ML20207K758
| ML20207K758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1986 |
| From: | Howard J, Russell J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207K654 | List: |
| References | |
| C011305-SQN, C011305-SQN-R06, C11305-SQN, C11305-SQN-R6, NUDOCS 8701090511 | |
| Download: ML20207K758 (37) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Element REVISION NUMBER: 6 (Final Report)
}
TITLE: Anchors Cut Off As Related To Construction PAGE 1 0F 16
- i i
j REASON FOR REVISION: j To incorporate applicable SRP comments and TAS comments. Revision 1 1 Clarification of Section IV.E.1. Revision 2 To update listing of concerns Revision 3 2 To incorporate line management response Revision 4 and include additional evaluation f To incorporate line management response to C/A and Revision 5 g - finalize report t f To add corrective actions for CATDs and finalize report. Revision 6 PREPARATION I PREPARED BY' hm L.h,[ I ' l2-18-86
/ SIGNATURE DATE i
REVIEWS { PEER: J k= M t&W /2 -/8-86 (/ SIGNATURE . DATE
$U '
S $ $ p SIGNATURE ~DATE CONCURRENCES L h, . CEG-1 22 - j% -jf-f/s f SRd w /2-/S 7(o SIGNATUEE DATE SIGNATURE
- DATE i Y/kd/
~
ECSP MANAGER n n-re DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY) t
*SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files,
! 1445T 8701090511 861224 l PDR ADOCK 05000327
= > P PDR s
I TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER 8 C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAN REVISION NUMBER: 6 i PAGE 2 0F 16 l 4 $ I. Introduction j $ This evaluation will examine the scope, parameters and overall adequacy of SQN's concrete anchor program with respect to NRC IE Bulletin 79-02.
- The 28 concerns identified in this element will be specifically.
addressed to insure that all issues related to the subject concerns have been adequately resolved / answered by the results of the 79-02 and subsequent program (s). The issue which addresses documentation for areas where rebar could be . cut (section IV.E.4 of this report) has been evaluated by the l Engineering Category, SQN Element Report Numbers 215.2(B) and 215.6(B). i l II. Summary of Perceived Problems A. Shell-Self-Drilling (SSD) type anchors were cutoff when rebar was . encountered; nuts were welded to the back of baseplates. l B. SSD type anchors have been improperly installed and are subject to pulling out of the wall. C. Abandoned SSD holes with the shells installed were not filled with l grout. D. Baseplate holes have been made oversize and anchors installed outside of perpendicularity criterion. i III. Evaluation Methodology A. Reviewed the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Generic Concerns Task Force (GCTF) Report on Anchor Installation and Inspection for content with respect to the subject concerns, adequacy and findings. B. Reviewed the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Element Report (Anchors Cut Off - C011305) for content l and generic applicability to SQN. l C. Reviewed Nuclear Regulatory Connaission (NRC) IE Bulletin 79-02 and
- IE Bulletin 79-02, R1, to determine what actions were required by l SQN to verify adequacy of their concrete anchor program.
i l l I
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 3 0F 16
'l III. Evaluation Methodology (Continued)
D. Reviewed SQN (units 1 and 2) final response (s) and inspection l report (s) to NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 to determine what methodology I was used, to include sampling program (s) adequacy and what j corrective actions were required (to include applicable j nonconformance reports (NCRs), significant condition reports j' (SCRs), problem identification reports (PIRs) and other existing j documentation) to insure compliance with the aforementioned j bulletin. ;
. 1 E. Reviewed Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation report ]
I-86-120-SQN to determine methodology used during the j investigation, the findings, recommendations and overall adequacy i with respect to the issues addressed by the concerns. Reviewed j applicable Field Change Requests (FCRs), Engineering Change Notices , (ECNs) and other relevant documentation as required to determine I whether recommendations in the NSRS report were implemented. Reviewed applicable SQN/TVA procedures and construction specifications as required to insure compliance with the 79-02 Bulletin. F. Interviewed knowledgeable personnel in responsible units as ( required to obtain information relevant to the subject of this element report. l G. Performed field evaluation to determine if concerns expressed with respect to anchor removal in specified locations were valid. { 1 1 IV. Summary of Findings a 3 A. The first methodology employed in the SQN-GCTF report was to
- compare TVA General Construction Specification G-32 pull test data with the results of the 79-02 sampling program and with the results j of an extensive reinspection program conducted in response to the Quality Technology Company (QTC) investigation of a specific employee concern (XX-85-010-001). This comparison revealed {
acceptance rates of greater than 95 percent for each inspection / reinspection program. The fact that these 3 comparisons ; reflect comparable results (the results of the QTC reinspection program are initial results only) with very high acceptance percentages is especially significant when the timeframes of each program and the anchor installations are considered. The G-32 pull test data reflected tests performed from day 1 through approximately mid-1980. The 79-02 sampling program included j anchors that had been installed from day 1 through early 1981. The I reinspection program performed as a result of the aforementioned QTC investigation started in 1985 and is still in progress. i l
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 4 0F 16 IV. Summary of Findings (Continued)
# c The GCTF report also addressed the reinspections performed as a result of conccen IN-85-037-001, but this concern resulted in approximately 426 reinspections at WBN, not at SQN. The report addressed the issue of sampling programs instead of individual testing and referenced the NSRS investigation (I-85-439-WBN) performed which determined this to be an acceptable practice. The GCTF report also addressed two open issues that were not researched by the SQN-GCTF: base plate flexibility and overtorquing. The evaluation performed on issues generic to SQN by the WBN-ECTG ,
addressed the aforementioned sampling program issue and the overtorquing issue in the element report titled " Testing of Anchors" (C011306) and the base plate flexibility issue in the element report titled, " Design of Plates" (C011301). B. The WBN-ECTG Element Report for Anchors Cut Off (C011305) employed methodology that addressed the WBN 79-02 program as a whole, instead of addressing specific issues raised by each concern. The conclusion of the report states, " concerns identified for this i element are generally factual and examples of the referenced , deficiencies have all been previously identified per NCRs." The report referenced specific Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) . comments and reports which verify the adequacy of the 79-02 and j General Construction Specification G-32 sampling programs. The - report concluded that there was no generic applicability because 79-02 had been addressed by each nuclear plant. C. NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 and 79-02, R1, required inspection and verification of the following conditions with respect to anchor l bolts in Seismic Category I systems: . l,
- 1. For SSD anchors, insure that the shell is not contacting the back of the baseplate before the pull testing.
- 2. Specified size and type of anchor is correctly installed.
(
- 3. Preload (pull test / torque test values) is equal to or greater than bolt design load.
A sampling program was required when sufficient documentation did not exist to verify the three areas described above. One recommended sampling technique was to randomly select / inspect one anchor bolt in each base plate - if this bolt failed, inspect all other bolts on that base plate. The final comment was that, "the - test program should assure that each Seismic Category I system will perform its intended function." Revision 1 of the 79-02 Bulletin
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 5 0F 16 IV. Summary of Findings (Continued) addressed additional inspection parameters that included verification of leveling nut installation during testing, anchor embedmont depths, thread engagement, plate hole size, bolt spacing, plate and concrete edge distances and full shell expansion (cone depth). An additional requirement was that each site maintain sampling documentation of anchor bolts for NRC inspection. Also, an alternate sampling method was described which addressed statistical sampling that would provide a 95-percent confidence level that less than five-percent defective anchors were installed in any one . Seismic Category I system. This sampling program was to be done on a system by system basis. (Note: The requirements listed here address inspection type parameters only - the design / analysis requirements are not considered in this section.) D. The SQN unit 1 and 2 79-02 Anchor Inspection Program Procedure, Evaluation Criteria and Work Plan, Program for Verifying Correct Installation of Self-Drilling Anchors and the applicable Data Sheets for recording of required information were reviewed. No instances were found where SQN did not fully implement the NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 requirements. This was determined from a review of the mechanisms / processes used to implement the requirements of 79-02 as described above. The results of the SQN Anchor Inspection Program for 79-02 are found in the final response to TVA Nuclear Regulation and Safety Manager for transmittal to the NRC (NEB 810324 276) and in the Final Inspection Report to the NRC (A27 810403 011). The summary of the conclusion in each report was that SQN had j complied fully with the 79-02 requirements because: i !
- 1. The failure rates compiled by the 79-02 inspection data were comparable to those in SQNs G-32 pull test / inspection program l
which reflected the adequacy of the existing G-32 inspection program.
- 2. The NRC had previously reviewed the 79-02 inspection results as well as the G-32 data and determined that SQN was in compliance with 79-02 requirements.
! 3. Failure rates for the 79-02 inspection program were less than i 1 percent - failure rates for the G-32 program were also less than 1 percent. (These failure rates included evaluations , performed at the design level.) l l l
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAN REVISION NUMBER: 6 4 PAGE 6 0F 16 IV. Summary of '8ndings (Continued) In addition, the SQN memorandum from H. L. Abercrombie to K. W. Whitt of April 24, 1986, concerning the NSRS Investigation i Report XX-85-010-001 contains reference to a telephone conversation i from C. R. Brimer, SQN Site Services Manager to J. Burke, NRC Region II, which verified that SQN compliance with 79-02 was not a NRC issue. E. A detailed review was performed of NSRS Investigation Report 3 I-86-120-SQN which addressed seven concerns specific to SQN , (SQP-5-005-001 thru SQP-5-005-007). Each issue is applicable to NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 and/or TVA General Construction Specification G-32. 1
- 1. Modified Support Plates - Work Request (WR) 114789 was
< initiated to sample supports in the affected plant area for torched or beveled holes in baseplates. In addition, this sample was a mechanism to reveal anchors installed outside of the G-32 requirements with respect to anchor perpendicularity. This condition was described in concern SQP-85-005-004. The results of the sample program revealed no evidence of the
, alleged condition (s) and the concarn was determined to be not substantiated. (To further verify anchor acceptance to the ! G-32 perpendicularity requirement, SMI-0-317-21 which was
! written to determine anchor bolt length as described in , i section IV.E.8 of this evaluation report is referenced. This i SMI randomly selected 111 baseplates for inspection and i' revealed 6 plates had discrepancies with respect to G-32 anchor inspection requirements. None of the identified deficiencies were due to anchor perpendicularity.) However, the NSRS' semple did identify two bolts that were damaged because of anchor / plate misalignment (A0318R004 and A0508R005). These deficiencies are being tracked by SQN compliance as an open item and are being evaluated according to SQN-FCR-4651 and ECN L6744,
- 2. Abandoned Anchor Holes - during the sample program of WR 114789 several abandoned anchor holec were found. The NSRS report concluded that the concern was factual but no violations of current G-32 criteria were noted. Inis evaluation performed a r review of G-32 to determine the requirements for abandoned j anchor holes and found no criteria which required abandoned holes to be dry packed or grouted. The present criteria state, "the minimum clear distance between the hole for the -
working anchor (anchor in use) and the hole for an abandoned anchor shall be equal to the diameter of the larger of the 2 holes . . . the distance may be reduced for SSDs, wedge bolts and grouted anchors if the abandoned anchor is removed and the hole is grouted or dry packed." To further verify the l l
i TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 7 0F 16 L d ~ IV. Summary of Findings (Continued) j NSRS findings on this issue a field evaluation was performed in the Motor Operated Valve Board Rooms 1A and IB. This evaluation revealed the majority of the abandoned anchor i holes had been grouted. Those abandoned anchor holes that were not grouted did not violate current G-32 criteria with respect to spacing between working anchors and abandoned I anchors. Therefore, this evaluation agrees with the findings of the NSRS investigation report, to wit: no violations of G-32 criteria occurred and no conditions adverse to quality . (CAQ) were identified.
