ML20148F081

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Piping & Support Sys Engineering Walkdown,Final Rept
ML20148F081
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 06/04/1986
From: Chan A, Normandeau R, Wrucke R
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17303B208 List:
References
RTR-NUREG-0797, RTR-NUREG-797 NUDOCS 8803280062
Download: ML20148F081 (42)
v • d • e


Text

'

9y 4

e J.O.No. 15454.05 PIPING AND SUPPORT SYSTDI ENGINIIRING WALEDOWN FINAL REPORT TEXAS UTILITIIS GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)

COMANCHE ?EAE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1 June 4, 1986 4

Prepared by - Mdb.m R. D. Nomandeau Walkdown Task Leader l

Reviewed by R. R. Wrucke Project Engineer Appro.ed by "

M--

! A. W. Chan Assis t Project Manager - Technical

.PPr.... , 2A R. F. ~ Elause Project Manager 8803200062 880331 PDR ADOCK 05000445 E PDR 1

s TABLE OT CONTENTS Section Description h

1.0

SUMMARY

1 2.0 ABBREVIATIONS 3

3.0 INTRODUCTION

5 3.1 PURPOSE 5 3.2 SCOPE AND SAMPLE 3 ELECTION 5 4.0 GENERAL RESULTS AND CATEGORIZATION 6 5.0

SUMMARY

OF RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS 7 5.1 TUGC0 ACTION 7 5.1.1 As-Built In. formation or Design Input Related 7 5.1.2 Hardware Related 7 5.1.3 Pipe or Support Specific 8 5.1.4 Generic Review Related 8

5.2 SWEC ACTION 8 5.2.1 CPPP-6 Related 8 5.2.2 CPPP-7 Related 9 5.2.3 CPPP-15 Related 9 5.2.4 Pipe or Support Specific 10 6.0 WALIDOWN PROGRAM 11 6.1 PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT 11 6.2 WALIDOWN PACIAGES 11 6.3 WALEDOW TEAMS 11

, 6.4 PREWALIDOWN IMDOCTRINATION TRAINING 12 6.5 PIANT WALIDOWN 12 7.0 EVALUATION PROCESS 14 7.1 DATA COMPILATION 14 7.2 VALIDATION ETTORT 14' 7.3 EVALUATION OF PROJECT PROCEDUPJ.S 14 7.4 TUGC0 INTERTACE 15 0650-1545405-HC4 i

Section Description P_a ge 7.5 WALIDOWN OBSERVATION CATEGORIES 15 8.0 DETAII.ED CATEGORIES OT WALKD0'dN OBSERVATIONS 16 8.1 NO ACTION REQUIRED 16 8.2 TUGC0 ACTION 16 8.2.1 Aa-Enilt Information or Design Input Related 16 8.2.2 Hardware Related 21 8.2.3 Pipe or Support Specific 23 8.2.4 Generic Review Related 24 8.3 SWEC ACTION 28 8.3.1 CPPP-6 Related 28 8.3.2 CPPP-7 Related 29 8.3.3 CPPP-15 Related 32 8.3.4 Pipe or Support Specific 33 Attachment 1 35 Attachment 2 36 o

4 l

l l

t Co50-1545405-HC4 ii

1.0 SUtfMARY A field walkdown of 70 large bore Unit 1 piping stress probless was con-ducted by 10 team- c' experienced SWEC pipe stress and support engineers in accordance witi Cr :nche Peak Project Procedure CPPP-8, "Piping and Support Systes Engu.eering Walkdown Procedure." The walkdown sample stress problems, which envelop approximately 2,400 supports, are repre-sentative of the CPSES Unit I large bore piping, including portions of the small bore piping that are modeled as pert of the large bore stress probles boundaries.

The walkdown was performed from November 12 through November 22, 1985, and 439 observations were recorded. SVEC has completed the evaluation of these observations, and the results are summarized in Table 1-1.

The majority of the 439 observations, approximately 67 percent, do not require further action because they can be addressed adequately by exist-ing procedures or have been identified previously and have been, or are being, resolved as generic technical issues by the project.

The remaining 174 observations resulted in 23 TUGC0 action items and 28 SVEC action items. The TUGC0 action items primarily require the trans-mittal of additional design input, revision of specific piping and sup-port drawings, and g?neric review of certain types of installations.

The SVEC action items require the modification of Project Procedures CPPP-6, CPPP-7, CPPP-15, and in some instances, address specific analyses for evaluation of unique techniesl concerns.

In summary, the walkdown observations restit in reco-ded modifica-tions/ additions to SVEC project procedures and to design input provided by TUGCO. The modifications to the procedures are mainly administrative in nature and address the interdisciplinary interface requirements in the overall design process.

9 l

t l

0650-1545405-HC4 1 1

TABLE 1-1 SWEC EVALUATION OF WAIXDOWN OBSERVATION ACTION CATEGORIES Evaluation of Walkdown Observations l (439) i I I I TUGC0 (111) No (293) SWEC (63)

Action (Notes 1,2) Action Action (Notes 1,3) i i i ""1 1 i i Pipe / Pipe /

As-Built Support Generic Support Input Hardware Specific Review CPPP-6 CPPP-7 CPPP-15 Specific (58) (6) (9) (44) (14) (11) (30) (30)

NOTES:

1. There are 146 observations that require either TUGC0 or SWEC action, with an additional 14 requiring both TUGC0 and SWEC action. -
2. One observation that requires TUGC0 actica spy!ies to both hardware and generic reviam categories.
3. ha of the observations that require SWEC or TUGC0 action are applicable to two or more of the action categories.

e 0650-1545405-HC'. 2 l - - - - - _ , - - - - - - - - . - . - - -

2.0 ABBREVIATIONS A0V Air-Operated Valve ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BRH Brown & Root Hanger Detail Drawing BRHL Brown & Root Ranger Location Drawing BRP Brown & Root Piping Drawing CPPP-6 Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 6 - Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure - Unit 1 CPPP-7 Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 7 - Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports - Unit 1 CPPP-8 Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 8 - Piping and Support System Engineering Walkdown - Unit 1 CPPP-15 Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 15 - Small Bore Stress / Support Requalification Procedure - Unit 1 CPRT Comanche Peak Response Team CPSES Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station t DCA Design Change Authorization EISV Engineering Evaluation of Spacing Violation GHH Gibbs & Hill Small Bore Ranger Location Drawing GHPK Gang Hanger Package Number GTI Generic Technical Issues EhT Hot Functional Test HITS Hanser Information Tracking System LDL Pipeline Designation List MOV Motor-Operated Valve NCR Nonconformance Report NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PM Project Memorandum QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control 0650-1545405-HC4 3

l

. 1 RFI Request for Information i

SWEC Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation WGC0 Texas Utilities Generating Company l

l l

l r l

0650-1545405-HC4 4

3.0 INTRODUCTION

A field walkdown of 70 CPSES Unit I large bore piping stress problems was conducted in accordance with Project Procedure CPPP-8, Piping and Support System Engineering Walkdown Procedure. The relevant observations, their evaluation, and the action proposed or taken, are documented in this re-port. A summary of the recommended action items is presented in Section 5.0.

3.1 PURPOSE It is essential to assess, in the field, the completeness and adequacy of the technical and administrative procedures and design input for the CPSES requalification program. The walkdown provides qualified piping and support engineers a detailed physical review of the piping systes in its entirety, enabling SWEC to evaluate whether the analytical methods being implemented are adequate or if additional procedures are necessary to enhance the overall program.

! Such a walkdown was conducted at CPSES and the purpose was to:

1. Determine whether there are technical configuration issues, other than the existing technical findings free previous re-views, that should be evaluated relative to the functional be-l havior of the system, and l .

l 2. For experienced SWEC personnel to become familiar with the

physical aspects of the design and determine whether addition-l al, or refinaments of, design inputs, guidelines, or procedures are necessary for the pipe stress and supports requalification effort.

It was not the intent of the walkdown to verify compliance with the NRC 1E Bulletin 79-14. However, any inconsistencies noted are identified in this report for TUGCO's evaluation in accordance with their QA program.

3'.2 SCOPE AND SAMPLE SELECTION There are approximately 355 large bore CPSES Unit 1 safety-related stress problems in the scope of the SWEC requalification effort. These include the Class 1 stress problems for which SWEC is responsible for requalifi-cation of the supports only. Included with these problems are portions of the small bore piping that are modeled as part of the large bore stress problems.

Fifty large bore stress problems were randomly selected to be representa-tive of the 355 stress problems. An additional 20 stress problems were specifically selected from those systems that were expected to experience significant fluid transients. Thus, a total of 70 stress problems was walked. These 70 stress problems contain approximately 2,400 supports, of which 470 are small bore supports.

Documentation of the selection process is filed in Job Book M3.2.8. A list of tne 70 stress problems is enclosed as Attachment 1.

0650-1545405-HC4 5

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

4.0 GENERAL RESULTS AND CATEGORIZATION Four hundred and thirty-nine observations were ' ecorded during the walk-down. These observations were evaluated as described in Section 7.0.

