ML20140H318
| ML20140H318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/25/1986 |
| From: | Lasky R, Potapovs U NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140H253 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900511 NUDOCS 8604040091 | |
| Download: ML20140H318 (9) | |
Text
,
ORGANIZATION:
CORPORATE CONSULTING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION 1/6-7/86 INSPECTION N0.: 99900511/86-01 DATE(S):
2/3-4/86 ON-SITE HOURS:
28 CbRRESPONDENCEADDRESS: Corporate Consulting & Development Company, Ltd.
ATTN:
Dr. J. R. Yow, President Post Office Box 12728 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. Carson Blanton, Jr., QA Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(919) 362-8800 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Corporate Consulting and Development Company, Ltd.
(CCL) provides engineering, consulting, and testing services to the nuclear industry for seismic analysis, testing, and nuclear environmental qualifications of equipment.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR:
[Mw/ 77 [MF Me v/#r; R. H. Lasky, Equipment Quakification Inspection Date Section (EQIS)
OTHERINSPECTOR(S):
M. Jac
, Sandia National Laboratory Lkldb buYW S2-APPROVED BY:
s V. Potapovs, Chief, EQJS, Vendor Program Branch ate INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES: Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 21.
B.
SCOPE: There were two (2) visits made to Corporate Consulting &
Development Company, LTD (CCL). The first on January 6-7, 1986 and the second on, February 3-4, 1986.
Both visits were related to the qualification of KXL 780 insulation compound Rockbestos cable for (continued on page 2)
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Sequoyah 1 & 2 (50-327/328); Watts Bar 1 & 2 (50-390/391).
99 00511
O ORGANIZATION: CORPORATE CONSULTING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99900511/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 5 B.
SCOPE:
(continued)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The inspections consisted of:
(1) a technical evaluation of equipment qualification (EQ) test activities for safety-related equipment; (2) witnessing of inprocess EQ testing; and (3) verification of implementation of quality assurance (QA) program.
A.
VIOLATIONS:
None.
B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
None.
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None.
D.
OTHER FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1.
Observations of Insulation Resistance and Elengation Test for Job Number (JN) 1963:
(1/6-7/86 inspection)
The Tennessee Valley Authority-(TVA) contracted with Corporate Consulting and Development Company, LTD (CCL) to conduct testing to establish similarity between two formulations of Rockbestos chemically cross-linked polyethylene cable, the old formulation KXL 780 and the newer formulation KXL 760-D. TVA intended to qualify KXL 780 type cable by proving similarity to the previously qualified KXL 760-D type cable.
The CCL testing was intended to show similarity between the XXL 780 and KXL 760-0 type cables, both before and after the cables were irradiated. The testing consisted of insulation resistance checks, thermogravimetric analysis and elongation testing of the wire insulation.
The test setup consisted of thirty, six inch samples of both the KXL 780 and KXL 760-D wire insulation.
Fifteen of each sampic were irradiated. There were also two, approximately fifteen foot lengths of each the KXL 780 and the KXL 760-D cables. Cables were two conductor cables.
ORGANIZATION: CORPORATE CONSULTING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION
, NO
- 4GQOO8i11/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 5 a.
The NRC inspector and the Sandia consultant (NRC inspection team) examined the CCL procedures for the insulation resis-tance testing, elongation testing and the purchase order from CCL to Georgia Tech for the irradiation of the samples.
No deficiencies were noted in these documents, b.
The thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) calculations were examined by the Sandia consultant. The data was still in rough form and had not been formalized by CCL. CCL indicated that the calcu-lated activation energies between the KXL 780 and KXL 760-D were within three percent of each other.
No deficiencies were noted in the TGA.
c.
The insulation resistance (IR) data was examined by the NRC inspection team.
The IR data was the same for both formulations of cable. The cables had the same IR unirradiated as they did after they were irradiated. All IR meter readings were greater than the range of the instrument used (1000 Mohms). No deficiencies were noted in the IR testing, d.
The NRC inspection team observed the elongation testing of seven of the sixty samples.
Four of the samples were the unirradiated KXL 760-0 and the other three samples were the unirradiated KXL 780. All of the KXL 780 samples stretched to the maximum travel of the test Nachine (approximately 400 percent elongation).
It was noted that the KXL 780 samples tended to stretch uniformly over the length of the sample. Of the four unirradiated KXL 760-D samples observed, only the black sample elongated to the maximum travel of the machine. The three white KXL 760-D samples all broke with only a 15-20 percent elongation, measured at the center two inches of the sample ~.
It was also. observed that while the KXL 780 tended to elongate uniformally when stretched, the KXL 760-0 tended to neck down at the ends. There were no procedural deficiencies noted while the testing was being observed.
