ML18033A568
| ML18033A568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1987 |
| From: | Matyas A TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082340470 | List:
|
| References | |
| 22800, 22800-V02-R03, 22800-V2-R3, NUDOCS 8902150125 | |
| Download: ML18033A568 (78) | |
Text
EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROG VOLTE2 ENGINEERING CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY REPORT 22800 UNISTRUT SUPPORT DESIGN UPDATED TVA NUCLEAR POWER
.)
8902k 5<) 125 9020!;
K PDR AOOCK 05000259 P
PDC g
l ~
I r~'O 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE:
SUBCATEGORY REPORT FOR ENGINEERING TITLE:
UNISTRUT SUPPORT DESIGN REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 1 of 23 2.
3.
Revised to incorporate initial 'SRP and TAS comments and BFN and BLN CAPs.
Revised to incorporate additional SRP and TAS comnents; adde'd Attachment C (References).
Revised to incorporate additional SRP and TAS comments.
PREPARATION W. K.~ o~wA,K S
NATUR REVIEWS xiii B OA E
0 TE AS:
OA SIGNATUR DAT CEG-H:
RN I I-Zg-6 SRP: ~ P~
II-2'f-57 SIGNATURE*
DATE APPROVED SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
~O
)
0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS
'SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page ES-1 of 2 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This subcategory report summarizes and evaluates the results of the ECSP element evaluations prepared under Engineering Subcategory 22800, Unistrut Support Design.
This subcategory addresses employee concerns about the adequacy of supports made of Unistrut members.
Unistrut members are cold-formed steel channels that are used as structural elements in component supports.
Generally, the employee concerns portray Unistrut to be inherently inadequate for use in Category I applications and that items attached to Unistrut might fall off and damage other items.
The evaluation team found no inherent reason to avoid the use of Unistrut in Category I applications.
In fact, this application of Unistrut is commonly used throughout the nuclear industry.
However, the evaluation team found that certain deficiencies exist in the calculations intended to document the acceptability of Unistrut, as used in the four TVA nuclear plants:
- Sequoyah, Watts Bar, Browns Ferry, and Bellefonte.
A total of 31 findings were made in this subcategory.
Thirteen required no corrective action.
Of the remaining 18, one resulted from a concern raised by a TVA employee and 17 resulted from peripheral findings uncovered during the ECTG review.
To resolve the negative findings, Unistrut clamp testing, document and calculation. revisions, walkdowns, and broad reevaluation programs all are necessary.
TVA has addressed the 18 negative findings in corrective action plans.
Because some of the corrective actions apply to more than one plant, only seven types of corrective actions are required to resolve these findings.
The evaluation team reviewed all of the corrective action plans and found them adequate and sufficient to resolve the findings.
The principal causes of the validated issues were a lack of direction from Civil Engineering Branch (CEB) first-and second-line supervision and a lack of Engineering's attention to detail; This lack resulted in inadequate development of design
- bases, incomplete implementation of design criteria, and the introduction of errors into design calculations.
The ECTG review of TVA's corrective action closure documents found that the problems in CEB first-and second-line supervision persist in the general areas of completeness and compliance.
Although many of the issues addressed in this subcategory were found by the ECTG to be valid, evaluations that have been performed since the concerns were registered indicate that, in general, the existing Unistrut supports are adequate.
The corrective actions are expected to result in many documentation changes and possibly minor hardware changes to existihg Unistrut supports.
2672D-R15 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
'228i00'EVISION NUMBERS:
3 Page ES-2 of 2 Beyond the speci,fic issues related to design
'adequacy of Unistrut supports, the negative findings are indicative of bn)ader deficiencies in EnginLeri'ng' attention to detai'Is.
1'he design of nuc,lear power plants requires the consideration of many items not generally considered in nonnuclear applications.
Accordingly,, there is a need for first-and second-line engineering supervision to be better trained in the special requirements of nuclear power plant design TVA has developed the corporate and plant-specific'nuclear performance plans (NPPs)
(Ref. 8).
I'hese plans identify correctiv'e actions to remedy e><istinlg problems and to improve TVA's nuclear program.
The findings of this subcategory are combined'i'th those of other subcategory reports and reassessed in the Engineering category report.
The necessary corrective action tracking documents were.'issued by the evaluation team concurrently with the issue of the Engineering c'at&go'ry 'report, in which'he broader issues were assessed.
2672D-R16 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 FRONT MATTER REV:
3 PAGE i OF viii Preface This subcategory report is one of a series of reports prepared for the Employee Concerns Special Program (ECSP) of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
The ECSP and the organization which carried'ut the program, the Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG), were established by TVA's Manager of Nuclear Power to evaluate and report on those Office of Nuclear Power (ONP) employee concerns filed before February l. 1986.
Concerns filed after that date are handled by the ongoing ONP Employee Concerns Program (ECP).
The ECSP addressed over 5800 employee concerns.
Each of the concerns was a
formal, written description of a circumstance or circumstances that an employee thought was unsafe, unjust, inefficient, or inappropriate.
The mission of the Employee Concerns Special 'Program was to thoroughly investigate all issues presented in the concerns and to report the results of those investigations in a form accessible to ONP employees, the
- NRC, and the general public.
The results of these investigations are communicated by four levels of ECSP reports:
- element, subcategory,
- category, and final.
Element reports, the lowest reporting level, will be published only for those concerns directly affecting the restart of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's reactor unit 2.
An element consists of one or more closely related issues.
An issue is a potential 'problem identified by ECTG during the evaluation process as having been raised in one or more concerns.
For efficient handling, what appeared to be similar concerns were grouped into elements early in the program, but issue definitions emerged from the evaluation process itself.
Consequently, some elements did include only one issue, but often the ECTG evaluation found more than one issue per element.
Subcategory reports summarize the evaluation of a number of elements.
- However, the subcategory report does more than collect element level evaluations.
The subcategory level overview of element findings leads to an integration of information that cannot take place at the element level.
This integration of information reveals the extent to which problems overlap more than one element and will therefore require corrective action for underlying causes not fully apparent at the element level.
To make the subcategory reports easier to understand, three items have been placed at the front of each report:
a preface, a glossary of the terminology unique, to ECSP reports, and a list of acronyms.
Additionally, at the end'f each subcategory report will be a Subcategory Summary Table that includes the concern numbers; identifies other subcategories that share a concern; designates nucIaar safety-related, safety significant, or non-safety related concerns; designates generic applicability; and briefly states each concern.
Either the Subcategory Summary Table or another attachment or a combination of the two will enable the reader to find the report section or sections in which. the issue raised by the concern is evaluated.
TVb. EMPLOYEE'ONCERNS SPECIE PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE ii OF viii The subcategories are themselves summariZed in a series Of eight categ'ory reports.
Each category report reviews the ',major findings and collelctive significance of the subcategory reports in,one of the following areas:
management and personnel re1ations industrial safety construction material control operations quality assurance/quality controI welding engineering separate report on employee concerns dealing with specific contentions of intimidation, harassment, and wrongdoing'ill be'eleased by the TVA Office of the Inspec'tor General.
Just as the subcategory reports integrate the information collected at the element level, the, category reports integrate the information assembled i,n all the subcategory reports within the category,'ddressing particularly the underlying causes of those problems
,'that run'across more than one subcategory.
A final report will integrate and assess'he information collected
',by all of the lower 'level reports prepared for lthd ECSP',
i'ncluding the Inspector General's report.
For more detail on the methods by whikh, ECXG employ'ee'concerns were evaluated and repoi;ted, consult the Tennessee Valley Authority Employee Concerns Task Grouii'rograni Manual.
The Manual Spells out the program's objectiv'esscope, organization, and responsibilities.
It also specifies the procedures that were followed in the inlveStigatiou, reporting, and closeout of t'be issues raised by employee concerns;
TVh EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER'2800 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE iii OF viii ECSP GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMS" classification of evaluated issues the evaluation of an issue leads to one of the following determinations:
Class A:
Issue cannot be verified as factual Class B:
Issue is factually accurate, but what is described is not a
problem (i.e., not a condition requiring corrective action)
Class C:
Issue is factual and identi'fies a problem, but corrective action for the problem was initiated before the evaluation of the issue was undertaken Class D:
Issue is factual and presents a problem for which corrective action has
- been, or is being, taken as a result of an evaluation Class E:
A problem, requiring corrective action, which was not identified by an employee
- concern, but was revealed during the ECTG evaluation of an issue raised by an employee concern.
collective si nificance an analysis which determines the importance and consequences of the findings in a particular ECSP report by putting those findings in the proper perspective.
concern (see "employee concern")
corrective action steps taken to fix specific deficiencies or discrepancies revealed by a negative finding and, when necessary, to correct causes in order;to prevent recurrence.
criterion lural:
criteria a basis for defining a performance,
- behavior, or quality which ONP imposes on itself (see also "requirement").
element or element re ort an optional level of ECSP report, below the subcategory level, that deals with one or more issues.
em lo ee concern a formal, written description of a circumstance or circumstances that an employee thinks unsafe, unjust, inefficient or inappropriate; usually documented on a K-form or a form equivalent to the K-form.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPEICQLL PROGRAM REPORT NUlSER';
'22800 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE iv OF viii evalua~tor s
the indIiv'ideal(s) assigned the responsibility to assess a specific grouping of employee concerns.
~findin s includes both statements of fact and t.he judgments made about those facts during the evaluation process; negative findings require corrective action.
issue a potential problem, as interpreted by the lECTG during the evaluatiaIn
- process, raised in one or more concerns.
K-f'orm (see "employee concern")
evaluation judgment or decision may be based.
root cause the underlying reason for a problem.,
~Terms essential to the program but which require detailed definition have, been, defined in the ECTG Procedure Manual (e.gee generic, specific, nuclear safety-related; unreviIewed safety-significant question)I.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER'2800 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE v OF viii Acronyms AI AISC ANSI Administrative Instruction American Institute of Steel Construction hs Low hs Reasonably Achievable American Nuclear Society American National Standards Institute ASME AWS BFN BLN CAQ CAR CATD CCTS CEG-H CFR CI CMTR COC DCR DNC American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Society ior Testing and-Materials American Welding Society Brogans Ferry Nuclear Plant Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Condition Adverse to Quality Corrective Action Report Corrective Action Tracking Document Corporate Commitment Tracking System
~Category Evaluation Group Head Code of Federal Regulations Concerned Individual Certified Material Test Report Certificate of Conformance/Compliance Design Change Request Division of Nuclear Construction (see also NU CON)
TVA IMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUHBER:
22800 ~
FRONT KNITTER REV:
2 PAGE vi OF vi.ii DNE DNQA
'DOE DPO Division of Nuclear Engineering Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance Division of Nuclear Training
'epartment of Energy Division Personnel Officer DR ECN ECP ECP-SR ECSP ECTG EEOC EQ EMRT EN DES ERT FCR FSAR GET HCI HVAC INPO IRN Di,screpancy Report or Deviation Report Engineering Change'Notice Employee Concerns Program Employee Concerns Program-~boite Representative Employee -Concerns -Special program Employee Concerns Task Group Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Environmental Qualification Emergency Medical Response,'Team Engineering Design Employee
Response
Team or fbnerge'ncy Respons'e Team Field Change Request Final Safety Analysis Report
'iscal Year General Employee Training Hazard Control Instruction Heating Ventilating, Air Conditioning Installation Instruction Institute of Nuclear Power Opkrakions Inspection Rejection Noticd il
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 FRONT MATTER REV:
2'AGE vii OF viii L/R M&AI MI MSPB NCR NDE NPP NPS NQAM NRC NSB NSRS NU CON Labor Relations Staff N
Modifications and Additions Instruction Maintenance Instruction Merit Systems Protection Board Magnetic Particle Testing Nonconforming, Condition Report Nondestructive Examination Nuclear Performance Plan Non-plant Specific or Nuclear Procedures System Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Services Branch Nuclear Safety Review Staff Division of Nuclear Construction (obsolete abbreviation, see DNC)
NUMARC Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Committee OSHA ONP OWCP Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or Act)
Office of'uclear Power Office of Workers Compensation Program PHR PT Qh QAP'CI Personal History Record Liquid Penetrant Testing Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Procedures Quality Control Quality Control Instruction
~
~ I N
~
A I%I
~
TVh El'fPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM'EPORT
%JEER:
22800
~
FRONT NATTER REV" 2
PAGE viii OF viii QCP QTC RIF RT Quality Control Procedure Quality Technology Company Reduction in Force Radiographic Test,ing SQN SI SOP SRP SWEC TAS TSL TVA TVTLC'BECSP WBN MR Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Surveillence Instruction Standard Operating Procedure Senior Review Panel Stone and Webster Engineering.Corporation Technical Assistance Staff Trades and Labor Tennessee Valley Authority
'Tennessee Valley Trades and Labor Council Ultrasonic Testing, Visual. Testing Watts Bar Enployee Concern Special Program
'Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Work Request or Work Rul'es Workplans
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 2 of 23 CONTENTS Section Executive Summary Pr eface ECSP Glossary of Report Terms Acronyms l..
Introduction 2
Summary of Issues 3
Generic Applicability/Evaluation Process 4
Findings 5
Corrective Actions 6
Causes 7
Collective Significance Glossary Supplement for the Engineering Category Pacae ES-1 10 12 14 21 Attachments A
Employee Concerns for Subcategory 22800 B
Summary of Issues,
- Findings, and Corrective Actions for Subcategory 22800 C
References A-1 B-l C-1 TABLES Table 1
Classification of Findings and Corrective Actions 2
Findings Summary 3
Matrix of Elements, Corrective Actions, and Causes
~Pa e
17 18
'9 26720-R19 (11/18/87)
I 0
0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 3 of 23 1.
INTROOUCT ION This subcategory report'summarizes and evaluates the results of the ECSP element evaluations prepared under Engineering Subcategory 22800, Unistrut Support Oesign.
The concerns in this subcategory deal with presumed deficiencies or inadequacies in the design of component supports (e.g.,
instrument tubing
- supports, conduit supports, pipe supports) made of Unistrut members.
Unistrut members are cold-formed steel channels that are used as structural elements (e.g.,
beams and columns) in component supports.
In general, the concerns address the adequacy of using Unistrut as load-carrying elements, the adequacy of clamps used to attach components to Unistrut members, and the adequacy of the design calculations made to document that acceptable safety margins exist for Unistrut supports.
Ten employee concerns, listed in Attachment A, provide the basis for the element evaluations.
The plant location where each concern was originally identified and the applicabi.lity of the concern to other TVA nuclear plants are also identified.
The evaluations are summarized in the balance of this report as follows:
o Section 2 summarizes, by element, the issues stated or implied in the 'employee concerns o
Section 3 addresses the determination of generic applicability, cites documents
- reviewed, and outlines the process followed for the element and subcategory evaluations o
Section 4 summarizes, by element, the findings and identifies the negative findings that must be resolved o
Section 5 highlights the corrective actions required for resolution of.the negative findings cited in Section 4 and relates them to element and to plant site; and provides corrective action status o
Section 6 identifies causes of the negative findings o
Section 7 assesses the significance of the negative findings 26720-R 1 9 (11/18/87)
TVA I.:MPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM
~ F)EPORT NUMBER:
22SOO FtEVISION NUMBER: 3 Pagie 4 of 23 o
Attachment A -- lists, by element, each employee concern evaluated in thie subcatiegorye I'he concj'rn ndmbI'r is given, along with notation of'ny other element or 'category with which the concern is shared; the plant sites to which it could be applicable are noted; and tlhe concern is quoted as received by TVA, and is characterized as safety related, not safety're'lated, or safety significant o
Attaclhment B -- contains a'umma'ry of the element-level evaluations.
Each issue is listed, by element number and plant, opposite its corresponding fihdi'ng5 ahd corredtiVe actions.
The reade~
may trace a concern from Attachment A to an issue in Attachment B by usiing the element number and applicable plant.
The reader may relate a corrective a'ction'description in Attachment B to causes and significance in Table'
'by'using the CATO number which appears in Attachment B'n parentheses a't the end of the corrective action description.
