ML20205Q759

Preliminary Summary of Allegations for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,Units 1 & 2

ML20205Q759
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak, 05000000
Issue date:	08/31/1984
From:	NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20204J134	List: ML20204J131 ML20205Q707 ML20205Q712 ML20205Q715 ML20205Q720 ML20205Q726 ML20205Q731 ML20205Q738 ML20205Q742 ML20205Q747 ML20205Q755 ML20205Q759 ML20205Q763 ML20205Q769 ML20205Q774 ML20205Q779 ML20205Q785 ML20205Q791 ML20205Q795 ML20205Q801 ML20205Q809 ML20205Q816
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606030143
Download: ML20205Q759 (19)

Text

. _ - -

.' '. _ s W

. a l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)

ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION (E&I)

TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM (TRT)

SUMMARY

REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

UNITS 1 AND 2 TEXAS UTILITY ELECTRIC COMPANY (TUEC) e 6

9 AUGUST 31, 1984 j

'dzzps/

g f-r o+ bg ano

~d k ,

bb q Wh.glPf4 Yg N"'

> ~ p v nasa

__m- ..

a sc,,,

'N C ,./y

-~y _ -

.:. . .y : =.-~-~ :::~m =. :. . . .- . . - . ~._ .q :. : - ~~ : . .:: : . . - .

2 . , .. /

i .

1.0 ELECTRICAL AND INSTRL' MENTATION (E&I) TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM (TRT)

SUMMARY

1.1 Scope and' Characterization of Allegations i

j The allegations in the E&I discipline concerned most aspects of f construction' activity including equipment installation, specifications 1

drawings, procedures, personnel training and qualification l

i records, and inspection.

The E&I TRT reviewed 51 allegations; 19 hardware and 32 quality assurance /qualitycontrol(QA/QC@ elated. Also, the TRT reviewed one concern identified by the special review team .(SRT) regarding the overloading of cable trays due to the installation of "thermolag" material.

Most of the hardware and QA/QC-related allegations were general and were characterized as indicated below.

Hardware-Related Allegations. These allegations concerned with:

Loose and improper-sized lugs;

-[heexistenceofcablebuttspliesinpanelswithout authorization, without documentation, or in violation of procedures;

[ableterminationsnotconformingwithdrawings;

[roblemswiththecabletrayseismicsupportsdesignchanges, spacing, and connections to cable trays; feadditionofhighersidestocabletrays; fhe clearance of process pipes from cables in cable trays;

- foose.conduitfittings; 1

l t .

~ :.m':- - .~. _.-. .- . -. % ..__. .--~=_.......- = - ._ m - - ;;,. -....-._.~;.:_;_..._:.-.

2-i 1  :

i j - [able' tray overfill; j

.i

[ ables spliced 'in trays;

]l . [mproper_"c'able dressing;

- jhe violation of the cable separation criteria between separate

! cables, trays, and conduits;

-[heinconsistencybetweentheelectricalerectionspecification and regulatory requirements; and

- jhe nonseismic support installation of field run conduit, drywall

) and. lighting located above the suspended ceiling in the control l

room.

s QA/QC-Related Allegations. These allegations concerned with:

The validity of the generation and disposition of electrical NCRs;

- [lectrical QC inspectors that were inadequately qualified, that received help to pass certification tests, ar.d experience 4- requirements were " pencil whipped";

[evisions to the procedure for post-construction inspection of electrical equipment and raceways made to accommodate numerous problems with loose lighting terminations and to omit requirements;

[he inconsistency of irfrocess inspection procedures with the requirements for installing wire butt splices and equipment separation;

[njustified reducti n of inspections in the procedure for reverification of seismic electrical equipment mountings;

%=.c _:.::::..:: : .' . . :_ p- -: -. : :.~~ _ _ - :: - :- -~ ~ e~. . _ . ::$ .~.y. .~. . -.. ,..- .. ..

1 4 ---

3-l'r[ process electrical inspections per / procedure were not being l conducted; ,'

l - /nspection reports were being written without reinspections; and j - [ack of kraining personnel installing cable tray support's.

