ML20212A502
| ML20212A502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1986 |
| From: | Russell J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212A474 | List: |
| References | |
| WP-15-SQN, WP-15-SQN-R01, WP-15-SQN-R1, NUDOCS 8612240177 | |
| Download: ML20212A502 (32) | |
Text
'%
,p TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: WP-15-SQN
. SPECIAL PROGRAM
~ -
' REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 1 TITLE: Design Consideration On Box Anchors REASGN FOR REVISION: N/A SWEC
SUMMARY
STATEMENT: N/A PREPARAT1051 PREPARED BY:
Original Signed By J. E. Rose 9-12-86 SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS PEER:
Original Signed By R. M. Bateman 9-12-86 SIGNATURE DATE
, r _
TA p TECHNICAL REVIEW ONLY /g g EAN -$1 r$h SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES Original Signed By CEG-H: L. E. Martin 9-15-86
- SRP
- S m -R . -fM 1 A Ef, SIGNATURE DATE (/ SIGNATURE
- DATE APPROVED BY:
/f-6-16 NA ECSP MANAGEY DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
l 2242T IElb P C K h000327 PDR
, .=
l g '.
WELDING PROJECT _
so.
GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN pf EVALUATION REPORT
%. ' ;-~- ~.
REPORT NUMBER: WP-15-SON, R1 DATE 09-15-86
SUBJECT:
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ON BOX ANCHORS _
CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-405-001 IN-85-613-001
- EX-85-039-003 lR1 WBP-6-007-001
- 0RIGINALLY INVESTIGATED BY NSRS IN NSRS REPORT I-85-541-W
.d. A 12,[ b , OC, WP PREPARED BY 13 O , 00, WF
- %v' 9
[ . REVIEWED BY v
REVIEWED BY .
7!/f80
__, QA, WP
(
C
_, CEG-H, WELDING
- s / ##4 REVIEWED BY - - /
f,
, PROGRAM MANAGER A -
(h[\ [t~
APPROVED BY iV
~
\ j 1 ,
include an additional Employee Concern which has Revision 1 was issued tr-been evaluated and determined to involve issues previously evaluated, dispositioned, and closed by the WP and to incorporate comments per NRC telecon on 09/02/86.
- 4 U
00480-
' - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ -- - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ }
1, e
GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN u}
SUMMARY
SHEET Report Number: WP-15-SON. R1 Report
Title:
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ON BOX ANCHORS I. CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-405-001 IN-85-613-001
- EX-85-039-003 WBP-6-007-001 lR1
- 0riginally investigated by NSRS in NSRS Report I-85-541-WBN.
II. ISSUES INVOLVED ,
- 1. Box anchor drawings have a typical detail which shows a weld configuration which limits pipe movement.
- 2. There is a possibility of fatigue in service in process piping to box anchor connections due to lack of provisions for expansion.
- 3. There is a possibility of fatigue in service and material degradation due to continuous welding using large diameter 7
electrodes and excessive amperage.
if9
_\s_/ 4._ There is a possibility of thermal stresses degrading piping where large (half-inch to one-inch) fillet welds on box anchors attach to process piping.
~
III. STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY Yalidity: Y I ,N , Substantiated: Y: X* ,N l
- Substantiated for Issue 1. See NSRS Reports I-85-541-WBN and l I-85-560-SQN. Not substantiated for Issues 2, 3, and 4.
IV. IFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/OR PROGRAM None V. JUSTIFICATION Issue 1 was substantiated as it relates to Issue 1. Corrective
- actions are specified in NSRS Report I-85-560-SQN.
Engineering analysis has determined that there are no detrimental effects from Issues 2, 3, and 4.
j l
l '
l i
s.s Page 1 of 2 00480 i_ _ _. . . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . , . . _ _ - . _ . . ._
.s t.
i - WP-15-SQN, R1 3 .
,.,: .h ; . . _
(.? - VI. RECOMMENDATION AND/0R CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED Corrective actions as outlined in NSRS Report I-85-560-SQN are to be implemented for Issue 1.
None for Issues 2, 3, and 4.
VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y ,N X .
VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE Completion of recommendations in NSRS Report I-85-560-SQN on Issue 1.
By this report for Issues 2, 3, and 4. 9 II. ATTACHMENTS
- 1. Text of Employee Concerns lR1
- 2. NSRS Report I-85-541-WBN
- 3. NSRS Report I-85-560-SQN 4 Design Report CD3-CAS-173 (B41 860117 004)
- 5. R. M. Hodges' April 22, 1983 memo to L. S. Cox, Bellefonte Nuclear
Plant units 1 and 2 - Seismic Support Lugs on two-Inch or Less Stainless Steel Pipe - NCR 1690 (NEB 830422 254)
Page 2 of 2 00480 ,
I GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN
.l, ,
Report Number: WP-15-SQN. R1 L. Report
Title:
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ON BOX ANCHORS I. SCOPE OF EVALUATION This engineering evaluation covers the following WBN concerns determined to have possible generic implications to SQN:
IN-85-405-001 IN-85-613-001
- EX-85-039-003 WBP-6-007-001 [R1
- 0riginally investigated by NSRS in NSRS Report I-85-541-WBN.
II. ISSUES CONSIDERED:
- 1. Box anchor drawings have a typical detail which shows a weld configuration which limits pipe movement.
- 2. There is a possibility of fatigue in service in process piping to box anchor connections due to lack of provisions for expansion.
- 3. There is a possibility of fatigue in service and material degradation due to continuous welding using large diameter electrodes and excessive amperage.
- 4. There is a possibility of thermal stresses degrading piping where large (half-inch to one-inch) fillet welds on box anchors attach to process piping.
III. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION NSRS has investigated and substantiated Issue 1 in NSRS Report I-85-541-WBN as it applied to WBN. This report concluded that the concern (and the issue) was substantiated and that corrective actions
'ha'd been initiated to correct this condition for WBN. This report precipitated a reconunendation that this issue be investigated for generic implications at other TVA nuclear plants. NSRS subsequently investigated this condition for SQN in conjunction with Specific Employee Concern XX-85-086-003 in NSRS Report I-85-560-SQN. This report substantiated the concern (and issue) for SQN. The report outlines specific corrective actions for this condition. WP concurs with these specific corrective actions.
The issues in the subject concerns have been evaluated by Office of Engineering, SQN Design Project, and the WP.
l l
I
! .s l Page 1 of 2 00480
l as-'
1 j
- WP-15-SQN, R1 m .O. 7 ; - All box anchors are designed to provide for expansion on one end if both l D ends have been welded. The Office of Engineering has conducted an y - _ _ _ ._. analysis of box anchor designs used by TVA which includes the effects l
I of restraint, thermal stress, and fatigue in service. The results of l this analysis indicates that the box anchor designs utilized by TVA are lR1 adequate and that thermal expansion and fatigue have been adequately I addressed. The results of this analysis are contained in CEB Report l ,
l !
