ML20003C479
| ML20003C479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1981 |
| From: | Robert Carlson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Tallman W PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103060234 | |
| Download: ML20003C479 (1) | |
Text
r 74 e..
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
- E REGION I D[
0, 631 PARK AVENUE
%, >....,o KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 Docket No. 50-443 FES :2 '931 50+444 l
i Public Service Company of New Hampshire
-7n g
ATTN: Mr. W. C. Tallman s'
,3 Chainnan and Chief Executive Officer V'fpFF s
- Q' d g
,9 1000 Elm Street 4,
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 q
FEB 2p 1981 w w Gentlemen:
E u.a, %,6,, f-O mmm
Subject:
Pipe Support Design Deficiency 1,
/p.
es Thank you for your letter, SBN-148, dated January 15, 1981, whic orwarded a final report pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e) regarding the subject matter.
i This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, f
obert g. arIson, ChiefW ss;/
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch cc:
John DeVincentis, Project Manager 8108060231
O i
N Comparv f TJew Hampshire SFREK STATION Engineering Office:
1671 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701 January 15, 1981 i
SBN-148 Ref SBP-80-288 T.F. Q 2.2.2 s
U.S. Neuelar Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Attention:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Reference:
1.
Docket No. 50-443 and 50-444 2.
Telecon of 12/16/80 between J. Mattia NRC and John DeVincentis YAEC
Subject:
10 CFR 50.55 (e) Final Report on Design Deficiency of Pipe Supports
Dear Sir:
The enclosed report is submitted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55 (e).
This deficiency was raported to the Region I Inspection and Enforcement Office, by telephone, on 12/16/80.
Very truly yours, p
John DeVincentis Project Manager JDV: tan Enclosure cc:
Director of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.
20555 i
l gfs 9l DI)30 W1
r Introduction a -, -,
On Tu2cday, Dec mbsr 16, 1980, Mr. J. DeVinc2ntis, Seabrook Project Manag2r for Yankee Atomic Electric Company, reported by telephone to Mr. J. Mattia, NRC Region I Inspection and Enforcement Inspector for the Seabrook Project,' a design deficiency associated with the design of pipe supports.
Background
As a result of finding deficiencies in the support design for other projects, the review of approximately 1700 Seabrook supports designed prior to February 1, 1980 was initiated.
Out of these 1700 supports 85 random supports were investigated as a representative sample.
While reviewing these 85 supports, it was discovered that some supports did not meet all design req uirements.
These supports were designed and checked based on the ASME code requirements, however, there were no other detailed formal guidelines issued for designers to follow.
In February,1980, Pipe Support Design Guidelines were issued to pipe support design personnel.
This document included the criteria for the design of expansion anchors, minimum weld size requirements, as well aa a check list for designers and checkers to insure that they consider all the design parameters.
Safety Implications There is no evidence to date in the review that any of the design deficiencies could have caused a support to lose its structural integrity.
t Evaluation of the system safety is not contempir.ted since all of the supports under review will be checked or modified to completely comply with the requirements of the ASME Code.
The review modifications are planned to support the pipe erection schedule.
t Scurce and Nature of Deficiency A sampling of 85 calculations showed 24 with errors.
Five (5) of the ereces would cause the pipe supports to not meet the requirements of the ASME Code.
Eleven errors we r due to a change in the design criteria furnished by the "U" bolt supplier.
The balance were minor human errors.
There was no generic type problem with the method of calculapions.
The number of human errors in this sample confirm the need for a full review of the balance of the calculations.
Corectve Action Following corrective action has been taken to eliminate future occurrences of this problem.
i 1.
A controlled formal design manual has been issued to all design personnel.
l 2.
A check list is used to make sure that designers confirm that they have considered all the design requirements of the guidelines.
The checker also uses and initials the check list confirming that the design adequately meets' design guidelines.
All identified deficiencies are addressed in the check list.
3 A training session has been conducted for all pipe support design personnel emphasizing the design requirements.
g 7