.1 1.2 Electrical and Instrumentation TRT Action Plan In order to minimize duplication of effort and to establish an inspection plan that can be easily managed and be flexible enough that can readily accommodate future concerns, the allegations were consolidated by subject into nine separate categories. Whenever an allegaison raised issues cor:raon to various subject categories, it was assigned to all the applicable categories. During the assignment of QA/QC-related allegations to subject categories, a practice was established, whenever specific equipment location information was available, to also allocate the same allegations in the hardware-related categories so a direct inspection of the equipment installation involved will be performed. The nine allegation categories are as follows:

- Electrical cable terminations;

-[lectricalcabletrayandconduitinstallation;

[lectricalequipmentseparatica;

- (ontrol room ceiling fixture supports; ,

' l i

[lectricalnonconformancereport(NCR) activities;

[lectrical QC inspector training and qualifications;

[lectricalcableinstallation; flectricalprocedures;and 4

4 m ..-e + * ,,,y.r._--..

+ --=-+--g;,+y. u*-=* ------.-%.x.~4- , _ ,

e * * * ; ;, g ,, ,

-1 . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..

! i .

[lectricalinspectionreportiinspectionremovalnotices,and l ifrocessinspections. --~~--~._.

m N.

r-__

. The last category comprising of two allegations was deemed more K

' -CC4 9 s appropriate to QA/QC TRT and thus, the E&I TRTg n i i gs)were i

transferred to them and used as an input to the overall programmatic  !

i 04 review ef this subject. f g .

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

Work packages were prepared containing the sourceff documents, and approaches to resolution for each of the nine allegation categories.

In order to establish a base that bounded the general concerns raised by the allegations and to assess whether these concerns had or similar future ones will have generic implications, random samples of installed electrical equipment were taken and the inspection efforts were concentrated in those areas of the plant having the greatest concentration of safety-related electrical equipment; namely, the control room, cable spreading room and certain areas of the safeguards buildings. _ Biased samples were also taken based on specific information obtained from the allegers and from trends found during the TRT review.

The Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Unit I was primarily

/ used as the source for the various documents and construction records required for the review of the concerns and for the inspection cf the installation of the equipment involved. In some cases, the

{ CPSES, Unit 2 was utilized as the source of documentation and the base k f or the inspection of the installation, when some of the installation l

details could not be examined in CPSES, Unit 1 because the installation j was complete g W g the # % 1 t:ger cf e n19tinn-lI r  :

• • • e. .-....,.._:~L.*:

^

v = ~

• v~. . 7_ , - ~_. _-_ _- -. .. .,.yy_..,, ,

_ . .. . .__ : L - . - - - . . . . . -.

i

, ., \

l Daily meetings were held at the team level to assess progress, adjust inspection strategies, and provide a forum for the members f of the team;to interact with each other as a group ime discussing

.l problems and arriving jointly at their resolution. Similar daily j meetings were held at the project level where team leaders inter-acted with each other and with the project director and its staff.

In evaluating the allegations, the E&I TRT utilized various project e.

documents,includingspecifications,engineeringd(awingsandanalysts, Re a. o a WE IV procedures, instructions, tiY inspection reports, and applicable sections of the the Final Safety Analysis Repcrt and regulations pertinent to the allegation or sample selected for inspection. The E&I TRT also reviewed construction records such as design change authorizations, construction work packages, QC inspection reports, nonconformance reports, deficiency logs, lists and reports, and QC inspector training and certification records. In addition, QA/QC, engineering, purchasing, craft, and craft supervision and training ?cs.Jort were interviewed. Direct inspections of the installation of the equipment involved in the allegations was also performed. Moreover, the E&I TRT communicated with selected allegers to clarify allegations to determine whether they have new allegations and to discuss TRT findings.

[ fTheQA/QC-relatedallegationcategorieswerelimitedinscopeto n . s c . e u o r-

f. the electrical and instrumentation - As and the results of the subject category evaluations were utilized as inputs to the overall o

.; programmatic review on these subjects performed by the QA/QC TRT. .

e. _ =._.:-:----.--. .

- . - - . . :.. . ... - = = ..: ,: . = = = = _-

- . - - - . . ( . - -...

1 .

1 w e ,a ,rtt w 6 a rk "

• J

' Therefore, the final resolution of these QA/QC electrica related allegation categories was governed by the results of the overall

/ programmatic review of these subjects. Any adjustments to the con-clusions in the original evaluations resulting from the programmatic Qp reviews were reported in supplemental evaluations, if required.

d <,V % L .