- 3. Shortened Anchor Shells - cone expander (plug) depths were checked as a part of the WR 114789 sample program and sixteen anchors were found to have plug depths outside current G-32 criterie; another three anchors had questionable plug depths.
It was noted in the NSRS-report that inspection of plug depth was not a requirement during the concerned individual's (CI) timeframe. The recommendation was made that the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) evaluate the long/short plug j depths. The DNE response (B45 860507 008) stated that initial indications showed some anchors may have a small reduction in the factor of safety but would still be significantly above 4 the values required for operation since 79-02, Revision 1, requires a factor of safety of two for interim operation. DNE coordinated these facts with the SQN Compliance Staff and agreement was reached that this issue did not require resolution before restart. The logic for this was that no discrepancies had been found by the NSRS sample which had not ! been addressed previously by site NCRs or NRC IE ! Bulletin 79-02. DNE also took exception to the NSRS sample in , that current G-32 criterion was used to evaluate installations t
- made in 1976. This statement was supported further in a memorandum (C23 860618 006) from DNE to the SQN - Site Director.
It was noted that the G-32 criterion had been enhanced over the years and that in 1981, G-32 had been revised to incorporate the requirements of 79-02. The final comments.were, "although each , of these instances require review and, in some cases, an engineering evaluation, we see no programmatic breakdown or generic implication." This evaluation agrees with that comment. In addition, DNE is continuing to evaluate the results of the NSRS sample as referenced in the aforementioned DNE memorandum to determine additional action (s) that may be required. It was also stated in the DNE response that the anchors not meeting the - plug depth requirements would be proof tested. This action is being tracked as an open item in the SQN Commitment Action L Tracking System (CATS).
__ ~. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 8 0F 16 IV. Summary of Findings (Continued)
- 4. Damaged or Cut Reinforcing Steel (Rebar) - the NSRS sample program of WR 114789 included the use of a ground fault indicator (GFI) device to determine if rebar was contacting the SSD anchor shell. Three anchors were found to be contacting rebar, one of which appeared to be in an area not approved for cutting by OE. The NSRS recommendation (I-86-120-SQN-4) was to recreate rebar sketch sheets and appropriately document, evaluate and correct the potentially cut rebar. The SQN response to this recommendation (memorandum from H. L. Abercrombie to R. P. Denise dated May 30, 1986 on the NSRS Report I-86-120-SQN) noted that SQN Mechanical Modifications Section had also inspected the area to determine if any rebar had, in fact, been cut. The results indicated that no rebar had been cut or damaged and recreating the rebar sketches was not justified based on these results. The reinspection was ;
verified with the SQN Mechanical Modifications responsible engineer who indicated that his reinspection of the areas , identified had been performed using a Geophysical Survey l Systems instrument which was more accurate than the GFI unit. The Subsurface Interface Radar System he used had provided results which indicated that no rebar had been cut or damaged and the unit was equipped to provide a printout of the inspection results. This evaluation agrees that the results of the robar inspection performed by SQN Modifications was ! considerably more accurate than the NSRS inspection which used a GFI unit. However, this evaluation does not agree with the SQN responso that recreating the rebar sketches is not justified. The fact that SQN Modifications verified no rebar j was cut or damaged does not justify the inability of the site to provide the color-coded sketches which established the areas where robar cutting was allowed without written approval by the Office of Engineering (OE). These sketches (Office of Civil Engineering sketches IZ-11-8-76-0 thru -16), as a minimum, provided documentation for the areas, if not each specific instance, where rebar could be cut without written approval. The NSRS investigation was able to retrieve the memorandum (R. M. Pierce to G. G. Stack dated September 15, 1976) which transmitted the aforementioned sketches to the site, but the sketches were not found. Therefore, this evaluation agrees with the NSRS report findings that SQN may, in fact, be in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII.
l TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 9 0F 16 j IV. Summary of Findings (Continued) ! 5. Incorrectly Sized Anchors - the performance of WR 114789 revealed only two of the anchors inspected to not be the size ^ required by.the 47A056 typical drawing series, one being larger than required and one being smaller. The support with the undersize anchor installed (1000HCAB749-A0519R015) is being tracked by the SQN Compliance Section as requiring correction / documentation, and is being handled by SQN i Electrical Modifications. The-fact that an undersize anchor.
, was installed (5/16" instead of 3/8") was verified in the .
memorandum C23 360618 006 from B. R. McCullough, Director of DNC. Also, the statement made in the same memorandum, "0E acceptance of variances from typical drawings, in effect at i that time, required OE support design group approval but did not require formal documentation," was verified with the current responsible engineer (site-DNE) as potentially being i the reason the undersize anchor was installed. The SQN
! Electrical Modifications section indicated.that the work plan I which will be initiated to "close" Engineering Change Notice i (ECN) L6744 will also address further action that may be
! required on the subject support.
- 6. Nonconforming Conditions - with respect to the comments in the NSRS report I-86-120-SQN on this subject, the following
- observations have been made
i'
- a. The current G-32 requirements, in effect when the WR 114789 sample program was performed,' caused discrepancies to be identified which were not in violation of G-32 requirements i
at the time of installation / inspection in 1976 - 1977. The i mechanism for evaluating the newer G-32 criteria and
! evaluating existing installations to these new criteria was NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 and the subsequent sample programs j that were performed (Most of the current G-32 requirements were implemented in 1981 to incorporate the inspection l: parameters found in 79-02).
l
- b. Further evaluation is performed by DNE in many cases to j determine whether the old installation is acceptable according to the new criteria from at engineering standpoint. If the DNE evaluation determines that an NCR j type condition exists, then a NCR is initiated. For
- example, if an anchor is inspected and found to have less I
I l i
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM l j REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 10 OF 16 IV. Summary of Findings (Continued) than 1 nominal bolt diameter of thread engagement j (minimum requirement according to G-32) immediate action
- will be initiated to correct the problem. However, DNE l has proven through detailed engineering evaluation and l laboratory tests that approximately 3/4 nominal bolt L diameter of thread engagement is adequate for the anchor j to be considered suitable for service (perform its
- intended function without reducing the factor of safety).
j Therefore, the DNE evaluation is performed on what . has been identified as a potential isolated problem and doesn't mean the entire plant needs to be inspected again for the same potential problem. At this point, there is no reason for DNE to believe that the factor of safety has been reduced because sample programs, j including 79-02, have proven at least 95 percent adequacy. I
- 7. WR 114789 Identified Items - much of the same information provided in the previous section on Nonconforming Conditions is also applicable here. It should be stated again, however, that
- the SQN 79-02 reinspection program was the mechanism employed to j evaluate installed conditions to these more recent acceptance
- criteria. Furthermore, the reinspection (sampling) programs initiated at SQN according to Quality Technology Campany (QTC)
- investigations, Special Maintenance Instructions (SMI-2-317-24 R2 addressed in the Element Report on Testing of Anchors) NSRS investigations and several NCRs, Significant Condition Reports j (SCRs) and Problem Identification Reports (PIRs) which mainly address DNE considerations each serve to evaluate installed l conditions to new criteria, establish new criteria and document
- the process in each case.
i The memorandum from B. R. McCullough to H. L. Abercrombie 4 (C23 860618 006) also addresses specifically the issue of
- nonconforming conditions and documentation / accountability l programs with respect to evaluating old installations to new -
criteria. The final comments are directed toward enhancement of installation and inspection requirements and the subsequent reviews and engineering evaluations performed to qualify 4 existing installations. Programmatic deficiencies and generic j implications were not considered valid problems requiring l further evaluation. This evaluation agrees with these comments. 1 i 8. Even though the NSRS sample identified only one instance of . l insufficient thread engagement, this evaluation has chosen to j address this issue since it relates directly to the SQN 79-02 l program. I i I
g;.,, , _ 4 3 - 4_at_4_.3m :- - --__.g. _A._ J ,. . m u- .m.e.__-_s - J d TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAN REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 11 0F 16 i IV. SummarybhFindings(Continued) It should be not.ed that the requirement for one bolt diameter I of thre'ad engagement for SSD type. anchors was not incorporated
; into G-32 until Revision 6 in 1981. The 79-02 reinspection program at SQN, completed before 1981, was intended to reveal whether specific anchorage problems existed, to include thread
- engagement. Conversation with DNE-CEB engineers revealed that l the G-32 requirement for thread engagement was based on the need for a simple requirement to be used by the installer in
! the field, not to establish the minimum engagement required to ,
l insure the specified load capacity would be obtained. As
! stated as an example in Section 6.b., this report, tests
! (conducted at TVA Singleton Materials Lab) have proven that the i minimum thread engagement required to obtain the required load capacities in SSDs is approximately 3/4 nominal bolt diameter j for most bolts. Therefore, the 95 percent adequacy factor for-anchor installations according to 79-02 with respect to thread l engagement is based on a very conservative G-32 requirement. ! To further support this methodology, SQN SMI-0-317-21 was i initiated to survey 111 baseplates as a result of employee concern II-85-010-001 which addressed nuts welded behind baseplates.- Determining installed bolt lengths was the first
- consideration, and both ultrasonic testing and physical
! measuring was used to determine the actual bolt length. A l total of 438 bolts were inspected for thread engagement and 1.6 percent did not have one nominal bolt diameter engagement as required by G-32. After DNE evaluation, only 3 (0.6 percent) were determined to have insufficient thread engagement to _ develop the full strength of the anchor.
