysis 8
l 4
Page 1 of 3
4 ABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
3.0 RESULTS OF REVIEW / EVALUATIONS 9
3.1 Procedural Review 9
3.1.1 Review of I.E.Bulletin 79-14 and I.E.Bulletin 79-07 Incerface 9
3.1.2 NYPA I.E.Bulletin 79-14 Field Walk Program 9
3.2 Field Investigation 10 3.2.1 Initial Field Investigation 10 3.2.2 Field Check of NYPA's I.E.Bulletin 79-14 Activity 11 3.3 Analytical Reviews 11 3.3.1 Modelling Validity 11 3.3.2 Support Calculations 12 4
3.3.3 Main Steam System Operating Transient Analysis 13 3.3.4-Miscellaneous 14
4.0 CONCLUSION
S 4.1 Damaged Supports 15 l
4.2 As-Built Vs,. As-Analyzed uata 15 l
4.3 Orig:aal Operating Loads 15 l
4.4 Adequacy of Supports Not Reviewed For I.E.
Bulletin 79-07 Program 15 l
5.0 REFERENCES
16 l
6.0 KEY UNITED PERSONNEL 17 l
t l
l'-
Page 2 of 3 l
... -... ~ -. - - -, - _ _ _ - - - - - _ - -
=
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.
TABLE 1 Summary of Findings (2 Sheets)
TABLE 2 Systems Selected For Review TABLE 3 Support Population Investigated TABLE 4 Descrihtion And Status of Findings (6 Sheets)
LIST OF FIGURES
\\
FIGURE 1 Program Outline s
s 4
m.
Page 3 of 3
t
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
1.1 Obj ectives At the request of the New York Power Authority (NYPA) in late July, 1983, United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. (UNITED) initiated a Third Party Review of specific aspects of the piping analysis / pipe support design / field walk activities that had been. performed for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF) in response to NRC I.E. Bulletina 79-07 and 79-14.
The specific areas addressed by the study were based on the concerns expressed by Target Technology Limited (TTL) regarding a) alleged
- damaged supports /potentially unsafe conditions b) alleged inconsis-tencies.between "as-built" information and piping analysis / support design c) reasonableness of original operating loads and d) adequacy of those suports which were not reviewed during the NRC I.E.Bulletin 79-07 program (References 1 and 2).
1.2 Approach The key features of UNITED's approach to the Third Party Review included the following:
A separate team of experienced quality o Procedural Audit assurance and technical personnel reviewed the overall pro-cedures and practices that were utilized by NYPA and S&W in their performance of the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 and 79-14 Program.
This team reviewed representative documentation to assure that these procedures and practices were followed.
A separate team of~ experienced piping analysis o Technical Audit and pipe-support design personnel reviewed the validity and completeness of the various analyses, the analytical input, 4
and the computer models that were utilized for the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 and 79-14 Program.
o Additional Evaluations - In cases where procedural compliance was in question, additional documentation review / field verifications were performed to assess the adequacy of the design aspects under consideration and/or to identify any potential generic implications of findings.
o Resolution of Findings - Where additional evaluations /calcula-tions were deemed necessary by UNITED to clarify / resolve a finding, this data was requested by UNITED and provided by the responsible organization (NYPA, S&W, GE, IMPELL, ITT-GRINNELL, TTL).
1-m 3
m
-P-+
-ev--
g
---,-,9 ey
,a
-w+4wyw-*
r
--w--=
y m=.>,--c-ee
-em-mprapr,--y-m---e.gc+*
y-w."
f T
T8"'
"1-"C'T"
- T"'
"NT"^"
- "'9
1.3 Definitions 1.3.1 Findings All of the anomalies and discrepancies identified during the review, which in UNITED's judgement required additional action, were reported as findings.
Where potentially significant findings were identified, UNITED performed preliminary evalua-tions, where possible, to determine-the seriousness of the effects. At the same time, expedited, formal documented resolution from the responsible organization involved (NYPA, S&W, GE, IMPELL, ITT-GRINNELL, TTL) was requested.
1.4 Organizations / Interfaces
~
During the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 and 79-14, activity, NYPA retained S&W and TTL to support the piping reanalysis / support redesign activity for the af fected systems; and GE for reconciliation of differences between as-built vs. as-analyzed conditions for the Recirculation System.
The following represents the general areas of responsibility and interf ace that were established between the responsible organizations within several months after the issuance of I.E. Bulletin 79-07:
NYPA - Responsible for the I.E.Bulletin 79-14 line-walk program conducted at the JAF Site.
S&W = Responsible for seismic reanalysis required by I.E.
Bulletin 79-07; responsible for incorporation of appropriate line-walk changes received from NYPA - JAF Site into piping reanalysis effort; ' responsible for providing appropriate design loads to TTL for redesign of supports requiring modifications.
TTL - Responsible for redesign of supports identified by S&W utilizing S&W supplied loads; responsible for providing as-built support design and calculations to S&W for incorporation in final packages.
GI! - Responsible for reconciliation of I.E.Bulletin 79-14 line walk program data for their systems.
(The' Recirculation System was of specific interest for the Third Party Review).
EDS (now IMPELL) - Responsible for performing certain piping analyges for G.E.
ITT-Grinnell - Responsible for original design of supports for GE's Recirculation System.
When necessary, UNITED's Third Party Review personnel interfaced directly with key members of the organizations listed above.
2-
1.4 Organizations / Interfaces (Cont.)
An initial interf ace meeting was held between UNITED-, TTL and NYPA to better understand TTL's areas of concerns (References 3, 4 and 5).
A similar meeting was held between UNITED, S&W and NYPA to define UNITED's objectives _and to obtain initial input documentation in order to conduct UNITED's review (Reference 6).
Subsequent meetings were held between specific UNITED reviewers and members of other organizations as necessary to obtain data, clarification and resolution of findings. Meetings and related telephone conversations were ' formally documented.
1.5 Conclusion Sucmary UNITED's findings are summarized on Table 1.
All Findings have been satisfactorily resolved. A summary of conclusions for each of the areas addressed by UNITED's review follows:
1.5.1 Damaged, Supports No damaged supports were discovered as part of UNITED's review that would repeasent an unsafe condition. UNITED reviewed the main steam line analyses where structural steel associated with supports had damage. The analyses performed by S&W to confirm the structural adequacy of the supports were reviewed and were found to be acceptable.