CEB-CAS-173 (B41 860117 004) which is on file in Knoxville. This I report is very lengthy (419 pages) and its full text is not attached l with this report. l The use of continuous welding techniques with large diameter welding i electrodes and qualified welding procedures provides an optimum method l for minimizing heat input during welding. TVA welding procedures are lR1 l
qualified in accordance with ASME B&PV Code Section IX and III requirements. These procedures specify welding procedure parameters *l and techniques which minimize heat input. l These techniques and parameters include the use of stringer bead [
welding technique, close are length, and low maximum interpass l temperature (350 degrees). Review of detailed welding procedure ]
parameters for large diameter (5/32" dia.) electrodes indicate that the lR1 lowest heat inputs for these procedures result when these electrodes l are used. If proper welding procedure parameters are utilized, this l method results in welds and structures in which heat input is minimized i along with thermal stresses. l The Office of Engineering (OE) has conducted extensive tests on large l fillet welds to process piping. These weld details are typical of l those specified for all TVA facilities. OE Evaluation of these tests [
results indicate that there are no adverse effects on these weldments lR1 (see R. N. Hodges' April 22, 1983 memo to L. S. Cox, Bellefonte Nuclear l Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Seismic Support Lugs on two-Inch or Less l Stainless Steel Pipe - NCR 1690 (NEB 830422 254)). l In summary, the issues considered in the subject concerns are not i subs.tantiated due to the following factors:
- 1. Engineering evaluations and tests relative to expansion and large welds have determined that their effect is not detrimental to process piping.
- 2. Continuous welding with large diameter electrodes is the optimum i
method of welding of box anchors.
i Based on the foregoing analysis, the issues considered in these concerns I are closed.
~
t Page 2 of 2 l
l 00480
_ _ - - . _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ _ ._-___. _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ~ _ --_ _._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - -. . _
Ui/II/86 (EMPLOYEE CONCERNS) Page 1 of 2 09:35: 05 CAT ISSUE PLANT PRIORITY ORG OTC EGG INSP SD RD GD 10 ------CONCERN-------
~ -
.s____ _____ _____ ________ ___ ___ ____ ____ __ __ __ __
- ,^. W 1 EG&G S3 SR IN-85-405-001 n_d ^;YWORDSt- DESIGN BOX ANCHOR EXCESS WELD PROB: WDDDD V
~~~~POSSIBIL-lTY OF METAL FATIGUE /IN-SERVICE FAILURE IN CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELDS CONNECTING SS PIPE TO " BOX" HANGERS. PRODUCTION PRESSURE TO MEET WEEKLY OUOTAS CAUSES WELDING CONTINUOUSLY RATHER THAN ALLOWING WELDMENT TO COOL.. THIS MIGHT
~ ENCOURAGE HAVE EXCESS USING EXCESSIVE I VE WELD MET AL AMPERAGE (EG 1" WELD ANDFOR LARGER WELD ROD. MANY OF THESE HANGERS 6" PIPE). HANGER DESIGN DOESN'T ALLOW FOR PIPE EXPANSION. BOTH UNITS REACTOR BUILDING, AUX AND " RACEWAY". Cl HAS NO MORE INFORMATION.
IR: STAT: RC:
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
CAT ISSUE PLANT PRIORITY ORG QTC EGG INSP SD RD GD 10 ------CONCERN-------
, W 1 EG&G SR IN-85-613-001 KEYWORDS: DESIGN BOX ANCHOR EXCESS WELD '
PROB: WDDDD THERMAL STRESS CAUSED BY 1/2" -
1" CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD ON PIPE TO INSTALL BOX HANGER. (GENERIC CONCERN)
IR: STAT: RC:
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
CAT ISSUE PLANT PRIORITY ORG QTC EGG INSP SD RD GD 10 ------CONCERN-------
W 1 EG&G DO SR EX-85-039-003
- YWORDS
- DESIGN BOX ANCHOR EXCESS WELD PROB: WDDDD WATTS BAR: ADESIGN DEFICIENCY HAS A " WRONG WELD" REQUIRED ON BOX HANGERS WHICH, IF PERFORMED PER DESIGN, CAUSES THE WELD TO RUN INTO THE PIPE (SS OR CARBON STEEL CODE PIPE). CONST. DEPT. CONCERN. Cl HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
IR: 1-85-541-WBN STAT: RC:
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY: ,
a -
l l
\
w .
....om..s... 4
^ 0'5211/86 (EMPLOYEE CONCERNS) "E"
. 09:35805
- CAT ISSUE PLANT PRIORITY ORG OTC EGG
- -- ---- .----- ------- INSP SD RD GD 10 ------CONCERN-------
W 1
- SR WBP-6-007-001 H 1:S,tYWORDS: " DESIGN BOX ANCHOR EXCESS WELD PROB: WDDDD
"~~~80X ANCH'~RS'ARE
~~
O IMPROPERLY DESIGNED PLANT-WlDE. THE DESIGN REQUIRES AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF WELD METAL TO BE APPLIED WHICH COULD RESULT IN OVERHEATIN OF THE MATERIAL AND RESULTANTLY WEAKEN THE MATERIAL.
CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT CONCERN.
Cl HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
IR: STAT: RC:
TECHNICAL COMMENTARY:
l l
l l .
l l
t l
l
)
i l
Y s og
(
i ntrachment 2
(*,NJTED STATES GOVERN 3 TEST Page 1 ef 9
- ' , g' CU10TdM d um -
. /' . ~ TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
_. .- w c - ~ ~ TO :
W. T. Cottle Site Director, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant FRS ~ K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff . E3A8 C-K -- -
DATE:
,g g +7 .
SlfBJECT:
CORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSE EVALUATION REPORT NO. : I-85-541 *4BN SUBJECT : _
DESIGN ADEOUACY OF SEISMIC ANCHORS CONCERN NO.: EX-85-039-003 (X) ACCEPT ( ) REJECT '
Response accepted without connent.
f i
r A
/ K. W. Whitt ~
- JCC:JTH -
/
cc (Attachment):
- R. P. Denise, LP6N35A-C '
D. R. Nichols, E10A14C-K * .t QTC/ERT, CONST-WBN--For response to employee.
E. K. Sliger, LP6N48A -
W. F. Willis,.E12B16 C-K (4) ,
frincipally prepared by J. C. Catlin. .
, cc: J. W. Coan, W9 Cl35 C-K I.
l s
j (, .
me,.
i t t n .e c -
n; , n .... . n. . . , , . .
.. n . 1
_.____._ m_- _ L - - - - - - - - l
1 i
)g hhTED STATES GOVERN 31ENT j
( Attachment 2 i
- E" "'
l' ^ M.emorandum 4 ,
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
_ J:~. ..
i .