- 9. Anchor Spacing - the NSRS semple identified 27 supports which violated some element of the current spacing criteria. Once
- again, it should be noted that G-32, R10 criteria were used to evaluate anchors installed to G-32, R4 criteria, as addressed l in the memorandum from B. R. McCullough to H. L. Abercrombie dated June 18, 1986 on NSRS report I-86-120-SQN and recommendation I-86-120-SQN-5. DNE is also eveluating the anchor spacing deficiencies as described in memorandum l B25 860507 008 from D. W. Wilson to H. L. Abercrombie.
Conversation with DNE-CEB engineers revealed that preliminary review of the rpacing violations had shown all would probably be acceptable, but detailed analysis / calculations ) would provide final acceptance or rejection. The conversation also revealed a NCR (GENQAB 8203 R1) which had been written in . I July, 1985, to document potential inadequate spacing criteria, i
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 , PAGE 12 OF 16 IV. Summary of-Findings (Continued) In response to this NCR, SQN performed a field sample in several plant locations which consisted of 114 anchor installations where SSDs were installed at less than G-32 minimum spacing. In addition, field inspections were conducted at these same locations to identify specific supports with significant loads and spacing less than the minimum. The results revealed all supports to have an adequate factor-of-safety as detailed in Revision 1 of 79-02 and the spacing violations addressed by the NCR had no . significant effect on the actual anchor factor-of-safety. It was determined that no further corrective actions were required. F. The subject of employee concern 11-85-010-001 was nuts welded to the back of baseplates. The evaluation of this issue has revealed the following:
- 1. Memorandum from H. B. Rankin, SQN Design Services to :
J. P. Vineyard, SQEP of January 30, 1986 (C01 860115 929) ; addressed specifically the subject of the concern. SQN-SMI-0-317-21 was written to conduct a survey of 111 baseplates regarding the allegation of nuts welded behind baseplates to fake anchorage. The aforementioned memorandum referenced six specific drawings that were reviewed; four of those were drawings 47A056-40, 47A056-40A, 48N707-26 and I-H47-282. , Drawing (47A050-4) addressed bars or small spacer plates installations behind the baseplate. Drawing 47A053-151 i did show an alternate configuration which allowed nuts to be used below the baseplate on the anchor stud to level the plate, but only on floor attachments. The survey found several baseplates where nuts were used as a leveling device and SQN-0E was asked to evaluate the installations. The i generic review determined that the structural integrity of the j support was not compromised (memorandum B25 860218 017). In j addition, documentation was to be initiated to prohibit the {' use of leveling nuts in future installations and document on i the applicable drawings the past use of the leveling nut j method. This was verified during conversations with j responsible Site Services and Electrical Modifications j engineers. FCR 4247 was initiated to accomplish the drawing 1
- changes, '1t was subsequently cancelled because OEP-11, 3.5.C l l (Exceptions to the ECN Procedure) did not require a FCR to i make a " cosmetic" drawing change only. l
! I I I l l 1
-___..-_.,_.___________-.--.__m___ -,___ _ _,._- _ .-,_-.... _ _ _ .-__ - - _ _ _
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 13 0F If IV. Summary of Findings (Continued) G. Conclusions The following conclusions address both specific concerns and generic issues at SQN. However, the summary is directed toward j proving the adequacy of SQNs concrete anchor program and therefore, will also specifically address NRC IE Bulletin 79-02:
- 1. Four specific concerns addressed the issues of abandoned anchor holes, torched / beveled holes in baseplates, anchors in contact .
with rebar and anchors installed outside of perpendicularity requirements. This evaluation revealed:
- a. Abandoned anchor holes - the concern was verified as being true but no violations of G-32 criteria were identified.
- b. Torched / beveled holes in baseplates - this concern was not verified as being true, as no holes were found which had been beveled or enlarged with a cutting torch,
- c. Anchors exceeding perpendicularity - this concern was not verified as being true, as no anchors were identified which exceeded the current criterion for perpendicularity.
i d. Anchors contacting rebar - this concern was not verified as being true as no anchors were identified which were in contact with rebar.
- 2. With respect to other anchorage issues, no deficiencies were found which, after review and engineering evaluation, caused a j condition adverse to quality to be identified. The significance of this statement is realized when it is recognized that the identified deficiencies were not unacceptable in the timeframe of the initial installation /
inspection (1976-1977) but were deficient based on current, present day criteria. This provides the justification for detailed engineering evaluations of old installations to new , criteria as opposed to using the NCR/SCR mechanism for each l potential deficiency. DNE is committed to initiating proper CAQ type documentation only when engineering evaluation methodology falls to qualify or accept the installation "as is." 1
- 3. NRC IE Bulletin 79 the sampling programs performed j
~ according to 79-02 were in direct compliance with those . described by the bulletin. The bulletin listed two specific sampling methods that could be employed or, as an alternative, ; l l i
. _. - - ._ --. _- . - _ - . . - - - ~ _ _ -
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAN REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 14 0F 16 IV. Summary of Findings (Continued) other methods could be used if justified. TVA used the random sample technique described in the bulletin which provided a 95 percent confidence level that less than 5 percent defective anchors were installed. The NRC has accepted the results of the 79-02 program at SQN. The results proved a greater than 95 percent confidence level as previously described.
- 4. General Construction Specification G the current revision to G-32 includes numerous changes (enhancements) not in effect .
during the timeframe of the subject concerns. These enhancements wera a result of NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 which . identified, industry wide, the need for more detailed acceptance criteria and inspection procedures. The bulk of these enhancements were implemented in G-32 according to Revision 6 in 1981. However, the enhancements were not intended to be interpreted as absolute minimum acceptance criteria but as conservative requirements and guidelines to be , used by the field when the anchor (s) is installed. The revising of G-32 is a process that "will continue" because as new methodology is recognized , areas in need of enhancement are identified and more specific criteria are required, revisions will be made to further improve the anchor program. .1-
- 5. The following are areas identified by this evaluation that SQN
, should review as necessary to determine any additional action (s) I that may be required:
- a. perform a detailed review of Modifications and Additions Instruction (N&AI) 10, R10, to include Change Number 86-893, to insure that all applicable G-32 anchor installation and 1
inspection criteria have been implemented,
- b. review 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII to determine
- if violations have occurred with respect to color coded rebar sketches (IZ-11-8-76-0 through -16) potentially being i a "QA record" but not being retrievable for review.
4 2 c. review drawings identified in Section F.1., this report, to J insure revisions are incorporated with respect to the use of leveling nuts behind baseplates. 1 I ) i i I_ .__,_ __.. ___...__ _ _ _._ __,_.,_ _ _._ _ _ _ .__, _ - _ . _ , _ _ . . _ , _ _ . _ , _ . . _ . . _ ,,_
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS , REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQM; SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 6 PAGE 15 0F 16 IV. Summary of Findings (Continued)
- 6. Final comments applicable to the subject of this element are as follows:
- a. A significant amount of work has been performed and is still being performed in many areas by SQN Mechanical and Electrical Modifications, SQN OE, SQN compliance and DNE on issues applicable to the subject concerns. Documentation initiated by the NSRS DNE and SQN-GCTF is being tracked and statused by the SQN Compliance section to insure ,
resolution of each open issue,
- b. This evaluation has determined that the necessary programs and procedures are in place and significant emphasis has been placed on each item to fully answer specific concerns and further prove the adequacy of SQN's anchor program.
V. Root Cause No specific CAQs were identified so no root cause is assigned at this time. However, a potential CAQ exists with respect to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XVII. If this CAQ is verified, root cause would be failure to follow procedure and/or failure to adhere to uppor-tier criteria requirements. VI. Corrective Action *
- The line management response as detailed in CATD No. C011305-SQN-01 was that a detailed review of M&AI-10 had been performed and I.C. 86-893 had been incorporated on August 1, 1986.
The line management response as detailed in CATD No. C011305-SQN-02 was that the referenced sketches were not considered QA records nor documentation. Rather, they were considered field information and processed as such.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: C011305-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAN REVISION NUMBER: 6 4 PAGE 16 0F 16 4 VI. Corrective Action (Continued) Additional evaluation was performed subsequent to the line response on the subject sketches. Conversations with DNE civil engineers revealed the areas detailed by the sketches to be " low stress" areas where a minimal amount of rebar was actually required. The intent of the sketches was to serve as a guide for areas where " blanket approval" would be given to cut rebar. DNE defined the sketches as color-coded drawings issued to facilitate construction only and were not intended 2 to serve as life-of-plant (LOP) type documentation. However, these comments do not preclude SQN from maintaining records which would allow . evaluation of the cumulative effects of robar cut in specified areas. This subject is being addressed from a generic standpoint by the 4 Engineering Category, SQN Element Report Nos. 215.2(B) and 215.6(B).
