ML20198L431
| ML20198L431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1984 |
| From: | NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197J316 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606040283 | |
| Download: ML20198L431 (200) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:f ' 9 lg v-??.F h 4 W SlWE'W?@? N fMVHGP5'*W34f34NMWJApp%2 tits s2.,ggi. f.).l.5 i . . ;:-b
.I .
s i *
. .$' ]C, ^
&\w%%)
1 4 . - s , O 4
' /
s
- E d6 6
lV
. 7 8-l 9
- l 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 11 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 12 -
13
\
- 14 l
15 16 i i 17 j 18 I 19 s ,
! 20 i
j 21 22 23
= = -
GARDE 85-59 PDR upoq
T f -
- 7_ ,
1 r . .
.J.
~
.. 1.
le 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM 4 5 6 . TECHNICAL INTERVIEW 7 8 9 l . 10 Thursday, August 2, 1984 11 Fort Worth, Texas 12 - This interview was commenced at 1:50 p.m.
~
14 PRESENT: 15 MR. DICK WESSMAN, Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
! 17 MR. ROBERT MASTERSON, Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
[ 18 Washington, D.C. 20555
$ 19 MR. LARRY SHAO, Technical Review Team Staff
~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission _. l. a 20 Washington, D.C. 20555 23 k@ g 24 fJ 25 e
,k ',
r
- . $ $U \
p . .- 1C. 2. l* I 2 P,E Q.E E E E 1 N,Q E 3
- MR. WESSMAN
- For the record, this interview is an 4
. interview of for'the purpose of clarifying several concerns that he has raised to the NRC regarding 6
l l welding activities at Comanche Peak and pipe hangers instal-7 lation at Comanche Peak. The location of this interview > is in Present at the 9 intervbware Larry Shao from the NRC, Bob 10 Masterson from the NRC, and myself, Dick Wessman from the ; l !! NRC staff. A's we've agreed, this interview is being , 12 transcribed. The NRC has some fRther specific technical
~
13 questions that we.would like to pursue regarding various i 14 aspects of welding and hanger activity at Comanche Peak. ( 15 Before we start, I wonld like to very briefly clarify the 16 y status of your current employment and the employment that
! 17 you had at Comanche Peak and the circumstances leading to l
~
1,8 your departurer if you would, briefly. f 2 19 9 At the present tim ; , a 20 .' f ? l 21 40
?+ ;
22 "N. 23 -, . . 24 '4
'kg 25 '1 -.?
c ig
-~-
e- . h?.).h
[
. ,e C. 7 :
I i > l./ ".N F ' . . ,. . . , g - . - ( , U , .
. 'y9' , . r + , p . o. . , i - .- , . , .
i} y
,. . .f -: 4 o > . ? . . %.-
'J.
- 9^
2 ,' '
- , .~ /. .( _y
_..h
. ,[ . ' l E . 'l
- l
; , g, _ .. _. ;. ". ..=- - 3'3-;*,,' .'-; g , y . ,
- y Q -7.
k,. .
-h. ;
'n .,
*9' , . .. . .
. .r... s . .) . . _? : . l . ;..._ ;. ' J-i, ,l.;_.'. ..P . L ,; .- .]*%
/, . ' ;. .-.' ;_. -
a ;{ l 3 . f ( ~.. < , . . . .c ... ... .. .- . - * -
.m
_ l
,- f -
l .. e . . i
.4' r.). ltt') : }. ;l. g. %
.1 -
- 3
}
['.
' .,. ,? ..l5 -
g.. , , . ' ..*..' %
- .' . ~ ...-' ~ L - i
~.'.~
. t .. .- ,
,- ..a c-v
+.',;#.
l 5 : .. . -.,':.-
. ,s . : s
- V
. , , . <' .s\, - -_..
- l - a, s
s
's'*'
. .a.-.- " , ' , ' ' .- . ; .. .
.A r i -
_,e'I
,, s .- .
l , ;N. 1. 5 .. . t. i n ys ,., 4 o R _,y ,.
'.%,,1,',
4 .L ~- 's ,. - Y, , .
'O.. ..
] > 't, .
, ' , . ' ') , . ' 'M '-
;_, .p,Ei- : . - - .. . ,,
-) . , y t'; M )
~ '
] [-+.4p e. , h i :s.- .( ,
,. * , tf . .
.4 + y: ; .t . .__;
g i.
- '. ,._'- .. ' ,..:q.. :y. .- A.A ', 4 , , ,- -- . ,, - .
. , p.[ ..
- ,. 9 , - '
yu
+ -3 "- ,, ( 3 - - - ., ..r ,
**~ -
, '. , j 'g ,
.y. ". o .y y ; _ ,v 8 - ! :- .. -- . . ,
-- .+ ; .
r . l .
. , .. y y ,, e
. r.
, ...: . r
" :. f . .,
y . .
..,a,, *<
.- v;.. . . -1..
v
)-
i 8 : 4,- .. : i7 Rr .
- : r ; .
Q:. ;.-. -: . s.a, n o . m .- ' . :' . . . g t. N, : - a 3
.y.. ., .,wv n. .\ .
,. . y. . .
. ' .y . . b. . . ,, w% ,g .
i
,]r - .
^"
h .k '.f.L..,'. - 5 -b ' k } ' ..y[' ['l 7 ., ' . , , y-
, p ), .-t.:~ ) . ;, Q:: ' - ;-.. .,;,- < - . .' -- - - f *L1 l W' p, n. .. c ' = . c . : R. t : g ;; $ c ",- w
.+
?
iy
.~-
,.~,....s.s...
; ; - . ..a 3 , -.- , .. .,.. . ..
\
t ,.
.r ..
10 . .4 ( : --
~. s r 3 3 , u., . .
MR. WESSMAN: L.i!T t E 7,. .
~ 'I ' w & lW. [. ,,7-Q[
11 ..jg, ,
. y. , , , ... .y , ,
~ s 'pk_s.l (k y* A* U f v T~ . W : . R s. , ld ; ; , ' a ['.?g, q f ll-: 5[.
MR. WESSMAN: Okay. we have reviewed l , the statements that you all had done with Brooks Griffin: 14 I believe an interview ygkhN- .$N .h .:- And that 15 primarily is the technical basis for us looking at.some of 16 i those issues and identifying things we felt technically I
~
17 we wanted to pursue further with you. Okay. 19 MR. WESSMAN: I'm going to let these two fellows, l i 20 Bob and Larry, raise a couple of questions with you; if f 8 21 l they would, please. MR. MASTERSON: I have two specific questions, 23 ~ Let me read from the statement here and you can tell me if -- 24 answer the question. It says stated: He was in possession 25 of color pictures of hangers and supports he believes would g -
-..w,.a......~~ - .. . __ .: 4 . .--~.__.=. _
4. I lead to the necessary correction of at least a half 2 million dollars worth of steel, which are believed would' 3 amount to three to five million dollars worth of back-fare 4 at CPSES. My question is: Do you have these figures that 5 we could look at? Those pictures were ones that I was 7 going to obtain on a diving trip that I had to sell my 8 underwater camera and equipment to keep the wolves away; was what. I wes referring to. I know where the steel is, 0 where it was' dumped, who cut it up, why it was dumpad, II and what happened to basically the documentation of it. I This is approximately upward of--a half a million dollars i' 13
- , in tube steel and documentation for it. The other pictures 14 I referred to in my conversation with him were last seen 15 in the possession of- a TUDCO employee, 16 the last time I heard, that was taken of some pipe and whip g
j 17 restrafats at Chicago Bridge and Iron in Salt Lake City i
! I0 that led to come allegations in the early 80's. The
' 5 19 g
steel -- I have a map of the area over there -- was double 20 and triple ordered, then it was cut up, and it took
- a 21 lr approximately two to three weeks, two shifts a day, cutting 22 it up,. putting it in dump trucks and dumping it in the 23 lake.
24 MR. MASTERSON: So, this was not specific hangers 25 that were installed correctly, but this is loose material 4
. ?. . '
'? ,
l l .. OC - e that you are talking about? 2 - This is loose, new material we're-talking about. The material itself was cut up and dumped 4
' in the lake and.the heat numbers and traceabilities and !
! 5 ! documentation for that, was then stamped on some other l 6 material that did not have traceability for and used for 7 ;
. hangers and supports in reactor one and two.
] 8 i
.{ MR.MASTERSON: Do you have any specific knowledge
.1 9 j of which hangers this material was used on?
Not specificihhngers. No. might be able to shed some' light on that. I I have no specific knowledge. -I have another person
,9 13
[ that was in charge of this paricular stock in lay-down f 14 i yard that can verify this and pinpoint the exact location t j 15
- for.you. .
l
.C 16
( I MR. SHAO: Who can pinpoint thzt? Do'you know? Name is s g 18 f< d 3
- 19 s' 4 q
" I _ 4.'h
. a 20 3 MR. MASTERSON: Would the material in the lay-down f j >
, 2 {g 21 i { yard be used in a particular portion of the plant, say g h 22 tj like, safeguard building, reactor building or could that e)l 7 f 23
.d
% be used for any particular area? . f It could be used for any area . This
,' was basically, at-that time, known as lay-down yard-six. '
i
- l l ,
e _ , . ,a
1
= .. -
_. a . _ l C- a 1 And this was where the main trucks and suppliers were 2 coming in. They'd check.in through the receiving inspection, 3 check the documentation area, and go up to this lay-down 4
, yard there. And they would be just off-loaded ~on the 5
dunnage until it was needed. Part of this problem surfaced when I did a site survellance report at Comanche Peak. And I had red 8 tags.and red flags -- enough there that they found angle 9 iron, tube steel, piping with no heat numbers yet, with 10 e . i Japanese made material from Nissan and Yokohama Steel Companies in Japan -- in the lay-down yard. And at 12 that time, the final safety analysis was specified it
'g 13 would,use only United State's produced and made material.
MR. WESSMAN: let's go back to the heat 15 numbers. You said that the heat numbers were taken off 16 ,
- I a lot of this material that was dumped in the lake and
' 8 17 then, was put on other material? I* 18 . MR. MASTERSON: Non Q material. Yes. ,, a 20
-n MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Do you know any of the i,'iy g
f .s
- 21 j - heat numbers or have you got written down anywhere -- @f' N
22 ' Could you get for us what any of these heat numbers would-23 -
-r be? .
' E will provide you with a list at the end of our interview of some of the numbers that I .; "
- l. ..
.: 16 ,.
I
, believe that were used. I know that there were other 2
i inspectors that had the responsibility in the hanger 3 fabrication shop; had numerous trouble all the time ) 4 from about 1979 through 1982 keeping material traceability )
' l 5
going because of this. Part of a CAR 41 that was written l 6 up -- they had issued the same heat number for two thousand j 7 more feet of material that was actually purchased. 8 MR. WESSMAN: What is CAR 41?
]
! It's corrective action request.
1
.10 About what time was CAR 41 issued?
MR. WESSMAN: i w II It was initiated in 1980, and I think j 12 it was finally completed in the-early part of '82 or late 13 It'was pencil-whipped to death. t 1 p '81. 1 i 14 MR. WESSMAN: That unique number is enough number I. for.us to get it in their files? ' s 16 Yes. The original write-up on it y
! I7 and the final write-up, they had totally changed it, and 4
j l 18 the -- what we call a MR, material request number that ' 19 had been referred to in CAR 41, had been totally changed
, a 29 from what the original was written up. This can also be 8
)
j 21 confirmed b 3 i 22 23 24 MR. WESSMAN: i
~
25 I believe is how you b
3 - j)C
! n_
spell it. MR. WESSMAN: And where.is ow? . in Houston, Texas. l MR. WESSMAN: . *At the corporate Brown and Root office? l Yes. It was 7
!' MR. MASTERSON: Was that started specifically because 8 -
of this material or was it something else? Was this 9 a'iready ope,ned up? Well, this was only one part of it. 11 CAR initially came about from Salt Lake City C.B.&I -- l' s pipe whip restraints and moment restraints -- Q and non 13 I O restraints. Then as it expanded, went to several other ' 14 l CAF nonconformance reports, and I forgot what they call 15 the' field deficiency' reports. The inspectors enddd up
, 16 i i with something like thirty-five,nonconformance reports
, I
' 17 and over seventy field deficiencies that had been written I
18 up as initiative. And then, I believe site surveilance S were incorporated as part of it. y a 20 g MR. WESSMAN: Now, the site surveilance reports,
- 21 l again, those nutubers are unique numbers? We don't need a
' 22 date or anything else to retrieve those from their files? , ,. 25 '
. were filed in with the notes that were taken by'the h- *
, . .. , .a u
C
.. .. 9.
I different inspectors that performed it, and those at Level 2 III's reviewed it in the plant permanent record vault 3 with the QC training records. 4 MR. MASTERSON: So, these were QC records? M These were-QC records. l 6
- MR. SHAO: Were these part of the Class 2 support 7
or Class 3 support or -- 8 % 6 Class 1, 2, and 3 and as well as 9 - / r non-safety, 5 and 6. 10 MR. SHAO: One, two and three and non-safety? Yes. 12 MR. WESSMAN: Help me understand a little bit.
, 13 This material was dumped in a lake. If it had' heat 14 numbers on it and all, I guess I don't understand why 15 they'd want to throw'it away. Give us a speculation as i to why that was done.
I 17 Well, the speculation is: They had 8 18 8 triple ordered that material and they wanted -- Brown
; 19
- and Root was charging it to Texas Utilities, which is a _
S i 20 i
; justice department thing. They did not want this extra ' 8 21 i 8 material there that would have to be reabsorbed and resowed.
22 By keeping the documentation, you have the heat numbers I', 23 and traceability to use other material that had gotten 24 ( cheaper. .Now, this isn't the only essence of this. In 25 the service water tunnels for both reactor one and two, l lL N
._.....: . . . ~ a . .x .., ~ ., _. . .- . , _ . , . . ... ,,__,__;,, ,
-(*
. in I
a triple order of the enforcement steel was also done 2 and it was also cut up, but it was put into the metal 3 dumper to be sold. And there were several foreman that 4
*were fired over this when they refused to close their eyes 5
to it. 6 MR. WESSMAN: Now, the documentation relating to 7 those heat numbers of this triple ordered material; is 8 any of that documentation available, to your knowledge? It should all be there. 10 MR. WESSMAN: Indicating the quantities ordered? It should be on material requisitions 12 and also on the purchase orders"7 13 MR. WESSMAN: I'm not sure how we'd find them if we 14 didn't have something else that kind of identifies it. 15 . MR. MASTERSON: I'm still having a problem with the i idea of triple ordering. I don't see what it would gain [ ! 17 for them to take this material and transfer heat numbers i
~
18 to material that had no heat numbers. Was there, say,
}d 19 i two tons of material that had heat numbers that was trans-I a 20 g ferred to two tons of material that didn't have heat ! 21 ; numbers?
Well, a lot of the Japanese material that'd come in did not have traceable heat numbers; that 4 we found immediately behind the store area right behind 25 the hanger fabrication shop.
+ t
' ' 11*
1 MR. MASTERSON: But what good did it do to use that t 2 when they had material that already had heat numbers? 3 We they were going to use it 4 because it was cheaper material ~. Then, they come to find 5 out that there was a'little hanky-panky going on, as far 6 as who got paid for it and -- what we purely speculate 7 as a little kick-back scheme going; that they're going to 8 cut this stuff up,.and that someone from Comanche Peak 9 was getting kick-back from the scrap metal man. And then, 10 all of a sutiden, the heat started . coming on from 11 looking into this, finding out what was going 12 on because TUDCO bought some of_the material, Brown ( 13 and Root bought some other, but TUDCO was having to pay 14 for it. So, you had Brown and Root people purchasing i 15 material; you had TUDCO people purchasing material and , 16 they were duplicating orders, and in.some cases, on purpose.
! 17 They brought-the material in and then, when the heat started being applied by at that time, in -
l 18
!1 19 order to C.Y.B. -- come in here and they cut it up and 1
i 20 dumped it in the lake rather than put it in a dumpster i which could be later traced or an unusual large amount of j 21 22 material going'into the metal dump. , 23 MR. WESSMAN: Let's pursue the material tha,t was 24 given these numbers from the dump material. And that ., f( s d 25 material has g6ne into the plant somewhere; is that correct?
,# =
- s. 4,2,
.......-y ' ; e I
d l i 19. That's correct.
] MR. WESSMAN: Can.you give us any indication of 3-where that material is currently used in the plant?
I can give you some indication that
< I have approximate locations and specific drawing numbers 6 .
; I'll give you.
7
- MR. WESSMAN: Okay. This is on a list or some I 8 notes that you have that you can give us?
9 _This was transponded from five large 10 . log books I kept. tried to 11 get all the inspectors to keep and maintain a notebook 12 - or KNE log book with a specific drawing, location, weld,
' 13 -
and piece number, of every inspection they did, and what 14 it was for. I 15 ( MR. WESSMAN: bave any of these lists been p'reviously 16 l 1 provided to the NRC7 Like to Brooks Griffin or anyone I
' 17 else from the Region, as far as you know? Or have they i
18 been provided to GAP? What you're describing is new news 5 19 i to me and I'm trying to understand whether you've just held 1 - a 20 ~ g c.it!. until some technical folks.have come or whether it 2 21 [ had been previously offered up and we just didn't know it. 22 I had offered access to these, I , 23 believe, to Don Driskell -- investigator. Nothing was 24 pursued on it. I know most of the inspectors kept such 25 logs; at least during the time One such person 4 4 .
".').-/1!b
~ . e 5, ..
C 13. I that was harassed to the point that he quit, was 5 i r . 2 He lives - 3 % I know for a fact that he's
, got somewhere in the eighborhood of about eight such log
' 4 5 I still books -- KNE log books; like a surveyor uses.
6 have mine in their entirety. MR. WESSMAN: When we're ready to stop talking, e t 8
'g I would be interested in having the opportunity to
' look at them or if you're willing t'o let us borrow them i
j 10 and make copies or you want to give them to us, I think -- A 11 We need some help getting places to go look, physically, e 12 in the plant. - 13 Okay. I have got a list of eighty . I4 five prepared from my five log books for you. Some of t S 15 Some of l y them will be specific heat numbers to look for. i 5 16 them, in case it says, "MR", it will be material requisition fa ; . ( ! 17 number. I have some that are drawing numbers. Some that h 18 Because of my lack of confidence in - g l are line numbers. 1 1 4 I9 the NRC, I'll feed to you a little at a time, so that 0 ! 20 Because of what's
; 8 I'll know something is getting done.
i) :
$ ] 21 happened in the past, I have absolutely no trust, especially i
22 in Region IV NRC. I have minimal trust in Washington or ,, g a,
; 23 Bethesda, Maryland -- wherever the headquarters is in -
.9 y
l ' [,) , 24 NRC. My log books, consist of nine hundred and ninety-five ,,' n 1 l lb a 25 actual welds locations or fabrications that have never, e .: Ie 1 , a p:
. i ! .. . '. b 14, I
other than the two that were previously discussed in the original allegations and in 3 ~ have never been discussed, brought forward, investigated 4
.or looked at; any type, shape, form or fashion.
5 MR. WESSMAN: I think we want to look. We.want 6 you to feed us what you will feed us so we can get started. _I 'll give you this eighty-five to start with, and then, I'll cross-check -- I know what it 9 - is -- and I'll cross-check with what I get back from you 10 on what is going. If it looks good, I'll maybe give you II another hundred or so, and if it still follows through 12 and you're actually doing a go65 investigation and looking 13 at this stuff, then I'll give you my log books to xerox 14 copy or answer any questions you so have on it; provided 15 I can feel confidence in you that you're doing something. 16 g I won't give them to you in their entirety. I MR. WESSMAN: I think at this point, what we want
! I0 '
to see, of course, is whatever you're willing to share E 19 with us, for starters. And additional things in your g a 20 log books, if we can sit and look at them around the j 21 table here, for starters, that may be useful, also. I 22 think before we start on those log books or any of those l 23
, lists, are we through with at least the specifics.o.f.the 24 question that got us started down this path?
25 MR. MASTERSON: We have one more. question on this.
~
)
- .$h.
r l m,-_ = _ . _
- -- .~_e.
i . p 15.
. . .- .. iC I MR. WESSMAN: All right. And then, we'll look at 2 the other questions and come back to looking at paper.
i 3 MR. MASTERSON: The Japanese materials that the l
. heat numbers were transferred to, that would then go into the material bins to be used to fabricate supports?
That's correct. . MR. MASTERSON: So, there would be material requisi-8 tions with the heat numbers on the req that would be inside 9 the hanger package?
\ Now, then, one 10 Should be. Yes.
is we i 11 probleTthat you'lGun into like we did 12 got to looking at these material requisitions, and in l 13 this one particular case, we found that they had used that I4 heat number for two thousand more feet of material than was actually purchased. And the material requisitions I 15 16 just go on and on and on and on. And to go back and i
! 17 research in detail the purchase orders versus the actual
~
.} 18 footage of material,.you're talking about probably a
! 4
; 19 year's' time. You know the documentation trail as well as la 20 I do. But this is an example of what did go on -- was 21 going on -- while ,
22 I know that they've gone through and tried a massive cover . 23 up and switch the files in the permanent plant record , 5 24 vault --from thy sources at the site; say they have been a For example , 25 completely changed, rearranged and reshuffled. te __
_. - n . = ,: . , .;. ; e,
.1 b 16.
1 one of my concerns about welding. The ASME team come in in October of '81. They found two welding procedures that ; 3 had more heat input and too fast a travel speed as to 4
. what ASME required. : That was two examples on .,
5 that fou thes 6 [' ' two. They came back in January. They called me out of 7 the field to go back in the vault; and they had found E Q seven others, that the heat input versus travel speed was y fI outofsyncofwhatSection9AASM$codefound. They g 10 immediately wrote a nonconformance report on that, but
?
j 11 they never did go back and do any research or back-check e - 12 program to see what was defermental about the material. 13 ft
. Now, one t'hing -- from the Gibson-Hill specifications 14 and design and requirements, TUDCO changed those require-15 ments. Instead of buying nominal wall thickness pipe, 16 f2 y they bought minimal wall. Now, if you put a J bevel
! d - I 17 or B bevel on these things, and then, come along and then
? .
ij i 18 you've got too much heat input -- from my understanding
'?
l 19 of it, you change the nuclea'r structure of the heat ' la 20
; affected zone in welding it. . And nothing was ever done m i
~
d g } 21 to back-fit or spot check this item to see if there was
;; 22 any damage or weakening of those weld joints. And no one 23 has ever addressed it at any time. ,
t 24 MR. WESSMAN: Let's go to the second issue, then, E. 25 and let's come back and discuss some of the weld records
'J a
m.,..
.'. .". b '
11. 1 and logs that you want to share with us at this time. l 2
)
MR. MASTERSON: The second question is: In.th.e same i 3 telephone interview, it states: In he
- wrote an NC ,
Uh-huh.
. MASTERSON: Not further idefatified addressing 7
the vendor weld on the pressurizer tank in reactor one, 8 level a22. My questions is: Was this indeed a vendor 9 weld or was it a weld made to install a tank in the 10 field?
'This was a. vendor weld, and it was on a massive hanger on a wall beside the-tank itself.
13 MR. MASTERSON: It was not on the tank?
~
It was not on the tank. No. 15 Then, we have an error in our MR. WESSMAN: Okay. report and we just didn't understand , j So, let's keep exploring. 1 i 18 MR. MASTERSON:- Do you know what type of hanger this i a i e 19 l. i is? - g It was a reactor coolant line. 8 21 Is this near or directly behind 8 MR. MASTERSON: 22 the tank? , 4 m y Beside the tank. As you go in the l
'f 24 room, it will be on your right hand side. As a matter of l.
4 25
- E fact, you'll have to go around a support for part of the i .
l -j I 4
. i
.. .'. 18.
1
'. reactor coolant line to get into the room.
y MR. WESSMAN: This is a twenty-four inch-reactor 3 coolant line? 4 I believe this one is eighteen.
. WESSMAN: Is this a line from the reactor 1
6 i coolant system, going to the pressurizer? See, somehow 7
- .. we've got this mixed up with the pressurizer relief tank I 8 4 or the pressurizer tank itself, so we really need more A
9 f help knowing exactly where this wel'd is. i 10 If we walked in this room where
$ MR. MASTERSON:
h f 11 the tank was, is this the only lodge support or are there --
~
12 Yes. Thiething is. twelve foot 13 high and at least eighteen foot long. 3 I4 MR. MASTERSON: Could you draw me a sketch? Or a
)
.: 15 reasonable sketch of what this is?
16 A reasonable sketch. All right. g ( I 17 MR. WESSMAN: Let's go off the record while we 4 - 18
~
a l fool with sketches and stuff. It's just not worth trying T a 4 19 to take notes.
}
S : 5 i 20
~
(Off the record.) d 5 ' l- ! 21 1 I MR. WESSMAN: Let's go back on the record. After looking at the sketch that has drawn, we believe that the hanger that's under discussion is a , 24 large. hanger, supporting a reactor coolant system type of 25 i N s" t l 5 t T, l
l _. .m _- m i . . . .: LC 19 L 3 l some sort that passes in.the pressurizer relief tank j 2
~
.t room on the 822 foot level, and we believe this is on 4 3 4 the right hand side of the room as we come in. Now, describe the problem that you identified concerning this tank.
Well, this hanger had to be modified j for fit-up reasons and location. If you were to lay it
; 8 i down, it.would look like a checkerboard with a number of 9
- compartments or a panel welded into it by a vendor. This
; 10 f is one that I had reported on earlier. It.had every 11 i
known defect that you can find in a weld. This is under l 12 j
. cut, cracks. It had material cracks frein too much heat input. It had undersized fill-its in it, virtually, 14 everything; had a little bit of perrosidy even in it.
! 15 I It had arc strikes on it. This was typical a'nd'divigate j 16
- i of MPSI and C.B.&I. pipe whip restraints. The reason I .
I
' 17 k got involved with that is, the modification weld that I I i 18 ~
} we put in there to recut sections of it out, reweld it
{
- 19 j; j and then, rebuild all these small compartments that were i i 20 g g taken out originally. These were adjacent to welds that l W t 21 l h j Brown and Root were making on the side.
MR. MASTERSON: This vendor weld, if I understand 9 23 p . correctly, this was an MPSI pipe whip restraint? Yes. (5 MR. MASTERSON: And part of this was pre-fab'd at this ( 3 4
'E
-_....,we._
W
. . . .'. b 20.
I t: shop? d That's correct. . 3 MR. MASTERSON: Sent to the site and installed? 4 . That's correct. 5 MR. MASTERSON: Okay. Now, what was the purpose 6
- j for the modification of this that you' described?
7 I don't know why the engineers
- 8 decided to change it. I believe it's because the location was not fitting up to the tank or the reactor lines
! g 10 coming out. It was basically a design flaw.
F f 1I MR. MASTERSON: It.was during this modification 5 C 12 process that you discovered this vendor weld? 13 That's correct. Welds. Not one. 14 Numerous of them. This one a nonconform-g a
) 15 ance report on and turned in. They said that it was never N
g 16 filed. Yet, after the licensing hearings in July of 1982
= I
! 17 -- it was before
{ j 18 someone reissued that nonconformance report three days il
- g 19 before and put my name on it,and I had l
l 4
' l s 20 J
l , S
- 21 MR. WESSMAN: Do you know the number of this NCR
- c 3 6
g 22 or a way we can locate it in the document system? 23 It would be in probably Texas Utilities y 24 logs, and .it would deal with the pressurizer' tank room, 7 d 25 822 elevation. I've forgotten the number.
.c d
I If k U .
b
.. .. 21.
MR. MASTERSON: You don't know the number?
' sot offhand. I'll provide you that later'on. I've got fourteen boxes full of transcripts 4
,that I'll have to go through.
5 . MR. MASTERSON: That's all I have. 6 MR. WESSMAN: Is there something else about this 7 we should know or have we pretty well covered the details 8 of what was done wrong on this?
.Okay. This aYso involved another 10 nonconformance report written while I was at the 11 site. This top part of this han,ger support coming off the I wall to the support off the floor -- We were there to torque it and use a hydro torque machine on'it~to tighten 14 the bolts in it. To prescribe that, I think it was 15 ninety-five or a hundred and five thousand PSI N- with 16 g bolts provided by -- I think it was Chic,ago Bridge and
! II Iron. May be Chicago Bridge and Iron rather than PSI
~
! I8 Support. When we went to use the. hydro torque on them, a
i I9 the bolts broke. One of them shot across the room, t a 20 hit the pressurizer tank in that room and back and forth.
~
l j 21 And it was at that time, we pulled some similar bolts.from 22 the bolt shed at the hanger shop and went and put them on 23 a torque machine in back of the calibration lab. Now, 1 24 'and one 25 of the calibration technicians were presen used the 1 1 l l l l
V { '4".* _. -*
'..,*. b. 22.
I same similar bolts and' pulled them and they broke at 2 sixty-five thdusand PSI. It'was at that time we discovered I 3 that only an A325 bolt had ever had any torque or tensile
. value strength set on Comanche Peak. So, the hundreds 5
of thousands of bolts that had been put in and torqued, 6 had never had a specific torque value set for them to i 7 be torqued to, except for the A325. MR. WESSMAN: Is this an issue that you've previously 9 given the NRC? Is that in some of the other interview 10 testimony? Il f Yes.. It is. And it has never been 7 12 L _ addressed. 13 I know in our list of concerns, we've MR. WESSMAN: got some material on bolts, but I'm not sure whether 15 this is one we're working on or not. 16 Hilti bolts were torqued to lower g MR. MASTERSON: , l 17 values than required because the craft turned the handles
!, 18 on the wrenches after they received them from the tool 5
j 19 crew, and the inspectors only had the click to go by.
! 20 MR. WESSMAN: That's a different issue. All right.
g I
. 2 21 Let's pursue the steel and the bolts.for a minute.
=
l - 22 think we need to understand what you're saying there, And I think for us anyway, it 24 may be'a new issue, so we need to understand what you're' 25 f saying. G b
,b All right. Let me see how I can
~
puti it into flat terms. Upon discovery of the bolts 3 that were in there breaking, they were elongating -- 4 MR. MASTERSON: Do you know what the bolt material 5 was on this bolt? It was written on the NCR. I don't know offhand. 8 MR. SHAO: It was a high strength material? It was a high strength material. 10 So, we're talking about -- I believe it was an inch, inch 11 and a quarter diameter bolt. And these were about six 12 inches long. And upon discovering these. bolts elongating 13 and breaking; I took it to quality assurance en'gineer, in the QC lab, and we went to the engineering staff -- C.B.&I. was also present when I we retorqued them, and they did break even in the test l
' 17 dam. Research showed that no torque value or tensile I 18 5
strength value for torquing any bolts on Comanche Peak has 4 19 y ever been established prior to that time, except for one a 20 g type of bolt, and that was a A325; and none of the other lr 21 bolts -- none of the other hilti bolts -- none of the 22 documentation -- none of the procedures reflected any 93 torque value. We could go to the ASGIC book and look 24 it up, but there was never nothing put in writing at 25 Comanche Peak, so all the bolts for hangers, for mechanical l __
- c . =__ _ _ ._. _ --
i Qe u. 1 equipment -- everything else that went out. They said, o
~ l "Well, we' re going to torque these two huitdred," and there j 3 I was never any engineer input into it.as to what the pounds i.
per square inch or KSI would be for these specific bolts. l 5 MR. SHAO: Essentially, if you summarize what l 6 you're saying is: All these bolts have no specific torque value.
' Correct.
9 l MR. MASTERSON: What value were you trying to torque 10 those bolts in? 11 These, I believe, it was to ninety-I ~ five thousand. [ i 13 MR. MASTERSON: .Where are you talking about?
)
I4 l MR. WESSMAN: You're talking about the bolts on 15 j the big hanger? 16
; On the big hanger in the pressurizer .
I I7 tank room. f
.i 18 MR. MASTERSON:- Whero did that number come from?
a , I9 Is that in a specification somewhere?
)
20 I No. This is just what they said,
. L
^
j 21 "Well, this. size normally runs such and such."
; 22 MR. MASTERSON: Do you know whether that's written 23 down anywhere?
24 It wasn't written down.
- 25 MR. SHAO: In your mind, it's ninety-five thousand?
l
_ . ~.~m s ww=>n - .~ e ~ ~~ n e =2 . i . .