K. W. Whitt D rector of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K s - 1 FRO)! :
W. T. Cottle, Site Dit octor, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant P&E (Nuclear) -
DATE : $ $N I .3 l0g
~
SUBJECT:
WATTS BAR NUCLEAd PI ANT - RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE CONC REPORT I-85-541-WBN (EMPLOYEE CONCERN NUMBER EX-85-039-00 Attached is our response to the recommendations contained in Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) report number I-85-541-WBN.
If you have any questions, please contact W. L. Byrd at 3774 Watts Bar '
Nuclear Plant P&E (Nuclear).
fl W. Ij f Cottle VLB:SRS:NC cc (Attachment):
( (..f::
.. J. C. Standifer, Vatts Bar Engineering Project, P-104 SB-K This memorandum was principally prepared by S. R. Stout. -
t
&l 11. Y3 ,
q.; -
. -i
i. :
ft l . a ts=3 l
[c.**i tt i
. g ,_ py t- - -
- ".4
- 3..n AEE.._. &H !
_s l
. - :<a i
_._-1l
.. ._ y
....,,_..g_-______.;
,... r _.
4 _..
e D
n,.,. ,. s s ..; . n-a, n .a. ,i.. .,., a,, v., , n s ..;- , n-
s
~* *
' f ( Attacinent 2 Page 3 of 9
.. " . , , WalTS DAR NUCLEAR PLANT
.E" RESP NSE TO NSRS INVESTICATION REPORT NUMUER I-85-541-WBN 9V EfiPLOYEE CONCERN EX-05-039-003
,y ~'1 ;_ - .
_ ___ _ , , v .'f. . s o . . . . . . . '
- j UNITED STATES COVERN3 TENT Attactnent 2
' Page 2 of 9
- Memorandum .., .
.f TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHONITY O : - -
K. W. Whitt, D rector of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K fro 31 :
W. T. Cottle, Site Director, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant P&E (Nuclear) "
~
DATE :
JAN 13 toS6
SUBJECT:
REPORT I-85-541-WBN (EMPLOYEE CON Attached is our responsa to the recommendations contained in Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) report cumber I-85-541-WBN.
If you have any questions, please contact W. L. Byrd at 3774 , Watts Bar '
Nuclear Plant P&E (Nuclear).
~J W. T/ Cottle WLB:SRS:NC cc (Attachment):
J. C. Standifer, Watts Bar Engineering Project, P-104 SB-K This memorandum was principally prepared by S. R. Stout. -
t JI 1; '53
. r:;p . -i
- 4 i,..e
.y-"' _ _t'-. .
.Le .
. t'v!I.
D' _L _.
l f :
-l r
, . . __7._m_ _
...7-. , .7__
+ _.'
r-
, , , . s j ( attacrunent 2
'. ; , *i Page 4 of 9 J ' . .' + -
~;g ,
%fhh N.
- ~ --
ORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSE EVALUATIO: ~ ~
~ .
REPORT NO: 3 -Tf 8Y/-IM 2 ~
SUBJECT:
CONCERN No:
EX_ ((- d2 9. d d 3
@ ACCEPT OREJECT '
2 24' f*//3f 74C' C ft'*72*)* y16 % ew'}~~ df/1fAAAY '
F .>
k :,. -
. ~
~.
4
>L a ~ a:
~
~
s V
/JreparedBy " ~
xp_ ' *p aV. f- 6 Reviewed By y' TC (Is n ," -
- e 4
i v..,.,
. ty gos.e-r,u ios v.p.5 es N / ( Attachment 2
- ..'- ON.ITI:I) STATI:S COVERN3 TENT Page 5 of 9
'~7- " '
L .1 ~.
-MCMOTdHdUM
- n .s TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTIIORITY
% 10 - -:
- '~
E. R. - Ennis. Plant linnager, Uatts Bar Nuclear Plant FR0;l : .. .
K. W. Uhitt. Director of tiuclear Safoty Revicu Staff. E3AS C-K DATE : il0V 121985 SUBJCCT:
!!UCLEAR SAFETY REVIEU STAFF IllVESTIGATIO!! REPORT TRAUSilITTA .
e Transmitted herein is NSRS Report No. T-85-541-MBU
' Subject DESICt! ADEOUACY OF SEISt1TC AUC1'03S .
Concern No. EX-85-039-003 and associated recoraendations for your action / disposition. '
It is requested that you respond to this report and the attached recoraendations by __ December 10. 1985 .
Should you have any j7 questions, please contact y ce J. C. Catlin at telephonc 3819-WB5'~~.
t.
s .t: -
Recommend Reportability Determination: Yes X No [ f ~*.C *c* 3
+
e 1 Us ! '.
/ ire 6 tor, USRS/DesignD t
i JCC:JTI!
s va rrs cea L* ' n-- - d Attachment ec (Attachment):
s-$.$Nc"(("$,.c hf.
j T ..,.
-[ k
, . H: N. Culver, W12A19 C-K , ;f
>f ~ ~~ i' ~ _ , j, .
QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant !jfG W. F. Willis, E12B16 C-K (4) -
. [
.si- -t r g
- f* i.E,7- -[
g.g
_ _ _ _ _ _ . - a- .i
.i y :._ . __.___ .
-Copy and Return-- -__7-
r - L
'g g%' 87.*'_..
To : .s -_
K. W. Whitt Dircctor of !!uclear Safety Reviej3 TEE , dKE_~I-K From: i?. :i.,, -- -f ; -
E. R. Ennis. Actinn Site Director, Watts bas 5NeaM;=bta"]&E (Nuclear) t.
Date: r Y_
_ November 15. 1985 ~
rl , E]
(#
I hereby Subject __acknowledge receipt of USRS Report No. _ T-85-541-NBN DESIG:1 ADE0llACY OF SEISHIC AUCHORSfor action / disposition.
(RWh,3, Lli t. .
W/9h Sichai.ure Ilw -.
Date
)( / ( Attachment 2 Page 6 ef 9 yg : . - - ,.
g' ,m- % - ;- .
.(..Q'
~
TE:r1ESSEE VALLEY AUTHCRITY .
. t4UCLEAR SAFETY RE'/IEW ETAFF
- F4ERS II VESTIGATICrJ REFCRT tJO. I-35 -541 -W2:1
'E!1PLOYEE C0tJCERil EX-85-00?-003
. MILESTCilE 6 -
SUBJECT:
. DESIGil AOEOUACY OF SEI571IC ANC!CRS
~DATE3 OF II;VESTIGATICil:
\
Octctar 29-ticvamber 4. !?G5
!!4VESTIGATOR:
- g_ h--- A
.A //- 7--f6~
. C. Catlin ----.