, The line management response as detailed in CATD No. C011305-SQN-03 was ! to revise the following drawings to preclude the use of leveling nuts:
47A056-40 and 40A, 1-H47-282, 48N707-26, 47A053-151. Drawing 47A050-4 was already revised on June 3, 1986, to address the leveling nut concern. l These corrective actions are not SQN restart items. The corrective actions for the listed CATD are detailed below: 1 L I
- C011305-SQN Closure of Recommendation I-86-120-SQN-3 of NSRS l Report I-86-120-SQN. l lR6 l - C011305-SQN Closure of Recommendation I-86-120-SQN-2 of NSRS '
l Report I-86-120-SQN. l i 1
- C011305-SQN Closure of Recommendation I-86-120-SQN-5 of NSRS l
[ Report I-86-120-SQN. l l VII. Generic Applicability Since NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 affected all TVA nuclear plants, the issues addressed by this evaluation are potentially generic at Browns Ferry and Bellefonte. The overall adequacy of each anchor program, the emphasis being directed toward 79-02, should be evaluated. l VIII. Attachments Attachment A - List of Concerns Attachment B - Listing of Concerns Indicating Safety Relationship and Generic Applicability i i
ATTACHMENT A LIST OF CONCERNS l HI-85-020-N02 HI-85-073-N04 HI-85-113-N02 IN-85-020-001' IN-85-037-001' IN-85-246-003 IN-85-285-001- , IN-85-625-002 IN-85-664-001 h~ IN-85-982-001 IN-86-140-002s IN-86-177-001 IN-86-221-001 IN-86-294-002
- PH-85-002-026s
- PH-85-035-007%
PH-85-054-NO3 QCP-10.35-8-23 , SQP-5-005-002~ SQP-5-005-003-SQP-5-005-004~ SQP-5-005-005 - SQP-5-005-006~ SQP-85-005-001 , SQP-85-005-007 - WI-85-011-001-XI-85-010-001~ II-85-010-N02 i h h i r t
, , . . =. _- . . . - ._.
~
_. Coll 305- S4W- X%N^ j]d A-rraceswst-r- B
- n . . .
YYYY I-35-143-H3tl SS UllIT 2, REACTOR PLDG. ELEV. 713 ~ AfitlU IN 0:'0-001- CD 11300 !! HDil LUS AREA, S/8" PHILLIPS " RED IfEAD" H T50026
- K-FORil
- EDGE A!!Cl!9RS Ill DUCT SUPPORTS 9 1582
-1533 IIERE Ilif'E'.iPLRLY IllST ALL ED. TH IS HAS CAUSED ity LRILLIllG T!!E If0LES 100 DEEP UR fl01' DEEP Ell 0 UGH. Tile "R ED llEADS" THAT DID fl0T 11EET 111till10fl i EllDED:1ENT LElloill3ALSD,
!!ERESci CUT1EOFF FLilSif "P.ED llEA
!!ITH Tile IIALL .
US" llERE DEILRICRAT ED AllD RUSTED. I-85-656-ilBil SS IfANGER EASE PLATES IllSTALLED IllPROFE
'iUDO il llDil YYYY RLY. REDARS ICILLED T!! ROUGH AND RED' Ill 285-001 CO K-FOR!i llEADS CUT OFF Sil0%I. BOLT AND llEADS
'T50174 CUT OFF Ai D HELDED TO BASE PLATE.
ALL CRAFTS DID THIS. EXAMPLES ARE D UCT SUPPORTS- CTLIll9 0F C0tiTROL R00 5/8" RED 11 (SFREAD ROO!!D 708' ELE 5-6 B0 If EADS . VARIOUS SIZE PLATES. LTS CUT CLOSE TO COLUMHS AT EAST l!AL L. CI HAS 110 FURTitER IliFOR!'AT10!I. C0!!ST . DEPT . C0ilCERti. 110 FOLL0ll UP REQUIRED. 11 3 AllCl! ORS DOLTS IIAVE BEEll CUT AND HELD Ill 140-002 CO 11300 il !!Dil 'YYYY : ED TO DASE FLATES. AllC110RS IIAVE . HOT T50127 K-FORM - BEEli PUT Ill DEEP Ell 0VCH, AllD Call PU LL DUT. EGs TURDIllE BLDG UllIT (2, G ROUND LEVEL, ROOM l! EAR RAILilAY ENTRA lice ( ACROSS PASSAGE FRut! HORTH VALVE Routt) . CONDUlT llAllGER DIRECTLY OVE R EllTRY HAY HAS PULLED OUT OF HALL, AllD IS DEIHG llELD UP BY C0llDUIT. AL 50 HAS llELD LEAD DRAPED DVER HAllGER.
. C0llSTRUCTIUll DEPT C0!!CERil. UllIT 2
, . CI IIAS lia FURTilER INFORMATI0ll.
.s.
Y YY I-85-529-HDil SS IH 1981 Tile FIRE FROTECTIDH SYSTEtt I CO 11300 N HBil !! THE VAUL'i Ill VillT 2 HAD A BASE PL A 'i. IN 294-002 T50152 K-FORM TED HITil All AllCHOR BOLT CUT OFF AllD TACK HELDED TO THE DACK OF THE BASE PLATE. TIIE DASE PL ATE IS LOCATED Ill SII:E Tile ACCESS D00R TO THE VAULT.AH
. . J D 011 Tile CEILIllG. CI flAS fl0 ADDITIO
, IIAL IllFORMATI0ll. CI'S C0flCERif IS IN
- OTHER APPLICATI0!ls IN Tile PL AflT. C ONSTR. DEPT. C0!ICERil. to FOLLOM REQ UIRED. t i
Pil 002-026 CO 11300"fl llDil YYYY SS PEDHEARD CONCPrTE AllCit0RS IIAVE DEEH T50I64 . REPORT IttPROPERLY IllST ALLED THROUGH llDilP.
' CollSTRUCTIO!! DEPT. C0llCER!l. CI HAS It0 FURTilER INFORMATI0tl. 110 FOLLOHUP REQUIRED.
4 I Pil 035-007 CO 11300 il HDil 11 !! Y Y llS CI IS CollCER!!ED ADOUT USING 3/8" RED T50188 REPORT llEADS IllSIEAD OF 3/4" IN SYSTEll 6G
* *
- DRAlli, P.EACTOR I AT ELEVATION 720 OR g i 721, flEAR RC PUllP 2. C0!!ST RUCT10ll f
DEPT C0!!CERil. .CI IIAS fl0 FURIHER INF ' ORilA T ION . i ,. ,g. .q;..y .. 9;y. 3,. ,. g., 3 . '., ' ..;
i ,
~ '
/f D//3d5-SGN- M 6,e -
gp YNW$/YY ~~ HI 020-H02 CU 1130b 1111Bil YYYY !!S IIRC IDEllfirIEb Tile FOLLOH1140 CollCERil REPORT FR0ll I!CVIEll 0F IllE QIC FILE: "QUALI
- TY READ AHC110R lil31ALLATIOilS." PER REVIEH Ur IllE FILE. Tills CollCERil APP
.- EARS TO DEAL HIlH CRAFTS!!Eli CUTTIll0 LEAD AllClfGRS Ill HALF HifEH THEY llIT R EBAR AllD flAKIlla T!iEll APPEAP. TilAT Tile Y ARE llEDGED lli 1PE il0LE.
III 073-Il04 CO 11300 11 HDH YYYY llS !!RC IDEllTIFIED THE FOLLOHI!!O CONCER!l FR0ll REVIEll UF lilE Qic FILE: "PER REPORT . REVIEH OF THE EXCEf:PT Tile C0!!CERil AP PEARS TO DE TilAT SollE A!!CHORS HERE F
~ DUllD TO BE HELDED TO THE REDAR REll!F
- ORCEllEllT I!! THE C0HCP.ETE. BOLTS IIHI CH HAD BEEli CUT TO Tile DEPTH OF TifE PL ATE THEY HEllT THROUGH AllD TilEll SPD
. . T llELDED Dil THE BACK SIDE, il0T EVEll EllTERIllG THE CollCRETE."
Ill 037-001 CD 11300 H HBH YYYY IN-85-037-001 HS Ill 50!!E CASES HllECE C0llCRETE AllCHORS 750002 REPORT. IIIT RED AR, THE AllCil0RS HERE CUT OFF AND A BOLT-HEAD llAS llELDED To BASE PLATE 11300 !! HBH YYYY I-85-528-ilBN HS SEVERAL IllSTAllCES HERE IDEllTIFIED Til. Ill -8 5-246-003 CD REPORT AT HillLE REHOVIHO VOIDED llA110EP.S OF T50156 ' RED HEAD AllCil0RS, AllCHORS HERE OBSER VED TO BE GROUllD Oil, CUT-OFF OR OTilE
- RHISE Il0DIFIED. CI CONCERilED THAT T HIS C0llDITI0ll COULD EXIST FOR Hall 0ER S STitt lilSTALLED. CI COULD fl0T PRO VIDE SPECIFIC llUll3ERS OF VOIDED Hallo ERS. C1 STATED TilIS DCCURRED Ill Ull!
T 2 SIDE AUXILLI ARY EUILDIll0, ELEY. 692' Oil CEILIlla COLUtill A13 -T LINE. CONSTRUCTI0ll DEPT. CollCERil. HD FUL
. LOH UP REQUIRED.
IN 625-002 CD 11550YHDH !! Y Y Y HS ADAND0llED REDllEAD !! OLES ARE REPAIRED T50060 REPORT llITH file REDHEADS STILL EllBEDDED lli CollCRE T E. IT IS IliPOSSIBLE TO DETE EllIllE IF REDAR DallAGE HAS DCCURED.
] Tile AB AHDOHED/ REPAIRED REDHEADS ARE LOCATED SITE HIDE.
*IN 664-001 CD 1130011 HBH HYYY , HS POSSIBLE AtlCPUR VIOLATI0llS Ill KEYllAY T50067 REPORT AREA UllDER REACTOR UllIT 1. 50!!E All CHORS HillClf ARE NOT USED SHOULD DE P' Ul. LED AllD PATCllED. Tile CI OBSERVED
- Ti!ESE Ill 1983.
Ill ~85-982-001 CD 11300 1111BH YYYY I-85-323-HBli HS PEBAR 10 CATERS !!0T USED. REBAR OFTE T50111 REPORT 11 IIIT CURITIO RED IIEAD DRILL 1HO. ' 11All Y RED llEAD lilSERTS IIAVE BEEli CUT OFF I AND ARE Sil0RTEli THAH SPECIFIED LEHO Til, AND OFTEN PULL OUT llHEN TESTED. THREAD EllGAGE!!E!!T IS ALSO TOO SHORT OllLY EXAllPLE,Kl10H!l ifAS BEEll REquR KED (Ullli 2 00 UP L ADDER INTO ACCUMU LATOR R00lf, GO FUP.llARD, 3-5 PANELS A T LEFT.) CI HAS !!O l10RE INFORMATI0ll
. H0 FOLLUII UP REQUIRED.
t * .
