ML20206J554
| ML20206J554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1987 |
| From: | Murphy M, Shepherd P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206J529 | List: |
| References | |
| 304.01-SQN, 304.01-SQN-R03, 304.01-SQN-R3, NUDOCS 8704160122 | |
| Download: ML20206J554 (9) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUNBER: 304.01 SQN SPECIAL PROGRAN REPORT TYPE: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Element REVISION NUMBER:
3 TITLE: Procedure Problems REASON FOR REVISION:
To incorporate SRP comments and corrective action response.
Revision 1 To incorporate SRP comments on revision 1.
Revision 2 To incorporate internal review comments.
Revision 3 5
PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
P. L. Shepherd 04-08-87 SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS PEER:
/
Of h?" f~Y
~/ /
SIGNATURE DATE TAS:
Y/%b7 k1
~
~
4 b SIGifiTURE
/ / ATE CONCURRENCES CEG-H: O-9" 87 SRP:
M ti-(0-37 SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE
- DATE APPROVED Y i N/A
{
\\
NANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE ECSFNAhAGER j \\
1,DAI)~ '
CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
1770T 8704160122 870413 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P
IENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT
.i EMPLOYEE CONCERUS TASK GROUP OPERATIONS CEG l
Subcategory: Cable and Conduit Element: Procedure Problems a
Report Number: 304.01 SQN, Revision 2 TAK 86-005
- IN-85-112-001-Evaluator:
Paul L. Shepherd Nf-f"9 P. L. Shepher Date Reviewed by.
MtW #
[f-f 7 OPS C' %ber Date b5 bi'37 Approved by:
W. R. Lagdraren Date-1770T
.,, aven e.,
a
Rsvisisn 3 I.
PROCEDURE PROBLEMS _
One This report covees procedure problems addressed by two concerns.
concern addressel the misapplication of RTV 3140 on junction box The other concern addressed cable pulling and bending terminal blocks.
requirments.
II.
SPECIFIC EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The first concern is specific to This element consists of two concerns.
Sequoyah (SQN) and does not apply to any other. plant.
"RTV applied to junction boxes on SMI-0-360-0 may not have TAK-86-005 -
RTV~was not been properly applied on all junction boxes.
QA level and had exceeded it's shelf life. Employee stated that shelf life was not a concern as he has verified that the RTV in question will in fact set up properly.
The onsite employee concern file was reviewed to determine the specific In addition, the supervisor that documented the areas of coacern.
employee concern was interviewed to further clarify the specific areas Cognizant engineers in the Electrical Maintenance Section of concern.
at SQN were interviewed.
The second concern is specific to Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN) Plant and applies to all other nuclear plants.
IN-85-112-001 "TVA Nuclear Power Department is not working in accordance with construction specifications when making modifications and additions.
EG no maximum pull tension is specified when Nuclear Power Department pulls a new cable and minimum bend radius is also not specified".
l The Construction Category Evaluation Group (CEG) has issued an element report No. C010900 SQN, revision 5 (dated January 26, 1987), for SQN l
that completely addresses this issue. This report evaluated current ONP l
cable installation practices and procedures Maximum pull tension.
lR3 i
sidewall pressure, and minimum bend radius cable issues are being i
actively evaluated by DNE and final conclusions will not be availableNo l
until they complete their evaluations and responses to C010900 SQN.
l further evaluation of this concern is required.
III. FINDINGS Maintenance Request (MR) No. A554518 was written on August 18, 1985The (Reference 1) to coat junction box terminal blocks with 3140 RIV.
junction boxes to be coatei were listed in Special Maintenance The contract number Instruction SMI-0-360-3 Revision 0 (Reference 2).
Page 1 of 7 r
n, Rsvision. 3 f
d III. FINDINGS (continued) that purchase the RTY 3140 used on this MR cannot be determined.
(Discrepancy' Report No. SQ-DR-85-08-111R, Reference 3 and Nonconforming Item (NCI) tag No. N2-85-294,- Reference 4).
Only one junction box, 3190, is required by the Environmental Qualification (EQ) Binder IB001 to be coated with QA RTV3140 but was coated with questionable coating on MR A-554518. The EQ Binder TB001-shows Reference 6~as documentation of the-existence of terminal block coating in junction box 3190.
