ML20136A657

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of Contention 5 Panel 850207 Meeting W/Util Re Hearing & Licensing Issues.Slide Presentation Encl
ML20136A657
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 02/19/1985
From: Noonan V
NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To: Burwell S, Vietti A, Wessman P
NRC
Shared Package
ML20136A539 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8601020232
Download: ML20136A657 (56)
v • d • e


Text

I ja atL.

d' UNITED STATES

[h

/ i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,, gs, l wasmNorcN. o c. 20sss
k. '.... / /

FEB 19 loS NOTE TO: Attached List FROM:

Vincent S.~Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project

SUBJECT:

CONTENTION 5 PANEL MEETING WITH TEXAS UTILITIES ON FEBRUARY 7, 1985 On February 7, 1985, the Contention 5 Panel met with Texas Utilities to discuss hearing and licensing issues relating to the Comanche Peak project.

Enclosed for your information is the slide presentation made by the applicant on the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) efforts in responding to the Technical Review Team (TRT) findings. Meetings are now being scheduled for the TRT to meet with the CPRT. These meetings are as follows:

February 28, 1985 8:30 - 5:00 p.m.

Electrical / Instrumentation March 5, 1985 8:30 - 5:00 p.m.

Quality Assurance / Quality Control March 5, 1985 8:30 - 12:00 p.m.

Testing 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Civil / Structural March 7, 1985 8:30 - 5:00 p.m.

Mechanical / Piping All meetings will be held at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Operations Support Facility.

You will be receiving a meeting notice.

)

./

/aI Director Project a manche ea cc:

D. G. Eisenhut 8601020232 851113 PDR FOIA GARDEB S-59 ppy

p CPRT PRESENTATION TO CONTENTION 5 PANEL FEBRUARY 7, 1985 O

_e TESTlHG PROGRAM OVERVIEW

' TESTING PROGRAM ISSUES

- IDENTIFIED IN 9/18/84 NRC LETTER TO BE EVALUATED IN SSER NO. 7

' ISSUE SPECIFIC ACTION PL/tNS

  • (1) HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING (HFT) DATA PACKAGES (2) JTG APPROVAL 0F TEST DATA (3) TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEFERRED TESTS (4) TRACEABILITY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (5) CONDUCT OF THE CILRT
  • (6). PREREQUISITE TESTING (7) PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING
  • TO BE SPECIFICALLY PRESENTED r-.,

,er r.-,m

-,----g

-,.n.

,,,en.,

vn,

,--n,e n,, - - -

e A

~

HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING (llFT) DATA PACKAGES t

ISSUES NOT ALL TEST OBJECTIVES MET IN TilREE OF 17 PACKAGES REVIEWED RETESTING NOT ADEQUATE o

OVERSIGHTS BY JOINT TEST GROUP (JTG) WHICH llAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DATA PACKAGES e

J C

m a.n.

2 m

(

_.-a a.

s__

= _.

e0 h ISSUE SPECIFICS.

(1) BUS VOLTAGE TEST

~

TRANSFORMER TAPS NOT IN CORRECT POSITION DURING TEST N0 RETEST PERFORMED AFTER REPOSITIONING TAPS (2)

STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION VERIFICATION 3 TEMPORARY TRANSMITTERS DURING TEST HOT RETEST NOT SPECIFIED (3)

PRESSURIZER LEVEL CONTROL

' MARGINAL READINGS ON ONE TRANSMITTER TRANSMITTER REPLACED H0T RETEST NOT SPECIFIED O

INITIATIVES - HFT DATA PACKAGES JTG RE-EVALUATE APPROVED TEST RESULTS PACKAGES-

'USING SPECIAL SAMPLING PLAN

'USING SPECIFIC GUIDELiliES BASED'Old TRT CONCERNS 1

' GUIDELINES APPROVED BY REVIEW TEAM LEADER AND SRT

'RE-EVALUATION CRITERIA INCLUDE:

- FSAR COMMITMENTS SATISFIED

- TEST OBJECTIVES FULFILLED

- RETESTS PROPERLY SPECIFIED

- REG. P0S.

C.3 0F R.G.

1.68 PROPERLY APPLIED

- REVIEW TEAM LEADER MONITOR AND APPROVE RE-EVALUATION PROCESS AND RESULTS

RE-EVALUATION AND SAMPLING PLAN

~

- 3 PACKAGES QUESTIONED BY TRT l'1

- 7 REMAINING HFT PACKAGES Z,

- 20 PACKAGES AMONG MOST IMPORTANT TO SAFETY

- SECOND 20 IF ONE REJECT IN FIRST 20

- ALL REMAINING'IF ONE REJECT IN SECOND 20

- IF NOT NECESSARY TO EXPAND, RANDOM SAMPLE AND RE-EVALUATE GUIDELINE ATTRIBUTES IN REMAINING PACKAGES I

f

~'

' ACTION PLAN STATUS 1

- 3 QUESTIONABLE PACKAGES EVALUATED i

' BUS VOLTAGE TEST TO BE REPERFORMED l

- TEST OBJECTIVES NOT CLEARLY STATED

- ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA MISLEADING

'OTHER 2, TRANSMITTERS TO BE CHECKED AT PROCEDURE -

SPECIFIED CONDITIONS i

' SAFETY' SIGNIFICANCE APPEARS TO BE NIL.

l OUTCOME OF-BUS VOLTAGE TEST WILL GOVERN.