Q k b Electrical and Instrumentation TRT g The electrical and instrumentation TRT was made of seven members who, collectively, represented 140 years of engineering experience, of which 90 years were in the nuclear industry in electrical and instrumentation engineering design, quality assurance and control, inspection, construction, project management and regulatory activities. The team members included two representatives from the j Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation, one frem Region IV office, s% ,' #<

~ l three from a national laboratory, and two frcm consulting firms.

D3 .

l 1.4 Evaluation Results for Electrical and Instrumentation Concerns Details of evaluation results in the electrical and instrumentation discipline are contained in nine supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) one for each subject allegation category. The E&I f findings concerning the SSER for Electrical Inspection Reports, dwoy .

t#snectio"aemove'"t4ces.ee8trirocess especti #s were tre#srerred to the QA/QC TRT for consideration in the overall programmatic review on this subject.

l l

I i

m_.~ _ _ . . _ _ . , _ . ... _

_ . _ _ -- _ _ _ . _ _ . .. _ i _ .

1 l

,l ' Each SSER lists and characterizes all the concerns raised by the l

, {allegationsandthespecialreviewteam. An assessment of the ksafetysignificanceoftheconcernsaswellasthegeneric l

implications of the findings; and the root cause of each situation, as appropriate, were also presented in the SSER. In addition, each I yd u SSER included sections on conclusions and staff positions; actions 4

k-l 1

(!T a~: ._..- :. .... . . :.;_

.2 .~: m ' . ::-- -- .. . . . . . ...... . , , . - - ~ ~ - - - .._--.:--.--~_---

' ~

t - ,

(2) the adequacy of the seismic support system installation for non-i safety-related conduit in other seismic Category I areas of the plant i

! besides the control room.

I .:

! Electrical QC Inspector Trainino/ Qualifications. The allegations contained

in this category concerned with some electrical QC inspectors that were inadequately qualified, that received help to pass certification tests, and experience requirements were " pencil whipped." In assessing these allegations, the TRT examined electrical QC inspector training and certification files, and requirements for testing program, en-the-job training and recertification program. The TRT also conducted interviews with QA/QC

' personnel. The TRT concludes that there is evidence to indicate that the electrical QC inspector qualification program lacks programmatic controls

? which may be indicative that the required level of qualification was e o-t obtained for some electrical QC inspectors. Since the training md cer-A u-tification program is the same for the disciplines (except ASME), the TRT concludes that the deficiencies identified with the electrical QC inspections t

have generic implications to other construction disciplines. The implications

'of the E&I TRT findings was further assessed as part of the overall programmatic review of QC inspector training and qualification and the results of this review was reported in the SSER for QA/QC category on

" Training and Qualification."

? In order to resolve this issue, the TUEC shall accomplish the following actions:

t i

W *t"~~~~~~_*..__ ~v*. ._ _ m

- ~ ~ ~ _ T ~ ~~~ ~ ~'~~' ^=

. -~

__ ' ~ ~L ~~:_~ ~

_e _ _ _._ _ .. _ ._ _ . -- - - -

13 -

i.

Develop a testing program for electrical QC inspectors which optimizes administrative guidelines, procedural requirements and test flexibility to assure that iuitable proficiency is achieved and maintained.

1 .

'i -

Review all the electrical QC inspector training, qualifications and

1' certifications files against the project requirements and provide the

. information in such a form that each requirement is clearly i .

,- shown to have been met by each inspector. If an inspector is found to notmeetthequalificationrequirementpuECshallthenreviewthe records to determine the inspections made by the unqualified individuals and provide a statement on the impact of the deficiencies noted on the

safety of the project.

fTh[(> se ac tions should be cocrdinated as apprcpriate with other actions on the i same subject addressed in the SSER for QA/QC category on " Training and

' \

' Qualification."

l.5 Id Co clusions I

The EAI TRT concludes that electrical and instrumentaticn construction ac ivities at the site were conducted in a controlled manner except for the aforementicned action items which the TRT believes that they I

car be sctisfactorily resolved.