,f : .:
I 1C 2s. This is what the work said -- is 2 J where I.got it because there was nothing on the documenta-4 3 tion in writing that I was supposed to sign off. All I 4 was verifying was that they used the hydro torque machine 5 on 11 and that they were torqued and that they were 6
;; supposed to put paint on it. And all.I did was report 2 7 what the hydro torque machine value stopped at.
f { 8 MR. WESSMAN: Are there specific examples of bolts 9 that are deficient or do we have enough from what he's
, 3 10 describing that we could go either make a sampling of bolts b
11 or make a sampling of data, concerning bolts? f 12 MR. SHAO: He said hundreds of thousands of bolts have 13 no specific torque value, so we can check them. f. r 14 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. You hav"e enough, so you know 5 l n 15 how you can. pursue-it, then? e y , 16 MR. SHAO: Yes. u s - l 17 'Two other people you can check with 1 18 would be Those are two people ' l k 19 that were And also,(i 6 l b l l-l -) s. i 20 M E : d j 21 MR. WESSMAN: Are these' individuals out at the site k : h., 22 now? 23 To my knowledge. Yes. . 24 MR. MASTERSON: is, I know.
.-l 25 MR. WESSMAN: Let's go off the record for a minute.
l t ya i m-r - - -
- ~ ..
- . -.. --.. .. :.w 2 . > u , .
;--- .n p m ? p.r. _.s v..... ? 3 .. s n _--
.....- b 26.
L 1 E (Off the record.) 1 2 - J 3 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Let's go back on the record. 4 indicated that you'had several lists of 4 3 ' material that you wanted to share with us at this time -- l 6 some welds that you felt there is some-deficiency with. 1 7 And if you would, tell us about these types of deficiencies, 8 and if you will, let us take the list from you and we'll j 9 try and do some inspection on them and see what we can i . l 10 find out.
~
g Okay. The list I'll give you; 1 12 some of it will be specific heat numbers to look at: - t i - , j some of it will be drawings, dealing with' pipe whip restraints t 13 a j4 or moment restraints. They are supplied by the vendor; j ' either welded or modified on the job site. Some of la.
~
g these will be some that have already been looked at two, a g g three, and four times; for example, the south bridge, . ref rred to on site as the George Washington Bridge, was 8 , i
; 39 one of great controversy that you may well know'about 1 .
l a 20 from the transcripts. Three times, it was looked at. , Three times they neither sustained or confirmed l
- allegations, but yet a team from Washington come in as a surprise; walked out there and looked at it, and out -
l - of ten thousand feet of weld on it, seventy-five' percent ! 24 of it,was bad. l . 1
. .. . - : . . . y.:.,, .
-n .. x .3 ~.;,.3.y,my - ~. m, n m,. -v yp s.v a ,;.y.q. y33 .gyg:a:.::au;gw=
g7 1 MR. WESSMAN: Are you referring to the team that
~
2 came in April that did this special review for about.a 3 ten day period in early April? 4 5 5 that.
@M l No. This was a short review before 6
MR. WESSMAN: Would you be referring to what we call 7
"the CAT team inspection" that was done in, I think, the i 8 summer of ' 837 Possibly. I don't know whether it 10
, was that specific inspection or not. But I do know that 11 three guys come in out of Washington, unannounced on the
~
1 12 r job site and walked up to this thing. A. resident' inspector 1 1 13 j and some other Region IV people looked at it and indicated J 14 in their report, said, "Well, they couldn't find anything
]
I 15 l ~, wrong with it," and this Quasar team came in and -- 16
; i MR. WESSMAN: Quasar; is that the name of the I
17 organization that were with Brown and, Root? I No . This is NRC.
So, it was a three man team. About i MR. WESSMAN:
i i 20 1 i j g what time did they come? I I saw part I don't even remember. 29* of the reports that CASE had on it and got a copy of it l
'3 at the last hearing, which was the first time, about a 24 year later. And they had looked at ten thousand feet of l
25 weld and seventy-five percent of it did not meet any code
n;... w o.,. m .y.,,..r
~ m2.p r. s m g ,y. _c. _w:.y,,, n._,.,,g. a_a,_. . ,
_4. .c
- l. .
~
k 28. - 1 requirement of the nuclear industry. MR. WESSMAN: Can you give us some clue as to about 3 the time they came? I'm not sure I have enough informa-4
. tion to figure out how to find the report.
This was an internal report that 6 come out that I saw out of Region IV. And I don't remember 7 the number. I can get you the number sometime later 8 tonight and give it to you tomorrow if you need a specific report number. i 10 MR. WESSMAN: If you would, look it up. I will call 11
, you tomorrow. And see if you can get me that report number.
12 7,m going -to go through those tonight. , 13 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Let's go back to your list, I4 then. 15 This is two pages; a total of eighty-16 e--
; five separate items: joint numbers, traveler numbers, l 17 heat numbers, and in some cases, I went ahead and put the j 18 elevation and location; such as, 862 reactor building one, l '
I9 1 on there. This is some of the vendor supplied pipe whip j 20 restraints and hangers. And there's two pages. That sho'uld i j 21 give you enough specific drawings to look at -- to go from. t 22 MR. WESSMAN: This is material that has not been 23 l given to anyone but the NRC before? 24 No. No one has ever seen this. And 25 like I said, this is only a partial, out of nine hundred and
- w. eS
.n. ,w x -
; . : . . ., -. nm ,~,~,,
. . .. - v:
~. .~. g-
,c:n.~x,. -y:.y:773,y.m.~>.m.v,~.~~.
, _ - . . , w. vem,.gn.; ,
,t: . .
- f. 29.
. I 2 J ninety-five specific. welds -- five log books I got off site 3
MR. MASTERSON: Are these all related to the material i 4
. that had the changed heat numbers or is this a mixture 5
of other things? This is a mixture from five log
~
books I got off the site. There were four more that I didn't get his is a composit of five log books -- i$ MR. MASTERSON: We don' t know -- For example, you Q's 10
% don't know what the problem would be with this right here?
11 E (Referring to log.) e " 12 1'- MR. WESSMAN: You see whaE we're talking about? e F 13 We need you to characterize some deficiencies for us so f d 14 2 we know what to be looking for. 15 These deficiencies deal with the weld 16 h g and the fit-up. b i
- 17 MR. SHAO: They all relate to fit-up?
l W - Y 18 7,,, l
/
- 19 l $ i MR. MASTERSON: What's the CD number?
I ,
.' . 20 This is a specific traveler number, i 21 MR. MASTERSON: It's a weld traveler?
22 Yes. -
<. p 23 MR. MASTERSON: When you give a weld traveler, does 24 that mean that the concern is with the weld itself?
25 With the weld itself. 9 9 k, . ww ' w w . - - - - - - - - - - - . . -
,g.
l
, , 30.
i i MR. MASTERSON: Okay. If you give a heat number, 2 then the concern is with the material? 3 _ Material, traceability, and that 4
, will go right back to the hanger itself.
5 MR. WESSMAN: If you give a drawing number, what's 6 the concern? -
, _The weld fit-up, and the inspection 8
thereof. 9 MR. SHAO: Is a CE number als'o a traveler? 10 Yes. In most cases. 11 MR. MASTERSON: What about 2323 -- 12 That's a deawing number. That's 13 a Gibson-Hill. 14 MR. MASTERSON: All right. So, it's like a piping 15 drawing?
'~
16 y Yes. Piping, hanger combination.
! 17 MR. SHAO: If you look at this drawing, how do you i 18 know how many welds there are.that you did?
19 Well, the drawing will have how many 20 welds. Chances are, I inspected the whole thing. i j 21 MR. SHAO: And you think the welds in this drawing 22 are suspect? 23 Yes. If it's a C.B.&I. or MPSI hanger, 24 the entire thing is suspect. Now, let me give you some l 25 background that may help. When I made my original allegatiers, l l l 1
- : n .- ,.- , - n .:-2&W""'-n
. . . ...u.w:yu ,-u m wcm mwv n wx e 5.n,m.v. eve. ...
.p
,s ,.....-:,...
VM 2 M w:s.*~~C2 W h !?S.* M
- S r:
? $P&Lmi?& h'i? MMM'?
E WFo!& $'X CT Q'N M. _
. yi_.m.m
'., . 31.
1 Texas Utilities went back and looked at specifically 2 They found defective welds in fifty-two CBI hangers.
. 3 fifty-one of~ fifty-two. No one ever went and looked at 4 , any others. These were ones that had not been installed.
5 These fifty-two they looked at, were in the lay-down yard. 6 MR. MASTERSON: These are vendor welds, then? 7 These are vendor welds. 8 Was there a report written up by MR. MASTERS : 9 the Utility on this? 10 Yes. As a matter of fact, it' was 11 turned into the Licensing Board that reports -- If you'll 12 read report 122, 23, 24, and 25, it'll give you that 13 specif'ic rep. ort numbers. Now, what reports they had I4 internally, I don't know, but this is their statements l 15 to the effect: Okay. We looked at fifty-two and fifty-i 16 one of them had defects. But they never went back and g
! 17 relooked at anything that had been installed or was being j 18 installed at the present time. They just looked at those 5 19 that were in the lay-down yard.
; 20 MR. WESSMAN: Do we have enough information to 21 identify this report 22 MR. MASTERSON: I'm not sure.
23 MR. WESSMAN: I'm not sure I understand ho'w to go 24 look for it.
- 25 This is Applicant's Exhibit No. 122, 123 V
- ~ _ _ _ ._. -. __
y . . .. . . . ;. m :.7,3
- C 32.
I 124 -- - 2 MR. MASTERSON: During which hearings? .Do you know? 4 .This'wou?.d be
. MR. MASTERSON: Now we have enough.
5 Now, we do. MR. WESSMAN: i 6 liR. MASTERSON: Am I correct in'saying then that [ 7 the concerns on all these documents would either be
'- 8 welding or material traceability and general fabrication?
[ And a lot of fit-up. (M Yes. 10 MR. MASTERSON: Piping fit-up or hanger? 11 Hanger. Pipe whip restraints. MR. WESSMAN: Now, these notes are based on logs
'.f 13 that you took several years ago and we know there's lots 5
14 and lots of C11C's and drawing changes and things like that T 15 out there. Would most of the deficiencies that you've g 16 identified there still exist, to the best of your ,
! I7 knowledge?
18 - To the best of my knowledge, they l 19 would. I don't,know what's actually gone on
' 20 I have another list prepared here with some names of people 5 $
21 of what to ask or look for to aid you in this, and also, l l { '. 22 into what it concerns. 23 pulled off for three da]'s d he can provide you some information 24 25 -- /can guide you to the five main as well as
.j
*" an- . , , _ , , '"""M'mmeh--
~
=L - ~.:.
.b 33.
I And restraints that I was originally concerned about. 2 adjacent to these five, there's about fifteen or twenty 3 more; whether they have been looked at, corrected, I don't ; 4
.know. l MR. WESSMAN: are still on site?
7 F 6 ' To my knowledge, yes. 8 Is this also a piping drawing SIO688-Ol? MR. MASTERSON: That will be part of the line. Most 10 of these are hanger and pipe whip restraints; very few II piping. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say I ~ there's no piping in this part1cular list. Piping, I'll 13 There's a few mechanical equipment, such give you later. 14 as, valves, that is also listed on here. For instance, this 15 NF1106, that's a specific heat number to look at in material 16 -- for a specific hanger. I MR. MASTERSON: So, SI would be a---
; 18 Specific drawing. In this case,
". 19 all your SI specific drawing mostly will be Gibson-Hill i
j 20 whip restraints. j 21 MR. WESSMAN: Now, you said you got some other 22 material on piping. We've got a fifty man team out there: 23 two or three fellows who are working just on hangers, and 24 ot guys that are working on piping, and we can 25 do some work in parallel, if you're willing to give us a i;
. . . . . . . . , , .... n.r..m.wmy,m.,x_g... ~ s.. m wy n. w.. c.w, y ,. se... . , , .
, .' ..'. b 34.
I little bit more so that I can have those guys looking at 2 the piping material, this guy looking at hangers -- 3 Okay. Let me give you a specific 4 location. In the north valve room, axiliary building, 5 ground floor level, there is an eight inch stainless steel 6 valve and line two-thirds of the way back in the room; 7 that as soon as the welder cooled his rig off, he quenched 8 those welds with ice water from the water fountain. 9 MR. MASTERSON: This is a pip'e weld? 10 Yes. Stainless steel line, eight 11 inch. 12 MR. WESSMAN: Do you havtan iso number or anything 13 you can give us? 14 It would take me about four hours 15 to find that particular one. It was written up on a 16 Brown and Root NCR. I l ! 17 MR. SHAO: Dick, I would rather wait until the i 18 piping people get time to talk on the phone or something l U 19 about this, rather than we looking for the answer right 1 . 8 i 20 now. 21 MR. WESSMAN: if you get a chance while 22 you're looking for report-numbers, see if you can find 23 a little time to look for some iso numbers. You've given 24 us a few specific piping examples to go look at -- 25 MR. MASTERSON: And then, we'll have somebody call you , , i
e a. . .e p.. : . .. m::w. u~:~:m m.oaw ,en.wwwa rw.,www v - yyw ,-
.- < : . o
1 l s
35. I MR. WESSMAN: And I'll call you tomorrow for this 2 report number and I'll call you again in a couple of days 3 and get this piping number. And I think that will help. Okay. 5 MR. WESSMAN: Now, you said you had another list 6 - there that had some specific people that we should talk 7 to or some specific questions we could ask -- if you 8 can share that with us. Okay. This is a list of people that dealt with everything from hangers to piping, II harassment, intimidation and cover-up. It gives you
~
specific ideas of where to look for documentation that 13 I know was hidden, where it was hidden at. It also goes 14 into some discrimination areas, which may be out of 15 your expertise. It deals specifically with turn-over l 16 g information, with documentation of'the piping and hangers, , I
- 17 where some of it -- I have seen a weld data card andea
! I8 complete package be totally refabricated in a matter of a
- 19 three hours, with signatures and everything else; only .
j 20 one was lost off of it; just a weld material request card. j 21 See, a specific secretary would go out, make a round of r 22 everybody, and come back with ANI signatures and everything 23 on it -- brand new. And that weld joint, in one particular 24 case, had been cut out and scrapped because it was the 25 fourth repair on it, on a stainless steel line. There is
- . .u., uyg . . . . - -. a- ~~ . .. ,-~:, ~ . . . ..~ un m..,+.r.sr wnwmmwm,. 1 m .q. m nye.
b I one hanger that I'll give you later on that the documentatior
~
2 in the plant permanent record vault shows it's good. That 3 hanger has never been replaced, and it's just as scrap.as i 4
- big as the world and it's still right in the middle of 5
the floor when you get off the elevator in reactor one. 6 . We found it and wrote it up as scrap because the bolt holes 7
~
j securing it to the floor were off the edge of the metal i 8 1 and mislocated on the base plate. It was there cemented f 9 j up and they kept it up, and it had been scrap, and the
! 10 1
documentation is still there. 9
) 11 J
MR. WESSMAN: Let's go back here to this specific l' [ list, then. q I All right. This shows you where
) 14 ,- )
g some of the documentation is hidden at weld engineering; 15 j specific people to talk to; details of the termination 4 16 i i records; of correspondence between continuous blackballing, , i I
' 17 } harassment, intimidation of present/pust employees; and,it has the name of that had took the i j original photographs at C.B.&.I. when C.B.&I.was shut h
i 20 ( g down in 1980 -- original complaint. 2 9
~1 l MR. WESSMAN: We won't pursue the harassment aspects - 22 or intimidation aspects. We're going to stick strictly H 23 with the technical portion of the thing.
24
, All these people are listed, with the 25 ; exception of -- I don't know about -- all these d '
5 s #
3%.,,y. ,c , , . ,, , , , .,.,g.- - . , ._-,~-...,,w...,.g.,_m___. C 37, V . .-- c e ' 3
.. 1 people will give you , specific pointers and locations; e" 2 if they will talk to where the problems are. And this 1 This would be like 'he is on technical.
piping. b . was the E MR. WESSMAN: Are.these individuals -- Now, you 6 say they all work at the site now, to the best of your
-l 7 i knowledge?
To the best of my knowledge. Y MR. WESSMAN: Are these individuals who we can p
- E 10 contact directly on site or are these individuals who f"p ll II are going to be most unhappy if we walk into his shed e,
_j-1 on site with NRC hardhats on and ask him a fistful of s N 13 0 questions? 14 It didn't bother them when they fu 15 wal.ked in and talkect to me. Why should it bother.them? 16 MR. MASTERSON: Have you kept in contact with these d . 17
,d 5 people?
1.8 f In some cases, yes. g l9 is the only one here that you might want to contact off And the reason being here is he works for
~
20 site.
"f,j ,
~
21 Now, 'is a very vendictive, very revenge-f.] 22 ful person, very uncooperative. .
's 23 Do you have an off.isite telephone f
v. MR. WESSMAN: 24 number that we could call? 25 N'o. lives in in n
F. . .
.. : G 38.
3 as also instructed to take the
. i 2 original documentation on' mechanical equipment', such as I 3 valves and pumps, to the shredder and shred it ;
4 Up until recently, could not, would ot e 7 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Any questions on what's on i 8 the list? 9 MR. MASTERSON: I have no further questions. JO But those would be good people to 11 talk to; especially getting them individually. l l 12 MR. SHAO: Do you want tilis log sheet back?
. 13 Well, just make some notes on it.
14 'MR . MASTERSON: Can 'we take this list you gave us? 15 7 Take that list with you and send it
, 16 back because what I do is I go back and mark my log book, s
! 17 and I can just flip through them and when I find one j I8, marked, well,' I'll know what's been checked.
4
- j. 19 MR. WESSMAN: We will send back the list. Okay.
I i 20 Now, before we finish, Larry, do you have anymore questions? d j 21 MR. SHAO: No. r 22 MR. WESSMAN: Bob, do you have anymore questions? 23 MR. MASTERSON: No more questions. 24 MR. WESSMAN: do you have anymore specific 25 concerns that ou want to' raise with us at this tit / i- i--i
e- n -. . .- < .. t. _ . _ . _ _ z_,_ __
/, . .. .
, i . .- .b 39. 1 5 [ Well, one thing that I found.out: if
, o
~
you go up and ask individual hanger inspectors out in the 3 field how to figure an angle on a hanger pipe restraint
, for a weld where the two join in a -- I've forgotten ?
5 the term now, it's been so long. Where they've got an
' 6 inclined angle -- .
MR. MASTERSON: Skewd weld? Skewd weld -- how to fill and determine the fill-it weld. Since none of their gauges were put 30 3 d in there -- the time that I was there -- it was touched 11 n upon in the training class, but no one was ever taught 12 J how to take the measurement of_the sides of the triang.le 13
? that you have to use to figure this angle to determine I4 l if there was enog h fill-it radius in the weld.
15 MR. WESSMAN: We already have some issues on fill-it 16
; welds and people are looking at that now.
! 17 MR. MASTERSON: Yeah. That's being looked at.
j 18 MR. WESSMAN: Is this new and different? What 19 is giving us? a 20 MR. MASTERSON: No. d j 21 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. I think we are pursuing skewd 22 welds. 23 MR. MASTERSON: Could yoit give me a time frame 24 when you were at one of these classes? Were you actually 25 at any of these classes?
n,-v*--- m.ae* pcy.y..m7.g.- ~y n+ m *::my?w:zm=:ry" g yny pweyn.~.. ,vev~n.. .m.. _ _.... .. ...,:
.. 3c 40.
I MR. MASTERSON: Can you give me a. time frame when 3 this took' place? Late 1979 'til December of 198 . 3 There were'a couple of Level III's and a couple of lead 6 men who were the only ones that could -walk through the l I field and turbin and give you a theoretical control depth. 8 l MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Any other questions on the 9 skewd welds? 10 MR. MASTERSON: No. I1 MR. SHAO: No. 12 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Befc.t;e we get off the record, 13 do you have 'anything else you want to get on the record 14 with o ~ur conversation toda 15 One other concern. If you'11,.look 16 at the audits to Tennessee Wall-in-Tube, the supplier for
! 17 instrumentation tubing, an audit in January 1982, I believe 1 .
l l 18 it was or December of '81, showed they were supplying 4 l 19 Comanche Peak with sub standard instrumentation'tubihg.from h a 20 Japan, and the auditors found they had been doing this all l 21 along. The burst strength of the pipe was not meeting the z 22 requirements and it was quickly and quietly covered up i 23 . . .as being no concern. - l l l 24 MR. WESSMAN: Who did the audit of Tennessee Wall-25 in-Tube? l l
^ *
~ . _ -.
.: G 41.
MR. WESSMAN: Is that a name.or a company? l That's one of the engineers that found it -- 5 MR. WESSMAN: Who does he work for? [ Brown and Root. . MR. WESSMAN: How do you 8 7I don't know. And
~
was the representative for TUDCO. And we're talking I
.10 about hundreds of thousands of feet of instrumentation
-11 tubing that had been installed.
i 12 MR. WESSMAN: I'll see witat we can look into on that.
.' 13
.Anything else you want to get on the record before we go 14 l off?
' Not at this time.
I 16 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Have you given this statement 4 i I 17 to us today freely and voluntarily?
+
I Yes. 3 d 19 Okay. Let's go off the record.
% j MR. WESSMAN:
D t a 20 it i I (Whereupon the interview was k concluded.)
- 22 --
y I ;
> 23 ,
24 . e t 25 8 _. i
,, -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .------.y- -
- p -. . .
. . s
< ,.. 42.
I
. I CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS j 3 l This Nuclear is toRegulatory certify that the attached proceedings before the Commission 4 i
. . In the Matter of: COMANCHE PEAK, TECHNICAL INTERVIEW l Date of Proceedings: Thursday, August 2, 1984 Place of Proceedings: Fort Worth, Texas 6
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript for the file of the Commission.
"- 8 I
3 9 10
- f Cheryl Lynn Walters, CSR
{ Certified Shorthand Reporter
., 11 e
/
y; 12
~
s 13 { 14 y g!, lo, Certif% Mio(thanI1'Repor'ter g N 16 t, i f ! 17 i 18 Y 4 i 19
.I G L i 20 i
! 21 t
22
, 23 .
I 24 25 ( Y
- \
w : __.n . ; 2
, s ::p.a+- r -
4 g . q a .. -
/
I s R a *
}
CP8C - SSER Hubbard DRAFT 9 2/1/85 g SSER
- 1. Allegation Group: Mechanical and Piping, Category No. 49, Miscellaneous Concerns of A-45
- 2. Allegation Numbers: AM-31-1 to AM-31-280
- 3. Characterization: A Brown & Root (B&R) employee alleged that he noted
;q and logged (in five personal log books) 990 defective items during the
. time he worked at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
o [ 4. Assessment of Safety Significance:
..; In an interview with the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) on August 2,1984, the alleger stated that he s
had five log books in his possession that he had developed while a
} employed at CPSES by B&R. He stated that the books contained infonnation about 990 defects. . 7pfyggg g- gg 2AO / 7199WJ 8406-0 ON s9W A C TfJ R - C o u G Y f rt n er VMS
$d4 84653.
rp+ usros 20 irem.r cwrAwss s Siu& 0/ /#6ur/J#4 d)UM&tMtf M &fdelribd ynnsoM.f/4, o,uwwss, au commer, nw em l AD1Nort/1 ?47/0N3 [l%A) C7t, 7At& 44c44SK frwtM
, nw aw rws e ose.wws.tr saxswrm g- f/SC/RC 7YM Of Jt*<467, /F- TAtf AfCwNW l/ffdf) W4f A spins tos/AG el sf rfZnW stJA W TH& /12M CovtMd*) By 7N6 dihn su) w d e rf.-
1 F01A-35jp$g
. ..: u - ~
, .w.:,;: .y,. ;;. . . pie ;; :.n ,.a;w y.s
_3. - ==s x i 2. T rf/M u s c. A W- ujout6 Jh+t>& Ftro f cre a)644it)G G'/fde/Zf. (tJ r0 6 Ald M Ajons e64f treute iDDscM 5 MNrettiA4 r?*4440/t / Mf i fito/.k.6nrS. & dd&unodw.o7 ott c4ofpase.7 i huntddtt J /2& re.c e92%f ODff6C/S/de &W40/24. 7~Md AM.64CW 6Me& J/6csfsc 4;k.c7%/&S ct/ A- fdsu ryttrd i yacs erT,
;. YN6 772r Mete dfdfue /rf Adit'/d'O
\ of 746 '70 trents (swin aswo comm A f2d$'lSta W & t76*arS) as/L+x) A-16cwd 171dW/A.sd to/Lt A46td eu/7H rJ/6 Atc#6fd, 1 -
Ifurt149 rud prdd-ryx4 rN4 i+4tdSt**t.- 19 st&td6M A-x>a:eu urr of 63 ire *WJ M h $ /kf^'r/ff6f2 f 4-J 74f .#10f7"_./MPortMr d/ AdC rM6 / roro ntS CCi ~1)VC 406 6%'
$o0)p], 7 N & AeV65 616 Tr # rt?C / AJ M7,
- a fN6" /Y43104- 7pdn*1 sudi4t fost/det ret /ml
@/dc r-S 7)/4T" yo o ucut et Netr*r4M.y f'4k;!
/A) A- YYA'C46 Comfr;tucitou PM*T6e!'.ruca M 0nr4dMW6 $ 5. 7W& Aldeu ttf'rMJJ to Af ff Mf/k rurld C)o* f r c 49 f f M a se PJst/
dd/&//144 L tJ r of 20 #c.us / bin e A) w
/ fdfM45 o "T N d 6 ;3 / 7the*1 Arff /bCl Udk
/A) 7N& A -lT#f.MM6t/ff $6ertoni & 7Wi1 s'SSYZ, 7M6 T!2T* $70fffC a>0!!-* On) 7#4
! JC)ifr 4.tC1' >4svo CenCMJ1714!60 / 7'S I,
l
-e- - -,--.e-,-.-y_ , ---,__,%_,.___ _ . _ _ _, _ , _ _ , , _ _ _ , , _ _ , , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
2:L
- _
. :.. a c W ith14n2 % 2b e CidtS & M ?:=: :i122:.._ .* '%
Y v ,i Atrtnu77Av cu M &.3 suOS r i M % tr4n/r* 4 W - { - TH& T/2 r 50 U U C 'I M '0T' '1 M 6 I T'"S Co UA _j 66- 36p & E& /D70 /c04 6M 4MUYS~ Ft 7tA0 ,ete a r&uswd, 70KSM, SGo/pn!'*T
,4stst) sett3cseeAusdouf, t
796 r727 chwff 7r> tEJulaus rps ocyae.
/ tem usr Gy ,4- S6g wg rkecost, ,4 3 ,+ n g si x 31-26 0+ Z S )$ e r w r i rec sos t d r ~ w n -5 "a:.
cNo1 % AS 12 der 2e-fderswG A &Mededct ks09/te Aets 70 %^06-r f-rtan>& 7:ud; zir,:csci r y 0F rW6 70 rx1 < Atc.6614-71w . f/l& fcuowiu4 (Mc&E SNcass m (26Sctr:f of VH6- S'cowst6, YN d pictr isces+1ev
$65cu6s:t rtJe 6scowr. r y s y g ee n s to e u ,,, a
, L./S rl 17J6- /TGrul 77,'%r- JJde Of6*) esm/>w-rtse r-rz+n rw usr um rue r.w u aeu n ifJ TS 'rN& / 70W$ /61/tdar00 PMnst yt46- b fr~
o F- 63 M 0 VNd- 7Mnf.Ad Colt.tm o If 7tsc' lvo1 Of- cocuno est>& 4xe M , ,, vn er.jc4L
$L.tjoys) FCurf- .TBowl Ylif,dr M'90W" d
i 4 6
...e,
- - ,. -- -. .- - - - . , ~ . _ - - , . ,
- y. , ,.4 . - o , - >. - ..
. . , . . g..gg %y,3.gg,gg.
. . ; m. . . ,.
o 4 0& 74'9- C3 ieS 6y 6itsup, &c.u,wu pius ff.d9tL6r6v: T YM& Asomdfrt oc / 7t*nss /v A 2S$ Jkm/tn ar- cot unsa rouL j Grtouf2 (1 ) ( t- ) (3) (4) (r)
'1 /:
;;. fs itsp $
- ss vs< ot As0 3 (a 9 37 9 Tort.c o s O 2 2 S~ Z 9
0 [pe.x An6Lv 0 3 3 IO 3
'a:.;
. 9. 1..
l elu AtSc B S 8 10 3
'?
fo Ito 22. la3 I3 mi
.O fi
-w n
.' F-t rv 9 ti u) 8k 4ID4 Gilo v /
T"H 6- T'T2T (L61)Ide)54 Al/U6- l 7 01v1 S I 06L ntPI L* D
, 6 y' OttA a) 10 0 orL v11M66 Mum 6 dst , Tlas /bul-Obn' W I heil AWGt3 W t,U G L O orts d Oif F1'rT.sP f rLo G t. tM S U.) Q U L'O (b C* (KSoC,H4!En C W 'J % 6' d6 tAwoc 5 v120 cT*W *S , .TN 0- YYLV f^o 4 Miu %
M (l&VUrG4 Ort +4 u)1pC,t A+ c (J avr5 rw 1000 W 4r 'T #15- Pic,/m ed-{ pi rv/> m o e,o m iO4
- ou 11+6 57120C*uM cousI3750 c+ Y50- 70 t ur-f i th I 7 % C a nik T9M C uO of c> t>6-9 1 w 6 u 17c-C l
M niMr r Tu 6 S utV-ad #c)F Mxm wLfcM. ep
- " - 1-,4.s - , - - + ,
9 __,,.,,m y.,_. __ . _ , . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ , ,
g.. v t * .
,a -
.+
s ". >< A Stocc5 Ost- po u os c 6co -i c.c. c-s wc -cc o d-A o u6- Si 0 6 n c.u a. pc,vc- rwo u t,u k 0 wM 5 % C t f-n 5 0 cw 7140 OttAw nud S,
^
_z - It was difficult to determine if a weld joint I was correctly fitup after the weld is completed. Where the plates were welded from one side (either fillet or full fusion), it was possible for h the TRT to visually examine the opposite side; however, when fillet welds
;;f
'Y were applied to both sides and to the ends of the plate junctions, the d
- n. ,; fit was not visible.
j ...
.:. 7':V6 777- Y /Yf6OGfTot? 7NC- /FfS/frMtted' o$;
;$i y & 6 // 2 A d o d-L 2 usertarome 7ernAiG h;= 2; ff So s w isoic i,o 66- m i.uio o if 4 Asuom
^h l'ov lac $ d- 06 vejeEC yo Sjjga, pp p4 f, Ao gpsyze:7 fl) 6 F7'00dW fM6- Pt#rds 7Mor Nno detYo u)3*Wc C$} AND 7N6- A>&sc Ss4m w H esy6ttEC wirw- sud'w
$5y'.
M &T*d i YN6 So/d+6Mfoil. At-rrent97dd W # w m 2*oc N 4 7557 607* cum usifac&d-ffruc $cesarg 0+ 4 /,4ck 6
- 6se c& mt ry 04 7ad s*/d va:.,
- rn rar asumey exmu 7ue oios.
l smuc>vue. rx- 44e ovu ir ors-
., 14 c46 m/wt dM rNo- Trz r ne) /?-< cut o'w im S/k l
l c/ 77M upt 7-f. 7M6 777s* Frius.d >Wur .a" l s')Ad O/SSS/6t'G 70 y/ W M s94-ccJ'ife' 04 J'rwt& of T]/6 RJ0-WJ 0" S/X 0F W j iLita6 to//srtri. tiv ftya- c a pf suc 6gof tw$3 MWM, ,7 W & S/x7 W 3.U PfdY R Ah'tJ'0" % i k l i
. s .
_m. , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _
~ "-
Ms-:s.;g?f.?, ~ ' _.;a -::, '.wp%%%n kr.&p 6-v '
%!:s ~ '
;ii .
'l0
' (
- 4 s
/
.3 /NIOV k 6W CST-VM & VV /3 6 /e i- ' S >& A tsA l fort p.po or J incx4;f M 46 r-#0 foW w ,s A xio E 6* O s s e , V M d-p fAdotaAM)A 3, te, / + Viz fx.o c ro wed co- chri a 7 0 s m w ,w s- n ,- s
- s 6AG #ert- T roipr.T .Theo t e s>or- O ceccd
[h1.Q $4 , 75 4 r?tr* Ofr&for/"64 Yk<L dt/ 5,* / [ /d/ k //S/ M[M/b lb, h6 Rtc6;r wa-w.c /fswa</de dV' rA4'
& hh k?k{ h
.c
*?U;
-;:n
'e t
. . :fv; h?v$
6.;t
- M, A+-t
' b Yr i@
*:.et
,P .