1.5.2 As-Built Vs. As-Analyzed Data UNITED's review concluded that S&W had satisfactorily incor-porated as-built information received from NYPA into S&W's re-analysis of piping systems.
Although no written procedure existed, UNITED obtained additional documentation and evalua-tion from S&W to provide adequate confidence that the effort was performed in a satisfactory manner.
UNITED's review of the Recirculation System indicated that GE/EDS
~
(IMPELL) had satisfactorily resolved discrepancies between as-built information received from NYPA and as-analyzed information in the analytical model.
UNITED's review of NYPA's field verification program identified that dimensional discrepancies existed for some supports.
S&W provided calculations that satisfactorily resolved these discrepancies; and NYPA developed and is currently implementing a comprehensive Pipe Support Inspection Program'to provide additional assurance of pipe support adequacy.
UNITED has reviewed the program and its implementation (References 26, 43) and found that program v.atent and status of implementation are satisfactory.
1.5.3 Original Operating Loads UNITED reviewed S&W's transient analysis of the Main Steam System which resulted in significantly reduced operating loads and found these calculations acceptable.
1.5.4 Adequacy of Supports Not Reviewed For I.E.Bulletin 79-07 Program UNITED reviewed S&W calculations for 20 typical supports in this category and found them acceptable. UNITED also reviewed ITT-Grinnell calculations for 5 typical snubber supports for the Recirculbtion System and found them acceptable.
1
TABLE 1 (Sheet 1 of 2)
JAF THIRD PARTY REVIEW l
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS FINDING NO.
FINDING DESCRIPTION STATUS 1.A.1 No written line walk procedure Resolved l
1.B.1 No written procedure for incorporating line Resolved walk data into reanalysis effort 2.A.l.
~
.CS Support H14-42A dimensional discrepancy Resolved 2.A.2 CS Support H14-2 dimensional discrepancy Resolved 2.A.3 CS Support H14-4 dimensional discrepancy Resolved 2.A.4 CS Support H14-64 ' dimensional discrepancy Resolved i
2.A~5 CS Support H14-72 dimensional discrepancy Resolved 2.A.6 CS Support H14-25 dimensional discrepancy Resolved
'~
2.A.7 CS Support H14-27 ' dimensional discrepancy Resolved CS Support H14-65 dimensional discrepancy Resolved 2.A.8
-2.A.9 HPCI Support H23-47 dimensional discrepancy Resolved
'2.A.10 HPCI Support H23-49 dimensional discrepancy Resolved 2.A.11.
HPCI Support H23-50 dimensional discrepancy Resolved
~
2.A.12 HPCI Support H23-53 dimensional discrepancy
. Resolved
(
2.A.13 RHR Support H10-32 dimensional discrepancy Resolved t
2.B.l' Rigid MS Support H29-147 Gap Discrepancy Resolved i.
2.B.2 Rigid MS Support H29-351 Gap Discrepancy Resolved 2.B.3 Rigid MS Support H29-145 Gap Discrepancy Resolved 2.B.4
' Rigid MS Support H29-25 Gap Discrepancy Resolved
- 2.B.5 Rigid FS Support H29-350 Gap Discrepancy Resolved i.
2.B.6 Rigid MS Support H29-146 Gap Discrepancy.
Resolved L
2.B.7 Rigid MS Support H29-23 Gap Discrepancy Resolved l
l
.2.B.8 Rigid MS Support H29-349 Gap Discrepancy Resolved
i I
TABLE 1 (Sheet 2 of 2)
JAF THIRD PARTY REVIEW
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS FINDING NO.
FINDING DESCRIPTION STATUS
- 2.B.9 Rigid MS Support H29-147. Gap Discrepancy Resolved 2.B.10 Rigid MS Support H29-21 Gap Discrepancy Resolved 2.B.ll
~ Rigid MS Support H29-348 Gap Discrepancy Resolved 2.B.12 Discrepancy.in gap between original vs.
Resolved modified CS Support H14-3 2.B.13 Additional Clearance Measurement Required Resolved-
.for MS Support PFSK-1868 2.B.14 Bowed Struts, MS Supports PFSK-921, H29-30A Resolved 2.B.15 Damaged Support Beam, Main Steam Lines A & B
~ Resolved 2.B.16 Feedwater Support H34-17 Modified, H34-18 Resolved Was.Not 2.B.17 Cut Structural Member, CS Support H14-4 Resolved 3'.A.1 Significant Reduction in Main Steam Resolved Transient Loads on Supports 3.B.1 -
Analysis of.1 1/8" Rod Associated with Resolved Support H14-4 3.B.2 Design Basis for Weld Attaching' Post to Resolved Structural Steel 3.C.1 Snubbers A7 and A8 Location Exceeded Resolved.
Tolerance allowed by Reconciliation Procedure 3.C.2 High Snubber Loads Resolved 3.C.3 S.nubber Design Temperature Resolved 3.D.1 Unidentified Rod Hanger.nn CS Isometric-Resolved Drawing 3.D.2 Feedwater Support H34-16A Discrepancy Resolved between Summary Sheet and Computer Analysis I
5
= -,, -
,,-,,3-,-
r,ww,.,--,
,-,y-.y, c.,
.,,-y---,,--,,
,,-,-,,r,,,,,,
-n.--,
.,.--w,.,,,,--,-----,,,--m,.w.-,.,,,,w,,
w ~, %gy----
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND RATIONALE
~2.1 Activities Description The flow' chart in Pigure 1 is an outline of UNITED's Third Party Review program. The chart identifies the specific activities which were performed by UNITED. A description of these activities is presented in the paragraphs below.
2.1.1 Activity 1, Resolution Meeting This activity involved a meeting between NYPA, TTL and UNITED to discuss TTL's specific concerns (Reference 1) and to enable UNITED to determine the specific areas that would be investi-gated as part of UNITED's Third Party Review.
These areas are identified in Paragraph 1.1 of this report.