,4 ,

\

6 i

-, e . -

-* w r== e gye ee r* v** r**c * - me

• ep + - ass-4**e* -e** -*--*-- *= * *=- - -- -

N

.. y.

. ML \Mt %

' ^ ~ ~

t#3:TED STATES O'> AMERICA' j NUCLEAR RCrUt.ATORY C0"M S5!0N Before Administrative Judges:

Peter 3. Bloch, Chairman -

Dr. Kenneth A. McCc11cm Dr. 5lal ter li. Jordan Docker. Nos. 50-445

n the :4tter of 50-446

- 95 UT:L: :E5 ELECTR:C COMPANY, E.1AL. (A :lication for Operating L< cense)

.::a mr.e Ped Stn.m. Electric 5:ation, units 1 anc 2) .

.0ctcher 1, 1984 MEMORAN00M (Concerns about Start-up Quality Assurance}

- - r.o. p t r. i o n :;receeding (50-445-OLE and 50 426-OL2), Texas

. ; ' 4 : e ', E'Mirt: C gc ?J r-)

(A? ?IiC3nts) ir.trocuCed evider.CeffCr *he .

I 1

a r;00 3 d i" ?es c h ' r..; the tredibility of Witness E*. The (icensing

?;cer' '-

• he tcmpani ;n proc 9eding then identiflee two di*nesseSi that htd I

i

< -ile:

• c i *. i r c qy anc celled those witnesses for fu rthe r te s t iracny ,

"c ' i v 9 re'* 'n Se?tember 23, 1924, in an g camer! Session. Evidence riiC04ca r' i that 3eision gives the 30ard serious ccncern 30 cut the 3 e c t. a . .- Of Ac cl ic a r,t s ' p rc j r.U- for cu a l i *.y assurance durling its

• • .. r * " : - test'-. n:<vi*'ec. includin; activitias re!!!9d t0 th? Rett Cr

~ -.-

Orcte.* en 5fs '.c-" We il; h3it !!3ff evaluation of *hese g on erns,

.;- t c - we s e '. out t e l ;w , before deciding whether te grant Applitants'

. . . = .=

Since the witness provided testimony to Nuclear h gulatory (c m sucn ie.ves".i;3:crs and has insisteo on r'etaining

, c ' i M. i r .3 ' i t ,, r,p 63- t e s t v.cr.j , ,e gi;; artreleaseh!slnamenr '

p

• **0r.3t* 0n 3;;ut ni s 'enti tj. j

'")

l l

$ Q -

es wc$ ) & l. m u m[ ,,g4 M ll4 i j i

.a , .

Startup: 2

, e.;ues t for a license for precritical ity testing and before deciding _ - _ . . . . . .

s w 5cr to re. Hn :be chase of the . _ _

. hearing about operations quality l

re.r.re in order tc. .ic sure 3r adecu. ate record with respect t0 start-up quality assurance,

& r concerns are:

I'i A!'.ncugh Ap0!icanti are cc.citted to implementing, written

. tar -up test a oc.efures, their s ta rt-u;; test engineers an; quality v.survu te :N cia <.: 3 ppa re n ti,. have inccrrectly interpreted t c ;hrase t

" i miene nden t verificatien" in the test p r0cedu res . (See, e.o., Tr.

1

'-.,t:' 5 TN1 <;ua'it;. isSur.in;e tecnricians r.erely verify that there are l

?ce- -.

.r:y ut e r s - - c r. test dcta sheets anc they do not review i

.che m ."- the omroe r- tre dra;;e iy calculated 8 are within the test

<-O, c- are calculated pursuant to an adecuately defi nea test

~ ,cebre. Since there is no quality--cont-ci check of th' esc sa:e g

"-s e t s , t 'a e c r.l v i ndepe'-dent rev Nw ccnducted is thrcugn eccasional -

l

%.0 i ty as<m ance audits, anich' do net appear to be a tuffictent g

91erro

• evie- Sr the i mpo rt anc-f of .Ta ny of t*!e tests 'that are

t. .... ec . . .-. , .

. , r,0.i . n..,2 ., m

. 40,.m..

. *.g f,v...