2.
Post LOCA/HELB Testing of Rockbestos Cable:
(2/3-4/86 inspection) a.
TVA had determined that similarity between KXL 780 and KXL 760-0 Rockbestos cable could not be proved and contracted with CCL to perform a Design Basis Accident (DBA) simulation on the fifteen foot piece of KXL 780 Rockbestos cable previously irradiated for IR testing.
4 ORGANIZATION:
CORPORATE CONSULTING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99900511/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 5-b.
The NRC inspection team arcived the day before the KXL 780 cable was to be removed from the test chamber for post LOCA/HEL8 testing, to review test precedures and test data.
Review of radiation test data from Georgia Tech Hot-Cell Operations, Neely Nuclear Research Center showed that data sheets were not signed by Georgia Tech.
CCL had previously recognized the lack of signatures and had documented that they were requesting a signed data sheet from Georgia Tech.
No deficiencies were noted in the thermal aging procedure. No calculations were required since TVA had provided the time and temperature to be used for aging.
The DBA simulation procedure was examined. Although the written text recognized the removal of the load resistors during the leakage current checks, figure 2 of the procedure did not.
CCL changed the figure to recognize that the load resistors would be disconnected during the leakage current checks.
This was considered a clarification of the procedure and not a deficient condition.
The chemical spray work sheet was examined and no deficient conditions were found.
The Instrument Calibration Log was examined to ensure all instrumentation used was within calibration requirements.
No deficient conditions were found.
Selected insulation resistance and leckage current measurements that had been taken during the LOCA/HELB simulation were reviewed and verified to be within the specified values.
The LOCA/HELB simulation strip chart recordings were examined ard found to contain all pe'rtinent information.
c.
The NRC inspection team observed the post LOCA/HELB functional test of the Rockbestos KXL 780 sample.
The test chamber was filled with water prior to the measurements.
Leakage current measurements were made at 24 Vac, 48 Vac, 120 Vac, and 480 Vac. Leakage currents at 24 Vac and 48 Vac were too
ORGANIZATION: CORPORATE CONSULTING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99900511/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 5 of 5 low to measure. The leakage current at 120 Vac was approximately 0.04 mA and at 480 Vac was approximately 0.18 mA. All insulation resistance readings were greater than 500 Mohms.
The KXL 780 cable was removed from the test chamber, inspected and then subjected te a 40 times the cable diameter bend. A voltage withstand test at 2000 Vac (based on 80 Vac/ mil and 25 mils insulation of the cable) was conducted.
Both conductors passed the five minute 2000 Vac test. The cable appeared to be in good condition when remo"ed from the chamber. Some yellow deposits were on the cable, but no apparent physical damage.
3.
CCL audit report on Georgia Tech's Hot-Cell Operations Center, Neely Nuclear Research Center, was examined during the February 3-4, 1986 inspection.
Report was examined to verify that CCL had approved the procedure by which Georgia Tech documents nonconformances.
Section 15.2 of report concurred on Georgia Tech's procedure for documenting nonconformances.
4.
Elongation test data was reviewed during the February 3-4, 1986 inspection.
The final results of the test were as follows:
(see Section D.le for earlier inspection of this test) a.
Twelve of the KXL 780 non-irradiated samples exceeded the machine travel.
b.
One of the KXL 780 irradiated samples exceeded the machine
- travel, c.
Four of the KXL 760-0 non-irradiated samples exceeded the machine travel.
d.
None of the KXL 760-D irradiated samples exceeded the machine travel.
Two reports of anomal'.es were written concerning the number and size of test samples.
The reports had not been approved at the time of the inspection.
No deficiencies were noted.
, r-e I
l 1
'(
i k
[
O N)
[
b{ '
O s
g 11 J
4 w k O d
e S '6$
h e
TN I
rw k
y N'
n W yr rf W U
A O ld 1
.l 6 W C
{
g O2 4 4
d v3 y
i V
-2 U
w Is.
F u
v z
1
~
- 5 h
C
+
0 E
4
{?
?
5 d
W
\\
7 a
e d
. g-
.u e
s y,
.Lt w
{N y
f
'O 4
y(-
s
.~
h Q
d
[
h 3.t$
'A I
'b Q
L i
2 1
t' 4
D 14 '
I
$~
t O
H s
a i
r Of O
8, 6
Wd i[
@s wO g.
h 4
,N N.
~*
g s:'
Y.
Y
~.