The evaluation results are categorized as indicated below. Specific de-tails for each category are provided in Section 8.0.

1. No Action Required - Section 8.1.
2. TUGC0 Action Required - Section 8.2
a. As-built information or design input related -

Section 8.2.1

b. Hardware related - Section 8.2.2
c. Pipe or support specific - Section 8.2.3
d. Generic review related - Section 8.2.4
3. SVEC Action Required - Section 8.3
s. CPPP-6 related - Section 8.3.1
b. CPPP-7 related - Section 8.3.2
c. CPPP-15 related - Section 8.3.3
d. Pipe or support specific - Section 8.3.4 i

l

{

l l

l l

0650-1545405-HC4 6

5.0

SUMMARY

OF RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS A sumry of the recommended TUGC0 and SWEC action ites - is presented below. Details related to tt.e development of these reeve. ended action items are presented in the sections in parentheses at the end of each ites.

5.1 TUGC0 ACTION 5.1.1 Aa-Built Information or Design Input Related

  • Provide as-built location and details for all small bore tieback supports (8.2.1.1).
  • Provide as-built location and clearances for all piping and supporta that penetrate fire barrier walls (8.2.1.2).
  • Provide as-built locations for all pipe whip restraints (8.2.1.3).
  • Identify piping or portions of piping exposed to wind loads (8.2.1.4).
  • Review added valve weight list for appropriate documentation (8.2.1.5).
  • Verify that all supports that are part of a gang hanger are identified in the IITS report with a gang hanger package (GHPI) number, and that the support drawings identify other support attachments (8.2.1.6).
  • Verify insulation information in the Line Designation List
(LDL) (8.2.1.7).
  • Confirm that all voided supports have been physically removed

, (8.2.1.8).

  • Determine whether a review of safety-related erpansion joints on insulated lined is required (8.2.1.9).
  • Confirm that all EESVs are listed in IITS report 'and ensure that all future EESVs will be entered in the IITS report (4.2.1.10).
  • Provide snubber settings recorded by the Hot Functional Test Group (8.2.1.11).

5.1.2 Hardware Related

  • Modify shear lug gaps in accordance with DCA-22563, Revision 2, to ensure that the proper shear lugs carry the load (8.2.2.1).
  • Review shear lug gaps in accordance with DCA-22563, Kevision 2 (8.2.2.2).

l 0650-1545405-HC4 7

,_,___my. ,y- . . _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . - - - - _ _ , _ _ , ,

- - - , - - - - - - . ,. , _ . - - _ , - _ . . _ _ _ . , _ . _ . .-,.y , _._____,_,._m ,,m. _m.

  • Determine if reinspection of flex hoses for dainage is required (8.2.2.3).
  • Review small bore non-ASME lines containing flex hoses for proper deadweight support (8.2.2.4).

5.1.3 Pipe or Support Specific

  • Correct drafting errors on drawings: RC-1-115-020-066R, BRP and BREL-1-SB-054, BREL-1-TD-027, H-CS-1-AB-030-005-5, and SI-1-178-745-A32R (8.2.3.1).
  • Reinspect snubbers installed 90 degrees to the rear bracket for potential binding (8.2.3.2).
  • Support WP-1-030-001-C46R should be reinspected for proper alignment of the end paddles (8.2.3.2).

5.1.4 Generic Review Related

  • Identify snubbers that have insufficient clearance between the snubber body and pipe clasp or rear bracket to allow the 25-degree swivel angle (8.2.4.1).
  • Modify insulation in accordance with DCA-21996 and DCA-21997 (8.2.4.2).
  • Espedite the dispositioning of outstanding NCRs that pertain to the requalification effort (8.2.4.3).
  • Evaluate the extent of the discrepancies between pipe support design documentation and actual installation (8.2.4.3). 1
  • Rainspect three piping sleeve clearances for compliance with as-built tolerances (8.2.4.4).

5 .'2 SWEC ACTION 5.2.1 CPPP-6 Related

  • Require as-built drawings for location and details of small bore supporta tied back to the large bore pipe (8.3.1.1)

(complete).

  • Require that large bore pipe movements at decoupled small bore branch connections be transmitted to the Small Fore Analysis Group (8.3.1.2) (complete).
  • Require that moment restraint locations and details be provided by TUGC0 (8.3.1.3) (complete).
  • Add support checklist item which will require that pipe be properly guided against lateral movements with respect to tra-pese spring hangers (8.3.1.4) (complete).

0650-1545405-EC4 8

l

  • Require that pipe movements at whip restraint locations be pro-vided to TUGC0 (8.3.1.5) (complete) . l
  • Require that TUGC0 provide snubber settings recorded by the Hot Tunctional Test Group (8.3.1.6).

5.2.2 CPPP-7 Related

  • Provida shear lug gap tolerances for supports (8.3.2.1)

(complete).

  • Restrict weld length to the flat portion of tube steel members that are not welded all around to flat surfaces (8.3.2.2)

(complete).

  • Provide direction for modeling of tieback supports (8.3.2.3)

(complete).

  • Provide method of evaluation of web crippling (8.3.2.4)

(complete).

  • Require that Hillside washers be identified on the requalifica-tion drawings for U-bolts fastened to tapered surfaces (8.3.2.5).
  • Include A307 ' nuts as acceptable material (8.3.2.6) (complete).
  • Indicate that Table 3.10.8-2 is a guideline for selection of snubber sizes and not a requirement (8.3.2.7) (completa).

l

  • Provide procedure for modeling of parallel struts or snubbers connected to the same support member (8.3.2.8).
  • Require us e of rear bracket dimensions that result in worst case condition for evaluation of local member stress (8.3.2.9).
  • Require the use of ITT snubber settings in lieu of that shown on the snubber BRE drawings and correction of the snubber "A" dimension if not consistant with the vendor catalog representa-tion (8.3.2.10).

l 5.2.3 CPPP-15 Related

  • Include evaluation of all decoupled small bore branch lines connected to large bore pipe to assess the effect of large bore pipe movements on the small bore analysis (8.3.3.1).
  • Include some small bore lines containing motor-operated valves, air-operated valves, and valves with valve stem extensions in the small bore sampling (8.3.3.2).
  • Include some small bore support frames made from plate in the small bore s ampling to evaluate bearing stress acceptability (8.3.3.3). .

0650-1545405-HC4 9

l -

  • Include some small bore piping with rigid restraints located near equipment or tank nozzles (8.3.3.4).

5.2.4 Pipe or Support Specific

<* Consider the pipe curvature in local stress evaluation on Con-tainment Spray headers (8.3.4.1).

  • Evaluate the four stress problems pertaining to 8-in. Main Steam vent lines off 32-in. sain steam header (8.3.4.2).
  • Evaluate the penetration of main steam discharge lines into Main Steam vent stacks to ensure no disengagement (8.3.4.3).
  • Review support 1-CT-008-001-S22S for proper spring application (8.3.4.4).
  • Evaluate movements at support AT-1-064-020-Y35R to determine whether clearance is acceptable (8.3.4.5).
  • Essluate sovements at support CS-1-001-028-C42R to determine whether clearance is a.:eeptable (8.3.4.6).
  • Project Engineer to issue instructions identifying the "added valve weight list" as as-built input for pipe stress (8.3.4.7).
  • Project Engineer to issue instructions requiring that the EITS report be reviewed to determine if EESVs exist for pipe sup-ports with Hiltibolta (8.3.4.8).

o 0650-1545405-HC4 10

4 6.0 WALIDOWN PROGRAM 0.1 PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT Project Procedure CPPP-8, Piping and Support Systu Engineering; Walkdown Procedure, establishes the program for a field walkdown of selected large bore piping stress problema, by experienced pipe stress and pipe support engineers, in order to review physical relationships and critical config-urations which may affect conclusions regarding overall piping system design and acceptance. The engineers were to evaluate whether: ,

a. The SVEC Comanche Peak Project Procedures (CPPP-6 and CPPP-7) are sufficient to address the Comanche Peak piping and pipe support designs,
b. The Comanche Peak design configurations are within the assump-tions and limitations of the SWEC Comanche Peak Project Procedures.
c. There is sufficient information on the as-built ,trawings for SVEC to perform the piping and pipe support requalification effort.
d. Refinements or modifications to SWEC Comanche Pesk Project Pro-ceduret CPPP-6 and CPPP-7 are necessary to adder.ss any unusual design configurations.

6.2 WALIDOWN PACKAGES l

Walkdown packages were prepared by SWEC Document Control for the 70 stress problems selected. Included in each walkdown package were as-built piping isometrics (BRPs) and as-built pipe support location draw-( ings (BRILs for large bore, and GEES for small bore). Also included were pipe support detail drawings (BREs), as-built pipe sleeve takeoff sheets, and a section of the Hanger Information Tracking System (RITS) report listing all of the large bore and small bore supports in that. stress package.

Along with the walkdown packages, the engineers had available the Pipe-line Designation List - Unit I and Common, DRD-ME-10 Revision 113 dated June 19,1985. This document was used for system information such as pressure, temperature, insulation, etc.

