ML20004B664

Interim Rept Re Significant Const Deficiency 29 Re Inadequate Clearance Between Process Piping Sys & Boxtype Pipe Supports/Restraints.Ebasco Analysis to Determine Acceptability of Installation.Final Rept by 820630

ML20004B664
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	05/25/1981
From:	Aswell D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, W3K81-0182, W3K81-182, NUDOCS 8105290257
Download: ML20004B664 (4)

Text

,

l OUISIANA 1 a ceuscNee srnsar P O W E R & L1 G H T! A o scx SCC 8

• NEW cALEANS. LCUISiANA 70174

• (5041 366-2345 ments 3. L ASWELL v'ca *a'" *" a' ue:*

May 25, 1981 W3K81-0182 Q-3-A35.07.29 Mr. K. V. Seyfrit, Director, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012

SUBJECT:

Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382 Interim Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 29

" Inadequate Clearance Between Process Piping Systems and Box-type Pipe Supports / Restraints"

REFERENCE:

Telecon - L. L. Bass (LP&L) to R. C. Stewart (NRC) on 4/23/81

Dear Mr. Seyfrit:

In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e), we are hereby providing two copies of the Interim Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. -

29, " Inadequate Clearance 3etween Process Piping Systems and Boxtype Pipe Supports / Restraints."

If you have any questions, please advise.

Yours very truly, - . P'1 I t 'o,

/2 s -

j D. L. Aswell, Vice President y ,  ;

Power Production i- ll,AY ~ 3 7

u.s.to*'"'T C # SA DLA/TFC/rd Q 4 cc: 1) Director /

U Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l (with 15 copies of report) 1

2) Director Office of Management Information and Program Control l

j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 (with I copy of report) pan 9' l f 8195290257

f LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 Interim Report of Significant cons ruction Deficiency No. 29 Inadequate Clearance 3etween Process Piping Systems And Box-Type Pipe Supports / Restraints Reviewed by \[ 2 [ /,

R. J. Mflhishr, Site Manager / Date#

Reviewed by ,

h 8 8 '

/ /

J. L. Wilis, Projec uperintendent Date Reviewed by -

[/8 [4 #ddA/ MI/"8/

Date J. Xart, ProjectLicen/ngEngineer Reviewed by EI b/

R. A/Har tnett , Q . A. Site Supervisor ' Dats May 21, 1981 l

i I

- ^ -

1 INTERIM REPORT OF SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 29 f INADEQUATE CLEARANCE BETWEEN PROCESS PIPING SYSTEMS AND BOX-TYPE PIPE SUPPORTS / RESTRAINTS

~

, INTRODUCTION i

This report is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e) . It describes deficiencies relative to clearance between process piping systems and box-type pipe supports /

rastraints.

i DESCRIPTION f On April 23, 1981, it was established that a problem existed with the box-type restraints for process piping being installed by Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc. The problem described was an apparent misinterpretation which occurred in implement- The cri-ing the allowable gap criteria between the pipe and restraint structure.

teria originally established by Ebasco Design Engineering was' a maximum of 1/16" total gap in each restraint direction. The criteria entered in Tompkins-Beckwith, The as-built installation re-Inc.'s, contract was 1/16" maximum and 0" minimum.

suited in insuf ficient clearance to allow pipe thermal movement as required.

Fuel Pool, Containment Spray, This problem exists in the following piping systems:

Component Cooling Water, Safety Injection, 3oron Management, Waste Management, Turbine Cooling Water, Nitrogen Gas, Chemical Volume Control, Blowdown, Emergency .

Generator, Extraction Steam, Condensate, Reactor Cooling, Main Steam, Heater Drain, Air Evacuation and Auxiliary Steam. -The total number of restraints af-facted is esti=ated at 1,900. Of this number, it is estimated that approximately 450 supporte will require some for= of modification (shim, trim lugs or add gap) in order to make them acceptable.

~

SAFETY DIPLICATIONS_

7 If these deficiencies were lef t uncorrected, possible degradation of safety systems could occur. Such' degradation could occur through the exceeding of ASME Code al-lowable st: sses creating the possibility that systems would be overstressed in come way not analyted in the FSAR. Additionally, these deficiencies present the potential for common mode failures within/between systems.

Such failures are not analyted in the FSAR.

Based on the above, Ebasco Licensing considers this deficiency reportable under 10CFR50.55 (e) .

l CORRECTIVE ACTION J

I The corrective action plan being undertaken to correct the deficiencies is delineated as follows:

I I

i l

' ' <. o A. Evaluation

1) Ebasco Site Support Engineering (ESSE) Fanger Group will measure all as-built gaps.

2) Analysis of as-built gaps versus calculated thermal movements and maximum expected radial expansion of pipe will be conducted by Ebasco to determina acceptability of the as-built installation.

3) Bergen-Patterson will be requested to comment on technique and logic of Ebasco analysis.

B. Corrective Action Imolementation

1) Restraints which require modifications will be remeasured by Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc., after modifications are completed.

2) Nonconformance Report W3-2644 will be the vehicle used by Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc., to implement corrective action (modifications) and docu-ment as-built gaps of restraints which are modified.

For those restraints not installed to date, the gap criteria has been redefined and distributed through issue of field sketches Series M694. These requirements have been incorporated into the respective Tompkins-Beckwith program procedures.

Corrective Action will be completed on or before June 30, 1982, at which time the Final Report will be submitted.

f

. _ - , ,. ~ , . _ - _ - ~ , , , . . ~ . . _ ,