2.1.2. Activity 2, Develop Selection Rationale Subsequent to the meeting with TTL (Activity 1 above), UNITED developed a rationale for selecting candidate systems and supports for UNITED's Third Party Review. This rationale is described in detail in' Paragraph 2.2.1 below.
2.1.3 Activity 3, Select Lines and Supports To Be Reviewed Utilizing the selection rationale developed'in Activity 2 above, UNITED selected candidate lines and associated supports for. review.
This activity was initiaced at a joint meeting between UNITED, S&W and NYPA (Reference 6).
I 2.1.4 Activity 4, Perform Procedural Audit This activity was initiated concurrently with Activity 3 above, in a joint meeting between UNITED, S&W and NYPA. This activity was performed by a team comprised of experienced Quality.
Assurance and Mechanical / Piping personnel.
This team reviewed the procedures and practices utilized by NYPA and S&W in performing the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 and 79-14 effort.
Where procedural deficiencies were identified, additional evaluations and requests for clarification were made in order to assess
-the adequacy of the activities performed by NYPA and S&W.
2.1.5 - Activity 5, Obtain As-Built Isometric and Support Drawings This activity was initisted in a joint meeting between UNITED, NYPA and S&W (Reference 6) where UNITED utilized the original Problem Books that had been packaged by S&W as part of their 1.E.Bulletin 79-07 effort. The associated isometric drawings and support drawin'gs from these Problem Books were then utilized in subsequent activities (Activities 6 and 7 below)..
1
.i 2.1. Activities Description (Cont.)-
2.1.6 Activity 6. Field Review of As-Built Drawings Vs. Installations j
-UNITED performed field walkdowns of selected supports to l
check general location, orientation, function and if damage was present. Any items requiring further clarification were brought to the attention of NYPA or S&W as appropriate, for resolution.
2.1.7 Activity 7. Review of As-Built Drawings Vs. Analytical Model The purpose of this activity was to determine if as-built drawing changes identified by NYPA for the I.E.Bulletin 79-14 activity were properly incorporated in the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 analyses by S&W. Further clarification of discrepancies and documentation was provided by S&W to UNITED.
2.1.8 Activity 8. Review Adequacy of Support Calculations As a separate activity, UNITED identified 20 representative supports for which S&W had the original design responsibility and for which-the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 seismic loads were less than or equal to original loads calculated for the plant.
The purpose of this' investigation was to determine the general adequacy of those supports which had not gone through a re-i evaluation as a result of the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 effort.
The rationale for selecting.these~ supports is discussed in Paragraph 2.2.2 below.
+
2.1.9 -Recirculation System Review The Recirculation System was reviewed as a separate activity subsequent to completing Activities 1 through 8 described above..This-review included the following areas:
h
' Piping computer analysis, including input vs. physical system
Procedure for -resolving as-built vs. as analyzed discrepancies and implementation of procedure Calculations for representative supports UNITED also identified specific data for the Recirculation System which was to be obtained by NYPA from GE, EDS (IMPELL) and ITT Grinell for UNITED's review (Reference 7).
4 4
4 I - _.. _. _ _ _.. _, _.. _ _ _ _. _. _. _ _, _. _ _, _ _ _ _. _ _ -
2.1 Activities Description (Cont.)
The activities described in Figure 1, although sequentially numbered, were not necessarily performed in the same order due to the availability of original documentation and schedule requirements.
Several activities were performed in parallel by different UNITED teams.
For instance, Activity 4, the procedural audit, was conducted -by a combined group of experienced Quality Assurance and Mechanical / Piping Engineering personnel in parallel with Activities 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which were performed by various groups of experienced Piping Analysis and Pipe Support Design personnel. Activities 2, 3 and 5 were performed in sequence prior to Activities 6, 7 and 8 which were performed in parallel.
2.2 Selection Rationale This paragraph describes the rationale used in selecting a) the original candidate systems and associated supports for UNITED's Third Party Review (Activities 5, 6, 7),
b) the rationale used in selecting 20 representative support calculations identified in the review of Activity 8 above and c) the rationale used in selecting the candidate supports for the additional field review of NYPA's I.
. E.Bulletin 79-14 program.
2.2.1 Original Systems / Supports Selection Rationale UNITED was concerned with those portions of important-to-safety systems which, if a pipe failure were to occur, could have major impact on plant safety.
Systems and associated supports were selected based on the following rationale:
Critical, high energy systems, pipe sizes 10 inches or larger.
Supports close to critical components and/or penetrations.
Load consideration included representative supports where seismic load was less than or equal to original load; and where seismic load increased including loads resulting in stresses greater than 33 percent of allowable.
The systems from which supports were selected are given in Table 2 which also identifies the S&W data packages (Problem Books) for the systems listed. GE's Recirculation System was also specifically identified for review based on concerns raised by TTL (Reference 3).
Table 3 presents a summary of the support population investi-gated in Activities 6, 7 and 8 of Figure 1.
7
-o-2.1 ~ Activities Description (Cont.)
2.2.2 Representative Support Calculations Representative supports were selected from the support popula-tion selected from the Paragraph 2.2.1 rationale. Th~e twenty supports selected for S & W systems (Reference 8) included l
' standard-type supports, and supports with welded attachments.
Priority was given to rigid type supports and snubber supports versus hanger supports. The intent was to include a representative mix of support sub elements for which calculations would be reviewed. UNITED also ' selected representative Recirculation System snubber supports (Reference 21) for review based on concerns raised ~ by TTL (Reference 3)..
2.2.3 Additional As-Built Supports In selecting supports for a field check of NYPA's I.E.Bulletin 79-14 line-walk program, UNITED selected candidate supports from the support population identified by Paragraph 2.2.1 above.
Since the plant was in operation at the time of the field investigation (November 4,1983 through November 6, 1983), not all of the candidate supports could be addressed due to high radiation and accessibility restrictions. However, a larger than required number of candidate supports were identified so that the number and mix of supports that were actually field checked was significant (see Table 3).
Priority was given to rigid supports and snubber supports versus hanger supports.