Dato
'oEWED BY:
J
-f --- -
p 7 r x, P. B. Bor -t -f'f f 0 te FFROVED BY:
t.
/__</__ ____
g g{
A. Hatrison e
b'
, *n a
so 9
I t
i l .
/
I *
\
~
- e_ _ip - . ; l* ,
y *. . . *
= e j -
( Attachment 2 Page 7 of 9
-_g *. 3. , .
- 7. - .
i p
m ;g,';}u EACI:
W:=- GROUND ~ -
- ./' ..
- _.uy.-- An investigaticn : as conducted cEnces-E r ece t *. ed by Guality Technclogy 1935. The ccncern was tc determir.e Ccasanvthe .alicity of an emcicyee T
(070' cn O,-- ~
y ancnces. The ccncer n stated:in regard to welcing pecclams ..IthSec j sett ember
- mic cipe "A design deficienc. has a 'wecng weld'
~
recuirad cn bo:
_ ~to run into the hangers ptoe." which, ii performad cer design. causes the weld I'I.[5CCPE
~
~
The scoce of the 'investigaticn included
^
_' drawings apslicable, whether determinat:cn of typical to the problem, and verification ofany other action had been tal:en with regard
- III. the observaticn noted in the concern.
EUMMARY OF FIT!DItJGS ,
l A.
Recuirements and Ccmmitments
- 1. .
Coces'and design and Standards' Recuirements (ir. ef f ect. at the time o construction) a.
10CFR50.55a. Paragraph (a) (1) , Structures b.
10CFR100, Appendi:: A, f::, seismic Recuirementn c.
( o,_ American Welding Society - Structural Welding Ccde AWS
_ , ,-- _DI.1-75
- 2. TVA Requirements a.
' G-O?C Process Speci fi cati on C. C.1.1, Welding of Structures
, b.
TVA Drawing 47B100, Seismic Category I Structures B. Discussion OTC was contacted f or additional information regarding this concern *
- They identified the problem typical sei smic anchces. They also confirmed thatas being associated with individual than merely(CI) intostated the anchor the weld bo::.ran into the process pipe rather the concerned Further misleading. investigatinn showed that the terminology of interpretation is that the weld" makesruns intc" is The proper physical rather than running ints the pipe interice.ccntact with and f uses to the x ,
O O 9
. I # ( Attachment 2 Page 8 of 9
. i... *
~ . -. . . 3. ,
C. - Findir.gs g
..yy-s -
- 1. .A series f memcranda spanning the time between August 12, 1755 O d h ' 'WS5 wa M m n W c5 m fir W OM a mum ~ .
m
= e::i sted (Wadewit: to Coan: Ccan to Wadewit:; Ennis tc Ccan).
2.
c >
3 MCR 6264 RO was generated and issued cn Aucunt 20. 1985 in relaticn to thi s problem. The tJCR states:
" Item 1 -
Some welds on rear plates for bc:: anchces containing
' stainless. steel (SS) plate with stainless steel pipe and carben steel (CS)' plate with carbon steel pipe have been held back up to 1/2" from the pipe."
" Item 2 - Some welds en CS rear plates tc CS pipe and SS rear, olate the drawino.
to SS pipe were attemsted to be made in acccccance'with pioe."
This resulted in the weld actually fusing to the "Apoarent Cause - Item i - Misacclicatica of the nctes en drawings 47B100-1 and -3 that allcw welds cn CS rear plata to SS pipe to be stooped shcrt of the pipe."
" Apparent Cause - Item 2 - Physical imoossibility tc perform indicated weld operation wi thout fusing to the pipe."
3.
Corrective action for Item 1 of the IJCR was already in progress when thi s reocrt was issued.
' 4.
' consideration Corrective action whenfor thi Item n r.epcrt 2 ofwas the itJCR ssued. was still under
- 5. NCR 6264, RO, or applicability to other corrective action suggested did not address of the problem. TVA pla,nts or other generic implications IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIOtJE . -- .
A. Corr:1'usi cins
- 1.
The objectiveconcern.
the employee evidence substantiated the observed allegation of -
i 2.
This problem had been identified, documented. and repceted in accordance with apclicable procedures. Corrective action was already in progress at the time this report was issued.
B. Recommendations
'1 EECESI MEU 91_r_E20EC1G_lmeligatigeg_gi_ Egg _Gegbgt_Qe3190_Engblg j
Check TVA f or generic nuclear plants.imolications on design of bo:: anchces for other i
n m- -
-.s.-- .,,.,m--, .-- -.-- _, , ,.,. _.,-- ,..g.,-,,,m--n,, - , - . - - , . . --,.,.,,-.,,w,-----, --- -n , , , - , - ,- - a
. .. g
(
.. . ' Pa:;c 9 of 9
., . . . -- 1- *
- ]
- =
,,. , . _ - - = ..
a n
, .-_ k L ~ - . --
~
EMPLOYEE CONCERN ASSIGNMENT REQUEST
.TO: Director NSRS TRANSMITTAL NUMBER T50146
_ :ERT has received the Employee concern identified below, and has cssigned the indicated category and priority:
Priority: 1 Concern: EX-85-039-003 Category: 33
, { i m . v ##3 Confidentiality YES NO (I&H) .
Supervisor Notified: X YES NO NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED YES e- Concern: Watts Bar:
Box Hangers which, if performed per design,Adas.ign_ deficiency has a " Wrong W the pipe (ss or carbon steel code pipe). causes the weld to run into Const. Dept. concern.
no further information. CI has Db//,
SEP 201985 MANAGER, ERT DATE NSRS to: has assigned responsibility for investigation of the above concern s'. i ERT .
NSRS/ERT '
/a - .,
NSRS V ,
OTHERS (SPECI[Y) -
f &
NsRif / D' ATE
(
)
-_r.__ _ - . . t .
___.m -.
.,,g..-,~,.---.a.
VNITED STATES GOVERN.TIENT
( -
h l\*; Attachment 3 Page 1 of 10 J2Me' morandum '- -
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
{ij y,_, _ .H , '
_ _ , )_
__ . _TOL C. C. Hason, Deputy Manager of Nuclear Power, LP6N3 7A-C FROH: -.
K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K DATE:
fhh 1419h'h
- ~
SUBJECT:
CORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSE EVALUATION REPORT NO. : T-85-560-SON
' SUBJECT : _
BOX HANCER MELD DESIGN DEFICIENCY
- CONCERN NO.: XX-85-086-003 (I) , ACCEPT ( ) REJECT We assume that the generic review will also address Browns Ferry and Bellefonte, respectively. Concern Numbers XX-85-086-004 and XX-85-086-002, m
/
g '
s
- . W. Whitt EFH:CDH '
- cc (Attachment): ., t.