- Q:'
!)
'?
l s I r l l e
,,-- , - - - - ,,n --~- , , - - . - , - - - . - - - , - - - - - - - - - _,,, - - - - - - - - - , .
o9;a:- , _ _j g _z_,. g 3 5 .;; g .;i m ; g .- g M ,z f ~ % . 3 g ; ; ,,_
.c: *
.g. ; *
~
g N 30 rt.Qu& 6 W 4, 6our- Tod,9uesAsk DU lll4/2& N 2 9 , / 9 8 2 7xc Aa.c-est
- totrv GSSdp A 190 c 7- 8/tdsa se eosec 0 4& a/ S
' 776Mrts*> dt2 , AlC CG4rMdd V~AMC r Do f/252rAtC I/ 4 4 u d-5 cuGAd /GVp1 tcMLS ;u o rt. crc 6tus to U J 6- tDAW66 70/?-GOM/D4 A V90 Nr&k frr M r-%
. $0 GTS.
NE T1/& 172T* found 71M r $ frtwcr7M14< fr564-nlf [~st.6 Crfe>U ble&cso/d W -ZZ tJ rN G con /Titou!/M
$+I) f)6 & uM dW 1~ //Ak det 7 77dMrdsv w 4 , &tsM
- fh O (3-/2 -?&), / (/2-7-d') Mo z (/-2/-82) ,pmim
. ;_ ytdo /nd-rnleAS /d4 rat 6 M u rzyns/ w ec s9- W e g g urr,
+ ; .,
~2
/, roe >v cV >ws vu r rue e,souovies-
&)
g s Mc"r00 A A2epo-r" " ""'" mov"" " 0' rNd x>ur swrzM & So04 pir- ce> von 7e>v <aM
.Qll 0$ rA wde , 7?M nmoux>r e traew wM .rnwp
!}l
+..-
/n) h A6W/st % 7 / d4 VN6 Pno&Courf6 A2e)G w M
'i ' fh ?! Y
[231rtTotd e4 [7dd6 &r seuw h&c i4 tem 1 L" "fr>womem. Toivrs usiivs 41rm At-52r as A-Vfo doe-r-r
- frum Gainm.
- 2. C u is u r m w e w ea (s%omon),
ry6 pxscrouxe yscvntes rm ose O t* Aft / //t1/AfdT* N/fdK?Ch-i ADfus739 7C l 1/44 uGd O fr 5 d //u 7 4 dLL' E os e r;n&# PMd cdeu/16 : $ doc 7- 7~@5/n %d4W 604d (?.6-pot /dd 70 MFuS T 7%4% JM HtY usyesoce 70 W # Cofsted rs d icas. l s l i -z:
.m.. _
--.,_,y- , , - . , -- , . , .
. - v. . . -
3 . : s.,e _..g,;.; , , 3w:
- s. _ __ _
g
';7 7 M 77)tM) de Asur in Lor He n serL aw"!icu"4 A~ t'fC ifot. r-r alA4 uJdd /d>t HJd'ts par?.se2n:fd O*004 f40 C deust.d cd - 22 j f.s u o r o ;!s u .5 ,
CrALG C44'6 st.nrge ejt.6,uct 776 anr v.av& arm 3 c.a A3 U5vd t./StG tD 17'1 0 A'-/& ieu. & &.s. Accortca.4 p TN& A'lfC JA:s'estttr477w ifor-.r.$
;& rDrL4uGC tro nM trutto eg. 7pt.g sjur up1 ugt ,N l ,
7~49c6- d 40/a /Zsfu.r ,a r-6nstav ype.ust 15 3New u nu Gsrcf 3. YM iMcuss respire-ren r k 'Jo N o*- 7we fs'se./ftde rrttwiusje ~ryx.rf/c f S & & rk- oc.- 7Wc 6o<-rs,
$ 00 Ttwd 20 /18/ A>MD OcTodcW. E/,/f8/
h 75frf c.00W6 /fclu g v .pd-rdradtd>f rW6 7t>LC>us
% VAus-f 66wG oornwee n w row as
'7NO A ) u 7~ / M d-h 6Co D , YO4 7Crrt4 kip /At4 C/ded
..lf
$ toad All>Wl0Wdd Su63ScoS*J74y /26pu>edd S. :,- vc (25c.eis rzto- Amou"7 c + ro e c o s = --;
. '; JCf 22t2f.t& do L.r' a/AS:s' t1 & M r'd x> 5 C, Y;fhl9W4ttsid ACC/77wK. 757rf Lud 4 /drfcottn ow ps/D tt.sfot<rtsc a) OSitsx;
~
CovGt durueazm-nev(Ocp.) is cz8 eerse
/& -/ -8 2 . y-Alg GC/9 Pifrvisec noStrwcr?cui icott 70/2-po# wd 4t.s A fif0 detit 70 A' .f69~ of- VAL vOf tbf/$n./$ssOS u/n w
.St 2 W- 7N0 f.30e r, THC'- uHe.ua-f d)Sef 6-LL$7~t.W //J M 0 C 8 AhvD su0r?.s iN feOI~
(94 u At05, 77k!- C/2.yuti/if a/A-! vm U5 ffges J>ttN A C 4 /- / F3(24 TfrC 7 0 rs. 4 d 4 t.o126su C W , f26vtStcou .5 0+ fizo c ovr:d- CU- 2 2
='.
~e
-n- - ,, -_- -.,,-,, -- -- - - - - - - . , , . - . - - - - - - --.e, , - - - - - - , - - - - , - - - , , , , , - - - - -
8 a; ,.
.+ asax:a e. w:2+=.r>-
1 ~
- u -
T h rared 2- V- 83 tocortsourec ry6- acui reie4at UA< 053, 14 fit-o6m as41 frrAdurthf-v c y f(42 . _l ft> A5rorzGoS net A-y90 doc rr 77) m de
-}
t/A4 USS . Y'#& 7?f 7~ d6ptowGd A:. Gdn>Mr C
.? r /?uw&cdr2 #cicm yv.tde u>ns />t:c As m d
-Ji} 70 Do l*iJMS n r* 77M- t..c>vspt s-rro>v or .sr-sRP
.o Y20-verz.9am44 ou mp AdrsmdiY W q '
7-17.7 pc fo 06serW6f] fwM WfW
~ n tA t 4 6 L. 6 i2 1 wk/CM w&f20- s9-174d'W46 70 W
,; oN4 rust. a>M (7.61rse4sur rrZicu k.drG f 7 ~4 6 - r 17 7 p e-1 t:7a:r rizm nuSe 7sw r- M
. . rt.
+. YN Y/M$ TW 80C.7 8/$4JM , & 7 f,)/11L/
^{ dic- 754d- AJu7~ m57Wed tsi M d 6) u G u.f 60 rv
~3-; r*/G#r&) /# Y96 $cc.rr. 71Hf axuc4 #Nou"r
& fe d A)o SftfC-f Ft C TCt $2-406 tr/94 0 0 f 6 6 / D S
'?
. rWAtl.44 c e- 70 >W& 7DitnodnOC Cr m' ,
M M o+v40 Yht G 7-72?"* CCuud W 774 MrttX)n04 TIQ OM f0 W $ C'" A / f"O E 8 dr'4 4 u f f 4*4 a /f6-70ttGu5nuG iu PM /9-y9o / Soc.r:i fut fruviOdd it d rLt H C,4 r/ o c r u n r~ r M d- 19/SC h$5#ci S'06C/frC477oo rC4-q)of & 6*071 W-4 C68%) />15 '7"i W i
- 1 i
I i e (
. - - - ,.v.. .- . .- . - _ _ - . . - _ - _ - - - . - , - - - - - - - - - . . - , - - , - - - - - -
g - -,, :F . --
, --- .; : ; ,..c_
- c. u-W ._-Ws .{-
w OR ff. y
/0 W& V ~ -
a , w6? M B2dACAu2AV YOUW i The alleger indicated that there was a problem with the travelers l associated with the Reactor Coolant (RC) pumps and motors. This 1 i l problem related to the measurement of breakaway torque. The TRT i reviewed, in detail, traveler ME-2207-5500 for RC pump TBX-RCPCPX-02, which was contained in the alleger's second list. The TRT also reviewed the travelers for the remaining three RC pumps. The purpose of the travelers was to measure both the breakaway a torque and t e These torque qgedt3sust,ajn values must be less than 750 ft-lbs for breakaway and 250 ft-lbs to sustain motion. The TRT found nothing inappropriate in the four travelers reviewed. In fact, the opposite was true, as the ,p L travelers were all very clear with precise instructions. All th proper construction and QA/QC signoffs were presentdincluding thosp w@ the alleger On pump 1, the maximum torque for breakaway was 225 ft-lbs and the maximum torque to sustain motion was 3 a-ft- bs. W ' P
/ Yd r wM , MA 4 Y M75 AL M M M
% /Frf&
, & Ye
& "s*m* " & M $M n
,_ ,0 f p l bC - - - , _ _ _
, hr l
t.
,p. - .
g (gugQat W S k UA $ W f, ft Q& (s.)t+ If 0 STG+-lur LO M rL14 y-4 5-- /q cc. 5G EA. Lt$rC-9 5ddW Coc um %M
-(25 LA rGD 'to rpt G& u.> tri e rt,s;5rrtA w 7~ 4 G 3~~ C w t+<ce4 ( C G (. 4 r 6 t o 46 to w / o6 c6 vtu o 6 uI UT~~ u f u.) s 06 G L.A DO G S&CD 70 S, T'U O d u)(0& F-LAN G C 35 cm o A>.S v svt& (Jcr- t D & Tb'DG4 CMC & C. I >21 eue-u.> M prs 6peise av t 2 - I2 -6 t 6 rus<. Ciu n. %no c.ru as< Gsoup.
H Tid & cmc C a sMa t 0 'rnt g 6 o tr- w 0; < D
'$ oM 'rn& G L A N G & E AJ 0.5 G124m 1 4 00 v 6c 5. B6v n ? (v &ce Yo A $t ArGt.6 65054, ~
C 7.-(- AS S u$
. 11J4%& AMI C of
~,{h AteP 70 iM i O G 7@- 89 T1!ik&
&.f,f 'T-N4 'rtU O 6 Sv%o3 as Gst& fe o Aso To
'Q bk4)& A- M I.S A-c LG v m e u - G T 'r44 6Gsm
~Y $ Pl.I C6 Co C- TO Cl S T0!!X't M 01)5- oc F4G rzicArtso,
_% 0C4 12 7 G r~ as M Pits-Ptw&c ro PANtts 6 IN S Tth> CD 61A fevt.84 Tt4CM ' A'S 'rHG Two 0WS '1-M OC 4 ST4TGS T'b& M - 'n4 6 vv1iS M4YCt+ C AUS 60 6Y T146 Y w tST' r N 'ndd s CLAN 66-1 A+)e 0 (4 G126nuCt ns O EPTN- tS ACL&n ML 6 . ' t-M& w 544 u.145 sM4u) W N AN AerM44 do T rs >re W-h) C (? M 00I I 2. u) t~5 t.1 S o Go N 2 - 8 ' O 2- To Io Cert 401t4 r6- rlad- l.oup a n aw! (2.5 4 495d 70 vid.& M i$ M 4 t < 46- JuC4 A*-S : VA>5poFM. M t.s M & s u 70su r A rvf) TuJt S T (' n> 0 Ccv 70 u >L tU 64cesuG bt10 y so t (%$ l \l$ h fy p i N $\TDh T.) h. vu 12ec Orm):u- A n tt.w ir; Pr e c ao r 6,
, - o a 1
,.% i:r <: ,gy: ;g.g y,y_; g.u s.;,,y z y q,.:,
, .;;&y,'gyxa - 3 . 3 3 =.;:.-y;zy- ._. ,
- i ,
.- . / a' t-ns. AJOL .ord cwtso o u V3/e2- 61 c
. t, itemsuos na- Omr80 E. 7101 S T M O CMM U'l I " O A0' 'h0 5 rw p t h c ep r & u.e.
3, (fG-yv1 NG m 64&ct AJ6 Srit.
44 ^ ..ag-h h f d . .;(1. ',,&, S V, - - .l e. 4* en .:6,qqyen . +.. --c...,; w t.fr w geg g eJ h As"* y a W 2:W:327 q.; ' : ~ c.4 - - " ?;.M.L L & K r & W 6: r' % Yi f. M ' __ .zi 7 l( [ hMxM 75 9 (c.oSo M h '7t/,ld Ar.c.66d9f Cr>O7&vdde 7N#F' uA)/0 CUM &M /2ep+Cwosc k c.oM #61fsoram60 ou M M4 7d/ Cto10126- #6*"0- mv94utc 7'lg A y}l97' A5V/duJdd, 0640/A/6 /2/ W W MM 8'#M that a number of vender-installed penetrations ;.n i extend through the reactor vessel closure head. Tubular thermal -{ sleeves have been inserted into 57 of the penetrations and control rod drive mechanisms will be installed in the thermal sleeves at a a:, later date. Housings and sleeves were installed in 1979 under ' .[,i-j traveler ME-79-214-5505. Four housings were installed around the $xj... periphery of the head. The bottom of the thennal sleeves and ;,j. . , housings received a screwed, coned plate held in place by a welded .8.W locking pin. The thermal sleeves were supported by a mechanical 4 .:5.3 shoulder and were loosely fitted into the penetration. The alleger claims that, in the spring of 1982 during the time he moo (<-t uw re.as ru was working on, housings 74 and 75, he witnessed undocumented repair work being perfonned on several " control rod drives." Further discussion with the alleger revealed that the " control rods," referred to in the disposition, actually were the thennal sleeves. Although the alleger did not see the damage occur, he believes it happened during a trial fitup of the head to the top of the reactor vessel, i p - y.,., , . . ,,- ._ -- + , - - , . ___ -m - - - , , - - . . -- -,.,-w_-,,,,.-,.._ , , , , - ~ - . _ , - , - - - - - 4-.-- , - - - - - ~- .- , x v z 2%u w hes:c v 7 s,n . w . - y p l 1 The TRT reviewed the activities which were perfomed on the head during the time period stated by the alleger. The TRT found that both the themal sleeves with guides and the housings with guides , were in place, having been installed in 1979. W add 6 tic.- E-;- the 7t 75 "w%g :;rr;;ti- :,Ie only other work perfomed which I required activities under the head were those associated with the ] addition of the RVLMS system. On March 26, 1982, two heated junction thermocouple probes were installed in penetration 63 and 65 as part of the addition of the reactor vessel level measurement system (RVLMS). Traveler ME-82-2563-5500 covered the work. The work was done by Brown & Root (B&R) personnel to Westinghouse (W) Procedure MP-2.7.1/TBX-1. Headadapterplugs(HAP)hadbeen previously installed on penetrations 63 and 65. The modification work consisted of removing the HAP and welding RVLMS flange assemblies to the penetrations. % ..i -W a#- ther-headzRtt.c vertr' as2 conduct-d - >n it.e rr- -j h..' : ; g mn H vm, The alleger suggested that the TRT discuss the allegation with two B&R employees who were performing mechanical inspection and quality control inspection on the head during the spring of 1982. One of the employees had left the site. The second employee, still employed by B&R, was unable to provide any infomation on any repair work to the thermal sleeves. He stated he was closely involved in I I I l . :. . . f y--. , -
- m.. .g.p u.u:- :gg._%., s :.7, . . . , ,
w w.- 3-y- ,, s y a. , 4 d 15 - most of the work related to the head and at no time does he recall any damage being done to the thermal sleeves. In addition, the TUGC0 field mechanical engineer who was involved in the installation of the thermal sleeves and housings and the later modifications did not know of any repair work to the thermal sleeves. Since any work done on the head and thermal sleeves would have been under the direction of 1, the TRT interviewed the 1 site resident. The TRT l' earned that X had an expert on call ~ who was a specialist on reactor internals and who was present during any work being UN'0*'" gbc,f' T%6 ( W) S pr5- d&PU-3 W4'n U* performed on y equipment. illmu_er records = Sxd 2kn - m Av0 occ6-wmurelated to thermal sleeve damage and @4 u,6te covvo , 3 resulting repairs. . The TRT reviewed the travelers associated with work which had been completed on the head 1,n early 1982, and found that all documentation appeared to be complete. The TRT determined that damage could not have occurred to control rod drives at this time, since in 1982 they were still crated and in the warehouse. The bottom of the thermal sleeve guides are located slightly over 37 l l inches above the head flange surface. The TRT detennined that the head would have to have been dropped or hit at an unusual angle to
- have suffered the damage suggested by the alleger. If that had been i i i
! the case, it is likely the overlay machined flange surface would 1 have suffered sufficient damage to require extensive repairs, but no l l record of such repairs exists. i i , -?fQgmyth~n : r ^* - , i * ' L [.:b%1.f ,:..m ,s., ; % D C. M 3 Ceir.2 ; f W ,:w k s e ?? & * .. _ m. . _ ~ . ] , ih *3 ,
- ISA s .9
- \
'T'b4f' Y/t.Z~ CGX)DU CT&O I4- Ul S U 191- I A.)$ PG-C1M Of- TH4 & 44 M S L G & t) 3 d', AJ o FA)tO W [ '\ 04- r at!y cu G-c,C 00 6 , W bN 0 % 00;f-C>C***A**** 1 )U$64tr C w n.s mm . ;i Su/M b 7 M k GP r. h WI SC6tL AUCFCu$ On000 4 -
- + c &M4L t'nM 4GUq J46.- yyp- (2gvt warc w occ.ama uw**
k.h coaunm sy n u
(@ ^2FEty InjectTBii Vertical Line R It is al ed that the safety injection ver 1ge g su e original 'concQ f.j y
j _pport-mbeam has baje g al ind1ca,tions
~
, egarding this support beam was , raised by _ when ansight a
sandblasting revealed areas of peeling metal. This condition was reported in W field deficiency report (FDR) TBXM-10071, dated April 7, 1981. The FDR stated that metal was removed and blended by sandblasting, and that the resulting depth exceeded the maximum depth limit for A588 material of the beam's thickness. The FDR also noted numerous areas on the othe ms which exhibited peeling condition of indeteminate depth.
The action resulting from the FDR was the return of these beams to the vendor for inspection in accordance with the appropriate material specification (A588) and for weld repair, if required. The vendor, Teledyne Brown (TB), perfomed two weld repairs on the initial beam and grinding on the other three beams. Westinghouse
, i 1 s
(,
i
w - - ;I- . -
- ~~ --
/3 c_.-
.e
- 17 -
QC/QA personnel reviewed the repairs, including material certification, MT records, visual inspection records, dimensional inspection, welding personnel qualification certification, and NDE personnel qualification certification. As a result of their review, W deter 1nined that the beams were in accordance with the A588 and A6 requirements. Westinghouse then re-released the four beams for shipment to Consnanche Ped Steam Electric Station (CPSES) by Qualitly Release N-46991, Rev. 3, dated May 28, 1984. The TRT found that the beams were received and accepted by'B&R Quality Assurance and documented on Receiving Inspection, 'k[ ort No.16771, dated June 4 1981.
On January 25, 1982, NCR M-82 00079 was written against these beams.
This NCR had two concerns: (1) that tne beams h'ad linear indications that started at the attachment weld and were from 3-1/2 inches to ,,,
3 feet, 6 inches in length, and (2) that the beam dimensions differed from the drawing dimensions. .
1 Westinghouse responded to the first part of this NCR with a letter, (WPT-4602), dated May 19, 1982. T,his letter stated that the NCR was written on the same " roll marks" that'were previously detected during site receipt inspection. The letter further stated that these " roll marks" were inspec'ted and approved by the shape supplier, Bethlehem Steel, and that roll marks are an industry-p.
g e 't
- 1. ;, ,,,y.;y,p , . , c ,
...,v n . ;z;g ,,ggy, ,p,gjgggg w.; ,g;-jp.i.9 .
-_ . >__u__ .o w._.._. -w- _. - -__.:--_.- 2 ..:.. .- ,- _ _ . _
- /q accepted trait of rolled structural members. The letter stated in conclusion that these " roll marks" would not impair the adequacy of restraints.
The TRT reviewed all the documentation mentioned above, discussed this allegation with Westinghouse Field Engineers, and reviewed the ASTM specifications for A6 and A588 to detemine if these requirements were met.
The TRT found that the second portion of NCR M-82-0079 appeared to be a misinterpretation of the design drawing by the originator of the NCR. It appears that the NCR originator did not realize that a
~
W14 x 233 beam has dimensions of 16 inches in depth and 15-7/8 inches in width, which are the dimensions quoted in the NCR as being nonconfoming. The TRT inspection of the design drawing indicated that beam dimensions of W14 x 233 x 16 feet long were called for and that notes existed on the drawing that called for the field to cut the beam to suit and machine as shown in View H. .
D. M eilaneous em 1 t numbers Thre plate hea umbers were shown on the iginal list of items The TRT ad complete eview of one heat number the time the ,
decision was made to conc trate efforts on the secon list.
l l
ra thi:+:+:*. ~. v ;-.-'~.G' uh :6&-h s- - ~ w
~
_ [ - .; - .
,*+9
? . ns .
,..e 6(
. The TRT detennined that the heat number on piece 2 had been recorded
' ' on the material identification log prior to installation; therefore, e
it must have been visible prior to installation. However, the TRT verified that heat number NF1106 was traceable from the in-place
.4 f /, items back to the material supplier.
~*'**
- f, .- . .....*--e
,m
'9-3 v u,-
emed
,,.Ae<
'W 1.e
,V I
OT,
~~ y .
74 8
. e,
,MA
.y+:#
~ $'y]n g..
- .. ;f .
e a g.
'r 4 - ,as 1
3 I
l em
, d W9h
;, : w .g.si:, :a jgyc -: u~ w. w - e
. /
'. I1
/3 M DCA and NCR Documents The TRT reviewed the repair / rework items described in NCR M82-00141 and NCR M-82-00296 and in DCA 8875 and DCA 12287 which were on the list of the alleger's major concerns. A documentation review indicated that the repair / rework had been properly performed.
~
DCA 8875 states.that, contrary to the requirements that a full
; penetration weld be made between the stiffeners and the base plate and flange sections, a partial penetration weld was provided on a s
portion of the seam. To provide the necessary stiffness, eight
, additional stiffener plates were added. DCA 12287 was issued to add a plate and a stiffener to the base plate when B&R cut off the
$2 bottom left anchor bolt of a pipe whip restraint, A senior TUEC
- ' d the TRT $ visually examinelthe work support engineer n k perfomed under the DCAsW (*uA4 Ir W #'N OU MJ& DCGo NCR M-82-00141 stated that a 1/2-inch-diameter arc strike occurred 3 feet off the floor and a grout smear was visible 3-1/2 inches off the t sawM o' W Ax^ bud 400 M rW&
floor. The TRT tinrt the resolution,ef tMrJtch p h removing the arc strike and grout smear and repainting the damaged surfaces. NRC M-82-00296 stated that vendor-supplied whip restraints were found to be in violation of the specifications.
Paragraph 6.4 states in part " welded construction shall conform to AISC Specifications for design, fabrication and erection of structural steel and AWS D1.1." Resolution of this NCR required Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) personnel to perform repair work in I
Mw c. ,' * *x ~
.,Y
'+ ~ :' : '..: *&M46%M-5@~~ MNA" *$ '?'
~ *
?yggg u:0?. e d k w uO~~.s " h " 't~' " ' * " '#*=## ~' \
- y
.: p
?!
- p . .
W
..t.y accordance with procedures in the CBI QA manual for contract 91936
(
,35-1195-0578 Change Order No. 2). The T" 'r ' tMt the .
' md rr - 7 _ .. _ . L m _ _ .. . ef _ _ "C E __ ;+ 1 . ; ..;l A t:_'!y.
i,,
In a meeting with the alleger on December 18, 1984, the TRT a presented the results of the assessment of the allegations and the (q TRT's conclusions. A discussion followed. There were no major 7/f em items of disagreement and no new concerns or allegations were J,5.
y, identified. The alleger expressed his satisfaction that his concerns had been addressed.
*G
>u ,
~.,C:j p.
5.- Conclusions and Staff Position:
The TRT believes that the sampling taken ja of the 63 "most important" items represents a reasonable overview of the 1 allegers concerns.
A number of items that were reviewed may have
.O 37
.. u appeared to the alleger to have been unclosed NCRs or.discrepencies which were later resolved in the nonnal QC/QA program.
The TRT ha achedthefollowing$nclusions on the items reviewed:
.i Fitup and Welding 6noop In a review of nine pipe restraints, the TRT found no fitup or welding errors. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
i e
. .g.; y ,.r9.y w ; .. e-
, ~..
,y , muppugu,.wgys.n. ;:. xe . .
. je ., , .- .,s .g m.;n..:.,2 u % .
w._.3...,,.--.. .a,.. .,.gm . _ - -
- ,. .,. 1 )
- m- :
.:i ..
. it ro nat Gnouf A W Tort 4 00l kN The TRT has detennined that at the time the bolt broke, the turn of z
the nut method was being used to tighten A490 bolts. This would account for no specific torque values being available to the i
~ ~ ~ "
torqueing crew.
- ' cip Y W u da ik % o~ e ve>
,. ';s -
w4 The TRT found that tighteninggto the specific DCA 15028 values and 5; W nue genud4e e #1c
!.C retorquaing M A490 bolts provided aamumense that the3specifications 2
3 .
at w & W M had been met.
.,3
,'a
.I 9l5b
. sy.,s The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated,
"^W Q , 6rt4 4 6 M ) % TDff-Q U S
*&) M
. ..g Tfgi In a review of the travelers related to breakaway and motion torque, the Ma
':' W
. TRT found nothing inappropriate. therefore h;:(..
allegation is unsubstantiated. / f/ hThe TRT concludes,
~
\ ~
f$" n .zv/WB-f#.
I l
j 1
. .g c, yye 3,.:w; --,- , , - - , .m . s . ..e:.,.-+s.gsg.psw:;&&ugycqw S.:in.:uw w.v c-. - ~.
C. Equipment m A, Pips *P GAS &W In a review of the documentation associated with the pipe whip l restraint member and physical examination of pipe whip restraints, the TRT found nothing to substantiate this allegation. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
[344d1 6, RGM4 N In a review of the activities associated with the top head during the period the undocumented repair was to have occurred, the TRT found no record of any improper work. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
4 la66 % c, $ u p00
- 6WS ,
(
The TRT review of the documentation associated with the support l beams showed them to be in accordance with codes and specifications.
In addition, it appears that the beam dimensions mentioned as nonconforming were actually the correct mill sizes. The TRT i
concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
, ?
l
?
I
24 -
D. Miscellaneous t
I l . gfpg4gATtht.;44 r/L4CM'68W The TRT reviewed the material covered by the heat number shown on j
the alleger's list to determine its traceability, and traced the heat nurber from the installed support to the original mill plate.
The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated, mg 13. OTydrL OccoMW The TRT review of all listed documents shows that the items were issued and/or closed correctly. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
i Accordingly, these alle.gations have neither safety significance nor generic implications.
(
- 6. Action Recuired: None.
la $ ' m o S T- t k m&V /& ~
- 8. Attachments: List of M h r.
I i
i r -- - _m __
es.jppy.w - .. ,
,. .,. ggt.
. p. .
3; ,,,,
, _ -w. .en . - ,;. : . . ~.s - ~ - . ,,, ,g.,.x,. ., _3 ;_; _ q> :.
. ., p ,
.o- ,
7..:if .
y-p5 g,3 *megy /rrysorzrW/W ,
. 1 l
l
$kVV8 Cp 8/-to2 -28c o CO 8/ 139 -2doo
[G Bf- 022 - yqso Cf 8/- 6b-5 Yoo C68/ Moo C6 8/ -029 -S%o s
- C 0 80 - 6Sb -2402 C0 B/ -/40 -zaco "l%
.m
'.B C0 8/ ~ foo -S2co Aa C 68/ -02/ -f?o6
'1 mb 82-2.z02 -t~rco
.., ht d e t -z st 8 - C 5'c o Cd 8/ -cie- Exo
&.;y&
2 s C68/ ~43- Sko Y.D.;
CO 8/ - /)?-Sfo o
^Q .
CO 8 2 -/46 -2800 J'.h -
$2E82-775~ ~ czeo
'. .1.y-.i CO 82- /46-2800 NS-8/~2/$8-74eo
- CD-J/-/ks Srb o
;- CD 8/- /05-2260 CGdt ~/49- 4100 C 002 - /?Z -280c __
.,C2 82 ~ / CY-J'I'D0 C6 8/ -?<f ~4166 stfd 28/C-4eco CD -8/ -/// -Sxo C6 -af ~6'l - 3ffoo CO -of /W- 7mo
man.,9 wi~ie,e ~"= O ":'w y: ..&+4 4 4 W w C M d & & M W w + M:';-;= > % Y =- :" * *
.=cu;; .
'# ;.s , . ,
~.
- t Dmw4f to /Vo3 M ! t/ 8 2 4 G.
tu /ST4653
.I, S2 - Mf-a z SE- S9.T-o 4 SZ -0672-07
.{$ $f-0428-23 -2C
*l$ .<
,_ ST-OM7-o/
.ki Sf- S97-fJ l:$2 .SZ o c.98 - #
SE -oc.88 -64 l:l SJ~-oSg1-o3
.. :.03 a
. m,
.e @s 16
.Th.
?.?d,.
- A7C21 ll10C At SQ 404-pt BL -ooIV/
, ..(9
.s cmc &i?7(
- ~" SCA /Z oY7-i
.,, DCA 88 7.G~ /av /
;C A~A /2287 NCl Afd2 -oo2/G i 4CL /Mdz- 602%
o A>c4 MBz - ooo ??
A i
.;g aj;? ;no. ~~; -
eg a.;sy,ys +rg,sggfiism:wyr.w .::.-:cew- - .- m
~
_;i .
M!.!S )
[Gutfms<.7 '
/r 725x 12Citfx-63 !
/fdst. ems becowr fluss s L samtsur /4Hraw.ier orc '
[A/&do m f.
4 3, /Z. C. kmp 82 mt-/</t Y 4 /2 C, funn - Cents 2 of y,
- ~
f, 78 x J2CC STG - 03
=X (s a r d x ~ A c t / D - o /
7 2323CSpf M/4
.+ 8. C/Z 4f47tS -of llf % 7CN /C6S14 -of
.g .
;?h1 ! /o. M > f,e nse ~ 79 w h +
s, g:2cc.e: fsfrysawr
, ti A
,.. s}e l/, W/ /Kt/6 5r f.str/4su.e- _
. a. u l!$
. .i w
/Zrl-Do -Of2
'~ 13< [ 3SD cal ~ </ftS7CJ
(
t'/i$8/-6CiI r 1 /f. $ % 6deu M
/MMIA) St4W4f, l
l l
r l
l l
( .]
- w. - . . -
.. .g , . e-p -
- .9 -. m . -=. yqqwn:sa.:gy,:n.n+ c >::.w::.v.m...v , : - - g ~:
. - . . . . . _ _ _ -^ c _ . , g.e v _ . . e. e.
, _.m.....t_, 2zy {_1J t . . . :a.' _. - n .- 1_ . - '
'r .
- 9.
References:
- 1. . Torque
- a. ME82-2206-5500,
- b. ME82-2208-5500.
- c. ME82-2209-5500.
- 2. Head
- a. ME-82-2203-5500.
- b. NCR M-3182.
- c. Westinghouse Procedure MP 2.7.1/TBX-1.
- d. ME-82-2563-5500.
- e. Westinghouse Dwg. 1219E49 -
Sht. 1 & 2.
- f. ME-79-389-5500.
- g. ME-79-214-5505.
\
- 3. Travelers
- a. CD-81-116-5500.
- b. CD-82-208-5500.
- c. CD-83-293-5500.
- d. CD-81-119-5500.
i e. CD-82-216-5500.
- f. CD-81-110-5500.
- g. CD-83-294-5500.
4 l
,y;. .;;.aw,; - . =- ,
ua , .e.w .e;., ;.
