View source for GO2-82-955, Deficiency Rept Re Johnson Controls Design Issue.Eight of 132 Small Bore Lines Did Not Meet Min Design Criteria Following Thermal Effects Application

{{Adams
| number = ML20067D886
| issue date = 12/02/1982
| title = Deficiency Rept Re Johnson Controls Design Issue.Eight of 132 Small Bore Lines Did Not Meet Min Design Criteria Following Thermal Effects Application
| author name = Matlock R
| author affiliation = WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
| addressee name = Engelken R
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION &amp; ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
| docket = 05000397
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| document report number = 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, GO2-82-955, NUDOCS 8212210386
| document type = DEFICIENCY REPORTS (PER 10CFR50.55E &amp; PART 21), TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
| page count = 2
| project = 
| stage = Other
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:F
                     ~
Dock:t No. 50-397 g   .o
* 50.55 (c) Report               -/IEa j,,, -o P.O. Box 968      Washington Public Power Supply System /3,kg50 3000GeorgeWashingtonWay Richland, Washington 99352 15 Docket No. 50-397                                                          ' /2' pp December 2, 1982                                                   NEGlo;,l'/Eg G02-82-955 Mr. R. H. Engelker, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissica Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596
                                                    \

==Subject:==
NUCLEAR PROJECT N0. 2 10CFR50.55(e) REPORTABLE CONDITION #201 JOHNSON CONTROLS DESIGN ISSUE Regarding the subject 10CFR50.55(e) Report, Mr. A. Toth, WNP-2 Resident NRC Inspector, relayed to Supply System Project Quality Assurance three (3) questions that were raised by the Region V office during the        view of that report. The questions that were raised are as follows-
: 1. How many small bore (l" and under) lines were reevaluated by Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) becaue - of thermal effects?
: 2. For those lines that were found to be deficient, what was the field direction to correct them?
: 3. If wrong data was used in the initial calculations, how did that happen?
We have reviewed our records for the answers to these questions, and also discussed them with JCI and Burns and Roe. We believe that the following information should adequately resolve these questions:
(                         l. A total of one hundred thirty-two (132) were reevaluated by i                              JCI, of which eight (8) were found not to ineet the minimum
!                              design criteria after application of the thermal effects.
l l
!               0212210386 821202 1               PDR ADOCK 05000397                                                                _

f
     .o.
e K . R. H. Engelken Page 2 December 2, 1982 G02-82-955
: 2. The eight '8) lines which were found to be deficient were either rerouted er supports were modified by JCI, submitted to Burns and Roe for approval, and subsequently reinstalled.
: 2. The original data used by JCI in their design was supplied to them by Burns and Roe (BRI). The design data pertaining t .he above 8 lines was subsequently changed by BRI; however, through an oversight the revised data was not communicated to JCI for incorporation into their design paraceters.
Should the above information not meet your needs, please contact Mr.
Roger Johnson, (509) 377-2501, extension 2712.
            /  .G Program Director, WNP-2 MER/kd cc:  W.S. Chin, BPA - Site A. Forrest, Burns and Roe - HAPO N.D. Lewis, NRC J. Plunkett, NUS Corp.
R.E. Snaith, Burns and Roe - NY A. Toth, NRC Resident Inspector - WNP-2 Document Control Desk, NRC WNP-2 Files (917B) t}}