... . . a. < .. *s s ' . ,
A s --
.u- .
.m_ j_ w. . 9.n u. ha .
',,* 9 '... . j.!l l'O//365- SM
?" O' j !. 'y!W li.!Iij!.h' ^ *.;. % , ~$ pr
,- . ,. s. s r.
' P ;lM0,i'j.h % %
jig,q:,].; ,
,7- gg;ggg g 4,,
.In w, :.. -
. .; p, i. .
11300 H llDil YYYY llS DURIllG REHURl", CI IDElitIFIED ll0ll CA
. Ill 177-001 8CD ; ilAllGER illAT 4 RED llEAD ANCH0k.1 flAD 8 T50124'
- REPORT -
EEN CUT OFF. 11115 OCCURRED Il Ti(E T o r URDIllE Dl.DG. ELEV. 685 CI ilAS II0 F
* ~; URil!ER IllF ORilA T IDil . CollST R. DEPT . C -
, s OllCERil. FOLL0ll' UP REQUIRED.
.l,. *.
i .g,.;
't,' . ,
Ill 221-001 CD 11300 H llDH YYYY I-8 5-4 41-ilDil ' . il3 AUX. BLDG. 755' TO(UllIT 1 SIDE), CEILIllG "ItEDAlllIU L U llEltE llE ADS" S . ELL TSOI34 . .
- REPORT .
EFT Ill ifAL L ( Ar T r.rt Rtr10 vat. OF CotiDUI
* * [*
- T) AliD OROUTED OVER ll!Til0UT REll0VIllo
' " RED HEADS" . IlVCPilR DEPT . C0llCERil.
.;** * .' [* CI IIAS llo ADDIT 10llAL IllFORMATI.Dil.
- lia FDLLOli U." RFGUIRED.
s .. . l'il ~85-054-fl03 CO 11300 H HDil YYYY llS liRC IDEllTIFIED Tile FOLLOHING CollCERil
- REPORT FROH REVIEH OF QiC FILE. " DOLT llEA DS HERE ilELDED 10 A PLATE TO RESEllDL E A DOLT Ill PLACE. CI IIAD 110 SPECIF
. j' IC LOCATICH."
11300 N BLH Y Y Y.Y 11 5 01.D SSD'S USED IN PIPE SUPPORTS 'TilAT QCP10.35-8-23 CO HERE INST ALLED ll;i'"I RA110ES IIERE FIR
- REPORT
" ST INSTALLED.
. ** r . . ,
...' .i ,
XX 010-H02 CD 11300 N HDH YYYY SS flRC IDEHr!FIED Tile FOLLDillll0 CollCERil i REPORT . FRoll THEIR REVIElf DF THE QTC FILES:
.,
- ERT REPURT QUESTI0llS HilETilER ALL I
. t3 t; J' . .
NFORilATIDH Oil 42:: OF AllCHORS FAILIlf0
-'.. * ' ' s ORICIllAL ACCEPT AllCE CRITERIA llAS Kil DHff 70 IIRC Ill TVA/HRC RESOLUTION OF BULLETIll 79-02 REQUIREllEllis AllD HORK
..* PL All 110. 5-1206, SECTI0li 2 ACCEPTAll CE CRITERI A.
.. .,....,7..-
, III -85,-113-H02 CO .10900 S HDU .Y h Y Y HS HRC IDEllTIFIEDll'E FOLLDHING CullCERil "IllCO CO REPORT
- FRCH REVIEli 0F Tilt QIC FILE e :. . 3 .
** 11300' RRECT LUI'RICAlli FOR CADLE PULLS. Ill
..' PROPER INSTALLATI0ll DF DOLTS, PLATES
; .. :",: ll r** *
, AllD AllCllCRS Ill THE AUXILLI ARY DUIL s!8 * ,<, ;
. DIt!G. HIRE SPLICED Ill TRAYS AND C0li ll..- DUITS."
;q.:-.. ,
' ' ,= '
t g a { l. . l
- 8 t'
' e.
I-YI * .. ,
' q 'f . - .
..yi:*"*
* .fg.
1
' i', . . .
. t et . .
.- ' ' ' .l'..,
'[
'[ , ', ' .- y
- s N. ,
.11 +
1, _ '_
~
'. fi .
. .s ,
, COI 505- SGnf- A fp
. .i:.. ., tW.
$s.3ep $!.'.- %.l*@
. r. .
tSn j . .s*
'* . l A.Y fb* 'f. h* S ' . .fjq Q pff**jt/-f -
'
- b t*dy$ I'd
- f*.';p ja e'SQP-85-005-006 CD, 11300 11 SQll t il !! Y Y ? I-86-120-SQN SS SEQUOYAHi Ill 1976-77, AUX BUILDIllG, l T50229. N 1; :' REPORT ; ELEVATI0l! 749 0F UllIT I, IN THE 110V O ' ' .- .. TOARD RODil A, BElliEEli COLUHil LINES A
- 7. TO A8 AllD "R" LINE, CollCRETE AllCHO e :
? '* [:.'t ' . . " ;' ' - -
RS l-lERE DRILLED IllIO THE CEILIllG, ilA
. ss .
!!Y OF H!lICll HIT REPAR. THIS HAY HDT
} ', ' ' ..G{"a
%j A ,l '
i, HAVE BEEli REPORTED TO ENGINEERING S 8
. ?. ;* r. O THAT ENGINEERIllG COULD EVALUATE All Y DAMACE. THE il0LES HERE RELOCATED
~j .
pt L4 , ./ . . -
.: .?
AllD REDRILLED, Ai!D THE CCHDUIT AND C i e
' ?('id p : ". . .
, ALLE SUPPORTS HERE INSTALLED Ill THE d '- '
- CEILIllG. DET AILS KilolH1 10 QTC, HITH lQ '
HELD TO HA!NTAIN CONFIDENTIALJTY. 11
. s.
,- 'h'g., .R.h ,
1 p ;d4 0 FURTHER INFORilATI0liIlAY BE REL SQP-85-005-007 *. CD 11300 lIl !! Y H 'SS SEQUOYAH Ill 1976-77, Ill THE AUX. BL
.T50229 ;.E % N SQH;$ REPORT . 'oI-86-120-SQH :-
C 3 D0., ELEVATIDH 749 0F UllIT I, AllCHOR
.gt. 'p .
' 15 7,. ;' .. BOLTS IH THE CEILIllG OF THE MOV BOA 9.. .
- it - .
.% . b .;
j) %g~0
- c. .
".U' cgf
'J RD RC0tt I A BETilEEH COLUHH LINES AZ-T 0 A-8, AND "R" LINE HERE VERIFIED TO y.11, . ,[* .y ! i.
.' .[fc .
' BE T!!E I!RONO SIZE. 1HESE AHCHOR B0 LTS ARE llTILIZED TO SUPPORT CONDUIT
- ? j ;t y -T.p(f.4.E.
"g %'.:- t. ,1 % ', , : ,1 ' " - AllD CABLE TRAY. DETAILS ARE Kil0HH T
. .c f. '!. - .
O QTC HITHilELD To liAlllT AIll CONFIDElli
!.W
. e e,,v'g4.
.- l IALITY. NO FURTHER INFORilATIDH HAY
'pl 1
'5c BE RELEASED. CI IIAS HO FURTHER INFO
.rr, 3.t :5 A, - : J .' -
4
, RHAT I0ll. CONSTRUCTI0ll DEPT. CONCERll
.I. ,/[ ' . ,"j;. ;
.,; Il0 FOLLOH-UP I;EQUIRED.
l....,1 *. st; . :q HI 011-001 CO - 1130011HBH' YYYY. SS SOME ELECTRICAL HA!!GERS Ill THE TURBI T50031 .' . 4.,t " REPORT HE AllD CONTROL BUILDINGS HAD ANCHOR
' d,
< ; ',a . .j, [. '
BULTS HELDED TO THJ EMBED lulERE REDA
. p ; .JE
#- r'>. R INTERFERED HITH THE Ill5TALLAT10ll.
M' +s ' (SPECIFIC LOCATI0lis 110T Kl10Hil).
* *, . Tf; ' , jf./.'.[ { "'
, ,s f-y, n ' , . . '
XX 010-001 Co.' '11300 N SQll,'Y Y Y Y SS SEQUOYAH- HHEli REMOVII:0 VOIDED HAllGE i
- 4 4 KS, CI DISCOVERED SEVERAL IllSTAllCES
* . T50075 *
- .0 "O"4 'I'. . + -REPO.RT ,
OF HUTS HELDED 10 DACK OF BASE PLATE S HITH THE COHCRETE CHIPPED allay TO
+ s il ,, .
' M F. *,p.'Q. "ig: ;7 ' ,
ACCEPT NUT. AHCil0R BOLTS ll0ULD ACCE
. ,.J *dlQ %~ '
PT TORQUE BUT ll0VLD 110T SUPPORT BASE J S! . PLATES. PER CI, TilIS SITUATI0ll CDU J W . 7.
- s ;L
- Wi. [14,'." ' ,e . **
LD EXIST FOR THE INSTALLED Hall 0ERS. EXAllP L E : CVC SYSTEM REACTOR DUILDIN
')#..,i . ;. . O, ACCUHULATOR ROCH 4. THIS HAS ADO
.),y '
, I' " / UT 4 YEARS AGO AT SEQUOYAH Ill UllITS
'. . '"dh;&,4 t .- ..
1 a 2. .. 7
!'*.Y.* . :. " . f '
[, f(c.,l..
,~, . e r ,; > .' .
,l:; . . .y.. ,.
' 1. ;,p~p; 4, . .;
l , , tw ; .' . )e ' ' ;;;h:' ~ , ' . y M. . },;;1 - ' '
.hk.
. . f:u,... .... .
a .d ..l.:'.
. . ;l.
p -ll.
- j'1.( t i - ,. , ..drp3 ;, . ' ".. .
4
. '.'5 .
4.. . ,'S)% .5 . ' i . .
/
f
' .Q
- p. d(,s,. /u
. n. .
3
. . ?.f.r 1 1
. .% 6".. }' ..' '. . ' WF.' ' '
..a..,4.....
a .
',.".,,,t.'
. . t ,.. / , ..f
./.t b. . t.,t 4. ., .