6.3 WALEDOWN TEAMS i

l The walkdown group consisted of 21 valkdown engineers: 10 pipe stress engineers, 10 pipe support engineers, and one walkdown task leader. The engineers were divided into 10 two-man teams, each consisting of one stress engineer and one support engineer.

! The engineers were selected from the various SWEC offices based on their experience and expertise in their respective disciplines. To the great-est extent practical, walkdown packages were assigned to the engineers l

l 0650-1545405-HC4 11

1 1

. i from the SWEC office where that stress problem requalification responsibility was assigned. j The resumes of the walkdown engineers are filed in Job Book M3.2.8.

6.4 PREWALKDOWN INDOCTRINATION TRAINING I hior to the walkdown, the engineers were required to read and betone familiar with CPPP-6, Revision 1 Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure; CPPP-7, Revision 1, Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supporte; CPPP-8, Revision 0, Piping and Support System Engineering Walk-down Procedure; and the external source technical issues.

Indoctrination training for the walkdown engineers was conducted onsite by the walkdown task leader. It was emphasized that no all-encompassing attribute checklist was provided because the observations were to be based on the experience and expertise of the walkdown engineer. The at-tribute guideline provided as Attachment 4 of CPPP-8 was only a guideline of some of the key areas to consider.

Copies of the training materials are filed in Job Book i13.2.s.

Channels of communication were established for obtaining TUGC0 assistance and access to certain areas , ladders, scaffolding, insulation removal, etc.

In addition, TUGC0 provided safety orientation for the protection of the walkdown engineers.

6.5 PLANT WAI.KDOWN The actual plant walkdown was conducted from November 12 through November 22, 1985. Each stress problem was walked by a team of stress and support engineers. The team's charter was to be practical in oaking observations but to take nothing for granted. If they were not certain that a particular condition was adequately addressed by TUGC0 or SVEC, an o5servation was to be written.

Daily debriefing meetings were held at the beginning of each day for the walkdown engineers to discuss the types of observations they made so oth-era would be aware of similar situations. The meetings served as a group discussion to share ideas, develop consistency, and more importantly,

(

discuss new itans observed the previous day.

Insulation was removed to inspect integral attachments. Concrete plugs were removed te provide access to serled off areas.

The engineers were not restricted to only looking at items in the walk-down packages but also nearby items that appeared unusual.

l Many obserystions were not judgments of right or wrong but rather obser-

! vations of conditions that should be further evaluated.

l t

I 1

0650-1545405-HC4 12 L,____~. ._.- _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . -

The engineers were provided with 25-f t steel tape measures, flashlights, plumb bobs, and safety belta. Precise measurements were not made since they did not serve the purpose of the walkdown. It was not the intent of the walkdown group to research all the general notes for the various drawing series or to obtain all the vendor documents or all the construc-

, tion procedures. Consequently, many observations were made on judgment and necessitated more accurate inspections by TUGC0 and TUGC0 QC to con-firm or invalidate the observation.

As the walkdown of a etress problem was completed, the team members docu-mented the observations in accordance with Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of CPPP-8.

l 0650-1545405-HC4 13

7.0 EVALUATION PROCISS 7.1 DATA COMPILATION E.e 439 walkdown observations were grouped into 109 categories. These 109 categories were organized into the following 11 groups:

  • Analytical model and input
  • As-built drawing
  • Pipe support gaps *
  • Clearances / Interferences
  • Nonseismic piping and supports
  • Integral attachments
  • Welding
  • Standard component supports
  • Construction
  • Miscellaneous Attachment 2 is a listing of the 109 categories associated with each of the 11 groups.

7.2 VALIDATION ETTORT A validation effort was conducted with TUGCO to obtain clarification or concurrence regarding the appropriateness of the observations.

l In some cases TUGC0 provided reference to revised drawings or NCRs to indicate that the conditions in the observations had already been identi-fted. These documents were in the document control process but were not available for the walkdown packages.

Other observations were found to be of conditions not previously identi-l fied by TUGC0 or allowed by e41 sting procedures. TUGC0 generated NCRs or l other documentation for those observations determined to be appropriate.

Some of the observations, such as offset angles or support gaps out of s'p ecification tolerances, were reviewed by TUGC0 and found to be within -

construction tolerances.

! 7.3 EVALUATION OF PRCUICT PROCIDURES l

Having validated and grouped the observations, each category was compared with Project Procedures CPPP-6, Revision 1, and CPPP-7, Revision 1, and the Technical Issues in process of resolution. Discussions were held with personnel responsible for Project Procedures CPPP-6 and CPPP-7 and resolution of the Technical Issues.

Modifications to the procedures were identified. In many situations, the l identified modifications were known by the personnel responsible for pro-eedure development. These rodifications were being developed but were not issued prior to the walkdown observations. In other situations , mod-ifications were identified that will bring explicit attention to at-tributes essential to the requalification program.

0650-1545405-HC4 14 l

l

Review sheets were developed for each category of observations summariz-ing the concerns in the observations and a conclusion, including the cor-responding recommended action (i.e., draft conclusions). All the observations in each category were attached to the review sheets. SVEC Project Management rerieved each of the review sheets and finalized the conclusions, 7.4 TUGC0 INTERTACE Review sheets, including copies of the walkdown observations for those categories requiring TUGC0 action, were submitted to TUGC0 to determine whether other information, programs, or procedures exist that would in-fluence the resolution of the observations.

7.5 WALKDOWN OBSERVATION CATEGORIES Based on the evaluations by SVEC and the TUGC0 interface results, the walkdown observations were finally categorized into the following:

  • No action required -
  • TUGC0 action required
  • SWEC action required These categories are described in detail in Section 8.0.

o I

l 0650-1545405-HC4 15 i

1

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

a 8.0 DETAILED CATEGORIES Oy WALKDOWN OBSERVATIONS 8.1 NO ACTION REQUIRED Approximately 67 peretnt of the observations resulted in no procedural or generic action required for the following reasons:

1. The most prevalent reason is that the existing procedures are adequate to address the conditions identified in the observa-tions . Some of these observations are accounted for by TUGCO's onsite procedures of the Engineering and Operations depart-ments, or ars of conditions in the plant that are clearly shown on the drawings, and existing procedures CPPP-6 and CPPP-7 pro-vide adequate direction. Approximately 240 observations are in this catescry.
2. Twelve ebuervations were made of conditions that have been pre-viously identified and have been, or are being, resolved as generie technical issues by the project.
3. Sixteen observations were of isolated unique conditions that do cot carrant generic action, procedurally or technically. There instances were documented by TUGC0 on NCRs and are being ad-dressed in accordance with the TUGC0 QA program.
4. Six observations merely documented the fact that approximately 15 of the nearly 2400 supports in the scope of the walkdown were inaccessible for inspection. There is notAing unusual about the design, location, or types of supports that were in-accessible, and consequently, the fact that they were not in-spected is not detrimental to the overall effectiveness or conclusions of the walkdown.
5. Nineteen of the observations were of conditions that are of no concern.

8[2 TUGC0 ACTION 8.2.1 As-Built Information or Design Input Related 8.2.1.1 Small Bore Tieback Supports yive observations addressed the supports for small bore branch lines that are tied back to the large bore run pipe. The tieback support is gener-ally a pipe clamp (or two) on the large bore pipe to which the small bore support structure is welded. These tieback supports are not shown on the large bore drawings reviewed during the walkdown; however, they are shown on the appropriate small bore drawings.

The walkdown engineers identified two issues which should be reviewed.

The first is that the presence of the tieback should be identified and considered in the large bore run pipe stress analysis, he second is that a procedure would be beneficial for consistency in the modeling of the tieback support.

0650-1545405-HC4 16

e A review of the small bore hanger location drawings (GHHs) and the sup-port detail drawings (BRHs) is needed to identify all the tieback sup-ports. In some cases, the precise installed locations of the tieback supports on the run pipe cannot be verified by drawing review because the dimansions shown are not explicit (e.g., 1-in. minimum and 1-ft 8-in, maxi la dimensions are specified in the standard drawings).

Norma 11, . when a single organization is responsible for the design of both large and small bore piping systema, this type of design input is internal to the organization and would be incorporated in the design pro-cess through other administrative controls. Since SWEC is not involved with the original design process, the existing tieback support details and as-built locationa must be provided to SWEC to evaluate their effects on the large bore run pipe and the interactions on the branch lines.

8.2.1.2 Fire Barrier Walls Walkdown observations noted piping and supports penetrating fire barrier walls that are not indicated on the BREI, or BRP drawings. No clearance is provided around the piping or supports where they penetrate these walls.

TUGC0 generated NCR-24649N to document this lack of clearance at one of the walls.

Investigation with TUGC0 site personnel concluded that the TUGC0 Struc-l tural Group should identify all such fire barrier walls for consideration by Pipe Stress and Supports T.ngineering.

l i

l TUGC0 should include as-built location and clearance information for all l piping and supports, in the scope of the requalification effort, that penetrate ther fire barrier walls.