The term "F'eripheral finding" in the issue co/lumn refers to a
finding that occurred during the course of evaluating a concern but did not stem directly from a employee concern.,
These are classified as "E"'n lables 1
and 2 of this report o
Attachment C lists the references cited, in the text 2.
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES The ten employeie concerns listed in Attachment A for,each element and plant have been
- examined, and the potential problems they raised have been identified in Attachment B as 3'I separate issues.
Fourteen of the 31 issues were identified fram the ten original employee concerns.
The other 17 issues in this subcategory were peripheral findi'ngs identified by the EC1'G duringl the review process.
Three peripheral f'indings.
were identif'ied for 'htBNp two for SQN, six for, BFN, and six for BLN.
A summary of the issues evaluated underlthlis subcateg'ory iS given below.
228.0 unittrut Support De.~i n
o Un'istrut. mtiterial may be unacCep'table'for-u'se'in seismic Category I
supports.
o Because Unistrut may fail, components attached to the Unistrut may
~
fail or become miss, iles that could datI>age other items.
26720-R 1 9
(
11 1/ "I8/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 5 of 23 o
Unistrut may not be capable of supporting pipes subject to thermal loads.
o Unistrut clamps containing.3/8-inch-diameter bolts may be inadequate for supporting 6-inch-diameter piping.
o Unistrut may be unacceptable for use in Category I applications because unique material traceabi lity is not maintained.
o Instrument tubing may not be able to function properly because the tubing supports attached to Unistrut are not guide-type supports.
o Instructions for the. use of Unistrut. are not provided on the design drawings.
4 o
Inspection of Unistrut supports may be inadequate because some of the installation criteria are too strict.
A more detailed description of each issue is provided in Attachment B.
This attachment also lists findings and, corrective actions, which are discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of this report.
As the following sections show, portions of the above-summarized issues were found to be valid and require corrective action.
3.
GENERIC APPLICABILITY/EVALUATIONPROCESS This subcategory report is based on the information contained in the applicable element evaluations that address the specific employee concerns related to the issues broadly defined in Section 2.
The evaluation process is described in the following subsections.
- 3. 1 Generic A plicabilit Review As part of the evaluation process, the employee concerns, which originated for specific TVA nuclear plant sites, wer e evaluated for their generic applicability to other TVA nuclear plant sites.
Applicability was determined
.with consideration of the concerns'lant-uniqueness and their effect on safety-related structures,
- systems, and components.
The employee concerns were categorized by their impact on safety per ECTG determination criteria as identified in Attachment A.
The generic applicability review was done as fol 1ows.
26720-R19 (11/18/87)
TVA EINPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION,NUMBER: 3 Page 6 of 23 Employee Concern Wl-85-100-024 (Attachmeint A) questioned the use of Unist:rut in seismic'Category I supports at WBN.
Also, it raised the concern that such use may compromise the ability of safetyi-relatedi equipment (supported, off'nistrut or adjacent to Unistrut) to perform fits, intended function.
Becausi~
this concern was of' generic nature without plant-specific details, s'imiilaii.
concerns were generated by the eimployee concern pro'gram f'r SQN, BFN, and.BI N (Concerns XX-85-122-033, XX-8!3-122-034, and XX-8!5-122-035 in Attachment A).
Emp 1 oyee Concierns IN-85-244-001, IN-85-845-002,,and Ihi-85-283-002 (Attachment A) questioned the u'se of Unistrut in certain specified.
applications at WBbl.
ECTG evaluation of these three concerns at WBN did not reveal any valid safety-related
- findings, and,, therefore,,
none of tlhese concerns were assessed at SQNBIFN, and 13LN.
Employee Concerns IN-85-947-001, IN-86-164-001, and IN-86-299-()02 (Attachment A) questioned the use of Unistirut in. some specific, isolated applications at WBN and, therefore, were evaluated only for WBN.
Furthermore tlhe ECTG noted that the concerns contained in WI-85-100-024, which were assessed for all four nuclear plants, envelope all of the othe~ concerns listed in Attachment A.
As a result, resol'ution'f negative findings generated from Concern WI-85-'l00-024 and simi1lar concerns generated by the employee concerns prograim wil'I resolve tlhe isSues raised in all Other concerns contained in this subcategory for all foiljr plants.
3.2 Element I=valuation This subsection describes the steps which constituted the evaluat:ion proc:ess.
A listing of the dcicuments used in the eIii'aluattioh process is given in Attachment C.
a.
Defined issues fair each of thei employee concerns.
b.
Reviewed TVA criteria documents rielated to the issues to develop an understanding of the design baSis'.
c.
Reviewed applicable FSAR sectionsi to understand design commitments.
d.
Reviewed design criteria and de'siign ireports for seismid Category li supports.
e.
Reviewed'ypical calculations andi design drawings for supports us'ing Unistr ut.
f.
Reviewed the test, results and'aliculation's that established iUnistrut clamp al lowabl e loads.
2672D-R19 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 7 of 23 g.
Reviewed nonconformance reports (NCRs) regarding design and installation of supports using Unistrut.
h.
Reviewed two NRC letters from Youngblood to White regarding employee concerns and NRC investigative interview.
(References C. l.f, C. l.g, C.2.g, C.2.h, C.3.d, C.3.e, C.4.d, and C.4.e.)
For WBN, reviewed Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) Investigative Report I-85-.478-WBN, regarding traceability requirements for Unistrut material.
j.
For SQN, reviewed TVA Report I-85-979-SQN, "Unistrut acceptability for use on seismic Category I support."
4 k.
For BFN, per formed a walkdown of sel ected areas of the Reactor Building to determine the uses of Unistrut material.
1.
For BLN, performed a plant walkdown to determine the uses of Unistrut material.
3.3 Subcate or Evaluation This subsection describes the subcategory evaluation process that was used to evaluate the elements under this subcategory.
a.
Using.the results from steps a through 1 above, evaluated the issues at the subcategory level and determined the findings described in Section 4.0.
b.
Tabulated
- issues, findings, and corrective actions in a
plant-by-plant arrangement (see Attachment 8).
c.
Prepared other tables, as needed, to permit comparison and identification of common and unique issues,
- findings, and corrective actions among the four plants.
d.
Classified the findings and corrective actions using the ECSP definitions.
e.
On the basis of ECSP guidelines, analyzed causes and established the collective significance of the findings.
26720-R19 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:i 22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 8 of 23'.
Evaluaited defined ciorrectivie actiions to determine if additiona) actions are requ'iired as a result of the causes
.found in step e.
4.
FINDINGS The 31 findings for this subcategory are contained in Attachment B.
1'hey are summarized as follows:
228.0 Unistrut.Support lees~i n
In overview, this element addresses the concern tacit fJns tsruT cCi'an+ac a're unacceptable for use as structurai members in Category I-component supports.
This element is also concerned with the adequacy of the hardware used to attach compoinents to Unistrut.
members.
The evaluation team found no validity to the concern that Unistrut is an unacceptable material; when properly supported with testing and dI~sign ca'Iculations, Unistrut and its attachment hardware are acceptable.
'i[n general, TVA performed the required testing and calculations to support its usagie of Unistrut.
However, in this're0ie'w,
'rrors, omissions, and discrepancies were found in both the test results.
and the design calculations.
The specific findings that led to the'forementioned conclusions are given below.
Regarding the use of Unistrut at WBN, the evaluation team concluded that Unistrut type materials are aicceptable for use in supporting seismic Category I items when thiey are properly designed to ensure that design loads are within the allowable design limits and when they are properly instal'led,to ensure that they can develop their design allowable loads.
The specific'ocuments reviewed are listed in Attachment C.
A review of WBN design confirmed that the above requirements are fulfillecl with the following exceptions:
o Discrepancy in design load for pipe support 47A450-8-12 exists between the design drawing and the corresponding design calculation.
o Discrepancy exists between TVA Siingleton Lab (Reference C.l>i.) ahd Unistrut Corp. test data for Unistrut pipe clamps P2558-20 to
'2558-50e (Reference C. li.d.)
i o
Discrepancy in a I lowabile clamo loads e'xists'etween TVA c'alculati'ons "Unistrut Pipe Strap Load Ratings,"
Rev.
2, and "Evaluation of NCR WBN S'WP 8237
'" Rev 1
o TVA calculation Support Loads for Boric Acid Evaporator Skid,"
Rev.
0, does not evaluate the adequacy of'nistrut channels used for the double cantilever (L-shaped) typical conduit support detail shown in Drawing 47A056-66B.
il 2672D-R 1 9 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 9 of 23 At SgN, the evaluation team concluded that Unistrut type materials are acceptable for use in supporting Category I components provided they are properly designed to ensure that stresses in the channel
- sections, section-to-section connections, and accessories are within allowable design limits.
A review of SgN design confirmed that these requirements are fulfilled with the following exceptions:
o Discrepancy exists between TVA Singleton Lab (Reference C.2.1.)
and Unistrut Corp. test data on Unistrut pipe strap P2558-20 to P2558-40.
(Reference C.2.c.)
I o
Calculation of double cantilevered conduit hanger was unavailable.
At BFN, the evaluation team concluded that Unistrut type materials are acceptable for use in supporting seismic Category I items when they are properly designed to ensure that design loads are within the allowable design limits and when they are properly installed to ensu~e that they can develop their design allowable loads.
A review of BFN design confirmed that these requirements are fulfilled with the following exceptions:
0 Discrepancy exists between TVA Singleton Lab (Reference C.3.g.)
and Unistrut Corp. test data for Unistrut pipe clamps P2558-20 to P2558-50.'Reference C.3.c.)
There should be a written requirement to use an interaction equation for design of Unistrut pipe clamps subjected to simultaneous loads in more than one direction.
TVA did not specify this requirement, although it is a standard engineering practice for this type of application.
o Reevaluation programs for seismic Category I small bore piping,
- tubing, and conduit and their supports must be completed for all BFN units in order to verify the adequacy of Unistrut material used for these supports.
These reevaluation programs require upgrading the calculations to current design practices and will include computations not previously performed because BFN was designed before many of the current practices were introduced.
2672D-R19 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PR()GRAM REPORT NUMBER:>>22800 REVISION NUMBER: '3 Page 10 of 23 At BLN, the evaluation team concluded that Unistrut type materials are acceptable for use in supporting seismiC C'atego<"y I i'te<<<s when they are
'roperly designed to ensure that, design loads a< e within the allowable design limits and when they are properly installed to ensure that they can develop their design allowab1e loads.
Review of BLN design c'onfirmed that th4sd requirements are fulfilled with the following exceptions:
o No written justification-existed'or the relatively high damping r atios used to calculate allo~vable inStrument tubing support loads.
o A discrepancy existed betweenithe design drawings and the associated engineering reports governing'the allowable ihstHument tubing
~
spans' A discrepancy existed between'the design criteria and FSAR for the
~
damping ratio to be used for Conduit
<md conduit support deSign.~
o ONE calculations for the maximum allowable conduit spans for the Auxiliary, Control, and Oiese I
G< narrator'u'i ldin<js were unconservative.
ONE calculations did not evaluate the adequacy of'llowable~
'lternate Unistrut channel members.
A discrepancy existed in the ONE calcdlation of typical conduit support for the.assumed conduit Span.
A summary of the classified findings is'prbvi'ded in Table 1.
Class A~ anted 8
findings indicate that there is no pr'oblem and that, corrective action is not required.
C1lass C, 0, and E findings require cdrrective actions.
The corrective action classification is identified in the table by the'nu<<<eral combined with the finding classification.
A sugary of findings by classification is given iiring corrective action, one resulted from an original iSsue hand~
17 resulted from peripheral findings (issues) uncovered during the ECTG evaluation.
From Table 2, it, can be seen tha't, at Watts Bar, where m6st oi<
the issues originated, four out of a total of 11 issues were found to be valid and require corrective action.
Finally, Table 2 shows that there were 17 peripheral findings that required corre<.'.tiVe action.
0 5.
CORRECTIVE AC'TIONS Table 2 identif'ies 18 f'indings that req6ire cordective action.
Because some of the corrective actions apply to more than one plant, only seven different corrective action descriptions (categories) are requi~ed to remedy the 18 negative findings.
26720-R 1 9 (11/'I 8/87) 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL'ROGRAM REPORT NUMBER: '2800
'REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page ll of 23
- 5. 1 Detai 1 ed Corrective Actions The detailed corrective actions are described in Attachment B.
A condensation of this information, with the applicable plant(s) identified in parentheses, fol 1 ows:
228.0 Unistrut Support.Desi n
o Reevaluate Unistrut pipe/conduit clamp allowable loads.
If necessary, retest the clamps and evaluate the effect of the revised allowable loads on conduit support designs (SgN, WBN, BFN).
o Evaluate the adequacy of the double cantileve~ conduit supports.
If
- required, perform plant walkdowns to identify as-built locations where the supports were used.
Revise the drawings to restrict further use of this detail (SgN, WBN).
o Revise design support calculations to include correct allowable clamp loads, correct bolt ultimate shear strengths, correct conduit
o Add an interaction equation for Unistrut pipe clamps to design criteria and evaluate the effect on conduit support designs (BFN).
o Reevaluate the criteria and calculations used to qualify safety-related small bore supports, CRD insert and withdrawal piping
- supports, instrument, tubing supports, and conduit supports (BFN).
o Determine appropriate seismic damping values for instrument tubing and conduit supports.
If. current values are revised, evaluate effect on support designs (BLN).
o Determine appropriate spans between supports for instrument tubing and conduit.
If current span allowables are revised, evaluate effect on support designs (BLN).
The corrective actions above also appear in Table 3, along with their corresponding finding/corrective action classifications.
Table 3 also shows the plant(s) to which a corrective action is applicable (Corrective Action Tracking Document
[CATD] column; the.applicable plant is identified by CATO number).
From the Finding/Corrective Action Classification column of Table 3, it can be seen that no corrective actions have been identified as requiring hardware or plant modification, but,all involve evaluation completion to determine whether 26720-R 1 9 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPI OYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:~
228OO
~
REVISION NUMBER:
.'3 Page 12 of 23 hardware changes are, necessary.
TVA corrective act:ions that have beeri implemented since the concerns were registered have revealed the need for many document changes,.
A few require other types of corrective
- actions, such as testing and plant walkdowns.
The evaluation teara found the corrective action plans for all four TVA nbcl'ear plants to be acceptable to resolve the findings,-and thei~ implementation will be adequate to prevent recurrence.
5.2 Corrective Action Status The corrective actions necessary for SQN restart are complete.
The ECTG reviewed the verif ication documents and issued a verification closeout checklist per BLT 416 (OB/11/87)
(Reference C.2.s).
SQN post-restart activities, and the verification closeout of MBN, BFN,,
and BLN CATOs, ar>
still open as of Revision 2 of this report.
6.
CAUSES Table 3 identifies one or more causes for eaclh problem requiring corrective action and is organized into three major gr'oups:
management effectiveness, design process effectiveness, and technical
'adequacy.
An attempt was maHe to identify the, most important cause for each corre'ctive'ction;
- however, in most, instances, it was felt that the problem was the result of a combinatiOn Of
'auses, each of which shou'Id be identified.
The totals in Table 3 show that five causes are in the management effectiveness
- category, 14 ar e in the design process category,,
aind one iS in the technical adequacy category.
1hus, consideration of cause~
showed that, ini the area of Unistrut support idesign, the pr'edominant deficiency was in. design process effectiveness.
The most frequent
- causes, indicated in Table 3 are those in columns 9
( Inadequate Design Bases) and 14
( Insufficient, Oocumentation).
I'his frequency reflects the nature of the design proces~s errors~ identified during the ECTG'valuation.
The responsibi lity for d'es ign of Unistrut supports rests pr imari ly withih the
'ivil Engineering Branch (CEB).
The err'ors in t'e CEB design calculatiohs arose from use of inadeqluate design criteria, from use of criteria with inadequate technical basisand to a lesser extent from inadequate translation of the criteria into the design ca1lculations.