.*%:w :,%gzs.. ::: u:c: .;._ w . .;,.; x.
sI w', ,
- I
..i
- 10. This statement prepared by:
J. Devers, Date
.; V. Ferrarini, and Date R. Hubbard, Date TRT Technical Reviewers 1
b Reviewed by: L. Shao, Date f{.J 4 l Group Leader VD
< Ti 5 % Approved by:
2 V. Noonan, Date ( .. Project Director
- a
+ - .'$w 'e ;
s N>E vn P s.! s p@j 7 - 56
- ,F' o
.e j a1.-
t
- I L, f'
*t 4
ee e
'M 5 3',
en
. h.
sw?s n
&a..ep.,up -y.. . ,. .
c.- -x > .-
v.94snegc;ws?&m :"" y;a . w :k w & ~ n + - w re m :Eu+ 6 a n.:MX __ 'm - (,I V [ CP8C - SSER Hubbard l DRAFT 9 - 2/1/85 SSER
- 1. Allegation Group: Mechanical and Piping, Category No. 49, Miscellaneous Concerns of A-45
- 2. Allegation Numbers: AM-31-1 to AM-31-280 1 3. Characterization: A Brown & Root (B&R) employee alleged that he noted and logged (in five personal log books) 990 defective items during the time he worked at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
- 4. Assessment of Safety Significance: In an interview with the NRC f
Technical Review Team (TRT) on August 2,1984, the alleger stated that he. p l l j had five log books in his possession that he had developed while a g
\ employed at CPSES by B&R. He stated that the books contained infonnatio
' ' ~ -
about 990 defects. is figure was later~ f educed to _280 items after the) I Q'i " $ d 'TRT re iewed the log books. [A ~ kete41stME[fEegatWns i
' Id &d TMe d n the Atta'ch o ring the interview, the alleger re eased a list of 70 of the items for review by the TRT. (The balance was to be made available at a later date.)
~
The list of 70 items contained a group of identifying nu y Y representing travelers, drawings, heat numbers, design change h $ authorizations (DCAs), etc. The alleger indicated that each type of
? $96C)kC- T4 Po* ** f documentQepresented A-Wahri defectgWeldingandfituperrorswere heat ohaveoccurredonmaterialcoveredbydraw 4
l 1 _;dh%9%tMRw.W *~";P#ih-@M e ' -
- = ~ &-:M*n.'+ ~~- - em . m& mn-,~: :-~
-2~
numbers represented material traceability problems; other ocument or I equipment numbers reflected unspecified errors.
- e. A) %h N'7 y co # . ca_ r:e
- The TRT C r -d these items by dividing, ,them into six categoriesT nd
! g .. ,, u _
' ~
f' devisingb sampling p 'r ' ss to select a representative cross-section of 3 items. g6 @ pp. ,
'g 4% '4O W (
The TRT had -fttst begun +he+c revi when a second meeting was held with ' the alleger. At this time, the alleger provided a list of 63' items, , identified as the "most important" of all the items froni the five log
/
books. The alleger stated that "In fact, the rest of them were possible l s
-I minor defects that you would nonnally find in a typical construction project such as Comanche Peak." This new listing was a mixture of items from the original list of 70 and some new material gF The TRT stopped work on the first list concentrated its attention on the 63 "most important" items. The TRT chos fgrk'ntegories(Fitup
; or Welding, Torque, Equipment, and Miscellaneous) to review.% @ @
edea mme
--......_.m.- g T.nc aiivsouang or unun m _ ,_
.......3 -- -,..-..
[ A. Fitup and #Mding [ j The alleger cla ed that welding an f p errors occurred on material covered by list of dra ngs d travelers. e--- --
~ -c.2:m y,.s yw m.ctdw..wstNewpg.9 x y ...: ,...,3 1
l
\
l B. Torque
/
Item 1 The alleger did not feel that an NCR for a broken bolt was closed properly. k Item 2 The alleger claimed that there was a' problem with the travelers associated with the measurement of breakaway torque on the motors of the reactor coolant pumps. I C. Equipment Item I l t The alleger claimed tha/ pipe restraint members were fitup improperly and welded ncorrectly. Item 2
~1 The alleger claimed that undocumented repair work was done on top head members.
Item 3 The alleger claimed that supp' ort beams had base metal indications. l D. Miscel aneous Item
/
The alleger claimed that support member material was not traceable. i, i O
1
' @Ma :iG=5%% .wwe~:p:.y =: ewgyg:..w '
- . . + . , , - - .- -
1 Itatn 2 Th ger clai certain d NCR docu s were mpro y completed. o s<w ~s, R r te e the 1 :
, @ - . it7sas Number in pprox. Additional items Categ F Yt Second Li S / Total 10r Fitup and -
1 g Welding # -
- 37 -
l 6' 9.+- d ' orquh 5 k@ 2 { I 2c C Equipment 10 3 0 3 O Misc. v 10 ; M v 7 51 v f [.8 3 6 17 16 22 6,3
.. _y3...j .
deal.e a sample size of 16 of the 04 imi. .;..;rt r +" items. The j e ca ud te 6 . auwepcabie overview of the allecer s g pgwp g sv644tU[ f bPW T ,,Q y.g ) C 3 l To assess th'd fi.t,up and welding allegations, the TRT reviewed nine items M
; A tstof-identified by drawing or traveler number g The alleger had indicated 6 that welding or fitup problems would be associated with the related l
'unt _ limiting component support structures'. 3 f
2..:g,. % ;v.;2 =MG:.n k ys. W :h.* 5 6 < #Q=:Nifhk h ' ' a:- a- =- -
\
.; r He~d The TRhemihthat the primary ff tup and welding on the structures wuve., 3 consisted of tee jointsy '
-the end of one plate butt,ed against the surface of another plate. A si r doubl fillet weld or a onesided full
<-~ . g< w h
- . penetration weld fwas'us t was difficult to determine if a weld joint /
was correctly Y up after the weld is completed. Where the plates were welded from one side (either fillet or full fusion), it was possible for
~
g h the TRT to visually examine the opposite side; however, when fillet welds x 2d were applied to both sides and to the ends of the plate junctions, the fit was not visible.
~
M 'WC WU ,
'W " /
A Brown and Root (B&R) Level III UT Supervisor attempted to x-h,
' ultrasonic test to detemine if a gap existed between the plates being 8
. welded. The UT Supervisor also hoped to detemine the size of the gap; ec ,
, this effort failed because of lack of clarity of the sig s J
& f 'e. %Q:
The TRT visually examined a ~ine moment limiting component structu?esy
~ - - -
The ! B&R Level III supervisor accompanied the TRT in reviewing six of the units. The TRT found that it was possible to view the backside of some of the welds on six of the nine supports. In five cases of these cases no gaps appeare g b ever, the sixth support showed a gap estimated to be 1/1h inch c ,- y for about 3 inches hep;=edtobeaaly i 7k n ~' TKr Ly~4 hk
, was not u.. r. N
( 1/8-inch W -i - : -"s te4e-significant l l l l l i I
.x: w .u,,: n g _ d Q .u a -x % :.: w g w ..g:,w. 6 . . ;ta g g _;.._,; -
; All fillet welds reviewed by the TRT appeared to be acceptable and of the
; I / .
I correct Jn some cases the weld was greater than called for o e ok & QTS
" drawin . The TRT(determined 3 hat if a gap had been nrecant that was greate th pec d, xcess et wel Id ha pens e the re ng e et f we s rengt N
B. Torque Item 1
.j The alleger prepared Nonconformance Report (NCR) M82-00216, Rev. O, on March 29, 1982 when a 1-inch, A-490 bolt broke while being tightened. The NCR was partially closed on May 10, 1982, when authorization was given to use new bolts. Tests were performed on l
other bolts of the same size furnished by the vendor.- The test
. 2 ~
results showed the bolts met the spccified 7:-C 3. The~ results were incorporated in the NCR final disposition. k The NCR stated "No set torque valves have been established for torquing these bolts. Reinspection of remaining five bolts at this connection found excessive reduction in cross-section area due to Remaining bolts had been torqued to 1250 lbs." ggrj@ ep per quei g valu for A 9 bolts d bee un er s d f Yf p r xi a ly yea p for the br ng ,o bolt. V - a . Wgr ' Structural Steel trection Procedure CCP-22 the controlling t f\g document for bolt tightenin{ g
; Revisions O',1, and 2 provided two
].
methods for the tightening of A-490 boltQ f 3 i I _ _ _ - . _ _ -_--__-m__ _ _
{ ;c ,c.c m y-ag4,,.g g g.g g g g m y g g g g j_. g g ,p.;.g ,,,. . p D6f,.A s%' ' s/ I
" 1.* Turn of the nut. } A pre'detemined movement of the nut after a snug fit condition was ob'tained. The amount of t rn was spec fied in.
- % 4 of the American n u%&
l ' Attachment 1 of the procedure and ' m rTable A Institute of Steel Construction Specification " Structural Joints Using ASTM A-325 or A-490 Bolts" Seventh Edition. Tk p nd ry.bd A h of-
- 2. Calibrated wrench (Skidmore). An impact wrench g r d 4
>M 3
g adjusted to aanhada values listed in Table 2 of the procedure. A j Bolt-Tension Calibrator used to adjust the impact wrench to the required tension, b %Ad h h y S k The turn of the nut method for Tensioning all A-490 bolts was used i exclusively until December 1,1982. The calibrated wrench tightening -* h method was never used in its original form. wpm N E .
-J
/ On June 28, 1981, and October 21, 1981, tests were run to determineg pbl-b)4 h7 d rrect m cm) torqueval,uekbeingobtainedfromtheturnofthenut Q -
methodcKej1tc4Q. , The craft was required, thereafter, to record the
- k amount of torque being developed as each bolt was tightened7 e
_ _ w 4, t i After the nut broke, additional tests were performed on Nrch 295 1%< and Design Change Authorization (DCA) 15028 was issued on 12/11 e oG b a e - Q set of torque values for various sized A-490 bolts. . The values were in 1
% -.G l ? %
l foot pounds and (allowed)'he direct use of a calibrated hydrotorque i wrench. All tightening done after 12/1/82 was perfomed using a l 1
, +.l%:i : K & L; '~^.2g h ff% % $ h;h+ M.Q; n::-;:= @% , l . -
i l calibrated wrench to the DCA values. Revision 3 of Procedure CCP-22 dated 7/4/88incorporatedthenewtorquevalues. A program wap established to retorque all A-490 bolts to the new values. g T(\T c u' M a- m tbt) to b M N k.b' - of A, vv.f%pg,
,, generic travele s prepared sus.a the or inal whip TWQ
- restraint traveleW +M --+arnu* =: _ 'tt Q
~
- V s q
c4 The TRT reviewed the closure o/NCR 00216 to detemine if the stre kJL.* of % '
) op&
the bolts hed-met the specification. The TRT also reviewed the methods l A I used during the tightening of the bolts to verify that the requirements of the AISC specification had been met. 4l;- Y f M&e S , f r ' pp - The TRT found tha e table n Attachment ( of Procedure CCP-22 was b. v]H tQ.,W'r:s Table 4 of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)') [ Specification " Structural Joints using ASTM A325 or A490. Bolts" date April 26,1978, (seventh edition % TRT also found that page 5-228 of the AISC specification states, " Tests have shown that the nut rotation called for in Table 4 for bolt groups having lengths up to 4 diameters, [over 4 to 8 diameters and over 8 diameter but not exceeding 12 diameters will achieve the fastener tension required by Table 3." Table 3 lists , the minimum fastener tension in kips to'trhich the bolts must be i tightened.
'N -
3 .
. ;;dWWtig;y3rman ~ _ J ;7" w :tttanhEtSs&&&g;;rMu;&w 5: e .
t ' 1
% _g.
w # Subsequent tes erfonned by B&R under DCA 15028, Rev. owed the allowable foot pounds torque to b o - nch bolt. The tests were conducted in accordance th the rotation values recomended in AISC Table 4. The torquing y so 007 m 3ft/lbs,which occurred during the f re of the bolt, were below the recommended b s t, [3 M-t tb
? !, The le ed tha tes1 were rfo d n amples y dor-fu ished t' 1
[ ts a art f he finnl dis sit n of the CR. Th s its o hef 4 g' j t sts pe fonne by an nd pe a ury sh ec tha'; the bolt t
" i N j'he t requirement o AST 90, Table 5, were there1' )re , c tab !.
1 1
%.. / ~ / l # T AISC specification states, " Calibration studies have sh at high strength have ultimate load capacities in qued tension 3 which may vary from abou % to 90% of the ect tensile strength I
i . . . therefore, the required in tension for A490 bolts was reduced to 70% of the s ied minimum sile strength." The decision to r e the installed tension level vided an { . a anal 10% safety level. This reduction is reflec in the i f g instruction table rotation values.
- N
$ The TRT determined that the necking down exhibited by the five bolts I removed from the same restraint does not of itself indicate a generic ,
). ondition.) As stated on page 5-220 of the AISC specification: "Bol ts 1,s - prcperly installed and inspected by torquing can sustain additional v f i a
.-w 7 i
, ? h; b 2 3?[8 v' d 4 M M s M @ ?k a s -; f '- 3 M %:, . ik+,v. G%Myfa:&ge.gfW:,g.; ;_
i I direct tension loads in excess of the initial tension without any ( apparent reduction in their ultimate strength. Because of this strength it is apparent that if the fastener doe's not fail while being installed, it should not fail thereafter provided the loads to which it is subjected does not exceed those for which it has been designed." The TRT found that the installation of the A490 bolts appeared to meet all the requirements of the applicable procedures and specifications. Since the single bolt breakage appears to be isolated case the probability is that improper bolt installation or a faulty bolt lead to thefailure.fEmeneckingdownofboltscanoccurwithoutdiminishi the structural integrity of the joint. m #
)The alleger indicated that t,here was a problem with the travelers
$~%qw associated with the Reactor Coolant (RC) pumps and motors. This A roblem related to the measurement of breakaway torquel The TRT h reviewed, in detail, traveler ME-2207-5500 for RC pump TBX-RCPCPX-02, which was contained in the alleger's second list.
gi The TRT also reviewed the travelers for the remaining three RC pumps. b l [9 i l
. , - 4N.mi&%WA%Eh&S5%kOWW l'* * *N ' ^ 'A =S*!b.hh5%:1. i= :O -
i l The purpose f the travelers was to measure both the breakaway
\1 torque and he torque required to sustain motion. These torque 1
values must be less than 750 ft-lbs for breakaway and 250 ft-lbs to l i in motion. e TRT found nothing inappropriate in th h Ab rs rev fact, the opposite was true, as the hw%? r s - (travelers were all very clear with preciseA instructionsl All the proper construction and QA/QC signoffs were present (including those of the alleger). On pump 1, the maximum torgue breakaway was 225 ft-lb d the maximum to pg ea tio C. Equipment
- n-v
, h1 v
Whip Restraint Welding The alleger listed several documents for a pipe whip restraint l (Gibbs & Hill, Detail R10597) located in Reactor Unit 1, which ( 1 relate to the joining of two built-up wide flange sections. At the time of fitup it was discovered that the flanges being joined were not in the same plang. NCR M82-00112, which listed the details of weta themismatchindicatedthagoneendofthebottomflangewaslined up even with the adjacent flange, the other end of the bottom flange was twisted approximately 1/8-inch, and the top flange had a mismatch of 1/8-inch to 1/4-inch from its corresponding top flange. f i () c Ii 3 u. l g- -- - - - -- -- ---,-,v -,- ----------r- g-- - - ---------w------r----vw- e -e--- we<-- - -- -- -----.m- -- w-- -wwn- -w -
--w
a ... u g:!n q @ Q 1; M t M g;s M M S % N + & " , v - ~ 'v " ~MpihMuk ...w_. ,
. ir
{% &y b TheTRTfoundthatlacomponentmodifica card (CMC) 61771) a
, been written to change the weld detail from a double kevel weld to a single h vel and that back up bars were to be used to achieve full A
; f penetration.fhemismatchnecessitatedare-evaluationoftheseam]
1 j , in order to provide a welded connection which would meet the
\necessarydesignloads. . WW N.,4drJp h.t.7 -
h34 k E' ' y The TRT determined that E - '.; L ded design c h
/
authorization (DCA) 12 s..G L,ed L.;; ct
@ bc M- b.sL LA 9 4 h.%l- J pr-a-r mathnd of neanarian +h= --'d.
j The backup bars me.4 deliberately twisted so they lie flat on the seam and provihe the correct weld 12265 stated that in part that o ismatch caused by the twist on the flanges and difference in dep is acceptable and weld as shown on the attached sketch " gg % 6.bu N@b After completion of the weld, both a enetrant test (PT) and B,%IS ultrasonic test (UT) were performed'. The TRT visually examined the welded connection and found that the external appearance,s of the weld were in conformance with the DCA and the drawings,andjtharthe
- CR4betepptqperl}-tifsposit4ened. ~
1 . e 1. V:o ,a 7 "{i'[j,9 1' Item 2 Reactor Top Closure Head I c.
- The alleger h __ W, = .2 that undocumented repair work was I
/3 performed on the reactor top closure head. R erenc was de to l (~) the bject in alleger econd list, as as during the convers tio the all r had with the T.
I e-, ,
.-.,r, . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . -- - _ _ . ,
a,a : .# a.y;;.:;Wp;;M3%E6MCM&2?hMSOU"3:2..J1.L.: =..=1:a 2- *=
& p/ t &O
$ W y
p pp g .t
~
f M 13 -
! t a number of vender-installed penetrations (TheTRTkearned extend through the reactor vessel closure head. Tubular thermal:
sleeves have been inserted into 57 of the penetrations aWd ntrol
@ rod drive mechanisms will be installed in the thermal sleeves atj a later date. Housings and sleeves were installed in 1979 under i
i traveler ME-79-214-5505. Four housings were installed around the periphery of the hea . e bottom of the thermal sleeves and 4 housings received a screwed, coned plate held in place by a welded / N locking pin. The thermal sleeves were supported by a mechanical
, shoulder and were loosely fitted into the penetration.
y ,[ # p > w. Cit hM
' @ January 28, 1982, traveler ME-82-2203-5500 Maredin response to ive action requi y NCR M-318 s 74 2
nd 75 had been interc ed ring installation and work was ecessary to correct e error, e NCR was closed by leaving fhousing 74 in e "as-is" condition and lling a new housing I g .s44QwM guide 75 The alleger performed some of the quality trol v
< P p'
.*' w( , # a inspection related to the closure of the NCR.
- t
. Y ,b/ s
, sA* *-8 u p The alleger claims that, in the spring of 1982 during the time he i
y~Y;gi t wMW f was working on, housings 74 and 75, he witnessed undocumented repair work being performed on several " control rod drives." Further discussion with the alleger revealed that the " control rods," referred to in the disposition, actually were the thermal sleeves. Although the alleger did not see the damage occur, he believes it happened during a trial fitup of the head to the top of the reactor vessel.
;;. y.s y ;+q n .;m m ;, w gg'.g.;+.;:en W Agyg;L.ll f . -- . .. &: '. . :_
m
+ e TRT reviewed the activities which were performed on the head during the time period stated by the alleger. The TRT found that both the thermal sleeves with guides and t h usings with guides
' were in place, having been installed in 197 . In .dditiaa +n th.
M-M t.eain; e-~+4aas, [he only other work performed which i required activities under the head were those associated with the
? 5
.b h addition of the RVLMS system. On March 26, 1982, two heated g > gg
.i 'e junction thermocouple probes were installed in penetration 63 and 65
@ as part of the addition of the reactor vessel level measurement
- system (RVLMS). Traveler ME-82-2563-5500 covered the work. .The work was done by Brown & Root (B&R) personnel to Westinghouse (W)
Procedure MP-2.7.1/TBX-1. Headadapterplugs(HAP)hadbeen previously installed on penetrations 63 and 65. The modification work consisted of removing the HAP and welding RVLMS flange assembliestothepenetrations[Any itup of e head o the c e b der Ine rvision f _ representat ve. S e, - 1 The alleger suggested that the TRT discuss the allegation with two i B&R employees who were performing mechanical inspection and quality control inspection on the head during the spring of 1982. One of the employees had left the site. The second employee, still employed by B&R, was unable to provide any infonnation on any repair j work to the thennal sleeves. He stated he was closely involved in j ( (
_ . .m; &f:-ny .si:c *.;,24.p , wgbygg.@pp;g yppqq:g_, Q ~. 7J A . most of the work related to the head and at no time does he recall
- any damage being done to the themal sleeves. In addition, the TUGC0 field mechanical engineer who was involved in the installation of the thermal sleeves and housings and the later modifications did not know of any repair work to the thermal sleeves.
S Since any work done on the head and thermal sleeves would have been
}1. ' ,
. under the direction of 1, the TRT interviewed the y site resident.
The TRT learned that 1 had an expert on call who was a specialist on reactor internals and who was present during any work being
, ,M Ca,G Q Cf?: .'T"* #
. perfomed on y equipmen y recordA were found wh'ich were e
,. l p W y M 1aled to thermal slaava d===aa mad resulting repairt 1 e3 6N 8 7
. y"Q. pt. 4 ,
g
- j The TRT reviewed the travelers associated with work which had been g '
completed on the head 1,n early 1982, and found that all y documentation appeared to be complete. The TRT determined that damage could not have occurred to control rod drives at this time, E 6 since in 1982 they were still crated and in the warehouse. The bottom of the thermal sleeve guides are located slightly over 37 inches above the head flange surface. [TRT detemined that the l a would have to have been dropped or hit at an unusual angle to Ob havesufferedthedamagesuggestedbythealleger[.Ifthathadbeen
% ART 5J h the case, it is likely the overlay machined flange surface would V
have suffered sufficient damage to require extensive repairs, but no record of such repairs exists.
\
\ ;- - -
1.u w4:i,Sigl % .' w - x . . ...a w,.geg::,.p3cg7f.jggg.g;pg sy: yp,
! O 4 - >e -
. (i .
1 The TRT conducted visual inspection of the themal sleeves. No evidence of any welding, heating, or defonnation was present. The extension surfa'ces were unpainted; therefore, such would have been readily apparcat. Item 3 Safety Injection Vertical Line Restraint It is alleged that the safety injection vertical line restraint support beam has base natal indicationsy[.h e-4ginal concern MM wu Jrh (Tg- Q 7;;;.cdi..s u. .. , , r r . , . . . . .. __ - d by g, when'onsight j st3g M $ sandblasting revealed areas of veciins re1.ai. This condition was M reported in 1 field deficiency report (FDR) TBXM-10071, dated April 7,1981. The FDR stated that metal was removed and blended by
# *deptW
,I sandblasting, and that the resultin xceeded the maximum
% depth limit for A588 material nf the haam's thickness. The FDR also noted numerous areas on, <[ r fourhbeamsjwhich bited ex a
peeling condition of indetenninate depth 5 k The action resulting from the FDR was the ret of these eams to i \
- the vendor for inspection in accordance with the appropriate material specification (A588) and for weld repair, if required. The k vendor, Teledyne Brown (TB), perfcmed two weld repairs on the initial beam and grinding on the other three beams. Westinghouse O
l -- _ _- ..
WWavMn:ss?gymyp.are.9ag u 4:,w/WA g gy3gfSa@ g. gyp q A h f.F-r . t QC/QA personnel reviewed the repairs, including material
' certification, MT records, visual inspection records, dimensional inspection, welding personnel qualification certification, and NDE I personnel qualification certification. As a result of their review, W determined that the beams were in accordance with the A588 and A6 ; requirements. Westinghouse then re-released the four beams for shipment to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) by Quality Release N-46991, Rev. 3, dated May 28, 1984. The TRT found that the j beams were received and accepted by B&R Quality Assurance and documented on Receiving Inspection Report No. 16771, dated June 4, . 1981.
On January 25,1982.Nr.?,M-82-00079 was written against these beams. This NCR had two concerns: (1) that the beams had linear indications that started at the atychment weld and were from 3-1/2 inches to 3 feet, 6 inches in length, and (2) that the beam dimensions differed from the drawing dimensions. Westinghouse responded to the first part of this NCR with a letter, (WPT-4602), dated May 19. 1982. This letter stated that the NCR was W written on the same " roll marks" that were previously detected 1 during site receipt inspection. The letter further stated that these " roll marks" were inspected and approved by the shape
' Q Oa su,piier, sethienem Steel, and that roll marks are an industry-V
n.<.2 :ycinatvp.n:ve+wnWMM r: Ms+% hwk&h&M:dt,;;ggA.gh2L22;W + - accepted trait of rolled structural members. The letter stated in
, conclusion that these " roll marks" would not impair the adequacy of restraints.
The TRT reviewed all the documentation mentioned above, discussed this allegation with Westinghouse Field Engineers, and reviewed the AS'T M specifications for A6 and A588 to detemine if these r requirements were met. y The TRT found that the second portion of NCR M-82-0079 appeared to be a misinterpretation of the design drawing by the originator of the NCR. It appears that the NCR originator did not realize that a W14 x 233 beam has dimensions of 16 inches in depth and 15-7/8 inches in width, which are the dimensions. quoted in the NCR as being ' nonconfoming. The TRT inspection of the design drawing indicated that beam dimensions of W14 x 233 x 16 feet long were called for and that notes existed on the drawing that called for the field to cut the beam to suit and machine as shown in View H. . D. Miscellaneous Item 1 Heat numbers Three plate heat numbers were shown on the original iist of items.
! The TRT had completed review of one heat number at the time the 1
1 decision was made to concentrate efforts on the second list.
- - , , , - - - , - - - -- -: w o , . - - - - - , - -
r- c,.w.m. , exyman.%9yg,.wmw,w.,gm_;,.qm.g, mgg ,.g .g .m,gg O W Mo : g l he TRT learned /tha the vendor, NPS, furnished several fabricated A [, items cut from the same ASTM A36 plate. The plate was originally I / i
, purchasedbyNF{5 from Oregon Steel Mills and included a report of 43 /j
/ the chemical and physical tests on the plate. Certificate #7249 4 i dated May 4, 1979 verified these tests and listed the heat number as i
204166. NPS changed the heat number to their identification NF1106. The TRT determined that four items were cut from the plate by NPS and furnished to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC). The NPS Certificate of Compliance verified that all material met the requirements of NCA-3800 SA36 plate.
/ ie The TRT reviewed ( docu @ and made a walkdown inspection.
During the walkdown inspection, the TRT found the heat number for pieces 4 and 6 on Support #CC-1-162-773-AY3R and for piece 5 on support CC-1-246-020-C3.3R. The heat number on piece 2, a 9-1/2 inch-square plate, for support CT-1-121-001-5225 could not be located. An 8-inch pipe was welded directly on the top of the plate, leaving very little room for the number. I The TRT determined that the heat number on piece 2 had been recorded on the material identification log prior to installation; therefore, l it must have been visible prior to installation. However, the TRT l verified that heat number NF1106 was traceable from the in-place items back to the material supplier. l
-.-::.w ya.~.3 w+..x.s .i m .. w g;p sy g,a gy:gye9.s p. g gws.s,w e 3 9 g,.
O . Item 2 DCA and NCR Documents The TRT reviewed the repair / rework items described in NCR M82-00141 and NCR M-82-00296 and in DCA 8875 and DCA 12287 which were on the list of the alleger's major concerns. A documentation review indicated that the repair / rework had been properly perfomed.
, y states that, contrary to the requirements that a full
/penetrationweldbemadebetweenthestiffenersandthebaseplate w and. flange sections, a partial penetration weld was provided on a d
/k# portion of the seam. Toprovidethenecessarystiffness,eight additionalstiffenerplateswereadhed. A ued to add
/ a plate and a stiffener to the base plate when B&R cut off the bottom left anchor bolt of a pipe whip restraingA senior TUEC support engineer accompanied the TRT to visually examine the work
(, perfomed under the DCAs. ho Mb d W. I NCR M-82-00141 stated t t a 1/2-inch-diameter arc strike occurred 3 feet off the floor an ag ut smear was visible 3-1/2 inches off the hed floor. The TRT learne' the resolution of this condition A involved removing the arc strike and grout smear and repainting the damaged surfaces. NRC M-82-00296 stated that vendor-supplied whip restraints were found to be in violation of the specifications. Paragraph 6.4 states in part " welded construction shall confom to
< AISC Specifications for design, fabrication and erection of structural steel and AWS D1.1." Resolution of this NCR required Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) personnel to perfom repair work in
4 HDMsG.w..b :-% %:im_sndunge,:y;;bMgh%gtg&t;52:3pjggs>; a,.. . . . l 6
~
O accordance with procedures in the CBI QA manual for contract 91936 (35-1195-0578 ChangeOrderNo.2).[eTRTfoundthattherequired ework on both of these NCRs was perfomed satisfactorily M In a meeting with the alleger on December 18, 1984, the TRT presented the results of the assessment of the allegations and the TRT's conclusions. A discussion followed. There were no major items of disagreement and no new concerns or allegations were
. identified. The alleger expressed his satisfaction that his concerns had been addressed.
c[-d 3: b
- 5. Conclusions and Staff Position: The TRT believes that the sampling taken a a of the 63 "most important" items represents a reasonable overview of the i
allegers concerns. A number of items that were reviewed may have appeared to the alleger to have been unclosed NCRs or discrepencies which i p_ - were later resolved in the nomal QC/QA progghe-refiilts show that'
) QA/QC system in place was effective in providing the necessary
/ corrective action when requir . Qhe TRT concludes that no furthe) nyestigation h neesssary, e TRT has reached the following conclusions un Ui items reviewe .
A. Fitup and Welding In a review of nine pipe restraints, the TRT found no fitup or welding errors. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation I is unsubstantiated. m
+ w-,- ,----w-------y -
e %w <-v--- ,aam-- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -ee- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
- - - = ,
,sa: x4,.au if - q=fu% y -?r s :. a::: :. u ;z a .:.+ 4 n sie M y a:.g n:p p B. Torque Item I i The TRT has determined that at the time the bolt broke, the turn of the nut method was being used to tighten A490 bolts. This would account for no specific torque values being available to the torqueing crew. e alleger stated:
i - w
%f 'h Qe >
"All I was verifying was that they e hydrotorque machine on it and that they wer osed to put pai on it. And all I did w rt what the hydrotorque machine values ped at."
/ -
l
, eger's statement uld concur w ._tha int ;;ctie 5 gi;;r. tha /
torque crews after June and Oc 1981 to record the values reached during tightening so th he engineerin artment could verif
- t resUts. N
- N The TRT found that tightening to the specific DCA 15028 values and ,
retorqueing of all A490 bolts provided y -a-that'tfiej specifications had been met. i I O
; The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
Item 2 In a review of the travelers related to breakaway and motion torque, the
'! /\
^
TRT found nothing inappropriate. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this Q allegation is unsubstantiated.
~- ,: in.:4aus,kW. :/y;;ysu -?; . :.v.,.r.% a9-a : c.3 +w,,JRpa4% ,,o: '. .
C. Equipment i I l
! Item 1 l
In a review of the documentation associated with the pipe whip l restraint member and physical examination of pipe whip restraints, the TRT found nothing to substantiate this allegation. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. Item 2 In a review of the activities associated with the top head during the period the undocumented repair was to have occurred, the TRT
~
~
found no record of any improper work. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. Item 3 , The TRT review of the documentation associated with the support beams showed them to be in accordance with codes and specifications. In addition, it appears that the beam dimensions mentioned as
- nonconforming were actually the correct mill sizes. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
i i i % . m
)
e- -- . _ . - . . - - _ _ , _
-- 3.c.. . . .~ . _ . . . - . . , . , ..
/
I
! D. Miscellaneous Item 1 The TRT reviewed the material covered by the heat number shown on the alleger's list to determine its traceability, and traced the heat number from the installed support to the original mill plate.
The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. Item 2 { , The TRT review of all listed documents shows that the items were Y issued and/or closed correctly. The TRT concludes, therefore, that. this allegation is unsubstantiated. . Accordinpy, these alle.gations have neither safety significance nor generic implications.
- 6. Action Reouired: None.
l
- 8. Attachments: List of 280 allegations.
1 . _ _ . .
., ,..~ . - .. --
, w :.g;c.wcswany c%.., ; .a,..yp.e . .- .
. f ,.g-: , . 4, .o ,w, _ .
- 9.
References:
4 l 1. Torque
- a. ME82-2206-5500.
i
- b. ME82-2208-5500.
- c. ME82-2209-5500.
i
- 2. Head
- s. ME-82-2203-5500.
- b. NCR M-3182.
- c. Westinghouse Procedure MP 2.7.1/TBX-1.
i d. ME-82-2563-5500.
':he e. Westinghouse Dwg. 1219E49 - Sht. 1 & 2.
- f. ME-79-389-5500.
- g. ME-79-214-5505.
i
- 3. Travelers
., a. CD-81-116-5500.
- b. CD-82-208-5500.
- c. CD-83-293-5500.
! d. CD-81-119-5500.
- e. CD-82-216-5500.
l
- f. CD-81-110-5500.
l g. CD-83-294-5500. l l
. -~s i
l 1 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ __ l . - - . _ _ -
, := ,w e :,, . ,. . . : r?. r. n z.a b a , m zis: s:.s..; + ,r: p yt ,
. .c- ~... .- .