. s.t; t;; .
. V,f *, * '
. l} [; *;*-
, .:, s . . . . : . ,. ... .
*l .. .. /.
.o,,,,. .
, t.y:
.y. c11.: .
r- M,, ., w .a :n .t u. -
WljMMjbl ? hb CORMS- S@V-Wl{/ ' i1
- 1. h i l f r ;..~ 3 1' .6 P4
.' ,s,
,'1.
I,
*fh$ f' NNl0 ~
SQP-85-005-001 CO 11300 11 SQll YYYY I-86-120-SQH SS SEQUOYAH Ill 19 7 6 -7 7, AUX ELDG, ELEV T50229 REPORT ATION 74c, OF UllIT I, Tite Cot!DUIT A'l D C ABLE T CAY SUrl' ORT S Ill T H E 4 FW 30 A RD R00f1 IA, BElllEEli COLUltil LIllis A-2 TO A-8 AllD "R" LIllE IIERE I'lCORRECTL Y INSTAf. LED. A CUITIllo TORCil HAS US ED 10 tilL ARGE Ti!E It0LES Ott Tite DACK SIDE OF lite SUPPORT PL ATES. Tile It0L Es llERE DEVELED TO Allull THE AllCHOR DOLTS l0 FIT 1HROU0il tile Il0L ES. DET AILS Kil0 Hit TO QTC, HITilitEL D To itAlliT
. AIN CollFIDEllTI ALITY. Il0 FURTHER IllF ORltAT I0li ItAY l'.E REL EASED. CI HAS 110
- ADDITI0llAL IllFORllATIoll. CONST.
SQP-85-005-002 CD II3 60'll. SQH ll 11 Y 'Y I-86-120-SQll SS SEQUOYAHi Ill 1976-77, AUX DLDG, ELEV T50229 REPORT A110H 749, OF UllIT I, Ill THE F10V DOA RD ROCll IA, BEllll;Ei! COLUltH LIllES A-2 TO A-8 AllD "R" LIllE Il0LES llERE L EFT IN TIIE CEILING UNDER T!!E CollDUIT All D CADLE TRAY SUPPORTS. REBAR HAS HI T lulILE DRILLIll3 THE HOLES, 50 THE 11 OLE LOCATI0li ilAS It0VED, AllD THE OLD HOLES HERE LEFT llITH Tile SIIELLS IllST ALLED AND Tile il0LES tl0T FILLED HITil GROUT. DETAILS Kiloitti TO QTC HITHHEL D TO itAlllTAlli CollFIDENTI ALITY. 110 F URTHER IllFORilATION 11AY BE RELEASED. CI HAS !!3 ADDITIO!!AL INFORHATIO 11300 11 SQll YYYY I-86-120-SQil SS SEQUOYAH: Ill 1976-77, AUX BLDG. ELEV SQP-85-005-003 CD ATIoll 749, OF UllIT I, Ill Ti!E fl0V DOA 150229 . REPORT RD ROOH IA, DEillEEll COLUllH LIllES A-2 T O A-8 A'"1 "R" LIllE Tite ANCHOR SilEL LS HERE CUT OFF AllD IllSTALLED lillEli T HEY IIIT REPAR DURIllo IllST ALL ATIDil. THE SitELLS HERE CUT rF TO FA"ILITAT E INSTALL ATION OF CollDUIT AND CABLE
... TRAY SUPPORTS TO THE CEILING. DETAI 1 LS KHollll TD QTC AllD HITlHIELD To ttAlli TAlla CONFIDEllTI ALITY. IlUCL EAR P0llER C 0!4C ERil . 110 FURTHER IllFORitATI0tl ItA Y BE RELEASED. CI HAS 110 FURTHER Ill FORHATI0ll. 110 FULLoll UP REQUIRE SQP-85-005-004 CO 11300 !! SQll YYYY I-86-120-SQil SS S EQUDY Alli Ill 1976-7', AUX DLDG. ELEV T50229 REPORT ATION 749, OF UNIT I, Ifl THE fl0V BUA RD R00fl IA, BETH2 Elf COLUliti LINES A-2 TO A-8 AllD "R" LIllE Tile CONCRETE All
) Cif0RS llEFE IllST/ LLED AT All ANGLE SO 4
, GREAT TilAT Tile lt0LES Ill THE SUPPORT l'L ATES IIA 0 TO lie D EVEL ED Off Tlf E-DACK SIDE TO EHAPLE THE AllCll0R BOLT TO F IT THROUGil THE PLATE. THESE Alicil0RS
- i. HERE IllSTALLED FOR CONDUIT AND CABL E TRAY SUITORTS Ill TifE CEILING. DET I AILS Kil010! 10 QTC HITilHELD TO itAlllT A i
IN CONFIDEilTIALITY. I!O FURit!ER IHf 0 ' RHATIO!! IlAY IiE hELEASED. CI IIAS
- f).', .*
- SQP-85-005-005 CO '1UUUll SQH .YYYY I-86-120-SQll SS S EQUOY All e Ill 1976-7 7, AUX BUILDIllG, T50229 REPURT ELEVATI0li 749 0F UtliT I, Ill THE 110V E 0 A"1 R00fl IA DETHEEll COLUllfl LIllES A
-2 10 A-3 AllD "R" L INE fl0HCullFORll11tG C0ilDITIONS IIIT!! Ti!E IllSTALLi.TIO!! 0F CONDUIT AllD CA!!LE TRAY SUPPORTS SUC 11 AS, CUT OFF All: HOR SilELLS, INCORRE CTLY INSTALI.ED. AllCHOR SHELLS, HROH 0 SIZE AllCil0RS, CU T REL AR, 110 DI F I E D SUPPORT PLATES, AllD AUCliOR 110LES fl0T . , FILLED llERE Il1ENTIFIEDs H0HEVER THE SE !!OHCollFORHIHG C0HDI TIONS llERi l'OT
- DOCUHLllT ED A!!D AI PROPRI AT E ACT ION I I
- IIP L El1EN T ED. DETAILS KHUll TO QTC
.t .g ,;y ,
i M
, 'Q ['. % l i. f
ECTG C.3 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 - A
.... .. *s _
, . ECSP Corrective Action Tracking Document -
, ';-' . EATD) ,
INITIATION Applicable ECSP Report NO: C ett/307-99N
- 1. Innsediate Corrective Action Required: 0 Yes %. No 2.
- 3. StopWorkRellTbnded:5-CAID No. C0 500f Yes 4)( No INITIATION DATE T I7-K
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: SGAJ SITE DIRECTdJ2
- 6. PROBLEMDESCRIPTION:%QR O NQR
- r .
YERFORM PETAILEP REVIEW Of MlA1/0 Yo 7AlsveE RLL AfPLI&A8LE 6-32 AAKJf02 TMSTALLAfloA)/XMSPrcT/OAl CK1762tA //AS BEEAf ~GMPLEMEAITED. m
/ , / )/ /i O ATTACHilENTS ,
- 7. PREPARED BI: NAME /vs4*f / ..G s'/terrW i DATE: 9-23 -#
- 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H J M f-'*/ W DATE: 7-27-#4
- 9. APPROVAL: ECTG PRd WAN MGR. -
.DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
s' _ 7' O ATTACH!!ENTS
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: DATE: , ,
- 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H: DATE:
SRP: DATE: DATE: DATE:
- DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE: VERIFICATION AND CLOSEQUT \ I
.- a ,
- 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented. *
, SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
d
- ECTG C.3 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 - A b..- ,. .
ECSP Corrective Action Tracking Doewnent ,
. , ,4, ,
(CATD) , INITIATION - Appilcable ECSP Report NO: I C of150 5 .99A/
- 1. Inseediate Corrective Action Required: 0 Yes )lf No
- 2. nd d O Yes
- 3. Stop CATD Work.
No. CORecoTO$ II :SGN- 2. 4. X No INInAn0N DuE 7-23-1/o
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: 50 Al 6ITE DIRECTo R
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: %QR O NQR REVIEW 10 cFR 50 APPENDIY 6. f RtffRf A ~YVII -fo DEYFMIME TF L __Vict ATio W9 fAl6T 'WITH RESPEC,T' To COLOR-CODED REDAf 6EEfc4ES (IZ-it 8 0 7#fu - lO foTYdTI Al.L'l BErug A oA RECORD sur flof 86146 E'ETRIEVAFLF.' _
O /
/ / /M I/ O ATTACHilENTS
- 7. PRSPARED BY: NAME /-yet.s / //o/&Yr*5( , DATE: 9-23-8(o l
- 8. CCNCURRENCE: CEG-H W" f ' het DATE: '9- 7 9 -/ 4
- 9. APPROVAL: ECTG P p MGR. DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
l l i l ! O ATTACH!!ENTS
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: DATE: , ,
l DATE:
- 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-il:
SRP: DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: . ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE: ! k I VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT I , 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE s
ECTG C.3 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 - A ( , ECSP Corrective Action Tracking Document . (CATD) , INITIATION b i' Applicable ECSP Report NO: c d/ Jy09~ ,9 9W
- 1. Inunediate Corrective Action Required: O Tes M No
- 2. Stop Work Recommended: 0 Yes )!( No
- 3. CATD No. C0113 05- SQN- 3 4 INITIATION DATE T-23-86
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: SGM- S/TE DIRECTOR
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: p QR O NQR .
y KETEW DW6S. LISTED BELOW 70 Ihl5URE REVIStoM TS MAbE~ 70 2RECLUDC~ THC USE Of LEVELIM(n AUTS AS REQUIRED: 4'7 A 0 56 - 4 0 4 *l A 0 56,- 40 A 4RN10I-26. __ I - H 4'I- Z E 2 47A050-4 4'l A053- 15 I
. , M/ A O ATTACH!!ENTS ,
- 7. PREPARED BY: NAME #fleu 4. 44r/wrd/ , DATE: V -2.3 -6(o
- 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H I J/J" / h DATE: ~9 # 4
- 9. APPROVAL: ECIG PROGR @ R.
