ML20138H499

Forwards Preliminary Trip Rept of 851205 Visit to Plant Re Results of NRC Audit Walkdown on Unit 1 Cable Tray Supports. List of Attendees Also Encl

ML20138H499
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/12/1985
From:	Landers D TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:	Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
6410-26, NUDOCS 8512170222
Download: ML20138H499 (8)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __

.' 'RTELEDYNE ENGNEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254 (617) 890-3350 TWX (710) 324-7508 December 12, 1985 6410-26 Eb- H S 664 4G ,

Mr. Vince Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Project U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Mail Stop P-234 Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Noonan:

Attached please find our preliminary Trip Report for our visit to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station to discuss -the results of the NRC audit walkdown on the Unit 1 Cable Tray Supports.

i

! If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours, TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES A $

Donald F. Landers Executive Vice President DFL/lh Attachment (TripReportNo.2188) cc: L. Shao (USNRC)

C. Trammell (USNRC)

C. Poslusny (USRNC)

D. Jeng (USNRC) 6410 File (TES)

ADD:

PWR = A/RC's TECH SUPPORT AD - J. Knight titr on13 )

8512170222 851212 PDR \

A ADOCK 05000445 UcN^In"o"Us PDR rsa (cAxxrLt) p' g"gg8 $

g ENGINEEHS AND METALLURGISTS

"#TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVCES TRIP REPORT N0. 2188 VIST TO COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION.

DECEMBER 5, 1985 On Thursday December 5,1985 a meeting was held with TUCG0

.to discuss the results of the NRC audit walkdown on the unit I cable tray supports. A list of those in attendance is shown in attachment 1. TUCG0 has stopped the walkdowns and is currently revising the walkdown procedures. The causes of the NRC findings are being investigated and appropriate corrective action will be taken. Previously the walkdown teams consisted of a QC inspector and an engineer. The QC inspector and the engineer will now be split up into two walkdown teams.

TERA was asked if their review included looking at the walkdowns. They responded that they were reviewing the procedures but that implementation was not part of the current scope. They are considering, as a result of these findings, to include the implimentation in their scope.

As a result of the NRC findings TUCG0 has sent level III inspectors out to~ walkdown the supports in which we had findings.

The following is a list of'TUCG0 responses to the findings found during the NRC audit November 18 - 22, 1985.

1.. CTH-1-5817: (a) Bottom two teirs are 1 member size smaller than what is shown on the drawing.

(b) Tray 1 is a 4" x 24" not a 4" x 12" as shown on the drawing.

(c) Tray 2 is a 4" x 24" not IA as shown on the drawing.

(d) Bolts G1 & G2 are given as type " BEVEL".

Actual type is A307 & A449.

(e) Conduit #11 span is too short.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) By measuring the webs the members were found to be the correct size. The differance in the flange widths is due to the mill tolerances on the steel. This item needs further investigation.

(b) Agree with finding.

(c) Accessability is defined as accesable at the tray. Since the tray was wrapped in a thermal blanket at the support it was marked IA.

The thermal blanket ended just after the support at which point the tray size could be measured but since this would involve the use of engineering judgement, which is not allowed in the procedure, the tray size is marked IA.

(d) Agree with finding.

(e) Agree with finding.

I,

'A'TE: =rWNE . -

ENGINEERING SERVIOES

2. CTH-1-5787: (a) Angle under tray.was given as 3-1/2" x 2-1/2" x 5/16 with the 2-1/2" marked-IA. Angle is

.actually 3-1/2" x 5" x 7/16". .

(b) Weld of angle to baseplate marked IA but only weld on leg under tray was inaccesable the other leg was accesable.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

(b) Agree with finding.

3. CTH-1-239: (a) Span lengths incorrect. 4" dimension is 12" & 4'-0" dimension is 4'-10".

(b) Bolt G dimensions given as 2-13/16" &

2-5/8" but-actually measure as 2-1/2 8 2-3/4.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with f.inding.

(b) Agree with finding.

4. CTH-1-42: (a) Bolt #1 G dim given as 2-1/8", actual dimension is 3-1/8".

(b) Welds #4 & 8 are written up as U.S measuring,3/16". Actual measurement is 1/4" which

what was called for.

(c) Tray clamps 3 & 4 marked IA but have beveld washers on them.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

(b) Agree with finding.

(c) According to the procedure the clamp and bolt are to be treated as a unit and since the clamp was inaccessable the bolts. and washers were also marked IA.

l S. 'CTH-1-12075: (a) Tray clamp is shown as Type B, 1/2"

~

' plate welded to channel. Actual tray clamp is Type C, botled to channel.

(b) Weld symbol of channel to angle is reversed.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

(b) Agree with finding. 1

6. CTH-1-5942: (a) Weld #1 arrow side is given as 5/16" but measures 1/4". ,

(b) Channel C4x5.4 is actually a C4x7.25. l (c) 7-5/8" dimension to edge of column is l actually 8-5/8". '

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

(b) Agree with finding.

(c) Agree with finding.

l u J

~

1

^

SPTFIC0YNE i ENGINEERING SERVCES l

.7. CTP 636: (a) Weld #1 measures 1/4" both sides. ,

Drawing shows 1/4" NS and 3/16" FS.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) TUCG0 inspectors found weld to be undersized for 27% of its length which is greater than 25% therefore the weld is unsat as shown in the

, walkdown.

i

8. 'CTH 6_07: (a) Support is marked inaccesable but base plate are accesable for-dimensioning.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) TUCG0 did not know about this item.