- 7 REMAINING HFT PACKAGES RE-EVALUATED

'N0 REJECTS i

- FIRST 20 RE-EVALUATIONS NEARING COMPLETION j

'18 APPROVED BY JTG

~

' 5 REVIEWED / APPROVED llY THE REVIEW TEAM LEADER

'N0 REJECTS THUS FAR i

l 1

.m.,

,,-..m

~r r--..---v.--w-e-----mw,-,-,--v,-,--,-.--,,,,.-,

--,--,---ee.----..-,m..

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

ACTION PLAN STATUS (CONT'D)

~

- FURTilER ACTIONS

' STARTED RANDOM. SAMPLING PROCESS

' IDENTIFYING, LISTING GUIDELINE ATTRIBUTES

- FSAR COMMITMENTS

- TEST DEFICIENCY REPORTS

- TEST PROCEDURE DEVIATIONS a W

PREREQUISITE TESTING ISSUES MEM0 ISSUED TilAT CllANGED PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS PROCEDURE NOT REVISED AS FOLLOW-UP POSSIBILITY PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR OTHER PREREQUISITE TESTS SIGNED BY UNAUTil0RIZED CRAFT PERSONNEL IF SITUATION HAD GREATER BREADTH, DID IT ADVERSELY IMPACT.

ON SUBSEQUENT TESTING?

POSSIBILITY OTHER MEMOS ISSUED TO MODIFY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT O

ISSUE SPECIFICS l

MEM0 SIM-8308!i ISSUED MARCll 31,.1933 BY STARTUP MAilAGER

~

'AUTil0RIZED ELECTRICAL TEST GROUP (ETG) PERS0i1NEL TO VALIDATE PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR TWO TYPES PREREQUISITE TEST PROCEDURES.

'CP-SAP-21 REQUIRES THIS DONE BY SYSTEM TEST ENGINEER

'CP-SAP-21 NOT REVISED TO REFLECT MEM0 AUTil0RIZATION PER CP-SAP-1

/

e #

U ISSUE SPECIFICS (CONT'D) 0 tiler PREREQUISITE TESTS PRE-CONDITIONS SIGNED BY UNAUTHORIZED CRAFT PERSONNEL?

'SEVERAL OTHER TYPES PREREQUISITE TEST PROCEDURES

'SIGNINGBYUNAUT50RIZEDCRAFTPERSONNELMAYHAVEOCCURRED FOR OTHER TYPES OF TESTS

' PREREQUISITE TESTS PREPARE FOR PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTS

'WAS THERE ADVERSE IMPACT ON SUBSEQUENT PRE 0P TESTS?

e a

e e

INITIATIVES

- MEMO SIM-83084 IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED

' ISSUED SIM-84220 DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 TO RESCIND

' SYSTEM TEST ENGINEERS RE-INSTRUCTED REGARDING Tile MATTER

' CRAFT PERSONNEL RE-INSTRUCTED ALL STARTUP INTEROFFICE MEMORANDA (SIM) REVIEWED FOR SIMILAR SITUATIONS ALL OTHER PREREQUISITE TESTS REVIEWED FOR SIMILAR HANDLING

- IMPACT ON SUBSEQUENT PRE 0P TESTS BEING EVALUATED

- SIGNIFICANCE OF NOT ADHERING TO PROCEDURE REQUIREMENT BEING EVALUATED h

}

~~

~.. -

m

.m,

?

ACTION PLAN STATUS

- NO OTHER SIMILAR MEM0 SITUATIONS IIAPPENED

- 0 tiler PREREQUISITE TEST' PRE-CONDITIONS WERE SIGNED BY UNAUTHORIZED CRAFT PERSONNEL

- PLANS FOR EVALUATING IMPACT ON SUBSEQUENT PRE 0P TESTS BElHG DEVELOPED

- PLANS FOR EVALUATING SIGNIFICANCE OF NOT ADHERING TO PROCEDURE REQUIREMENT BEING DEVELOPED g.