Three other MR's which coated. terminal blocks with RTV 3140 on i
SMIO-360-3 were reviewed. A11'three had proper material traceability.
All Junction Box terminal blocks listed on SMI 0-360-4 (Reference 9) s have been inspected on S53 860103 810 (Reference 6) or replaced on S02 860728 898 (Reference 10).
The material traceability practices of the Electrical Maintenance Tool Room at the time the subject work, MR A-554518, was performed were not consistant with the intent of SQA 45 Revision 17 dated September 27, 1985, This material traceability problem was later identified (reference 7).
and investigated by NSRS. NSRS Report No. I-86-165-SQN (reference 11) addresses their investigation, conclusions, and recommendations.
f Corrective actions to clarify material traceability requirements were started with the issue of Revision 18 of SQA 45 on November 21,' 1985 l
(reference 12) and continued through the issue of Revision 21 of SQA 45 on June 3, 1986 (reference 13). Corrective action was taken by Electrical Maintenance on March 6.- 1986 (Attachment A to reference 14).
H. L. Abercrombie's responses (references 14 and 15) to the j
recommendations in the NSRS Report, along with completed Discrepancy Rep' orts SQ-DR-86-04-088R and SQ-DR-86-04-089R (references 16 and 17) and completed CATS No. 86171 (reference 18), document completion of all recommended corrective actions.-
Construction CEG report C010900-SQN, revision 5, adequately addressed I
l
]
the issue of cable installation practices and procedures.
l l
Construction CEG report C010900-SQN, revision 5. found that for the l
issue of cable maximum pull tension (MPT) and side wall pressure (SWP):
l l
"MPT and SWP issues were verified. The program inadequacies lR3 were identified in NSRS. report I-85-06-WBN and later addressed i
l in SQN GCTF report titled "Overtensioning and Minimum Bend Radius Violations of Cables because of Improper Cable Installation Methods."
l l
To provide a resolution, DNE was actively evaluating sidewall bearing l
pressure to determine the acceptability of installed Class 1E cables.
l TVA's Central Laboratory conducted a test to determine acceptable SWP l Page 2 of 7 i-
, - - ~. - -
.,p.
_e* n Jak i
I
'Rovisl<m 3 limits using representative cable semples from SQN, BFN, and BLN and I
surveys from sections of assumed worst-case conduits at WBN. The l
test results were favorable since SWP limits were reported between l
l L600 to 1500 pounds / foot while TVA's prescribed guidelines were from
'l 100 to 300 pounds / foot. To verify the installed cable at SQN, DNE l
isometric sketches, and then performed calculations. The initial.
. l selected 16 worst-case conduits, performed walkdowns to develop.
l calculation results were; favorable.since'SWP and MPT values were l
within TVA's prescribed guidelines. While actions l appeared to be
.I l
completed, the sampling program used to determine worst-case conduits was in question.~ sFor,this reason. TVA.was involved in i
contract negotiations with a third-party. engineering compary to-.
I evaluate the methods used to select the worst-case conduits.
I Until further evaluation is complete and NSRS recort I-85-06-WBN is; l
l i-addressed. SWP and MPT issues will remain'open."
l For the issue of cable minimum bend radius (MBR), Construction CEG
[
l report C010900-SQN, revision 5 found.that:
I "The MBR issue was verified. The issue was actively being lR3 l
evaluated by DNE. The program discrepancies were' identified in NSRS- :l l
report I-85-06-WBN mentioned above. SQN GCTF report-titled i
"Overtensioning and Minimum Bend Radius Violations of. Cables Because l
of Improper Cable Installation Methods," also identified the problem l at SQN. Based upon the above findings, we concur.with the SQN GCTF l
EEB's final report documenting the evaluation and providing'.I 4
report.
conclusions and recommendations will be required to provide a l
resolution to the minimum bend radius concerns."
l I
"Conax connectors had been installed with excessive MBR. However, I
corrective action had been initiated. All rework was complete."
l j
I This evaluation concerns with the findings and conclusions of l.
i construction CEG report C010900-SQN, revision 5.
The issue of.
l j
inadequate cable installation practices and procedures at SQN was ~
l 4
-l i
validated.
Conclusions Based on the findings, concern TAK-86-005 was determined.to be. valid.
Since the RTV 3140 that was used to coat the. terminal blocks in junction box 3190 has now been marked "No-QA" (Reference 3), the qualification of the terminal block coating is questionable, Lit should be requalified or reapplied. This open item does constitute a potential safety-related.
issue.