9. CTH-1-1853:_ (a) Weld sizes for top of angle brace are given backwards.

(b) Gap under Richmond Insert is greater '

than 1/16" TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

(b) Copy of inspection report that was used for the walkdown was not the latest inspection report.

~

The latest inspection report contains the gap discrepancy.

10. CTH-1-1716: (a) Bolt #2 has 2-3/4" projection given. /

Actual projection 2-3/8".

TUCG0' Response:

(a) Agree with finding. Problems with bolt projections are due to techniques used to measure the projections. Since the procedure does not define the -

method to be used many different methods may have been used. The next revision to the walkdown procedure will clearly outline the method of measuring the bolt

. projection.

11. CTH-1-1845: (a) Bolt Projections 3-3/4" & 3-3/8"-given.

Actual projections are 3" & 2-3/4".

(b) Tray clamp G1 contains no bolt and Wdsher as called out in table. G1 is a Type B (welded) clamp.

(c) Tray clamp G2 contains a bevel and flat washer. Table shows only bevel washer.

(d) Angle at wall rotated 90 deg.

(e) Dimension against wall between attachments is wrong.

(f) Dimension of W.P. in det A is wrong.

(g) Weld size in Det B is given as 1/2".

Actual weld size is 3/16".

"RTACTT(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

~ (b) Agree with finding.

(c) Agree with finding.

(d) Agree with finding.

(e) Agree with finding.

(f) Agree with finding.

(g) Agree with finding, but measure 1/4".

12. CTH-1-5517: (a) Weld #1 arrowside udersized 5/16" - 1/4".

(b) Tray size marked IA due to thermal blanket.

Just down from support tray was accesable. Tray measures 18" x 4".

(c) Weld #5 & 6 Q.C. marked unsat for undersized were found to be OK.

(d) The end prep on a bevel weld was found to i be undersized. l

'(e) Plate size on clamp given as 1/2" x 3-3/4" f- x 6" measures 1/2" x'4-1/4" x 6".

i TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with findir.g.

l (b) See response 1 (c).

(c) Agree with finding.

,. (d) This attribute was not being checked for L

at'this support.

(e) Agree with finding. The measurement tolerances included in the walkdown procedure did not apply to redlined dimensions but in the next revision

[ they will apply. The discrepancy on the plate tolerance is within these tolerances.

13. 'CTH-1-5488: (a) Dimension from B.0.C. to top of vertical channel. Dwg called for 2'-6" (max) dimension was deleted.

(b) Weld #1 far side undersized. 5/16" called out, Q.C. called unsat to 1/4", actually measur'ed

. 3/16".

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Deleted dimension was added on a different section which was uncicar due to copying.

(b) Agree with finding.

14. CTH-1-7047: (a)' Bolt projections found to be different.

Walkdown NRC Bolt #1 2-1/2" 2-1/4" Bolt #2 1-7/8" 1-5/8" Bolt #3 2-11/16" 2-1/2"

.TUCG0 Response:

(a) Disagree with finding. See response to item 10 (a).

V

r '

W TA mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

15. CTH-1-1963: (a) 5'-1" dimension measures 4'-10".

(b) Weld #2 weld length called out as 3/4".

Actual weld lengths are 3-1/4".

(c) Plate size 6-3/4"lg measures 6-1/2".

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

(b) This problem is due to unclear copies.

Original has 3-1/4" for weld length..

(c) This plate is skewed and tough to get an accurate measurement on. However the discrepancy will be_within the tolerance of the procedure.

16. CTH-1-5538: (a) Bevel on penetration weld found to be incorrect.-

TUCG0 Response:

(a) Agree with finding.

17. CTH-1-4738: (a) Weld #1 is udersized.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) TUGC0 inspectors disagree however said part of weld was inaccesable. The discrepancy in weld size was found in the area they said was inaccesable.

This ' item needs further investigation.

18. CTH-1-6631: (a) Weld undercut.

(b) Std. hex nuts found in lieu of heavy hex nuts.

TUCG0 Response:

(a) This attribute was not looked at for this support. -

(b) This attribute was not checked. Since this is a bearing connection the size of the nut has no

! effect on the strength of the connection.

19. CTH-1-5976: (a) 3" dimension from back of channel to edge of plate.was measured at 3-1/4" (b) Projection of bolt #1 given as 3-1/2" was measured as 3".

TUCG0 Response:-

(a) Agree with finding.

(b) See response 10 (a).

9

~

SPTACTWNE

' ~-

ENGINEERING SERVICES In the afternoon a meeting was held with Region I to find out what procedures they used for there walkdown. Region I used the VWAC procedure for performing the walkdown-on September 9 -

10, 1985. Region IV performed there walkdown as per. TUCG0 procedures that were used by TUCG0 for there walkdowns.

[

Eric A Solla EAS Enclosures' cc: DFL-JAF WJC TRIP REPORT FILE 9

i J

l l

SPTA mfNE 4

ENGINEERING SERVIOES Attachment 1 Cable Tray Meeting 12/5/85

. Name Organization Terry Langowski NRC/TRT Bob Philleo TRT Tom Brandt- TUGC0 QA Philip Halstead TUGC0 QA J. S. Marshall TUGC0 LIC R. E. Camp IMPELL - PROJ MGR Victor Ferrarini NRC/TRT Jim Dale NRC/RIV David C. Jeng NRC/TRT Howard A. Levin CPRT/RTL Larry Shoa NRC Thomas F. Westerman NRC/RIV Eric Solla NRC/TES C. R..Hooton

~

TUCG0 R. M. Kissinger TUCG0 W. F. Rockwell EBASCO Ronald A. Muldoon EBASCO John Vorderbeneggem IMPELL H. A. Harrison TUCG0 9

0 e

l

.