4 r

j i

i j

CONCLUDING REMARKS PRESEllT SCHEDULE TO FINISH FIRST DRAFTS OF RESULTS REPORTS IN MARCH DESIGN DOCUMENT CONTROL CONCERNS MAY EXTEND ONE ISSUE TO DATE, NOTHING OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE HAS BEEN FOUND MY OBSERVATIONS INDICATE TESTING WAS PERFORMED BY A GROUP 0F EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONAL TESTING PERSONNEL 4

0

)

TRT ELECTRICAL ISSUES I.A.1 HEAT SHRINKABLE CABLE INSULATION SLEEVES I.A.2

-lNSPECTION REPORTS ON BUTT SPLICES

  • 'I.A.3 BUTT SPLICE QUALIFICATION L I.A.4 AGREEMENT BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND FIELD TERMINATIONS v I.A.5 NCR's ON VENDOR INSTALLED AMP TERMINAL LUGS i

1.B.1 FLEXIBLE CONDUIT TO FLEXIBLE CONDUIT SEPARATION I.B.2 FLEXIBLE CONDUIT TO CABLE SEPARATION s

i I.B.3 CONDUIT TO CABLE TRAY SEPARATION I.B.4 BARRIER REMOVAL

'..i Jiu m

c. t r.i 1,

}, p,,,

( r.'.

T

~

  • rJ r*e

.)g l Y

I u.s t s; -

9

...n..,-

n.w

VI 1

-BUTT SPLICES IN CONTROL PANELS ISSUES

~

' INSPECTION REPORTS DID NOT INDICATE TilAT ALL SPLICE INSTALLATIONS WERE WITNESSED

' QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUTT SPLICE SLEEVES WERE NOT DOCUMENT

' BUTT SPLICES WERE NOT STAGGERED TO PREVENT TOUCHING EACH 0THER

' INSTALLATION PROCEDURES DID NOT REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF CIRCUIT OPERA l

I

. ~

i J

TRT CONCERNS WITil BUTT SPLICES 1.

THAT INSPECTION' REPORTS DID NOT INDICATE TilAT Tile REQUIRED

,r y'

f WITNESSING OF SPLICE INSTALLATION WAS DONE.

r

c. i. ef'

~r 2.

THAT DRAWINGS DID NOT REFLECT THE LOCATION OF ALL BUTT SPLICES.

/

b V

3.

THAT Tile BUTT SPLICES WERE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE SERVICE CONDITIONS.

y 1 'i

.' ' 11.

(

(p

.t.,

THAT BUTT SPLICES WERE NOT STAGGERED SO AS TO NOT TOUCH EACil OTHER.

i o'

5.

THAT TilERE WAS A LACK 0F PROVISIONS IN THE INSTALLATION PROCEDURES

,.i TO VERIFY THE OPERABILITY OF THE SPLICED CIRCUITS.

i

,i l

'\\

}

i j

4 9*

i

BUTT SPLICES IN CONTROL PANELS INITIATIVES PHASE 1

' RETRAIN CABLES TO PREVENT SPLICES FROM TOUCilING ONE ANOTilER

' REVISE PROCEDURES FOR TIGHTER CONTROL

' QUALIFY BUTT-SPLICE SLEEVES FOR SERVICE CONDITIONS su -

' REVIEW ADDITIONAL INSPECTION REPORTS FOR SPLICE WITNESSING PHASE 2

' THIRD PARTY INSPECTION OF BUTT SPLICES IN PANELS

)

UPDATE AND CORRECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS t

' CORRECT HARDWARE DEFICIENCIES

' THIRD PARTY REVIEW 0F ALL INSPECTION REPORTS i

e

vw 4

2.._

g_

BUTT SPLICES'lH C0HIROL PANELS STATUS PHASE 2 INSPECTIONS COMPLETE IN CONTROL AND CABLE SPREADING ROOMS CORRECTION OF HARDWARE DEFICIENCIES BEGUN DOCUMENTATION REVIEW BEGUN 0THER BUTT SPLICES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR INSPECTION F

9 e

e*

i BUTT SPLICES IN CONTROL PANELS INITIATIVES PHASE 3

' EVALUATE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE

~

' DETERMINE NEED TO INVESTIGATE RELATED AREAS

' DETERMINE ROOT CAUSE AND QA/QC IMPLICATIONS (-

i

'TAKE LONG TERM CORRECTIVE ACTION e,, <.. -

c<'<Y

,,,.,.e,,,

4' i

o i

1 i

CONCERN MAIRIX CONCERN

~

CORRECTIVE ACTION WRONG CRIMP REPLACE REVISE PROCEDURES TOOL USED RETRAIN ELECTRICIANS WIRE STRANDS REPLACE REVISE PROCEDURES CURLED RETRAIN ELECTRICIANS INSULATION SPLIT REPLACE SAME AS AB0VE OR IMPROPER HEAT SHRINK i

UNSATISFACTORY CORRECT ISOLATED - 110 LONG '

i TERMINATIONS TERM ACTION REQUIRED INSPECTIONS CHECK TRAINING REVISE PROCEDURES INADEQUATE AND CERTIFICATIONS RETRAIN INSPECTORS INSUFFICIENT CONDUCT TESTS REINSPECT A!!D/0R CONDUCTOR PENETRAT10fl ON REMOVED CONDUCTORS REPLACE ALL CONCERNS DETERMINE SAFETY ESTABLISil ROOT CAUSES SIGNIFICANCE THROUGH AND LINK TO QA/0C TESTS AHD/0R REVIEW 0F CONCERNS FUNCTION

,,,c-

i FLEXIBLE CONDUIT AND CABLE SEPARATION IN CONTROL ROOM PANELS i

ISSUES i

~

NO ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED TO ALLOW USE OF FLEXIBLE CONDUIT AS A BARRIER IN CONTROL ROOM PANELS.