Oevelopment of more comprehensive design criteria and implementation of'ore thorough design verifications shou'Id,have been undertaken by CEB.
Such idesign verifidation0 should include, among other elements, assurance of documented and verified
'6720-R 1 9 (11/18/87) 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 13 of 23 design assumptions used in calculations, documented engineering
- judgment, examination of analytical methods and reasonableness of the results, and verification that engineers are properly utilizing the analytical methods.
In this subcategory, management refers to first-and second-line supervision.
The extent to which management is engaged in the design was examined on the basis of the findings identified.
For the most part, management attention was adequate.
However, exceptions were noted in the areas of providing thorough design procedures and monitoring the use of existing procedures and the results of that use.
The deficiencies identified through the ECTG reviews should have been recognized by the CEB supervisors.
The difficulties encountered by the ECTG during review of the implementation of the corrective action plans (CAPs) at Sequoyah indicated that the.TVA Engineering organization needs to look further for appropriate measures to establish better detailing and monitoring skills.
Acceptable CAPs were developed for implementation.
When the corrective actions were reported to be
- complete, the ECTG reviewed the actions taken.
In a number of cases, the CAP closures were fou'nd to be incomplete.
Additional evaluations, clarifications, and a succession of revisions to the CAP closure documents have been required to bring the CAPs to acceptable closure.
The bases for identifying specific causes for each of the seven cori ective action descriptions, in the same sequence as in Table 3, are as follows:
o Review of CEB design, of Unistrut conduit clamps found that existing clamp capacity test data were inconsistent, did not support allowable load values given in the design criteria, and did not reflect the surface preparation used on the conduit.
For these
- reasons, "Insufficient Verification Documentation" and "Inadequate Design Bases" were identified as the causes.
Review of CEB calculations for double cantilever Unistrut conduit supports found that torsional loading was not evaluated.
Follow-up evaluations by CEB, which were reviewed by CEB supervision, were completed, but with recurrence of analytical problems.
For these
- reasons, "Procedures Not Followed," "Lack Of Management Attention,"
and "Inadequate Calculations" were identified as the causes.
Review o'f CEB conduit support and pipe support calculations found that a numbe~ of errors were made in selecting the correct data values from drawings or manuals for items such as allowable bolt shear strengths, allowable clamp loads, and allowable conduit span lengths.
For this reason, "Engineering Error" and "Inadequate Calculations" were identified as the causes.
2672D-R19 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
228OO RIEVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 14 of 23 o
Review of BFN design of Unistrut conduit support calculations found that an intieraction equat;ion had not been used to combine.
multidirectional loads acting simultaneously on conduit clamps,.
This omission lef't 'the adequacy of the conduit supports in question.
i=ur ther evaluation revealed that the design critdri<5 d'id
'ot contain any requirements f'r 'using'h interaction equation,.
IFor these
- reasons, "Inadequat;e Design Bases, " " Inadequate Calculationd, "
and "Inaciequate Procedures" were identified as the causes.
o The ECTG found that broacl progr&s Aerie under way at BFN to
'eevaluate the aciequacy of conduit supportspiping
- supports, and instrumentation supports.
The need to imply~ment these broad-based programs indicates that "Inadequate Design Basics," "Inadequate Calculations,"
and "Insufficient ~Vef'if'ication Documentation" were identified as the causes.
o Review of'LN conduit andi instrumentation tubing support deslighs found that the seismic damping'alues iused in 'the design calculations were inconsistent'oth'with FSAR commitments and With values given in project design~ criteria. In'addition, in sorrIe measles
'amping values were not stated at all.
For these
- reasons, "Inadequate Calculations," "Inade'quate'rocedures,"
"Procedures Not
'ollowed,"
and "Design Caimitment'ot Met'," wer0 identified as the causes.
o Review of BLN instrumentation tubing support designs found that allowable tubing span lengths were incorrectly calculated for t,he Auxiliary Building.
Criteria for calculating allowable'! spans when controlled by tubing clamp strLngthS were nOt included in the dies ign criteria.
'll'his omission left the adeqi>acy of tubing in the Auxiliary Building in questi'on.
For'hese, reasons,
" Inadequate Calculations,"
"Inadequate Pror.ed~ur ds,"
and "Insufficient Documentation" were idientified as the causes,.
0 7.
COLLECTIVE SIGiNIFICANCE Of the ten concerns expressed in the Subbategdry'Un'istrut Sbpport, Design, only one led to the need for corrective act;ion as a direct result of the employee concerns.
The other corrective actions iresulted from peripheral findings uncovered during the ECTG investigation.
0 26720-R 1 9 (11/1 8/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 15 of 23 When the findings and corrective actions for the four plants are viewed collectively, several overal 1 conclusions emerge:
o Although many of the issues addressed in this. subcategory were found to be valid, evaluations that have been performed since the concerns were registered indicate that the existing Unistrut supports are adequate.
Completion of remaining evaluations will determine if any hardware changes are necessary.
The corrective actions are expected to result in documentation
- changes, and the need for plant modifications is expected to be minor.
To a great extent, this adequacy is due to the inherent strength of Unistrut supports, combined with the generally light loads imposed by supported components such as conduit and instrument tubi,ng.
o Beyond the specific issues related to design, adequacy, there is a
broader issue of Engineering's lack of attention to details.
The design of nuclear power plants requires the consideration of many unique items not generally addressed in non-nuclear applications.
Accordingly, there is a significant"need for first-and second-line engineering supervisors to be adequately trained in nuclear power plant design requirements.
To address the general broader issues of TVA's past difficulties in the nuclear area, the Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan (CNPP) was created (Ref. 8).
In addition,
(Ref. 8) to further define the programmatic actions to be taken for their facilities (BLN is broadly addressed in the CNPP).
In general, TVA senior management has identified the need for strengthening its Engineering organization in responsiveness to the unique requirements of nuclear plant design and quality assurance.
The identification of the need for strengthening is based on the previous poor performance in the TVA nuclear program and on the past implementation of the TVA guality Assurance program.
The Engineering organization is responsible for the content and quality of the design documents and ensuring that they conform to sound engineering principles, l.icensing commitments, and guality Assurance program requirements.
The need for strengthening the Engineering organization, as indicated by the NPPs, is accomplished primarily through additional training of the DNE personnel to the requirements of that program and to basic management principles.
ONE Nuclear Engineering Procedure NEP-5.2 (Reference I.2) and policy memo PM 87-35 (Reference I. 1) clearly delineate the
)
responsibility, authority,, and accountability of the Project Engineers and 26720-R 1 9 (11/,1 8/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
~
22800
~
REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 16 of 23 Branch Chiefs.
The Project Engineer is responsible for work scope, bi~dget, and schedule, and for ensuring that project work.is executed according tO plar'i and in conformance with the technical direction of the Branch Chiefs and'he requirements of the corporate QA program.
The Branch Chiefs are responsible for staffing levels and qualifications of technical personnel on the pro)ects, and for the technical adequacy of the engineering design.
The B~anch Chiefs are the final technical authority within OhlE, and have the authority 4o Stop work that does not conform to.established requirements.
In the past, Br'anc'h Chiefs'uthority or resources to fully administer technical reviews was limited.
Under the restructured organization,,
the Branch Chief provides engineers and technical direction for the Project Engineer; the Branch Chic'f also assesses the need for technical. reviews, develops a document reviewi anted appr oval. matrix, and,schedules reviews as required.
These programs have'.be'en
'tarted but have not, as. of Revision 3 of this report,,
been fully implemhnted, as evaluation team experience with CAP verifications i~as indicated.
Such experience is discussed in Section 6.O.
An independent audit on the effecti veness of the implementation of thd. tata'1 Quality Assurance program is instituted by Engineering management, as a
management tool, to ai9ditio'nally ensure that rnanagemeist policy is being enforced.
This audit function is provided by the Engineering Assurance
<(EA) organization.
The findings of this subcategory are combined with those of other, subdategory reports and reassess'ed in the Engineering Category Report f'r resolut>on of the negati've findings.
That report identifies the necessary correcti~~e actions and provides corrective action tracking documents for their implementation.
26720-Rlg (ll/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 17 of 23 TABLE 1
CLASSIFICATION OF FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Element 228.0 Unistrut Support Design Issue/
~Findin **
Finding/Corrective Action Class*
A A
A A
A A
A A
E6 A
E6 E6 n
E6 03 E6 E6 A '6 E6 A
E6 E6 A
E6 E6 A
E6 E3 E6 E3 E6
- Classification of Findin s
and Corrective Actions A.
Issue not valid.
No corrective action required.
B.
Issue valid but consequences.
acceptable.
No corrective action required.
C.
Issue valid.
Corrective action initiated before ECTG evaluation.
D.
Issue valid.
Corrective action taken as a result of ECTG evaluation.
E.
Peripheral issue uncovered during ECTG
,evaluation.
Corrective action required.
- Defined for each plant in Attachment B.
- 1. Hardware
- 2. Procedure
- 3. Documentation
- 4. Training
- 5. Analysis
- 6. Evaluation
- 7. Other 2672D-R19 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
P28t)0 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 18 of 23 TABLE 2 F INOINGS
SUMMARY
Pl ant Classification of Findi~ns A.
Issue not valid.
No corrective action required.
7 2
2 Total
'l3 B.
Issue valid but consequences acceptable.
0 0
0 0
No corrective action required.
C.
Issue valid.
Corrective action 0
0 0
0 initiated before ECTG evaluation.
0.
Issue valid.
Corrective action taken>>
0 1'
0 as a result of ECTG evaluation.
0 E.
Peripheral
-issue uncovered during ECTG evaluation.
Corrective action required.
Total 2
3 6
6 4
11 8
'I 7.
31 0 2672D-R19 (11/18/87)
TABLf 3 MATRIX Of ELEMENTS, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, AJO CAUSES SUBCATEGORY 22800 CAUSES Of NEGATIVE FINDINGS a REVISION NWBER: 3 PAGE 19 Of 23 NANAGEHENT EFFfCTIVEJJESS DESIGN PROCESS fFFECTIVENESS TfCHN ICAL ADE ACY I
2 3
i 6
6 2
8 9
10 11 12 13 Ii 15 16 12
(
F INDI NG/
CORRECTIVE TION ELOI CLASS.>>a 228+0 f6 CORRECTIVE ACTION Reevaluate Unlstrut pipe/
conduit c1aup allowable loads.
If necessary, retest the clanps and evaluite the effect of the revised
~llowable loads on the conduit support designs.
CATO SON-02 VBN-02 BFN Ol
)frag-I I
IProce-)inane-I Ilnade-I Ifngrg IDeslgn)lnsuf.I Inented)lnade-Ilnade-Id>>res
)quate IUn-Ilnade-I Iquate I Lack IJ>>dgntICrlt/-IVerif IStds
)Organ-)quate
)quate
)Not ICon-Itlnely)tack Iquate Iinade-IAs-bit) of I not ICoavaltIDocu-Not I Isa-I Ti-IProce-Ifol-Iuunl-IRes ofIof NgtIOeslgnIquate IRecon-IOeslgnIDocu-I Not Inenta-Fol-Llon trn dures lowed cation Issues Atten Bases Calcs cil.
Detail wanted Net tion lowed Engrg Error I Slgnlfl-I cence of I Corrective I I Jill I
0 l II I
I I
IAIPIPI E6 Evaluate the adequacy of double cantilever conduit
- supports, lf required, perforJa plant walkdownS tO identify as-bulls locations where the supports were used.
Revise the drawings to restrict further u'se of this detail STIN-03 VBN-Ob I A P
E3 D3 Revise design calculations to include correct
~I lovable claup loads, correct bolt ultluate.shear strengths, correct conduit spans, and to
~ddreSS all allowed Unlstrut' eJJber sites.
VBN-OI VBN%3 VBN-Ol BLN-0l(e)
BLN-OIIT)
E6 Add an Interaction equation for Unlstrut pipe cia>>ps to design criteria and evaluate effect on conduit support deslgnso BfN 02 A
P C6 Reevaluate the criteria and BFN-03 calculations used to qualify BEN&a safety-re'lated snail bore BEN-OS PIP lng SuPPorts, CRO Insert BfN-06 and w Ithdrawa1 piping
- supports, Instr>>went tubing
- SuPPOrtS, and conduit supports' I P P
I
~
Defined In the Glossary Supplene>>t; Defined In Table I.
TAOLE 3 HATRIZ OF ELEHENTS, CORRECIIVE ACTIONS, ANO CAUSES SU8CATEGORY. 22800 REVISION NHSERT 3 PAGE 20 LF 23 CAUSES OF NEGATIVE FINOINGS ~
HANAGENENT EFFECTIVENESS I
2 3
5 6
7 TECHNICAL AOE ACV OESIGN PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS 8
y 10
'll
'12 13 la
'IS 16 lf F INOING/
CORRECTIVE ACTION ELEH CLASS.aa E6 E6 CORRECTIVE ACTION Oeternlne appropriate seisnlc danplny valves for Instrunent tubing and conduit supports.
If current values are
>>vaaa4
~1-( ~
~
~ %11 VI support designs.
Oeternlne appropriate spans between supports for lnstrunent tubing and conduit, If current span allnwabtea are reVISed evaluate effect on support des l yes ~
(Inade-(Enyrg (Oeslgn(lnsuf.
Inade-(
(quate Lack (tudgnt(Crit/ (Verif (Stds quate (Inade-(As-bit of
( not (coaalt(oocu-(Not t(Design(quate (Recon-(Oeslgn(Oocu-( Not (nants-(Ful-fray- (
(
(Proce-(lnade-(
(ncnted(lnade-(Inade-(cures (quate (Un-(Organ-(quate (quate (Not (Con-(tlnely(tact
( lta-(
Q-(Proce-(Fol-(nunl- (Res of(of I
RLM)I(a)
RLNAI(c)
RLNWI(b) 8LN-0 1 (d)
Hg CATO tlon trn dures lowed cation Issues Atten yeses Calcs cll.
Oetall nented Het tlon lowed 6 Igni fI-( cence of
( Corrective(
(Engry (Vendor(
Actions'rror Error 0
H H
(
I I
I I
I A IP I P I TOTALS 2
2
~
Oaf ined ln the Glossary Supplenent.
~e Oaf lned ln Table I.
r 267RMtII
( Il/18/81) 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 21 of 23 GLOSSARY SUPPLEMENT FOR THE ENGINEERING CATEGORY Causes of Ne ative Findin s - the causes for findings that require corrective action are categorized as follows:
1.
Fra mented or anization - Lines of author ity, responsibility, and accountabi ity were not clearly defined.
2.
3.
Inade uate qualit (O) trainin
- Personnel were not fully trained in the proce ures estab ishe or design process control and in the maintenance of design documents, including audits.
Inade uate rocedures
- Design and modification control methods and procedures were de scient in establishing requirements and did not ensure an effective design control program in some areas.
4.
Procedures not followed - Existing procedures controlling the design process were not u
y adhered to.
5.
Inade uate communications - Communication, coordination, and cooperation were not u
y effective in supplying needed information within plants, between plants and organizations (e.g.,
Engineering, Construction, Licensing, and Operations),
and between interorganizational disciplines and departments.
6.
Untimel resolution of issues
- Problems were not resolved in a
time y manner, an their resolution was not aggressively pursued.
7.
Lack of mana ement attention - There was a lack of management attention in ensuring t at programs required for an effective design process were established and implemented.
8.
Inadequate desi n bases - Design bases were lacking,
- vague, or incomp ete or design execution and verification and for design change evaluation.
9.
Inadequate calculations - Design calculations were incomplete, used incorrect input or assumptions, or otherwise failed to fully demonstrate compliance with design requirements or support design output documents.
10.
Inadequate as-built reconciliation - Reconciliation of licensing and esign ocumen s wi p an as-uilt condition was lacking or incomplete.
