|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[05000334/LER-1981-001-01, /01P-0:on 810106,IE Bulletin 79-14 Evaluation & Reanalysis of Piping & Supports Revealed H-162,H-164 & H-166 to Be Less Conservative than Original Design.Caused by QA Breakdown]] |
| | number = ML20002E202
| |
| | issue date = 01/20/1981
| |
| | title = /01T-0:on 810106, Supports H-162,H-164 & H-166 Reported Not Modified Per IE Bulletin 79-14.Caused by Loss of Pertinent Drawings.Work on Supports Completed
| |
| | author name = Lacey W, Lacy W
| |
| | author affiliation = DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
| |
| | docket = 05000334
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = IEB-79-14, LER-81-001-01T, LER-81-1-1T, NUDOCS 8101260634
| |
| | package number = ML20002E165
| |
| | document type = LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (SEE ALSO AO RO), TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
| |
| | page count = 3
| |
| }}
| |
| {{LER
| |
| | Title = /01T-0:on 810106, Supports H-162,H-164 & H-166 Reported Not Modified Per IE Bulletin 79-14.Caused by Loss of Pertinent Drawings.Work on Supports Completed
| |
| | Plant =
| |
| | Reporting criterion =
| |
| | Power level =
| |
| | Mode =
| |
| | Docket = 05000334
| |
| | LER year = 1981
| |
| | LER number = 1
| |
| | LER revision = 1
| |
| | Event date =
| |
| | Report date =
| |
| | ENS =
| |
| | abstract =
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| =text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:g" }l T3 a
| |
| 9g g
| |
| U3*L lL, o
| |
| < 1..
| |
| U. S. NUCLEA3 CE!UL ATCGY COMMIS$10N (m v 0R3 364 6c 6
| |
| 17 ? ?l 1.lCENSEE EVENT REPORT
| |
| .h IPLEASE PRINT OR TY9E ALL REQUIRED INFORMATIONI CONTROL SLOCK: l I
| |
| l 1
| |
| I l
| |
| l i
| |
| Io Iil lP l A l 3 lV l S l 1 l@l 0 l0 l-l 0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l-l0 l0 j@l4 l1 l1 11 l1 l@lsiAru@
| |
| l l
| |
| ucmuoE 1
| |
| uw.awon4 a
| |
| v a m r..E a
| |
| liu I "0,% 11. @l 0 l 51010101313 l 4 @l o I i l o I 61 s i 1 @l o f il 'I of al il@
| |
| CON'T t
| |
| 6
| |
| ,,d M
| |
| DOGET gveEn e.d 6J EVE'eTDATE le RE*CHTQATE 40 5
| |
| EVENT DESCRIPTION AND PROBAGLE CONSEQUENCES h I o I 'l l On 1/6/81. the Duquesne f.icht Conn.inv Ennineering Department reported that 32" f
| |
| 1 o,2 ; I Sill'-1. 2. 3-601 -02 support s H-162.11-164 and 11-166 had not been modified as orteln.illvl This is a violation of Technic.il 1 g o i. j i reported in the 8/14/80 IC Bullet in 79-14 letter.
| |
| of Structures. The consequences of support l
| |
| g l Specification 6.9.1.8.1, Analysir.
| |
| g l failure due to pipe whip is postulated to be failure of the main steam valve house l
| |
| l o !1l l wall. resultine in failure of the other two steam lines due to falling debris.
| |
| l I
| |
| 12 6 il l so COMP vA LV E SYSTEM
| |
| | |
| ==CAUSE==
| |
| CAUSE SV8CCOE SU9CCCE CCOE COCE SusCODE COMPONENT CCDE Ic Ic l@ LaJ@ 1.a. J@ l si el PI ol 91 TI@ la l@ LZ_.J @
| |
| lo i al 3
| |
| 4 9
| |
| 10 is i2 is is t <J
| |
| .'O SEcuta TIAL OC yRaENCE REPORT REVISION s
| |
| EVENT YE AR REPORT NO.
| |
| CODE TYPE No.
| |
| @ a'ERino1811i L.J 10 lo 11 1 1-1 10 11 I I Tl 1-1 101 Lu=
| |
| :n
| |
| :2 24 2s 21 ra
| |
| :2 ao ai 22 T
| |
| N AC Ce CN P f
| |
| VE 40VR5 58 i 80 Rat 8.
| |
| SUP't. ER MANWFA6 baER lFl@lZl@
| |
| l 7. l@
| |
| l Z l@
| |
| l O! 0l 03 of lY l@
| |
| l N l@
| |
| W@
| |
| l 7. l 9 l 9 l 9 l@
| |
| 22
| |
| .s 2.
| |
| si
| |
| .o ai 2
| |
| 42 a
| |
| CAUSE DESCRIPTION AND CCRRECTIVE ACTIONS h Iiloll The cause of the problem is that illecible drawines were transmitted to the
| |
| [
| |
| m l Construction department for use.
| |
| b' hen the drawines were sent back for better I
| |
| i, i :1 l copies. the drawine ocrtaining to supports !!-l'62, H-164 and H-166 was lost.