2.2.4 Transient Analysis UNITED also selected the operating transient analyses for Main Steam Lines A and B for review because of a concern raised.by TTL (Reference 3) regarding a significant transient i
load reduction during the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 program.
I i
l' t
8-i.
w
- -er"
-fw--v
-,-dy ya wr1,-ryre+wpww--
Np-aim yt---rm-vvg--+ww
+r,,y11 rge m mg-g w-wv -+ -wgr-gr
--a-my T wy-w'- T - w %
,_ev+-t w'
- w ww -WPw et W-9 W1-w-g'M9--'"g8-=**e"'tF*T e
~
JAF THIRD PARTY REVIEW PROGRAM OUTLINE
~
AC TI VI TY-1 AC TI VLT Y-4 RE SOLUTION PERFORM PROCEDURAL --]
WEE TING
~
$ TLpNiTED,NYPA)
AUDIT-l A C Tl VIT Y-2 ACTlvlTY-3 u
~
I DEVELOP SELECT LINES
$ SUPPORTS TO I
SELECTION
=
R ATIONA LE SE REVIEWED l
AC TI VIT Y -5 u l
08T AIN A S-8U I L T l
"~
ISOMETRIC DWGS. AND l
S UPPORT DWGS.
l
_ _ _ _ __ a ACT i V IT Y-6 i AC Tl VITY-7 6 AC Tl VI T Y-8 o
FIELD REVIEW RE VIEW OF AS-RE VIEW
-JK OF AS-8UILT BUILT DWGS. VS ADEQUACY j
DWGS. VS ANA L, MODE L
.OF SUPPORT l
INSTALLATIONS INPUT C A LC S.
4 l
-$ ONLY FOR SELECTED S h W SUPPORTS WITH 1.E. B U L L E TI N 79-07 SEISMIC LOAD <_ ORIGIN A L LOAD. THIS ACTIVl TY A LSO INCLUDES REVIEW OF GE PIPING ANALYSIS AND SUPPORT C A LC -
U L ATlON S FOR-T HE RECIRCUL ATION SYSTEM.
n.
TABLE 2 SYSTEMS SELECTED FOR REVIEW S&W 1.E.Bulletin 79-07
- Selected System Problem Book No.
Main Steam (A) 575 Main Steam (B) 631 Main Steam (C) 574 Main Steam (D) 575 Feedwater West A 578 & B1 Feedwater East B 578 & B1 Core Spray West A 669, 651 Core Spray East B 669, 651 HPCI (MS to'Turb.)
655 HPCI 681 & 679 in Book B1 RHR 738 in Book B2 (2 Books)
Recirculation System (Data obtained from GE, EDS-IMPELL and NYPA documents, References 22,'23, 24, C5)
.e A
w
w
d TABLE 3 SUPPORT POPULATION INVESTIGATED Support Type Review Performed Rigid
' Snubber Spring Subtotal (2)
Insta11at o Vs. As-Built Drawings 32 18 13 -
63 As-Built Drawings Vs. As-Analyzed Drawings 7
10 14 31 Support Calculation Adequac,' (3) 9 16 0
25 l
l (1) Includes original field "vestigationt (August 15-16, 1983) and subsequent field investi stfons (Novamber 4-6, 1983) 3 (2) Subtotals are not additive since the. conta., some common supports.
(3) Includes 5 anubber supports for Recircul ' ion 5; stem.
l
-3.0 RESULTS OF REVIEW / EVALUATIONS
~te (Table'4 provides a complete listing of all findings and resolutions from UNITED's Third Party Review program.)
3.1 Procedura1' Review x
~3.1.1 Review of I.E.Bulletin 79-14 and I.E.Bulletin 79-07 Interface Although S&W had developed a procedure for incorporating "as-
~
designed" changes into their "as-analyzed" model (Reference 9),
there was no written procedure describing how the "as-built" information, provided by NYPA for the I.E.Bulletin 79-14 program,.was. incorporated into S&W's I.E.Bulletin 79-07
. piping reanalysis activity (Finding No. 1.B.1).
To resolve this area S&W provided a " practices document" (Reference 10).
I This lack of a formal procedure (Finding No.1.B.1) prompted UNITED to request a detailed resolution of as-built dimensional descrepancies between the piping computer model and the as-built data received from NYPA. This resolution was. performed 4
and-presented in a separate package to UNITED (Reference 11).
UNITED reviewed this document and verified that the " practices document" was complied with. Finding No.
1.B.1 was, therefore, resolved 'for all of the eleven Problem Books as -indicated on Table 4.
For the Recirculation System, UNITED's review verified that NYPA had formally transmitted I.E.Bulletin 79-14 "as-built" information to GE (References 22, 29); that GE had responded that the differences between "as-built" and "as-analyzed" data were not significant (References 22, 26, 30, 31); and that GE and its consultant EDS (IMPELL) had utilized a satisfactory reconciliation procedure for resolving "as-built" vs. "as'-analyzed" discrepancies (Reference 26, 131). Finding 3.C.1 identified that for Snubbers A7 and A8, the "as-built" vs. "as-analyzed" location was greater' than that allowed by the reconciliation procedure. This was satisfactorily resolved by additional clarification received from NYPA (Reference 25).
3.1.2 NYPA I.E.Bulletin 79-14 Field Walk Program p
No written procedure could be identified which addressed the I.E.Bulletin 79-14 line-walk ef fort (Finding No. l.A.1).
However,~ a clarification of the general procedure utilized was provided to UNITED by NYPA (Reference 12).
In order to provide sufficient confidence that the field walkdown program had been adequately performed, UNITED performed additional field investigations. This is described in Paragraph 3.2.2 below.
Finding No. l.A.1 has been resolved by NYPA's commitment to a I
comprehensive Pipe Support Inspection Program (Reference 26) which is currently being implemented (Reference 43).,
....a.-.
