ML20197G128

Forwards Mechanical Engineering Branch Evaluation of Issues Identified During IE Const Appraisal Team Insp Re Design & Const of Component Supports

ML20197G128
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	11/30/1983
From:	Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0695, CON-WNP-695 NUDOCS 8312140329
Download: ML20197G128 (7)

Text

__ _ __

I .

DlSTRIBUTIONrO~

C DocumentContrcl Deskl016 '

DE:MEB Reading R!e W 0 83 f!E!'0PM' Cutt FOR: Thomas l'. t!ovak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FF0ft: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structures Engineering, DE SilBJECT: Uf!P-2 C0f!PO!'EflT SUPPOPT DESIG!! Af!D C0f!STRtiCTI0ft

Reference:

1.  !'erorandum from J. Taylor to R. Vollner, "WNP-2 Component Support Design and Construction",

dated July 1, 1983.

2. Task Interface Agreerent Task lio. 83-93, "WNP-2 Construction Deficiencies", dated October 19, 1983

3. Letter frcm C. S. Carlisle to J. S. riartin, "fluclear Project 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-397/83-38 Notice of Violation," dated October 26, 1983.

4 Letter from A.'Schwencer to D.11. f tazur, "FSAR Ouestions 110.41, 110.42, 110.43 and 110.44", da,ted August 3, 1983.

Durinq the IE Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection of WNP-2, several issues regarding the design and constructicn of the Uf:P-?

component supperts have been identified (Reference 1). The !!echanical Engineering Branch (?!EB) was recuested by Region V (Pefererce 7) to review the applicant's subnittal (Reference 3) pertaining to Stace and Pebster Engineering Corporation's independent third-party assessment of

, the OCI and OCII/ Seismic I as-built for UtlP-2. In addition, the fEB requested additional information (Reference 4) regarding construction criteria for NF/AISC boundaries of corponent supports to evaluate the potential impact of the CAT finding on the acceptabilitv of the component supports for UNP-2.

He have ccmpleted our review of these two issues. Attached is cur input to the UNP-2 CAT findings evaluation.

g 8312140329 831130 i M ADOCK 05000397 ,/

/

James P. Knight, Assistant Director for 4

Components & Structures Enaireering

~

Division of Engineering I

Attachment:

As stated I' ,

CFFICE ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . k.. , , , , , , , ,

D,E,,:!'EBygj D AD:C&JE, /N/

, R}g:f;1Eg, suRmo ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. P. L,,i,,j,1,b,,,,,7,;,, , ,p,B r,ammer csnak , ,

JKni , ,, ,__

om> ....................... .................... ..n!.w.aa..... ....n u.2.83.. ,. _11d 3L83 11$83 . ...

f4RC FORM 313 (10@) NRCM mo OFFIClAL rec 0RD COPY __

sym-m.m

s cc: R. Vollner, DE R. Bosnak, DE A. Schwercer, DL B. D. Liaw, DE P. Dodds, RV R. Auluck, DL H. Bramer, DE D. Smith, DE Y. Li, DE

Contact:

Y. Li, DE:f1EB x24417 crnes> .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................

eURNME) ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................

onap ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... ........................

isc ror;u sis (io-eo) Nacu o24o OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY uscicani-m.aa

~

ATTACHMENT MEB INPUT TO CAT FINDINGS EVALUATION During the IE Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection of WNP-2, several issues regarding the design and construction of the WNP-2 component supports were identified (Reference 1). The CAT review of the pipe support as-builts identified a large number of errors or deficiencies when compared to the construction drawings. As a result of its review, the CAT concluded that the applicant's as-built program for piping and supports, while identifying a number of deficiencies, did not appear to be completely adequate. In order to demonstrate the construction ade'quacy of the pipe supports, the Supply System contracted with Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) to perform an independent third-party review of the pipe support as-builts for WNP-2.

SWEC's review includes the pipe supports for both safety related piping systems (QCI) and non-safety related piping systems that are in close proximity to safety related stnJctures, systems, and components (QCII/SeismicI). NRR was requested by Region V (Reference 2) to review the applicant's submittal (Reference 3) pertaining to the SWEC assessment.