I i

/ '

A;;dert 'silure te cccu:! melt impcetant deficienciej and to 1

~c .4

n .c; r ,p r i a te f a s h i t.n . For eur cle, twc start!-u; test wpere tc 1 'r.hrm r.r autf 3ca.dcn) who knew .,f charges that a start-u; .

I

t r. . v.g i n t.e r tac int..ntirrally f a%ifiec 3 test failed to ini(iate any

} .. ._ . _ . _ _ -  !

W i: ~;j : a r.<;- c;r.c : rn i ng : *. i s ::erscnnei prCblem, even tnough a l

.i w ru: i e- , p 3. ev:inoer's -

,,cri .os been undertaken by a ;sta rt-c s '" - 'r. 'r.  ; ,2,'l-?3. 15,22". 18, 31, 18 , .:C5 -05. ~oli'cw-c en

4 .

Sta nup: 3

,it.H 6eficii.70idC C W '.  %.e alerad 4;11 cuts to Ins need te review r.

i

-. acet;ac, of the ir clc e'it0 f or nf pr0Coduces, 45 described in I

t u rac e . rh (1),above. '

l

{P ' ti '. r; r e to ? rt..te n t 40.M rent cesign :eficiencies in a vyd7r

.- en the Rct or Petere .on Eystsc., stitt the cans 5q JM:s that tiare

~. oc t.-wechc genrir %ciercies i., the usign of an alar" circui:

I

. , , .r . e to der.e:t 0cericais a!!ecting the inverterj in *ke ,

i

c. r o-thi 5,,Stee. Since tre ver.dce tac 3 generic pr?blem in a 1

' '.tne .5a:L el: # w tracsfomers), Wt-i:P le- tg  !, ,

t

' O ' i c ~ ~ '. : On a deficiency in re %*et k ' . . . i t .~, ..

".. r. '"

.. lM-8^ Op03 rent f a ilure :: "..' , ;ith I

. :c r n a. : ? ct.i e ; ~.hc u s e- c? 3n NCR to report 5 dt.-fic t edcy ir i 4,. .. -

..e

. . ' :: -" a. . ...;.7 .e, .t.g . . - c ,,, n. . i,0r'Odre lo.2.o-20 concerning; the yse o f de".1 J n C*.7 j : re ';u n ! $ IUCO.5).

A

C a- .er 5 ! a r t T.' procecure: 3ppear to ha.e 06% affect'6d by in 8

f

• e.1 ' ' rect.4' Pr. .5,373} and by 3 'w ri *.t ee (*eM0 ra nim (*r .

a 4

, ; . , . f/' i *g .jed ., _ .g n

. .q+ c r 3 a j.,:-- ig*eiri P. ; h i, y es 3**t'"g*edf t; g}*,gr l

1 rit.en . .

?: v e p.~.e n m n.;. n u 9 of sce.:.  !

l

~

I; " . .a r t i uc '; O r 2. or M : # r ;t- * !Icwing.up On this dttM D9C3:;;e c r ? . i :P.. ; 3 5 '. O r * ' ": r g t*pj rac :,3ce. t; t e 30a00 'r.3 t tha ,

.. r'rar:;, ;*' thi; d .*i s g wa; PO; e.saded in ttp grageecing .)

- l

vi ar - .!: ern c r, e .t.u < .m e . p m . i n.; tn i s e,c t e r. d e c u s e

'f : ( 4: #I le Pr0tedu'd* V';t l e ! O that Tentioned i t- "he brevict;s

1. 'd.ro M ,

,c ..: .7.... . . .  ;

( :. \ .

~

s

. e. e. s. , . . < ..

. . . . a. c. ,,,e..= - *

. .m t. .a s..e.s.:. .

s

.:.. z:,$.. .

. :. .;>.. .r: - ,. : <*a 3y

. . . s.' . c. =. r.. v s

. . . .. ...v., e. A .,-a. s 4. 7. . n *..-:d +. S .u., o s.e .e. . . a.

. . e. .s 1. ). y .

~

2. :. ".c. r ' #. '..2 . c' .' .. ~. 9. i - -l o .< V . '. -. . .(

. D. S* '~

. . . :. i r. e. n. e.t. '. .C-7a7 ' e '. @ . . w- *. M ,

..4 7.

+... ....

.e,...y ,., ..

w..:.. . u. t. z.-.i . . .