1 j 10. This statement prepared by: Date
- J. Devers, i
! V. Ferrarini, dnd Date i
R. Hubbard. Date TRT Technical Reviewers Reviewed by: Date L. Shao,
;. Group Leader 4.
', Approved by. Date
- V. Noonan, l Project Director -
1
.m
(?f?
.7 2
l l 1 1 i S t e
\
m .s. c,mc9 mg:st menn.p.5-wn~ : mas + .u as:.-;,wy=. .. ;u , .+.;4p;q,g .. m ~.v 4
)
f g l
' ' l
- CP8C -
SSER Hubbard DRAFT 10 - 2/26/85 SSER I
- 1. Allegation Group: Mechanical and Piping, Category No. 49, Miscellaneous Concerns of A-45 i 2. Allegation Numbers: AM-31-1 to AM-31-280 l u
s 3. Characterization: A Brown & Root (B&R) employee alleged that he noted 4 #cmdWrt of and logged (in five personal log books) 900 defective items during the time he worked at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
- 4. Assessment of Safety Significance: In an interview with the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) on August 2,1984, the alleger stated that he had five log books in his possession that he had developed while a employed at A vum'92L CPSES by B&R. He stated that the books contained infomation about M 4M too9 Ac%v4L co u,u r c)F defects. y ;rrtx Thi: i ;r: r:O& r W --d
'=+a- eUSC
" ~ d 'r>A t 290T ,it :: 5:::d ;. ... actal U
2 ? E $ L } ? b l . *. M a L L6 4 0tt. fru m ceo 'rM4 vtLi~ vo I TM APMusen o Art f
' 76elistof70 items % contained: Hrew 7: q d identifying numbers representing travelers, drawings, heat numbers, design change authorizations (DCA),
etc. The alleger stated that each type of document represented a specific type of defect. If the document listed was a drawing or a traveler then the item covered by the drawing or traveler would have fitup or welding j errors. Listed heat numbers would indicate material traceability problems. Other document or equipment numbers reflected unspecified errors. The , alleger gave specific details on a few major items, i t t l
.. s w do.mco.;mewGWTwM&tNWB;"mm% M: w-.~v. m.--p c- * ;f: ; . .+L i gg58; :.. fv
. =
. l The TRT had begun its review of the 70 items (and had completed c review
! of six items) when a second meeting was held with the alleger. During i
, the meeting the alleger provided a new list of 63 items which he identi-I -
, fied as the most important of all the items from the five log books. The alleger stated, in fact, the rest of them were possible minor defects that you would normally find in a typical construction project such as Comanche Peak. The new listing was a mixture of items from the original list of 70 plus some new items. The 63 items are intheMttach-casrito ments section of this SSER.
I The TRT stopped work on the first list and concentrated its attention on the 63 "most important" items. I The TRT found that the items could be separated into four general groups
- fitup and welding, torque, equipment and miscellaneous.
The TRT chose to review the total item litt by a sampling process. A sample size of 25% of the item list was chosen as representing a reason-i able approach to determining the validity of the total allegation. The following table shows the results of the sample broken down into i groups. Column (1) lists the items that had been completed from the first list. Column (2) lists the items reviewed from the list of 63, and i
- Column (3) is the sum of Columns (1) and (2). Column (4) shows the numerical breakdown of the 63 items by group. Cclumn (5) represents the number of items in a 25% sample of Column (4).
I
+ - - . - . . . - . . . . . ~ _ . ._ . . - . - - . - - . - .
- ri ~ ~ ? : :. .u . ;;s,am. :,,aq.psn.ggsmygrxgggM,ve :ww%. ;,g x, .:.p;p,~.. = ;;
. Group (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fitup & Welding 3 6 9 37 9 Torque 0 2 2 5 2 Equipment 0 3 3 10 3 Misc. 3 5 8 10 3 5 6 16 22 63 17 mrvo no weerac. Gwe Frijspsasd Stidins Grnon - The TRT reviewed nine items identified by drawing or traceable number. The alleger had indicated that welding or fitup problems would be associated with the related structures. The TRT examined the related drawings and determined that the primary fitup and welding on the structures consisted of tee joints with the end of one plate butted ahainst the surface of another plante. A single or double fillet weld or a one-sided full penetration weld was specified on the drawings. It was difficult to detennine if a weld joint was correctly fitup after the weld was completed. Where the plates were welded from one side (either fillet or full fusion), it was possible for the TRT to visually examine the opposite side; however, when fillet welds were applied to t both sides and to the ends of the plate junctions, the fit was not visible. The TRT requested the assistance of a B&R level III ultrasonic testing (UT) supervisor in determining if a UT procedure could be devised to show if a gap existed between the plates that had been welded and the weld seam that was
. covered with weld metal. The supervisor attempted to perfect such a test but l was unsuccessful because of a lack of clarity of the signal.
i i i
; : :~_:LA . z.:.]r .w:+ .m:,4A.a+,..pw;ptp4wyesh&gge:g ;wgmgi:s ':y: ; ;.. . . .
. 4-The TRT visually examined the nine structures. The B&R level III inspector accompanied the TRT in reviewing six of the units. The TRT found that it was possible to view the backside of some of the welds on six of the nine supports. In five cases no gaps appeared. The sixth support, however, showed a gap estimation tube 1/16-inch high for about 3 inches along the j seam, and 1/8-inch deep. Paragraph 3.10.1 of B&R procedure CP-CPM-6.90 j
states that the fitup gap for T joints should not exceed 1/16-inch. The TRT determined the gap in the structure was not significant. All fillet welds reviewed by the TRT appeared to be acceptable. Torque Group A. Bolt Torquing: On March 29, 1982, the alleger witnessed a bolt break while being tightened. He claimed that no specific valves were available for crews to use while torquing A-490 high strength bolts. The TRT found that B&R structural steel erection procedure CCP-22 is the controlling document for bolt tightening. Revisions 0(3/12/76), 1 (12/7/81), and 2 (1/21/82) provided two methods for the tightening of A-490 bolts.
- 1. Turn of the nut. The procedure specified a predetermined movement of the nut after a snug fit condition was obtained.
The amount of turn was shown in Attachment 1 of the procedure l [ and was identical to Table 4 of the American Institute of Steel l t Construction Specification, " Structural Joints Using ASTM A-325 l l or A-490 Bolts," Seventh Edition. I 1 i
ainsisk:J44ft,%%%r. .%.pr;4e?u:aorna+%W@citat?:ib%ffa%9m w%. . .
, 2. Calibrated wrench (Skidmore). The procedure specified the use of'an impact wrench adjusted to values listed in Table 2 of the procedure. A bolt-tension calibrator was required to adjust the impact wrench to the required tension.
The turn of nut method for tensioning A-490 bolts was used for work I perfomed under procedure CCP-22, Rev. O to Rev. 3. The calibrated wrench tightening method was never used in its original form. According to the AISC specification, bolts torqued to the turn of the nut AUC Aztc values in, Table 4 will result in tension values shown in, Table 3. The values represent 70% of the specified minimum tensiltstrength of the bolts. On June 28, 1981 and October 21, 1981, tests were run to determine the torque values being obtained from the turn of the nut method. The torquing crew was subsequently required to record the amount of torque as each bolt was tightened. Additional tests were perfomed and resulted in Design Change j Authorization (DCA) 15028 dated December 1,1982. The DCA provided instructions for torquing all A-490 bolts to a set of values depending I ( upon the size of the bolt. The values were listed in the DCA and were in I foot pounds. The torquing was to be done with a calibrated torque l wrench. i I
- : m O&. . m = PAL: . J w-e,;.ye w ew, . :.u.ag.;wg.qgwggreesy;epyga y.;a-
. I Revision 3 of procedure CCP-22 dated July 4, 1983 incorporated the new i
l torque values. A program was established by B&R to retorque all A-490 bolts to the new I j values. The TRT reviewed a general traveler fonn that was prepared to document the completion of the retorquing on each assembly. The TRT also a observed several completed travelers which were attached to the original
}
whip restraint traveler. The TRT has determined that at the time the bolt broke, the turn of the nut method was being used to tighten A-490 bolts. This would account for 1 no specific torque values being available to the torquing crew. The TRT found that tightening the new A-490 bolts to the DCA 15028 values twe A49o Gourt and retorquing,in place " '.^^ L'.o., provided verification tha the AISC specification requirements had been met. S Breakaway Torque: The alleger indicated that there was a problem with the travelers associated with the Reactor Coolant (RC) pumps and motors. This problem related to the measurement of breakaway torque. The TRT
; reviewed, in detail, traveler ME-2207-5500 for RC pump TBX-RCPCPX-02, which was contained in the alleger's second list. The TRT also reviewed j the travel us for the remaining three RC pumps.
t 1 i The purpose of the travelers was to measure both the breakaway torque and the torque required to sustain motion. These torque values, as stated on i the referenced travelers, must be less than 750 ft-lbs for breakaway and
'm. .av;: w seawakisF4.h4 Ar/QU @M e @@:w.ad&q@ewsme- A+.
250 ft-lbs to sustain motion. The TRT found nothing inappropriate in the I
' four travelers reviewed. In fact, the opposite was true, as the travelers were all very clear with precise instructions relating to ? ! torquing. All the proper construction and QA/QC signoffs were present.
On pump 1, the maximum torque for breakaway was 225 ft-lbs and the
}
i maximum torque to sustain motion was 30 ft-lbs. Pump 1 represented the high values for both breakaway torque and torque to sustain motion. During the TRT's December 18, 1984 meeting with the alleger he admitted that their was nothing wrong with the torquing performed on RC pump travelers. Equipment Group: A. Pipe whip restraint welding: The alleger listed several documents related to pipe whip restraint 465-C which relates to the joining of two built-up wide flange sections. Two wide flange sections were being joined. CMC 61771 was prepared on December 12, 1981 by the TUEC Civil / Structural Group. The CMC changed the butt weld on the flange ends from a double bevel weld to a single bevel. The two beams were found to have a misalignment at the beam splice due to distortion due to fabrication. DCA 12265 was prepared to provide instructions for attaching the two beams. The DCA states that the mismatch caused by the twist in the flanges and difference in depth is acceptable. The weld was shown on an attached sketch. i
,..~w.. .n.~.,:y+x ~ a ~;u.%:,kou; r~;D+x.uo ,.s: ..a.s.m.v.;ysi,;,.9& ;y - . -
' Y O
acce d trait of rolled structural members. The letter statrd in
, conclusic I
hat these " roll marks" would not irpair the adeque of restraints. The TRT reviewed all t documentation mentioned ove, discussed this allegation with Westi house Field Engi ers, and reviewed the ASTM specifications for A6 an SPP to e n.-i nt if thest requirements were met. The TRT found that the secon portion o
'CR M-82-0079 appeared to be a misinterpretation o the design drawin by the originator of the NCR. It appears hat the NCR originator di not realizt that a W14 x 233 beam h dimensions of 16 inches in dept and 15-7/8 inches in wi , which are the dimensions quoted in th NCR as being nonconfort ng. The TRT inspection of the desigr drawing 1. dicatec that b m dimensions of W14 x 233 x 16 feet long were called and tha notes existed on the drawing that called for the field to cut e beam to suit and machine as shown in View H. .
y Miscellaneous 6rtou g A, i j Three plate heat numbers were shown on the original list of itens. v46-The TRT had completed, review of one heat number at the time the O dec$$$oa was made to coaceatrate errorts or the secoad 1 st-i l i i-- -
~ O ew._,...,:w. :- :: e:: ;qggpggL:gs44,g.g&fuy-Q. . . ,. . y3%.yg_.:sa P
i i The TR1 learned that the vendor, NPS, furnished several fabricated
. items cut f rom the same ASTM A3f plate. ThC plate was originally purchased by NPS from Oregen Steel Mills and included a report of the chemical and physical tests on the plate. Certificate 77249 l dated May 4,1979 verified these tests and listed the heat number as i
204166. NPS changed the heat number to their identification NF1106. The TRT deterir.ined that four items were cut from the plate by NPS and furnished to Texar Utilities Electric Company (TUEC). The NPS Certificate of Compliance verified that all material met the requirements of NCA-3800 SA36 plate. g The TRT reviewed the documentation and made a walkdown inspection. During the walkdown inspection, the TRT found the heat number for
-123- A45(2.
pieces 4 and 6 on Support #CC-1-162-PS 4 Hit and for piece 5 on support CC-1-2t.0-020-C33R. The heat number on piece 2, a 9-1/2 inch-square plate, for support CT-1-121-001-5225 could not bc located. An 8-inch pipe was welded directly on the top of the plate, leaving very little room for the nunber. 4 The TRT determined that the heat number on piece 2 had been recorded on the material identification log prior to installation; therefore, it must have been visibic prior to installation. However, the TRT verified that heat number NT1105 wrs traceable from the in-place items back to the material supplier. O i
m ..c:n- 6 m m.:,,s.y.t.c u m h,% si;\;. .} :.;~;~pc.. s.- ,.
- 4 6,DCA and NCR documents: The TRT reviewed the repair / rework items described in NCR M82-00141 and NCR M-82-00296 and in DCA 8875 and DCA 12287 which were on the list of the alleger's major concerns. A i
! documentation review indicated that the repair / rework had been i properly perfonned.
j 4 DCA 8875 states that, contrary to the requirements that a full 1
.j penetration weld be made between the stiffeners and the base plate e and flange sections, a partial penetration weld was provided on a portion of the seam. To provide the necessary stiffness, eight additional stiffener plates were added. DCA 12287 was issued to add 3
a plate and a stiffener to the base plate when B&R cut off the bottom left' anchor bolt of a pipe whip restraint, A senior TUEC k support engineer and the TRT visually examine the work performed
- -] under the DCAs and found it as shown on the DCA.
y .
?,
NCR M-82-00141 stated that a 1/2-inch-diameter arc strike occurred 3
- feet off the floor and a grout smear was visible 3-1/2 inches off .. the floor. The TRT reviewed the resolution of the NCR and found the i condition was ccrrected by removing the arc strike and grout smear and repainting the amaged surfaces. NRC M-82-00296 stated that l vendor-supplied whip restraints were found to be in violation of the specifications. Paragraph 6.4 states in part " welded construction shall conform to AISC Specifications for design, fabrication and i
erection of structural steel and AWS D1.1." Resolution of this NCR
, required Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) personnel to perform repair
] s work in accordance with procedures in the CBI QA manual for contract
'j 91936 (35-1195-0578 Change Order No. 2).
1 : w.+e: -- - . . cm xmwn: nwp-sw. .,; x.-:: n c
.~. :. .
. In a meeting with the alleger on December 18, 1984, the TRT presented
! the results of the assessment of the allegations and the TRT's t
.! conclusions. A discussion followed. There were no major items of l disagreement and no new concerns or allegations were identified. The f
j alleger expressed his satisfaction that his concerns had been l addressed.
- 5. Conclusions and Staff Position: The TRT believes that the sampling taken of the 63 "most important" items represents a reasonable overview of the allegers concerns. A number of items that were reviewed may have appeared to the alleger to have been unclosed NCRs or discrepencies which were later resolved in the normal QC/QA program. The TRT has reached the following conclusions on the items reviewed:
. Fitup and Welding Group: In a review of nine pipe restraints, the TRT
[ found no fitup or welding errors. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. j Torque Group l A. Bolt Torquing: The TRT has determined that at the time the bolt broke, the turn of the nut method was being used to tighten A-490 bolts. This would account for no specific torque values being available to the torqueing crew. l 1 n l l I 1 l . .. .. _ _ _ _
RC'Qp.9& W ' ,
. - ' %suma6 -4:wm~ . w .:w.m;; wnwg-isp,.Ly .
' a..,.::L . i.
. } The TRT found that tightening of the new A-490 bolts to the specific l
l DCA 15028 values and retorquing in placeg-490 bolts provided verification that the AISC specification requirements had been met. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. B. Breakaway Torque: In a review of the travelers related to breakaway and motion torque, the TRT found nothing inappropriate. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. The
. alleger also admitted that there was nothing wrong with the torquing perfonned on the RC pumps.
#( EquipmentJrt4e#
d Pipe whip restraint: In a review of the documentation
. associated with the pipe whip restraint member and physical examination of pipe whip restraints, the TRT found nothing to substantiate this allegation. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
1 h, Reactor top head: In a review of the activities associated l J with the top head during the period the undocumented repair was to have occurred, the TRT found no record of any improper work. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
l
,. . . . ~ . . . -
3 __ 1 ( Suoport beams: The TRT review of the documentation associated with the support beams showed them to be in accordance with i codes and specifications. In addition, it appears that the j beam dimensions nientioned as nonconforming were actually the l correct mill sizes. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this i
; allegation is unsubstantiated.
ilt Miscellaneous hrteu# _
$ Material traceability: The TRT reviewed the material covered by the heat number shown on the alleger's list to determine its traceability, and traced the heat number from the installed C-support to the original mill plate. The TRT concludes, there- -
fore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated,
- h. Other documents: The TRT review of all listed documents shows that the items were issued and/or closed correctly. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
l l Accordingly, these allegations have neither safety significance nor generic implications.
- 6. Action Required: None.
I , I
,, s.m:i^%%+ . . .* MRR;w? hi ' * .a a nLaw&W - . . e .:gx;n k.:m~.L. .w:.'
. 8. Attachments: List of 63 "most important" items.
Travelers Drawings NCRs & DCAs Misc Equipment CD 81-102-2800 W1483F13R18866 NCR-M82-00141 1. TBS RCPCPX-03 reactor CD.81-139-2800 W1554E33 CHC 61771 coolant CE 81-022-4900 51-595-02 DCA 12042 2. Moment restraint CE 81-50-3400 SI-595-04 DCA 8875 Rev.1 836-ft. Safeguard 1 CE 81-36-4900 SI-0538-09 DCA 12287 3. R.C. Pump 82-001-141 CE 81-029-5700 SI-0688-23-26 NCR M82-00216 4. R.C. Pump - Comp.2 RBI
, CD 80-050-2802 51-0597-01 NCR M82-00296 5. TBS RCCSSG-03 l CD 81-140-2800 SI-597-98 NCR M82-00079 6. TBX-RCRIRI-01 8
CD 81-100-5700 51-0538-14 7. 2323 CSDS 4E14 - CE 81-021-5700 SI-0688-06 8. CPI 4FATCS-0 ME 82-2207-5500 SI-0589-03 9. TCX RCESSG-01 ME 81-2118-5500 10. No bridge - turbine CE-81-018-3700 deck restraint CE-81-43-3700 11. W1354E35 restraint CD-81-119-5500 12. T-00-052 CD-82-166-2800 13. I 350 CPI 4FATCS RI-82-775-0200 14. RBI-864 CD-82-168-2800 15. Steam generator ME-81-2158-7400 main supports CD-81-116-5500 CD-81-105-2800 CD-81-149-4900
, CD-82-172-2800 CD-82-164-5500 CE-81-34-4900 ME-80-201C-4000 CD-81-111-5700 CE-81-51-3400 CD-81-144-3700 t/ s
'pflerep0es :
Q,f
- 1. T que
. ME82 206- 00.
HE8 -2 2 -55
- c. M 2-2209-5500k 1
.... .ay:.p.-:y.a.,QLs: m & % % m5cA M @jk;W%:m:3.-4%i. .um.s .w;.c . ,47:2., , , . A ,}. .
,2
- . . _a.,y ~_-.ww .. v wnax ;: . u _ .; _ _ . ._m_ ._ , ,
n 9 45 e
'& -fitrwp ff.afetiv4 t /.
nt k air. a t-f //4*wff 1
+
Cd -8/ J Ved )*fS6 -c688 -ocs l C6 4/ -OZZ - 4'90 e ser/g4 . of32 -c / $f I
; cd -8/ -F0 -SYoo w.rg .sg gg . o zy Cd -Al Yfed _-
MS6 . og 88 - oo 5 C.d -d/ -62/ -f 70'
/Witd -o S30 - o/3
[* Al ~0'0 ' ##
/>fS d___-0 4 3 8 - 0 /*/_ _ _
cd of -31/ -V 900 _ _ M S/$ .~ 06 68 - od/ a _ __ . css / - s/ -3 vos
.__ .-._ . __19]6 _oS 68 - o 25 l
_ _____s_ n_.7_ /3 _._ _ c & a 8 - o t z. _.
- 2. 7o~ rLGOc
.gy $$ ,y, $b'$Nb:hbb.,,j g . ,
y ms s 2_-zzo6 - sr_ eo__ W?TiOM,,,jf.(.y((@ f. gpg .j ,, _. . _ . _rM6 6Z -2206.__FToo USW$.$QbW ?g..,,
,. gg. ..--,.,-:
~
hf&82 - 220 9 - Ss~oo yG.Q;4 .P), f., a. }W ;. ..%;. : .j.,g.S.7 G ..j , d's. 8 o -ot o '- z.a oz. w}. ,e., .g ; q - -
.p, ;- \ crq' 4e9 ;QV ' -
[ fg 1
~ ~
?d2l%y . .y2&ik . s. *
. hiit j CD 025 - 7Yo/ _
Kbb% kr .N];f ~k2 *. , .}h{
. > m" . .w , CD - 80 c29 - 3 V0f g$$s$g..,
nWW ' - tijd i M yg C0 -8 o -c47 -3Yo/ 3 gg?[
@{?g);&.@K .Qyty, - .
..y 7g.-e
. v,. ...%,
C p - h o - o c,t - S' ?oo '.-'~ ?D,,
.4 5u l V >
~. .
CO 06 0 - S 700 . ... . , s ; ' .L'f-l I i c t) - s o - o v a S ? x l' C
; -2M ~"
C G - 8 / - o G E-t t . [ & -8l-//{p .$'S'l%' l (
^ }, ,,
, T
.e-Ie s s-h
L..W W w i~.: w M c a +a:. m a g @ %.w r7 p=ca n % @ !i f f w % e 5 :} u u % :6 . u, . . - . ::. ,
.2.
if ,. ,
. 4 4. Head
- a. ME-82-2203-5500. , , i.M
< i
- b. NCR M-3182.
- c. Westinghouse Procedure MP 2.7.1/TBX-1. %
2x43
- d. ME-82-2869-5500.
- e. Westinghouse Dwg. 1219E49 -
Sht. 1 & 2.
- f. ME-79-389-5500.
e g. ME-79-214-5505. M Travelers
- a. CD-81-116-5500,
- b. CD-82-208-5500.
- c. CD-83-293-5500.
- d. CD-81-119-5500.
- e. CD-82-216-5500.
- f. CD-81-110-5500.
- g. CD-83-294-5500.
- 10. This statement prepared by:
J. Devers , Date V. Ferrarini Date R. Hubbard Cate TRT Technical Reviewers Reviewed by: L. Shao Date Group Leader Approved by: V. Noonan Date Project Director
g 4 4 J p f %;f; = n M 4;$ h @ , W e W e w w.g r e y ?t e . y . - * ~ *, " - P. ci.*seswr. yupeau . e
. CP8C - SSER Hubbard DRAFT 12 - 3/20/85 i - SSER .
I i I 1. Allegation Group: Mechanical and Piping Category No. 49, j . A lle ter # 3 Miscellaneous Concerns of A-45
.i 4 I
- 2. Allegation Numbers: AM-31-1 to AM-31-280 l
~
L. r ? (pt f 4-45) /
- 3. Characterization: ABrown& Root (B&R)employeeallegedthathenoted A A and logged (in five personal log books) a number of defective items during the time he' worked at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
i
- 4. Assessment of Safety Significance: In an interview with the NRC Technical.
I Review Team (TRT) on August 2,1984, the a11eger stated that he had five log books in his possession that he had developed while employed at CPSES i by B&R. He stated that the books contained information about a number of defects. The TRT determined that, based on actual count, 280 items were j ' listed. I The alleger provided the TRT with a preliminary list of 70 items which j contained identifying numbers representing travelers, drawings, heat i j numbers,designchangeauthorizations(DCA),etc. The alleger stated f that each type of document represented a specific type of defect. If the l - j
' document listed was a drawing or a traveler then the item covered by the
! i I
~
drawing or traveler would have fitup or welding errors. Listed heat numbers would indicate material traceability problems. Other document or equipment numbers reflected unspecified errors. The alleger gave specific details on a few major items. ..
% w&,a,4;,g;C:;;; .Qggp,3y;.pyg3.m e , , , , ,
2 The TRT had begun -its review of the 70 items (and had completed a review i' of six items) when a second meeting was held with the alleger. During the meeting the alleger provided a new list of 63 items which he identi-fied as the'most important of all the items from the five log books. The alleger stated, in f act, the rest of them were possible minor defects that you would nomally find in a typical construction project such as Comanche Peak. The new listing was a mixture of items from the original i 1,st i of 70 plus some new items. The 63 items are listed in the Attach-ments section of thi i i PThe TRT stopped work on the first list and concentrated its attention on the 63 "most important" items. 63 The TRT found that the items could be separated into four general groups
- fitup and welding, torque, equipment and miscellaneous.
\
The TRT chose to review the total item list by a sampling process. A sample size of 25", of the item list was chosen as representing a reason-able approach to detemining the validity of the total allegation. The following table shows the results of the sample broken down into groups. Column (1) lists the items that had been completed from the first list. Column (2) lists the items reviewed from the list of 63, and - l Column (3) is. the sum of Columns (1) and (2). Column (4) shows the i numerical breakdown of the 63 items by group. Column (5) represents the number of items in a 25% sample of Column (4). , i
s a . r., en 2 1.. A
.:,v . . w w ..a:,y . :g;;za3.,g3.'ggpf:.g;w%:
, _ _ .=. ~n..,_ _
;~: v&
- e. .
- 3 Group MMMMM ,
. Fitup &
Welding 3 6 9 37 9 Torque 0 2 2 5 2 Equipment 0 3 3 10 3 Misc. 3 5 8 10 3 f 6 16 22 63 17 . . ., 4 ed ,g % h (, O'
- e. n~ - .8 ^[
Fitup and Welding Group: V3p " TgTRT reviewed nine ftems]dentified by drawing or traceable numbeg The v alleger had indicated that welding or fitup problems would be associated with the @ h t-d-structures. The TRT examined the related drawings and determined that ,the primary fitup and welding on the stgetures consisted of tee joints, 3 with the end of one plate butte ains he face of anothe (( , ingle or double fillet weld or a one-sided full penetration weld was a s specified on the drawings. [ difficult to.detemine 4 if a weld jointw 3 he _ A W.T +: #4
)
torrectly fitup after the weld was completed.i Where the pia 6s M ded 7
~
l from one side (either fillet or full fusion), it was possible for the TRT to visually examine the opposite side; however, when fillet welds were applied to both sides and to the ends of the plate jut:ctions, the fit was not visible wY
*% m :-
? /6) { c . ~ y & -
k The TRT requested the assistance of a B& rte' vel supervisor in determining if a UT procedure could be devised to show if a gap existed between the plates that had been welded and the weld seam that was covered with weld metal. The supervisor attempted to perfect such a test but was unsuccessful because of a lack of clarity of the signal. I 4
-Q??fgA'ga'O.9 :Gs.: % x,z a g y;zry fy 3 g gy,g:p;;,;,;5.,yg.g. 3. ,
/-\ t ?
To .a
~
The TRT visually examined the nine structures. level III inspector j accompanied the TRT in reviewing six of the units. The TRT fou that it was possible to view the backside of some of the welds on six of the n e supports. In five cases no gaps appeared. The sixth support, however, showed a gap estimated to be 1/16-inch high for about 3 inches along the i seam, and 1/8-inch deep. Paragraph 3.10.1 of B&R procedure CP-CPM-6.90 states that the fitup gap for T joints should not exceed 1/16-inch. The
-)
- 4; RT determined the gap in the structure was not significant.
11 fillet welds' reviewed by the TRT appeared to be acceptable. j~g34$ (Q MC u M '3O hl . f Torque Group ,,,., cy d
& V),50 Y 5 '
the cic %F.LD alleger witnessed;Td a bolt break M M.b-e A. Bolt Torquing: On March 29, 1982, while being tightened. He claimed that no specific valves were available for crews to use while torquing A-490 high strength bolts. N The TRT found that B&R structural steel erection procedure CCP-22 is the controlling document for bolt tightening. Revisions 0 (3/12/76), 1 (12/7/81), and 2 (1/21/82) provided two methods for the tightening g
] of A-490 bolts.
? 1. Turn of the nut. The procedure specified a predetermined 1
1 rotation of the nut after a snug fit condition was obtained. t
! The amount of turn was shown in Attachment 1 of the procedure and was identical to Table 4 of the American Institute of Steel l
Construction. Specification, " Structural Joints Using ASTM A-325 or A-490 Bolts," Seventh Edition. l
4 u/.aR Awapy,$:SMrv 7. w i 4:' % 7 . .y:se,-M ,.c .A.pr; g fre.".) W 7 _'
}
.s. l
- 2. Calibratedwrench(Skidmore). The procedure specified the use ,
- of an impact wrench adjusted to values listed in Table 2 of the procedure. A bolt-tension calibrator was required to adjust the impact wrench to the required tension.
. 6 hb The turn of nut method for tensioning A-490 bolts was used for work a
performed under procedure CCP-22. Rev. O to Rev. 3. The calibrated s 9 wrench tightening method was never used in its origirial form.
, w N
N According to the' AISC specification, bolts torqued to the turn of the nut values in AISC Table 4 will result in tension values 'shown in AISC Table c-
- 3. The values represent 70% of the specified minimum tensile strength of 1
'(
the bolts. ( y . x ,,s 3 m b sat . ** k~%!st to term ne the' On June 28, 1981 and October 21, 1981 torque values being obtained from the turn of the nut method The torquing crew was subsequently required to record the amount of torque as
']' each bolt was tightened.
1 OA 38's5
- f ~-
l
.Kdditional tests were perform 3 Land resulted in Design Change Authorization (DCA)15028datedDecember1,1982. The DCA provided instructions for torquing all A-490 bolts to a set of values depending .y upon the size of the bolt. The values were listed in the DCA and were in -
foot pounds. The torquing was to be done with a calibrated torque [ s wrench. , l ' - 5 t l 4
.g. g .. .
. . m .r, m - -... m y g g p.c3 y ,._ m,... ,.. % ..: u ,,. ,,,, g g - .
- ,. 6 -
[ Revision 3 of procedure CCP-22 dated ' July 4,1983 it.::. porated the new , torque values. A program was established by B&R to retorque all A-4C bolts to the new values. -The TRT reviewed a general traveler fom ttat was prepared to document the completion of the retorquing on each assachly. The TRT also 4 observed several completed travelers which were att:2ed to the original h' \ whip restraint traveler. b The TRT has detemined that at the time the bolt brC<e,'the turn of the 1 nut method was being used to tighten A-490 bolts. Tris would account for no specific torque values being available to the to-;uing crew.
. f The TRT found that tightening the new A-490 bolts tt the DCA 15028 values and retorquing the A-490 bolts in place p'rovided verification that the AISC specification requirements had been met.
B. Breakaway Torque: The alleger indicated that .here was a problem with the travelers associated with the Reactor Coolant (RC) pumps and motors. This problem related to the measu? scent of breakaway 4 torque. The TRT reviewed, in detail, traveler ME-2207-5500 for RC j pump TBX-RCPCPX-02, which was contained in the alleger's second list. The TRT also reviewed the travelers for te remaining three RC _ pumps. The purpose of the travelers was to measure bc - the breakaway torque and the torque required to sustain moti: . These torque 1 r - - . .
- , . wk $mme< 9; .w.gyepw t:.. n . w:
..ga.w , . ,g , ,_ , ,. 4, values, as stated on the referenced travelers, must be less than 750 l
. ft-lbs for breakaway and 250 ft-lbs to sustain motion. The TRT found nothing inappropriate in the four travelers reviewed. In fact,'the opposite was true, as the travelers were all very clear i with' precise instructions relating to torquing. All the proper construction and QA/QC signoffs were present. On pump 1, the
.; maximum torque for breakaway was 225 ft-lbs and the maximum torque to sustain motion was 30 ft-lbs. Pump 1 represented the high values d for both breakaway torque and torque to sustain motion.
c i j During the TRT's December 18, 1984 meeting with the alleger he admitted l that their was nothing wrong with the torquing perfonned en RC pump 4 i
;j travelers.