DATE: CORRECTIVE ACTION
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
O ATTACH!!ENTS
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: DATE:
- 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H: DATE:
SRP: DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: . _ _ _ _ ECIG PROGRAM MGR: DATE: VERIFICATION AND CLOSEQUT i 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented. SIGNAIURE TITLE DATE t ,
ECTG C.3 Attcchmsnt A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 ECSP Corrective Action Tracting Document (CATD) INITIATION Applicable ECSP Report No: / 0 7/305-5GM, 25 !
- 1. Immediate Corrective Action Required: O Yes % No
. 2. Stop Work. Recommended: 0 Yes % No
- 3. CATD No. l'0 I 1305- S G M- 04 4. INITIATION DATE l2-l2-O[o
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: 69N .StTE DIRECTOR
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: % QR O NQR PER WORR REhttEST (WJO ll47892 bolds (de sooonds A0318R004 and A0508R005 were 4'oond damaoed " %d remiire U -
reolareme nA Re#crence: Sod- FCR- 4l,51 nM Ec M- LL,744 N$RS REPORT Z-8LH20 SM
/ / / ) M O ATTACHMENTS
- 7. PREPARED BY: NAME /-rw l MAJ , DATE: /f-/2-5S
- 8. CONCURRENCE: 'CEG-H / L 4 X h DATE: /I-/5 -#4
- 9. APPROVAL: ECTG PR p MGR. DATd:
CORRCCTIVE ACTION
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTIg PLAN: dlO$d86 M f[4M14F>!A4T10Al T- flo-I2 0 -$ 914 - 3 07^ NSRS [Ghd T-%-{20-691).
l l ! O ATTACHMENTS
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR / : . . / DATE:
- 12. CONCURRENCEi CEG-H: a "
# "44=-r M DATE: //-/r f4
. SR
/' DATE:
DATE: DATE: DATE: ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE:
, VERIFICATION AND CLOSE0UT I ,
- 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
, .; ECIG C.3 Attcchmint A Page 1 of 1 i Revision 2 ECSP Corrective Action Tractinr, Document (CATD)
INITIATION p;;plicable ECSP Report No: C O l'13 0 5 - SGM , R5
- 1. Immediate Corrective Action Required: O Yes )W( No
. 2. Stop Work Recommended: O Yes % No
- 3. CATD No. f.011305- so Al- 05 4. INITIATION DATE /2 - /2 - 8h
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: 5Obl SITE DIRE (. TOR
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: % QR O NQR ~
PER WORM FE0usT (WR) 114'79'l .19 anchers were d4enf,Widd . ud4h unac.ceo42ble blub der >As /1(o were unaueMable 3 were oues4 ion 2bleB. The'u%ckors t'cauie nuH ( oboo n 'les % e veriTv ankhor ih4,ar *40 o i - - s i J l REYERENE A/SR.S REl'ORY T-VL-120 .CCAI s
. , Gf // @fATTACHMENTS
- 7. PREPARED BY: NAME [-74W ( .M /reprelf . / DATE: /2-/Z-f6
- 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H W% ' "
h DATE: /.E - /J -# 4
- 9. APPROYAL: ECIG P MGR. DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN: db5UB6" Of ffro/>fMAlbAn0M f-fl.-I20-Sod- 2 0V AIARS REtocr 1*-e6-120 .s%I .
3 O ATTACHMENTS
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR / R: . ..
,DATE:
- 12. CONCURRENCEi CEG-H* a2 X. h DATE:
'~
/2 - n" - s e"
. SRP DATE:
DATE: DATE: DATE: ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE: 9
, VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT ; .
- 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
. .t ,- i
i
- \_i J.)
f' '., Attachment A Anchor Inspection Results Work Releaso 114789 Acceptance Support Identification (Yes/No) Comments
- 1) 1000HCAB749-A0315R001 No o "B" train condult. Not on
" Universal Master Status Isoport."
o No support inspection or anchor pull docurontation readily available. Required anchor size cannot be
- determined.
o Anchor spacing 4" - reject per G-32 R4 (4/21/76) - 4 1/2"; minimal acceptance per l G-32 R10 (current 4/1/85 - 4"
- 2) 1000HCAB749-A0318R004 No a) o Two supports with same ID number in field.
b) o One support is unistrut holding two conduit runs. l No specific support inspection or anchor pull documentation readily s available. Not inspected during investigation. c) o One support with four base-
- plates. Inspected during investigation.
o Anchors S/8" p in field. Anchor pull reports AB 1241
. & AB 1253 indicate 1/2" y anchors. 47A056-16 indi-cated1/2"panchors.
o Bolt damage during removal l due to baseplate / anchor
- . shell misalignment. Bolt
_ . , _ . . . . _ . _ _ ___..- ~ . ___ -_ . . - not replaced, h"t # (nat initiated as of 3/4/86) initiated to correct this l condition. i 3) 1000HCAB749-A0318R'007 No o Anchor spacing requirements conflict: 47A056-59 l requires a minimum of 3 3/4" l per G-32. G-32 R10
, currently requires 4". G-32 '
R3 (in effect at time of inspection 3/22/76) required r' 4 1/2". t
%. . /
1
*h*_
Q) (0
- Acceptance
/ Support Identification (Yes/No) Comments
- 3) 1000HCAB749-A0318R007 o 5/8" to embedded plate. G-32 (continued) R10 requires a minimum of 7" og permits 2", provided at least 18" maintained between anchor and attachment welded to embedded plate. No welded attachment noted.
- 4) 1000HCAB749-A0320R001 No o Plug depth measured to be one inch. G-32 RIO requires a maximum of 15/16".
(Anchor may not be adequately expanded.)
- 5) 1000HCAB749-A0400R003 No o Shell recess 1/4", G-32 R10
-permits i 1/4". G-32 R5 permits f_ 1/8".
o Distance from anchor to welded attachment 9 1/2". Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 4". G-32 R10 requires 7" og permits 2", provided 18" between anchor and welded attachment.
- 6) 1000HCAB749-A0404R003 No o Plug depth calculated to be 1". G-32 R10 requires a maximum of 15/16". (Anchor may not be adequately expanded).
- 7) 1000HCAB749-A0407R003 No o Shell recess 3/16", G-32 RIO permits 1/4". G-32 R5 permits $( 1/8".
o Cap between concrete 5/32", G-32 R10 permits fE 1/8". o Distance from anchor to i welded attachment 9 1/2". ! Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 6 1/2". G-32 R10 requires 7" or
-.. .- --- permits 2", provided 18" between anchor and welded
! attachment. ( 8) 1000HCAB749-A0407R013 No o Distance from anchor to welded attachment 11". Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 6 1/2". G-32 R10 requires 7" or permits 2", provided 18" between anchor and wolded - attachment. l-2 i
'N _ , _ _ _
- %) .
O [ Acceptance ( ,f Support Identification (Yes/No) Comments
- 9) 1000HCAB749-A0410R003 Marginal o Shell recess 3/16", G-32 R10 permits f[ 1/4". G-32 R5 permits jL 1/8".
- 10) 1000HCAB749-A0410R013 Yes
- 11) 1000HCAB749-A0413R003 No o Shell recess 5/16"; G-32 R5 permits fl 1/8", G-32 Rio permits f( 1/4".
- 12) 1000HCAD749-A0414R013 No o Shell recess 5/32"; G-32 R5 permits di 1/8", C-32 R10 permits f( 1/4".
o Distance from anchor to welded attachment 4". . Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 1". G-32 R10 requires 7" or permits 2"; provided 18" between anchor end welded attachment.
- o. No specific anchor pull documentation readily available. Evaluation documentation indicates anchor pull documentation to exist.
- 13) Hanger at A0416R013 No o Not readily identifiable on
" Universal Master Status Report".
o No support inspection or anchor pull documentation readily available. o Plug depth 31/32". Marginal acceptance - G-32 R10 requires d( 15/16". o Support unlabeled.
- 14) 1000HCAB749-A0417R003 Yes
- 15) 1000HGAB 14953 No o Plug depths 15/16" and (located at A0504R003) 1-7/16". G-32 R10 requires range of 1" 3/8".
o Distance from anchor to welded attachment 10-1/2". Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 4-1/2". G-32 R10 requires 7-1/2" or permits 2", provided 18" between anchor and welded attachment. o Not on " Universal Master . l Status Report", o Inspection documentation cannot be located. l 3 _ _ _ __ _____________-__w_. ._ -
- . (_) 't)
. Acceptance
\s f r Support Identification (Yes/No) Comments
- 16) 1000HCAB749-A0504R006 .No o Plug depth 1-3/8". C-32 RIO requires f( 15/16". (Anchor may not be adequately expanded).
o Distance from anchor to welded attachment 4-3/4". Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 4-3/4". C-32 R10 requires 7" or permits 2", provided 18" between anchor and welded attachment. . o Anchor pull documentation not readily available o Presence of cracked concrete.
- 17) 1000HCAB749-A0508R005 No o Cap between concrete 3/16" -
1/4". G-32 R10 requires j[ 1/8". o Adjacent anchor spacing 3 1/2" and 3-3/8". C-32 R3 required 4-1/2". G-32 R10 required 4". 47A056-15
,' requires 3-1/2". ' o No specific anchor pull documentation readily available, o Bolt removed was damaged due to attachment gap, plate bow, and misalignment.
Appeared to be damaged during original installation. Bolt could not be replaced, o With 3/8" plate thickners,
- bolt had inadequate thread engagement of 1/4". 3/8" was required.
~~^
'o~WR~# (not initiated as of 3/4/86) initiated to correct this condition.
- o Configuration does not match 47A056-15.
- 18) 1000HCAB749-A0510R015 No o Plug depth 1-1/8". C-32 R10 requires jE 15/16". (Anchor may not be adequately expanded). ,
. 4
-....)
(! 'd h
/ ^
Acceptance
\s,s/ Support Identification (Yes/No) Comments 1
- 19) 1000HCAB749-A0511R013 No o Plug depth 1". G-32 R10 requires di 15/16".
However, recess waa not measured. May be acceptable. o Adjacent anchor spacing 3 7/8". G-32 R10 requires 4". G-32 R4 required 4 1/2". 47A056-4 R3 required 4-1/2".
- 20) HCAB 16948 Yes o No specific anchor pull
, (located at A0512R006) documentation readily
- available.
- 21) Unlabel'ed No o Support unlabeled (located at A0512R015) No support inspection or anchor pull documentation readily available.