SOME FLEX 1BLE CONDUITS CONTAINING REDUNDANT TRAIN CABLES WERE SEPARATED BY LESS THAN INCH OR WERE TOUCHING.

CABLES IN CONTROL PANELS WERE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH CONDUITS CONTAINING REDUNDANT TRAIN CABLES.

T f

t i

i

~

I i

l

---'rw

-m--twi--- - w tm r-r*-ww-- - - -

-%w-r ev w m

---F"-"'--e 1ww1 Tw--M e-

-- e e-e r-eeww-i e wvvm'i-*W='---g?~'erw v

v+--*n-,e

--,e-+

-e w e w-

-m--eese

- w vw dr e- - e - sr mw*.

vw*

m ei

-w

1 FLEXIBLE CONDUIT AND CABLE SEPARATION IN CONTROL ROOM PANELS INITIATIVES PROVIDE ANALYSIS FOR THE USE OF FLEXIBLE CONDUIT PROVIDE INSPECTION CRITERIA FOR THIRD PARTY REINSPECTION OF PANELS THIRD PARTY REINSPECTION OF PANELS l

I 4O

v 4A._-4

_~a.__

.A.._

u

.-4,

_____a_.._

4._mm.

ta.,

,._,.. _a u

1 FLEXIBLE CONDulT AND CABLE SEPARATIONiNCONTROLROOMPANELS STATUS I

DRAFT ANALYSIS BEING REVIEWED BY THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT a

INSPECTION CRITERIA HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND REINSPECTION PROCEDURES WRITTEN PHYSICAL TEST OF CABLE AND FLEXIBLE CONDUIT UNDER CONSIDERATION

  • p;
  • y' r.

i : - -(,. )

r -l

(

t, ',.

y yn.f, t

(.,

l, c

i..

c.

.") 1 8

j 4

~

1 oo

,4

,, -- - -,.-- -, --,. - -y w_

m,,,

_,w-,-

,+w-v.,,.p, -

,,-pw y-my---

,,-,.,,,,,,-----,..,,,,,,s

,,,w-.

-m-,

-,~,...n.

-n

TRT CIVIL / STRUCTURAL,: MECHANICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES CIVIL / STRUCTURAL

' I.

C - ELECTRICAL CONDUIT SUPPORTS

~

' II. A - REINFORCING STEEL IN THE REACTOR CAVITY

' II. B - CONCRETE COMPRESSION STRENGTH

' II, C - MAINTENANCE OF AIR GAP BETWEEN CONCRETE STRUCTURES

- ' II. D - SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING ELEMENTS

' II. E - REBAR IN THE FUEL HANDLING BUILDING MECHAilICAL'

' V. A - IdSPECTION FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF SKEWED WELDS IN NF SUPPORTS

  • V. B - Il1 PROPER SHORTENING OF ANCHOR BOLTS IN STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORTS

' V. C - DESIGN CONSIDERATION FOR PIPING SYSTEMS BETWEEll SEISMIC CATEGORY I AND NON-SEISMIC CATEGORY I BUILDINGS V. D - PLUG WELDS V. E - INSTALLATION OF MAIN STEAM PIPES MISCFilANE00S

' VI. A - GAP BETWEEN REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL REFLECTIVE INSULATION AND THE BIOLOGICAL SHIELD WALL

' VI. B - POLAR CRANE SHIMMIllG l

1

~ __ _... _ _ - _ _.

i MAINTENANCE OF AIR GAP BETWEEN CONCRETE STRUCTURES i

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

' EXTENT AND LOCATION OF DEBRIS BETWEEN STRUCTURES i

l

' EFFECTIVENESS OF QC PROGRAM

- RECORD RETENTION

- FOLLOW-UP FOR UNSATIFACTORY CONDITIONS J

' CONSISTENCY OF AS-BUILT CONDITION AND SEISMIC i

ANALYSES l

BACKGROUND

' FORMING TECHNIQUES / LOCATIONS

  • HISTORY j

' ENGINEERING SIGNIFICANCE OF ISSUE t

l i

l t

4 i

l i

I

\\

I i

== a*=anv

====r.,

... 3 SvX31'3 sow N310 1 '3 1 4 *3 133romeso wo Avso,

~)MI '530 TAW 3s $ 3 Lin tin SYx11 unumo

  • o u; g q o-o-

-y D2 o

F<

9 1

o9 oc s

a 4

t Cr.

d La

}

4 % s. 5 3ra 85

.m e s se oga f5

  • '4" A a

as a

w u.

A s U G S}

h 0

2 y

Ug m

a h4 C

_(

D.

u. %

a a

a 9.b 7c Y

9 u

^*

a a ~.

r g

r 3

l

i l

1 l

35 i

lib 2

y

!E I zj.