2672D-R 1 9 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
~
22800 RIEVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 22 of 23 ll.
Lack of design detail - Detail in di'sign ouItput documents was snsu77sc~ient to ensure compliance with design requirements.
IL'~ '
9 engineering judgments used in the design process was lackinq or incomplete.
13.
Des~i n criteria/commitments not met - De<<;igp criteria or,ligenging commitments were not met.
14.
Insufficient verification documentation
- Dpcumentation (g) wa0 ft;R 15.
Standards not followed - Code or inilustry standards and practices were not complied with.
16.
~En ineerincC error - There were er roil s or'versights in the assumptions, methodology, or judgments uSed in the design prtocess.
17.
Vendor'rror - Vendor design or
~ upplied itqms were deficierit f'r ttte snterideB purpose.
Classification of Corrective Actions - correcItive actions are classified'as' MT 1.
Hardware - physical plant change~;
2.
Procedure - changed or generated,a proced!ure 3.
Documentation - affected gA records 4.
Traininq - required personnel educate:ion 5.
Ana~l sis - required design calculations, etc., to resolve 6.
Evaluation - initial corrective pet'lon, plan, indicated a need tO evaluate the issue before a definit'ive plan could be establishdd.
Therefore, all hardware, procedure, etc.,
changes are not ye't knot'wn Other - items not listed above Peri heral Findi~n~lssue)
- A negative,firIdii)g.,that do'es not result dirbctly.
rom an emp oyee concernWut that was uncover~>d during the process of
'valuating an employee concern.
By definition, peripfieral findings (issues) require corrective action.
26720-R19 (11/18/87)
II
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page 23 of 23 Si nificance of Corrective Actions - The evaluation team's judgment as to the s>gni seance o
the corrective actions listed in Table 3 is indicated in the last three columns of the table.
Significance is rated in accordance with the type or types of changes that may be expected to result from the corrective action.
Changes are categorized as:
o Oocumentation change (0) - This is a change to any design input or output document (e.g.
drawing, specification, calculation, or procedure) that does not result in a significant reduction in design margin.
o Change in design margin (M) - This is a change in design interpretation (minimum requirement vs actual capability) that results in a significant (outside normal limits of expected accuracy) change in the design ma~gin.
All designs include margins to allow for error and unforeseeable events.
Changes in design margins are a normal and acceptable part of the design and construction process as long as the final design margins satisfy regulatory requirements and applicable codes and standards.
o Change of hardware (H) - This is a physical change to an existing plant structure or component that results from a change in the design basis, or that is required to correct an initially inadequate design or'esign error.
If the change resulting from the corrective action is judged to be significant, either an "A" for actual or "P" for potential is entered into the appropriate column of Table 3.
Actual is distinguished from potential because.
corrective actions are not complete and, consequently, the scope of required changes may not be known.
Corrective actions are judged to be significant if the resultant changes affect the overall quality, performance, or margin of a safety-related structure,
- system, or component.
2672D-R19 (11/18/87)
1 is II-
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page A-1 of 3 ATTACHMENT A EMPLOYEE CONCERNS FOR SUBCATEGORY 22800 Attachment A lists, by element, each employee concern evaluated in the subcategory.
The concern's number is given, along with notation of any other element or category with which the concern is shared; the plant sites to which it could be applicable are noted; and the concern is quoted as received by TVA and cha~acterized as safety related, not safety related, or safety significant.
0107A-R56 (11/18/87)
CONCERN ELEIEKT KUNER PLANT LUCATlflii ATTACHIEHT A EH'LUYtE CUNCERHS FOR SUBCATEGORY 22808 APl'LICABILI T Y MH N
8 CUKCERN UESCRIPTIONc REVISION KUNIERl 3
PAGE A-2 OF 3
228.0 Wl-85-1UU-UZ4 XX-85-lZZ-US3 XX-85-TZZ-US4 XX-85-IZZ-US5 NBN SIIN BLH BFN "Unistrut material is used to support instruments, pipe, conduit, control stations and panels, fluid piping on skids, Instrument lines, COZ fire protection lines, fire protection water piping, lighting, etc.
Unistrut ls unacceptabie for use as seismic Category i supports and items so supported may either fail or become missiles to cause other safety related equipment to fail...."
(SR)
'Unistrut material ls used to support instruments, pipe, conduit, rnntrnl c ~ st innc snit nsnslc ct ~ ~ tA t
t I tl t
s
~.
~ 1l V c V W rUII4 ~ c ~
~
~ U ~ V r Ip Illv Mll sc
~ Mst Ills ll uclCIII I IIICs ~
CUZ fire protection lines, fire protection ~ater piping, lighting,
- etc, Unlstrut 15 unacceptable for use as seismic Category i supports and Items so supported may'either 'fall or become missiles'o cause other safety related equipment to fail...."
(SS)
'Unlstrut material is used to support instruments, pipe, conduit, control statlonc and panelc fluid ninlnn on ckidc lnctrumont 1 thee COZ fire protection lines, fire protection water piping, lighting, etc ~
UiiistiUt 15'nacceptable fol'5e as st Ismlc Cott gol y sup(el ts and items so supported may either fall or become missiles to cause other safety reiated equipment to fail...."
(SR)
"Unlstrut material is used to support Instruments, pipe, conduit, control stations and panels fluid piping on skidst
!nskrument llnest CUZ fire protection lines, fire protection water piping, lighting,
+tr Il<tctrist tc
~tnsrreptshtie for U5e acs Seicsmic Category I supportr+
and items so supported may either fail or become missiles to cause other safety related equipment to fall'.... (SR)
SR/HO/SS indicates safety related, ny TVA before evaluations.
I t t I1ultt1 t
'%F,
~
~ c
~ lIc %IN t not safety related, or safety significant per determination criteria In the ECTG Program manual and applied
CONCERN ELETEUT UUHIER ATTACHtENT A EtPLUYEE CONCERNS FOR SUBCATEGORY 22800 PLANT APPL ICABILIIY LOCATION 5
NNNWBN 8
N
BLN CONCERN UESCRIPTION'EVISION NUtBER:
3 PAGE A-3 OF 3 228.0 IN-85-244-001 (Cont'd)
IN-B5-845-002 IN-BS-g4]-001 IN-86-Ib4-UUI IN-86-299-UU2 IN-85-283-002 WBM WBN WBN WBN "TVA uses Type 10A pipe attachment (Ref:
Dwg. 053-10A) which utilize Unlstrut channel and straps.
The supports do not appear strong enough to support the seismic loads associated with 6" stainless steel pipe runs."
(SR)
"tiuestionabie hanger design on system 43 (sampling).
Un5strut is used and not uniquely identified.
Fasteners that secure tubing to hanger have no guides 5nstalled and existing condition will not work under operation.
Owg.
47WAU50, there is no mention of Unistrut.
There is no documentation to support the use of Unistruts."
(sR)
Large hangers located throughout Unit t2 and the Aux. Bldg.
utilize 3/8" Unistrut bolts to support pipe up to 6".
This appears to be under designed in relation to other pipe supports."
(SR)
"Acceptance cr5teria for Un5strut hangers ls too strict.
These hangers are being rejected for a deviation of as little as 1/32" in the I" (typical) dimension between the drilled hole and the edge of the hanger.
The hangers are fabricated in accordance with the
'TYPICAL BOOK,'totes 51-12 and 54-4.
This tight tolerance has only recently been enforced, and If the dimension is really this critical, TVA needs to institute a reinspection program to identify previously installed hangers not inspected per the current criteria."
(SR)
"The use of a piece of Unistrut and a bolt on clamp to attach an item to a tube steel/structural shape fabricated hanger appeared to be a
'weak link'n the hanger design, when compared to hangers utilized at other TVA sites."
(SR)
"Pipe at Watts Bar rides on Unistrut which is not sturdy during heat.
changes.
~ "
(SR)
SR/NO/SS indicates safety related, nut safety related, or safety significarit per determination criteria in the ECTG programmanual and applied by TVA before evaluations.
2lbgU-b (11/18/81)
~ '
0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER: 3
'Page B-1 of 18 ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY
OF
- ISSUES, FINOINGS, ANO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR'UBCATEGORY 22800 Attachment B. contains a summary of the element-level evaluations.
Each issue is listed, by element number and plant, opposite its corresponding findings and corrective actions.
The reader may trace a concern from Attachment A to an issue in Attachment 8 by using the element number and applicable plant.
The ~eader may relate a corrective action description in Attachment B, to causes and significance in Table 3 by using the CATO number which appears in Attachment 8 in parentheses at the end of the corrective action description.
The term "Peripheral finding" in the issue column refers to a finding that occurred during the course of evaluating a concern but, did not stem directly from a employee concern.
These are classified as "E" in Tables 1
and 2 of this report.
0107A-R56
( 1,1/18/87)
Issues ATTACHIENT 8 SUHHdIY OF
- ISSUES, FINUINGS, AHU CORRFCTIVE ACTIONS FUR SU8CATtUORY 228UU Findings REVISION NUNER:
Page 8-2 of 18 Corrective Actions 111111111*11111111 I
Element 228.0
- Unlstrut Support Oesign 4
1**11AAA*AAAAA1111 I
I SQH a.
Unistrut is unacceptable for use as seismic Category I s'upports for instruments.
pipes conduit, control stations, panels, fluid nininn nn skids inctrsssssent
- lines, C02 fire protection I Ilies ~ I Ire plolect lon motel piping,.lighting, etc.
- a. Unistruts and their connections are structurally acceptable as seismic Category I supports provided adequate design conditions are utilized.
Unlstrut material has been used fur seismic Category I supports on osanv I Irssncsssd nsss'1 oar nnuer sslantc
~
Thos I fssro t pic issue is not valid.
SQN a.
None required.
b.
Items supported by Unistrut may become missiles and endanger other cafotU relatod oqsJIposont if tho support fails.
- b. Hhen Unistrut material is adequately designed for use as b.
Hone.reauired.
seismic Category I supports, tile itemS SuPPOrted will not Isornsoo Askcck ls c'lsorofssro thic Iccsso Ic nnt vol tsl 4 l
'I ~
~
4 I
I I
TUO h Uvsl lI'JJIIlcls ~ II'IJ ls ~ v'IJI UIU UIIUcs losscls IIJ
~ Ih 455UI co adequate oolt torque of Unistrut type claaals to secure the said coAIAoditles firmly to tileir Unistrut type supports.
248IO l4
(
)
Issues AITACINENT 8 SINHARY OF
- ISSUES, FINUINGS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FUR SUBCATEGORY 22800 Findings REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 8-3 of )8 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - Si)N (Continued) c.
Periphera) finding.
d.
Peripheral finding.
- c. n elscrepancy he\\veen results fran the Tlin single fn tab upyf ret the Unlstrut standard and Unistrut Corp. test data needs reconciliatio.
The IfeJA 255 -
to P2558-40 in the allowab)e loads for Unistrut pipe strap 2 to 4 es in 4
~
ip-t h /5 ti o verify the disaster (P2555-TU to qg) ere assed on Tva test da 4/g cy f g tr Three which were two to three times higher than Unistrut es each o
a d
Corporation's curresponding test data.
ga
)zed c
i te~ r the s.
Th s wj).
e er d
0 r nce w
p n
EB-BN-w s
en revi y
the evaluatio e
W c ide d
adequate.
If tes s
onfirm the adequacy of the p s
A wi 1 I identify the extent and n
e the problem and perform further ev a
such as considering the actual des loadings and conditions.
(CATO SI)N 02)
I
- d. Uesign calculations do not exist for double cantil 6
.~Because of )imited use of the double conduit supports.
TVA EN OES calculations for me pppg"c ilevered conduit hanger as shown on seismic supports ano an instrumentatlon rack mao of p'~')
yaw 47A056-66B, Rev. 0, TVA will Unlstrut naterlals
<<ere revleved for ahelr adeq cy to 2
eye,te adequacy of the as-built tneet assign requlreeents.
The evaluation team ound theu ggpora n
ations by perforuing adequate with the exception that no calculati was made.pf!)
cAog on e evaluation shows available for review of the double cantilevered c aQult
~~,<+ pppt t su arts do not meet hanger shown on Urawing 47AUSb-b68, Rev. 0, where the ~ +jfge4gn re rp gy TYMP)) modify Unistrut PIUUU member may be subjected to torsion.
~
@$/6rts as r qg'+f@
nsu~adequacy.
Rek 1
o wlng%PAU
-g6 IWswd in 2
as a
ady gtl.
8
.the futu se e
b)e 7 t
embed conduit tuqLer oggt r
approval.
F~
e rawing has oeen replaced by e
a
~
47A056-1066, RO, In g2 al)owing use of single canti)ever~o ~t hanger only.
(CATO SON 03) 248 IU-14 (11/18/87)
Issues ATTACIIS.NI 8 SUNNUIY UF ISSUtS, FINUINIiS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIUNS FUR SUNCAIEIiORY 22808 F indings REVISIUN NUIUER:
Page 84 of l8 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - MBN KBN IIBN a.
Unistrut is unacceptable for use as seismic Category I supports for instruments, pipe, conduit, control
- stations, panels, fluid piping on skids.
Instrument lines, 882 fIre nrntnct ~
1I CD
~
t ~
rr vcvvttvlI
~ ~Ilctt
~
~ ~ v IIIvlcl.tIUII water piping, lighting, etc.
Unistrut appearS tO be a o<<eak Ilnko in the hanger design when compared to hangers at other TYA plants.
- a. Unistruts and their connections.are structurally acceptable as seismic Category I supports provided adequate design conditions are utilized.
Unistrut material has been used fur seismic Category I supports on many licensed nuclear power, plants.
Therefore, this Issue Is not val id a.
None required.
b.
Items supported by Unistrut may beCaae mISS1 loS and ontlannor nlhor'afety-related equipment if the ce nona t Ocl tc cvrrvI t
~ o ~ ~ o ~
- b. ilhen Unistrut material is adequately designed for use as b.
IIone required.
coicsir rttonns v I ca nnnctc th ttn c
~
o. t ~ 1
~
~
vvv g
~ currv ~ ~ c ~
~Isv
~ tcIcc tutItIvItcv w ~ I I Ilvl become missiles; therefore, this Issue ls not valid.
For NUN, the adequacy uf'Unistrut channels and clmlps used for seismic Category I supports is assured by the use of allowable loads based on test results and apnlylng the appropriate safety factor.
In addition, MdN Orawing Sheets 47AOSU 1J T)1 1/2 IJ].and lk prnvldo 1nstallation requirements for Unlstrut clamps, including hult tlghtoltlng reqIIIroo~ntc tO acSuro that the 1nstal led clamps wilI perform their design function.
7OVIII 11 I 1 1 llMIIIll O'IVIII
~ It ~ VIVII
Issues AIIACHFFNI 8 SUFVARY UF ISSUES, F INDINUS, AND CUKKECYIVE ACIIONS FUK SUBCATEUOKY ZZBOO Findings REVISION NUNER:
3 Page 8-5 of 18 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - MBN c.
Unlstruts are not sturdy enough to be used for supports for pipes subjected to temperature changes.
RBN
- c. Review of 1VA pipe stress aud pipe support calculations by c.
None required.
the evaluation team in response to other action concerns has shown that pipe support.loads include loads due to piping temperature changes as applicable.
One issue questions the adequacy of Unistrut to support pipes sub3ected to te perature changes.
lhe follouing YVA desi.gn criteria and design reports for seismic Category I supports require that thermal loads be considered for piping analysis:
N-UC-4U-31.3, "nsslgnment uf Responsibility for Analysis, Suport, and Fabrication of Piping Systems,"
kev.
2 KB-DC-4U-31.7, "Analysis of Category I and I(L) Piping Systems,"
Rev.
7, Including a TVA memo from R. 0.
Barnett to CEB Files,
[CEB 84IUlb OlbJ, (IO/15/84)
MB-OC-40-3l.g, "Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category I Structures,"
Rev.
b including a YVA meno freya K. U. Barnett to CEB Files LCEU 85UIZ3 UU4J, (Ul/23/Bb) llD-DC-4U-3b, "(he Classification of Piping,
- PumPs, Valves, and Vessels,"
Kev.