- 22) HCAB 14956 Yes o Shell recess 3/16". G-32 R5 (located at A0515R005) required f( 1/8".
o No specific anchor pull
'documentat' ion readily available.
- 23) 1000HCAB749-A0517R014 No o Plug depth 17/16". G-32 RIO (Anchor
, requires f( 15/16".
; ', may not be adequately expanded).
- 24) 1000HCAB749-A0519R015 No o Plug depth 15/16". C-32 RIO requires di 13/16" for 5/16" p anchors. (Anchor may not be adequately expanded.)
o 5/16".$ anchors in field.
, 47A056-3 required 3/8" p o , anchors.
, . o No specific anchor pull
+
'I
- documentation readily available.
- 25) 1000HCAB749-A0603R014 No o Adjacent anchor _ spacing 5-3/4"._ 47A056-55 required 6".
o No specific anchor pull documentation readily
, available.
- 26) 1000HCAB749-A060R015 Yes
- 27) 1000HCAB749-A0610RO15 No n No specific anchor pull
, documentation readily
. available.
o Plug' depth of 1". G-32 RIO requires f( 15/16". (Anchor
#,. > may not be adequately expanded.)
t 4 - 5
- - - - - . - - - . -- -- - . y +-- - r--- .,m 4
^
1 l i Cl V
*/ s Acceptance N ,. Support Identification (Yer/No) Connente
- 28) 1000llCAB749-A0600R01-1&R01-2 No o Supports could not be located in field. See anchor pull report AB 1200.
Not on " Universal Haster Status Report." (May be i " voided supports.)
- 29) 1000llCAB749-A0600R01 No o Support could not be located {
1 in field. See anchor pull report AB 4510. Not on
" Universal Master Status Report."
- 30) 1000llCAB749-A0611R014 No o Plug depth 1-1/8". C-32 R10
- requires f( 15/16". (Anchor, may not be adequately expanded.
- 31) 1000llCAB749-A0611R015 No o Anchor involved with rebar.
- 32) 1000llCAB7494A0614R014 No o Anchor involved with rebar.
o' support not welded to embedded plate as required. o Anchor pull documentation indicates typical 47A056-12 and 3/8" anchors (1/2" in field). Support inspection and field configuration indicates typical 47A056-13 and 1/2" $ anchors, o Distance from A0616R014 to embedded plate 3". Distance from A0616R014 to welded attachment 9-1/2" G-32 RIO requires 7-1/2" or pernits 2", provided 18" between anchor and welded attachment.
- 33) 100011 CAB 749-A0212S003 -
Yes o No specific anchor pull documentation readily available.
- 34) 1000lICAB749-A0301S022 __Yes , _ _
35)-1000HCAB749-A0312S020. No o Plug depth 1". C-32 R10 requires f( 15/16". Marginal condition. (Anchor may not be adequately expanded.)
- 36) 1000llCAB749-A0318S006 No o Plug depth 1-1/16". G-32 R10 requires j[ 15/16".
, (Anchor may not be adequately expanded.) '
gl<^ 6
. . I
(.' tc) f "- Support Identification Acceptance (Yes/No) Comments
.J
- 37) 1000llCAB749-A0318S021 Yes o Field configuration uppears to be 47A056-60. " Universal Master Status Report" indicates 47A056-55.
- 38) 1000l! CAD 749-A03223004 No o Distance from anchor to
, welded attachment 7-1/4".
Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 1-1/4". G-32 R10 requires 8" or permits 2", provided 18" t between anchor and welded attachment. o No specific anchor pull . documentation readily available.
- 39) 1000llCAB749-A0401S020 No o Field configuration with modified 10" x 10" plate with 8" anchor spacing does not match 47A056-16.
, o No anchor pull documentation readily available. , o plug depth 2-1/4". G-32 R10 l requires j( 2-1/8". (Anchor I may not be adequately
- expanded.)
- 40) 1000llCAB749-A0408S020 Yes
- 41) 1000HCAB749-A0409S004 Yes o Anchor pull documentation
] indicates 1/2" anchors. Field observation indicates 5/8". 47A056-16 indicates 1/2".
- 42) 1000llCAB749-A0420S006 No o Anchor involved with rebar.
! 43) 1000llCAB749-A0422S009 No' o plus depth 7/8". G-32 R10 ? requires 2* 1". (Anchor may have been shortened.)
4 o No anchor pull documentation readily available. j o support unlabeled in field.
~ ~~
- 44) 1000llCAB749-A0422S010 ~"~~Yes o~No specific anchor pull documentation readily j available.
- 45) 1000llCAB749-A0505S020 ~
Yes L 46) 1000HCAB749-A0506S001 No o Shell protrudes 1/8". G-32 R10 permits no protrusion.
- 47) 1000llCAB749-A0507S005 Yes I .
m , t , i u . ,
~
' .- Q, 'Q' Acceptance
...h ' Support Identification (Yes/No) Comments
/
- 48) 1000HCAB749-A0508S015 No o plug depth 1-9/16". G-32 R10 permits f. 1-1/2".
o Support inspection
. docv. mentation indicates 47A056-3. Anchor pull documentation indicates 47A056-53. Field configuration indicates 47A056-53.
- 49) 1000HJAB749-A0510S004 No o 47A056-55A - With 1/2"
, anchors, plate thickness should be 5/8" with 6" spacing of anchors. Spacing of 5-1/2" observed. Size of anchors and plates is depen-dent on conduit supported.
o No anchor pull documentation readily available.
- 50) 1000HCAB749-A0510S019 Yes
- 51) 1000HCAB749-A0511S001 Yes
- 52) 1000HCAB749-A0512S001 No o Adjacent anchor spacing is 3-1/2". G-32 R4 requires )
4-1/2". G-32 R10 requires j f 4". 47A056-4 required i 4 t 4-1/2". o Distance from anchor to welded attachment 5-1/2". Distance from anchor to embedded plate 4". G-32 R10 requires 7" str permits 2", provided 18" between anchor
. and welded attachment.
- 53) 1000HCAB749-A0512S007 No o Cap between concrete 1/4".
G-32 R10 requires f( 1/8". l o D3. stance from anchor to j l , welded attachment 7-3/8". Distance from anchor to i embedded plate 5". G-32 R10 requires 8" or permits 2", provided 18" between anchor and welded attachment.
- 54) 1000HCAB749-A0514S022 Yes o plus depth 7/16". G-32 R10
- 55) 1000HCAB749-A0515S001 No requires >" 5/8". (Anchor may have been shortened.)
l i , l N .. 8
.. S -
' l
= Qi (,] A f..
~(Nsort Acceptance $_
Identification (Yes/No) Comments }
- 56) 1000liCAD749-A0515S008 No o Distance from anchor to welded attachment is h .(,') * ,
8-1/2". Distance from j} i. anchor to embedded plate is h5 E ' 4". C-32 R10 requires 7" or~ '4M: permits 2", provided 18" ff $ between anchor and welded y attachment.
- 57) 1000HCAB749-A0603S006 No o Distance from anchor to welded attachment is 11".
)[1
A-Distance from anchor to embedded plate is 6". C-32 'f,,
ji (' R10 requires 7" g permits , y; 2", provided 18" between :th ... anchor and welded attachment. $$,. . o No anchor pull documentation (r'Jii
- readily available. ii;sj ;
- 58) 1000HCAB749-A0603S014 No o Plug depth 1". G-32 R10 requires i 15/16". (Anchor g.;[: :
may not be adequately w@ expanded.) NI/-[ o No anchor pull documentation .jf readily available, n ,- - 2 ,000HCAB749-A0608S023 No o Plus depth 1". G-32 R10 . p' t requires ,<,15/16". (Anchor g j. may not be adequately i' expanded.) - 5; o Distance from anchor to - welded attachment is
- 8-1/2". Distance from anchor to embedded plate is ]
4". G-32 R10 requires 7" g 5 ,y permits 2", provided 18" I between anchor and welded attachment. k:t .
- 60) 1000HCAB749-A0511S002 ? o Indeterminate, hole bored 5 Y* '
out in unistrut. .
*)
- 61) 1000HCAB149-A0611S015 Yes
)
62)-1000HCAB749-A0612S023 - -- Yes -- e!.'
- 63) 1000HCAB749-A0614S010 No o Plug depth 1". G-32 R10 ,
i requires i 15/16". (Anchor fj. may not be adequately - expanded.) ! h .' f,
.; 1 C3tc Sketches of the support baseplates, typi, cal drawing numbers, and actual l '
t field inspection information were recorded on data sheets attached to , l WR #114789. [(
,s t
9 3 1 . 4
- - a. .
4 am' e.. .
ECTG C.3 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 ECSP Corrective Action Tractinr Document (CATD) INITIATION Applicable ECSP Report No: COI1305-serJ, R5
- 1. Immediate Corrective Action Required: O Yes % No
. 2. Stop Work. Recommended: O Yes % No
- 3. CAID No. CDI13DS-sod-O(o 4. INITIATION DATE /2- /2-8d
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: 5 O h) SITE. DIRECTOR
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: KQR O NQR ~ -
VER WORM (EGuEST ( WR) l(4799 1 <Meher Wa6 - t 'A en 4l-C6 ns he ha anArcs,%e ' , A <upperf I 000 4cA8749 - A0_519 R'0; 6. ThM anchoi b be replaced - wi4b a correckly sijed anchoe, KE FE.VEklCE A/SRSrikanMreAl REPORT Z-fl.-/20-SCAL
/ / / / // O ATTACHMENTS
- 7. PREPARED BY: NAME ara l, M h/' , DATE: /2-72 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H "W '
VJ h DATE: /4-/J-#4
- 9. APPROVAL: ECTG 0 MGR. DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN: [/8ff//f #E [RetNEAlhA77Cd T- SG,- t 2 0-SQQ-S d AfSRS REPORT Z-%-/20 59).
V 3 O ATTACHMENTS j DATE: I
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR / : , .
-12. CONCURRENCEi CEG-H* ud X '
' M sN.t / DATE: M -/5 - /4
~
. SRP- DATE: >
DATE: DATE: DATE:
; ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE:
,VIRIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT ,
- 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
I SIGNATURE TITLE DATE _ _ _ _ ._ - - -}}