ML20207E013

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Deviation from Insp on 860601-30
ML20207E013
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 12/22/1986
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207E000 List:
References
50-445-86-15, 50-446-86-12, NUDOCS 8701020037
Download: ML20207E013 (3)
v • d • e


Text

hW n :

.2,. %

~

^ ~ ' ^ ~ ~ ~ '

~

F "L " Q

~ 3, K Mq ;, z

+

y mWgga, _3

- n

.y 1

g;way* w

- wq :.

n 3 c*

[

e-x ~~

g,,

,~

s

'^.c f'9' M]Q[%;!

M; '

IAPPENDIX-B.

p 7g Leg 2

r f $_

NOTICEOFbEVIATION:

Q Y Ql4 M

N&

V 7"

w m

a.- z

,Q JTexastUtilities Electric? Company

~

-Dockets: 50-445/86-15 M4 % { Comanche 1 Peak Steam-Electric Station '

50-446/86-12

  1. s _ '

,NiG

't units > It and,2 :

j f

"i P

- n Permits: CPPR-126-N.

ns ~

7 CPPR-127 nw.

m w

k r,';.y

[

_[

r f#

!Basedionsthe results'of 'an:NRClinspection conducted on' June _-1-30,~1986, four W 6.1 deviations-from commitments were identified. The deviations consisted of-i f ( ?; { Evaluation Research Corporation-(ERC) failing(to identify electrical inspector-

%[f < f Ninspectors'not:

.. Acertification errors during,the1 Phase I review required in ISAP'No.' I.d.1; ERC m

1dentifying errors during independent' inspection of Unit 1

~

7 <f 3 ; diesel. generator: control panel; an ERC overviewiinspector's experience not M %" ibeingsverified as meeting requirements;;and' ERC cverview inspectors failing to didentify3(1)' errors made11n an ERC deviation report covering parallelism of

. ' pipe; clamp halves,,and )(2)Lan' error made.concerning:a' pipe clearance violation.

e ' O In accordance~withlthe " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC (W W EnforcementiActions,";10 CFR'Part 2. Appendix C (1986), the~ deviations are M% > / ? listed below:1

=-

. k *

[A.[L Attachment?6.4,'" Inspector Educatiion and-Experien e Requirements and c

Capabilities.torstevel;II Inspection,- Examination and Test Personnel" of 1

'r

'CPP-003,;Revisioni3.. states,inpart,thattheexperience'requirementsfor

~

~

~ Jcertificationf of:a high school graduate are ".. L.53 years of related experience.in equivalent inspection, examination', or. testing

~

s

F 1 _

activities:.,.,."-

~

- my In deviation from the above, a certified Level'II-overview inspectohs

~

experience was found.not to meet the requirements of Attachment 6.4. -The

~

1 3 years experience used as a basis for certification'was, verified as'a t

~

'"Projec't Receipt Inspector," which Ldoes-not, appear to be equivalent

~

f related experience for the certified position of " Level. II Mechanical /

i i

M Welding Inspector";(445/8615-D-01).

B.

Section 4 'of. Revision 4 to ERC Procedure CPP-009 for Issue-Specific Action

~.

l Plan No. VII.c. states, in part, " Qualified QA/QC Review Team personnel L

perform field reinspections of specific hardware items and reviews of appropriate documents in accordance with approved instructions...."

KSection'4'of Revision-2 to ERC Quality Assurance Procedure ERC-QA-28,

'" Performance of Overview Inspections," states, in part, " Qualified QA/QC

Review Team personnel assigned to the onsite QA Representative perform 4

' Overview Inspections of work performed in accordance with Reference 3.1

", ~

4 (CPP-009)...

." Section 5.4.2 of ERC-QA-28 states, in part, " Based

-_upon each acce t/ reject-crite:-ion specified in the referenced QI/ Effective

(un)ge Notice ( ), the OI (Overview Inspector) denotes whether the ite

.Chan acceptable...."

" e7010 g h $ $$$45 PDR PDR G

U,,.

l

y n p p 3 / m :.

z

-Y

.h d y_N h 6 '

'N y..f m

., A e,..&.

r.

j.