3 CEB Report lb-g, "Design Uata For Support of Category I Stainless Steel and Copper fubing,"
( IU/17/lb)
CEB Report lb-b, "Alternate Criteria for Piping Analysis and Supurt," Kev. 5, (IZ/14/82)
A revieu of 'IVA pipe stress anu pipe support calculations by the evaluation team in response to other concerns (e.g.,
Element evaluations ZIU. ILAJ and 218.4(AJ showed that piping theriaal loads have been conSidered:
&no (no na es, telecopied Ul/28/Bl 14:24), attachnent captioned:
"3.U Unit I Hanger and Analysis Update Progrmn,"
Lno RIfb nuns erJ, (no date)
Z48'IO 14
() I/IB/87)
Issues ATTACH%HI 8 SUHHiRY UF ISSUES, F INUINUS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATEUORY 22800 F indings REVISION HUIOER:
3 Page B-b of 18 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - NBH Bechtel Plant Uesign Calculation Number.PD-218-10, Rev. 0, Job Number Ib985-026, (08/l8/87)
TVA memo from Bill Carson to Hick Liakonlsl drallings attached from problems 2bUJUl blO)gl Hg-bl AIBAI 31023, H3-40-AIIC, and H3-59-AUlA, [no RIIB numberj, IUS/28/Shi
~ oil~ llloloYQ I very LLILlvp ILU vQ/ I I/QQ Id lou I IIILn attachments,
[no RIM numberj, (no date)
"Corrective Action Response Evaluation (marked:
"HSRS reply',
Lno RIK numberj, (08/05/85)
OE-SEP 82-18, TVA, NBN, "Program for Alternate AnolySIS FIX COOIUInotlng ~ Uol.umLnllng~ ond Verifying, Rev. 3, [no RIKi numberj, (no date),
Rev. 2, 1.826 850503 OOIJ, (Ub/Usi83)
TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett to J. A. Raulston, "Natts Bar Nuclear Plant Units and 2 - Program Uef!ciency:
Alternately Analyzed Piping -...,"
.LaB 85OIn UUBJI (01/23/85)
Pihmeae from J. A. Raulston to J.
M. TIufham, 'ifatts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 - Program Oeficlency:
Alternately Analyzed Piping -...,"
1845 851219 264JI (12/19/85j HCN NBN SUP 823II fiSNP 820blb 0%j ~ -(prepar-d- 06/I6/82)
ECN 3213, (SNP 83UlcU 526j, (01/20/83j Therefore, the Unistrut channels and clamps used for pipe supports have been designed for loads due to piping temperature changes.
2d810 ld l~l)
I
Issues ATTACH%MT 8 SUHHuIY UF
- ISSUES, FINUINUS, ANU CORRFCTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATtOORY 228UU Findings REVISION NUNER:
3 Page 8-1 of 18 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - MBN d.
Unlstrut with 3/8-inch-diameter bolts appears to be underdesigned for use as seismic Category I supports for 6-inch-diameter pipe in relation to other pipe supports.
- d. Evaluation of b-Inch-dimxeter seismic Category I pipe suports using Unistrut pipe clamps with 3/8-inch-diameter bolts is included in IVA calculation "NCR MBN 85UI Tightening of V2558 Unistrut Clamp, RO.
The evaluation team found that this calculation uses an incorrect value for the design load for support 4/A4bU-8-12.
Initial element evaluation indicated that Support 4/AUbU-d-ib also did not meet design Criteria.
- However, subsequent evaluation team revie~ indicates that this support is adequate.
CAIU 228 UU MBH Ul has not been revised to reflect this change, but it is appropriately addressed in the associated CAV.
d.
TVA ONE (Knoxville) will revise calculation "HCR MBH CEB 8501 Tightening of P2558 Unistrut Clamp,"
RO [841 850305 g45] to reflect the current support design loads parallel to the Unistrut axis for Support 4lA450-8-12.
IVA ONE (Knoxvi I le) wi I I also revise calculation "Unistrut Clamp Pipe Support - HCR MBN CEB 8501,"
IIU [84I 850301 008] to demonstrate the adequacy of the Unistrut clamp for this support.
(CATO MBH 01) 2481U-14
( I I/I8/87)
lisues ATTACH&HI 8 SUNDRY,UF lbSUESI FINUIHlIS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUUCATEGURY ZZUUO Findings HEVISIOH HUNERl 3-Page 8-8 of 18 Corrective Actions Element 128.U -" MBN (Continued)
I
,e.
The hanger design on Sampling System 43 is questionable since Unistrut,used as support material is not uniquely identified.
l Fasteners s'ecuring Instrument sampling Inc tubing Lo suppol Ls do noL Ilave guides Instal led.'herefore, the exist-ing configuration <<Ill not work properly during plant operation.
g OraWlnn 47AOSU llOoS not COVor tho ueo Of
'UniStrut.
(NOte:
Uwg.
47MAUbU IS v
~ I a
v
.v ao. bio vv v
~
vrv Uw I I CVCV LV Ue 'IlhVQVr IIIC M
~ 4OIU h
designations are dra~ing sizes only.)
No documentation exists approving or supporting the use of Unistrut.
- e. Nuclear Safety Review Staff (tibHb) investigation Report No. I-Ub-478 Mdh addresses the issues of Unistrut material-tra'ceabillty and unique identification of instrument 'line supports'or Sampling System 43.
the UNE reSpanSe tO the NSkb repart StateS that phvaieal markinn of Unistrut material is not required since It Is I Inarlfl Lla L I ~ r " I "
L a rv
~
~ vvoI~ ~ ~ evvrv vy
~ vv uo ~ Iquv aovpv vov
~ UQL un ~ Ilue identification of instrument line'supports is not necessary to eeet reguiatory requirements or. MOH licensing comaitments.
The evaluation team concurs that physical marking, of Unistrut material, for. traceabllity:is not rcuulred and notes,that this has.not been renulred.
for other nuclear power, plants.
- f. Guides or shies are used for 2-way or nonaxial supports.
NSRS'nvestigation Report I-Ub-478-w'BN states that NSRS walked down several supports for Sampling System 43 and found, that guides had been furnished in accordance with
'the correiponding support detail drawings.
gr-Orawlngs 47AUbU-IJI -IJl, -TJZr.'-!J3, and -!R'prov!de general notes regarding the use of Unistrut channel and clamps-~ siipyiets for aIC-s~zexis 1nciuding Sampling System 43.
e.
Hone required.
f.
-None required.
gr None rcqulrco ~
848 I8 ls"~/87 l
Issues ATTACHMENT 8 SUHNRY UF
- ISSUES, FINUINUS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATEOORY Z2800 Findings REVISION NUNER:
3 Page B-g of 18 Corrective Actions Element Zc8.0 - NBN (Continued) h.
Acceptance criteria in the "TYPICAL BUUK" for Unistrut hangers are too strict.
Strict acceptance criteria for Unistrut hangers have only recently been enforced.
If the dimension is critical, previously installed hangers need to be reinspected.
i.
Pef ipherai finding.
- h. For typical suppurt detail Urawing 4/hU51-IZ the tolerance for location of drilled holes in Unlstrut channel is +I/O inch rather tha<<
4 I/38 inch as stated in the concern.
The evaluation terna doeS not ConSider this tolerance to oe too strict.
Since the dimension is not critical, reinspection of previously installed supports is not required.
- i. Unistrut pipe strap capacities determined in tests performed by TVA Singleton Labs and Unistrut Corp. are not consistent for all clasp sizes.
The evaluation team found that results from tne TVA Singleton Lab tests conducted in 1915 and the Unistrut Corp. tests conducted in 1911 on'nistrut pipe strap Pdbb8 series were In general agreement.
However, fur straps 2 to 5 inches in diameter (P/bbB-80 to 50) and load-tested in the direction parallel to the pipe axis, the ultimate load obtained from Singleton's test
<<as two to three times higher than Unistrut's.
The allowable loads for Unistrut pipe strap given in the MBN Pipe Support Uesign Nnuai (PsUN) are based on the TYA singleton test results.
h.
None required.
i.
TVA ONE (Knoxville) will reevaluate Unistrut clamp test data from tests made by TVA Singleton Laboratories and Unistrut Corporation including the new data from Singleton for SQN IB46 810109 OUI) for Unistrut P/558-80 to P2558-40 clamps for load parallel to the pipe axis.
For the PZ558-50 clamp, the SIIN test data will be extrapolated if a reasonable data curve fit can be obtained.
If not, the clamp <<ill be tested to establish appropriate data values.
If, on the basis of this evaluation, TVA determines that the allowable clanp loads given in the PSON are not conservative, the PSOH will be revised to include the correct values and a CAiI will be initiated.
The corrective action to resolve this potential CA/
could include a sampling of installed
- supports, a design evaluation, and modifications to installed supports as necessary.
(CATO NN UZ) 24810- 14
( I I/18/87)
issues ATTACHIENT 8 SUHNRY OF ISSUES, F INDINBS, AHD CORRECTIVE ACTlONS FOR SUBCATEUORV 228UO F indings REVISION HUHIERi 3
Page 8-10 of IB Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - MSH (Continued)
Peripheral finding.
J.
The evaluation team found that UNE calculations "NCR MBN SMP 8230 Evaluation, Rl, and "HCR MBH CEB 8501 lightening of P2bb8 Unistrut Clamp," RU, do not contain anv dorLimented iuctifirition for OSInn r limn toct capacities without a factor of safety.
TVA agreed to I OV ISC trie COICulos IOAS to ouu the A<<c<<wdi y justification as documented in telecon ION 63g.
ln a subsequent tel<<con document<<d In IUII bg2c TVA informed the evaluation team that a
UHE calculation "Unistrut - Cia<<xi Pipe Support NCR-uBN CEA 850l 'il Justifies using claidp test capacities without a factor of ts4tu d
~ iiui iiF tkci i~le
~ 1
~ I
~. ~
~ o
- 1"
~ c JQ ~ o1J ~
~ ~
~ i i
~ i ii vi o ~ ~ ~ J \\ 9 ii,u ~ oi, ~vii vy coo oVO ~ uoc
~ vi~
team confirmed that Justification Is adequate.
As ONE caiculatioA hCR wSh CEB Bbui Tight<<illng of Y2bbB Unistrut Claay," RU, refers to this calculation, no further Justification needs to be added to DNE calculation "NCR MBN CEB 85UI liglitening of P2b58 Unistrut Clamp," RO.
CATO 228 00 MBN 03 has not been revISeod to reflert thiS rhango ~ Liut it IS applopriatoly addressed In the associated CAP.
The evaluation team also found that DNE calculation ounistrut Pipe Strap Load Hatfngs, R2 used allowable clamp loads for Condition I (load parallel to Unistrut) which are more than twice the values used In TVA calCul+tIOA "Evaluation Of NCR MS!t SMP 8237 " Ri TVA agreed to revise the calculation(s) to reconcile this Mio
~ ePiiio y aJ uvi uiio.ii~\\.d
~ ~ ~ oe
~ ~ i,on avii bveo A<cii i ioi o xiii eo tiio in
~ liii fuu A10 J.
TVA OHE (Knoxville) wi)1 revise calculation "NCR MBH SMP 8230 Evaluation," Rl, to Include Justification foi a fartor Of cifotv Of Ono iniinct slip.
'This will Include a reference to COICiilatiOA UAIStrut Cliulsi Pip<<Suppor t, NCR MBN CEB 8501," RO.
(CATO MBN 03)
TVA UHE (Knoxville) will revise calculation Evaluation of HCR MBN SMP 8237,".RI, IMBP 840629 003] to correct the bolt ultimate shear strength value used in+his rcalruldl ion (cATii MBN 04) 2481D-14 ~8/81) 0
Issues ATTACiifth) 8 SuhNRY UF ISSUtS, FINUIKGS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FON SUBCATEUORY 22800 Findings REVISION NUH)ER:
3 Page 8-11 of )8 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - MBN (Continued) k.
Peripheral finding.
- k. Uesign calculatiuns do not exist for double cantilevered conduit supports.
The evaluation team found that MBN uses a typical conduit suppor't detail with a double cantilever (L-shaped) configuration in Urawlng 47A05b-668 similar to the drawing for S)IK.
Si)N Element Report 2ZU.U(8) Includes corrective action for this Item.
MBN UKE calculation "Support Loads for Uoric Acid Evaporator,"
NU addresses one specific use of this detail.
However, this calculation only tabulates the reactions at the base of the conduit supports and does not check tne adequacy of the Unistrut channels.
The adequacy of the Unistrut channel members subjected to torsion due to the douole cantilever configuration has not been demonstrated.
k.
TVA previouSly identified the questionable adequacy of the conduit support detail shown on Vrawing 47A056-66B.
This is documented by SCR MBN CEB 8675, Rl which was upgraded from P)R MBN CEB 8675.
TVA has placed hold H-233 on Urawing 47AU56-b6 ( Including sheets 66A and 668) to prevent future use of this detail.
The corrective action from this CAO is presently under development but will include at least one of the following:
o Appropriate revisions to existing support designs o
A walkdown to gather data for installed support evaluation o
Follo~ing an assessment of the quantities of this support type actual)y Insta) led, a determination will be made as to further action to resolve this Issue by:
Performing structural calculations Conducting physical tests H>dify)ng supports (CAIU MBK Ub) 24810-14 (11/18/87)
Issues AllACNIENl d SUHNNY UF.ISSUES, FINUINUS, ANO CURRECTIVE ACllONS FOR SUUCAIEUORV 22800 Findings REVISION NOSER:
3 Page 8-12 of )8 Coriective Actions Element 228.U -
BFN'.
Unistrut is unacceptable for use as seismic Catego'ry I supports for instruments, pipe. conduit, control stations; panels, fluid piping on
h ltnsssa cssnnnrtnst nv llnlctrsst snsv
~'I' f
~
st become missiles and endanger other safety-related'equipment'.lf the support fails; 8FN
- a. Unistruts and their connections are structurally acceptable as seismic Category I supports provided adequate design conditions are utilized.,Unlstrut material has'been used for seismic I:ategory I supports on many, licensed nuclear. poower plants.
therefore. this issue is not valid.
~s Uhnn lintc ~ ~
s t net nt st tc n -. t 1
A
~
A vs n svs ~ vs ~ ~ Js
~ ssc ssssssl
~ sv ~
sc Qvcquatv Iy sswt IaJIILU
~ vs,ut4 4't seismic l'.ategory
.I supports, the items supported will not become missiles; therefore, this issue is,not vaiid..
Recent attention to Unistrut bolt tightening requirements for SFN will ensure that the bolted Connection.vill develop their design loads and supported coamoditles will nnt fsll vs
~ s
~ ~ ~
a.
None required.
bs Nunc reqU II eds 24818 14 HlI
0 Issues ATTACHMENT 8 SUMNRY UF ISSUES, FINUINGS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FUk SUBCATEUOkV 22800 Findings REVISION NUNER:
3 Page 8-13 of 18 Corrective Actions Element 228.U - BFN (Continued) c.
Peripheral finding.
- c. Unistrut pipe strap capacities determined in tests performed by IVA Sihgleton Labs and Unistrut Corp. are not consistent for all clamp sizes.
The evaluation team found that the allowable loads used for Unistrut P2558-20 to P2558-bu pipe clarps for the load direction parallel to the pipe axis ("slip through" direction) are based on test values from Singieton Lab tests which are two to three times the values obtained from tests by Unistrut Corporation.
c.
TVA will retest the Unistrut standard pipe strap P2558-20 to P2558-40 in the slip-through direction to verify the adequacy of the pipe straps.
Ihree
'amples each of carbon pipe and galvanized conduit <<i I 1 be tested for the said pipe straps.
This test will be performed In accordance with Test Plan CEB-BN-1019 which has been reviewed by the evaluation team and is considered adequate.
For the P2558-50 clamp, the test data will be extrapolated if a reasonable data curve fit can be obtained.
