ML20199H789
Text
-
.~.- -.-.
....~.
9 4
v
/
'o UNITED STATES A - /, A - 2., d - f-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
e.:
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
%*****/
MAR 13 1985 Dncket No.:
50-445/446
-1 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vincent S. Noonan, Director l
Comanche Peak Project FROM:
Chet Poslusny, Project Coordinator Comanche Peak Technical l
Review Team FEEDBACKREPORTTOALLEGERSA-1,A-f,&A-S
SUBJECT:
On November 27, 1984, the TRT held a feedback interview with allegers A-1, A-2, and A-5.
The TRT members were Richard Wessman (presiding),
Shou Heu, Robert Hubbard, Robert Masterson, Herbert Livermore, Dean Summers, Vernon Watson, and Victor Wenczel. The TRT had some difficulty in setting up this interview in a timely manner because of the unavailability of the allegers. The TRT members presented their investigative results on the follcwing issues.
1.
AOP-1 and A0H These concerns are related to a pipe piece nurrber change, and the intent of NCR writings and the way the NCR was dispositioned. The TRT reviewers found the piece of pipe in question was documented correctly, and there was no attempt to hide the unauthorized work, NCR stated "Use as is, based on acceptable fit-up inspection results." The alleger's concern could not be substantiated.
2.
A0W This concern is related to undocumented weld repairs. The TRT reviewer found the NCRs did properly document what the correct acceptance criteria should have been; therefore, they were not misleading. Sufficient documentation was available to determine the acceptance criteria and the final configuration. Although the welds were complicated, cumbersome, and time consuming for construction and QC, they ended up correctly done in the right place. The TRT reviewer felt the quality control and documentation controls were effective. Alleger's concern could not be substantiated.
3.
AP-15 and AP These concerns relate to a piece of nonconforming pipe that was 0.5 inch out of round being installed in a containment spray system. The TRT reviewers investigated the associated NCRs, buttering of pipe ends,
+
roundness, and welds. They found the ASME Code allowed this kind of pipe repair, and there were no safety effects. The NCR disposition was that the pipe repair was acceptable for use, and set up and a proper fit was achieved by mechanical
)
means (jacking). The alleger's concern could not be substantiated.
!!G C t F01A-85-59a y,
w, s' t
_w 22.
__u
_ ;_. 2 s
l MAR I 3 1985 1
-1 1
i 4.
AQW This concern relates to welds that were undersized.
The TRT misinterpreted the allegation. The allegation is that
.i it is wrong to build up a weld in a single pass, i.e., from a i
0.125-inch weld to a 0.625-inch weld in one pass. The alleger i
knows of an exact location in the plant of such a weld. The TRT will investigate this allegation further.
5.
AQW This concern relates to a safety-related weld being made that should have required a FWT hold point (a QC hold point for inspection of the weld). TRT reviewer, Chuck Richards, was sick, and Paul Chen presented the TRT's investigative results. Chen did not have the detailed facts concerning Richard's work; therefore, he could not answer the allegers' questions to their satisfaction.
Note:
At this point, Alleger A-5 suggested to the TRT Chairman that the TRT may be wasting the allegers' time, i
6.
A0-15 and A0 These concerns are that final design
+
drawings were altered and isometrics were not design
{
verified. TRT found 1007, design verification was performed by Brown and Root under the direction of Gibb and Hill. The TRT i
was not able to substantiate the allegations.
7.
A0-21, AQ-22, and A0-119 - The concerns are that vendor certifieo drawings (VCD) have numerous dimensional errors, and VCDs have been invalidated by revisions that inappropriately reflect the as-built conditions of the plant. The TRT reviewer found all modifications affecting the VCD are t
certiiiied by the vendor. The procedures were reviewed and appeared to be adequate. The certification is not done at fabrication but at installation. After installation, the as-built certification is started.
Every time a change is made after that, the vendor is supposed to recertify the t
change. The TRT found some problems with the installed equipment, and they are still investigating the as-built program. TUEC's vendor system for analyzing and verifying l
certified drawings meets the FSALR and NRC requirements. The l
TRT could not substantiate the allegations.
j t
AQ This concern related to inadequate staffing of DCC j
8.
satellites. The TRT found the level of satellite staffing is l
adjusted based upon the construction activities. The TRT found the satellite process documentation packages in a timely matter during their samplin'. The packages were complete, up i
g e
to date, and accurate. Based upon their assessment, staffing l
~~
practices appeared to be satisfactory. The TRT was unable to t
substantiate this allegation.