>= C1.
p
'q j'
j J
t W
gi y
y 2
t,
- c s
<s 3
I I-D 6,
4 Wr SC g
I N
h 6d N
M t
2 ow rs e
a a
lA
~.$
C, WGC Z h h
so pg ) '2 O s
.t-e i.%
a b
- 5.
g s
.s Cg g W J d
3
- g Ug g I W C Det C
g 2uC2og ggesk n
2 C
a he 0
~2 U g g C o w
v Ek t
y) et 0
5
,0 3
<w o wk O@c.e d o ugot u
ot s w 32
-i 3
4 s
o gg A
3~
J y
g
{ w.
$ 13 CCCf5 a
ii
,ie:
0
- g g g ;;
d i o
~
+
u e
l
PERSONS CONTACTED u, peds wsulGS ua Company Dexter ~c.& Co., L TD Dates Ta n. G-7,/9sc
' Docket / Report No. #9WJ/ / r> /
Inspector 14; hy Page /~ of
/
NAME(Please Print)
TIT 1.E(Please Print)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print)
+Qcs egey Bh A a
.Tr Hr.. n. o r 2A CCL Ala Mo v e r Sn c e Eva,o*cr XL
<e.iL 1c9,'us e r l.
ccL ec
- /
'[I k^ I *' l
,P C, t
(( b Op~ rxl> c s s c<L C. G r a n's
')> e. h -
[ E ky, (
C':c i itC5* o' t C C~ '
(CL Dev
,Yhen t ' t t
- s y 1 o e r
( ( b.
>'r=
Pole t'. rl r r
~
~:
G.,c 5.P: r e e 2 o e 2
[*<ar Y:c. &a
~~ 4 3rn 's b1'tt
!=J
'J -
.I
~Jh T') 4
- ep e
.c M23 o c
~..
r-
- On,,h Leame 5.4 eer
<e.1
.1 e
- $.r IC+ $f $ $ LSC's i
t Z. a, sa e r CG
+
l M. Tt* v o 2:
're ~.espect. m Csutereace e
n
@ A Heu c,e e.
e w', ~..,c
.e.,..
1 i
WP
l i
s i
l 4,
t W
,S
- i
[
s d
l.
- s.,3 m
x s
k h
'r 9 O
t jN K gq E
T d
M
,d e o e
s I
31@
O gg
-[
k4D j.'
N l %
- s 1
h kU
^
v E @e J
u p
y i 4
x i
w s
g h
I t hy N^
{ tl
/
t v
-8 s
N Im
.o
.)
3 rd i
N u
o 4
en s
e!
}
(
NJ L
s s t s
v 0
$C N
k N3 J(
T k E t
S i
u s
f
\\a 5
(
T a n z
y m
4-
)
s Q
kf f
w h
W i
4 :
0 S-w
-Y t
i't 4
x d
d e
C hn
,1 s.
a e4 %
a t
4 i
W 4
2 a
1 i
.u
~
n, a
g G
h t
I 4
Q Y
b b
a e
W d
'q 3
4
/
M lw I
w s
D I
4 4
5 d
v 4
3
+
h Q
,9 O
4 c.
k Q
kk
-o ek f
c-i,<
r v
e e
IS k
Ul
^
1 4
w w
3 N
N
~
g
~
8 IIIII!
i" I'*
H h
h H
ly ofw
,3
'J C
g a
O c
l N
a g
p C V N
i 9
% b 4
7 go i
N m
s o
2 s
I g
{X N
W i
N W-'
i M
'S N
d 8
7 oG N
Ed D
Z "til.J 3 0 s
N Cg g W J s
q u g g Z M et d 2EO23y2 9
A
- @k}
8
-WCozW W
o 9
0 3dgEO **
i{ (
Cy L.
4 NN k
h k
!is!WI
$h
'~~
t u
~
m
+
PERSONS CONTACTED Company 'arturde. Comitsay 4 Dea +p.ued Ce s 70 l
Dates ra b 1 y j99 c
' Oceket/ Report No. yffvos n -St-o/
Inspector
/P N. 44s 4,f Page 4 of f
NAME(Please Print)
TITLE (Please Print)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print)
- 'r?,c l a rcl L a s k s EC +Tev/
E~~p,n e, DEC
- hiack L La E~si~ << <t Teus,a 6-s, Lm 9einn & ease m EO &r5*/
i V4 NNner:? 7cNn=wslA
~~Jn-h- - EE fVA D~ Ao ruA -En n twa D% bkNT/
M,4 #dyt d.C./___.
c/m.o,.~
5, M L < IL,Y % )
cce n.
n,se, e ai.ee, cc&
~d opem boos
( ( (_
o yJ ef g, n.y er e
n Pd:. faNer
~~tc h
( C /_
_