13.2 Field Investigation 3.2.1 Initial Field Investigation UNITED utilized the lines and associated supports selected from Activity 2 on Figure 1 as candidates for this initial field investigation which was performed on August 15-16, 1983, prior to JAF plant startup. Not all of the pre-stlected supports could be field checked because of accessibility and radiation dose restraints. However, as indicated in Table 3, a significant number of supports were field checked. For supports which were examined, typical items checked were:
evidence of damage, gaps, support' orientation, spring setting (for hangers). This initial field investigation was not intended to provide a det' ailed duplication of NYPA's previous I.E.Bulletin 79-14 activity but was intended to provide an overview evaluation of-those factors which affect the validity of the pipe stress analysis. These factors were: proper location, orientation and function of critical supports.
There were several findings (Finding Nos. 2.B.1-17).. The only potentially significant findings identified were in the area of discrepancies in gaps associated with rigid guide supports (as measured by UNITED) versus those indicated on
'as-built drawings provided by NYPA to S&W (Finding Nos.
2.B.1-11).. Based on UNITED's evaluations of NYPA and S&W
{
- documentation, calculations and clarification (Reference 36),
these Findings 2.B.1-11 were satisfactorily resolved.
In addition, due to-the lack of a formal field walk procedure (Finding No.1.A-1), UNITED identified additional rigid supports with gaps which had not been field investigated by UNITED on August 15-16, 1983, for NYPA to verify before plant lstartup (Reference 13). These supports were selected from those. identified in Paragraph 2.2.1.
This field check-was performed by NYPA and additional clarification was provided to UNITED in subsequent documentation (References 14,15).
As a result of the above activity, a clarification of gap j
requiremen'ts between 'the original versus the modified drawing for Core Spray Support H14-3 was requested from NYPA (Finding No. 2.B.12); and an additional field measurement (support
. clearance) was identified for NYPA to perform during the next outage for Main Steam Line Support PFSK 1868 (Finding 2.B.13).
Both of these findings have been resolved based on UNITED's satisfactory review of calculations and documentation from S&W and NYPA, respectively (References 38, 39).
7 L,
1
~
l
, _,..., _. ~.,. _.... _ - _ _ _,
3.2.1 Initial Field Investigation (Cont.)
.0ther findings were identified as a result of the August 15-16, 1983, field inspection (Finding Nos. 2.B.14-17).
Finding 2.B.14-16 has been resolved based upon UNITED's review of calculations supplied by S&W (References 11,15).
Finding 2.B.17 has been resolved based on UNITED's review of clarifi-cation documentation from S&W (References 36, 37).
4 3.2.2 -Field Check of NYPA's I.E.Bulletin 79-14 Activity As a result of the procedural deficiency identified (Finding No..l.A.1), UNITED performed a field verification of selected supports to provide adequate confidence in NYPA's 79-14
~
line-walk program. This field investigation, the rationale for which is ' discussed in Paragraph 2.2.3 above, involved considerably more detailed checks than those performed in i
the former field investigation described above in Paragraph 3.2.1.
This latter investigation involved a detail check of support member sizes, weld size and length, bolting, etc; and in general addressed the data contained in the support drawings.
As a result of this field investigation, UNITED identified dimensional discrepancies associated with several of the supports that were examined (Finding Nos. 2.A.1-13).
A package including marked support drawings was transmitted to NYPA (Reference 18) for resolution of specific findings and for evaluation of any generic implications. These items were resolved af ter UNITED's review of S&W calculations (Reference 40) and NYPA's commitment to a comprehensive Pipe Support Inspection Program (Reference 26).
3.3 Analytical Reviews 3.3.1 Modelling Validity This analytical model review was conducted for three S&W Problem Books:
Book No.
Line 574 Main Steam "C" 578 Feedwater "A" g
669 Core Spray "B" i
All three analytical models were checked for:-
- General location of spring hangers, snubbers and rigid restraints c
3.3.1 Modelling Validity (Cont.)
Function of supports / restraints for different load conditions Consistency between analytically developed loads for different load conditions and loads used for evaluation of support / restraint structural adequacy.
No deviations from common industry practice were found in modelling of supports / restraints and their prescribed function.
Snubbers were modelled as acting along global coordinates even if in reality they were askew.
Since horizontal snubber restraints in all investigated cases are designed as a pair approximately 90* apart, this modelling technique is acceptable.
No discrepancies were found between developed support loads from computer analysis and loads used for support / restraint evaluations.
An additional deadweight analysis was performed by S&W for part of Main Steam Line "C" to determine the effect of rigid restraint M-29-29A which, due to clearance under a vertical stanchion, is not acting as a deadweight support as was intended in the original design. It was found that adjacent spring hangers were sized such that the rigid stanchion is e
not required for deadweight support. - The analyses were performed in accordance with common industry practice.
A similar review of the Recirculation System Model data (References 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35) was conducted and modelled data and physical data was found to be in good agreement. High snubber loads for the SSE condition were identified as part of this review (Finding 3.C.2).
This concern was satisfactorily resolved during the review of the snubber support calculations, Paragraph 3.3.2 below.
3.3.2 Support calculations UNITED reviewed calculations for 20 representative supports for S&W systems that were selected using the rationale described in Paragraph 2.2.2.
These calculations were provided by S&W (Reference 11) and included-the latest calculations associated with the Main Steam System in the vicinity of the observed damaged structural steel support (Finding No. 2.B.15).
UNITED also reviewed calculations for 5 representative snubber supports for the Recirculation System.
In addition to a general check of the calculational approach, criteria and/or procedure used, UNITED also confirmed the following:
Loads were transferred from load sheets to calculations 12-L
3.3.2 Support calculations (Cont.)
Appropriate load cases were considered Appropriate allowables were used Locds were transferred and checked through all structural elements from the pipe to the embedment.
Several clarifications were requested from S&W (Reference 19).
' Response received from S&W (References 36, 41) was reviewed and the associated findings (Finding Nos. 3.B.1, 3.B.2) which were not considered to be significant, were closed.
For the Recirculation System, the review of calculations for five snubber supports (References 27, 28), including snubbers with high SSE loads (Finding 3.C.2), resulted in requests for additional clarification such as weld stress criteria, tubing qualification and design temperatures for stress allowables (Finding 3.C.3).
Satisfactory clarification was provided in References 28, 44 and 45.
3.3.3 Main Steam System Operating Transient Analysis UNITED also reviewed the Main Steam System time history analysis performed by S&W (Reference 15) which resulted in significantly reduced, operating loads on associated supports (Finding 3.A.1).