.q : y. q .- e <

. .. - L. e.

. . . . .. O .

1

.- ..~

s .--

.a

z. .: . . ..,..,i+. - ..

. . u. e. . ,r, i . e <. .

, e .a.

. ,. . a.

7. . u. .a . . . .. . e. .n c. - a.

. c. z. . i ..v.

, . . . a;

. . =. u 2e :.. sc.  :.; :n. <.:- =:.a

-....a. .....wj s '. a.

.. .. u. .

.: a. . , e. .. .m..

.. . -... .s. ....9 ..i. ~

s,

.<. i.:.

...s..

. ...:3

. , .... . . .. , z.  :

3 . ,s, :.

. .t.,

w... . .; s :. . ; -n. _. ., ,

. u. :. 5 :..

.:... e.,. . e

. s

% i' (! .. . .:. . . f. t......

i . .

. e .: g e, . . e.

. n. .c . J. s.,on . 77

• a .1 0. , .*. B. d . {... ;

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

. 3 ..s....

. . ....j ..

y..;... q p..,.a. .,,

. ,e.

3.....

.4,,. , '. .s...%.. .

'a

. . . .e.....%s. , , ,...-.

1. 4h

+

/

/. ,~ ...~.., i s .

. s==d. ,9

. i,

". [s 'h , .#

h

.%-.s * *

• u .9 a.. . ' t. 4  %

T.

...e. *;

. . ,. ..w .a..m_

4; 4 . . -..,e e s. .

a

.. ,..==....,,i.

" . ' . * . . ' . . - i.e L

.p.

s' . . .; f.

,4 s

f . 4,.,sf. <-N ,,;.,/ s' % -: 9 .A L .!e 1

J .f< a.'!

p,p, (py-y

.a. ..C4 s sy b' s b,..<--,

g e . f,e w

• • ..j.4 ' l, .q-e a.. s y ; f./.p i .! yC p- 3 g p. ,. .

sw'A;*

t i /

L.,{s~ .y . ..'o,4 f .P'*/  !'4 s / .a p

o e ~-

' 'I f f%,o*, r/'. . .')s A. j' li .!}

, g ug

.J

.sb y g./ .

.s

• - -e..:.-...,. y

/

.s

,.. . . , i...

. .. w

.3, . .e.

1. ,. . g. .%

..-g'> .

.t s

,,,t% ,s 4 L ., .. q

'J=.ug g 4 #8 C .. ,g+?. C.e. # C

... .. A.y 7

% l 'l  !?

SEEP. WRITEUP DOCUMENT CONTROL / ROUTE SHEET 42s- S'l?

/ W Cffl Allegation Nu":bers AG - t,4 Subje:t of Allegation E.M6%d c/C&AAE / su4Ato #l4fbd'A ctVa / Mid!MicAL TRT Group #

Author: J9 1. gt A, This sheet will be initialed by each reviewer. It stays with all revisions to the SSER writeup and serves as a routing and review record. It will be filed in the work package when the writeup is published.

4 Draft Amber

Draft 1 2 3

I 5 Author _

/

Group Leader trJ w f .~/ (n - .d-  : / r,j ,

Tech. Editor / .: - / .' . i c ' (/ 4  :;r - '. / , .V ./

Wessma n/V ietti ./ / .

~5,Gaaliardo 11 'll'i T. I:: col i to '

1 3 4 c;/6 Revision Number 4

Final l- 1 2 3 4 5 Author Tech. Editor Grouc Lescer J. Gac11ardo T. Icocitto o

/

Administrative Writeup integrated into SSER Potential Violations to Region IV  !

Morkpackage File Complete /

Workpackage Returr.ed to Gecup Leader /

/

. /

/

I FO!A-85-59 a , ur

9 DRAFT 6 - 10/22/84 ,

SSSR Category ho.16/CP3 SSER

1. Allegation Grouo: Civil and Structural No.16

2. Allegation Number: AC-64  :

Characterization: It is alleged that over excavation ard improper fill 3.

under the Unit 1 Containment Building coulc invalidate ne expe:ted [

seismic response of the foundation dJe to the change ir properties resulting from the removal of in-situ material. "

\

E 4 Assessment of Safety Significahce: Curirg an investigation cenducted in

• 1984, the NRC Office of Investigation (OI) interviewed the alleger .

