ML20002C167

Interim Rept of Significant Const Deficiency 20 Re Inadequate Design & Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings.Results of Review & Analysis of Drawings Provided.Design Change or Field Change Request Issued

ML20002C167
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	01/05/1981
From:	Mclendon G, Milhiser R, Wills J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, Q-3-A35.07.20, W3K80-0043, NUDOCS 8101090500
Download: ML20002C167 (4)

Text

.

m n

1. LOUISIANA 242 eeancNos s m sr P O W E A & Li G H T! A c scx SCC 8

• NEW CALEANS. LcuisiANA 70174

• cM) 166-2345 EEuSIslfsS Ga AELENCCN January 5, 1981 * "VC8**"*d W3K80-0043 Q-3-A35.07.20 Mr. K. V. Seyfrit, Director, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforce ent 611 Ryan Placa Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012

SUBJECT:

WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-3 82 INTERIM REPORT OF SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 20

" INADEQUATE DESING/ DESIGN REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTATION SEISMIC SUPPORT DRAWINGS"

REFERENCE:

Telecon - L. L. Bass (LP&L) to R. C. Stewart (NRC) on December 5, 1980

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. 20,

" Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings."

1 Yours very truly, GDMcL/TFG/ncd Enclosures cc: Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 (with 15 copies of report)

Director, Office of Management Information and Program Control y U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 (with I copy of report) //

I l

810J090I80 S

I t

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 I

Interim Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 20 Inadequate Design / Design Review of Instrumentation Seismic Support Drawings Reviewed by d#

IV. #J. 'Milhiser/- Site ' Manager Dats Reviewed by / #M J< Wills - Project Superintendent Date Reviewed by dv Q4( 30 b K Hart - Project Lfeensing Engineer V Date Reviewed by J. x b L. A.M einson - Site Q. A. Program Manager Date December 30, 1980

o 4

INTERIM REPORT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIE' ICY NO. 20 INADEQUATE DESIGN / DESIGN REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTATION SEISMIC SUPPORT DRAWINGS INTRODUCTION This raport is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e) . It describes deficiencies in Ebasco design review and acceptance of typical drawings of seismic supports for instrumentation impulse lines. This problem, in turn, has resulted in Mercury Company of Norwood (Mercury) installing instrumentation impulse line seis=1c supports which do not comply with specification requirements.

DESCRIPTION Ebasco, as Engineer for Waterford 3, is responsible for providing Design Engi-neering approved typical seismic supports for instrumentation installation.

These design approved typicals are then detailed to suit field application by Mercury, the instrumentation installer. Mercury's detailed seis=ic supports are then reviewed by Ebasco field engineering personnel for compliknee with the

approved design criteria.

l l

Mercury encountered field installation situations for which there were no design

> approved typicals, generated seismic support drawings for these applications and submitted them to Ebasco for review and acceptance. Mercury also found that additional typical designs were required for their installation activities and j generated drawings for these cases. Ebasco field engineering reviewed these latter two categories of Mercury drawings and accepted them for installation.

There was no design engineering approved basis for these drawings. More specif-( ically, no seismic evaluation had been performed for these supports to confir=

that the supports =et specification requirements.

i A total of forty-five (45) Mercury seismic support drawings identified to date, t

showing typical seismic supports, are being reviewed by Ebasco for compliance l with design specifications, including seismic analysis. It is estimated that between one thousand (1,000) and twelve hundred (1,200) instrumentation impulse line seismic supports have been installed by Mercury in accordance with these forty-five (45) drawings.

l l

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS Ebasco Design Engineering's evaluation has concluded that certain of the installed seismic supports do not meet seismic design criteria. Therefore, if this defi-ciency is lef t uncorrected, some of the supports could conceivably f ail during a seismic event, damaging the safety-telated instrumentation system. Additionally, upon failure of such a seismic support, the support and associated instrumentation -

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

a e

could fall on other safety-related equipment, causing further damage. Either of the above possible conditions could result in a degradation of safety-related

systems.

CORRECTIVE ACTION Ebasco Design Engineering has commenced a review and analysis of the forty-five (45) Mercury seismic support drawings. Evaluation of the Mercury drawings to dace has the following results:

, A) Ten (10) Mercury drawings have been evaluated and found to be in com-pliance with the design specification requirements.

3) Twelve (12) of the Mercury drawings have been evaluated and found to be structurally acceptable; however, additional anchoring (additional anchors or larger anchors) is required.

C) Ten (10) of the Mercury drawings have been analyzed and found that both additional anchoring as well as structural modifications are required to =eet the design specification requirements.

D) Design evaluation of the remaining thirteen (13) Mercury drawings is in process.

The following corrective action steps are also in progress:

1) Ebasco Site Quality Assurance has issued a Stop Work Order on the in-stallation of seismic supports fabricated in accordance with the above-defined Mercury drawings.

2) Nonconformance Report W3-2333 has been issued, which, amongst other ite=s, requires Mercury to provide a listing of all seis=le supports installed in accordance with these drawings.

3) Upon receipt of the listing noted in item (2) above, this listing will be made part of Nonconformance Report W3-2333 and required corrective action will be assigned for each support requiring modification.

4) Ebasco Design Engineering is issuing all instrumentation seismic sup-ports by Design Change Notice (DCN) or Field Change Request (FCR).

Supplementary Interim Reports will be issued as new data, findings or repair pro-cedures are identified. The results of the above evaluations and the corrective actions implemented will be included in a Final Report on this problem to be submitted to the USNRC on or before December 1,1981.

.