The additional issue of material traceability was completely addressed by NSRS and the corrective actions taken will. resolve the material traceability problems in the ElectricalLMaintenance Tool Room that caused this concern.
o Page 3 of 7:
I.
~. _ _ _
Rsvisica-3 This issue of inadequate cable installation practices and procedures l
at SQN was validated by Construction CEG report C010900-SQN, revision 5.
l This evaluation concurs with the findings and conclusions of the l
l construction CEG report.
l CATD 30401-LQN-01 and CATD 10900-NPS-01 were written to track deficiency l
l of exceeding SWP, MPT, and MBR for cable pulls at SQN.
l Construction CEG report C010900-SQN stated that the line management l
l response to CATD 10900-NPS-01.was:
"To determine the magnitude of the SWP applied to SQN cables during l
installation. TVA reviewed,all conduits containing safety-related l
cables against screening criteria.- This was used to determine 16 of I
the worst conduit sections. The maximum SWP of cables within these l
j conduits were determined. These. values were compared to maximum SWP l
values determined from testing at IVA's Central Laboratories.
l The SQN values were less than those determined in testing. The l
overall conclusions of TVA's testing were confirmed by the report of l
a third party reviewer. TVA has, through the above testing and l
analysis, conclusively demonstrated that the practices employed l
during the installation of electrical cable at SQN maintained the l
adequacy and integrity of Class 1E cable with respect to SWP."
l I
"TVA practice of monitoring total tension rather than individual lR3 tension, does assure individual conductor strer.gth limits are not l
exceeded, and is consistent with IEEE 690-1984.. In fact, TVA l
practice is more conservative. Since August'of 1987 DNC takes l
80 percent rather than 100 percent of individual conductor strength I
on multi-cable pulls."
fi l
1
^
l "TVA's Electrical Engineering Branch (EEB) has used NSRS report l
I-85-06-WBN in addition to the manufacturer's requirements,'to l
form the basis for its evaluationk Each of the areas of potential l
concern is being resolved into elements for further analysis..
l In each case the actual bend radius to which a cable has or could I
have been subjected is determined. In particular, EEB has l
identified the elongation stress, to which a cable is subjected I
as the result of a bend, as the critical parameter in determining l
acceptability. Preliminary conclusions of the study-indicate i
that this worst-case bend at SQN does not reduce the cable's I
available elongation properties'below that required for it to i
perform its safety-related function. The final report is I
l expected to be issued in March'1987 for SQN."
i "The effects of a reduced bend ~on shielded medium voltage power l
cable and coaxial, triarial and twinarial cables will be evaluated I
separately. EEB has issued project specific actions for the i
evaluation of these cables..These actions will include field l
inspections for the existence of' pull boxes or conduits of any I
type in which the cable is bent as well as individual inspections l
)
Page 4 of 7'
~
n.
3,,,.
Rsvision 3 of a cable's bend radius. The actual bend radius will be determined l
and the resulting effects on the integrity of the cable will be i
established.. The work is expected to be complete by March 1987.
IR3 The work is being tracked by SCR SQNEEB8703."
l IV.
Root Cause
[
E
~
3 a
The traceability'of the RTV 3140 used on NR A-554518 was not correctly verified prior to use as required by SQA45,'section 25.2 (Reference 7) and AI-11, Section 6.4.3.6.a (Reference 8).
NPT, SWP, NBR -.The upper-tier document (G-38) for pulling cable was l-inadequate which, in turn, resulted in inadequate site procedures; The l
reason was failure to recognize a need to monitor maximum pull tension, lR3 sidewall bearing pressure and adhere to the manufacturers' minimum bend l
radius limits.
l V.
Generic Applicability Concern TAK-86-005 is an isolated incident and is not generically applicable to any other plant.
Concern IN-85-112-001 is generic to all TVA nuclear plants because of l
the inadequacy of Construction Specification G-38.
lR3 VI.
References 1.
Maintenance Request (NR) Form no. A554518. " Coat Junction Bor Terminal Blocks with 3140 RTV," dated August 18, 1985 (SNI-0-360-3 data sheets attached).
2.
Special Naintenance Instruction SMI-0-360-3 " Coating of Junction Box Terminal Blocks", Revision 0, dated August 18, 1985.