If not, the clamp will be tested to establish appropriate data values.
If test results do not confirm the adequacy of the pipe straps, TVA will identify the extent and nature of the problem and perform further evaluation'uch as considering the actual design loadings and conditions.
The corrective action relies on/takes credit for SCH BFN CEB 8101 RO and SCR BFN CLB 8702 HO that address the load capacity inconsistency for Unistrut P2558-Series.
kevlse iIIR-CEB-81-Ugg to incorporate available allowables for 8-Line 82400-Series clamps.
Incorporate the Iilk in the BFN Pipe Support Oesign Handbook.
Revie~ existing calculations for Unlstrut P2558-Series or similar clamps using allowables given in IIIR-CE8-81-099.
(CATO BFN 01) 24810-14
( II/18/87)
issues ATTACHMENT 8 SUHHutV OF
- ISSUES, FINUIIIGS, ANO CORRECTlVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATEGORV 228UU.
findings REVISlON NUNER:
3 Page B-14 of 18 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - BFN (Continued) d.
Peripheral finding.
0 I
L I p ~ oI aa cas syssasas s snasssua d.
The evaluation team found tnat there Is no written requirement to use-an interaction equation for design of Unistrut pipe claIxps.
(Standard engineering practice utilizes applicable interaction equations when designing Strueturdl fdatPOPrs SIIOIPCis d tu c icosi ~ anonssc inasIc iss more than one direction; thus, there is no,referenceable
<<<<a I
I I dI ~ a
. ~:.
~
C as..
~
.. ~
s--
ossu
~
~ a lSISl usssclia
/
ss
~ assssuljsS aaol IS VI isle Callo lolIOns reviewed by the evaluation team properly used an interaction equation, since the evaluation'team reviewed only several calculations, it is unable to conclude that an interaction equation has been properly used in all existing calculations.
Therefore, Unistrut clamis subjected to simultaneous loads in more than one slirort inn sooss nnt hoVo isoon sIoc I snosI osn o I J
W a
r vros ay ~
e, TvA has not cIOOIPleted a reevaluation program regarding the deSign Of Safety-related Small bOre piping.
The evaluation team found that TVA ls'eveloping a program to reevaluate all safety-related smai I bore nipina systems excluding the CRU Insert and withdrawal system.
The evaluation team reviewed the proposed scope of'his program and considers that the completion of the program fiA alt BFN units willi deiielIstrate the adequacy of Unistrut material used for supports for safety-related smail liore piping systems, excluding the CRO insert and withdrawal system.
d.
Revise the Calculation Review Program to include verification of the proper use of interaction equations to qualify Unlstrut type claxps.
Include the use of an
~ rsaes aCtlors Cqual lob lo qual lly lhCSC clamps in. the Pipe Support Uesign Handbook ior iifii as a normal design practice.
Ibdlfy or exclude interaction equations when justified in calculations for specific cases.
(CATO BFN 02) e.
Iialkdown and evaluate the small bore piping required for plant shutdown to assure their seismic adequacy.
Prepare Caloulations to'dbeument inStalldtiOn
-adequacy.
Perform any necessary modI"" t'o"s res""wg '-e t'ie-e walkdown evaluations.
Evaluate supports using Unistrut-type materials.
Provide future modifications based on valid design output docimients followed by appropriate verification to prevent recurrence.
(CATO BFN 03) n o ss Isa Io&lss III1 1 C'IV <IS SC~MC sss J
Issues ATTACNikrtT 8 SUMNRY UF ISSUES, FINUINUS, ANU CORRFI;TIVE ACTIONS
'OR SUBCATEUURY 228UU F indings kEVISION NUNER:
3 Page B-I5 of 18 Corrective Actions Element 228.U - BFN (Continued) f.
Peripheral finding.
g.
Peripheral finding.
- f. TVA has not cenpleted a reevaluation program regarding the deSign of CRU insert and withdrawal piping.
The evaluation team found that a reevaluation program for the CRU insert and withdrawal system piping and supports for unit 2 is in progress.
The evaluation team reviewed examples of typical engineering calculations and design drawings for required pipe support modification and found them to be generally adequate.
The evaluation team considers that the completion of the program for all BFN units will demonstrate the adequacy of Unistrut material used for supports for the CHU insert and withdrawal system.
g.
TVA has not completed a reevaluation program regarding the design of Category I tubing.
The evaluation team found that TVA plans to perform a walkdown and an englneerlng evaluation and to implement all necessary modifications for all seismic Category I tuning for all BFN units.
The evaluation team considers that the completion of these actions will demonstrate the adequacy of Unistrut materials used for supports of seismic Category I tubing.
f.
Completed walkdown, established
- geometry, and finalized evaluation for seismic adequacy for the unit 2 CRO insert and withdrawal system piping and its supports using Unistrut type materials.
Issued required modifications under ECN P0859.
Evaluate unit I and 3 CRO systems required similar to unit 2.
Produce unique support drawings and pipe routing drawings for each unit CRD system to prevent recurrence.
(CATO BFN 04) g.
Review all design drawings to identify all seismic Class I tubing installations and walkdown the tubing instailatlons identlfled.
Docmaent the tubing configurations and support type and locations.
Prepare calculations to document the installation adequacy.
Perform any required modifications to establish seismic adequacy.
Prepare design output documents routing isometrics and support details or calculations or both to doc'ument installed adequacy.
Use BFEP Pl 86-39 to prevent recurrence.
(CATO BFN 05) 24 BIO-14 (11/18/87)
Issues ATTACt)Kh) 8 SORRY UF ISSUtS, F INUINUS, ANU 1.'URRECTIYE ACTIONS FOR SUBCAIEbORY 228UU Findings REYISION NUNER:
3 Page B-16 of )8 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - BFN (Cont)nued) h.
Peripheral finding.
BLN h.
TYA has not comp)eted a reevaluation program regarding the'design of conduit suppurts.
The evaluation team found that a reevaluation program for all conduit and conduit supports installed in Class I structures before Ob/84 Is,in progress.
)he evaluation team reviewed examples of typical engineering calculations for conduit SUPPorts for unit 2 and conmon and found them tn be generally adequate.
The evaluation t'earn considers that th4 cnccI)IIt inll nf thll nell I ~ >cl fne sit RCU 4t tc I 1 1 r
V J
~ VI 4 ~
~ N
~ ~ ul ~ ~ CJ 4 ~ ~ ~
.demonstrate the adequacy of Un)strut materials used fot' orldult supports III Class I sit UI CUres ~
BLN h.
Completed walkdowns and evaluaC)ons for the conduit and conduit supports installed before )by 1984 in accordance with BFEP-PI 85-02 for unit 2 and coanon.
Issued support and support modification drawings.
Complete
)Xn)ementat)On nf renuired modlficat1ons.
Conduct walkdowns and I
CI C
l C
~ c l
A 'l I CVQIUCLIVII4 CV I VClp ICIC ull ~ C4
~
CII4 V
~ II accordance with approved procedures before the respeciive unii resiari.
Prevent recurrence of any non-engineered conduit support being installed in the plant by 1mplementing current design procedures and implementing Site Director Stanharh Pral tire iSUSP Bl 11 Whirh prohibits any alteration to conduits and/or conduit supports without UNE approval.
(CA)O BFN O6)
BLN a.
Un)strut is unacceptable for use
~
~ rc..t c..
~ c 44 4C ~ 44I ~ I VCC'4'JJVI y
~ cutltlVI for )nstruments, pipe, conduit, controi siatio'ns, paneis, fiuia piping on skids, instrument
- lines, CO2 fire p'rotection lines, f)re protection water piping, lighting, etc.
- a. Unistruts and their connections are.structurally aCCeptlb)e
-CS ceismle Category I SuppOrtc-prOV)ded adequate design conditions are utilized.
Un)strut maier)a) has keen used fur seismic Category t supports on many licensed nuclear power plants.
Therefore, this issue is not va) id.
a.
None required.
b.
Items supported by Un)strut may become missiles ana endanger oiher safety-related equipment if the support falls.
b.
Nhen Un)strut material is adequately designed for use as b.
None required.
Seismic Category I Suppo1'is, the ttems Supporied will not become missiles; therefore',
this issue is nOt valid.
ln addltionl Unistrut bolt-tightening requirements for BLN wi)i ensure that the bolted connections will develop titeir decign loads 248)0-14
( I )
L
Issues ATTACIIKNI 8 SUHNRY OF. ISSUES, F INUINGS, ANU CURRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATEGORY 22800 Findings REVISION NUNER:
3 Page 8-17 of 18 Corrective Actions E lenent 228.0 - BLN (Continued) c.
Peripheral finding.
d.
Peripheral finding.
e.
Peripheral finding. ',
c.
The evaluation team found that no written juStlfication exists in ONE calculation "Instrument Line Tubing Supports - Allowable Loads" for the use of relatively high dmxping ratios to calculate allowable tuning support loads.
d.
The evaluation team found a significant discrepancy between the maximum allowable tubing spans given on Urawing 6080925-10-28 and in CEB Report 78-11.
e.
The evaluation team found a discrepancy in the daaying ratio used for conduit and conduit support design between Oesign Criteria N4-60-0718 and FSAR Subsection
- 3. IU.3.
c d.
e.
Revise calculations "instrument Line Tubing Supports - Allowable Loads" 1821 850809 422] and "Instrument Tubin~
Support Seismic Capacity Uetermination
[821 850401 417] to Include Justification for the relatively high damping ratios used for instrument tubing supports.
Also revise FSAR Section 3.7 to document the use of variable dampi~g ratios used for'nstrument tubing.
TVA has prepared proposed FSAR revisions which include this change as documented by a TVA memo from Barnett to Raulston (06/)U/85)
(841 850610 UIB] and by a TVA memo from Raulston to Hufman (07/03/BS)
[845 850703 260].
Calculation "Uocumentation for CEB Report 78-11, Uesign Oata for Support of Category I Stainless Steel 6 Copper Tubing,"
RO [841 850419 00)] supersedes CEB Report 78-11, R4, and provides maximum allowable Instrument tubing spans that agree with values given on Orawing 5080925-10-28, R7.
Therefore, no corrective action is required.
(CATO BLN 01)
Revise'Oesign Criteria N4-50-0718 and FSAR Subsection 3.10.3 to Include conduit and conduit support damping ratios measured In dynamic tests.
Revise calculations and modify Installations, if necessary.
(CATO BLN 01) 24810-14 (11/18/87)
Issues ATTACtttiNT 8 SUMRY OF ISSUES, FINltltiGS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACl)ONS FUR SUBCATEGORY 2ZBOU Findings REVISION NUNER:
3 Page 8-18 of 18 Corrective Actions Element 228.0 - BLN (Continued)
~
f.
Peripheral finding.
g.
Peripheral finding.
h.
Peripheral finding.
- f. The evaluation team found that the maximum allowable conduit spans for ttie Auxi)iary, Control, and Uiesel Generator Bufloings given in UNE calculation 'Auxiliary, Control and Olesel Generator Building, Conduit Support 1..
4 I
C.
4 l
4
..1 ~
4
..a..j ~ -l..
I-- - js.-
~jyss os ve ~ tscsa
~ ccu
~j
~II s vi)vu ~j I scssffs IV4vh lsl4L exceed the allowable clamp loads.
- g. fhe evaluation team found that UNE calculation "Reactor Oui tdinat fvnical Seismic Conduit Supportcc did nnt evaluate the adequacy of Unistrut PJ3UU channel for the 4nji nn 4
~It c t
A t 41 ja
~I
~
~yy I ~ c ~ VVIIVU~j cuyyos j Vejc ~
~ tIIVIII
~
Vs ~ Vs Owl llu 4RA0560-XZ-58.
h.
Tne eva)uatlon team found a discrepancy In the assumed conduit span in ONE calculation "Reactor Building, Tvpfcal Seismic Conduit Supports" for the tvpicat cnnduit support detail shown on Orawing 4RAUBUU-XZ-SU, f.
Revise design documents as required to reflect the Unistrut P2558 clamp allowable loads and the interaction equation specified In tIIR CEB-87-099 L484) 870710 25it].
Revise Caicuiaiions and modify Installations, If necessary.
(CATO BLN 01) g.
Revise 'calcu)ation vo)ume 4RZ-SbOC, 14ilos4 cPn>ntne Rss44I44nn Ttsninji Cnicjsln
\\ ~
v Jrsl
~ VI
~j I ~\\
Conduit Supports,"
LBZ) 851)15 401] to IACliide 4n eV4)iiation Of ihe 4dequ4Cy Of Unistrut channel P3300 for typical seismic conduii suppori detaiis shown on Orawings 4RAObbU-XZ-58 and 4RAObbU-XZ-76.
Since the use of Unistrut channel as 'a structural member for reactor building typical seismic conduit csspnOI 1 detai)S 4c 1fscftnd 1O thece 1Wn
- drawings, no revisions of other C4)CU)atliORS sire required.
(CAl0 BLti Ul) h.
Revise calculation volume 4R2-560Cl titled cKeactor Building Typical Seismic Conduit SsspportS4 fAZl H51115 4014 tn delete the Incoirect 7 foot conduit span
~jj t ~.
1 1
~
~
V..lj
~
~Os '>>Ic jyys ~ Vl tel tssssv vvllvu ~j tuyyvl j detal) shown on Orawing 4RA560-X2-58.
No revisions of other calcuiations are required. for the same reason as stated in the above Item.
Jhdffy conduit Installationsl If reouireds (CATO BLN Ul) 24840 44 ~lb)s)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-1 of 18 ATTACHMENT C REFERENCES A.
FSAR [no RIMS numbers3 1.
WBN FSAR through Amendment 54, (01/09/85):
Section 2.5, "Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering Summary of Foundation Conditions" Section
- 3. 1, "Conformance with NRC General Design Criteria" Section 3.2, "Classification of Structures,
- Systems, and Components" Section 3.7, "Seismic Design" 2.
SgN FSAR Update through Amendment 3:
Section
- 2. 5, "Geology and Seismology" Section
- 3. 1, "Conformance with NRC General Design Criteria" Section 3.2, "Classification of Structures,
- Systems, and Components" Section 3.7.,
"Seismic Design" 3.
BFN FSAR Update through Amendment 4:
Appendix A, "Conformance to AEC Proposed General Design Criteria,"
(submitted to NRC on 08/06/86) 4.
BLN FSAR through 'Amendment 27:
Section 2.5, "Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering" Section
- 3. 1, "Conformance with NRC General Design Criteria" Section 3.2, "Classification of Structures, Components, and Systems" Section 3.7, "Seismic Design" Table 3. 7. 1-2, "Damping Ratios Used in Analysis of Category I
Structures,
- Systems, Components, and Soil" 3819D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA IEMPLOVEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBLR
,'22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-2 of 18 Subsection 3.10.3, "Methods,and Procedures of Analysis or Testing of Supports oF Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation" it.
~Desi n Criteria [nn RINS number.'j 1.
For Watts liar:
a.
WB-DC-40-31.3e "Assignment lof Respalnsibiliity for Analysis,
- Support, arid Fabrication of; Piping, Systems,'"
Rev.
2 b..
WB-DC-40-31.7e "Analysis oft Category I and I(L) Piping Systems,"
Rev.
7, inc'luding a,'TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett to CEB Files,
[CEB 841015 015], (10'/l5/84).
c.
WB-DC-40-311. 9, "Location arid DesIign of Ptiping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category I'tructu'res
" Rev.
5, inst,lugiqg a TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett to CEB Files
[CEB. 850123 004],
(01/23/85) d.
WB-DC-40-31. 10, "Seismical'iy Qualifying Conduit Supports,"
Rev.
3 e.
WB-OC-40-31. 11, "Support of'ighting Fixtures in Category I Structures,,"
Rev.
0 f.
WD-OC-40-36, "The Classification of Piping,
- Pumps, Valves, and Vessels,"
Rev.
3 g.
Pipe Support Design Manual (PSOM), Section 9.4, "'Unistrut Data," Reve 3, (06/12/85) h.