8.2.1.3 Pipe Whip Restraints One observation acted a pipe whip restraint, CS-1-074-910-A47V, that be-c'aus e of the small clearances from the pipe, may act as a two-way pipe support on 3-in. CS-1-074-250lR-2. The pipe whip restraint location is not shown on the BREI.. The as-built program does not require the loca-tion or orientation of pipe whip restraints on the BREI. drawings.

The pipe whip restraints are designed with gaps so that they do not in-terfere with the normal operation of the pipe. Consequently, it is nec-essary to verify that sufficient clearances are provided to accommodate the pipe movements predicted by the ASME III analysis for the various operating conditions. His process is usually performed by the organiza-tion responsible for tha pipe whip design. To facilitate this process, using the locations of pipe whip restraints provided by TUGCO, SWEC will develop pipe movementa at each whip restraint location for TOGCO's evaluation.

It should be noted that although these gaps were previously evaluated using Gibbs & Eill piping movements, it is possible that because of the 0650-1545405-EC4 17

o

. l l

1 hanger optimization effort, predicted movements could differ from those '

previously evaluated.

8.2.1.4 Wind Loads Walkdown observations noted piping that is located outside of the build-ings and is therefore subjected to wind loads.

Section 3.4.5.11 of CPPP-7 addresses wind loads, but the portions of pip-ing subject to such loads have not been identified to SWEC.

It is recommended that WGC0 identify the piping within the scope of the requalification effort exposed to wind load to SVEC. '

8.2.1.5 Added Valve Weight List Several observations noted that the as-built drawings do not indicate which valves have valve stem extensions installed.

Through discussions with TUGC0 site personnel, it was found that WGC0 had transmitted information in Letter No. CPPA-45,391 dated July 29, 1985, which identified the valves that have valve stem extensions and the amount of weight increase (or decrease) associated with each valve.

However, during the discussions with TUGC0 site personnel, SV C could not detetuine that a documented procedure .ezisted governing the development of the "added valve weight list" provided in Letter No. CPPA-45,391.

It is recommended that WGC0 ensure that appropriate documentation is l available to substantiate the adequacy and completeness of the "added valve weight list."

l 8.2.1.6 Gang Ranger Supports Two observations were written of cases in which a pipe support was at-tached to another support, but the drawing for the other support did not reflect the attachment.

NCR-E24585N was written against large bore support CC-I-912-703-E23R.

NCR-E24523F has been written for the other large bore support, SI-1-038-002-522R.

Because GEPKdl' 19 was assigned to support CC-I-912-703-E23R, and this support was referenced on the other large bore support drawing, it would be picked up by the requalification support engineer, and the attachment would be included in the analysis.

In the case of large bore support SI-1-038-002-S22R, no GHPK was assigned to it or the attached small bore support (BR-1-SB-001-004-3) on. line BR-1-006-151R-3. Because the small bore support drawing referenced the large bore support, it is possible that the large bore analyst would be-come aware of the smal.1 bore attachment if the small bore support were part of the requalification effort.

l l

l 0650-1545405-HC4 18 l

  • 1 Thus, there is a pntential that a large bore support could have been requalified without including the small bore attachment.

It is recommended that TUGC0 review all Unit I small bore support draw-ings to identify small bore supports ganged with large bore supports.

Drawings should be revised as necessary, to ensure that all small bore supports are referenced on the large bore support drawings and the appro-priate GHPK number is entered in the HITS report.

Changes made to the HITS report as a result of this affort should be spe- '

cifically identified.

8.2.1.7 Insulation Input Information Several observations were made regarding stress analysis input informa-tion pertaining to insulation. Insulation information was obtained by the walkdown engineers from two sources:

1. Line Designation List (LDL)
2. Visual Inapection of the Pipe Some observations stated that according to the LDL, a particular line is required to be insulated, but either the line is not insulated or only a portion of the line is insulated.

Three 3-in. lines and two 2-in. lines on the Vasce Processing - Liquid Portion (WP) system were found to be insulated, but the LDL indicated no insulation is required. Discussions with TUGC0 revealed that the LDL will be reviaed.

In some cases, the insulation was removed for various inspection activi-ties and will be reinstalled.

According to the LDL, 4-in. DD-1-06-152-5 requires insulation. During the walkdown, t.he line was found to be uninsulated. Discussions with TUGC0 site personnel revealed that the LDL will be revised.

Some other observations stated that the LDL required insulation, but the lines were found to be uninsulated.

From the above observations, it is concluded that TUGC0 should verify the insulation information provided to SWEC for the requalification effort.

The information on .he LDL aust reflect the installed conditions. TUGC0 should specifically identify LDL changes as a result of this effort.

8.2.1.8 Voided Supports Not Physically Removed Some supports were found on the piping that were not shown on the BRHL drawings.

l On stress problem 1-0643, three supports were installed on 4-in.

j CC-X-109-152-G that were not shown on the as-built BRHL drawing. TUGC0 i

reinspection confirmed the observation. The supports had been voided but were not deleted in the field. This information has been given to the l

! 0650-1545405-HC4 19 l

l e e

_ , - - . ~ . . , , . , - - , - , . _ _ _ , . _ _ , , , - , _ - _ _ , . , , , ,-m _,,_-.c,,,.m_ _ _ _ ,,-.w ,, .,,-----,._,_,-,-,-v- _

l Pipe Support Engineat '.ng Group and the following NCks have been generat- )

ed: NCR-li24605N,li24606N, and ti24607N. i l

Support No. 4 was not deleted as indicated on hanger location Drawing l No. GHH-CS-1-AB-029, Rev CP-2. TUGC0 has reinspected the line, and an l NCR will be generated. I A 2-inch line (CS-1-087-2501R-2) was observed to pass through a support for an adjacent line. The support effectively acts as a vertical re-straint for the line. It appears the support was not intended to be a restraint for the line and, therefore, was not shown on the BRHI.. TUGC0 reinspection identified the support to be CS-1-050-007-S22R. The clear- l ances were recorded and NCR-li24563N was generated. This type of clear-ance probles will be accounted for in the final clearance walkdown referenced in CPPP-6.

TUGC0 has already initiated action to ensure that all voided supports have been physically removed in the field (Reference I.e tte r No. CPP-19,377).

8.2.1.9 Insulated Expansion Joints One walkdown observation noted that three piping expansion joints on stress problem 1-055C were fully insulated free end to end and that radi-al bars were protruding through the metal jacket of the insulation.

The concerns noted were whether the insulation would prevent the expan-sion joint froe functioning as intended and whether the mass of the radi-al bars was considered in the piping analysis.

TUGC0 should confire vendor approval for the expansion joint with the radial bars and insulation as installed.

Depending on the results of the vendor confirmation, WGC0 should deter-eine whether a review of safety-related expansion joints on insulated

, lines for similar conditions is required.

8.2.1.10 Anchor Bolt Spacina Violation _

One observation identified a Hilti-bolt spacing violation between a Rilti bolt on support CT-1-008-004-522X and a Eilti bolt on an adjacent support baseplate. In addition, on support CC-1-057-021-A33A, a pipe sleeve is located only 5 in, away from one of the Hilti bolts. TUCCO reported that Hilti bolt spacing violations are required to be identified on Engineer-ing Evaluation of Spacing Violations (EESVs). The EESVs are filed with the calenlations.

A review of the support calculation for CT-1-008-004-S22X found that an EESV for the Hilti bolt spacing violation is not included. However, EESV-298 is identified in the HITS report for this support. TUGC0 rain-spected support CC-1-057-021-A33A and initiated EESV-1857. This EESV will be filed with the calculation.

0650-1545405-HC4 20

l 1

In order to ensure that all EISVs are identified, it is recosamended that j TUGC0 confirm that all EISVs are listed in the HITS report and that a  ;

program exists to ensure that all future EESVs will be included in the HITS report.

8.2.1.11 Snubber "A" Dimension Discrepancies Walkdown observations noted discrepancies between the "A" dimension shown on the snubber BAH drawings and the "A" dimension as represented in the vendor catalog. The actual snubber "A" d1Jeansion as measured by the walkdown engineers was also observed to vary from that shown on the draw-ings. According to the vendor catalog, the "A" dimension is the distance from the connection point of the snubber and the rear bracket to the for-ward end of the snubber (excluding forward bracket or transition tube kit). This dimension controls the cold set of the snubber. Some obser-vations noted that the "A" dimension shown on the drawings included the thickness of the plate on the forward bracket or transition tube. This causes the cold setting to be different from that intended by as much as 3/4 in., depending on the snubber size. TUGC0 stated that the snubbers were checked during hot functional testing and found ceceptable. Howev-er, as a result of the support optimization effort, new piping movements are possible which could differ from the previous hot functional test movements which found the snubbers to be acceptable.

Discussion with TUGC0 found that the Hot Tunctional Test (HTT) Group re-corded the actual "A" dimensions for all snubbers prior to EFT heatup.

In addition, snubber data was recorded at each testing plateau as well as at ambient temperature af ter the EFT. SWEC's use of the EFT enubber data would cluainate concern for discrepancies between the actual "A" dimen-sions found in the field and that shown on the snubber BRH drawings.

It is recoassended that TUGC0 provide the HIT snubber data for SWEC's evaluation of available snubber travel with respect to predicted piping movements.