H. L. Abercrombie, SQN *
^
C. Bonine,12-108 SB-K R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C
- W. C. Drotlefs. W12A12 C-K C. B. Kirk, SQN '
D. R. Nichols E10A14C-K R..C. Parker, LP4N44A-C -
~
QTC/ERT, CONST-WBN ~
E. K. Sliger, LP6N48A J. H. Sullivan SQN Principally prepared by E. F. Itatvell. 14
' 2/14/86--GDH cc (Attachment):
- J. W. Coan, W9 C135 C-K f ',' ' F. E. Laurent, CEO-WBN Kent Therp, IOB-WBN 84U gg g g g g $ M - - I
- ( ( Attachment 3 gg'TtD STATES COVERN3 TENT Page 2 of 10 g.JMemorand1MH =- -
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY hy c~
43 .- -
~
7 : " "
_., - . . - - - K. H. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3 A8 C-K FROM : .C.
C. Mason, Deputy Manager of Nuclear Power, LP 6N 37A-C
~
' DATE~
- -January 23, 1986
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT I APPLICABILITY TO WAITS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT g V- Tf- O P 6 - c a.T
-..,e....
References:
(1) Your memo to H. G. Parris dated November 29, 1985, " Nuclear Safety Review Staff Investigation Report Transmittal" .
f'/ 7} ,
(2)
Construction NCR 6264 R0 (B26 850925 010) '
(3) j - - Memo from R. O. Barnett to Those listed dated December 10, 1985 (B41 851210 004)
(4) Hemo from J. W. Coan to G. Wadewitz dated September' 25, 1985 (D26 850925 010)
This is in response to your request in reference 1.
a
' '~" should be reviewed for generic applicabilit"~"~~In the subject report Su'ch a review was initiated by reference 3, even though at that time noy by the programmatic of NCHs developed requirement by others.existed for OE to perform a generic condition review intended to address employee concern EX-85-039-003It should be noted that this revie of report I-85-541-WBN which apparently is a duplicate of the concern in the subject report.
It has been determined that NCR 6264 (refere'nce 2) should be upgraded to significant.
During OE review of NCR 6264, it was determined that the recommended totally acceptable. Office of Construction (OC) disposition of us6-as-is was not ~
fusing to the pipe needed to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.Ins was corrective initiated to identify all occurrences for determination of need A action. forwalkdown Since, at that time, no specific instances requiring repair or It was not felt necessary rework had been found nor to upgrade had a generic condition been identified the NCR. ,
During the walkdown and evaluatior., only one instance of the more than 100 potential occurrences was found to possibly require some corrective action.
the generic applicability to other plants, action has been initiated toHowever, as a re accomplish ments. upgrading to process the NCR in accordance with program require -
a b '
Buv l'.S. Sarines Bands Reeularh on the Parrait Savinos Plan
~
.... - , , . , . \ ..u o u s...aen t J 2 k Page 3 of 10
- g.,
, _.rEr?ct .K.-H. Whitt t -
4 1 .c January 23, 1986
- p. % . =x~
(~
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT I-85-560-SQN- G
~-APPLICABILITY TO WAITS DAR NUCLFAR PLANT The corrective upgrading action to initiate a generic condition review and completion of NCR 6264 to significant should resolve issues raised in recommenda-tion I-85-560-SQN-02. Completion of the corrective action in NCR 6264 should resolte the Watts Bar concern EX-85-039-003.
OE is in the process of making changes to Office of Engineering Procedure OEP-17 to require assessment of potential generic implications and followup review ing. of OC and Site P&E (Nuclear) NCRs/SCRs submitted to OE for disposition ,
The program is being further expanded to require a review for potential generic that are implications for all NCRs/SCRs initiated by OE, OC, and Site NUC PR deemed significant.
- . The OC program includes provisions in Quality Assurance Procedure QAP 16.7 for identification and notification of potential generic conditions to various OC projects and sites.
The existing OC proceoure and implementation of the OE programmatic changes should provide for identification and disposition of such generic. conditions in the future.
l WRD:MS L/
~s cc: H.' L. Abercrombie, NUC PR, Sequoyah C. Bonine,12-108 SB-K W. R. Brown, 9.-169 SB-K R. W. Cantrell, W12 A12 C-K R. C. Parker, LP 4N 44A-C QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ,
1 ^
1/29/86--JTH . .
cc: E. F.,Harwell--For evaluation.
9
'/.
'3 x.
a 6
4
( notaciunent 3
- f N Paga 4 of 10
..? ,
y e; ---,- ,- i ,,
R- - ~ ~~~ '
~~
CORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSE EVALUATION - "
a .Y- ,- . . - .
REPORT NO: .2~- 8 [- N O " 8 h
SUBJECT:
.Scr Y GeA. W lhshd l}hEi CONCER'i NO: kk- I' n C 9 (" d d.3 '
ACCEPT --
REJECT .
g g3 W' f /2Lt//
& f ,o J a -es B,eswm]w& c J s.AAA>
S , pog, yx-er-cat- so + N %k'85*'El- 2, O,,
pgabe}. .
t .
4 Y c2llUth
) PLA Pr{ pared By Reviewed By ,
e.p G
. . . . . .... u a o a
',' . ' TN(TED STATES COVERN3 TENT Page 5 of 10
- . Memorandum u .
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY i
.TO : H. C. Parris, Manager of Power & Engineering (Nuclear), MR6N0ll B-C v
FROM : K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff E3A8 C-K -.
~
DATE
- h0V 291985
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTICATION REPORT TRANSMITTAL F
Transmitted herein is NSRS Report No. T-85-560-SON
, Subject _ BOX HANGER WELD DESIGN DEFICTENCY - SON Concern No. XX-85-086-003
- and associated prioritized recommendations for your action / disposition.
It is requested that you respond to this report and the attached Priority 2 [P2] recommendation by December 20 1985 . Should you ,
have any questions, please contact R. C. Sauer at telephone 2277.
, Reco:: mend Reportability Determination: Yes X No a%'
Director, NSRS/ Designee .
RES:'JTH Attachment .
cc (Attachment):
H. L. Abercrombie, SQN C. Bonine,12-108 SB-K R. W. Cantrell, W12A12 C-K G. B. Kirk, SQN R. C. Parker, LP4N44A-C QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant J. H. Sullivan, SQN W. F. Willis, E12B16 C-K (4)
/
kb.
- h. -
Bur U.S. Sarines Bonds Recularly on the Payroll.Savines Plan
. . , . , . .,. g g *. . ., Page 6 of 10 4 , . .
m.-,_. ,,_'_-._, -
g, .