3.
Discrepancy Report No. SQ-DR-85-08-111R " Electrical Naintenance installed "No-QA"-RIV-3140 on CSSC junction boxes and terminal strips on NR A-5544518," dated 8-28-85 reported by C. R. Stutz.
4.
Nonconforming Item (NCI) Tag No.#N2-85-294 issued August 27, 1985 by Steve Campbell,
- t. 0, AI-11. " Recommended Disposition of Nonconforming Items" submitted on August 26, 1985 by Steve L. West.
6.
B. W. Hooper's memorandum to N. A. Skarzinski, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant-NUREG 0588-Terminal Block Field Verification Sheets," dated January 3, 1986 (SS3 860103 810).
Page 5 of 7
r, a
+
Rsvision 3
'f Standard Practice'SQA45, " Quality Control of Material and Parts and 7.
Services," Revision 17 dated September 27, 1985, paragraph 26.2 "Onsite Material Requirements Verification" subparagraph e.
Administrat[veInstructionAI-11,Y"ReceiptInspection, 8.
Nonconforming Items, QA Level / Description Changes and Substitutions," Revision 33, dated August 6, 1985, Attachment 3.
Special. Maintenance Instruction SMI 0-360-4'" Inspection of Junction 4
9.
Box Terminal Blocks," Revision 0, dated August 19, 1985.
R. W. 01 son's memorandum to D.' W. Wilson, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant -
10.
Significant Condition Report SQNEQP8521 R -EQ Binder No.
2 SQNEQ-TB-001-Open Item Sheet 1 of SA," (S02 860728 898) dated July 28, 1986.-
1 NSRS Report No. I-86-165-SQN, "Craf tsmen Directed to Violate 11.
i Procedures Use Tools Other Than Those Specified, and Use Questionable QA Materials", dated March 17, 1986.
Standard Practice SQA 45, "Qualitiy. control of Material and Parts and 12.
Services," Revision 18 dated November 21, 1985, Section 25.0
" Material Traceability for MR Materials".
l Standard Practice.SQA 45, " Quality control of Material.and Parts and 13.
Services", Revision 21 dated June 3, 1986, Section 25.0 " Material Traceability," Subsections 25.1 " Material Traceability After Issue 25.2, " Material Traceability-for MR/WR Materials", and 25.3
" Material Traceability for Workplan Materials".
H. L. Abercrombie's memorandum to R.
P'. Denise " Nuclear Safety 14.
Review Staff (NSRS) Investigation Report No. I-86-165-SQN,
" Craftsmen Directed to Violate Procedures, Use Tools Other Than Those Specified, and Use Questionable QA Material"", dated May 21, 1986.
H. L. Abercrombie's memorandum to R. P. Denise, " Nuclear Safety 15.
Review Staff (NSRS) Investigation Report No. I-86-165-SQN,
" Craftsmen Directed to Violate Procedures Use Tools Other Than Ihose Specified,'and Use Questionable QA Material"", dated July 1, 1986.
Discrepancy Report No. SQ-DR-86-04-088R dated April-16,' 1986 16.
required a revision of AI-11 to adequately implement the NQAM.
Closed on June 16, 1986.
i Discrepancy Report No. SQ-DR-86-04-089R dated Apell 16, 1986, 17.
required the revision of SQA 45 to adequately implement the NQAM.
j Closed on July 1,.1986.
l 4
i Page 6 of 7 i
s
?
Revision 3 4
!~
VI. REFERENCES'(cont'inued).
4
't).
18.
Connaitment Action Tracking', System.(CATS) Item No. 86171 Response to NSRS Reconunendation No. I-86-165-SQN-05 completed September 8, 1986.
~.-
1 yi t.
19.
Construction CEG report C010900-SQN,'. revision 5 " Cable",
l lR3
. January 26,:1987.'
3 a.
_ ' j.,
T: s VII. Inusediate or Long-Term ' Corrective ~ Actidn 1
~
Junction Bdx 3190 w'as recoated wlth RTV.3140 by WR B200741.
(CATD #30401-SQN-01) l Corrective Action for; concern IN-85-112-001 is being tracked by l
lR3 CATD 10900-NPS-01.-
l i
t i
W t
f i
c
,l
+.
i i
d i
i
.Page 7 of 7 j
Y J
g
-,.