Equipment Group: l s A. Pipe whip restraint welding: The alleger listed several documents l
/% d T
- Q{,{a pipe whip restraint 465-Cgich relate [ to the joining of two built-up wide flange section Te -5 #%= wths were_
I being nd. CMC 61771 was prepared on December 12, 1981 by the TUEC Civil / Structural Group. The CMC changed the butt weld on the
\
l
~ ,A flange ends from a double bevel weld to a single bevel. ,
qc h ^ s h
- g_ D(7 j c3 . The two beams were found to have a misalignment at the beam splice
#~ \ A due to distortion due to fabrication. DCA 12265 was prepared to
!' *. .M "i provide instructions for attaching the two beams. The D.CA states NCh,T -
b that the mismatch caused by the twis,t.in the flanges and difference in depth is acceptable. The weld was shown on an attached sketch.
'*""*****'dt****m*N * = w N o arwm f
l--- _ _,_ __
.;.a,n:,.., ve.a M.sw,m+.wa.-pglef,M;3xo.&% +< .:c :.s; .
,+ ~n;; x , . . t,.W5 :;y;. .
f a p d. .
* > ~.5 1%- ,
corporate the 2-001 was issued on February s g ,
, conditions related to the mismatch such as:
Unequal mismatch in joint fitup Twist and contour in breating strip
-Excessive gap in fitup 1/4-inch to 1/2 inch ,
Wrong drawing revision in package. i
?.
The NCR was cl on April 3, 1982 by:
- 1. evisio e drawing.
i wist and~ contour in backing strip acceptabW -
- ?
emoving the backing strip after welding first side, grind to
, 3 clean metal and weld second side. Provide a smooth transition 1 of 2-1/2 to 1 by adding additional weld metal when the hi condition exists on the flange of the beam
'j 3 N; h h II[LC~ fM y The TRT visually examined the welded condition and found the external appearances of the weld were in confonnance with the DCA and the drawing.
B. Reactor top closure head: The alleger contended that undocumented l repair work was performed on the reactor top closure head.
\ -
The TRT reviewed Westinghouse drawing 1219E-49 and found that a i i number of vendor-installed penetrations extend through the reactor _ vessel closure head. Tubular thermal sleeves have been inserted I into 57 of the penetrations and control rod drive mechanisms will be installed in the thermal sleeves at a later date. Housings and sleeves were installed in 1979 under traveler ME-79-214-5505. Four I - l I. --- - 1
c.; : y..,.;. w:.: . .a.6 m.a:c.q:++,ugpuwed.ps -
.. a - . . . .
-f i
. housings were, installed around the periphery of the head. The bottom of the thermal sleeves and housings received a screwed, coned plate held in place by a welded locking pin. The thermal sleeves were s'upported by a mechanicat shoulder and were loosely fitted into the penetration.
The alleger claims that, in the spring of 1982 during the time he was working on modifications to housings 74 and 75, he witnessed undocumented repair work being performed on several " control rod drives." Further discussion with the alleger revealed that the
" control rods," referred to in the disposition, actually were the thennal sleeves. Although the alleger did not see the damage occur,
. he believes it happened during a trial fitup of the head to the top of the reactor vessel.
/
" Sy The TR reviewe which were performed on the head f
during the time period stated by the alleger. The TRT found that [ both the thermal sleeves with guides and the housings with guides 0 were in place, having been installed in 1979. The only other work performed which required activities under the head were those
/
' associated with the addition of the RVLMS system. On March 26, 1982, two heated junction thermocouple probes were installed in
/
penetration 63 and 65 as part of the addition of the reactor vessel level measurement system (RVLMS). Traveler lie-82-2563-5500 covered the work. The work was done by Brown & Root (B&R) personnel to e G 0 9
""'N"*** ' *
- ew eme ,e. . . , , , , ,
-e- - -,- - , - -
onG :: . :- m ;;W v. --: r :y : . axysn.vg y R-Y w M y c y M :-: m a . ;.2.: c .. - . . b Westinghouse.(X) Procedure MP-2.7.1/TBX-1. Head adapter plugs (HAP) ,
~
. had been previously installed on penetrations 63 and 65. The modification work consisted of removing the HAP and welding RVLMS flange assemblies to the penetrations.
The alleger suggested that the TRT discuss the allegation with two B&R employees who were performing mechanical inspection and quality
- control inspection on the head during the spring of 1982. One of the employees had left the site. 'The second employee, still employed i
by B&R, was' unable to provide any infonnation on any repair work to ar' the thermal sleeves. He stated he was closely involved in most of the work related to the head and at no time does he recall any damage being done to the thermal sleeves. In addition, the TUGC0 field mechanical engineer who was involved in the installation of the thermal sleeves and housings and the later modifications did not a know of any repair work to the thermal sleeves. s Since any work done on the head and thermal sleeves would have been underthedirectionofX,theTRTinterviewedtheysiteresident. The TRT learned that W had an expert on call who was a specialist on I reactor internals and who was present during any work being performed onyequipment. The E site representative reviewed the y records .
; and none were found which related to thermal sleeve damage and any resulting repairs.
I
3 .::..m M . ,: :., :L a. :- n .
.c.+a3 ay. gu z . gy.aq_tu.9,g oue . .A - The TRT reviewed the travelers associated with work which had been i
l
. cqmpleted on the head in early 1982, and found that all documentation i
i appeared to be complete. The TRT determined that damage could not l
,' have occurred to control rod drives at this time, since in 1982 they f were'still crated and in the warehouse.
I The bottom of the thermal sleeve guides are located slightly over 37
-1 l
inches above the head flange surface. The TRT detemined that the head would have to have been dropped or hit at an unusual angle to have suffered'the damage suggested by the alleger. If that had been j the case, it is likely the overlay machined flange surface would have suffered sufficient damage to require extensive repairs, but no record of such repairs exists. The TRT cotiducted a visual inspection of the thermal sleeves. No evidence of any welding, heating or deformation was present. l , C. Support beam: It is alleged that the safety injection vertical line restraint support beam has base metal indications. The TRT found thatyidentifiedconcernsiiththesesupportbeamswhenonsight
; sandblasting revealed areas of peeling metal. This condition was reported in E field deficiency report (FDR) TBXM-10071, dated I
j April 7, 1981. The FDR stated that metal was removed and blended by . sandblasting, and that the resulting depth exceeded the maximum
! depth limit for A588 material of the bean's thickness. The FDR also
- noted* numerous areas on the other three beams which exhibited this peeling condition of indeterminate depth.
9
,, , --c-- --
. ; .u ;.. m ., e.,, .y,:., ..gq .x .,.x4,.y;.y ., .,
- ..-Q-w.=6 &%., w ::p. & . , <:.a.
. ,...n __:w _ .
The action resulting from the FOR was the return of these beams to ,
, the vendor'for inspection in accordance with the appropriate material specification (A588) and for weld repair, if required. The vendor. ' Teledyne Brown (TB), performed two weld repairs on the initial beam and~ grinding on the other three beams. Westinghouse QC/QA personnel I
reviewed the repairs, including material certification MT records, visual inspection records, dimensional inspection, welding personnel qualification certification, and NDE personnel qualification certifi-cation. As a result of their review, W determined thet the beams were in accor' dance with the A588 and A6 requirements. Westinghouse
' then re-released the four beams for shipment to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) by Quality Release N-46991, Rev. 3, dated May 28, 1984. The TRT found that the beams were received and j
accepted by B&R Quality Assurance and documented on Receiving Inspection Report No.16771, dated June 4,1981. Onbanuary 25, 1982. NCR M-82-00079 was written against these beams. This NCR had two concerns: .(1) that the beams had linear indications I that started at the attachment weld and were from 3-1/2 inches to i 3 feet, 6 inches in length, and (2) that the beam dimensions differed i from the drawing dimensions. f i j . Westinghouse responded to the first part of this NCR with a letter, (WPT-4602),datedMay 19, 1982. This letter stated that the NCR was written on the same " roll marks" that were previously detected 1 . . . f I
. . _ _ , _ _ ,-__v-.
- . - .<.y nsx. a ;r&au n ,; ;:.4 ~ . .~: -: .
. m.s . z.cn,4syq 9s.s- s4. ;,
during site receipt inspection. The letter further stated that these " roll marks" were inspected and approved by the shape
~
', supplier, Bethlehem Steel,'and that roll marks are an industry-
. accepted trait of rolled structural members. The letter stated in conclusion that these " roll marks" would not impair the adequacy of restraints.
The TRT reviewed all the documentation mentioned above, discussed this allegation with Westinghouse Field Engineers, and reviewed the ASTM specifications for A6 and A588 to determine if these requirements were met. The TRT found that the second portion of NCR H-82-0079 appeared to be a misinterpretation of the design drawing by the originator of the NCR. It appears that the NCR originator did not realize that a W14 x 233 beam has dimensions of 16 inches in depth and 15-7/8 incNesinwidth,whicharethedimensionsquotedintheNCRasbeing nonconforming. The TRT inspection of the design drawing indicated that beam dimensions of W14 x 233 x 16 feet long were called for and that notes existed on the drawing that called for the field to cut .J ~ the beam to suit and machine as shown in View H.
/ '/
at the heat number on piece 2 had bee orded p, P The TRT . h, % ation; therefore,
, p/ on t . rial identification log prior to it must have been visible p stallation. However, the TRT verified that h umber NF1106 was traceable fro. n-plap
- ack to the material supplier.
/
7 ppW/kr .
-w
- : .. . . n,m .s.,7.vw .s+4uk4Qh:,,va :,4-i;% 3M- i;;,.ig . y;.. .p;,.pw.2:ig. a & ?.;
. 14 l
Miscellaneous Group , i ,
~
A. Material Traceability Three plate heat numbers were shown on the original list of items. The TRT had completed the review of one heat number at the time the g decision was made to concentrate efforts on the second list.
.!' -s
- . ~( @' The TRT learned that the vendor, NPS, furnished several fabricated items cut frein the same ASTM A36 plate. The plate was originally V purchased by BPS from Orgeon Steel Mills and included a report of the chemical and physical tests on the plate. Certificate f7249 dated May 4,1979 verified these tests and listed the heat number as 204166. NPS changed the heat number to their identification NF1106.
The TRT determined that four items w'ere cut from the plate by NPS
/ and furnished to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC). The NPS I
Certificate of Compliance verified that all material met the k requirements of NCA-3800 SA36 plate. y i N /
.l made a walkdown inspection.
! The TRT revieweMocumen>tation a I
i During the walkdown inspection, the TRT found the heat number for pieces 4 and 6 on Support #CC-1-162-723-A43R and for piece 5 on i support CC-1-246-020-C33R. The heat number on piece 2, a 9-1/2-inch , square plate, for support CT-1-121-001-5225 could not be located. An 8-inch pipe was welded directly on the top of the plate, leaving very little room for the number. , ,
"'#** eoe o w.em
- : ~.. . c N:x . . ,,w ,a y.,.r.gr m g ,.ya._.,; :& gg..x.,. z., , ,
The TRT determined that the heat number on piece 2 had been recorded t
.on the material identification log prior to installation; therefore, it must have been visible prior to installation. However, the TRT 1
verified that heat nteber NF1106 was traceable from .t he in-place 1 items back to the material supplier
- 8. DCA and NCR documents: The TRT reviewed the repair / rework items
- described in NCR M82-00141 and NCR M-82-00296 and in DCA 8875 and h DCA 12287 which were on the list of the alleger's major concerns. A ; documentation' review indicated that the repair / rework had been ,
properly performed.
~
.DCA 8875 states that, contrary to the requirements that a full h penetration weld be made between the stiffeners and the base plate and flange sections, a partial penetr'ation weld was provided on a portion of the seam. To provide the necessary stiffness, eight additional stiffener plates were added. DCA 12287 was issued to add a plate and a stiffener to the base plate when B&R cut off the bottom left anchor bolt of a pipe whip restraint A senior TUEC j support engineer and the TRT visually examine the work performed under the DCAs and found it as shown on the DCA.
I NCR M-82-00141 stated that a 1/2-inch-diameter arc strike occurred 3 i feet off the floor and a grout smear was visible 3-1/2 inches off the floor. The TRT reviewed the resolution of the NCR and found the
~
condition was corrected by removing the arc strike and gr.out smear and repainting the amaged surfaces. KRC M-82-00296 stated that es, , -- e m, =h
~ ~ ^
- - -- ..~ .,.,,_g.,,, a g,z , : _.,. p .. c_. .. ; ,_ , ..
. vendor-suppli,ed whip restraints were found to be in violation of the
,specificatilons. Paragraph 6.4 states in part " welded construction shall conform to AISC Specifications for design, fabrication and erecti'on of structural steel and AWS D1.1." Resolution of this NCR l
1 1 required Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) personnel to perform repair work in accordance with procedures in the CBI QA manual for contract I 91936(35-1195-0578 Change Order No. 2). In a meeting with the alleger on December 18, 1984, the TRT presented the'results of the assessment of the allegations and the 1 TRT's conclusions. A discussion followed. There were no major items of disagreement and no new concerns or allegations were identified. The alleger expressed his satisfaction that his concerns had been addressed.
- 5. Conclusions and Staff Position: The TRT believes that the sampling taken of the 63 "most important" items represents a reasonable overview of the j
I allegers concerns. A number of items that were reviewed may have appeared to the alleger to have been unclosed NCRs or discrepencies which were later resolved in the normal QC/QA program. The TRT has reached the following conclusions on the items reviewed: Fitup and Weldino Group: In a review of nine pipe restraints, the TRT found no fitup or welding errors. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. e y--- - y --w- -
is ' '.~x :-%ve:m -a ~ . m. m::awawMm4?,x. =.: %=::.n ~ - A-17 - Torque Group , f 1 I A. Bolt Torquing: The TRT has determined that at the time the bolt broke,- the turn of the nut method was being used to tighten A-490 bolts . This would account for no specific torque values being i available to the torqueing crew, a The TRT found that tightening of the new A-490 bolts to the specific l DCA 15028 values and retorquing in-place A-490 bolts provided i verification that the AISC specification requirements had been met. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. 4 fj B. Breakaway Torque: In a review of the travelers related to breakaway
.Y
'd and motion torque, the TRT found nothing inappropriate. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.- The f e \
alleger also admitted that there was nothing wrong with the torquing
?:
[ performed on the RC pumps.
.j:)j Equipment Group 1
( A. Pipe whip restraint: In a review of the documentation associated (f with the pipe whip restraint member and physical examination of pipe - whip restraints, the TRT found nothing to substantiate this j allegation. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. - . g
.cqq. . p - .. :.. . w:n.4k;
.,,,:m.x:a:w,- w:as'e u : .. .
18 - B. Reactor top head: In a review of the activities associated with the
, top head during the period the undocumented repair was to have occurred, the TRT found no record of any improper work. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
C. Support beams: The TRT review of the documentation associated with i
' the support beams showed them to be in accordance with codes and specifications. In addition, it appears that the beam dimensions mentioned as nonconforming were actually the correct mill sizes.
The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is
- unsubstantiated.
4 Miscellaneous Group
$ A. Material traceability: The TRT reviewed the material .,
covered by the heat number shown on the alleger's list to determine its traceability, and traced the heat number from the installed support to the original mill plate. 4 The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
+
B. Other documents: The TRT review of all listed documents shows that the items were issued and/or closed correctly. The TRT concludes, _ j therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. l. Accordingly, these allegations have neither safety significance nor
! generic implications. .
e 4 y
- 6. Action Recuired: None, f
- 8. Attachments: List of 63 "most important" items.
Travelers Drawinos NCRs & DCAs Misc Ecuipment CD 81-102-2800 W1483F13R18866 NCR-M82-00141 1. TBS RCPCPX-03 reactor CD 81-139-2800 U1554E33 CMC 61771 coolant CE 81-022-4900 SI-595-02 DCA 12042 2. Moment restraint SI-595-04 DCA 8875 Rev.1 836-ft. Safeguard 1 ! CE 81-50-3400 SI-0538-09 DCA 12287 3. R.C. Pump 82-001-141 CE 81-36-4900 SI-0688-23-26 NCR M82-00216 4. R.C. Pump - Comp.2 RBI CE 81-029-5700 CD 80-050-2802 SI-0597-01 NCR M82-00296 5. TBS RCCSSG-03 Cn 81-140-2800 SI-597-98 NCR M82-00079 6. TBX-RCRIRI-01 CS 81-100-5700 SI-0538-14 7. 2323 CSDS 4E14 ( SI-0688-06 8. CPI 4FATCS-0 CE 81-021-5700
- 9. TCX RCESSG-01 I
ME 82-2207-5500 SI-0589-03 10. No bridge - turbi # ME 81-2118-5500 CE-81-018-3700 . deck restraintb # CE-81-43-3700 11. W1354E35 restraint CD-81-119-5500
- 12. T-D0-052 3
CD-82-166-2800 13. I 350 CPI 4FATCS RI-82-775-0200 14. RBI-864
- 15. Steam generator CD-82-168-2800 main supports ME-81-2158-7400 CD-81-116-5500 CD-81-105-2800 CD-81-149-4900 CD-82-172-2800 CD-82-164-5500 l CE-81-34-4900 ME-80-201C-4000 CD-81-111-5700 CE-81-51-3400 CD-81-144-3700 1 - .
i I' l l
p . . - % : ,:~K . : : :y:gg;;:.5 ;e ,....; w. .- -
~
. e- .+. , . - n .. x .. ,
~
- 9.
References:
- 1. Fitting & Welding 2. Torque
~
-Trevel ers Drawings Travelers 0ther CE-81-39-3400 MSB-0688-006 ME-82-2206-550 2323-51-0666
. CE-81-022-4900 MRB-0538-014 ME-82-2208-5500 Dwg. MSB-0680 MRW CE-81-50-3400 MSB-0688-024 ME-82-2209-5500 Dwg. M-82-0216 CE-81-36-4900 MSB-0688-003 CD-80-010-2902 B&R Inspection Report CE-81-021-5700 MRB-0538-013 CD-80-023-3401 DCA 11817 Rev. O CE-81-018-3700 MSB0688-017 CD-80-029-3401 DCA 11817 Rev. t CE-81-34-4900 MSB-0688-001 CD-80-02703401 TUGC0 QI-QP-11.14-1 Rev. 2 CE-81-51-3400 MSB-0688-025 CD-80-061-5700 Torque Wrench Information MSB-0688-012 CD-80-068-5700 DCA 15028.
CD-80-078-5700 AISC Specification for CE-81-002-2800 A490 Bolts
" CE-81-116-5500
- 3. Whip Restraints 4. Reactor Head NCR M82-00112 a. ME-82-2203-5500.
CBI contract 82105 b. NCR M-3182. Drawings 345, 346, 458 c. Westinghouse Procedure MP 2.7.1/TBX-1.
- d. ME-82-2263-5500.
- e. . Westinghouse Dwg.
1219E49 - Sht. 1 & 2.
- f. ME-79-389-5500.
- g. ME-79-214-5505.
- 5. Travelers
- a. CD-81-116-5500.
. b. CD-82-208-5500.
- c. CD-83-293-5500.
- d. CD-81-119-5500.
I e. CD-82-216-5500. l f. CD-81-110-5500.
- g. CD-83-294-5500.
6 P i e
-!:,96497 -s:si: e5 .v ' - *M ":t-~5 : . -l :
. :.: n -= . - - - - ,~ +. . - ~;- .
- 21
- 10. This statement prepared by:
l TRT Technical Reviewer 1 . V. Ferrarini . Date TRT Technical Reviewer J l R. Hubbard Date TRT Technical Reviewer Reviewed by: L. Shao Date Group Leader Approved by: V. Noonan Date Project Director 6 l l O O 9 e e em-
~
4_weahw::e6,nf a.vgem.h A w .M.-w 9 3%,96digdh:!;Sggyt:.p.O. . Z. L
~
CP8C - SSER Hubbard DRAFT 12 - 3/20/85 . t O. ' SSER 1 j 1. Allegation Group: Mechanical and Piping, Category No. 49, l Miscellaneous Concerns of A-45 l
- 2. Allegation Numbers: AM-31-1 to AM-31-280 A
& g' fo# (MW f:M 3.- Characterization: A Brown & Root (B&R) employee g alleged,that he noted ] 3 and logged (in five personal log books) a number of defective items during the time he worked at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
l
- 4. Assessment of Safety Significance: In an interview with the NRC Technical Review' Team (TRT) on August 2, 1984, the alleger stated that he had five Qt log books in his possession that he had developed while employed at CPSES by B&R. He stated that the books contained infomation about a number of defects. The TRT determined that, based on actual count, 280 items were listed.
l The alleger provided the TRT with a preliminary list of 70 items which contained identifying numbers representing travelers, drawings, heat numbers, design change authorizations (DCA), etc. The alleger stated t i ! i that each type of document represented a specific type of defect. If the i document listed was a drawing or a traveler then the item covered by the
! drawing or traveler would have fitup or welding errors. Listed heat l numbers would indicate material traceability problems. Other document or i
equipment numbers reflected unspecified errors. The alleger gave l (O) ( specific details on a few major items.
- a- - ar.utm.Muks%.a 2,2%Av & w: L.:;asa. +.y.cygma.w&.a.& _y The TRT had begun its review of the 70 items (and had completed a review i
. of six items) when a second meeting was held with the alleger. During l
l the meeting the alleger provided a new list of 63 items which he identi-t fied as the most important of all the items from the five log books. The alleger stated, in fact, the rest of them were possible minor defects that you would nonnally find in a typical construction project such as Comanche Peak. The new listing was a mixture of items from the original list of 70 plus some new items. The 63 items are listed in the Attach-ments section of this SSER. stopped work on the first list and concentrated its attention on the 63 "most important" items. The TRT found that the tems could be separated into four general groups
- fitup and welding, torque, equipment and miscellaneggs.
f The TRT chose to review the total item list by a sampling process. A sample size of 25% of the item list was chosen as representing a reason-able approach to determining the validity of the total allegation. The following table shows the results of the sample broken down into groups. Column (1) lists the items that had been completed from the first list. Column (2) lists the items reviewed from the list of 63, and Column (3) is the sum of Columns (1) and (2). Column (4) shows the numerical breakdown of the 63 items by group. Column (5) represents the t. l number of items in a 25% sample of Column (4).
- . - . . ~ -
i
~:m.~.. m a massa.ciJ.+ii=,%:4.J-%4:!L%v + i
.u- . a -n .x . , . :,w .4%,: c~= , - C, .
Group MMM$M l'(
- Fitup &
I-Welding 3 6 9 37 9 Torque 0 2 2 5 2 Equipment 0 3 3 10 3 Misc. 3 5 8 10 3
' 6 16 22 63 17
, opea- Cr#
Fitup and Welding Group: p rovM mm o m ori g The TRT reviewed nine fiepas identified by drawing or traceable number. The alleger had indicated that welding or fitup problems would be associated with thered%fdd1 structures. The TRT examined the related drawings and determined that the primary fitup and welding on the structures consisted of tee joints c., w
'T. with the end of one plate butted Prinst the surface of another plante.4
-y A GswW ec.M15-or double fillet weld or a one-sided full penetration weld was R' PorG ruc- rstr rv vraum specified on the drawings. It was difficult,%D determine if a weld joint was correctly fitup after the weld was completed. Where the plates were welded from one side (either fillet or full fusion), it was possible for the TRT to l
visually examine the opposite side; however, when fillet welds were applied to both sides and to the ends of the plate junctions, the fit was not visible. [/ l l The TRT requested the assistance of a B&R level III ultrasonic testing (UT) supervisor in detennining if a UT procedure could be devised to show if a gap l existed between the plates that had been welded and the weld seam that was i covered with weld metal. The supervisor attempted to perfect such a test but i 1 was unsuccessful because of a lack of clarity of the signal. l l - - . . . . . . . . - . . - . - -
- e. M c # b 2 b w?d: % 5 Wf ENGGY2 @ $ $ g s % 2: Y-G R ' - w .g ,
' J1/;;{.
, t.%
- 4-
- bheTRTvisuallyexaminedtheninestructures. The B&R level III inspector accompanied the TRT in reviewing six of the units. The TRT found that it was possible to view the backside of some of the welds on six of the nine supports. In five cases no gaps appeared. The sixth support, however, showed a gap estimated to be 1/16-inch high for about 3 inches along the Iseam,and1/8-inchdeep. Paragraph 3.10.1 of B&R procedure CP-CPM-6.90 states that the fitup gap for T joints should not exceed 1/16-inch. The TRT determined the gap in the structure was not signif y All fillet welds reviewed by the TRT appeared to be acceptable.
+162- C '* b-Torque Group p m o cit A*'*
# d idHM
' , '~
A. Bolt Torquing: On March 9,1982, the alleger witnessed aJolt break L - v4 wo-s
! while being tightened He claimed that no specific ve+ves were available for crews to use while torquing A-490 high strength bolts. .I mt The TRT found that B&R structural steel erection procedure CCP-22 is the controlling document for bolt tightening. Revisions 0 (3/12/76),
1 (12/7/81), and 2 (1/21/82) provided two methods for the tightening f of A-490 bolts. l
- 1. Turn of the nut. The procedure specified a predetermined rotation of the nut after a snug fit condition was obtained.
The amount of turn was shown in Attachment I of the procedure c and was identical to Table 4 of the American Institute of Steel
! l Construction Specification, " Structural Joints Using ASTM A-325 I
or A-490 Bolts," Seventh Edition.
\
\ _
. E.u %.,.?r.ca s.uwidp%&W%sM@6MM?GEeiWNM4"-s' e:SR;ik.;diA%d.C
- 2. Calibrated wrench (Skidmore). The procedure specified the use of an impact wrench adjusted to values listed in Table 2 of the l procedure. A bolt-tension calibrator was required to adjust the impact wrench to the required tension.
The turn of nut method for tensioning A-490 bolts was used for work i i performed under procedure CCP-22, Rev. O to Rev. 3. The calibrated wrench tightening method was never used in its original form. According to the AISC specification, bolts torqued to the turn of the nut values in AISC Table 4 will result in tension values shown in AISC Table
- 3. The values represent 70% of the specified minimum tensile strength of the bolts.
v On June 28, 1981 and October 21, 1981, tests were run to detennine the torque values being obtained from the turn of the nut method. The torquing crew was subsequently required to record the amount of torque as each bolt was tightened. htr&G Y%& vW e ntx&- ygg. p. stat.x1 vt @ Additional tests were performed and r = lt d in Design Change Authorization (DCA) 15028 dated December 1, 198 The DCA provided instructions for torquin 1-A=49 bolts to a set of values depending upon the size off he bolt. The' values were listed in the DCA and were in 4 # foot pounds. The torquing was^ to be done with a calibrated torque V wrench.
.m '
Vl
- }
x :;.Q, -
. ::, .:; w a ,~. g .q.4 .sll %'+:- M kW al:d' M :=- . .W . . , .
Revision 3 of procedure CCP-22 dated July 4, 1983 incorporated the new
-(
torque values. l t A program was established by B&R to retorque all A-490 bolts to the new values. The TRT reviewed a general traveler form that was prepared to
, docur.ent the completion of the retorquing on each assembly. The TRT also I obsdrved several completed travelers which were attached to the original whip restraint traveler.
~yt4ec W W W The TRT has determined that at the time the bolt broke, the turn of the nut method was being used to tighten A-490 bolts. e - 1d area"at #^-
no specific torque va' lues a N ble to the torquing crew. W 4
!=d :4 =Y T
s .. The TRT found th D tighteniegmehe new A-490 bolts to the DCA 15028 values and retorquing th -490 bolts iJapiece provided verification that the AISC specification requirements had been met.
+-
('rulleWO B. Breakaway Torque: The alleger indicated that there was a problem l with the travelers associated with the Reactor Coolant (RC) pumps and motors. This problem related to the measurement of breakaway
)
torque. The TRT reviewed, in detail, traveler ME-2207-5500 for RC pump TBX-RCPCPX-02, which was contained in the alleger's second list. The TRT also reviewed the travelers for the remaining three RC pumps. The purpose of the travelers was to measure both the breakaway torque and the torque required to sustain motion. These torque
,; . , ; q-:g t.m.< c.::a .x,whq...we.q%-QQ%& '.W;;Qb . j';M.:..a . .~ n. c_ , v?Y,JI a a l 5 (f/#p [
- s. s -~ w w~ c
/ N& Auscsu- nicevoorer r-ees:
Dec</nm (or CDet .//fa- rfvo, VM Gwd S/ ~19 4'O $ l cac os 22 /) eevow es w ,vt,tatrw s
; wo was- maa rewn n me w (dIT-:fMNI~. $Y >>F6 7~)sr70 W hi&& /7 at Alf
//JCos'd*Grd TH99r 7%U F4*44^G 6d offM4 Jost.6d
. R)6*f4 Axtr /AJ M C A m & / /* Cst 6 , f W m s a - wiz, ~~w e.a m e s e ~ a -
yht& M/Ssw4rtW, /HD,'c+rtre 7hsAr wm46 646-
$D f Y 8:1Jh99>f 4M5Id l/MA09 4,*0 N O*J
,o tot ?hs TAnd Ac W fcse*+4,7#V o m
~* grtd oc W ipo)t?9m pc nnt& 5 utxxJ ywit#
AGGMim m l8/NC# M O YM5 we
- I wa m a ins ,,1 m s s !d m r1) J'y inw przm, irs owur-wmm vr# 4e#S* 6 #,
)
i i V.G 1
)
I
\ - ._
~
. is:4. , -m ;;. % @ . : v.a,+%2e. xa;4fv%$ilQ-MWU;gkl&y-}.;%G::.%; ', _'
I' (_,,4w9anJd*RX" jntjc M M (Caec) Gl?1/ l m PMewdC ou I2 -t 2 -B I to w o 6- 1+& 1 so m pa rna- %e oove e e- s aum.- v a ><-
^\ $tAttoL6- 6 6 0 G <. . 6 Alt.uG 6Mt.$ gUF4L6- (G64 A 0*/
W tAe 4 <.4 v 6- fott. w G M GGAMWo ( oss < c v - bosawn(sc %, USu@ od 2 oz- v6 'warwet Aso Soseew
- a. __
W I~W 6Muf 8A124 " 2nea 55 5:L5 ur 40 j WLl8&M 'T22/f$ ftW) C _ ' N C/G W
} dN 'rit 6 .rd49rn A4sd A*t? V/44 ?"f46 f.dW N &<.6 &A/5 ysmt. A> cM. m - e t - 0 0412- u4.4 cc.o1 ced
;I ew - Q 82. p yg__, y,4,,4 ,, ,y g, g,, gy,u m *
- e W fflDQ0+G 045ULit,.9w of '71lL Ct 996944usk4 sAJt (4 6 6- ADD $0 El Yod PsQ t K+t.6 6 , W 7 w S T A *20 L ok. Hurt- IA) TN C tihs4CtM ST1\ 49 /5 W TA4 t 6- til v16 94 IS. *O CC'd T14 6 6W TD G W ht!M- 0 CA" I I, 2 C C & l o 6- w 6 At. scix.4 .f'rk t/ 4c ro"t'- tu6usM T14t'f-. oc-t d. t s' S/DC i d4:4 Gterm rdl* W # W Astd cb544 fC46w //96~ , $AA//#6 sff -dnroo W
> rma ei n e z 1 ro i' sy ,woin woi w we<s ,eerx< m w a s-ow l'My/ n:w ct>e et T*5 ev M A*H4 F # tsc
, /$th44M l o 4
.ne... .~.
- n. . . , , , , . . - . . . . - , _.n.. , . , _ , , , - --.-,- ,_,_, ,,
._. nc. < g. e .a. . ;.. .. - .a - . ,. .. .,. , . ,.y , g, .,, . y g .g g gp. ..,. .,
dD 096*A % Y%%vW CO 8/- //4 - TTOO M M IV ok. W W V/ Su4.<,,t Q&im M
- WWW MS<dt9u AA4 fos /nd W ts#6 C)0 W" Ar/mesm + rste ww aioruc M M&M w / 7%L- heHY CMC, Dd4- ,q.sr.sj TM& fadahx4, i
O. 1 1 i e I
~ . , u..:.-.sW m i l v - ~ r a:-c.. o ,' w . n. =en.%-M:mM.1-v.tsgywG.H,.
_7 values, as stated on the referenced travelers, must be less than 750 ( . ft-lbs for breakaway and 250 ft-lbs to sustain motion. The TRT found nothing inappropriate in the four travelers reviewed. In fact, the opposite was true, as the travelers were all very clear with precise instructions relating to torquing. All the proper construction and QA/QC signoffs were present. On pump 1, the
- maximum torque for breakaway was 225 ft-lbs and the maximum torque to sustain motion was 30 ft-lbs. Pump 1 represented the high values for both breakaway torque and torque to sustain motion.