U U N ,. . -
" ~
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUT110RITY
_'+ '~
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF _,
INVESTIGATION REPORT No. I-85-560-SQti EMPLOYEE CONCERN: XX-85-086-003
SUBJECT:
BOX HANGER WELD DESIGN DEFICIENCY - SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT
~
~
, DATES OF INVESTICATION: OCTOBER 2-23, 1985 INVESTICATOR: * //,27 8[
E.f.HARWELL DATE /
REVIEWED BY: u,4/"t/ /# 27 Si
%. . )
R. C. SA0ER DATE APPROVEDBY$ _
H. S. KIDD
_M M/
F g
=
//29[8[
DATE
, i. \.
r t .4 e
9 I
4
'e
.g S
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ O
f . .. .
( ( n L t.ic nm en t J Page 7 of 10
~.
3 ,w , - . . .. ~
/ B. Findinns
- 1. The Sequoyah 47B100 series drawings as designed, do show a --
~
butt weld on the rear plate of some seismic class I sup-ports that could extend to the pipe if made as the typical drawing specifies. Cognizant Design Services and Office of Engineering personnel (Individuals A, B, and C) identi-fled ECN L6319 (ref. 6) as the only application of seismic box anchors at Sequoyah which references the Sequoyah 47B100 series drawings for use.
- 2. There are eight box anchors associated with ECN L6319 (ref. 6) and only one has been installed. The detailed drawings for some of these anchors show welds that could
- extend to the pipe. The cognizant engineer (individual E)
- for the installation of these supports stated that on the installed anchor shown on drawing 47A491-3-6, a thin, approximately 1/8-inch land was left adjacent to the pipe prior to welding. When the plate was welded together, the thin land area was fused together meeting the drawing configuration but not to the point that the weld extended to the pipe. After completing the weld, the plate was checked to make sure it was free to move along the pipe.
.3 3. Evaluation of the preparation for the remaining seven box
[A 's . -
-! anchors indicates the preparation does not include the special precaution utilized by Sequoyah on the first anchor of placing a land adjacent to pipe to prevent extending the weld to the pipe.
- 4. A generic evaluation of this problem to WBN and BFU revealed:
L i'
- a. A similar weld extension to pipe problem exists on sheet 4 of the Watts Bar generic drawings of the 47B100 .
series.
a
- b. Browns' Ferry has specific versus generic hanger draw-ings. An evaluation of these drawings reveals simi-lar weld extension to pipe configuration requirements specified on some drawings.
- c. Though no hardware discrepancies were identified related to the inadequate drawing requirements, a generic deficiency exists whereby if the welding portion of drawings were followed verbatim, a noncon-forming condition would result with the clearance requirement of the same drawing.
2 0018S
I
'3~* \ s t L L . A C la.T.cn t j
- . (, Page 8 of 10 T -; . ;, ^ . '
l
,,y __
t .
e
{-~ 2. - n .: '
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
A. -
^
The allegation was substantiated by virtue of the fact that the ~~
typical drawings do show a weld configuration such that it could extend to the pipe when made. There is no concern
- related to the one installed, anchor since special steps were
_- taken to prevent a problem.
B. I-85-560-SQN-01, FCR Revision Recuired to ECN L6319 Drawings and 47B100 Drawing Series _
.To assure that problems do not occur when installing the
~
remaining seven anchors at Sequoyah, the modifications .
cognizant engineer (Individual E) is processing FCRs to have the ECN and typical drawings revised for further clarifica- ,
tion. The revised drawings will be included in the affected workplans. These corrective actions, when completed, will resolve the Sequoyah concern. NSRS will track this as an open item. (P3)
C.
I-85-560-SON-02. Wonconformance Evaluation for Box Anchor Weldint Because of the generic aspects associated with box anchor weld-
-(;, '
ing described in paragraphs III.B.3 and 4, a construction issued NCR 6264 dated August 24, 1985, for Watts Bar should be sent through design to the other plants for a generic review for t.pplicability in accordance with Office of Engineering Procedure OEP-17 (ref. 9). (P2]
4
~
-.1, a
3 00180
. . . , N . . .. m . ..a e n t a
, . ,e . . ,
, i k Page 9 of 10
, w-g " ..
.h-j~ ~~
. ,_ _ __ ~ DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION I-85-550-SQN AND REFERENCES 1.
Sequoyah drawing 47B100 series, 47B200 series, 47A053 series notes.
2.
ECN L6319 drawings 47A491-3-6, 47A491-68-5, 47A491-68-6, -6A, 47A491-68-7, -7A, 47A491-68-8, -8A, 47A491-68-9, 4A491-68-10, 47A491-79-3, -3A, all Revision 0, dated June 27, 1985 t 3.
- Sequoyah Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-13.3, Revision 3 dated August 13, I
1984, " Detailed Analysis of Category I Piping Systems"
( ;
4.
- } _
_SQN-DC-V-1.3.3.1, Revision 4, dated September 4, 1984, " Additions
- After November 14, 1979 - Reinforced Concrete, Structural, and -
Miscellaneous Steel" b
i L.
5.
{ :
Ceneral Construction Specification No. 43, Revision 8, dated
'j August 8,1985, " Support and Installation of Piping Systems in Category I Structures" t
- 6. ECN L6319. " Relocate Sprinkler Head for Appendix R," Revision 0, dated January 24, 1985 (SQP 841218 005)
I
[- 7. BFN specific drawings t i V.- 8..
WBN 47B100 sheet 2. Revision 5, dated September 7,1983, and 47B100 j
sheet 4. Revision 0, dated February 7,1978 t- 9.
Office of Engineering Procedure OEP-17. " Corrective Action," Revision 2, dated August 30, 1985 F
S. 1.
q .
3
)
l f
%e 0018S O
.A ^ -
.; r;'
(
, ,, ..._......s
- s Page 10 of 10 e *
.__-,e-. --~ n. -
, . . _ _ _ : . ,~ w -
EMPLOYEE CONCERN ASSIGNMENT REQUEST -* -
TQ: Director - NSRS
~
_ TRANSMITTAL NUMBER T50147 ERT haa . received the Employee concern
_ . - assigned the indicated category and priority: identified below, and has
~ '
Priority: 1 Concern # XX-85-086-003
. Category: 33 T- % 5 - 5Lo-540 Confidentiality: _YES _NO (I&H)
Supervisor Notified: _X_YES ___NO '
NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED _YES, Concern: Sequoyah:
Hangers which, if performed A design deficiency has a wrong weld required on Box pipe (SS or Carbon Steel Code perpipe).
design, causes the weld to run into the has no further information. Construction dept concern. CI
(
(! . .No followup required.
@cd; _ez _31P f_i_1985 MANAGER, ERT, DATE NSRS to: has assigned responsibility for inves'tigation of the above concern l ERT ___ -
NSRS/ERT [____ '
NSRS ___ ,,_ g _T l OTHERS (SPECIFY) l
( -
3-NSRS " ____ _7[37 DATE f( * -
( -
l l
k .