Pipe Support Design Manual (PSDM), Section 9.4, "Unistrut Data,"
R,eve 0, (05/18/82) 2.
For Sequoyah::
a.
b.
c ~
TVA SQN Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-3.0, "The Classification of
- Piping, Pumps,
- Valves, and Velssels,'"
Rev'.
2 TVA SQN Design Criteria SQN-OC-V-13.7e "Alternate Piping Arialyses and Support Critef ia fdr Category I Piping Systems,"
Rev.
2 TVA SQN Design Criteria SQN-OC-V-'24.1, "Location and Design of Piping Supports and Suppleiiiental Steel i'n Category I
Structures,"
Rev.
0 381 9D-R4
(,11/1 8/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-3 of 18 d.
SNP General Design Criteria for Seismically Qualifying Conduit
- Supports, SQN-OC-V-13-10, Rev.
2 e.
SNP General Design Criteria for Support of Lighting Fixtures in Category I Structures, SQN-OC-V-13.11, Rev.
1 f.
Appendix F of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Quality Assurance
- Manual,
'Design Criteria for Qualification of Seismic Class I and Class II Mechanical and Electrical Equipment," Rev.
2 g.
TVA Civil Engineering Branch Report CEB 75-9, "Design Data for Support of Category I Stainless. Steel and Copper Tubing," Rev.
1 h.
TVA SQN Pipe Support Design Manual, Volume 3, Section 9.4, Rev.
1, (07/22/86)
TVA WBN Pipe Support Design Manual, Volume 3, Section 9.4, Rev.
3 (06/12/85) 3.
For. Browns Ferry:
a.
Design Criteria'BFN-50-712, "Seismically Qualifying Field Run Piping, (sizes 1/2 through 2 inches),"
Rev., 4, (ll/27/85) b.
Design Criteria BFN-50-713, "Seismically Qualifying Field Run Tubing (sizes 1/4 through l-l/2 inches)," Rev.
2, (08/27/84) c.
Design Criteria BFN-50-714, "Conduit Support Seismic Design,"
Rev.
0, (01/14/71) d.
Project Instruction BFEP-PI 85-02, "Seismic Qualification of Existing Electrical Conduit and Conduit Supports,"
Rev.
3, (10/15/86) e.
Design Criteria BFN-50-723, "Seismically Qualifying Conduit Supports,"
Rev.
0, (03/28/86) f.
WBN Pipe Support Design Manual, Section 9.4, Rev.
0, (05/18/82) 4.
For Bellefonte:
a.
Design Criteria N4-50-0718, "Seismically Qualifying Conduit Supports,"
Rev.
1, (09/12/84) 381 9D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS
.SPECIAL PROGRAM fiEPORT NUMBER:
,'22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 f'age C-4 of 18 C.
Reports Letter.~aoCh Memos 1.
For Watts,Bar:
'a e b.
CEB Report 75-9, "Design Data for S'upport of Category I
Stainless Steel and'opper Tubing," [no RIMS number], (10/17/75);
CEB Report 76-5, "Alternate Cl",iteri,a for'iping Analysis'and Support,"
Reve 5, [no RINS number],
(12/'14/82) c.
TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, "Qu'ality Assurance Program
~
'Description for the. Design,~ Construction,,
and Operation of 'i'VA Nuclear-Power Plants,"
[no RIMS humber],
Rev.
8 d.
Unistrut Corporation Test Repclrrt C-36 A, "P-2558 Series f'ipe or Conduit Clamps,"
[no RIMS number], '(05/13/77) e.
g ~
le k.
NSRS Report I-85-478-WBN,
'>Unhppf ovediUse of Unistrut Hangers on System 43, Sampling and Water Quality," [no RIMS number],
(11/20/85)
Letter from Be J.
Youngblood, NRC, to S. A. White,
[L44 860226 001],
(02/18/86)
Letterer from B. J.
Youngblood,,NRC,,to S. A..White, TVA, with the attached transcript of the investigative interview conducted by the NRC on 02f'21/86; at the First Tennessee Bank Building in Knoxville,, TN, '[B45 860714 832], (06/23/86)
Letter from R.
D. Walicer, NRC to H. G. Parris,
- TVA, Meeting, Summary - Watts Bar Nuclearr Plant, Unit 1, Docket 50-390)"
[A02 850717 002], (07/15/85)
TVA Singleton Laboratory Clamp Test Report; TVA memo from R. 0.
Laiie to, G.
G. Stack,
"'Sequoyah Nuclear P'lant
- Units 1
and 2-Requisition 7g211 - Unistrdt P2558 'Pipe Clamps," [no RIMS number],
(07/,'28/75)
TVA memo from J.
C. Standifer to Those Listed, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1
and 2 - Nonconformance Report WBNSWP8237"
[SWP 830128 053](01/25/83)
TVA memo from R. 0. Barnettf ttII J.
C. Stalidi'fer, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1
and 2 - Nonconformance Report WBNCEB8408 (CEB 840427 0'21)" [CEB 840806,010],,
(PB/06/84) 0 381 9D-R4 (11/18/87)
II
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-5 of 18 n ~
TVA memo from D.
G.
Domer to W. T. Cottle, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1
and 2 - Requirements for Traceability of Materials and Identification of Supports - Employee Concern IN-85-845-002," [no RIMS number],
(02/05/86)
Telephone call from R. Roberts (Bechtel) to F. L. Ginn, A. Manzano (TVA), IOM 639,
[no RIMS number],
(02/12/87)
Telephone call from F. L. Ginn (TVA) to R. Roberts (Bechtel),
IOM 692, [no RIMS number],
(02/23/87) 2.
For Sequoyah:
a.
b.
c ~
d.
e.
go h.
CAQ Engineering Report for SCR SQN CEB 8612,
[no RIMS number],
(06/03/86)
TVA Nuclear Safety Review Staff 'NSRS Investigation Report I-85-979-SQN, "Unistrut Acceptability for Use on Seismic Category I Supports,"
[no RIMS number], (03/ll/86)
Unistrut Corporation Test Report C-36-A, "P-2558 Series Pipe or Conduit Clamps,"
[no RIMS number],
(5/13/77)
I TVA Employee Concerns Sequoyah Element Repor t 223.1(B),
"Instrument Support Design," [no RIMS.number],
Rev.
1 NSRS Report I-85-478-WBN, "Unapproved Use of Unistrut Hangers on System 43, Sampling: and Water Quality," [no RIMS number],
(11/20/85)
TVA Test Plan CEB-BN-1019, "SQN-Axial Load Capacity of Unistrut P-2558 Clamps," Rev.
0, [no RIMS number], (12/18/86)
I Letter from B. J.
Youngblood, NRC, Director PWR Project Directorate 84, NRR to S. A. White, TVA, Manager of Nuclear
- Power, "Concerns Regarding TVA Nuclear Program,"
[L44 860226 001],,(02/18/86)
Letter from B. J.
Youngblcod, NRC, Director PWR Project Directorate 84, NRR to S. A. White, TVA, Manager of Nuclear Power, "Transcript of Interview...," [B45 860714 832],
(06/23/86)
TVA letter from G. R. McNutt to G. L. Parkinson, "Employee
'Concern Evaluation Program -
SQN Restart Program - Corrective Action Plan," TCAB-019, [no RIMS number],
(12/05/86) 3819D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3
,'Page C-6 of 18 k.
m.
n ~
0 ~
P ~
q.
s ~
TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett t<r J.
P.
Yinieyard, "INCR SQN SWP 8305 - Bolt Tightening Requirements,"
[B41 851009 001],
(10/0'9/85-)
TYA memo from J.
C. Standifer to Th'ose Listed"NCR WBN SWP 8237,"
[SWP 830128 053],
(01/25/83),
TVA Singleton Laboratory Clamiv Test: Report; TYA memo from R'. 0.
Larie to G.
G. Stack, "Transmittal of Unistrut Clamp Load Test Data,"'no RIMS number],
(07/28/'75)
TVA memo from R.. 0.
8 ar nett tb J.
P.
Vineyard,,
"SCR SQN CE B'6112 Specific Bolt Tightening Instructions,"
[B41 860220 005],
(02/1'9/86)
TVA memo from R., E., Field, Jr, arid W,. J.
Kagay to SQN Engineering Project Files, "SQN SCR SQN CEH 8612 - Technical Ju!~tificatiion for Bolt Tighteising Recommendations,"
[825 860815 019]
(08/15/86)
G.
Dori>er., Acting Director of Engineering, Projects Nuclear, to W. T. 'Coi:tl'e, 'Site Dir'ector,
- WBN,
[no RIMS number],
(02/05/8(i)
TVA memo from J.
A., Raulston to R. 0. Barnett, "SQN Unistrult One-andi Two-'Piece Tubing Clamps with Stainless Steel Tubing,"
[846 860612 001], (06/16/8(!)
TVA memo from J.
P.
Vineyar'd to Tihose'Listed, "NCR SQN SAP 8213,"
[PWP 830803 009],
(08/03/83)'VA letter to Bechtel (TLB~044),'WBN-'Employee Concerns Evaluation Program - Job 16985-026,'"
[U10 861010 801 ],
(10/10/86)
Letter from G. L. Parkinson, Bechtel, to G. R. McNutt, TVA, "CATO 22'8 00 SQN 02 and 03 'Vei"ifica'tidn,"':BLT-416,
[no RIMS number],
(08/11/87) 3.
For Browns Ferry:
NSRS Report I-85-478-WBN, "Unapproved Use of Unistrut Hangers on System 43, Sampling and Water,'Quality,'" '[no RIMS.number],
(11/2'/85) b.
Test 'Plan CEB-BN-1002, "Seismic Testirig of Selected Configuration Groups
<)f Alumirium El'ectrical Conduits for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,'"
Rev'.
0, includ'ed in Test Report 17743-1,
[B41 861028 009], (10/28/86).
0 381 9D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-7 of 18 c ~
d.
e.
9 ~
h.
m.
Unistrut Corp. Test Report C-36-A, "P-2558 Series Pipe or Conduit Clamps,"
[no RIMS number],
(05/13/77)
Letter from B. J. Youngblood, NRC, to S. A. White,
[L44 860226 001],
(02/18/86)
Letter from B. J.
Youngblood, NRC, to S.
A. White, TVA, with the attached transcript of the investigative interview conducted by the NRC on 02/21/86 at the First Tennessee Bank Building in Knoxville, TN, [B45 860714 832], (06/23/86)
Letter from TVA to Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc., requesting proposal for reevaluation of small bore piping and supports,
[B41 861124 01 3], (11/24/86)
TVA Singleton Laboratory Clamp Test Report; TVA memo from R. 0.
Lane to G.
G. Stack, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Units 1
and 2-Requisition 79211 - Unistrut P2558 Pipe Clamps," [no RIMS number],
(07/28/75)
TVA memo from G. R. Hall to R. 0. Barnett, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1 NRC IE Bulletin 79 (}ualification of Unistrut Pipe Clamps,"
[BWP 831207 011], (12/07/83)
TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett to G. R. Hall, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - gualification of Unistrut Pipe Clamps-Standalone guality-Information," [CEB 840124 007], (01/24/84)
Telecon memo from J. Marshall, TVA, to J. L. Boulay, Impell, regarding award of contract for reevaluation of CRD insert and withdrawal piping and supports,
[no RIMS number],
(10/31/85)
TVA memo from W. T. Cottle to'K.
W'. Whitt, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Response to Employee. Concern Investigation Report I-85-478-WBN (Employee Concern Number IN-85-845-002)," [no RIMS number],
(02/11/86)
TVA memo from N. R. Beasley to E.
P. Schlinger, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - Discontinuing Use of Typical Conduit Support Drawings,"
[B22 860301 004], (03/01/86)
TVA memo from N. R. Beasley to E.
P. Schlinger, "Brawns Ferry Nuclear Plant - Discontinuing Use of Typical Conduit Support Drawings," [822 860417 014], (04/17/86) 381 9D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE'CINCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:'22800
'REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-8 of 18 4.
For Bel'lefonte:
ao b.
c ~
d.
e.
9 ~
1 ~
J ~
k.
CEB Report 78-11, "Oesign Oath for Support of Category I
Stainless Steel and Copper Tubing,'! Rev.
4, [no RIMS number],,
(0'l/23/84)
Unistrut Corporation
'Test Report C-36, "Test of P2558 Series Pipe Clamo'.," [no flINS numbei], (04/24/73)
NSRS Report I-85-478-WBN, "Unapproved Use of Unistrut Hangers on System 43, Sampling. and Water Quality," [no RINS number],
(11/20/85)
Letter from B. J. Youngblood, NRC, to S.
A. White, TVA, ~
"Concerns Regardling TVA'Nuclear Program,"
[L44 860226 001 ],
(02/18/86)
Letter from B. Jl. Youngblood, NRC, to S. A. White, TVA, with the attached transcript of the investigative interview conducted by the, NRC ion 02/21/86 at the First Tennessee Bank Buildingl in Knoxville, TN, [B45 860714 832], (06/23/86)
TVA memo from R.
N,. Hodges to Those Listed, "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant - Nonconformance Report No.
BLN BLP 8224,"
[BLP 83CI228 037], (02/25/83)
\\
TVA memo for iF.
Van Nieter to R. M. Hodge's, '"Bellefonte Nucl'ear'l ant - Testinq of Instrument Tubing Supports - Phase I,"
[CSB 821110 30~.1~ (ll/09/82)
TVA memo from'F.
Van Meter to R. Nl HOdges, "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant - Testing of Instrument Tubing Supports - Phase II,"
[CSB 82121IS 301]. (12/16/82)
TVA memo from F.
Van Meter to R.
Nc Hodg'es, "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant - Testing of Instrument Tubing Clamps and Fittings.,"
[CSB 83CI525 301], (05/25/83)
TVA memo from J.
A,. Raulston to R. 'N. Hodges, "Bellefonth Nuclear Plant - Instrument'Tube
'Clamp Load Testing,"
[B46 85041'l 00211~
(04/12/85)
TVA memo from W. T,. Cottle to K.
W> Whitt, '"Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Response to Employee Concern Investigation Report I-85-478-WIN (Einployee Conkerh Number IN<-85-845-002)," [no RINS number],
(02/11/86) 0 3819D-R4 (11/118/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REYISION NUMBER' Page C-9 of 18 D.
Specifications and Procedures
[no 'RIMS numbers]
l.
For Watts Bar:
General Construction Specification G-43, "Support and Installation of Piping Systems in Category I Structures,"
Rev.
8, (08/08/85) 2.
For Sequoyah:
TVA SQN Construction Specification N2C-946, "Requirements for Tightening of Non-high Strength Bolts in Friction-type Connections,"
Rev.
0 3.
For Browns Ferry:
(None) 4.
For Bellefonte:
'Quality Control Procedure BNP-QCP-4.3, "Instrument Tubing
. Installation," Rev.
13, (06/25/86)
E.
.For Watts Bar:
a.
[SWP 820630 013],
(06/30/82) b.
[CEB 840427 021], (04/27/84) c.
"NCR WBN SWP 8230 Evaluation,"
Rev.
1,
[B26 850305 076]
d.
"NCR WBN CEB 8501 Tightening of P2558 Unistrut Clamp," Rev.
0
[B41 850305 945]
e.
"Unistrut - Clamp Pipe Support NCR-WBN CEB 8501," Rev.
0
[841 850307 008]
2.
For Sequoyah:
(None) 3.
Browns Ferry:
a.
0,
[SWP 820630 013],
(06/30/82) b.
0,
[B41 8511.12 016], (11/12/85) 381 90-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMIPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-10 of 18 c.
0,
[843 851224 908], (12/24/85) d.
1,
[B2'2 861117 033](ll/17/86) e.
0,
[B41 870213 Oll](02/13/87) f.
0,
[841 870213 008](02/13/87) 4-.
For Bel 1 efonte:
(None)
F.
Calculations 1.
For Watts Bar:
a.