The specific data that was verified included:
The forcing function sets were applied properly (i.e.,
at change in direction)
Force with highest peaks occurs in forcing function set associated with the long piping spans The peak force from the long piping spans are similar to those calculated by UNITED for similar transients It was concluded that the analyses were adequately performed in accordance with common industry practice and that the load magnitudes were representative of such a transient condition.
NYPA provided UNITED with the appropriate GE documentation transmitting the time history data which was used by S&W,
-(References 26, 42). This documentation was reviewed and Finding No. 3.A.1 was resolved.
3.3.4 Miscellaneous l
As a result of UNITED's review of S&W's Problem Books, UNITED noted an unidentified rod hanger associated with the Core Spray System (Finding 3.D.1).
Another inconsistency was noted regarding the installation / modification status of Feedwater Support H34-16A (Finding 3.D.2).
Both of these findings were resolved with the receipt of additional documen-tation from NYPA (Reference 20).
E E
4.0 CONCLUSION
S ~
4.1-Damaged Supports UNITED's review did not find any damaged supports that would represent an unsafe condition. Damage was identified in structural steel associated with supports for Main Steam Lines but analyses performed by S&W were reviewed by UNITED and the adequacy of the design was ve rified.
4.2 As-Built Vs. As-Analyzed Data UNITED's review concluded that as-built information received by S&W l
from NYPA was appropriately reflected in the piping reanelysis effort. Although procedural deficiencies were identified, additional input from NYPA,-additional evaluations and clarification by S&W, and additional independent field investigation by UNITED provided assurance that line-walk data received from NYPA had been adequately incorporated in S&W's piping re-analysis.
UNITED's-independent verification of NYPA's field verification program for I.E.Bulletin 79-14 resulted in dimensional discrepancies associated with the as-built condition of several pipe supports.
These discrepancies were evaluated by S&W and calculations were provided to UNITED which verified the adequacy of the designs.
In addition, to provide further assurance of pipe support design adequacy, NYPA has developed a comprehensive Pipe Support Inspection program which is currently being implemented. UNITED has reviewed the content and implementation status of the program and found both to be satisfactory (References 26, 43).
Similar review by UNITED of as-built vs. as-analyzed data for the Recirculation System also indicated that discrepancies had been satisfactorily reconciled.
4.3 original operating Loads A significant reduction'in operating loads on Main Steam line supports occurred during the I.E.Bulletin 79-07 program. UNITED reviewed Ethe load reduction calculations by S&W and concluded that these calculations are acceptable. Additional documentation of forcing function transmittal from General Electric (GE) was also reviewed for consistency with the input used by S&W.
4.4 Adequacy of Supports Not Reviewed For I.E.Bulletin 79-07 Program UNITED's review of S&W calculations for twenty typical supports (selected by UNITED) indicated that the design of these supports was generally -acceptable.
UNITED also ' reviewed 5 selected support calculations for the Recirculation System. ITT-Grinnell provided additional clarifications at UNITED's ' request which resolved all questions on these supports..
5.0 REFERENCES
'1.
TTL Letter to NYPA, dated June 30, 1983 2.
UNITED Letter UJ-0002 to NYPA, dated July 22, 1983 3..
UNITED Letter UJ-0005 to NYPA, dated August 11, 1983 4.
TTL Letter to UNITED, dated August 18, 1983
- 5. ' UNITED Letter UJ-0017 to NYPA, dated August 29, 1983 6.
UNITED Letter UJ-0007 to NYPA, dated August 12, 1983 7.
UNITED Letter UJ-0028 to NYPA, dated September 23, 1983 8.
UNITED Telecopy TJ-0005 to NYPA, dated September 6,1983 9.
S&W 79-07 Procedures for Evaluation of James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant Dynamic Pipe Stress Analysis, dated March 23, 1981
~
10.
S&W Letter PAS-26012 to NYPA, dated September 1, 1983 11.
S&W Letter PAS-26034 to NYPA, dated October 20, 1983 12.
NYPA Letter JPO-83-74 to UNITED, dated October 31, 1983
- 13. UNITED Telecopy TJ-0005 to NYPA, dated August 31, 1983 14.
NYPA Letter JPO-83-68 to UNITED, dated September 28, 1983 15.
UNITED Letter UJ-0032 to NYPA, dated October 11, 1983 16.
NYPA Letter JPO-83-73 to UNITED,' dated October 25, 1983
-17.
UNITED Letter UJ-0041 to NYPA, dated November 2, 1983 18.
UNITED Letter UJ-0044 to NYPA, dated November 7,1983 19.
UNITED Letter UJ-0045 to NYPA, dated November 7, 1983 20.
NYPA Letter JPO-83-72 to UNITED, dated October 21, 1983 21.
NYPA Letter UJ-0071 to NYPA, dated February 25, 1985
- 22. ' NYPA Letter JPO-83-66 to UNITED, dated September 16, 1983 23.
NYPA Letter JPO-85-19 to UNITED, dated January 25, 1985 24.
NYPA Letter [[::JAF-85-71|JAF-85-71]] to UNITED, dated February 25, 1985 25.
NYPA Letter JPO-85-67 to UNITED, dated March 29, 1985 26.
NYPA Letter JPO-84-14 to UNITED, dated April 17, 1984 27.
NYPA Letter JPO-85-78 to UNITED, dated May 10, 1985 28.
NYPA Letter JPO-85-100 to UNITED, dated June 19, 1985
32.
NYPA Letter JPO-83-78 to UNITED, dated November 10, 1983 l
- 33. UNITED Letter UJ-0061 to NYPA, dated May 21, 1984 l
S&W Letter PAS-26047 to NYPA, dated November 15, 1983 l.
- 37.. S&W Letter PAS-26058 to NYPA, dated December 8,1983 38.
S&W Letter PAS-26076.to NYPA, dated December 30, 1983 39.
NYPA Letter JPO-84-107 to UNITED, dated October 22, 1984
(.
4 0..