4 2.2 Hardware Related 8.2.2.1 Abandoned Shear I.ugs One observation identified a note on Drawing No. SI-1-026-719-C41R that states "Itan 4 (shaar lugs) will remain on pipe and will not be used to restrain any of the Class 1 load." This support has a total of eight lugs for which documentation was reportedly lost for the original four lugs. Ar.sther support, SI-1-027-702-C41R, has 16 lugs welded to the pipe (8 for each load direction). According to TUGC0 site engineering, only eight lugs were originally on the pipe, but the lug documentation was lost. Consequently, eight additional lugs were installed because the original eight lugs could not be considered.

It is possible, because of gap variation, that one or more of the origi-nal set of lugs could carry load by coming into contact with the frame.

Since the material documentation is unavailable, the stress analysis can not consider these lugs.

0650-1545405-HC4 21

- - . - . - - . - , - , .._,m------ -- . - - - - . . - - . - - .%,.--- e-.. ---,-,---------..-.-..,---,_.--.-u.,- -,-.- y---

l

. l 9

TUGC0 has issued DCA-22563, Revision 2, to shim the proper luss to the revised clearances to ensure that the shear lugs with the proper documen-tation carry the load.

8.2.2.2 Irreaular Shear Lua Gaps The question of gaps between shear lugs and support (frame or clamp) was raised during the walkdown as a result of noticeable gap variations in the field.

For axial restraints using two lugs (for each load direction), present I i

procedures require that the total design load be applied through a single l lug (reference Attachment 4-8 of CPPP-7). This adequately accounts for the gap variation between two lugs.

For axial restraints using four or more lugs (for each load direction),

present procedures require that local stress check be performed based on one-half the total desir;n load applied through each lug. In addition, the frame is designed assuming worst-case application of one-half the total design load for each of two lugs.

Construction tolerances for shear lug installe ion are such that where the design shows 1/16-in, clearance between shear lug and restraining member, the total clearance for both sides of the restraint could range froe 0 in, to 3/15 in. Consequently, it is possible for one lug to be closer than the other three.

Gap variations were observed in the field which could result in one lug making contact before the others.

One observation was of a vertical restraint which is not carrying any dead weight load because the upper lugs are not in contact with the frame.

Because shear lug gap variation is a result of installation tolerance, this condition could be generic for all axial restraints with four or more shear lugs (for each direction).

TUGC0 has issued DCA-22563, Revision 2, which will ensure that shear lug gaps will satisfy the gaps of Attachment 4-11 of CPPP-7.

8.2.2.3 Flexible Metal Esses Some of the flex hoses were observed to be crimped or slightly damaged.

Discussions with TUGC0 indicated that the flex hoses were only inspected at the time of installation. It is recommended that TUGC0 review this condition and determine if reinspections or other action is required.

8.2.2.4 Small Bore Piping With Flaz Hoses Two miscellaneous observations which were not part of the large bore stress problem being walked noted flexible metal hose installations that appeared to have piping on either and of the hoses which was supported too loosely to control the pipe movements. Anchors or equivalent anchors 0650-1545405-HC4 22 l

are usully installed at one end of a flex hose. In some cases, it ap-peared as though the deadweight of the piping was resting on the flex hose.

Further evaluation found that these were non-ASME piping installations.

It is recossmended that TUGC0 review small bore non-ASME piping with flex hoses for proper deadweight support.

8.2.3 Pipe or Support Specific 8.2.3.1 Minor Draf tina Errors Some of the observations noted minor drafting errors.

The BRH drawing for RC-1-115-020-C66R showed the support as -C66A. It is obvious from the drawing that the support is not an anchor. TUGC0 has revised the drawing.

The RRP and RRE-1-SB-054 incorrectly identified the equipment mark nue-ber for the auxiliary feedwater pump turbine as CP-1-MSTDAF-01 instead of CP1-ATAPTD-01. Both drawings are being corrected.

The BRE-1-TD-027 identified the line number between supports DD-1-006-131-Y45A and DD-1 006-130-Y45R as 4-in. DD-1-06-132-5. It should be

-152-5 and TUGC0 is correcting this discrepancy.

"Elevation looking east" is not identified on BRE-SI-1-178-745-A32R, Revision 2. TUGC0 generated NCR-24588N to correct this omission.

8.2.3.2 Snubber Paddle /End Brackets Some observations were made regarding snubber / strut paddles and and brackets.

One observation states that the snubber body is bearing against the side of its and bracket on support SI-1-172-002-C41K. The binding could re-s'trict pipe movement and potentially result in damage to the snubber dur-ing operation. The observation also states that there appears to be a generic problem involving and brackets and paddles as the combisations of these components used may not allow the component to swivel through a 15-degree angle in accordance with published vendor data.

TUGC0 reinspection found that when the snubber is installed at 90 degrees to the rear brachat and the snubber forward brachat is fabricated to the minimum "C" dimension specified by the vendor, the swing angle is re-stricted. If tka weld on the forward bracket is greater than 5/16 in. ,

it comes in contact with the rear bracket which would allow no swing angle.

Other observations identified what appeared to be nonvendor-supplied rear brackets on the following supports:

0650-1545405-HC4 23

E-CS-1-AB-023-001-3 H-CS-1-AB-023-004-3 H-CS-1-AB-024-001-3 H-CS-1-AB-024-003-3 H-CS-1-AB-029-006-3 TUCCO reinspected the supports for the rear bracket dimensions and found all of them to be vendor-supplied rear brackets. The vendor data had several revisions which included revised rear bracket dimensions. The walkdown engineers did not review the revision that corresponded to the installed rear bracket dimensions.

Project Memorandum PM-044 requires that SWEC requalification engineers use those di.nensions which would result in the worst-case condition for analyzing rear bracket welds.

Although the supports were found to have vendor-supplied rear brackets, clearance concerns were noted on two of the supports. On support E-CS AB-024-001-3, the clearance between the snubber body and the clamp is only 1/32 in. Ou support E-CS-1-AB-029-006-3, the snubber body is in contact with the rear bracket. Other obssrvations were made regarding insufficient clearance between snubber bodies and both pipe clamps and rear brackets. These are discussed in Section 8.2.4.1.

One observation noted that support WP-1-030-001-C46R does not appear to be fabricated properly. The strut parts are welded such that one of the end paddles is not aligned with the strut body.

It is recommended that TUGC0 inspect support WP-1-030-001-C46R for proper alignment of and paddles.

Support CC-1-057-701-A33E was ideatified as having special end brackets (i.e., long). Iowever, this support is a trapeze snubber type support which is being modified as all tranase snubber supports are being deleted.

o It is recommended that TUGC0 reinspect all snubbers that are oriented 90 degrees to the rear bracket for restriction of the 15-degree swing angle.

It should be noted that even though the drawing any speci.fy a weld small-er than 5/16 in. , it is possible that the actual weld is larger than specified. Consequently, the actual weld size must be used to evaluate for this condition rather than the specified weld size.

8.2.4 Generic Review Related 8.2.4.1 Snubber Bindina Walkdown observations noted insufficient clearances between the snubber bodies and both the pipe clamps, and the rear brackets to which they are pinned. A clearance is required to allow the component to swivel.

0650-1545405-HC4 24

It is not clear whether different parts were interchanged or misfabri-cated, but larger clearances are indicated by the vendor's catalog than those obsened during the walkdown.

The analysts assume clearances adequate to allow 15-degree rotation un-less the as-built information indicates that less clearance is available.

Since the clearances observed in the field are less than the mancisctur-er's catalog clearances and the supports have not been evaluated for thermal and seismic movements, it is recommended that TUGC0 reinspect all snubbers and identify whether any exist that do not physically allow the 15-degree swing angle.

8.2.4.2 Insulation Providing Arial Restraint Walkdown observationa noted five cases where piping insulation was in-stalled in conta:t with the pipe support frame. The insulation sight act as an axial restraint, which could induce unanalyzed stresses in the pipe or support.

SVaC is unable to identify field procedures that specify mini == clear-ances between the insulation and supports on the lines being insulated.

There should be a requirement to provide a clearance on each side of box frame supports so insulation does not create axial forces on the supports or piping.

TUGC0 has initiated DCA-21996 and DCA-21997 to have insul.t. tion triassed on box frames to prevest it free providing axial restraint.

8.2.4.3 Installation Different from Pipe Support gaving Some of the walkdown observationa noted installation conditions that are differast free the drawings.

Previously Identified o

Some of the differences identified between the installation and the de-sign documentation had been previously identified by TVGC0 on NCRs. The design documentation does not get revised until af ter the NCRs are dis-positioned. Consequently, the walkdown packages did not reflect that these coeditions had been identified. It is recommended that TUGC0 expe-dite the dispositioning of outstanding NCRs that pertain to the requali-j fication effort. The observations are l

1. Small bore support E-ST-I-AB-045A-008G in installed to a dif-farent design than indicated on the pipe support drawing.

TUGC0 has written NCR-K24442 for this eupport. The NCR was not yet dispositioned.