| |
| The I
| |
| lil2l l work on H-162. 164 and 166 was connleted on 1/7/81 and a lettor from tho ounlity I
| |
| all other items are completed.
| |
| g iii.i l Assurance Department was received, verifyine that 80 7
| |
| 4 9
| |
| $A
| |
| % POWER OTHER STATUS O 5 Cv RV OtsCCVERY DESCRIPTION I i i $ l l 11l@ l o 0]0l@l N/A l
| |
| lCl@l Special Inspection l
| |
| CelrENT AuOuNT es Activity @ l LoCATioNcsRELEAsE@
| |
| 4CTiviry li le l W h [aELEAstJ,j@l aftfAsED P
| |
| N/A l
| |
| N/A l
| |
| 7 8 9 TO 15 44 45 80 PEmSCNNEL E sPCsunES
| |
| % veer TvPE C E SCRiPTION li17ll010l0!@l:*l@l N/A l
| |
| PEascwEUNA5t5
| |
| :s:R.,ricN@
| |
| <.., E R FTl I 0101 O l@l N/A I
| |
| 30 2
| |
| 4 9 it 12 LO55 OF OR OaMAGE TO SActuTV TvPE D E SC#'* TICN y W@l N/A l
| |
| .a a
| |
| Nac usa em l
| |
| .m,'Oc4L.,s @
| |
| N/A I
| |
| II!Ii1!l
| |
| !IIl}
| |
| I 2 I o I LN_Jy*jl 68 6) 80 7, J
| |
| 3 5 to N
| |
| PHONE g101280$4F0>pnEPAREn 34
| |
| | |
| b Attachment To Ltit 81-001/01T Beaver Valley power Station Duquesne I.lght Company Docket No. 50-334 On January 6, 1981, the Duquesne Light Company Engineering Department reported that 32" SilP-1,2,3-601-Q2 supports 11-162,11-164 and !!-166 had not been modified as reported to the NRC in the August 14, 1980 IE Bu11ctin 79-14 Ictter.
| |
| The design safety function of hangers !!-l'$2,11-164 and 11-166 is to protect other equipment if one pipe should break and result in a large pipe whip. TheThe shim deficiency was in the number of shim stacks that limit pipe movement.
| |
| stacks help distribute the pipe break loads uniformly over the honeycomb collapse collar. This collapse collar dissipates energy due to pipe breaks, thus minimizing the loads imposed upon the valve house wall. This wall acts as the last safety-rcisted support for all three main steam lines.
| |
| It was determined in the IE Bulletin 79-14 of fort that the shim stack installed was not according to the design drawings and would not adequately distribute the load properly. Because of this, there was an increased possibility that the design loads of the valve house wall would be exceeded if one of the main steam lines ruptured. This wall failure would cascade into the two remaining steam lines which are supported of f this wall.
| |
| The problem with this nonconformance being missed appears to be in the transmittal of records between the concerned departments. A drawing package transmitted to the contractor was illegible and so it was sent back to the construction department. New drawings were made, excluding the ones of the supports in question, and were then re-transmitted. When the new drawings were compared to the transmittal list, they matched and were accepted.
| |
| All design change packages for modifications of Beaver Valley power Station are reviewed during turnover activitics to assure that as-built conditions are in This accordance with required engineering as part of the turnover program.
| |
| check is made concurrently by the Construction Department, Start-up Group, and the Station Engineering Group. In addition, a review is made to assure that all applicable Technical Specifications can be met utilizing the as-modified station equipment. A final safety review is performed to assure that the "as built" configuration does not constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined by 10 CFR 50.59.
| |
| As allowed by the turnover program, the Station Engineering Group conducted a 25., review on three design change packages (those associated with pipe supports, as-built corrections, and seismic reanalyses) because of their peculiar nature and magnitude. The above described discrepancy was discovered by the Construction Department during a final follow-up check.
| |
| Upon receiving the discrepancy report from the Mechanical Engineering Department, the Station Superintendent ordered the plant startup to discontinue until the discrepancy was corrected and the Quality Assurance Manager assured him that no other discrepancies had occurred..
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| /
| |
| id@ 7' o R DW'
| |
| ~
| |
| Attachment To LER 81-001/0lT bd g
| |
| J''
| |
| f Ileaver Valley Power St.ition 3
| |
| Duquesne 1,lght Company Docket No. 50-334 The Quality Assurance !!anager requested a final review of the three design change packages of concern and conducted an investigation of the problem to determine if the program contained weaknesses allowing this to occur. During this review, one other discrepancy was discovered on hanger ll-4A on the river water system which was determined not to be a significant safety concern; however, the discrepancy was corrected immediately.
| |
| On January 9,1981, the Quality Assurance !!anager assured the Superintendent that all reviews were complete and that there was a high degree of assurance that no other discrepancies existed. On that basis, the Superintendent released the station to continue startup activitics. The Quality Assurance !!anager has subsequently issued a report of his investigation with recommended action to prevent this type of oversight from recurring. Corrections are being made in an expeditious manner.
| |
| 9 *
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| {{LER-Nav}}
| |