9.
AQ This concern relates to lost documents and other design change documents being deleted from the computer. The TRTreviewerfoundsupersededdocuments(CMCsandDCAs)are t
. - +,. _ _ _ _ _.
.w,
' = wL~-.
- . -.-- L _.--.- _ n.w LL. A u -.
i c..
{j / e %q jo,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g l 3 p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MAR 1 3 lggS i Docket No.: 50-445/446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noo , Director Comanche Pe Project FROM: Chet P usny, Project Coordinator Comanche Peak Technical l Review Team
SUBJECT:
FEEDBACX REPORT TO ALLEGERS A-1, A-2, & A-5 On November 27, 1984, the TRT held a feedback interview with allegers A-1, A-2, and A-5.
The TRT members were Richard Wessman (presiding),
Shou Hou, Robert Hubbard, Robert Masterson, Herbert Livermore, Dean Summers, Vernon Watson, and Victor Wenczel.
The TRT had some difficulty in setting up this interview in a timely manner because of the unavailability of the allegers.
The TRT members presented their investigative results on the following issues.
1 1.
A0p-1 and AQH These concerns are related to a pipe piece number change, and the intent of NCR writings and the way the NCR was dispositioned.
The TRT reviewers found the piece of pipe in question was documented correctly, and there was no attempt to hide the unauthorized work. NCR stated "Use as is, based on acceptable fit-up inspection results." The alleger's concern could not be substantiated.
2.
AQW This concern is related to undocumented weld repairs. The TRT reviewer found the NCRs did properly document what the correct acceptance criteria should have been; therefore, they were not misleading. Sufficient documentation was available to determine the acceptance i
criteria and the final configuration. Although the welds were complicated, cumbersome, and time consuming for construction and QC, they ended up correctly done in the right place. The TRT reviewer felt the quality control and documentation controls were effective. Alleger's concern could not be substantiated, 3.
AP-15 and AP These concerns relate to a piece of l
nonconforming pipe that was 0.5 inch out of round being installed in a containment spray system. The TRT reviewers investigated the associated NCRs, buttering of pipe ends, roundness, and welds. They found the ASME Code allowed this kind of pipe repair, and there were no safety effects. The NCR disposition was that the pipe repair was acceptable for use, and set up and a proper fit was achieved by mechanical means (Jacking). The alleger's concern could not be
~
.u _. _
w. L. - _ ?
/..s
- l. '
'1 Mt 13 Igg 9
i i
eliminated from the computer, but they are maintained in a historical file. The TRT used as a basis for their audit the various computer printouts, including the "all" printout which contains all superseded documents, current and obsolete, whether they have been voided or not. TRT member, Victor Wenczel, presented the investigative results that were actually done by another TRT member who was not present. The TRT could not j
substantiate the allegation. However, the allegers were not i
satisfied with the TRT's conclusions. Saveral allegers' questions, such as how many packages were sampled, could not be answered by the TRT. Also, the TRT reviewer did not know whether all disciplines were sampled.
1
- 10. AQ-16 and AQ These concerns are that the Document Control Center did not maintain an accurate list of design changes, and optional and partial design documents were provided to crafts and inspection personnel. The TRT found that several problems were identified by numerous internal and external audits during the period from August 1981 through April 1984.
J The audits identified recurring nonconformances. Also, the audit showed document control to be incomplete and not in compliance with 10 CFR 50. The TUEC top management initiated corrective action to prevent' recurrence of nonconfomance and d
to start to bring document control into compliance with 10 CFR
- 50. The TRT reviewed operation of both the DCC and its satellites. The TRT is continuing its review of this Concern.
- 11. AQ-100 and AQ-123 - This concern relates to the paper flow groups issuing incomplete design packages when they were first instituted. The TRT review found that procedures in place during the time of this concern permitted partial packages to be issued. They allegers did not agree with the TRT's findings.
At this point, the allegers became very argumentive and questioned the thoroughness of the TRT's investigation of their concerns.
Chairman Wessman terminated the feedback interview at this point. The TRT was not able to present several QA/QC tentative findings because of I
the meeting termination.
)r 4
j Chet Poslusny, roject Coordinator 1
l Comanche Peak Technical Review Team 1
I cc:
D. Eisenhut d
B. Hayes n.1 J. Youngblood D
R. Wessman d
M. Kline Docket Files 50-445/446 1
c s
i.?s N
4
-,n J
-