T r.

l I=I h..

1 g

a l

?

c i

G.

5

.s_.

!.:t 5

a:I" i,c r.

.I I{

  • 2 IQT g

22.-

j!

is if!-Si mu T

g e

=v 11 ' :e -

n

.g j;

4 Ii

=;

=

l E.

~~

'ri:

s c

g

. i

[

g 3

L8

.I T-z.

-v.

y

fiyls, r:.

a i

2:*I

~'

a.

aEll I L

![

I5:h.lgg t

g a

a I!Ii.e.:

o a s 5

la r

3

=

qlg i.ing!!i

!i gILalas 1

a i

~

y,

{!

l

. P, ' =

'T 'T

~"

g[

4 5,4, r:

r j3 r

Egl 53 4

a u

. 3 '!

I:

i

r.l'*

.=:3s tel 1

r g.

grist:

j ftlI i

8

-g!!{ [d i

" 3:la,18 "I!lge3 I

w d :

I e

se o

II j gag a

rz 1.

l n

i E

i I

m, s.se

=-uo iwvoem kb e$

.JW O

c1*

n=ao E=

08 s s 3

s eE

[w-5B g ;a x8c a s:3 5 =

B <$

gh: n

-6<

w z

=ws

=

.s-..

i

4 MAINTENAtiE OF AIR GAP BETWEEN i

CONCRETE STRUCTURES (CONT.)

1 IUITIATIVE l

' PROFILI!iG OF CURREilT AS-BUILT CONDITION VIA l

VIDEO INSPECTION I

- OVERVIEW BY SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

' DETERMINATION OF CAUSE VIA:

. REVIEW OF C0iiSTRUCTION HISTORY'

- REVIEW 0F AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION

- EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITION

' ASSESSMENT OF DESIGN ADEQUACY OF AS-BUILT CONDITION

- DESIGN REVIEW 0F CALCULATIONS

- REMOVAL OF DEBRIS (AS REQ'D)

STATUS t

' DOCUMENTATION / HISTORICAL REVIEW COMPLETE

' AS-BUILT (VIDE 0) PROGRAM INITIATED l

- 10 L.F./ DAY / CREW (1 CREW, ADDING 1 MORE)

- APPROX. 465 L.F. TOTAL SCOPE j

' NRC SITE VISIT TO WITNESS GAP INSPECTIONS -

JANUARY 21 4

l

I SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONTROL ROOM t

CEILING ELEMENTS ISSOE DESCRIPTION i

' SEISMIC DESIGN ADEQUACY OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING ELEMENTS 1

- FUNCTIONAL IMPACT TO SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT

- INJURY TO OPERATORS i

' INTERACTION OF NON-SEISMIC AND SEISMIC CATEGORY 'II i

ITEMS WITH SEISMIC CATEGORY I ITEMS

~

l

- ADEQUACY OF SEISMIC CATEGORY II CRITERIA

- EVALUATION OF ARCHITECTRUAL~

FEATURES

' ADEQUACY OF NON-SAFETY CONDUIT 2 INCHES DIAMETER AND LESS

- ANCHORAGE AND SUPPORT, OR

- DAMAGE ASSESSMENT i

4 a

l' l

i e

I I

6

? f.\\,!."#~ /

' l

-[

N u

k,

,%J w

L

,~

N d

\\

l' %

\\/

k].,'5i

/

/

h

%sg.

h t~ - e,,t,, s t......

s3%

-. nm m.,

l

_., i

SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING ELEMENTS (CON'T) 4 l

BACKGROUND

' RG 1.29 DESIGN CONCEPT FOR CR CEILING ~

' SEISMIC CATEGORY I AND II CRITERIA

' DAMAGE STUDY INITIATIVES

' CR CEILING DESIGN CHANGES

- ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS

- UNISTRUT SYSTEM

' ARCHITECTRUAL FEATURES / DAMAGE STUDY

_ METHODOLOGY / KEY ASSUMPTIONS

- IMPLEMENTATION

- EVALUATION OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES / CAT II CRITERIA

- EVALUATION OF SEISMIC INTERACTIONS AB0VE CR CEILING STATUS

' SLOPED WALL REMOVED / METAL PAN BEING INSTALLED

' ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES DESIGN COMPLETE

' UNISTRUT LATERAL RESTRAINT SYSTEM IN DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES DAMAGE STUDY COMPLETE 4

' MARCH COMPLETION i

i I

e e

I

s

~

CONCRETE COMPRESSION STRENGTH i

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

' ADEQUACY OF CONCRETE STRENGTH

' FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS BACKGROUND i

' NRC REGION IV AND TRT INVESTIGATIONS

- PERIOD IN QUESTION:

1/76 - 2/77

" EVIDENCE SUGGESTS FALSIFICATION OF RESULTS DID NOT TAKE PLACE" 1

i l

j i

[

i i

l

l CONCRETE COMPRESSION STRENGTH (CON'T)

INITI4TIVES

  • VERIFICATION OF QUALITY OF PLACED CONCRETE VIA TEST

- RANDOM SAMPLE FOR TWO POP' LATIONS J

- SCHMJDT HAMMER TESTING BY SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS OF PERIOD IN QUESTION TO PERIOD SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING

' USE OF STATISTICAL CONSULTANTS

' JACK BENJAMIN AND ASSOCIATES

- DR. DANIELE VENEZIANO, M.I.T.