(84-006, 3/7/84, A-7) and reference was made to ever excavat'.cn ard .

improper repairs in the foundation _ rock for the Unit 1 Containment Building. The alleger stated that the excavation was erroneously made 6  ;

to S feet too deep and that upon reali:atien of tne error, the recair technique was simply to threw the locse rock back in'the EXC3Vaticn anc l fill it in with concrete.

I The TRT reviewed NRC inspection reports, the FSAR and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing transcript, where this ccocern was the -

subject of contention No. 7 ar.d was adr.itted into the hearing on' June 16, 1980. ,

i i

I N 'I

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

By order of March 5,1982, the ASLB granted sureary disposition of contention No.-7 based on the finding that no genuine issue as to any material fact was shown by any of the filings. The TRT also reviewed the affidavits and statements filed by TUEC and by the t'RC in support of the' motion for surr.ary disposition. These docurents adequately describe rock oserbreak, acccmpanying fissures and subsequent repairs. Affected areas were backfilled with concrete having a minimum corpressive strength of 2,500 pounds per square inch at 28 days, or were grouted to maintain continuity o# the competent rock in which fissures were identified. The j procedures utilized to replace fractured rock with dental concrete and to I

grout surrounding fissures were reviewed by the TRT, as were the i accompanying ccepressive test resul ts. FSAR figures 2.5.4-33a through-

2.5.4-35 are maps of the excavation showing the location of fracture 3 and

the extent of dental concrete backfill. They show that the area of overexcavation represents a small portion of the entire excavated area.

! FSAR figure 2.5.4-37, sheets 1 through 21, show photographs of the excavated walls. The tRC inspector present durir.g the excavation process was ir.terviestec by the TRT are verified the conditicns presented in the FSAR.

l The TRT has indeperdently evaluated the potential ir: pact on the seismic response of the Unit I containment foundation due to the replacement of.a

limited amount of original rock with dental concrete from the standpoint of possible changes in foundation stiffness.- Secause of the fac that (a) the dental cencrete's behavior, stiffness, and structical strength l

l L

. . - .Sn. , - , , . - , , ---,-,-,n , - - , - , - r,,,---- ---- .

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

4 . , ,,

t l

h  ?

?

l l l

n  :

! r

8. Attachments: None. t c

i l

9. Reference Documents:

i ,

t j 1. NRC Inspection Reports 75-05, 75-06, 75-07, 75-09, 76-05.

i l 2. ASLS Hearing Transcript pages 789 to 1259.

l 3. ASLB Order Granting Summary Disposition cf Cententions 2 and 7, .

March 5, 1982.

r . ,

i

4. CPSES-FSAR.

5. Affidavit of Daen Thompson Contention 7.

7 .

I i i 10. This statement prepared by:

].

J. Tapia Date l

i l Reviewed by:

i i; ;

Group Leader Date j _t i

4 .

Approved by:

}

Project Director Date i i

t k

e I -

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

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

s-. - - - - - - -

7

. I im ,

n , ), < - (se g) ,d ' '

/ ,.e

/

N

/p 4

care ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP flovenber 2, 1984 TU: (Name, ornet symbel, room number, ,1 inct@s ' Cate building, Agency /Pust)

2. V. Noonan 2 II. Livermore j 3.

.t.

! L

' ctmn A i (Note and Retum

/ preval Fue For Clearance 1 lPer Corrvers$ tion

'As Recuested For Correction i IPresars Reply Circu!ste For Your Information iS+a Me

. Comment Investigate ISJgnsture (Coordination Justifv <l REMARKS The attached are the potential open issues in the fiechanical/ Piping area. I presure you are aware of the potential open issues in the Civil /

S~tructural area.

DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of apprcvals, concurrences, c sposais, clearances, and sim; tar actions ,

FROM: (Narne, org. symbol, igenhost) 'l Rost) Vo.--B'5g.

r N L. Shao/DD/DET/F , Tjjfy908  !

w t-:c2 OPTION AL FORM 41 (Rey, 7-76) l rPrenne

= m eg ctA

. . . . im o - m-i:, u.s >

, ,g-94 k

l f_ N N I 1

1