2. Five one-way supports were found to have internal clearance l

I violations in the unrestrained direction. All five had been I previonaly identified by It!GC0 on NCRs which had not yet been -

dispositioned.

l l

t 0650-1545405-HC4 25 l

l l

3. Support CS-1-260-700-A53K was found to be 1 f t 7 in. sway from the location shown on the as-built drawing. This had been dis-covered earlier by TUGCO, and the drtving was revised the week before the walkdown. This drawing was not yet in the walkdown package.
4. Supports 13 and 14 on GHH-S1-1-SB-023A were found to be in-s talled in the reverse order from the as-built drawing. The drawing had previously been revised to show the installed con-dition and was transmitted to SWEC after preparation of the walkdown package.
5. Supports SI-1-200-707-C41K and $1-1-200-708-C41K were found to be installed approximately 70 degrees from each other while the drawing called for them to be 90 degrees apart. The subject of spring, strut, and snubber orientation was previously identi-fied in the CPPP-5 walkdown. TUGC0 had committed to reinspect all of these types of supports to verify orientation. The re-inspection of these two supports had not been performed prior to the walkdown. When they were reinspected, however, NCR-24539N and NCR-24552N were written to document the discrep-ancies. Therefore, this is considered previously identified.
5. Support W-1-096-036-C62R was observed to be offset grester than 5 degrees, and this had been previously identified by TUGC0 on NCR-25013N. ,
7. Valves ICS-8387A and ICS-8387B were found to be oriented at approximately 35 degrees instead of 45 degrees, as indicated on as-built Drawing No. IRP-CS-1AB-118. This had been documented by TUGC0 on NCR-24725N.

Not Previously Identified Some of the observed differences had not been previously identified by TUCC0 and involved supports in which one or more members or components we're not installed in accordance with the drawings.

1. Support CC-1-246-017-C53R - A diagonal brace (Item 16) was at-tached approximately 12 in. higher than shown on the drawing.

As a result of TUGC0 reinspection, NCR-24511N was generated.

2. Support CC-1-045-005-A43A - A gusset plate (Item 3E) on the baseplate was shown to extend to the edge of the baseplate.

Bowever, it was cut off approximately 4 in, from the edge of the plate. TUGC0 generated NCR-24565N to document this discrepancy.

3. Support CC-1-135-705'E63R - The dimensions for the baseplate and the location of the attachment on the baseplate do not reflect the installed dimensions. The attachment location is off by 3 in. in one direction and 1 in, in the other direction.

TOGC0 reinspection resulted in NCR-24541N.

0650-1545405-HC4 26

. I l

I

4. Support D0-1-024-707-S33R Instead of two U-bolt nuts being  !

installed on each side of the structural oesber, all four nuts were installed on the same side. Consequently, the 1/16 in. j gap cannot be maintained. TUGC0 reinspected the support and -

generated NCR-24518N.

5. Two supports that are designed to be one-way restraints were found to have insufficient clearance in one of the unrestrained directions. TUGC0 reinspected supports VD-1-007-007-S23R and SI-1-001-016-S42R, and wrote NCRs M24509T and H23534T, respectively.
6. Two supports, SI-1-045-024-S22R and SV-1-129-725-A43R, were found to have the rear brackets installed 90 degrees free that shown on the drawings. TUGC0 has generated NCR-24575N and NCR-24500N, respectively, to document the discrepancies.
7. Support SI-1-039-035-S42K - The support drawing shows a small bore support attached to it. It is not. The small bore sup- ,

port was redesigned acd no longer attaches to the large bore suppo rt. TUGC0 generated NCR-24576N to correct this problem.

8. There are two pipe trunnions welded to 3-in. WP-I-549-151R-5 which sre not indicated on ERP WP-I-AB-101, Rev. 3. The trunnions were compossents of voided support WP-I-549-004-A55K.

TUSI office Memorandue No. CPPA-27.755 dated February 13, 1983, identified the support as void, and the abandoned trunnions were to be shown on the RAP. The BRP has since been appropri-ately revised.

9. Support CE-1-215-011-533R was found to have the wrong two sides of the rear bracket welded. TUGC0 initiated NCR-25618N.
10. On support I-SI-1-SB-023A-007-2, it was noted that the flare bevel weld specified was not made. TUGC0 reinspection tesulted

, in generation of NCR-24566N.

11. OL support CS-1-075-704-A42A, it was noted that there is less weld length than the drawing specified. TUGC0 reinspected the support and NCR-2460lN was generated.

It is recommended that TUGC0 evaluate the above discrepancies.

8.2.4.4 Pipina Sleeve Clearances Some observations noted piping clearances through pipe sleeves may be inadequate to accommodate expected pipe movements and in some cases were less *han shown on the sleeve takeoff sheets in the walkdown packages.

Because of the presence of insulation, precise measurements could not be obtained at the time. It is SVEC's understanding that the sleeve clear-ances on the sleeve takeoff sheets may have been obtained before all the piping welds were made or all the permanent supports were installed.

I However, temporary supports were installed to position the pipe.

l l 0650-1545405-HC4 27 l

i

The as-built tolerance on the sleeve clearance dimensions is 21/8 in.

SWEC field engineers removed the it.sula tion from the seven sleeves in question and took measurements from the surface of the pipe as shown on the sleeve takeoff sheets. Three sleeves were found to have clearances that were different from the takeoff sheets by more than 1/8 in.

On BRP CS-1-RB-033, Sleeve 2, the pipe was found to be 9/16 in, lower than shown on the takeoff sheet.

On BRP CS-1-R5-0385, Sleeve 1, the pipe was found to be 11/16 in, west and 1 1/4 in. lower than shown on the sleeve takeoff sheat.

On BRP CS-1-RB-038C, Sleeve 2, the pipe was found to be 3/8 in, south of that shown on the takeoff sheet.

It is recommended that TUGC0 reinspect these sleeves and evaluate whether h they are out of tolerance, and if so, whether the condition is isolated or generic.

8.3 SWEC ACTION 8.3.1 CPPP-6 Related 8.3.1.1 As-Built Input for Small Bore Tieback Supports The subject of small bore tieback supports was previously discussed in Section 8.2.1.1.

Procedure CPPP-6, Revision 2, Section 6.1 now requires as-built drawings for locations and details of sas11 bore supports tied back to the large bore pipe.

8.3.1.2 Decoupled Small lore Pipina observations were made concerning the fact that small bore branch lines ponnected to the large bore pipe are not always shown or included in the large bore stress probles. The walkdown ensinaers questio wd whether the

, seal.1 bore lines were flexible enough to acceenodate the movement of the large bore pipe. Ordinarily this would be routinely considered if all large bore and small bore lines were being evaluated. However, because SWEC is only requalifying some of the small bore lines, it cannot be en-suced that all smell bore lines are flexible enough.

CPPP-6, Revision 2, Section 7.4.3 requires that large bore pipe movements at all small bore branch connections be transmitted to the small bore analysis group for evaluation.

8.3.1.3 Noment Restraints Walkdown observations identified several installed moment restraints that are not shown on the RREI. drawings, although the restraints are specified on the BRP drawings. Tha BRkI. is the goversing as-built pipe support location drawing as stated in Sections 4.5, 4.6, and 6.1 of CPPP-6.

0650-1545405-HC4 28

Subsequent discussions between TUGC0 and SVEC Engineering revealed that TUGC0 has provided the structural drawings for the soment restraints to SVEC. These drawings show the locations as well as the details for the moment restraints.

The concern is Leins handled properly in the production effort, and CPPP-6, Revision 2. $btion 6.1 now requires locations and details of the moment restraints.

8.3.1.4 Stsbility for Type G hyrings Support CS-1-250-004-5535 is a Type G trapene spring hanger. There is no secure attachment of the spring assemb1) to the pipe. Standard practice is to secure the pipe to the spr'as assembly with a U-bolt. The vdkdown engineer identified this support as a candidate for removal becaus e of the anticipated small movement and small load. If not deleted, it should be modified to include a U-bolt to secure the spring assembly to the pipe.

CPPP-6, Revision 2, Attachment 9-10 inc194 des a checklist ites to require that the pipe be properly guided against lateral movements with respect to trapeze spring hangers.

8.3.1.5 Pipe Movements at Whip Restraints The subject of pipe ' whip restraints was previously discussed in Section 8.2.1.3.

CPPP-6, Revision 2, Section 7.4.3 requires that pipe movements at whip restraint locations be provided to TUGCO.

8.3.1.6 Snubber "A" Dimensions The subject of snubber "A" dimensions was previously discussed in Sec-tion 8.2.1.11. Projec'. Procedure CPPP-6 will be revised to require TUGC0 t,o provide the snubber r.ettings recorded by the EFT Group.

8.3.2 CPPP-7 Related 4.3.2.1 Shear Lua Gap Tolerances The question of gaps between shear lugs and support (frame or clamp) was previously discussed in Section 8.2.2.2.

CPPP-7, Attachment 4-11, was being developed at the time of the walkdown.

Revision 2 of CPPP-7 includes shear lug gap tolerances that when imple-mented will ensure that at least two of the shear lugs share the load.