At. t ac h:n en t 4 Ml !
tva toser roc 4 ass OE CALCULATIONS "E" TITLE m Aimar neumJ P LAN T/VNI T warn nw /bz g ~gNgog.loN xtvnounsico,-,8 nmotxninons asn .
j 7 . -,,,,,ou c1,o , ~ T , ,, .
= , = . -- - = ~ , ~ ~
._ d' '
a-o,.. . --
3 e d6E?-CRS- /73 aa no, nius o i (dii) nius. % ~~ ;
860129A0098 B41 APPLfCASLE CElicN DoCUMENTISI g_
'an o i 17 004 .
R _,
SAR sicitoNiss Unio S YS T E uts)
~~ '
[Heves#on d k'< 1CN No.findecere at Not Appt . _ _ -
Rt H2 H3 Statement of Problem '
9*
i i **"' M j s 2 s a a c4 es s - a u
! "yf& /7 themv esacaery WH2 Rg x 72stf %
neiGv, -
o (
~ dM bT /hM[
$bbYME. ua_ ro -
'Y 1lI7lsy -d/G 7//1?. VM W O.t all paget Odded by this revision.
H M M M M orY b
, M .
I thlt t on NIS"ll.'f*Ef*
p Abstract 715 A/cHaer We5 BMiuME2) chy'c/baeW4 V m 2>weewrm i dmtes e Avb ~iibrearme Muaaewrs Abase s' duww
~
A Feargia Mosas oc po,iw a. (.
l .
%sso 04 % Emuarie L% bgas Es4w4 (
JGersr AxM0/zS E-%'ZI9 l z 359 strl /Evic 78 &
i g w m1t2. L
\ fo /wsota do Am- z-ro-zt?
AwoJ i z-yo. g3 sexxb ge 7ecaexgs 75 ,GE I
' Rss.
i ,
g h 06cM Ae bm%: 1.A.Chrtux, W W C C-K
}$
t -
r b lj e al .u.c.
. , =
m _
{ _
% AW% e;M ~ ~ ~ - "
[W-- 3 _ .. TM
!.B. ; W
~ ~ '
Q -A r--
=;g -
ygg .Q?..% :?.9 y
et.,W_
l: kkLh Wh .
l
- r rva absslie's.omeaes
'M- .
- 11NITED
- FATES COVERNMEAT Memorandttm N
, ~ '
Ttnutsses vattsy Aurnoarry < l JT ~ _
y '
To : 1.. NEB '83042 2 2 54 S. Cox, Project Manager, Belle fonte Nuclear Plant, CONST (3) I
(
""MtpummE '
EM ; i
[ '!
FROM t R. M. Hodges, Project Manager, Bellefonte Design Project, !!!7 IBM-K
.k.gg =^rt -
wa22 m f - ~F" --g
SUBJECT:
830504T0500 h BEL.l.EFONTE NUC1. EAR FIANT ITNITS I AND 2 - SEISMtc StTFFORT 1UCS OM l
, 2-INCll CR LESS STAINLESS STEEL PIPE - NCR 1690 Re fe re nce s t (1) My endorsement transmitting NCR 1690 to John A.
Rautston of F. E. Cl1bert's memorandu,e of December "
$~
14, 1981 (BLN 811214 107)e M
(2) Walter Dehnke's awmorandum to me deced June 15 -
1982 (BLN 820615 552) L (3) E. A. Herrick's memorandum to Nuclear Engineering '
' Support Branch Files dated February 18,1982 (NER >
820218 257) V (4) R. O. Barnett's memorscJun to John A. Rauleton dated March 9, 1982 (CEB 820309 014)
(5) My memorandum to John A. Rautaton dated April 14, 1982 (8LP 820419 068)
(6) D. H. Hewette's memorsoders to Nuclear Engineerlag j Support Branch Files dated April 19,1983 (NES 830419 275) :
l l
_ (?) R. O. Lane's memorandum to C. E. Roberte dated '
? September 29, 1982 (SME 820929 002)
(8) W. R. Childres' memorandum to C. E. Roberts dated October 18,1982- (SME 821018 001) s
~ (9) W. H. Childres' memorandum to C. E. Roberte dated I
November 10,1982 (SME 821110 019) -
i <
We have reviewed the attached NCR and the results of the recourmended "
Investigation. A summary of these resulte le described below along with recommended disposition for thle NLR.
j It vae suspected that because of the P artvely large amount of weld metal used to attach setemic logs +4 ate slees steel pipe, the pipe
- r may ret have met ASME Boiler aa< h wy r . Vessel Code, Sectico III, 6l}
l f i Subsection NB-NC-NI4200 ovell. , $ rst n. Concern also enleted that
! L burnthrough alght have causes +y t 7 ..at
' Scidation and that the high
- heet input may have caused exc$esive ee ettlestion. A detalled -,.
' investigation, however, has shown that piping with lugs already Q, lastslied are actually euttable for u a. Even so, corrective action
.m
~
has been specitled to optimize future installations.
t ,
' ^
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regula,1y on jhe PayrollSantings flan 0
b l
[ ]
nw -
, (. .
- Attachment 5
~p
. 1;2 G. - *
- Page 2 of 4 ,
6..
q_ '
q.p. 2
. NJ ' . ' $. L. S. Cos jff ._ ' _
g 'f~-pif. %)e%.- ih y ' Ara 2 iss3 BELLZFONTE NdCLEAR PLANT ll NITS 1 AND 2 - SEISMIC SUTPORT LUCS ON 2% j 's ,@g 2-INCH 03 LESS STAIKLESS STEEL PIPE - NCR 1690
.l.
r .m
' $ t A$ M *'C A large number of mockups wese fabricated using conditions encompassing field welding techniques (reference 2). Original mockups hs[h. Ms <dh}
1, . ~ W N ! <*.
a4 a (5-inch lengths) were overly conservative since they did not consider i
l I end constraint ef fects. A second set was made that accounted for end
- - .5 h d constraint. This second set of sockupe (15-inch lengths) has been
',1' s completely evaluated with the following resultat
.}'
) 1. The condition will have no effect on the validity of the piping
?q.i. h'i.h- support analysis since ASHE Code requirements governing pipe
, ht Of @Q J 77 Mh(f# ?
- 2^* 4 '.-[;
h_ 1 ovality and thicknese are not compromised (references 2, 3, and 4).
l
- 2. g n-- __- The ares constriction of flow because of lug veld shrinkage ranges O .- : ; 'I g/.f
[ W6 N' d from a minimus of to to a maximum of 24 percent. This condition has been evaluated and system operability will not be compromised 7'l (re forences 2 and 5).
~
Md'h W4
j
, 3. Hatallurgical studies on these lug support mockups have shown 3 l hlQ'- there is to excessive oxidation and the observed burnthrough with
..t)[yg ,,.h
~
smaller diameter pipes is sound weld metal (reference 6).