,w

~

[$4k,;a s

L A

%; ~

L; gg y % - - -

~

'2' 4e c 1

1 w.

g-m p

~.

A 5ectioiS13of-ERCQA-28 states,in'part,:"The.01comparestheresults 9:

7" 7 g

[oflthe Overview' Inspection.with th.e:results of the initial reinspection /1 documentation'reviewfto, identify anylapparentJinconsistencies;....'

>In deviation from tNe-ab$ve, the.following errors were identified

~

4

/

'"4

,; concerninglthe results of overview-inspectio's:

~

=

n

'y

. O

.:a' c

4?

1.-

Overview inspection (0I) Package N'o.12-I'-14-SBC0-078 failed toi

~

~

11dentify an unsatisfactory -decision-m'ade' by the>init1al; ERCS 1

v.

Einspector.' ! During.an:NRC inspection, one conditio'n;wa's11dentified'of.

jpipe to pipe clearance in violation of Section 5.2.6.2'of'ERC Qualityi

^

~

-, Instruction.(QI)QI-026, Revision 2.fHowever,theinitialERC.

~

reinspection as~ well as the overview inspection, failed (to identify'

[~

v-

_ this: deviating condition (445/8615-D-03). N ' q 4

+

T

.g

- 2.: iParagraph.5.2;l in.Section 5.0 of QI-037,nRevision 1,+ states,,in u'

part,E" Verify -thatLpipe clamp halves are; parallel....'" 'In -

t Laddition, Attachment-1.of QI-037 states,.in~part,!' S' dimensions on

~

the same side of.the' clamp at points ~1,-2 ano 3.shall be.within 1/16" 7

f of each other to be acceptable. Also,1the clapp shall be not more' p

'than 1/16" out of parallel from side-to side at points 1, 2 and 3' to

.be/ acceptable."'

' Meas'urements for S1 recorded by the initial ERC inspector showed a

~

differe'nce between points 1 and 3 of 1/8", which was 1/16" out of 2

.. tolerance.. Similarly, measurements recorded for S2 showed a o>

v 1 difference between points 1 and-3 of 5/32", which was 3/32" out of 7,

' tolerance. The corresponding values for the out of tolerance conditions recorded on ERC deviation report I-S-PS7H-095-DR1 were

+@

31/32" and 1/16", respectively. The deviation report incorrectly identified the degree of being out of tolerance. The overview cinspection' failed:to identify and resolve these discrepancies 4

(445/8615-D-04).

C.

Section 4.1 of ISAP No. I.d.1, Revision 2, states that for Phase I,

" Training. qualification,-certification and recertification files for a11 n

Lelectrical QC. inspectors, for all current ASME inspectors, and for the

.reaiaining current non-ASME inspectors will be reviewed against project requirements...." to identify those inspectors whose certifications or qualifications were questionable.

e In ' deviation from the above, the ERC Phase I review failed to identify

. lapses in recertifications of TUGCo electrical inspectors.

ERC Phase I review also failed to identify that an electrical inspector's recertification to CP-QP-11.3 did not specify the activities or o

restrictions which were applicable to the recertification (445/8615-D-05; x

.446/8612-D-G6).

k t

m 3

?

=

D.

Section 5.2 of QI-010, Revision 3, states, in part, " Verify that the field assembly / modifications are complete and in accordance with the applicable z

drawings."

In deviation from the above, NRC inspection of Verification Package No. I-E-EEIN-075, a Unit 1 diesel generator control panel, revealed that ERC inspectors failed to identify the following:

1.

A jam nut was loose on one of the six floor mounting bolts.

2.

Sheet 2 of component layout Drawing 52383 did not delineate installed relays R12A and R12B (445/8615-0-10).

Texas Utilities Electric Company is hereby requested to submit to this office, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each deviation:

(1) tne reosor.s for the deviations if admitted, (2) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (3) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further deviations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achie/ed. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 22nd day of December 1986 i

'.z_

=

e E

_ _. _,......

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20207E013&oldid=4039540"