S&W Letter PAS-26056 'to NYPA, dated December 7,1983
- 41. UNITED Letter UJ-0053 to NYPA, dated November 22, 1983 l
4 2. ' NYPA Letter JPO-84-50 to UNITED, dated June 19, 1984 43.
NYPA Letter JPO-85-121 to UNITED, received August 20, 1985 44.
NYPA Letter JPO-85-123 to UNITED, dated August 20, 1985 l
45.
UNITED Letter UJ-0076 to NYPA, dated July 25, 1985 i
r !
6.0 KEY UNITED PERSONNEL UNITED's key personnel who contributed to the Third Party Review are listed below.
R. W. Barton, Project Manager
+
G. Rigamonti, Chief Power Engineer J. E. Tompkins, Assistant Chief Power Engineer l
Z. B. Olszewski, Manager, Piping Analysis Group K. D. Kain, Manager, Pipe Support Group R. R. Cerzosimo, Manager QA, Nuclear Projects J. C. Fiorello, Supervising Structural Engineer J. A. Paschall, Senior Mechanical / Piping Engineer G. L. Csete, Piping Analyst T. F. Fleming, QA Engineer J. H. Callaghan, Piping / Pipe Support Field Inspector R. D. Fultz, Piping / Pipe Support Field Inspector J. _ A. Sergio, Piping / Pipe Support Field Inspector J. M. Benenati, Senior Pipe Support Engineer J. Koch, Senior Pipe Support Engineer 17-L
TABLE 4
~
-Paga 1 ef 61 JAF NPP PIPING / SUPPORT ANALYSIS, THIRD PARTY REVIEW Revision.1 STATUS OF FINDINGS August 30, 1985 Finding Finding Resolution Additional UNITED Activity No.
Finding Description Action Required
- 1. Procedural Review A. 1.E. Bulletin 1.A.1 No formal written procedure for the Additional field investi-
'None 79-14 Line-line-walk program. General practice gation by UNITED (Item 2A' Walk Program described in NYPA correspondence.
below);-discrepancies found were satisfactorily reconciled by S&W: NYPA developed Pipe Support Inspection Program which is being implemented.
Finding Resolved.
l B. 1.E. Bulletin
.1.B.1 No formal written procedure for S&W UNITED reviewed " Practices" None 79-14/79-07 resolution of dimensional discrepan-document which was prepared Program cies and other activities associated by S&W and accepted it as Interface with incorporating NYPA-supplied, as-adequate. UNITED also re-built data into the piping re-analysis viewed and accepted detailed effort.
resolution of discrepancy data generated by S&W for eleven Problem Books.
The resolutions were performed in accordance with S&W's
" Practices" document.
Finding Resolved.
l 2.
Field Investigation A. 1.E. Bulletin Dimensional discrepancies between Discrepancies satisfactorily None 79-14 (Novem-field conditions and as-built dwgs.
reconciled by S&W; NYPA bar 4-6, 1983) from S&W 79-07 Problem Books were developed Pipe Support found for 13 supports as follows:
Inspection Program which is being implemented.
-2.A.1 Core Spray Support H14-42A: some Finding Resolved.
undersized welds 2.A.2 Core Spray Support H14-2:
some undersized / missing welds 2.A.3 Core Spray Support H14-4:
some undersized welds, steel-member size differences
m-TABLE 4 Paga 2 ef 6 Ravicion l' JAF NPP PIPING / SUPPORT ANALYSIS, THIRD PARTY REVIEW
' August 30, 1985 STATUS OF FINDINGS Finding Finding Resolution Additional UNITED Activity '
No.
Finding Description Action Required 2.
Field Ievestigation A. I.E. Bulletin 2.A.4 Core Spray Support H14-64:
some 79-14 (Novem-missing welds bar 4-6, 1983)
- 2. A.5.
Core Spray Support H14-72:
some undersized welds (Continued) 2.A.6 Core Spray Support H14-25:
some undersized / missing welds, some dimensional discrepancies 2.A.7 Core Spray Support H14-27:
some undersized welds, steel member size i
differences, dimensional discrepancies 2.A.8 Core Spray Support H14-65:
some l
undersized welds 2.A.9 HPCI. Support H23 47:
some undersized
- welds, steel member size differences, dimensional discrepancies 2.A.10 HPCI Support H23-49: some undersized welds 2.A.ll HPCI Support H23-50: some undersized /
missing welds, dimensional discrepan-l cies, missing part 2.A.12 HPCI Support H23-53: some undersized
-welds
- 2. A.13 RHR Support H10-32:
some undersized welds, discrepancy in weld configura-l tion B. I.E. Bulletin Dimensional discrepancies between 79-14/07 Inter field conditions and "as-built" dwgs.
face (August
. f or gaps associated with eleven rigid 15-16, 1983)'
supports associated with the Main Steam System which are listed below:
TABLE 4 Paga 3 of 6 Revision 1 JAF NPP PIPING / SUPPORT ANALYSIS, THIRD PARTY REVIEW
' August 30, 1985 STATUS OF FINDINGS
?
Finding Finding Resolution Additional UNITED Activity No.
Finding Description Action Required I
- 2. Field Investigation B. 1.E. Bulletin 2.B.1
- Main Steam Support H29-147 UNITED reviewed calculations None 79-14/07-Inter-and clarifications provided fcce (August by S&W which were acceptable.
15-16, 1983) i Finding Resolved.
(Continued) l l
2.B.2 Support H29-351 For Findings 2.B.2 thru 2.B.11:
None 2.B.3 Support H29-145
- 1) UNITED evaluated the S&W 2.B.4 Support H29-25 Problem Book data regarding 2.B.5 Support H29-350 support location; the hot gap 2.B.6 Support H29-146 measured in the field and 2.B.7 Support H29-23 determined that the gap 2.B.8 Support H29-349 discrepancies associated withI 2.B.9 Support H29-147 Findings 2.B.2 thru 2.B.11 2.B.10.
Support H29-21 were not significant.
2.B.ll Support H29-348 Finding Resolved.
- 2) UNITED provided NYPA with a None list of additional rigid sup-port with gaps in high tem-perature systems for NYPA field investigation; results of field investigation were acceptable.
Finding Resolved.