8.3.2.2 Tube Steel Weld Lenaths .

One observation noted a few cases where a two-sided fillet weld was spec-ified between a plate (or wide flange surf ace) and a perpendicular tube steel section. In the i 1.ld, only the flat portion of the tube steel was I

0650-1545405-HC4 29 l l

j

welded on each side. Hence, the effective length of the welds is less than the width of the tube steel.

It was noted that Section 3.1.1 of Attachment 4-2 in CPPP-7 requires con-sideration of only the flat portion of the tube steel as the effective weld length for two sided tube-to-tube welds.

Section 3.1.1 of Attachement 4-2 in CPPP-7, Revision 2 now considers only the flat portion of the tube steel as the effective veld length for non-all around welds on tube steel to flat surfaces.

8.3.2.3 Modelina of Tiebach Supports The subject of tieback supports was previously discussed in Section 8.2.1.1.

To provide consistency, CPPP-7, Revision 2, Section 3.10.6.13 includes direction on modeling techniques for the tieback supports.

8.3.2.4 Evaluation for Web Cripplins Cue observation noted a size 35 snubber on a 24-in. diameter Component Cooling line. The rear bracket of the snubber is attached to a W6 x 15.5 wide flange and no web stiffeners are provided.

l i Attachment 4-13 of CPPP-7, Revision 2, now includes web crippling crite-ria for wide flanges.

8.3.2.5 Use of 'tillside or Tapered Washers Support RC-1-05.t-025-C41X is a trapeze-type snubber restraint. It was observed to be installed with the snubbers skewed with respect to each c.ther and the two U-bolts were angled toward each other instead of being parallel.

l I In addition, the snubbers were skewed in an orientation that would cause the M4113 crossnessber to twist with respect to the pipe.

The U-bolta, although installed in accordance with the drawing, are an-gled toward each other because of the taper of the inside surfaces of the flanges. In order for the U-bolts to remain parallel to each other, ta-pered or Hillside washers should have been used between the nuts and the M4I13 crossaember. The use of Hillside washers would also ensure that the U-bolt would not bend as the nuts are torqued against the tapered surfaces.

When this support van discussed with TUGCO, it was found that the support was in the process of being redesigned and the present support would no  !

longer exist. ,

l CPPP-7 will be revised to beve the need for Hillside washers identified l on the requalification drawings for U-bolta fastened to tapered surfaces of structural members such as the M4I13 above.

0650-1545405-EC4 30 I l

l \

l

3, .

4 8.3.2.6 A307 Material Support No. MS-1-025-009-S75K was noted to have A-307 nuts used with Richmond inserts. The engineer noted that these nuts are not addressed in Attachment 4-5 of CPPP-7. Also, the A-307 designation is specified on the as-built drawing for this support.

The A-307 designation for nuts was discontinued in 1978, and the nuts are current 17 designated A-563, Grade A, which are acceptable by Table 4.5.2 of CPPP-7.

Table 4.5.2 of CPPP-7 presently allows the use of A-563, Grade A nuts, which have the same physical properties and allowables 4 A-307 nuts.

CPPP-7 Revision 2, Section 1.2, Attachment 4-5 now resses A307 material.

8.3.2.7 Snubber Selection Table One observation noted that Table 3.10.8-2 in CPPP-7 listed snubber size requirements for various sizes of pipes but should only be a guide for snubber size selection.

It is noted that during the SWEC requalification effort, a hanger optimi-

, sation program is being implementad to eliminate snubbers whenever reasonable.

The hanger optimization program in CPPP-7 will adequately address snub-bers whose size may be inconsistent with the pipe size. It is not the intent of the table to indicate that snubber sizes that are inconsistent with the table will not work. CPPP-7 has been revised to indicate

  • hat the table is a guideline for selecting snubber sizes appropriate for the various pipe sizes.

8.3.2.8 Modelina of Parallel Struts or Snubbers W4 1kdown observations noted trapeze pipe supports consisting of parallel struts or snubbers that have unequal leg stiffness. One support, SI ,

178-747-A321, consists of parallel snubbers connected to a common support member.

Attachment 4-18, Section 2.2.2, of CPPP-7 provides criteria for calculat-ing stiffness of supports with parallel st. ruts or enubbers. However, it appears to be limited to struts or unubbers attached to separate struc-tures or frames.

Attachment 4-18 of CPPP-7 will be expanded to include parallel struts or snubbers attached to the same member tc account for enoqual leg stiffness.

8.3.2.9 Snubber Paddle /End Brat:kets The subject of snubber and bracket dimensions was previously discussed in Section 8.2.3.2. Concerning and brackets with different di men sions ,

0650-1545405-HC4 31

,-x---+~ v y n en--,ee g gev.,------e .---,-,---wgw---,ww-w, a-.,e---,v,,s. ,m,----,,- we,- e,vv+,c, .,a-ww-,eo,- --a,a---- w--- - - -- ---o--+w--r-

CPPP-7 will require the use of those rear bracket dimensions that result in the worst case condition for the evaluation of local member stress, 8.3.2.10 Snubber "A" Dimensions The subject of snubber "A" dimensions was previously discussed in Section 8.2.1.11.

Project Procedure CPPP-7 will be revised to require the requalification engineers to use the EFT snubber data in lieu of the "A" dimensions shown on the snubber BRE drewings and to revise the "A" dimension on the draw-ing if not consistent with the vendor catalog representation.

8.3.3 CPPP-15 Related 8.3.3.1 Evaluation of Decoupled Small Bore Pipins The subject of decoupled small bore piphs was previously discussed in Section 8.3.1.2. Project Procedure CPPP-15 will be issued to define the scope of the small bore requalification effort. Small bore piping decou-pled from the large bore analysis will be evaluated during the CPPP-15 requalification.

8.3.3.2 Small Bore Valves with Larne Operators Section 3.10.5.2 of CPPP-7 addresses requalification of valves with large extended structures. This attribute should be a criterion for the small bore sampling selection. Therefore, some small bore lines with MOVs, A0Vs, or valve sten extensions will be included in the small bore re-qualification sampling.

8.3.3.3 Bearing Stress of Plate Frames The walkdown observation noted a small bore pipe that is supported by members consisting of 1/2-in. plate. The design of 1/2-in. plate sup-porta should be reviewed with respect to local stresses in the run pipe.

Some examples of this type of support will be included in the small bore requalification sampling.

8.3.3.4 Small Bore Risid Restraints Near Nozzles Cases were observed in the field of large and small bore piping connected to tanks with the first rigid support located' within a few feet of the tank nozzle but with the support attached to a different building struc-ture. This is of coutern due to potential differential building move-ments between the support attachments and the tank nozzles.

The above condition for all large bore piping will be evaluated as part of the requalification effort. Since not all of the small bore piping is in the SWEC scopa, of work, this condition may exist elsewhere in the plant and be undetected.

0650-1545405-HC4 32

l CPPP-15 will be reviewed for examples of small bore lines experiencing l this condition. If there are none in the present scope, some will be l included for evaluation. 1 8.3.4 Pipe or Support Specific '

8.3.4.1 Local Contact on Spray Headers Walkdown observations noted that it is necessary to consider local con-tact loading rather than line contact loading when evaluating the con-tainment spray ring headers. The spray ring headers are considered to experience a minimum number of cycles.

The issue of local coatact is due to the curvature of the spray headers.

SWEC will evaluate the spray headers for this condition.

8.3.4.2 Analysis of 8-In. Main Steas Vent Lines

)

One observation was made concerning the support schase for tha' 8-in.

sain steam safety relief valve discharge piping from 32-in. MS-1 1303-2 to the main steam vent stack.

As a direct result of the safety relief valve discharge from the header, the piping is expected to see vibration and horizontal forces. The hori-zontal force will result from the strut, MS-1-146-700-575R, which is in-

, stalled with a slight offset which could further offset when it displaces laterally due to thermal expansion of the pipe. The only support in the horizontal direction in snubber MS-1-240-001-S72I.

Because the mechanical snubber cannot resist the sustained, uninterrupted horizontal thrust, the 8-in. MS-1-240-1303-2 line may see stresses not predicted by analysis. That is, there may be a horizontal thrust force in the discharge elbow not counteracted by another support. This could result in a moment at the 8-in. Sweep-o-let connection to the 32-in. sain steam line.

This piping arrangement is typical of four places.

Each of the stress problems associated with the 8-in. Main Steam dis-charge lines off the 32-in. Main Steam piping (similar to stress prob-las 1-0235) will be reviewed and evaluated considering the above-described condition.

8.3.4.3 Main Steam Vent Stack overlap It was noted during the walkdown that the 8-in. Main Steam discharge pipe, 8-in. MS-1-148-152-2 penetrates the 18-in. vent stack, MS-1-273-152-5, by only 2 in, as shown on BRP-MS-1-SB-046. The discharge pipe must penetrate the vent stack enough to ensure that the piping will not~

disengage under the thzust load of discharging steam. Since there is only a 2-in. penetration, the piping must be supported in such a way to prevent significant displacement of either the discharge pipe or vent stack.