STATUS

' POPULATIONS IDENTIFIED / SAMPLE SELECTED

' 107/200 TESTS COMPLETE i

  • 47 TEST LOCATIONS BEING PREPARED, REMAINING 46 READY FOR TESTING 4

' NRC STAFF SITE VISITS

- JANUARY 7 - PREPARATION l

- JANUARY 21 - TESTING

' MARCH COMPLETION e

l I

I IMPROPER SHORTENING OF ANCHOR BOLTS IN STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT ISSUE DESCRIPTION 4

' STRUCidRAL ADEQUACY OF AS-BUILT CONDITION

' ADEQUACY OF OTHER DRILLED AND TAPPED i

CONDITIONS

' UNAUTHORIZED BOLT CUTTING / ADEQUACY OF FIELD INSTALLATION PROCEDURES l

' EFFECTIVENESS OF QC PROGRAM

- RECORD RETENTION

- INSPECTION PROGRAM l

BACKGROUND

' FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF SG UPPER LATERAL SUPPORTS

  • SG UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT DETAILS i

i i

4 9

4

csun) fr-r? :'

gm

'T bQ**_o k, ~.

.,)(%,m$

/-

l6pE i

(8aS)

! u:

/

6

(

s s

f

.? Y il1

\\

\\

>p b(,

u t

r, s

I

t., d ' \\

-s

'g

_s\\

q-I Og \\

R m;EtnB i

ne Q

\\

v I:. u. A 6

i==aas$4= v o =l e

i e

e \\g A

2a a

9 et, e; (j's

' 4Ng

, es'c f

gg i

5' I,

Y

\\

W

$\\

l b4

's

?

ce h.

1

'^ '

l

$hhh$$

t =,

!55!!!!

'd

[h M

x

,g;

.e

)

,. \\

\\K

(

r ' v, st j

\\

' %,,,,. D~

rum m

~

fN/

if i2 3; a8i 59 se i

W e

p i

i s_

I

l

-~

m i,

&v l;

Il pf l

m

'r: N%

\\

8 l

i

\\

l.?

di (j'

\\

\\

J

\\\\

\\

I

\\\\

'o e

's- % 't

.l

'\\I l

i

\\

t It iiiii 7

I,3 I' JLs2 v -, T.!)

-,!!!w-l

, hr r-w v 3

1I I

I I

i l

-l"!r. lq.

t_

i

' g%

e iu e

l q'i y

i N; 5

.a, i

I l

/

o

=

-~w,

W

~.-- 'lfilVd Gfl d Q

\\. f g

S-

&.R,4@

x x

h

.N':

0

, ' 4 $ R' c

2 Q

oa i%

w g

x i

(

Ch

-)

a.'

a s

'4 tc

~

b h

dA o

b

~

s W

e-k

. 6 5, N $tu. s. :

I

,e \\

k

.3r n

~ >c

- e m 4

.S p

,t 5 _w h, w. o

-~

n

~

s 5 ? x-i

../

l x sg-s t

'N; e,

s t :..-

Mg

  • 1 A

- " - ~

i

,%. 2 l

{i Ti N.,: '.

6 m

e t

g, l i; g r x

_. f., -'- s E

i

I!I li Lu A i

e

,t.

Nt, x

t--

....--r.+

m. H m

e, aMI

  • Nf

(

1 i

1.

-s 9i i

e1

,E i

i s

,5 i ji.'Jt y

l [N

    • \\

D

! hh

'N

'AjjW s-

=

d q p -@w% h.g y

i s

/

i a

f 1

%um

-~

i El

  • 6 qlI v

I T

'l*

t

---T U

s 9

j

-i

}

^

I i

g n

.., C

--_.n.... m...

g..

,,*l

.D

  • ? $

]O 3 E l

'o*

  • 3

[0 J

t

~.

6 -V I

x 4

m...