3
/
7.( ." M Sensitization evaluations on all pipe sizes of concern with NCR
't i 1690 have shown that on the pipe ID the heat-ef fected sones (RAZE) ig
'h I
of the lug support mockups are less sensitized than are RAZE of
! buttweld mockups typical of plant construction (references 7, 8, 3 g
' 'h i and 9). Furthermore the senaltisation le not excesolve and pipe welds made using designated precedures are acceptable for P"JR
( use.
I As a result of thle investigation, to minimize occurrence of the '
subject conditione, the design has been modified and fabrication [
techniques changed to reduce the amount of welding and heat input j
{
required to Install these lugs as described below 4'
'i 31 l
- a. Drawings *C30053-00-23A 3C30062-00-01, and 3C10066-00-01 have j >
been modified to a110w use of thine to obtain close tolerances } L h
( required by the design. This will minimize revelding required to meet drawing tolerance. ,
h
_ . , - 3 e i y de a
?
1
) .
. 2 ,
m .
y? ,g>. ). " *;
. 2 d
j o c
} * * . ,
w ,,
sne l
j f W
t/
- I i - -- _ _ _ _ _ - _ ,
- ~
t' age J ot 4 i
'I h -_ff ,. .-fgh k[.. 64-
- PQ %wE !EliHilGillilEREiiiiiiiW;b MMiG
~ '
{~ ,. : ei ..' *
.tif l ,
3 ~
ki 1
- " ;. 7. L y /. : ,By- lo " , L. S. Com ,
j
": ' Mi"d': -
- %PR 2 21993 t
'y
':0.'.,;,y:
,gcd h,[g} f BELLEPONTE NUCt. EAR PLANT UNITS I AND 2 - SEISMIC SUPPORT LUCS CH 2-INCH CR LESS STAINLESS STEEL FIPE - NCR 1690 , l iE. is-
--Q
- f. y...<.i
. - @. L{.M'Nbh'seet b.
V the design Weldere have been instructed by CONST to deposit welds which requirements with a minirma amount of weld metal addition utillains procedures which minimize heat loput (reference 2).
' "c ('4 2:,,~ % This conconformance was originally determined to be a significant 3[,.'7 . ., -',;'y condition adverse to quality as defined in EN DES-EP 1.26. However, g f , ' h{?, - subsequent investigations determined that it is not a safety losue and
~
cf ' ___q
" is not reportable to the NRC under 10CTR50.55(e). We have verified i ___ , complation of EN DES action asacciated with the attached NCR. Drawing revision is not required except as noted .. .e.
a j /
R. H.'llodges W
/
JARIDMHITU p
} '
Attachment ,,
3 cc (Attachment)
J. W. Anderson, H155C HIB-K k 'k E. C. Beesley, W12B21 C-K q,
[ ! ~
l I gg W. R. Brown, 102 ESTA-K L. J. Cooney, W6D224 C-K j "Ip R.J . Culver, 249A RBB-K -
n jp
( REDS,.W5863 C-K gl j J. L. Parris,D ESTA-K (2) g i del John A. Raulston, W10Cl26 C-K 4 l I D H. N. Sprouse, W!!A9 C-K 3 ; a ,A g i M(., n. C. Weir, WiOC165 C-K
) [ Principally prepared by:
5 !t D. H. Bewette, extension 7905.
-=
h_ ..
e
- - -'ve E43102.08 .
4 g l I
- i iumm, g . .* >
i * :
3,'
i h i . 3 ]%-w- I i
l i .
s, @{
Ih _
2 e. .
b-- 2
_._________.-__-._..Gl%.a
I .
- , Page 4 of 4 s _
4 k Mag t .
t
, - -,0..
4 Q.9 ;
wBUl '811214 108 w,
" " " 'c""""'"
conconsonuir.o conomon atPont
^""'-"*^
jc1R153I l
- 3. Peuci r Pr et: Ee lle s .in t e 1& 2 b uasi ,,c a , /f9d 4 y L ar . O cu. Ot - Ou-~~- Oi-~~u- e - .i, "h'ir-c C "" U "*
} .
8- Aet*'ev 0 a.c m O stor.- O renm.um 0o inum .Ym C*a" "*- "I^
h
~
(g ' 4 Two.. O o.a Oreaur. O o.r.ct O cocu~inuoa O ott r f.
g gg._J L sta= o- - Hachanical seismic support iuas on staJniese steet pipe 4 and less as shown on TVA typical drawings 3GB0Q5600-23A, 3GB0062-00-1R.1, cla;4 6 u d 5% hj ! B0066-00-01R2. S gr,,, ,
j [s - .
l l 6. Peonce = -w o.acrionoa. It is suspected that pipe in the arcats; wnere lugs are j j , (lacsuss ecoereas caus4 attached (1) n:ay not emet NB-NC-ND4200 ovality tolerances and j l (2) may exhibit burn-thru or oxidation: due to the relative large azzzunt of weld i j required for lug attachment.
am- onio su.a. O a.-a = O amet O a.o.w O u.a. . G etr ,
tch=e at-a 4s. e..sa s.a , Site in conjunction with NEB to investigate to determine the likelihood of the suspected condition and determine if it is attributable to improper ,
.} hisoa A.evares to Pro at macisvecs. .
- workmanship, procedures or design. '
Unknown at this ticie. Resul.ts of the investigation will determine the action $
necessary to prevent recutrence. Y Ncn lasti. tors o,i, /J 8ec 8/ f f i F. A*'ernas to o.psa Prosect o san a. tion goPo): G ves O No oPo coa eia.noa coatac, Le rov wtitis ,,
. oeso noa. (Il As a- = 0 co.,-(o cr..)
- ssv ainuai coaa.u.a a ve. O Ne Accrovas Dy Constructica Eng' - NS este /) N- //
h
- 8. oPo oiscoutsoas O As Retamenenced Qth.e (Descrine) g 4 g'
(.
9.
_ , ,r .c. e,.a, _
ORIGIN AL SIGilED Bf onoowoom :..aon.ad Ramese from reoccoarormeas St.tus:
= "aas fives
.. 5" 2 "8' O Ne J . o-t . esi.
j 7
. mo.a. ,
i.r _ ta.u ac.com . O v. O s.
- . Verin=s try coastruccoa Enca.ori o t.
'} Q
- 9'u' ~n'~* . . r u e s6 Welding Engineering 5tasi E6 E62C-K on.oomuon me. e one % ey q _
- g g* u.a., eres.., c re.= t= u. u ,e s
d
@ "======..==:-~
- ';'.l".".'.l='L : '";; -"'
3 .. ='g. ~,; u.- --.
.u . .. ,
3 , -
4
' 't ; l vvaae.e.ece r.i.e.
f ,
y, I
'S .,
MIb436$d
[.