The staff has reviewed the information in Reference 3 pertaining to the SWEC assessment. SWEC performed an independent review of a sample of 15 percent of the population of large and small bore QC I pipe supports, small bore piping, and small bore unique supports and a sample of 60

! large bore QC II/ Seismic I pipe supports. Each pipe support was l

l inspected for 17 attributes which were primarily those associated with l

i i

i

the structural integrity of the support. If during the inspection, an attribute was determined to be outside the tolerances established in the Project Procedure for Engineering Inspection and Evaluation of Pipe Support (WNP-2, WR0-01), it was marked as a deviation and evaluated.

The basis for acceptance of the effect of a deviation on the structural integrity of a support was either by referencing existing design calculations or by performing calculations based on existing support loading data provided by Burns & Roe, Inc. or Gilbert Comonwealth. The outcome of this assessment, provided SWEC the basis for concluding that none of the deviations found during the SWEC review will have a significant effect on the structural integrity of the support. In order to substantiate SWEC's conclusion, the applicant has provided in attachment 2 of Reference 3 some representative calculations, including the worst case conditions, performed by SWEC during their assessment of QCI and QCII/ Seismic I as builts for WNP-2. The applicant has further stated that the criteria and methodology of SWEC's base plate acceptability analysis were consistent with previous project IE Bulletin 79-02 review and met the 79-02 requirements. Based on a review of the information provided by the applicant, the staff determined that the SWEC's analysis is acceptable and agrees that none of the deviations l

l found during the SWEC review will have a significant effect on the structural integrity of the support.

l Another area of concern during the CAT review was the jurisdictional boundary of Subsection NF of the ASME Code applied by the applicant for pipe supports. The staff requested additional information (Reference 4)

~

l

regarding construction criteria of component supports to evaluate thq potential impact of the CAT finding on the acceptability of the component supports fo'r WNP-2, specifically, the continuity of construction criteria across any jurisdictional boundary in the support load path.

In a letter dated September 21, 1983 (Reference 5), the applicant submitted graphical sketches which provided a definition of the boundary between pipe supports and supplemental structural steel which they defined as being part of the building structure. Pipe supports which are within the support boundary are constructed (construction includes design, fabrication, examination and inspection) in accordance with

_ _ subsection NF of the ASME Code. Support members within the supplementary steel boundary are constructed in accordance with AISC standard. The applicant further stated that the material specified and the allowable stress used in the design of both ASME and the AISC support members are in accordance with Subsection NF. All NF support members are fabricated using ASME IX welding requirements whereas AISC support members are fabricated using AWS D1.1 welding requirements.

However, the reinspection of AISC support members during the Quality Reverification Program as described in Reference 6 utilized alternative acceptance criteria (QVI-09). The acceptability of QVI-09 program is being reviewed by the Materials Engineering Branch (MTEB). In Reference 5, the applicant has also stated that continuity of examination across the NF/AISC boundary is assured because there are no welds within the

AISC boundary similar to the type which normally would be required to be nondestructively examined per NF requirements.

Based on a review of the information submitted by the applicant and contingent upon the satisfactory resolution of the QVI-09 issue, the staff has determined that the applicant's construction practices for the component supports provides a continuity across the NF and AISC support members which is consistent with plants of similar construction dates and are acceptable.

a 1

[ --

b References ,

1. Memorandum from J. Taylor to R. Vollmer, "WNP-2 Component Support Design and Construction", dated July 1,1983

2. Task Interface Agreement Task No. 83-93, "WNP-2 Construction Deficiencies", dated October 19, 1983

3. Letter from C. Carlisle to J. Martin, " Nuclear Project 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-397/83-38 Notice of Violation", dated October 26, 1983 4 Letter from A. Schwencer to D. Mazur, "FSAR Questions 110.41, 110.42, 110.43 and 110.44", dated August 3, 1983

5. Letter from G. Sorensen to A. Schwencer, " Nuclear Project No. 2 Supply System Response to FSAR Question 110.44", dated September 21, 1983

6. Letter from G. Bouchey to A. Schwencer, " Nuclear Project No. 2 Profect Visual Examination Acceptance Criteria for Reverification Inspection of Welded Structure (QVI-09)", dated March 23, 1983 t

.