.m

IMPROPER SHORTENING 0F ANCHOR BOLTS IN STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT (CON'T)

INITIATIVES

' UT INSPECTION TO DETERMINE BOLT ENGAGEMENT

' EVALUATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

'FOR SG UPPER LATERAL SUPPORTS

' MODIFICATION (AS REQUIRED)

- VIDE 0 0F HOLES

  • IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER DRILLED AND TAPPED CONNECTIONS

- SAMPLE SELECTION

- INSPECTION /3RD PARTY OVERVIEW

- EVALUATION

' REVIEW 0F BOLT CUTTING PROCEDURES AND CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION PROCEDURES STATUS

' UT INSPECTION COMPLETE

' THIRD PARTY DESIGN REVIEW IN PROGRESS

' MODIFICATIONS TO BEGIN SHORTLY

' NRC SITE VISIT - 2/6

' MARCH COMPLETION 4

l

SUMMARY

liilTIATIVES FOR HIGHLIGHTED ISSUES ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF OTHER ISSUES ESTIMATED COMPLETION IN MARCH - APRIL TIME FRAME f

l

\\

e e

. = = _ -

l 1

QA/DC AREA l

\\

r

' SEPTEMBER 18, 198'1 LETTER j

- I.D.1 INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS 1

- I.D.2 INSPECTOR TESTING l

- WILL DISCUSS BOTH TOGETHER l

l

' JANUARY 8, 1985 LETTER l

l 1

I o.

P INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION / CERTIFICATION

~

v w

' ISSUE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

' PilASE I - DETAILED REVIEW 0F FILES

~

' PilASE II - EVALUATION OF QUESTIONABLE CERTIFICATION

  • PHASE III - DETAILED EVALUATION OF PERSONS NOT PROPERLY QUALIFIED l

t

  • RELATED ACTIONS i

)

i t

i j

i!_

INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION / CERTIFICATION.

ISSUES:

ADEQUACY OF SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION REGARDING PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS IN TRAINING / CERTIFICATION FILES.

e BACKGROUND:

' AT TIME OF CP, TUGC0 WAS COMMITTED TO 10 CFR 50 APP. B.

' PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATED BY EXAMINATION, VERIFIED BY OJT 1981

- COMMITTED TO REG. GUIDE 1.58 REV. 1

  • SAME AS AB0VE PLUS VERIFICATION OF EDUCATION / EXPERIENCE
  • INSPECTORS TRAINED AND CERTIFIED TO SPECIFIC PROCEDURES / INSTRUCTIONS

'EACHIljSPECTORMAYHOLDMULTIPLECERTIFICATION 3

)

t i

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

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

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

ACTION - PilASE I TUGC0 AUDIT GROUP REVIEWED TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, RECERTIFICATION FILES FOR:

  • ALL ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS (CURRENT AND PAST)

' NON-ASME-INSPECTORS (CURRENT)

  • ASME INSPECTORS (CURRENT)

' RECENT DECISION BASED ON NRC LETTER DATED 1/8/85

  • CONDUCTED BY INDEPENDENT SPECIAL EVALUATION TEAM (SET)

RESULTS

' TUGC0 AUDIT REVIEWED FILES FOR:

' 215 INSPECTORS

]

' 2386 CERTIFICATIONS

' CERTIFICATION

SUMMARY

FORMS PREPARED FOR EACil INSPECTOR

' EFFORT WAS AUDITED BY SET

' TO BE REVIEWED BY SET i

  • 133 INSPECTORS

' 270 CERTIFICATIONS

~

ACTION PLAN - PilASE II SPECIAL EVALUATION TEAM

' INDEPENDENT MilllMUM 5' YEARS MANAGEMENT / SUPERVISORY QA/QC EXPERIEllCE

' CONDUCTED A DETAILED REVIEW 0F EACH FILE SET REVIEW TO DETERMINE

' EXPERIENCE

' EDUCATION

' OJT

' RESULTS OF WRITTEN EXAMIi1ATIONS

' 0 tiler VALID CERTIFICATIONS IN RELATED AREAS C0llSISTENT APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING RELATED EXPERIENCE

  • RESULTS DOCUMENTED FOR EACH INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION, FILES UPDATED 1

1 ij i

1

ACTION PLAN - PilASE 11 REQUIRE FURillER RECORDS EVALUAT10H QUEST 10HAlllE CATEGORY UPDATE REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS 10lAL CURRENT ELECTRICAL 25 3

28 CURRENT OTilER DISCIPLINES 38-38 CURRENT LEVEL III 15 1

1 17 HISTORICAL ELECTRICAL 36 1

13 50 4

i TOTAL 11'l 5

Ill 133

~

g 4

ACTION PLAN - PilASE Ill DETAILED EVALUATION OF QUESTIONABLE QUALIFICAT!0NS

' DETERNINE SAFETY RELATED WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY EACll INSPECTOR IN CilRON0 LOGICAL ORDER.

p

' IS IT STILL ACCESSIBLE, UNDISTURBED AND RECREATABLE?

DEFINE WORK ACCOMPLISilED IN FIRST 90 DAYS.