During the TRT's December 18, 1984 meeting with the alleger he adm.itted j that their was nothing wrong with the torquing perfonned on RC pump travelers. Bh4 Equipment Group: A. Pipe whip restraint welding: The alleger listed several documents ve ovt-redwe-tu pipe whip restraint 465-C which relater to the joining of two built-up wide flange sections. Two wide flange sections were being joined. CMC 61771 was prepared on December 12, 1981 by the TUEC Civil / Structural Group. The CMC changed the butt weld on the flange ends from a double bevel weld to a single bevel. The two beams were found to have a misalignment at the beam splice due to distortion due to fabrication. DCA 12265 was prepared to provide instructions for attaching the two beams. The DCA states i \ l that the mismatch caused by the twist in the flanges and difference in depth is acceptable. The weld was shown on an attached sketch.
,u ,- : .. vd . , .s :p v. R . + m cs ;u:n.M .s; ' , 173 s.:c
= , . ~ . - _.
. 4 NCR M-82-00112 was issued on February 8,1982 to incorporate the l
. conditions related to the mismatch such as:
h Unequal mismatch in joint fitup Twist and contour in breaking strip Excessive gap in fitup 1/4-inch to 1/2 inch
- Wrong drawing revision in package.
t j The NCR was closed on April 3,1982 by:
- 1. Revision the drawing.
-i 1 2. Twist and contour in backing strip acceptable.
i l 3. Removing the backing strip after welding first side, grind to clean metal and weld second side. Provide a smooth transition of 2-1/2 to 1 by adding additional weld metal when the high-low condition exists on the flange of the beam. The TRT visually examined the welded condition and found the external appearances of the weld were in confomance with the DCA and the drawing. B. Reactor top closure head: The alleger contended that undocumented i repair work was perfomed on the reactor top closure head. The TRT reviewed Westinghouse drawing 1219E-49 and found that a j number of vendor-installed penetrations extend through the reactor
! vessel closure head. Tubular themal sleeves have been inserted I
i into 57 of the penetrations and control rod drive mechanisms will be installed in the themal sleeves at a later date. Housings and (~/
.- sleeves were installed in 1979 under traveler ME-79-214-5505. Four i
% s ; 4 w.m m i.;a x.c i 6 h 4 - v;y 4 L r A ys -.-A6. vy.een6443,4e , as.- fg .
housings were installed around the periphery of the head. The ( . bottom of the thermal sleeves and housings received a screwed, coned plate held in place by a welded locking pin. The thermal sleeves were supported by a mechanical shoulder and were loosely fitted into the penetration. The alleger claims that, in the spring of 1982 during the time he was working on modifications to housings 74 and 75, he witnessed undocumented repair work being performed on several " control rod drives." Further discussion with the alleger revealed that the
" control rods," referred to in the disposition, actually were the thermal sleeves. Although the alleger did not see the damage occur, he believes it happened during a trial fitup of the head to the top of the reactor vessel.
s w er vW- u/ad The TRT reviewed the e m $9833hs which wave performed on the head during the time period stated by the alleger. The TRT found that both the thermal sleeves with guides and the housings with guides were in place, having been installed in 1979. The only other work
- performed which required activities under the head were those associated with the addition of the RVLMS system. On March 26, 1982, two heated junction thermocouple probes were installed in penetration 63 and 65 as part of the addition of the reactor vessel level measurement system (RVLMS). Traveler ME-82-2563-5500 covered i
the work. The work was done by Brown & Root (B&R) personnel to i . e
. ~ , -.
n.~: e suww.xs~M4.:ah.w :..-e a r u.w'n-- w :e. w.c4;n , " d ??x,p.
/
A Westinghouse (W) Procedure MP-2.7.1/TBX-1. Head adapter plugs (HAP)
. had been previously installed on penetrations 63 and 65. The i
modification work consisted of removing the HAP and welding RVLMS l flange assemblies to the penetrations. The alleger suggested that the TRT discuss the allegation with two B&R employees who were perfonning mechanical inspection and quality control inspection on the head during the spring of 1982. One of the employees had left the site. The second employee, still employed by B&R, was unable to provide any information on any repair work to ar' the thermal sleeves. He stated he was closely involved in most of
' the work related to the head and at no time does he recall any damage being done to the thennal sleeves. In addition, the TUGC0 field mechanical engineer who was involved in the installation of the thermal sleeves and housings and the later modifications did not know of any repair work to the thermal sleeves.
Since any work done on the head and thermal sleeves would have been
! under the direction of y, the TRT interviewed the E site resident.
The TRT learned that E had an expert on call who was a specialist on reactor internals and who was present during any work being performed I on y equipment. The y site representative reviewed the y records and none were found which related to thermal sleeve damage and any resulting repairs.
- A u , .n..<ur.;;n m a W -.;.w f w -h - ,
. ;; :. .., 4 .+ . ;...
. . L.
11 -
- The TRT reviewed the travelers associated with work which had been l(
completed on the head in early 1982, and found that all documentation appeared to be complete. The TRT detemined that damage could not have occurred to control rod drives at this time, since in 1982 they were still crated and in the warehouse. 1 The bottom of the themal sleeve guides are located slightly over 37 inches above the head flange surface. The TRT determined that the head would have to have been dropped or hit at an unusual angle to have suffered the damage suggested by the alleger. If that had been the case, it is likely the overley machtiied flange surface would have suffered sufficient damage to require extensive repairs, but no i record of such repairs exists. The TRT conducted a visual inspection of the thermal sleeves. No evidence of any welding, heating or defomation was present. C. Support beam: It is alleged that the safety injection vertical line restraint support beam has base metal indications. The TRT found that y identified concerns with these support beams when onsight sandblasting revealed areas of peeling metal. This condition was reportedinXfielddeficiencyreport(FDR)TBXM-10071, dated April 7,1981. The FDR stated that metal was removed and blended by sandblasting, and that the resulting depth exceeded the maximum depth limit for A588 material of the beam's thickness. The FDR also noted numerous areas on the other three beams which exhibited this
- peeling condition of indeteminate depth.
I _ __ - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ._. .
.. a- .:se.w.asagd,%.;w-:;,,,.w . - . - . ;.) . .., _ m .;;p s. ,w -; , .
1 - 1 The action resulting from the FDR was the return of these beams to (Q- the vendor for inspection in accordance with the appropriate material j specification (A588) and for weld repair, if required. The vendor,
! Teledyne Brown (TB), perfonned two weld repairs on the initial beam and grinding on the other three beams. Westinghouse QC/QA personnel reviewed the repairs, including material certification MT records, I visual inspection records, dimensional inspection, welding personnel 1
qualification certification, and NDE personnel qualification certifi-cation. As a result of their review, W detennined that the beams were in accordance with the A588 and A6 requirements. Westinghouse i then re-released the four beams for shipment to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) by Quality Release N-46991, Rev. 3, dated May 28, 1984. The TRT found that the beams were received and
'O accepted by B&R Quality Assurance and documented on Receiving i .[.
Inspection Report No. 16771, dated June 4, 1981. On January 25, 1982. NCR M-82-00079 was written against these beams. This NCR had two concerns: (1) that the beams had linear iridications that started at the attachment weld and were from 3-1/2 inches to 3 feet,6inchesinlength,and(2)thatthebeamdimensionsdiffered I from the drawing dimensions. Westinghouse responded to the first part of this NCR with a letter, (WPT-4602), dated May 19, 1982. This letter stated that the NCR was written on the same " roll marks" that were previously detected f O
, " fgQ epv %m - sm;.1.nx.ykiyg.L&pc6%.h ',_ ;~ar.y.%-QQ_ _
.- -;29m:yg.1,5g during site receipt inspection. The letter further stated that
! - these " roll marks" were inspected and approved by the shape supplier, Bethlehem Steel, and that roll marks are an industry-accepted trait of rolled structural members. The letter stated in conclusion that these " roll marks" would not impair the adequacy of l restraints.
t i j The TRT reviewed all the documentation mentioned above, discussed this allegation with Westinghouse Field Engineers, and reviewed the ASTM specifications for A6 and A588 to determine if these requirements were met.
.]. ; The TRT found that the second portion of NCR M-82-0079 appeared to ap be a misinterpretation of the design drawing by the originator of the NCR. It appears that the NCR originator did not realize that a W14 x 233 beam has dimensions of 16 inches in depth and 15-7/8 inches in width, which are the dimensions quoted in the NCR as being j nonconfonning. The TRT inspection of the design drawing indicated that beam dimensions of W14 x 233 x 16 feet long were called for and that notes existed on the drawing that called for the f' eld to cut the beam to suit and machine as shown in View H.
i \ The TRT dete ned hat th ea mber on p 2hadbeenqecorded j on th er,ia ide tificat n lo prior o in talla on; therefore, i 1 c 4
/ \
1 it t, av beenjisibi pr!or t ins allation. ' owever., the TRT ver i hat heat nu er NF1106 wa traceable rom the in lace j items i 'C'/ k to the material supplier.
;A , ,
,a.
r w n -4;w e .. ,+-n::sznwa h.xeia?; . :,% :::.M,y.- 2.. .
/
l Miscellaneous Group f . A. Material Traceability Three plate heat numbers were shown on the original list of items. The TRT had completed the review of one heat number at the time the decision was made to concentrate efforts on the second list. 4W LIM M M oo y . O g
,l The TRT h: ::d th:t the vendor, NPN, y*4-fumished geveral fabricated '# ;
items cut from the same ASTM A36 plate. The plate was originally purchased by BPS from Orgeon Steel Mills and included a report of the chemical and physical tests on the plate. Certificate #7249 dated May 4,1979 verified these tests and listed the heat number as h; N 204166. NPS changed the heat number to their identification NF1106. 6 - I The TRT determined that four items were cut from the plate by NPS y and furnished to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC). The NPS 5 i Certificate of Compliance verified that all material met the requirements of NCA-3800 SA36 plate. l s . U The TRT rei ;d the Jaca,;nt:the ead = eda = rem 4cwn-fidpect.icn. ( E' OtN#M b $
, Beria;-the walkdown inspection, ths TRT found the heat number for pieces 4 and 6 on Support #CC-1-162-723-A43R and for piece 5 oi support CC-1-246-020-C33R. The heat number on pieca 2, a 9-1/2-inch square plate, for support CT-1-121-001-5225 could not be located.
An 8-inch pipe was welded directly on the top of the plate, leaving a very little room for the number. l
\ _
l
, ,W.A , :,y,
.,.,c49,.4i cm ; w,e q w _3 pg,3:.g g g,..;.< .
O. The TRT detennined that the heat number on piece 2 had been recorded 4 j(
- on the material identification log prior to installation; therefore, it must have been visible prior to installation. However, the TRT verified that heat number NF1106 was traceable from the in-place items back to the material supplier.
B. DCA and NCR documents: The TRT reviewed the repair / rework items described in NCR M82-00141 and NCR M-82-00296 and in DCA 8875 and 1
,) DCA 12287 which were on the list of the alleger's major concerns. A li documentation review indicated that the repair / rework had been properly perfonned.
DCA 8875 states that, contrary to the requirements that a full penetration weld be made between the stiffeners and the base plate and flange sections, a partial penetration weld was provided on a 4
? portion of the seam. To provide the necessary stiffness, eight
- 1 additional stiffener plates were added. DCA 12287 was issued to add f
a plate and a stiffener to the base plate when B&R cut off the
- bottom left anchor bolt of a pipe whip restraint A senior TUEC r.
y support engineer and the TRT visually examine the work perfonned under the DCAs and found it as shown on the DCA. \ 3 NCR M-82-00141 stated that a 1/2-inch-diameter arc strike occurred 3 feet off the floor and a grout smear was visible 3-1/2 inches off
] the floor. The TRT reviewed the resolution of the NCR and found the condition was corrected by removing the arc strike and grout smear I and repainting the amaged surfaces. NRC M-82-00296 stated that
. . - ~ , . _ . . _ . - . _ , .__ __ _
y *Q, m ?;A - ,
. u . .;m ; . . ,.m
..g.z ,4 p g . g ,; _. S . 3, .
l vendor-supplied whip restraints were found to be in violation of the specifications. Paragraph 6.4 states in part " welded construction shall confonn to AISC Specifications for design, fabrication and erection of structural steel and AWS D1.1." Resolution of this NCR required Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) personnel to perfonn repair work in accordance with procedures in the CBI QA manual for contract 91936 (35-1195-0578 Change Order No. 2). In a meeting with the alleger on December 18, 1984, the TRT presented the results of the assessment of the allegations and the TRT's conclusions. A discussion followed. There were no major items of disagreement and no new concerns or allegations were identified. The alleger expressed his satisfaction that his concerns a y had been addressed. {w-
- 5. Conclusions and Staff Position: The TRT believes that the sampling taken of the 63 "most important" items represents a reasonable overview of the allegers concerns. A nvnber of items that were reviewed may have appeared to the alleger to have been unclosed NCRs or discrepencies which were later resolved in the nonnal QC/QA program. The TRT has reached the following conclusions on the items reviewed: ,
Fitup and Welding Group: In a review of nine pipe restraints, the TRT found no fitup or welding errors. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
-.--r
ci.h-c. ;yrQ:1..,:.i:;v ,.. _.
.: 4 2 ,us.w -?'n- . ~ v ,: u w . m M & ~ % . _ _
Torque Group i . A. Bolt Torquing: The TRT has detemined that at the time the bolt
- broke, the turn of the nut method was being used to tighten A-490 bolts. This would account for no specific torque values being available to the torqueing crew.
t i I j The TRT found that tightening of the new A-490 bolts to the specific DCA 15028 values and retorquing in-place A-490 bolts provided
- verification that the AISC specification requirements had been met.
The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. B. Breakaway Torque: In a review of the travelers related to breakaway and notion torque, the TRT found nothing inappropriate. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. The alleger also admitted that there was nothing wrong with the torquing perfomed on the RC pumps. Equipment Group A. Pipe whip restraint: In a review of the documentation associated with the pipe whip restraint member and physical examination of pipe whip restraints, the TRT found nothing to substantiate this allegation. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. v
.-. me m
. m c ;.Ka.i. M sS X: ;/ A I !#!.: 5 h h r d L ..m . . .p . , - e r- W ~ - ,. *
..ine:.o-w .<o4ei B. Reactor top head: In a review of the activities associated with the 1
(' . top head during the period the undocumented repair was to have
-i occurred, the TRT found no record of any improper work. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
I J C. Support beams: The TRT review of the documentation associated with i the support beams showed them to be in accordance with codes and specifications. In addition, it appears that the beam dimensions mentioned as nonconforming were actually the correct mill sizes. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. 1 Miscellaneous Group
/.
A. Material traceability: The TRT reviewed the material
~
covered by the heat number shown on the alleger's list to determine its traceability, and traced the heat number from the installed support to the original mill plate. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated, i B. Other documents: The TRT review of all listed documents shows that the items were issued and/or closed correctly. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. I f Accordingly, these allegations have neither safety significance nor generic implications.
> _ . ~ _ _ _ _ __ .
.. gy.:s. n . <.,...,.- . ,. .
[ l
/
i
- 6. Action Required: None.
f . (. l
- 8. Attachments: List of 63 "most important" items.
5 Travelers Drawings NCRs & DCAs Misc Equipment CD 81-102-2800 W1483F13R18866 NCR-M82-00141 }. TBS RCPCPX-03 reactor CD 81-139-2800 R1554E33 CMC 61771 coolant CE 81-022-4900 51-595-02 DCA 12042 (d.Momentrestraint l
< CE 81-50-3400 SI-595-04 DCA 8875 Rev.1 836-ft. Safeguard 1 CE 81-36-4900 SI-05 %-09 DCA 12287 . R.C. Pump 82-001-141 CE 81-029-5700 SI-0688-23-26 NCR M82-00216 . R.C. Pump - Comp.2_RBI i CD 80-050-2802 SI-0597 1 NCR M82-00296 . TBS RCCSSG-03 L I CD 81-140-2800 SI-597-98 NCR M82-00079 . TBX-RCRIRI-01
! CD 81-100-5700 SI-0538-14 c . 2323 CSDS 4E14 CE 81-021-5700 SI-0688-06 L. CPI 4FATCS-0 ME 82-2207-5500 SI-0589-03 {'. TCX RCESSG-01
. .ia ME 81-2118-5500 10. No bridge - turbine
-'# CE-81-018-3700 / deck restraint
, CE-81-43-3700 1 1. W1354E35 restraint l~
CD-81-119-5500 1 . T-00-052 CD-82-166-2800 . I 350 CPI 4FATCS RI-82-775-0200 %. RBI-864 CD-82-168-2800 1;5. Steam generator ME-81-2158-7400 main supports CD-81-116-5500 CD-81-105-2800 CD-81-149-4900 CD-82-172-7300 CD-82-164-5500 CE-81-34-4900 ME-80-201C-4000 CD-81-111-5700 CE-81-51-3400 CD-81-144-3700 l l 1 I i i
- ~ _
r
, ' yiM@:2&SWf+r ::-Mtf]yht;%: R2Elah5)il;..:.ex.:._al.,a i:y y: ...
- 9.
References:
- 1. Fitting & Welding 2. Torque ,
I Travelers Drawings Travelers Other CE-81-39-3400 MSB-0688-006 ME-82-2206-550 2323-SI-0666 CE-81-022-4900 MRB-0538-014 ME-82-2208-5500 Dwg. MSB-0680 MRW CE-81-50-3400 MSB-0688-024 ME-82-2209-5500 Dwg. M-82-0216 CE-81-36-4900 MSB-0688-003 CD-80-010-2902 B&R Inspection Report CE-81-021-5700 MRB-0538-013 CD-80-023-3401 DCA 11817 Rev. O CE-81-018-3700 MSB0688-017 CD-80-029-3401 DCA 11817 Rev. CE-81-34-4900 MSB-0688-001 CD-80-02703401 TUGC0 QI-QP-11.14-1 Rev. 2 CE-81-51-3400 MSB-0688-025 CD-80-061-5700 Torque Wrench Information MSB-0688-012 CD-80-068-5700 DCA 15028 CD-80-078-5700 AISC Specification for CE-81-002-2800 A490 Bolts J CE-81-116-5500
- 3. Whip Restraints 4. Reactor Head NCR M82-00112 a. ME-82-2203-5500.
CBI contract 82105 v % b. NCR M-3182. Drawings 345, 346, 458 N c. Westinghouse Procedure MP 2.7.1/TBX-1.
- d. ME-82-2263-5500.
- e. Westinghouse Dwg.
' 1219E49 - Sht. 1 & 2.
- f. ME-79-389-5500,
- g. ME-79-214-5505.
- 5. Travelers
- a. CD-81-116-5500.
- b. CD-82-208-5500.
.J c. CD-83-293-5500.
- d. CD-81-119-5500,
- e. CD-82-216-5500.
- f. CD-81-110-5500.
- g. CD-83-294-5500, m
U
l
-~ %%ly MsD2Mw3&fggpu+ 6:Qids: , -QQQ.3 _,j_' .
, /
- 21 4
- 10. This statement prepared by:
J. Devers Date
, . TRT Technical Reviewer V. Ferrarini Date TRT Technical Reviewer R. Hubbard Date .; TRT Technical Reviewer Reviewed by:
L. Shao Date Group Leader 1 Approved by: V. Noonan Date Project Director o
\
f WM . . , ,,
, .;xOrrw.<.awetsmn '+ Me " X i ~ - wl.& =r u..&LMiau.nw.w: , ~ , ,
The TRT had begun its review of the 70 items (and had completed a review j
- of six items) when a second meeting was held with the alleger. During l
i ~ i the meeting the alleger provided a new list of 63 items which he identi-fied as the most important of all the items from the five log books. The alleger stated, in fact, the rest of them were possible minor defects that you would normally find in a typical construction project such as Conanche Peak. The new listing was a mixture of items from the original list of 70 plus some new items. The 63 items are listed in the Attach-ments section of this SSER.
."4 stopped work on the first list and concentrated its attention on the 63 "most important" it 3 ta3 The TRT found that the n items could be separated into four general groups
=.
- fitup and welding, torque, equipment and miscellaneous.
The TRT chose to review the total item list by a sampling process. A sample size of 25% of the item list was chosen as representing a reason-able approach to detemining the validity of the total allegation. The following table shows the results of the sample broken down into groups. Column (1) lists the items that had been completed from the first list. Column (2) lists the items reviewed from the list of 63, and Column (3) is the sum of Columns (1) and (2). Column (4) shows the numerical breakdown of the 63 items by group. Column (5) represents the numberofitemsina25%sampleofColumn(4). l F0n-85-59 gzes
,--- m . - . - - m -- - -. -
i l 2
; +f4E6Wll4RM=# hbM. *nkd u;a ;w);&.Mk::L i f Q l g f q fi j g & N i'i s ? 9 ->
l ATA$N2dL!G%':% ix _ ~-Thx._'? ? ' hM W & ':a Q. - M j t Group MMMMM Fitup & i l Welding 3 6 9 37 9 I
! Torque 0 2 2 5 2 I
Equipment 0 3 3 10 3 l Misc. 3 5 8 10 3 6 16 22 63 17 F1 tup and Welding Group: momeur g,,,,,7,ug,com,mp y gup p S
, The TRT reviewed nine d identified by drawing or traceable number. The alleger had indicated that welding or fitup problems would be associated with the related structures. The TRT examined the related drawings and detemined that the primary fitup and welding on the structures consisted of tee joints wou$r* PLkW
; with the end of one plate butted abe4wrt the surface of another ithtsee e or double fillet weld or a one-sided full penetration weld was
$P r-ort TH6 specified on tha drawings. It was difficult Trtr to visunLuf to detemine if a weld joint was a
correctly fitup after the weld was completed. Where the plates were welded from one side (either fillet or full fusion), it was possible for the TRT to visually examine the opposite side; however, when fillet welds were applied to both sides and to the ends of the plate junctions, the fit was not visible. The TRT visually examined the nine structures. The B&R level III inspector accompanied the TRT in reviewing six of the units. The TRT found that it l was possible to view the backside of some of the welds on six of the nine i supports. In five cases no gaps appeared. The sixth support, however, I showed a gap estimated to be 1/16-inch high for about 3 inches along the I seam, and 1/8-inch deep. Paragraph 3.10.1 of B&R prccedure CP-CPM-6.90
! states that the fitup gap for T joints should not exceed 1/16-inch. The TRT determined the gap in the structure was not significant.
~~
~
a:MidERh%'Ms4WG-nWN.:MM%:MME:s5R*i$4St$2.QWsi%W?Nl i
'i The TRT requested the assistance of a B&R level III ultrasonic testing (UT) i supervisor in determining if a UT procedure could be devised to show if a gap l
j existed .between the plates that had been welded and the weld seam that was covered with weld metal. The supervisor attempted to perfect such a test but was unsuccessful because of a lack of clarity of the signal.
& LL Gt L c. 6 'T" g) , 6- L. o S (2.4-vt sw 6 c 6Y rt+4 T % ~ 1%4r'd*rL00 TO 8 6- A-CC69 T'M3 L&,
To tt-q> ue. Gree v p
.i
$ bo L'r Ti.>d- @ OrD 6 O 10 N Mt. cst 2 4, t 98 2 , 7g6 94 t L% dsf- w t TWI GD A- 6 0 f. T 6 ILt!H4-4 su H IL6 ~ 6 6-< N & rt to bor Lon)54 .
Al CY'7 Yv1 &2 -00 21Go c)) n-$ p t.c 4)os as c c v o c o v e n t.
'r' tS(? 100 U ~ Ce o FotW,4sutdr, TN & oG-LL6-(r 647- Ct.-t4-t nA L'C 71+1W~ bJo S PclC t F' C M \/ ALU 6-$ tu 612.6 oWA I L 44 L6- tRCYl. cvt6u)S i-C 0S& u , wr L & 7 o rz, qui y g A-~ W o p i4 g S 7-d.&u) 6 rst 60 c 7-C ,
~
yl The TRT found that B&R structural steel erection procedure CCP-22 is i 1 the controlling document for bolt tightening. Revisions 0 (3/12/76), 1 (12/7/81), and 2 (1/21/82) provided two methods for the tightening of A-490 bolts.
- 1. Turn of the nut. The procedure specified a predetennined rotation of the nut after a snug fit condition was obtained.
The amount of turn was shown in Attachment 1 of the procedure I and was identical to Table 4 of the American Institute of Steel I I Construction Specification, " Structural Joints Using ASTM A-325 l or A-490 Bolts," Seventh Edition.
i , d<,:~
%dQ ll}y 6 :? Ti& & % +b h. k~.& sa a.Qa.-
- k ;: : ? ,, ,- .
- p.#!Eilj.,65$jQ 5d y g g & &i%,4+
> :;;_ ' a::<.:w .
M i: h
~:. n =-M 4 6 -
Tf
- 2. Calibrated wrench (Skidmore). The procedure specified the use of an impact wrench adjusted to values listed in Table 2 of the procedure. A bolt-tension calibrator was required to adjust the impact wrench to the required tension.
The turn of nut method for tensioning A-490 bolts was used for work perfomed under procedure CCP-22, Rev. O to Rev. 3. The calibrated wrench tightening method was never used in its origirial form. According to the AISC specification, bolts torqued to the turn of the nut i values in AISC Table 4 will result in tension values shown in AISC Table
- 3. The values represent 70% of the specified minimum tensile strength of the bolts.
On June 28, 1981 and October 21, 1981, tests were run to detemine the torque values being obtained from the turn of the nut method. The torquing crew was subsequently required to record the amount of torque as each bolt was tightened A5 A. (Zege oW- T58+ WM dM W# h ocT-cst. rnw u o r- a vzo ys Tusc osceoe.o ro rov 2.Gv6 4.u- 4'440 <3oc.7-5 w i r 6 c m ts e 70 r2 Qus- w rzevoc.c+ (2 A t r M +f- TT4
- v v56 T#&
Tv rtN of- T1+& ^>U T M G 'n4-o o, OC A- t T c) 2. 8 tP h-S t.S S u 0-0 06) O 62. I, I Tb2- LJ $ T't AJG 7W-6 M95 6) Gu) T'D(2 9 u 6- \/ A L. u G-$ , l t
9 SeaWF:hf.tfGi@WWWasum.6M9.ight.;;i;TydfLL?p$@&it)RQ6?n?W-er - Yi Revision 3 of procedure CCP-22 dated July 4, 1983 incorporated the new I
- torque values.
i A program was established by B&R to retorque all A-490 bolts to the new j values. The TRT reviewed a general traveler fann that was prepared to document the completion of the retorquing on each assembly. The TRT also observed several completed travelers which were attached to the original whip restraint traveler. __ _ _ . T'us- T~r22~ n+n5 o&rcast iA> &c rvAr, Ar Tus rin15 TM (botT (bita v-6, ry 6 T~u rt*> W YN 6 Al uT' W16-T*> 0 wA$ 65 t M (o a s &c 70 716ttre*2 A V 46 (30 c rs r#US 3 T1M l1-l. c.CCG kVIO A t)J A-8 S O'5S T'6tn>Ti AJr*C e T!+C- W y*Gouo6 ~19A-T' TH6 I W ()lIC & U T S S u 6 s gap u 6 v l~ r4 49 o () r2cco (CA++\ TO T l G N - Ws AJ &M) W MHpnte. (set,r3
, @d rf.d- 7012905 eyt 5 rw(, p.c;qo gos.rf rc Tfv'& OC/9 /602.8 t/4t u68 / /t e v t / d d g/ 6 +t./ A f W d A J yy./%;r- yhtf- &/ K Sfdetff CM/dM) /6spu/M.6*fWS Jh4f) 196&tV / 116-n B. Breakaway Torque: The alleger ind'ii:ated'that there was a problem with the travelers associated with the Reactor Coolant (RC) pumps and motors. This problem related to the measurement of breakaway torque. The TRT reviewed, in detail, traveler ME-2207-5500 for RC pump TBX-RCPCPX-02, which was contained in the alleger's second list. The TRT also reviewed the travelers for the remaining three RC pumps.
l
- The purpose of the travelers was to measure both the breakaway l
l t torque and the torque required to sustain motion. These torque l 0
a+:wa _ := .:w_.. n.- -
's~
- ein = cu.2:c;er.sa y;.s_. .
. I4 values, as stated on the referenced travelers, must be less than 750 i I
- ft-lbs for breakaway and 250 ft-lbs to sustain motion. The TRT l
found nothing inappropriate in the four travelers reviewed. In fact, the opposite was true, as the travelers were all very clear i t with precise instructions relating to torquing. All the proper l construction and QA/QC signoffs were present. On pump 1, the l maximum torque for breakaway was 225 ft-lbs and the maximum torque to sustain motion was 30 ft-lbs. Pump 1 represented the high values for both breakaway torque and torque to sustain motion. s During the TRT's December 18, 1984 meeting with the alleger he admitted that their was nothing wrong with the torquing perfonned on RC pump travelers. f_3 _ _. 1 6 e o t P1% & W T' G vLo u f .;
$%, p 6- u.su-t9 9 3 y - M *1 T su d-ver M 4 ~
TM A-t.L&404t- suct u o04 F o u st- 06 c um &vr3
~
(o P&AA rteA> Titn u 64 6 R t.o ~ o1 -I I(o -SCoo, */n. Om M
$ l -S9') As>o St-g48 oorve> Cm c co t ? ?l) ca vest.ip G T%d Itu sre LLt%-FloN C '- Tu)O w a cs f-sAAra d seertous of- A Pt96- tu M P R g-stre.nu A>re TN4.- $1 c.t 4G crt. Oro A)o T $Mct es y tp Hs'r H.: $ cooc6 toS u. sert &
u ) s T M & & 6 M r> S T D 't1M- pocom en.ir-S , $) 6.wA+< o u I v4 qst 6- 0o cum WS T'H-6 TK T (bu seio 'rl+A T- fr-r i T14& 7 M c- o & F- t T v P ri++ 6 St+m f-c+w& 6-3 I
; Los-e e var suu rua- so+m d- fws . Tue- Trrr 1
(l.&vs dw06 7%& po LL.eas iN 0 lb c vo+tes'T1%r's W l i l w - - -
# #- M is#;%r.WhC >P2$y5-% dig n;ul w a a f?h -' M 1M GreR+?;. 6 4 M ,1&Lys h n a ,a ;,..__
l . y9 . b ris.uuren to M sus-w una es nsa- we, s-s . A) C @, y b 1 -c?c) t L 7, eu FM c44 Lt s T6 C Tus- ce ris.tc3 0 f- T>& rn 45M Arc,44r t to 01 CAT &C W sA) M L 6 & o l 0N& E-N o o f- TFM?- 60 W FLos<vG & cria t co ol'010 i { v$ 6VGMJ 4)! TW T&C I4-0 7 & c. & AsT' tccessv6s M i
; o T54d10' ESud o (- TrJo- do rr M pc4s4a w 4f TwarTeo AffitU i M M5" 8 N C N. pe,v0 T'L4- TO P ft 14 M G & .; p40 ,4 m a s m A.rc 4 oe 73 i t scia. to V4 r,veu e (TS Cat et e te vote r. 7s ! f-c 4 ns s a lev 1scuecT m oo t tH LArt*N e.t6-fL9(cmc.)CetT"71 sp A-1 puu pos as.o o st Q&c I L, I 9 S t 70 co+n H & 6 rr4 C- u.s & c 0 Oc-Tk s t. Foto m A Oo o sc6 ($ & v d <- Tv A St N GL&
I i 464 & . 6 Acwe go.rt.s w d rth $P&cooHec TD Acnteve Fu Lt. +1&Go #6-M & rtz A-vI o no. 966 tc, e) CMav G 6- A<JTw.o,c r SA-rroa (Oc.4) /22C 5' v hS ISSu GD ON f&G 2)o, 19 B'1- A N o S f&c. Ft & T H 4 1~ YM4~ 96 Ac Auf 6MS $ 4v LA r$& I M t-s n 61L W L'f Tsal S T&O To tt6 F;t &T on TH 6- 5 d i+-es A b) 0 ('g o VI 0 6 7 H. 6 co R(Z6c-r W d' O 6+S6 A) C(L rti oo t i 2. eua s ecos en ovv v4-pre.4 c. 2. , i 9 8 t-or so l TM- T'14 6 fot LowrNG Ct S905 t rt otu : 'rN 4- ptzo P>.