"Unistrut Pipe Strap Load IRatings,"'ev.
2
[WBP 840801 037]
b.
"Evaluation of NCR WBN SWP 8237" Rev.
1I
[WBP 840629 003]
c ~
d.
e.
9 ~
] ~
"Calculations fear Pipe Support 47A051-51," Rev.
1
[841 861106 903]
"Calculations for Pipe Support 47A051-52," Rev.
0
[B41 860409 907]
"Typical Pipe Support 47A052-24,," Rev.
0 [841 860519 918]
"Typical Pipe Support: 47A052-30" Rev.
0 [841 860519 911]
"Calculations for Pipe Support 47A054-25," Rev.
1
[841 86ID507 '.i20]
"Support Loads For Boric Acid Evaporator Slcid," Rey.
0
[841 86052'1 900]
"Typical 47A061-13," Rev.
0 [841 860506 908]
"NCR WBN SWP 8230 Evaluation," Rev.
1 [826 850305 076]
"NCR WBIN CEB 8501 Tightening of P2558 Unistrut Clamp," Rev.
0
[841 850305 945]
"Unistrut - Clamp Pipe Support NCR-WBN CEB 8501," Rev.
0
[EI41 850307 008]
381 9D-R4 (11/18/87) 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-ll of 18 2.
For Sequoyah:
SWP 820218 087, "Instrument Sampling Line Typical Support Calculation," Rev.
3 b.
c ~
d.
e.
g.
h.
SWP 820302 017, "Control Air Typical Support Calculation,"
Rev.
2 SWP 800107 044, "Conduit Support Calculations,"
Rev.
1 SWP 800107 049, "Lighting Fixture Typical Support Calculation,"
Rev.
0 TVA Calculation, "Seismic Analysis of Instrumentation Rack Frame of Drawing 47W352," (06/29/72)
TVA Calculation, "Evaluation of NCR WBN SWP 8237, Rl,"
[WBP 840629 003], (07/06/84)
TVA Calculation, "Unistrut Pipe Strap Load Ratings,"
Rev.
0,
[SWP 820728 004], -(10/27/82); Rev.
1,
[WBP 840629 002],
(07/06/84);
Rev. 2,
[WBP 840801 037], (08/23/84)
TVA Calculation, "Tightening of Non-High Strength Bolted Connections for Conduit, Piping and Tubing,"
SQCG 1006
[B25 861021 800], (10/21/86) 3.
For Browns Ferry:
a0 b.
d.
e.
f.
9 ~
Calculation "RPV Sensing Line Support R-267," Rev.
0,
[B22 861205 111], (12/05/86)
Drawings for modifications to unit 2 CRD Insert and W'ithdrawal Pipe Support 47W2468-)01 Calculation "Qualification of the CRDH System Insert and Withdrawal Piping Support Frames,"
Rev. 0,
[822 861110 113],
(11/07/86)
Gale. I.D. BFEPC80267, Rev.
0,
$822 860729 136],
(07/29/86)
Gale. I.D. BFEPC80256, Rev.
0,
[B22 860801 164], (08/Ol/86)
Calc. I.D. NDB4800-11, Rev.
1,
[B22 860926 107], (09/24/86)
Gale. I.D. 48B2800-165, Rev.
0,
[B22 860926 104], (09/24/86) 381 9D-R4 (11/1 8/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM
'REP'ORT NUMBER:
22860 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-12 of 18 4.
For Bel'lefonte:
a.
Calculation "Instrument Line Tubing Supports -
Allowable'oads,"
Rev.
6,
[821 850809 422], (10/04/8'l) b.
Ca'1culation
",'Reactor Building Conduit Supports,"
Rev.
5,
[BLP 830706 006j~
(07/06/8:1) c.
Dr awing 4BA0892-X2-3, Rev. 2, "Aux., Cont.,
8 DGB, Maximum Al'lowable Conduit Suppor't Spabing"'.
- Calculation "Auxiliary, Control, and Diesel Generator Building, Conduit Support Typical Seismic," Rev.
7,
[B2'I 860825 412j, (08/25/86) e.
Calculation "Reactor Building, Typical Seismic Condluit Supports,"
Rev.
3,
[B21 851115 401'I, (12/02/85) f.
Calculation "Electrical Cot>du'it Supports,"
Rev.
7,
[B21 850715 416J, (07/15/8$ )
G.
Drawinas 1.
For >latts Bar:
47A050-'1 J, R1',3 47A050-1 J 1, R2 47A050-1J2, R4 47A050-1J3, R4 47A050-'1R, Rcl 47A051-1, R3 "Mechanical Mar)ger Drawing General Notes" "Mechanical Hange~ Drawing General Notes" "Mechahic'al
,'Hanger Drawing Genera)
Notes" "Mechar>icaal Hanger Drawing General Notes" "Mechahical Hahget 0'rawing General Notes" "Mechar'>ic'al 'Seismic Categdry I Support Instrument Sensing Lines" 0
47A051-12, R4 47A051-51, Rl "Mechar>ical Category I Support Sensing Lines" "Mechar>ical 'Categbry I 'Su[)port Sensing Lines" Instrument Instrument 47A051-52, RO "MecharIical Category I Support Instrument Sensing Lines" 3819D-R4 (11/'18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-13 of 18 47A052-24, R4 47A052-30, R2 47A053-1A, R 1 0 47A054-1, R2 47A054-25, RS 47A054-25A, Rl 47A056-66, R5 47A056-66A, Rl 47A056-66B, R2 47A061-13, RO 47A061-13A, RO 47A450-3-15, R6 47A450-3-15A, Rl 47A450-3-16, R5 47A450-3-1.6A, Rl 47A450-8-2, Rl 47A450-8-8, R4 "Mechanical Category I Support Instrument Sampling Lines" "Mechanical Category I Support Instrument Sampling Lines" "Mechanical Seismic Support Process Pipe 2
Inch and Less" "Mechanical Seismic Category I Support Control Air Lines" "Mechanical Category I Support Control Air Lines" "Mechanical Category I Support Control Air Lines" "Mechanical Category I Conduit Support" "Mechanical Category I Conduit Support" "Mechanical Category I Conduit Support" "Mechanical Seismic Category I and I(L)
Instrument Supports" "Mechanical Seismic Category I 5 I(L)
Instrument Supports" "Mechanical Unit 1 Seismic Support for ERCW Support Detail 3-15" "Mechanical Unit 1 Sei smi c Support for ERCW Support Detail 3-15A" "Mechanical Unit 1 Seismic Support for ERCW Support Detail 3-16" "Mechanical Unit 1 Seismic Support for ERCW Support Detail 3-16" "Mechanical Unit 1 Category I Support for ERCW Support Detail 8-2" "Mechanical Unit 1 Category I'upport for ERCW Support Detairl 8-8" 381 9D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE COINCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22000 iei REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-14 of'8 47A450-8-12, R4 47A450-8-13, Rl 47A450-8-14, R4 47A450-8-1!i, R 1 2.
For Sequoyah:
47A050-17, RO 47A050-18, RO 47A051-2, R3 "Mechanical Unit 1 Category I Support for ERCW Su!pport Detail 8-1'?"
"Mechanical Unit 1 Category I Support for ERCW Support Detail 8-13" "Mechanical Unit 1 Categor,y I Support for ERCW Support Detail 8-1I$ "
"Mechanical Unit 1 Category I Support for ERCW Support Detail 8-1!3" "Mechanical Hanger Or awing Gener al Notes" "MIechanical Hanger Or:awing General Notes" "Mechanical Seismic Support Instrument Sensing Lines" 47A051-2A, Rl 47A052-8, RO "Mechanic'a,l Sei smic Sensing Lines" "Mechanical Seismic Matnitoring Lines" Suppor t Instrument
.'iupport R,ad'lation 47A052-8A, RO "Mechanical Seismic Support Radiation, Natnitoringi Lines" 47A052-7, R4 47A053-10AR Rl "Mechanica,l Seismic.'iupport Monitoring, Lines" "tlechanica 1 Sei smi c Support 2-inch diameter and less" Rad )ation Process Pipe 47A053-61, RO 47A054-1A,. R4 47A054-2, R2 47A054-2A, R2 "Mechanical Seismic Support Process P~ipe 2-inch diameter and less" "Mechanical Seismic Support Control Air Lines" "Mechanical Seismic Support Conf.rol Air i
Lines" "Mechanical Seismic Support Control Air Lines" 0
381 9D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
.22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-15 of 18 47A056-66, R4.
EI 5 47A056-66A, R5 E
6 47A056-66B, RO EI 1
47A057-7, R2
=
47W600-14, R4 47W600-23, Rl 1 "Mechanical Seismic Support Conduit" "Mechanical Seismic Support Conduit" "Mechanical Seismic Suppor t Conduit" "Mechanical Seismic Support Lighting Fixtures Mercury Type/Ballast" "Mechanical Instrument and Controls" "Mechanical'nstrument and Controls"
.3.
For Browns Ferry:
488810-1, R2, (12/11/86) Miscellaneous Steel Seismic Conduit Supports 48B800-1, R5, (01/28/87) Typical Conduit Supports 488800-2, R6, (12/19/86) Typical Conduit Supports 47W2468-101-1,
'RO, (11/07/86)
General Note Dr awings 47W2468-101-2, Rl, (01/31/87)
General Note Drawings 47W2468-101-3, Rl, (Ol/31/87) General Note Drawings 47W2468-100-1, R5, (01/14/87)
CRD Insert and Withdrawal Pipe Supports 47W2468-100-2, R2, (ll/08/86)
CRD Insert and Withdrawal Pipe Supports 47W2468-100-3, R4, (01/14/87)
CRD Insert and Withdrawal Pipe Supports 47W2468-100-4, Rl, (12/03/86)
CRD Insert and Withdrawal Pipe Supports 47W2468-100-5, Rl, (01/14/87)
CRD Insert and Withdrawal Pipe Supports 4782650-340, RO, (12/08/86) Mechanical RPV Sensing Lines Pipe Supports 4.
For Bellefonte:
Series 4BA0570-X2, "Aux. Bldg. and Intake Pumping Station, Typical Seismic Instrument Tubing Support" Series 4BA0895-X2, "Aux., Control, and DG Bldg., Typical Seismic Instrument Tubing Support" 381 9D-R4 (11/1 8/87)
1VA EMPLOYEE CONCER!iS SPECIAl.
PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER: '2800
'EVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-16 of 18 5GB0925-I0-02, R14, "Instruments and Controls, General Instalil ation Notes" 5GB0925-I0-43, R3, "Instrumentsi and Controls,',
Tubing Hangers" 5GB0925-I0-44, R8,, "Instruments and ControlsTubing Hangers'1 5GB0925-I0-45, R7, "Instruments and ControlsTubing Hangers" 5GB0925-I0-46, R5,, "Instruments and ControlsTubing Hangers'1 5GB0925-I0-47, R6, "Instruments and ControlsTubing Hangers" 5GB0925-I0-48, R5"Instruments and ControlsTubing Hangers"I 5GB0925-IO-4'9, RB, "Instruments and ControlsTubing Hangers" SGB0925-IO-1 1, R4" Instruments and Control sTube Clamp Assemblies" 5GB0925-I0-22, R5, "Instruments and ControlsThermal Expansion-Table 2'"
5GB0925-I0-23, R4, "Instruments and ControlsAllowable Motion ws.
Sx and Wm - 'Table 1"
5GB0925-I0-28, R7,, "Instruments'rid Controls,', Allowable Tubing Spans" 4RA0560-X2-13, R7 "Reactor Bldg., Typical Seismic Conduit Suppor't"'BA0892-X2-9, R9, "Aux., Cont.,'3'OGB, Typical Seismic Conduit Connection to Embedded Unistrut" 4RA0560-X2-2B, R3,,
"Reactor Bldg., Typical Seismic Conduit Support"'BB0892-X2-2, R13 "Aux., Control,
& OG Bldg., Miscellaneous
- Steel, Seismic Conduit Si>pports, Notes - Sheets 24 4RA0560-X2-2, R7, "Reactor Building, Maximum Allowable Conduit
- Support, Spacing" 4RA0560-X2-58, RO,,
".Reactor Buildingi Typical Seismic Conduit Support:"
H.
Nuclear Performance Plans
[no RIMS numtiers]
1.
For Watts Bar:
Revised Cdrporate Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 1, Rev.
4, (03/86) 0 3819D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page C-17 of 18 Watts Bar Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 4, Draft (03/87) 2.
For Sequoyah:
Revised Corporate Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 1, Rev.
4, (03/86)
Revised Sequoyah Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 2, Rev.
1, (03/87) 3.
For Browns Ferry:
Revised Corporate Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 1, Rev.
4, (03/86)
Browns Ferry Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 3, Rev.
1, (08/86) 4.,
For Bel 1efonte:
Revised Corporate Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 1, Rev.
4, (03/86)
I.
General 1.
TVA memorandum from R. Q. Cantrell, Acting Director of Nuclear Engineering, to Those Listed, "Policy Memo PM 87-35 (DNE)-
Project/Branch Responsibilities,'" '[801'870123 002], (01/23/87) 2.
TVA Division of Nuclear Engineering - Nuclear Engineering Procedure (NEP), NEP-5.2, Rev.
0, "Review," [no RIMS number],
(07/Ol/86)
J.
Watts Bar:
IN-85-283-002 1.
WB-DC-40-31.3, "Assignment of Responsibility for Analysis,
- Support, and Fabrication of Piping Systems,"
Rev.
2 2.
WB-DC-40-31.7, "Analysis of Category I and I(L) Piping Systems,"
Rev.
7, including a
TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett to CEB Files,
[CEB 841015 015],
( 10/15/84) 3.
WB-DC-40-31. 9, "Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category I Structures,"
Rev.
5, including a
TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett to CEB Files (CEB 850123 004], (01/23/85) 4.
WD-DC-40-36, "The Classification of Piping,
- Pumps, Valves, and Vessels,"
Rev.
3 381 9D-R4 (11/18/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMB'ER:
22800 REVISION NUMBER:
3 IPage C-18 of 18 5.
CEB Report 75-9"Design Data for Support of Category I Stainless Steel and Copper Tubing" (10/17/75) 6.
CEB Report 76-5"Alternate Criteria for Piping Analysis and Support,"
Rev.
!i, (12/14/82) 7.
Memo (no names, telecopiied 01/28/87 14:24, attachment captioned:
"3.0 Un.it 1 Hanger and Analysis 'Updat'e Progr&,"'no RIMS number'],
'no dlate) 8.
Becht,el Plant, Design Callculation Number PD-218-10, Rev.
0, Job Number 16985-02ii, (08/18/87) 9.
TVA memo from Bill Carson to Nick Liakohisdrawings attached, from, problems
- 26030, 67019, N3-67-A18A, 31023, N3-40-A11C, and N3-59-A01A, [no RII41S number],
(05/28/86) 10.
TVA, marked copy telecopied 06/ll/86 12:26with attachments,l
[no R,IMS numberI, (no date) 11.
"Corrective ActIion Response Evaluation" (marked "NSRS reply")I,
[no R,IMS number]',
(08/05/85) 12.
QE-SEP 82-18, TVA, WBN, Program for 'Alternate Analysis Fix-Coordinating, Documenting, and Vertifying," Rev.
3,
[no RIMS number],
(no date);
Rev. 2,
[B26 850503 001], (05/03/85) 13.
TVA memo from RO. Barriett to J.
A. Raulston, "Watts Bar Nucleai Plant Units 1
and 2 - Program Deficiency:
Alternately Analyzed Piping -.
.." [CEB 850123 008], (01/23/85) 14.
TVA memo from J A.. Raullston to J.
W. Hufham,. "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 - Program Deficiency:
Alternately Analyzed Piping-
" [B45. 851219 264];, (12/19/85) 15.
NCR WBN SWP8231 (reply, RFI 064),
[SWP 820616 006],
(prepared 06/16/82) 16.
[SWP 830120 '526]',
('01/20/83) 3819D-R4 (ll/18/87)