' REINSPECT WORK USE THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS (ERC)

  • IllSPECT USING ORIGINAL CRITERIA i

' EVALUATE RESULTS 1

' OBJECTIVE - 95% AGREEMENT

  • SUBJECTIVE - 90% AGREEMENT i

l, I

' IF INSPECTOR FAILS' CRITERIA - INPUT NEXT 90 DAYS EFFORT j

' EVALUATE TO SAME CRITERIA-

' IF-INSPECTOR FAILS - RElHSPECT ALL REMAINING WORK

  • INSPECTORS WHO DO NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS j

' EVALUATE WORK FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE

{

' IDENTIFY SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS THAT CAN VALIDATE RESULTS

  • PERFORM OTHER TESTS OR INSPECTIONS

' DOCUMENT HOW EACil CASE IS DISPOSITIONED

....--,---,,,---_,,,,-,..,,-,-,--,,-,,e.---.-n.-.--m w,,-',,-~~~,,.---w,,,,n--,

n.,-,ne,

.--n-n-.--------v-,,-n,m

.-n

,,,wn,n.w-wa..,

an.-.,-

RELATED ACTIONS

' RTL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS Oli IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT PROCEDURES

' CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES

  • CERTIFICATE FILES
  • TESTING PROCEDURES & CONTROLS

' COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM FOR TRACKING ALL CERTIFICATION /RECERTIFICATION ACTIONS'

' NEW APPROACH TO INSPECTOR TESTING 0; '

, ';g !

,.,, j,

5 ' ",.' l

  • BANKS'0F QUESTIONS BEING DEVELOPED BY DISCIPLINE i-f.

- QUESTIONS CAN BE SCRAMBLED "i '

' SYSTEM OPERATIONAL BY MID APRIL

' TRAIN TUGC0 QE's ON HOW TO TRAIN INSPECTORS MORE EFFECTIVELY

' INSPECTION PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM

' EVALUATE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES, STUDY RESULTS, RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS

  • INSPECTION RESULTS TRENDED TO IDENTIFY WEAKNESSES
  • RESULTSTRENDEDTOIDENTIFYCAUSEOFDISCREPANCY-IDENTIFYPREVENTATIVE ACTIONS I

~.

l

SUMMARY

APPROACH WILL ENABLE SRT/TUGC0 TO IDENTIFY WEAKilESSES IN CERTIFICATION PROCESS

' IDENTIFY INSPECTORS WITH QUESTIONABLE CERTIFICATIONS

' EVALUATE WORK PERFORMED'BY THESE INSPECTORS TO ASSESS FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE

  • REC 0 MEND IMPROVEMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

.4 e

M

i 0A/0C~

i (NRC LETTER DATED 1/8/85) i 1

OVLfALL APPROACH PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES i

i l

IDENTIFIED HARDWARE ISSUES 1

?

N i

l' k

2 4

i 4

,i

IP0GRNTET1.C_1.SSES IKilTIFIED IWDINE ISSIS SYSTBVPROCEIHE NRCART/TUGCO' ISSE

__ DID NTECT lM)

KCUlKS FIX

~0C ACEPTNTE-E NO E

W ISSI KSIGN CONST.

m INITI/C ~ POST-Butt NCR GOERIC Spilces 50.55E Locking Audits lifLICATION Devices TBD I

e e

APPROACll WILL ENABLE -

SRT/TUGC0 TO IDENTIFY SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES.

~

CAUSED BY EITilER PROGRAMATIC OR WORKMANSHIP WEAKNESSES, BOUND Til0SE DEFICIEllCIES AND IMPLEf1ENT EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.

4 1

i l

PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES APPROACH

' REVIEW, SUMMARIZE AND ANALYZE HISTORICAL DATA

~

' DETERMINE IMPACT ON llARDWARE N0 HARDWARE IMPACT

' HARDWARE IMPACT DETERMINE AREAS WHERE

' RECLASSIFY AS A HARDWARE IMPROVEMENT CAN BE MADE ISSUE ANI' FOLLOW INVESTIGATIVE

' MAKE PROGRAM RECOMENDATIONS LOGIC PLAN 4

i 4

0A/0C CONSTRUCTION RELATED ISSUES

't GENERAL APPROACll - IDENTIFIED ISSUES

' UNDERSTAND Tile ISSUE AND IMPLICATIONS ON 0A/0C PROGRAM 9/18/84 LETTER i

11/29/84 LETTER

^

1/08/85 LETTER GATilER ALL PERTINENT DATA

' ANALYZE DATA AND INSPECT HARDWARE IF REQUIRED B0UND AND QUANTIFY ISSUE DETERMINE WilEN AND ll0W DISCREPANCY OCCURED AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED EVALUATE FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINE ROOT CAUSE AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS IDENTIFY NEW PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES THAT REQUIRE EVALUATION CATAGORIZE INITIAL DA/0C CONTROLS OK-IN111AL 0A/0C CONTROLS NOT OK e

a

0A/0C CONSTRUCTION RELATED ISSUES (IDENTIFIED ISSUES)

APPROACil - INITIAL QA/4C CONTROLS OK (DISTURBED SINCE INITIAL INSPECTION)

DEVELOP A DETAILED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SPECIAL TESTS DEVELOP PROCEDURAL CONTROLS RETRAINING APPROACH - INITIAL DA/0C CONTROLS NOT OK ADVANCE TO SAMPLE REINSPECTION OF llARDWARE e

y

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20136A657&oldid=4220046"