, A&Vl SIoN o (- T'I4 6 012 MNt no4 W e t l. t>6- A opC1) 70 74Hf 1
_l 94.C446&. TH d' Tws 5 T' 6tV O COA) TOVrf- o10 T~t+6 i j (3 4. cit. N4 STrZ l 4 I$ A.o c 6-9 r,4 6 c 6 70 US 6- /13 iS, t
&Md 7'N'I d A C ACl fU6 6 T'tZ l F 141f.-TM M> 64 O / N 67 i
I i
. - - ~ - e -- - , _ , . - -
iNnWBg$$hyy?{i-afFC.%yA49:Qt21.-23EiRQglN*.Q'-}KF+%i(;
- Y1 i
I {
"f3HF Ft ttST SI O&, ei etiou o To cc e4*v rys&su \
/> W O us&Go Tl46 $&c ott o St 06, fgving ,4 I
i - 5m oo Mw- Tr6,*vvsits o a ove. 2 z To ( 6 y ,4oo f ,v6 1 A-0 0 I T-to A) A<- tuts 0 rv16116 L so %%) M HI&la-Law I s CO M0t Tlow C+/STS OM Tl+6 R A-uGu d- oF T146 65f+w , l 0Y c 0 8,( --iila - f M 0 eo v64t touts' Tt+4- oPr.H2 o4-rto ou w A -S c.o M PL 6 'rt G e v A ) e V, 2 , I 9 8 2. gg>+w ap(M Yn& T~tfT vt5o 9 ryd- u.sse.oM (.o mu G e-rr oN /M/o fo u rv o rH4:r Tud- SWru% 499 &&std<vcA S su d-sC6- a c e u f orew 4 ,v c.4- ast T1w-Tl44- C M C , OC/1 os,00 D W *UA5o B. Reactor top closure head: The alleger contended that undocumented l repair work was performed on the reactor top closure head. 1 The TRT reviewed Westinghouse drawing 1219E-49 and found that a number of vendor-installed penetrations extend through the reactor vessel closure head. Tubular thennal sleeves have been inserted into 57 of the penetrations and control rod drive mechanisms will be ( installed in the thennal sleeves at a later date. Housings and t sleeves were installed in 1979 under traveler ME-79-214-5505. Four l 6 i 1 l f
R R o2 M F % k W 4 9 % : M k ia % k A M % ;.2 p vi:Mf?bsi% % Q4Z52$d? @ iS?in M W % " "
. .. Et so
-c.
?
housings were installed around the periphery of the head. The bottom of the thermal sleeves and housings received a screwed, coned plate held in place by a welded locking pin. The thermal sleeves
~ were supported by a mechanical shoulder and were loosely fitted into the penetration.
i The alleger claims that, in the spring of 1982 during the time he was working on modifications to housings 74 and 75, he witnessed undocumented repair work being performed on several " control rod drives." Further discussion with the alleger revealed that the
" control rods," referred to in the disposition, actually were the thennal sleeves. Although the alleger did not see the damage occur, he believes it happened during a trial fitup of the head to the top of the reactor vessel.
Hod 4 was The TRT reviewed the asesmeedes which wome performed on the head during the time period stated by the alleger. The TRT found that both the thermal sleeves with guides and the housings with guides were in place, having been installed in 1979. The only other work perfonned which required activities under the head were those associated with the addition of the RVLMS system. On March 26, 1982, two heated junction thermocouple probes were installed in penetration 63 and 65 as part of the addition of the reactor vessel level measurement system (RVLMS). Traveler ME-82-2563-5500 covered i the work. The work was done by Brown & Root (B&R) personnel to
)
u +weswnwa rw; na.:. 2,mn:.s +4agy;g;&mq.g>fqg y1ggim p :e+ m , - l
. , , ff n
-g.
Westinghouse (E) Procedure MP-2.7.1/TBX-1. Head adapter plugs (HAP) i I j had been previously installed on penetrations 63 and 65. The t modification work consisted of removing the HAP and welding RVLMS 6 l ' flange assemblies to the penetrations. The alleger suggested that the TRT discuss the allegation with two B&R employees who were performing mechanical inspection and quality control inspection on the head during the spring of 1982. One of the employees had left the site. The second employee, still employed by S&R, was unable to provide any infomation on any repair work to ar' the thermal sleeves. He stated he was closely involved in most of the work related to the head and at no time does he recall any damage being done to the thermal sleeves. In addition, the TUGC0 field mechanical engineer who was involved in the installation of the themal sleeves and housings and the later modifications did r.ot know of any repair work to the thermal sleeves. Since any work done on the head and thermal sleeves would have been i under the direction of E, the TRT interviewed the y site resident. The TRT learned that E had an expert on call who was a specialist on reactor internals and who was present during any work being performed on y equipment. The E site representative reviewed the E records and none were found which related to themal sleeve damage and any resulting repairs. l I 6 I. - _ . - _ . - - -
-- - ,._c_. _ . -_ ~ . _ _ _ - , - _ - . -
mwwwm*wMentes**.orAyw4mer %mmW2enMenEy*4tF5grfgqwJrw_;t ;- 1 d , . yt tb
-M.
The TRT reviewed the travelers associated with work which had been completed on the head in early 1982, and found that all documentation appeared to be complete. The TRT detemined that damage could not have occurred to control rod erives at this time, since in 1982 they were still crated and in the warehouse. The bottom of the thermal sleeve guides are located slightly over 37 inches above the head flange surface. The TRT detemined that the head would have to have been dropped or hit at an unusual angle to have suffered the damage suggested by the alleger. If that had been the case, it is likely the overlay machined flange surface would have suffeted sufficient damage to require extensive repairs, but no record of such repairs exists. Sh . The TRT conducted a visual inspection of the thermal sleeves. No
. evidence of any welding, heating or defomation was present.
C. Support beam: It is alleged that the safety injection vertical line restraint support beam has base metal indications. The TRT found l that W identified concerns with these support beams when onsight sandblasting revealed areas of peeling metal. This condition was reported in W field deficiency report (FDR) TBXM-10071, dated l April 7,1981. The FDR stated that metal was removed and blended by i I sandblasting, and that the resulting depth exceeded the maximum depth limit for A588 material of the beam's thickness. The FDR also
! noted numerous areas on the other three beams which exhibited this l peeling condition of indeterminate depth.
I i w- m _ _ a - _ _ _ _ _ _
.iuMe%%Gupna insapw 4 2 M M c;t % % n Q $9$ Q W @ hM % 2f h au '~
O M
, -y.
o The action resulting from the FDR was the return of these beams to the vendor for inspection in accordance with the appropriate material l specification (A588) and for weld repair, if required. The vendor, Teledyne Brown (TB), perfomed two weld repairs on the initial beam and grinding on the other three beams. Westinghouse QC/QA personnel i
! reviewed the repairs, including material certification, MT records, visual inspection records, dimensional inspection, welding personnel qualification certification, and NDE personnel qualification certifi-cation. As a result of their review, W detemined that the beams were in accordance with the A588 and A6 requirements. Westinghouse then re-released the four beams for shipment to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) by Quality Release N-46991 Rev. 3, dated May 28, 1984. The TRT found that the beams were received and y a.ccepted by B&R Quality Assurance and documented on Receiving Inspection Report No. 16771, dated June 4, 1981.
On January 25, 1982, NCR M-82-00079 was written against these beams. This NCR had two concerns: (1) that the beams had linear indications that started at the attachment weld and were from 3-1/2 inches to 3 feet, 6 inches in length, and (2) that the beam dimensions differed from the drawing dimensions. Westinghouse responded to the first part of this NCR with a letter, (WPT-4602), dated May 19, 1982. This letter stated that the NCR was written on the same " roll marks" that were previously detected
1 9yah.npWAi.p.%:emH:y%%C@: r.,Q erwnm~$??M*fi'# 5.:q M y s S : t R G h t u k RQ' $lK M W Q n
.< m~;;LG%<em w ..;wsci me n a n :nx mm . :
<1 q
- yf .
, during site receipt inspection. The letter further stated that I I t
- these " roll marks" were inspected and approved by the shape supplier, Bethlehem Steel, and that roll marks are an industry-j accepted trait of rolled structural members. The letter stated in conclusion that these " roll marks" would not impair the adequacy of l
restraints. The TRT reviewed all the documentation mentioned above, discussed E this allegation with Westinghouse Field Engineers, and reviewed the ASTM specifications for A6 and A588 to detemine if these requirements were met. The TRT found that the second portion of NCR M-82-0079 appeared to be a misinterpretation of the design drawing by the originator of the NCR. It appears that the NCR originator did not realize that a W14 x 233 beam has dimensions of 16 inches in depth and 15-7/8 inches in width, which are the dimensions quoted in the NCR as being nonconfoming. The TRT inspection of the design drawing indicated that beam dimensions of W14 x 233 x 16 feet long were called for and that notes existed on the drawing that called for the field to cut the beam to suit and machine as shown in View H. l The TRT etermin d that t e heat nu e on piec 2 had bee recorded n the mate ia i if a ion lo prio o stallation th refore. l it m st have n hi r o install tion. Howe er, th TRT ve i ied t at heat mber NF was tr ceab e fr the in-plac j tems to the terial suppli r. i l
ci+%#MWiMWf6lMwAtk.yM.Kwh+MW9%tMhn%W5M@nhol22%.%%-Wm ~ n
.l Yi g . .y-Miscellaneous Group A. Material Traceability Three plate heat numbers were shown on the original list of items.
The TRT had completed the review of one heat number at the time the decis, ion was made,.to concentrate efforts on the second list. THe TTlA~ WL0"' 6A YM& C W sR60 'T1C4 T (E6 90If t~~.T Y POW WM O Y 'iM& StJPPLt G12. , ld f $ kn)0 f.o u n> 0 WW O (Lo 64 tw ct 140do SeV6ft44.4. #-,4.<5 r2.i cA4 oo items cut from the same ASTM A36 plate. The plate was originally purchased by BPS from Orgeon Steel Mills and included a report of the chemical and physical tests on the plate. Certificate #7249 dated May 4, 1979 verified these tests and listed the heat number as
~. 204166. NpS changed the heat number to their identification NF1106.
.2 The TRT detennined that four items were cut from the plate by NPS and furnished to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC). The NPS Certificate of Compliance verified that all material met the requirements of NCA-3800 SA36 plate.
L 77.T .; f n;d no uvuumw a ti: 2d =da a w= 16 d~ '- ' :p :tice. ry.f. 112 T' (ht2 Pvt **'4 *d h AWO
- 5. '- , Jfwalkdown inspection, tiussW- found the heat number for pieces 4 and 6 on Support #CC-1-162-723-A43R and for piece 5 on support CC-1-246-020-C33R. The heat number on piece 2, a 9-1/2-inch square plate, for support CT-1-121-001-5225 could not be located.
j An 8-inch pipe was welded directly on the top of the plate, leaving l Very little room for the number. I i l l
. _ . . _m. _ __
ysanwpg.wncemyaxw;;e:.c ;p.aw.m:;;Spg?gyrgmwepwe.ngWev~ , W p Vf
-W-
. The TRT detemined that the heat number on piece 2 had been recorded
': I '
on the material identification log prior to installation; therefore, it must have been visible prior to installation. However, the TRT
. verified that heat number NF1106 was traceable from the in-place items back to the material supplier.
B. DCA and NCR documents: The TRT reviewed the repair / rework items described in NCR M82-00141 and NCR M-82-00296 and in DCA 8875 and
- DCA 12287 which were on the list of the alleger's major concerns. A documentation review indicated that the repair / rework had been properly performed.
DCA 8875 states that, contrary to the requirements that a full penetration weld be made between the stiffeners and the base plate and flange sections, a partial penetration weld was provided on a portion of the seam. To provide the necessary stiffness, eight additional stiffener plates were added. DCA 12287 was issued to add a plate and a stiffener to the base plate when B&R cut off the bottom left anchor bolt of a pipe whip restraint, A senior TUEC support engineer and the TRT visually examine the work performed under the DCAs and found it as shown on the DCA. NCR M-82-00141 stated that a 1/2-inch-diameter arc strike occurred 3 feet off the floor and a grout smear was visible 3-1/2 inches off the floor. The TRT reviewed the resolution of the NCR and found the condition was corrected by removing the arc strike and grout smear and repainting the amaged surfaces. NRC M-82-00296 stated that
, !WMDMM4QQP9W'%)AMAM;Wf.-%%CM %5%*syR@FM:'rhy'eWyFf[ : [ ' [ __
6
~
17
.f.
vendor-supplied whip restraints were found to be in violation of the specifications. Paragraph 6.4 states in part " welded construction shall confonn to AISC Specifications for design, fabrication and i erection of structural steel and AWS D1.1." Resolution of this NCR l required Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) personnel to perfonn repair
; work in accordance with procedures in the CBI QA manual for contract 91936 (35-1195-0578 Change Order No. 2).
In a meeting with the alleger on December 18, 1984, the TRT presented the results of the assessment of the allegations and the TRT's conclusions. A discussion followed. There were no major items of disagreement and no new concerns or allegations were identified. The alleger expressed his satisfaction that his concerns had been addressed.
- 5. Conclusions and Staff Position: The TRT believes that the sampling taken of the 63 "most important" items represents a reasonable overview of the allegers concerns. A number of items that were reviewed may have appeared to the alleger to have been unclosed NCRs or discrepencies which were later resolved in the nonnal QC/QA program. The TRT has reached the following conclusions on the items reviewed:
Fitup and Welding Group: In a review of nine pipe restraints, the TRT found no fitup or welding errors. The TRT concludes, therefore, that I this allegation is unsubstantiated. i l I ( l
r wa.aswynongwcumew-sw. muusm:yg;;-;9.:;;4:q;%eg@;muqq:W % ^ ^~ 5&M== Spa.:re.mry:r ifa'2Maki?lnsMD:=d MT6'tS=W: ha ~ Yf IS
-y.
Torque Group A. . Bolt Torquing: The TRT has determined that at the time the bolt broke, the turn of the nut method was being used to tighten A-490 bolts. This would account for no specific torque values being available to the torqueing crew. The TRT found that tightening of the new A-490 bolts to the specific DCA 15028 values and retorquing in-place A-490 bolts provided verification that the AISC specification requirements had been met. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. B. Breakaway Torque: In a review of the travelers related to breakaway and motion torque, the TRT found nothing inappropriate. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. The alleger also admitted that there was nothing wrong with the torquing performed on the RC pumps. Equipment Group A. Pipe whip restraint: In a review of the documentation associated with the pipe whip restraint member and physical examination of pipe whip restraints, the TRT found nothing to substantiate this allegation. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated.
?{W?Q@iWW**jf""fK':M W@@l&5& & [?'W'@.y ?":'" "L: '
a s4 ti a .ar - B. Reactor top head: In a review of the activities associated with the ( - top head during the period the undocumented repair was to have occurred, the TRT found no record of any improper work. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. C. Support beams: The TRT review of the documentation associated with the support beams showed them to be in accordance with codes and
. specifications. In addition, it appears that the beam dimensions ! mentioned as nonconforming were actually the correct mill sizes.
The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. Miscellaneous Group
- A. Material traceability: The TRT reviewed the material covered by the heat number shown on the alleger's list to determine its traceability, and traced the heat number from the installed support to the original mill plate.
The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is
~
unsubstantiated. B. Other documents: The TRT review of all listed documents shows that the items were issued and/or closed correctly. The TRT concludes, therefore, that this allegation is unsubstantiated. Accordingly, these allegations have neither safety significance nor generic implications.
l W ! 20
- ..g<f.
- 6. Action Recuired: None.
I
- 8. Attachments: List of 63 "most important" items.
Travelers Drawings NCRs & DCAs Misc Eauipment CD 81-102-2800 W1483F13R18866 NCR-M82-00141 TBS RCPCPX-03 reactor CD 81-139-2800 U1554E33 CMC 61771 coolant CE 81-022-4900 SI-595-02 DCA 12042 . Moment restraint CE 81-50-3400 SI-595-04 DCA 8875 Rev.1 836-ft. Safeguard 1 CE 81-36-4900 SI-0538-09 DCA 12287- . R.C. Pump 82-001-141 CE 81-029-5700 SI-0688-23-26 NCR M82-00216 R.C. Pump - Comp.2 RBI CD 80-050-2802 SI-0597-01 NCR M82-00296 TBS RCCSSG-03 CD 81-140-2800 SI-597-98 NCR M82-00079 . TBX-RCRIRI-01 CD 81-100-5700 SI-0538-14 . 2323 CSDS 4E14 CE 81-021-5700 SI-0688-06 r. CPI 4FATCS-0 ME 82-2207-5500 SI-0589-03 r. TCX RCESSG-01 _- _
. No bridge - turbnte ME 81-2118-5500 deck restraint
__.; t CE-81-018-3700 CE-81-43-3700 . W1354E35 restraint CD-81-119-5500 . T-00-052 CD-82-166-2800 . I 350 CPI 4FATCS RI-82-775-0200 . RBI-864 CD-82-168-2800 if.Steamgenerator ME-81-2158-7400 main supports CD-81-116-5500 J CD-81-105-2800 CD-81-149-4900 b CD-82-172-2800 60/ CD-82-164-5500 CE-81-34-4900 ME-80-201C-4000 CD-81-111-5700 CE-81-51-3400 CD-81-144-3700 l l l li
s kSk?N h$f5SES5& USSNdi5k&?5lN$bh$NhkhkNh%%rN$@NS$$~ -f 29 s4
-.ee -
- 9.
References:
- 1. Fitting & Welding 2. Torque -
. I Travelers Drawings Travelers Other CE-81-39-3400 MSB-0688-006 ME-82-2206-550 2323-SI-0666 CE-81-022-4900 MRB-0538-014 ME-82-2208-5500 Dwg. MSB-0680 MRW
.CE-81-50-3400 MSB-0688-024 ME-82-2209-5500 Dwg. M-82-0216 i CE-81-36-4900 MSB-0688-003 CD-80-010-2902 B&R Inspection Report
! CE-81-021-5700 MRB-0538-013 CD-80-023-3401 DCA 11817 Rev. O i CE-81-018-3700 MSB0688-017 CD-80-029-3401 DCA 11817 Rev.
l CE-81-34-4900 MSB-0688-001 CD-80-02703401 TUGC0 QI-QP-11.14-1 Rev. 2 i CE-81-51-3400 MSB-0688-025 CD-80-061-5700 Torque Wrench Information i MSB-0688-012 CD-80-068-5700 DCA 15028 CD-80-078-5700 AISC Specification for CE-81-002-2800 A490 Bolts CE-81-116-5500
- 3. Whip Restraints 4. Reactor Head NCR M82-00112 a. ME-82-2203-5500.
CBI contract 82105 __: b. NCR M-3182. Drawings 345, 346, 458 _3 c. Westinghouse Procedure MP 2.7.1/TBX-1.
- d. ME-82-2263-5500,
- e. Westinghouse Dwg.
1219E49 - Sht. 1 & 2. 7; f. ME-79-389-5500.
- g. ME-79-214-5505.
- 5. Travelers
- a. CD-81-116-5500.
- b. CD-82-208-5500.
- c. CD-83-293-5500.
- d. CD-81-119-5500.
- e. CD-82-216-5500.
- f. CD-81-110-5500.
- g. CD-83-294-5500.
I I _ O
- . . . .. . w : w.. a . - .. ,-,s -
a; +:2.fw',s,$g.,M[GG e _ ~ . . . - l'% 'u +% ': >'
- M s.a.6%%t;,,'nW6M?t* sf9.=.W#*. a.
W=~- WW.. .'
.. p
.. g
-2T e
- 10. This statement prepared by:
( J. Devers Date TRT Technical Reviewer 8 V. Ferrarini Date
! TRT Technical Reviewer 1
R. Hubbard Date TRT Technical Reviewer Reviewed by: L. Shao Date Group Leader Approved by: V. Noonan Date - Project Director l t i i i ! I l l l i.
wegWicy/WGtfR/3S7T ( (- - WF-:M$$Er W M.fK W.WFYR&M QFMA% MJO!W W RW54.] e 5 g .,.,,. 21. 1 g MR. MASTERSON: You don't know the number? [ I h ' Not offhand. I'll provide you that ! 3 later on. I've got fourteen boxes full.of transcripts that I'll have to go through. , l MR MASTERSON: That's all I have. 6 MR. WESSMAN: Is there something else about this 7 we should know or have we pretty well covered the details 8 of what was done wrong on this? Okay. This al'so involved another 7 10 ; nonconformance report I had written while I was at the . II site. This top part of this hanger support coming off the I wall to the support off the floor -- We were there to h *I [ torque it and u_se a hydro torque machine on it to tichten I4 i the bolts in it. To prescribe that, I think it was 13
.
- l ninety-five or a hundred and five thousand PSI -- with 16 l
i y bolts provided by -- I think it was Chicago Bridge and II Iron. May be, Chicago Bridge and Iron rather than PSI ,
! I8 Support. When we went to use the hydro torque on them, I9
__the- bolts broke. One of them shot across the room, i s 20 hit the pressurizer tank in that room and back and forth. l 21
- l And it was at that time, we pulled some similar bolts from l
22
~ the bolt shed at the hanger shop and went and put them on j 1
a torque machine in back of the calibration lab. . Now, g 4 and one 5I of the calibration technicians were present; we used the
. F0 A-85-59 481
--.-,-----p , _ - , . - - - , , , ,
- p$tc.gapsen n::tcvv,? W
- M AW M ?4 DE H F' M E M M N S U dd N Nkb S ES N5N4 j * . . - .
(L 4.6 same similar bolts and pulled them and they broke at l f (2) 2I sixty-five thousand PSI. d It was at that time we discovered 3 l l that only an A325 bolt had ever had any enroue or tensila 4 l value strength set on Comanche Peak. So, the hundreds e 5 of thousands of bolts that had been put in and torqued, 6 had never had a specific torque value set for them to 7 be torqued to, except for the A325. 8 l MR. WESSMAN: Is this an issue that you've previously
; 9 -
given the NRC? Is that in some of the other interview 10 testimony? Yes. It is. And it has never been 12 addressed. ~ khh 13 MR. WESSMAN: I know in our list of concerns, we've 14 got some material on bolts, but I'm not sure whether 15 this is-one we're working on or not. 16 i MR. MASTERSON: Hilti bolts were torqued to lower I
' 17 values __than required because the craft turned the handles
]+ 18 on the wrenches after they received them from the tool 19 crew. and the inspectors only had the click to go by. -
a 20 g MR. WESSMAN: That's a different issue. All right. j 21
, Let's pursue the steel and the bolts for a minute. I
~~
think we need to understand what you're saying there, if you would. And I think for us anyway, it () 24 may be a new issue, so we need to understand what you're saying.
, .. - ,. w . a . - - - -. , ; . . , ..+. s 8
.,.:r. - :.~-_>< ~ & ~ '*_t' & % d M W ; W S b; % ! &
- 5 ~ ^ " "
1 :
?L.
All right. Let rne see how I can h ~ put it into flat terms. Upon discovery of the bolts-3 that were in there breaking, they were elongating -- '
-1
. MR. MASTERSON: Do you know what the bolt material 5
was on this bolt? 6 7 It was written ork the NCR. I don't know offhand. 8 MR. SHAO: It was a high strength material? 9 S . It was a high strength material. 10 F So, we're talking about -- I believe it was an inch, inch ; 11 and a quarter diameter bolt. And these were about six 12 inches long. And upon discovering these. bolts elongating 9 13 and breaking; I took it to quality assurance engineer, I in the QC lab, and we went 15 % - to the engineering staff -- C.B.&I. w&s also present when 1 we retorqued them, and they did break even in the test I
- 17 dam. Research showed that no torque value or tensile ,
i 18 5 strength value for torquing any bolts on Comanche Peak has 19 ever been established prior to that time, except for one 20 g type of bolt, and that was a A325; and none of the othe_r
- 21 s
a bolts -- none of the other hilti bolts -- none of the
'2 documentation -- none of the procedures reflected any
'3
~ A' 5C-l torque value. We could go to the ASCIc book and look
~
M ! h it up, but there was never nothing put in writino at 5 Comanche Peak, so all the bolts for hangers, for mechanical !
Y, ..~ . 24. 1l 8 equipment -- everything else that went out. They said_, Q , ,
~
"Well, we're going to torque these two hundred," and there 3
was never any engineer input into it as to what the pounds 4 1 j- per square inch or KSI would be for these specific bolts. l l MR. SHAO: Essentially, if you summarize what 6 you're saying is: All these bolts have no specific torque _ 7 value. s 8 i 'l fj . Correct. e 9
- e . , MR. MASTERSON: What value were you trying to torque i
10 those bolts in? - II These, I believe, it was to ninety-( 8 4 to~ five thousand,__ i { h 3 *2 j MR. MASTERSON: Where are you talking about?.
' l L i I
I4 l . MR. WESSMAN: You're talking about the bolts on 15
] the big hanger? ?
y 16 On the big hanger in the pressurizer
. f*"
, I I7 tank room.
I ;, ! I8 MR. MASTERSON: Where did that number come from? J . l I9 Is that in a specification somewhere? I 20 No. This is just what they said, 4 j 21 "Well, this size normally runs such and such._" g i 22 i MR. MASTERSON: Do you know whether that's written i j 23 down anywhere?_ 24 It wasn't written down. 25 MR. SHAO: In'your mind, it's ninety-five thousand?
* ' ;p . +.n.:. . - < ;+: 3:sdSSOEWWN0'AY W ~ '
/ ..
LP I 21,,
.This is what the work said -- is l O- 2
-whe,e 1 got it hecause there w,s nothin, on the decu.ment _ 1 3
tion in writing that I was supposed to sign off. All I 4 I was verifyino was that they i V used the hydro torque machine ' 5 . on it and that thev were torqued and that they were 6 supposed to put paint on it. And all I did was report 7 what the hydro torque machine value stooped at. 8 , MR. WESSMAN: Are there specific examples of bolts 9 that are deficient or do we have e:$ough from what he's 10 _ describing that we could go either make a sampling of bolts . 11 or make a sampling of data, concerning bolts? 12 MR. SHAO: He e-- said hundreds of thousands of bolts have h 13 no specific torque value, so we can check them. 14 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. You have enough, so you know , 15 how you can pursue it, then? 16 MR. SHAO: i Yes.
! 17 Two other people you can check with
] 18 would be Those are two people 19 that were direct supervisors above me. And also, 20 s
21 MR. WESSMAN: 1 r Are these individuals out at the site 22 now? 23 To my knowledge. Yes. Q 24 MR. MASTERSON: is, I know. 25 MR. WESSMAN: Let's go off the record for a minute.
- - - , - , * - _ _ , _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _- _ _ . - _ _ - _ .-,,-y,y ,_,,,,,-.--___-.-----y, . - - - - - -
. g. . . . p..<=-n.. ; . . . n.
? - . ..
+ l[ , * = ~ ~ &f. . n
.j'. 'p.iy. ?.Q.n' *
; '. ; . ' "_,3 . i. ..: .~. .peN.:..
snr:<% . N cuj b m . A . m ,____, _ I ,- I t}y ou,g.h their,. - . .. -
' MR; MASTI:RSON:
"Again, in the case where we're just 2 , -
I'
-given a' drawing number,'we assume that it's a welding 3
problem.. ,
), .- .
;.I, . .
. l. ..
' . bi -
ider--on .th'eWight . hand:' hcolum:i -.
, . of page 2',is.what .r: cons
. - ; ~ .*.
' 6 . .s .; ': ><y .' .+
^
.a. v . : .;. :....-' .J.
y,.. .
..t ,
. p . c. *; ,. ~.s.. . . * , .
*. .4 , ,
^ , ,
T. hi. s "particular' . 1
- side. '.it ,'says. ..equipm.ent,. .that 1. ,' ' .!la.
,e '.'. t.st - :. t'~itiim.9.:. ". .
* . .. *. .~
7 .a ..
."!*;.~
.~m....'
.' *. .. .'..... . Q . !.3 : . . _ . . .
hitem is a? repair .to.**the' reactor. headw ~itself." p.e..M. ,
~
. ?
i . .r.o . .'..','*.y4. e,.. .*s;-
~; 8 . ' , *.. +
c
..i, .. e st- . , . ., ' . .
.e
'e . . T L *. * . :
..MR. WESSMAN: Is'.t.his 'an, item ,that you consider' par .-
9 - 10 ticularly significant on your list? ff;n.g 11 d,and 12 and 75 were repnired, and I verified that repaire this was to a Westinghouse-furnished reactor. 3'A (' Gl j - 13 , y W N 5 n thefe 14
~
- mEU ~ M r D r ~~ C - _ - - -
$%MM' -
15 16 r ' ~ '~ ~ " Y R Ty Y '"l'"E~:naTr ,9a B --- - . ,,u MC r.w M . .. ..51 ,. w -. i
._ .= ,- ww , . m. . w ,.. - + w_ =m - - .-- .
m ..- -- m _- I, 17 - .
#9IE~dhCfmtbQ .M m ri y4:n_ut-i-t _togther9__yd_:=ugi new a.o n.c y e e.c h w a n.e. 0, t l ; 18
-y ^ ._ %gQ .u.ggy=.iC7wg";4QMKE7g
~
m ..; g9 _- _ ~ . l w __ - u esh. Ther.e are the.only two'.t' hat I kno .<
+
f ! 20 . j . . ,
~
of that was ever being documented as repaired, but I t
,, I
- g s nally witnessed repairs to a half dozen others, and .
22 .
- t. hey were never documented. _ .. .
- ,,3
'And to your knowledge, there are others-
,' MR..WESSMAN:'
24 d never there were a half'do:en others that' were F' repaired f,'\ an
,, a, ,
~
"M - '
~ ~
tlzis-l
documented. ,,
, , , , C No d cu.entation ever made on them fren.
[-' 2 . either Westinghouse, Texas Utilities or Brown and Root.- \ 3 MR. WESSMAN: Do you recall a time frame that all of 4 -
~! g this was going on?: . ,
f 5 . awhile.I was dating
.I don' t.. ,
6 ,. 4
'my" log books,'and this particular' '-: -
case'was'not, but the 7 .. v1 , , ,, repairs to 74 and .75 will. put you;in : the same general tine c. S . . . .. .. ... ,.. ,, frame. f,. 9 , Are you saying most of these repairs 3 -10 MR WE.SSMAN: 1 33 occurred in '747 o, in the same time frame as control _ 12 t i 1, rod 78
- h l MR. WESSMAN:
I'm sorry. 34 , This included putting new dowel pins in,.' g - . f
' welding.
16 i MR. WESSMAN: Are there other issues on the list that.
, 3 y u would consider particularly significant?
i IS Well, I think this one that we wrote on gg the back of your page--you called it page 6--on reacter
! 20 f
building one, the steam generator main supports; they were i* Westinghouse-supplied. Are these the upper and lower-- MR. MASTERSON:
,,O
' e M' -
Upper and lower-- MR. MASTERSON:
--lateral restraints? .
~
S
- . - . _ _ _ , , . , , . - . _ - _ _ . _ _ . - . , ,._m-_
..#.u.=m__.._____,._...._._____.,_..._.
E i D ; .2 Cd , , ,. I; ,
. . . . 1 L ,; s :-- v .. _ a.. ~ . .
W : , i C$t6ID _l L o'4Arw:.. c, - a i l;;
=-
8 I g
, - t ,
l.(,. y g _ q a j gAX -s s j 'N s *e l ;i i,I. 8
- c.
m u. o >omtL .= w :s e
,; =lI a ].
.; o o , s
- I
- 3
- ., 'l/
o i
.f r , ~~ c, v - -
(a
' 'j . .ve
- EE Ie
[C-* f * ~ t
, ., , e .,,
/ sc=::.
c . , ., ,, . N ,g
'___. _l # ttr
___ y i
- i_ . . _
( x- 97 x T
.\
A
@y r>
'l Ns n,. %
.1 $c q 0 L n.
4 _ _ _ . ____ .a
,- .2 1.
m a s
}d2 W _..
cr ni.- b--3 o w a O. g-a . il o: a - _g 3
-l>- <
=; "%.-
11 a; 5 .
>-- - < >--< >---< n p \ s W h 3e
, J ,rr -
p as as [ {
, ? hk 50 " N l Nd J _
o C res so ~ - Gk l4,k'
- ---- .- ,-4 E4 _
q ,- --- --
.-..-- ---- osj g, ,
r,..- g, --e
-.,, {- gg
-v j
p _,,- -r -..- L 2 1.s --.- r .
--.- 9 .
___J A!
$g
-..r -
/
,P . r..0_C .
",m""
"P "n9"
-ver j k_ r1*, g,,, g g .
~g>.
f \
- b. *, {b. > . ' h *4 '
G. l _
--. :"C . r. ' :: r , b.:: f., ,, b 9 M l' .
l ._ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _}}