2.B.12 Discrepancy in gaps associated with S&W provided UNITED with None Core Spray Support H14-3 between satisfactory reconciliation original vs. modified support drawing of discrepancies.
Finding Resolved.
2.B.13 Clearance between trunnion and under-Field check performed by NYPA; l
None lying guide support plate for Main clearance acceptable to UNITED.
Steam Lines B&C Support PFSK 1868 Finding Resolved.
~
was not measured a
TABLE 4 P;ga 4 cf 6 i
Rsvicion 1~
4-JAF NPP PIPING / SUPPORT ANALYSIS, THIRD PARTY REVIEW -
August.30, 198S STATUS OF. FINDINGS Finding Finding Resolution
' Additional UNITED Activity No.
Finding Description Action Required l
E. I.E. Bulletin Other findings included the following 79-14/07 Inter-four items:
fcce (August 2.B.14 Bowed struts for Main Steam support UNITED reviewed and accepted None 15-16, 1983)
PFSK 921, H29-30A calculation provided by S&W.
- l Finding Resolved.
l (Continued) 2.B.15 Damaged structural steel besa in
]
vicinity of Main Steam Lines A&B UNITED reviewed and accepted None l
(This. damage previously discovered bounding load calculation i
in NYPA line-walk and referred to provided by S&W.
S&W for evaluation)
Finding Resolved.
l 2.B.16 Feedwater Support H34-17 was UNITED reviewed and accepted None modified but similar Support H34-18 calculation provided by S&W.
I was not Finding Resolved.
1 H
l 2.B.17 Structural members supporting Core S&W provided acceptable None l
Spray Support H14-4 had been cut calculations and clarification {
i to clear an opening in slab to UNITED.
Finding Resolved.
i I
l
- 3. Analytical Review i
I l
A. M:in Steam 3.A.1 Significant reduction. (4 to 1) in UNITED reviewed and accepted None
{
Operating transient operating loads for Main calculation provided by S&W l
Transient Steam System supports and GE forcing function input.
Analysis Finding Resolved.
i
\\
l l
i
}
l
TABLE-4 Pcga 5~cf 6 Rsvicica 1
'JAF NPP PIPING / SUPPORT ANALYSIS,' THIRD PARTY REVIEW August 30, 1985' STATUS OF FINDINGS
)Finding l
. Finding' Resolution Additional i
UNITED Activity No..
FindingLDescription' Action Required 1
3.~ Analytical l
R9. view' s
I 1
.B. Representative'
- Calculations for 20 representative sup-Calculations ports were received from S&W & reviewed j
For Supports by UNITED. Clarification required for (I.E. Bulletin the following:
79-07 Loads <
Original Loads) 3.B.1 Analysis of 1-1/8" rod associated with' Satisf actory clarification None
~
Support 'H14-4 was provided to' UNITED by S&W Finding Resolved.
i l
4
{
3.B.2 Design basis for weld which attaches Satisfactory. clarification None j
post P14/15 to structural steel for was provided to UNITED by S&W
-pypical supports.
Finding Resolved.
l t
). C. Recirculation 3.C.1 Location of Snubbers A7 & A8 exceeds Satisfactory clarification None j
System Review tolerance in reconciliation procedure.
was provided to UNITED by (includes review NYPA.
of piping Finding Resolved.
computer analysis T
and input; procedure and 3.C.2 High snubbers loads for several Satisfactory documentation None implementation snubbers,
was provided to UNITED by for resolving ITT-Grinnell.
j es-built vs.
Finding Resolved.
l j
cs-analyzed-l discrepancies; calculations for 3.C.3 Snubber Design Temperature Satisfactory clarification None representative was provided to UNITED by support s).
ITT-Grinnell.
1 Finding Resolved.
I I
i
)
1 4
TABLE 4
_Paga 6 cf 6 Rcvicien 1 JAF NPP PIPING / SUPPORT ANALYSIS, THIRD PARTY REVIEW August 30,.198$
STATUS OF FINDINGS Finding Finding Resolution Additional UNITED Activity No. -
Finding Description Action Required
- l D. Miscellaneous 1 3.D.1 Unidentified rod hanger shown on Core NYPA provided UNITED with None.
Spray Isometric drawing between sup-documentation of rod hanger ports H14-48 and H14-49.
removal in the field Finding Resolved.
a 1
1 3.D.2 Feedwater Support H34-16A shown as NYPA provided UNITED with None.
"not required" on S&W Problem Book documentation that modified Summary Sheet but support was included support was. installed in in computer analysis the field.
Finding Resolved.
1 l
l
(
1 i
1
o Attachment No. 2 to JPN-85-68 i
New York Power Authority James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Main Steam Pipe Support Adequacy - Inspection Results
===.
Background===
In Attachment No. 1 to the Authority's January 20, 1984 letter (JPN-84-02) we described our plans for the reinspection of Main Steam Line support No. H29-351 and other unspecified supports in'the vicinity of H29-351.
The purpose of this reinspection was to confirm the adequacy of these supports with special attention to:
1 (1) the trunnion to pipe welds, (2) piping in the vicinity of the welds and (3) Anchor bolts associated with the support member which was added during the summer 1983 refueling outage.
We committed to perform this reinspection during the next outage, which was then scheduled for March 1984.
Inspection Results As committed, physical inspection of pipe supports H29-350, H29-351-and associated piping in the general vicinity was performed i
by NYPA personnel from both the headquarters and plant staff, and a
~
' representative of the consultant responsible for the analysis and 4
design of the modified support.
(H29-351.was included in this reinspection because it was also modified during the summer 1983 outage.)
During this inspection, a loose nut was identified on H29-351 on the support's concrete anchor to base-plate (Hilti Kwick-Bolt).
. Work requests were issued to tighten the loose nut and to check and correct the tightness of bolts on all Kwick-Bolts on both supports.
Our inspection did not reveal any damage or discrepancies.
No f
further actions are considered necessary at this time.
The Authority. considers this concern resolved.
4
-~,,
..-nn u,n---,mn,-
,-,-r
--<,----,,,sne--,
gn--
n,-
.n~-,,
m.--
-.-------,---.,,.,---w
.,-n-n
--