0650-1545405-HC4 33

s I

This condition aad concern will be specifically brought to the attention of the requalification engineers analyzing the stress problems associated with the Main Steam discharge piping and vent stacks.

8.3.4.4 Redesign of CT-1-008-001-S22S_

It was noted on support CT-1-008-001-S22S that the riser clampThis is approx-caused imately 1/2 in, off center of the two Type F spring cans.

the load flanges to twist and bind in the can, preventing the free move-ment of the spring. It could not be determined if the piping moved or This support will be reviewed for the support was installed improperly.

proper spring function.

8.3.4.5 Evaluate Movements at AF-1-064-020-Y35R Support AT-1-064-020-T35R is located on a vertical run of pipe and the drawing calls for 1/16-in. clearance on three sides between the frame and the pipe. The fourth side is unrestrained. This support was analyzed as a one-way restraint but the drawing calls for 1/16-in. clearance on three sides.

The piping movements at this support location will be reviewed and the existing 1/16-in. clearance in the unrestrained direction will be addressed.

8.3.4.6 Evaluate Movements at CS-1-0M -028-C42R One observation noted very little clearance on the bottom of support The drawing shows the pipe centered in a box frame.

CS-1-001-028-C42R.

The walkdown engineer found approzinstely 2/4-in, clearance under the The clearances pipe and approximately 4-in. clearance above the pipe.

The walkdown engineer interpreted the are not specified on the drawing. clearance top and bot-drawing to be for a lateral testraint with 2-in.

tom.

TUGC0 interpreted that this condition is due to the 2.2-in. con-stxuction tolerance for the pipe location.

SVEC will obtain the actual clearances from the site for this support and evaluate them.

8.3.4.7 Valve Sten Exteosions The subj ect of valve stem extensions was discussed previously in

~ Section~8.2.1.5.

Concerning the manual valves with valve stem extensions, the Project En-gineer will issue i.nstructions identifying _the "added valve weight list" as design input to be saed by the stress engineer.

8.3.4.8 Anchor Bolt Spacina Violation The subject of anchor bolt spacing violation was previously discussed in The Project Engineer will issue instructions requiring Section 8.2.1.10. to determine if the requalification engineers to review the HITS report -

EESVs exist for pipe supports with Kilti bolts.

34 0650-1545405-HC4

ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF 70 STRESS PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE WALIDOWN OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 1-002* 1-052V* 1-151D 1-006* 1-053* 1-153 1-009B* 1-055A 1-165C 1-010B 1-055C 1-171*

1-013B 1-058 1-191 1-015T 1-059C 1-196 1-019B 1-059D 1-N009 1-023B* 1-061B 1-N010 1-023D 1-062C 1-N012 1-029K 1-062E 1-N015 1-029 P* 1-062X 1-N017 1-029X* 1-063B 1-N019 1-030* 1-064B 1-N035 1-031* 1-068T 1-N052 1-038A 1-071B 1-N060 1-040 1-080D* 1-N062 1-041 1-081* 1-N067 1-042A* 1-087A 1-N069 1-041B* 1-092A* 1-N076 1-045T* 1-0913 1-N079 1-046A 1-095 1-N080 1-051A* 1-1500 1-N104 1-051B 1-150J 1-N108 1-0520*

  • Stress problem selected specifically for fluid transient consideratious.

o 0650-1545405-HC4 35

.._,___..~ _ _ . _ _. - , _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . , _ . . _ _ . ._ _ __ -_-

Pass 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 WALKDOWN OBSERVATION GROUPS

1. Analytical Model and Input
2. As-Built Drawing Related
3. Struts and Snubbers
4. Gaps Between Piping and Supports
5. Clearances / Interferences
6. Nonseismic Piping and Supports
7. Integral Attachments
8. Welding
9. Standard Component Support Qualification
10. Construction Related
11. Miscellaenous l

l p

l 0650-1545405-HC4

Psgs 2 of 4

  • ATTACIDENT 2
1. ANALYTICAL MODF.L AND INPUT
a. Selection of stress problem boundary
b. Time / history response for snubber applicability
c. Moesnt restraint not shown on BREL
d. Wind loads
e. Decoupling of small bore piping
f. Differential building movements 3 True relative movements
h. Local contact between piping and supports
i. Modeling of valve operator mass J. Modeling of tie-back supports
k. Twc restraints modeled as one support point
1. Sleeve sealant stiffness information
m. Load distribution for pairs of snubbers in series
n. Piping supported in close proximity of a nozzle
o. Stiffness of support in unrestrained direction
p. Bearing stress from "plate" frame
q. Modeling of unique "bored out" riser clamp
r. Ambient temperature of sealed room
s. Modeixag of rotational restraint
t. Large displacements on piping supported by springs and snubbers
u. Piping expansion joint fully insulated
v. Use of A307 nuts
v. Unique baseplate design
x. Wall-to-vall support
2. AS-BUILT DRAWING REIATED
a. Insta11aticu different from pipe support drawing
b. Material listed in B.O.M. not shown on sketch
c. Missing as-built information
d. Attachment to suitset not shown

. e. Modified suppott act in latest as-built package ,

f. Support orientation on BREL different from support drawing

, g. BREL location different from BRE location

b. Incorrect valve stem orientation
1. Voided supports not physically removed
j. Tie-back support not shown on EREL
k. Drafting error
1. Invalid observation
m. EREL incorrectly identified support as moment restraint
n. Drawing incorrectly shows pipe as embedded
o. BRIL shows incorrect location of small bore line
p. Insulation required but not installed
q. Insulation installed but not required
r. As-built drawing shows insulation required but LDL does not 0650-1545405-HC4

e .

Pass 3 of 4 ATTAQDENT 2

3. STRUT AND SNUBBF.R OBSERVATIONS
a. Optimization of unnecessary snubbers
b. Deletion of snubbers too close to rigids
c. Combination strut and snubber trapeze supports
d. Component and clamp misalignment
e. Rear bracket binding
f. Excessive gap between clamp halves 3 Strut unable to rotate freely
h. Snubbers used to maintain undirectional loading
1. Snubber component inverted 180'
j. Cotter pins, missing or broken
k. "A" snubber dimension shown incorrectly
1. Strut / snubber offsrst from drawing
a. Snubber size too small
n. Stability of frames supported by struts
o. Insufficient clearance between snubber and clamp or rear bracket
p. Unusual snubber paddle or and bracket
q. Strut adjustment questioned
4. GAPS BETVEEN PIPE AND SUPPORTS
a. Irregular lug gaps
b. Excessive gap between pipe and frame

. c. Zero gap between pipe and frame

5. CLEARANCES /DrIERFERENCES
a. Little or no clearance adjacent to pipe or support
b. Sleeve clearances from pipe or insulation
c. Little or no clearance from surface of insulation
d. Insulation inhibits asial movement
e. Pipe routed through unidentified walls (fire barrier?)

6, NONSEISMIC PIPE SUPPORTS

a. Nonseismic piping routed near safety-related systus
7. INTEGRAL ATTACIDENTS - TRCODIIONS, LUGS, PADS
a. Integral trunnion weld configuration
b. Multiple trunnions on one reinforcing pad
c. Undersized reinforcing pad
d. Split trunnion welded anchor
e. Anchor pads welded over pipe weld
f. Anchor pads welded on control valve stub
g. Unusual integral attachment 0650-1545405-HC4

p . .

Pass 4 of 4 e

ATTACIDENT 2

8. W.LDING
a. Nonintegral weld configuration - trunnions
b. Integral weld quality on trunnions
c. Integral weld quality on lugs
d. Small bore branch sockolet weld profile
e. Weld length for tube steel to plate weld
f. Drawing indicaters that weld does not require inspection
h. S. T.. F for piping weld shrinkage
9. STANDARD COMPONENT STPPORT QUALIFICATION
a. Strut / snubber bcackets welded to pipe clamps
b. Lateral load or side of pipe clamp
c. Spring hanger bolt / pin hardware
10. CONSTRUCTION REIATED
a. Gap behind or under base plate
b. Distortion in support base plate
c. Support disconnected from piping system
11. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Main steam vent stack overlap b, Support modification in process ,
c. Support function questionable
d. Flez hose not adequately supported
f. Aircraft wis.e supports restricting ASME pipe 3 Supports inaccessible for evaluation
h. Vendor approval to weld on valve stub
1. Vendor approval for valve operator r,4pport J. Tube steel bulging free U-bolt prelm.d
k. Unloaded spring
1. Spring settings appear too low

, s. Travel stops installed in springs

n. Piping not adequately supported
o. Web crippling
p. Spring tr.apeze unstable
q. Deletion of unnecessary support
r. Pipe restrained on three sides only
s. Punching shear at and of tube steel
t. Clearance not shown on drawing
u. Miscellaneous 0650-1545405-HC4

,-,,..-,,-w..-e-, e.-,,-.-r-, .--,-,---.,,----,,.-w-- ,-r- --,. , , , , . ..-, w...~m--,, .,.-_,-r - ,w-~.r. - - ,-. -- ,,. - - - , ,-.--, ,,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20148F081&oldid=2848046"