ML20148C865
| ML20148C865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1986 |
| From: | Klause R, Oliver J, Wrucke R STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17303B208 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0797, RTR-NUREG-797 NUDOCS 8803230147 | |
| Download: ML20148C865 (5) | |
Text
L Job No. 15454.05 Page 1 of 4 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATION CO. (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CPPP-5 SMALL BORE FIELD WALKDOW REPORT.
o Prepared By ((dM J. J. Oliver
/
Field Walk Task Leader Reviewed by R. R. Wrucke Project Engineer Approved
<<u R. P. Klause Project Manager OglDRgg 880323 PDR A
P G
1 01291-1545405-N1 et
,-wm-m
- - - ---&--w--
.,--m-w g-m.T ewgy aw-.
-s m
---c+-
+-%e--.
e--my-w-wy
--e-
- -T74-7 r-wn
Page 2 INTRODUCTION A sample verification of existing Unit #1 "As-Built" documentation for Small Bore ASME piping systems and supports not subjected to the TUGC0 As-Built Program was perf o rmed in accordance with Project Procedure CPPP-5.
The purpose of this effort was to establish sufficient confidence in the adequacy of dimensions and functions shown on the documents of record to support the initiation of the small bore pipe stress requalification effort.
This report sumarizes the findings and conclusions of the verification effort.
Reinspection of hardware within the scope of the QA/QC program is within the scope of the construction adequacy program (Appendix B of Comanche Peak Response Plan and Issue-Specific Action Plans).
The results of this walkdown indicate that the program (use of design documents as input to the certification effort) implemented by TUGC0 is adequate to initiate the small bore requalification effort.
SCOPE Four unique samples were randomly selected to verify the following attributes:
(a) Valve Location (b) Pipe Support Location (c) Pipe Support Function (d) Valve and Support Orientation These attributes were selected because they have the greatest potential for impact on the pipe stress analysis requalification effort.
Other less significant attributes exist, but the methods of verifying the above attributes (distance from elbows, tees, valves, supports, etc.)
indirectly verify other attributes (e.g., dimensions and configurations).
- The total population and sample size for each attribute is shown on Attachment 1.
The sample sizes and accept / reject criteria were determined from SkIC Quality Assurance Directive (QAD) 7.11 Rev.
A.
SkIC tolerances (see CPPP-5) were established for each attribute. These tolerances are consistent with tolerances previously used by SkIC on other as-built programs.
The tolerances also consider the sensititivity of the data to the pipe stress analyses.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS Approximately 1800 manhours were expended ever a period of three weeks to complete the physical walkdown.
Valve locations are adequately de s' crib ed.
One Valve Location hundred and tver.ty-four of the 125 valves were found to be within SkIC tolerances.
Valve number 1-8893 (BRP-SI-1-SB-043) was determined to be outside SkIC required tolerances (see Attachment 2).
01291-1545405-N1
t Page 3 F1pe Support Location -
Pipe support locations are adequately described.
Of the 200 supports sampled, 198 were within SkIC tolerances.
Pipe support numbers Tk'- 1 -S B- 013 -002 -5 and CH-1-SB-009A-005-3 were determined to be outside SkTC required tolerances (see Attachment 2).
Pipe Support Function Pipe support functions are adequately described.
Of the 200 supports sampled, 198 were within SkIC required tolerances.
The function of pipe support numbers H-CS-1-AB-215-007-5 and H AC-X-EC-011-002-5 did not agree with the function depicted on the pipe support drawing.
(see Attachment 2.)
Valve and Support Orientation - Valve and support orientation are adequately described.
Of the 200 valves and support sampled, 199 were found to be within the SkIC required tolerances.
Pipe support H-CC-1-RB-051-009-5 was determined to be outside SkTC required tolerances.
(See Attachment 2)
During the walkdown there were 29 items that were inaccessible.
These items were replaced with other items using the same random sample selection process used for the initial sample selection.
CONCLUSIONS The design documents of record are adequate to initiate the small bore requalification effort.
Several miscellaneous observations were identified during the walkdown ef fort.
(See miscellaneous observations.
attachment 3).
TUG *O should expeditiously resolve the observations to minimize their impact on the small bore requalification effort.
The more significant observations are as follows:
Configuration Control The configuration of the Class 5 piping that is within the boundary of the ASME stress analysis is usually not shown on the BRP. drawings.
Per conversation with TUGC0 Engineering personnel, routing changes to this piping are made by CMC or DCA against composite drawings.
These changes are reviewed by the G&H piping group but are not reviewed by the responsible stress analysts. Therefort there is no assurance that the configuration
- t. sed in the stress analysis still reflects the present installed configuration.
Consequently, this piping should be dccumented and controlled to the same degree as the ASME p'rtion of.the piping.
Note:
The Class 5 support locations are shown on the GHH drawings.
Changes to GHH drawings are required to be reviewed by engineering.
Gaps - Cases were identified where the close clearance (2-way) gaps exceed the maximum allowable gap of 3/16" (generally '/4" was observed). Note: A revision of DCA-22563 has recently been issued by TUGC0 to address the gap concerns on a generic basis.
This DCA will resolve this concern.
01291-1545405-N1 o-
--,w m.,-
w--
Page I.
Dccument Control - During the package preparation phase of the walkdown effort, drawings were obtained from document control:
However, when the revision level of these drawings were reviewed against the revision level per the "NITS" report, several discrepancies were observed for the support location drawings.
It appears that there are "CP" revision level drawings that exist but have not been issued through the Document Control system.
Per conversation with TUGC0 Engineering, this was the result of an ASME Section XI TUGC0 Operations Procedure.
This procedure would not allow the release of these drawings to the Doe: ment Control Center (DCC) until construction was completed.
This procedure has been revised and CP drawing revisions are now being issued to DCC before start of construction.
ACTION PIQUIED TUGC0 has initiated a
review of these concerns and anticipates resolution within 30 days of the issue of this report.
The response to this report shouAd identify specific actions taken to resolve the inconsistencies identified in Attachments 2 and 3.
It is expected that TUGC0 vill evaluate these items for cause, extent of condition and corrective / preventive action in accordance with their QA program.
a h
01291-1545405-N1
s i
ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 1 SMALL BORE FIELD WALKDOWN POPULATION AND SAMPLE SIZE / SELECTION I.
Population / Sample Size TOTAL SAMPLE Source of Accept /
ATTRIBUTE POPULATION SIZE Total Population Reject Valve Location 2325 125 Note 1 2/3 Suppo ' Incation 6526 200 Note 2 5/6 Suop.
cetion 6526 200 Nora 2 5/6 Valv-
- upport Ord s : 2cn 6652 200 Note 3 5/6 NOTE i List of valves developed by SWEC from review of BRP Drawings in SWEC Scope. (See Attachment 4)
NOTI 2 HITS Report sors titled "SBH-NOX-SPCL-RPT" dated 12/11/83 NOTE 3 See Attachment t II. Sample Selection The specific samples were selected as follows:
1.
Consecutive numbers (from 1 to the population size) were assigned to each itea listed in the apprc. riate index (Notes 1, 2 and 3).
2.
Four sets of numbers (one set for each attribute) were taken from a random number table.
3.
The ites (valve or sun, port) corresponding to the random number was selected for the walkcown.
e 01291-1545405-N1
- - - -