ML20209J318

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of Attendance at 860821 Meeting in Arlington,Tx Re Util Plans for Plant Issues.Summaries of Observations Listed
ML20209J318
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 09/03/1986
From: Ashar H
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Ballard R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20209E570 List:
References
FOIA-86-657 NUDOCS 8609160363
Download: ML20209J318 (12)
v • d • e


Text

_ - _ . - -

i . ._,. . . .

Jae.

/" - '/ 8,, UNITED STATES 8 a j

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i wAsusworon, o. c. moses

\/ _

seoa m.
Docket Nos.: 50-445 and 50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ronald Ballard, Chief Engineering Branch Division of PWR Licensing THRU:

DavidJeng,SectionLeade$

Structural and Civil Engineer g Section Engineering Branch Division of PWR Licensing-A FROM: Hans Ashar. Engineer Structural and Civil Engineering Section Engineering Branch t Division of PWR Licensing-A

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT-MEETING TO DISCUSS TUGC0 PLANS FOR t COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ISSUES-DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 The meeting was held at NRC Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas on August 21, 1986. The meeting was conducted by Vincent Noonan. Some of the observations of the meeting can be sumarized a follows:

- Rough 1986 schedule for completing DSAP on pipe and pipe supports, October 31,

- Appropriate grouping for hearing process to be decided in the next two months.

1 l - Stone and Webster Engineering Corp (SWEC) to complete design ~ review corrective action by the end of September

- Complete separate reports on Class I, II, III components, pipe supports, civil structural and electrical issues by the end of this yese

- Response to CYGNA letters dated 8/11/86 under preparatiori by TUGC0

- SWEC-NRC meeting on 8/28/86, mainly on piping and pipe support analysis.

It will also include amendments to the FSAR to reflect references to updated codes and standards. The goal of TUGC0 will be to confom to NUREG-0800.

Also, the review by the SWEC will be broader in scope than the TERA discovered issues.

FPR -SL #I vwm B /20 s

(g [,ap.@ 4 s

x _

i c

, , , ___. J 1.

-- / Ronald L. Ballard 2-

. The specific issues raised by CASE were in the area of NRC inspections and monthly inspection reports.

The meeting discussion was tapeo by CASE.

W Hans Ashar Enginear Structural and Civil Engineering Section Engineering Branch Division of PWR Licensing-A cc: H. Thompson T. Novak C. Rossi R. Ballard V. Noonan D. Jeng C. Trammel A. Vietti-Cook H. Ashar D. Tarao

Contact:

H. Ashar X.27219 Distribution:

Docket Files PAEB Reading Files PAEB Plant Files OFC :PAEB PAEB  :  :  :  :

NAME:HAsha$____::DCJen r:1p:vt: .___:.___________.____..______.___________..________ ......______

DATE :9/ d /86 :9/4 /86 :

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 7 -

- - ~~ d ISSUE II. d - SEISMIC DESIGN CF CONTROL R.00M CEILING

.A. ISSUE The TR" could find ne evidence that the possible effects of a failure of non-seismic items over the cor. trol room ceiling had been considered. Also, the TRT deter:n.ined I that calculations for S.eismic Category II components ,

(e.g. , lighting fixtures) and the calrulations for the sloping suspended drywa.11 ceiling did not adequately address seismic desip considerations (e.g. , notational interaction).

B. SUMMAPY OF INITIATIVIS

- Review of seismic design of contrei roo: ceiling.

- Verification of seis=nic damage study methods and implementation.

C. PROGF.AM CHANGES ,

l .

None D. SUMMA _2.Y OF IMPLEMENTATION Centrol Rcom Ceiling ,

The Project has elected to replace the ceiling with a new design.

Project calculations are coreplete - Thir.3 Party review ;

is in progress.

Da= age Study Verification Architectural Features were evaluated for unacceptable .

interactions, resulting in physical modifications to the followirg tiems:

Block wall in the Control Rom.

Handrails.

Grating.

Checkered p;ates.

Doors (due to swinging) .

Ladders

_ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . . -. .c - o

...- l Page 2 of 3.  !

l ISSUE II. d - SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING cont.

The 3rd Party review of Damage Study Program Procedures and criteria has resulted in identification of four areas requiring Project action:

Relative Building Motions Interactions identifi.ed and corrective actions in process. Design Basis Document writtem to preclude future occurance. -

  • Borizontal Motion of suspended light fixtures.

Identify interactions and resolve. (in process)

Attachments to la.rge seismic equipment.

Polar Crane cab seisztically qualified by vendor.

j (complete) l Line-mounted tiens on small bore pipines.

one interaction identified, calculaticm show acceptable. (complete)

The comparative damage assessment walkdowns have been completed with prelimina.ry results indicating general agreement with interactions identified previously by the Damage Study Group.

The review (to date). of Damage Study Program imple-l mentation has shown that procedures have been reasonablg and consistently implementad. However, as indicated by the areas identified above, the procedures did not address all aspects of Beg. Guide 1.29.

E. 05-GOING A""'IVITIES Control Room Ceiling Third Party review of Project calculations for new control room ceiling and preparation of engineering evaluation.

Lamage Study Complete / review design details of architeetural featurec modifications.

Perform walkdowns, resolve interactions associated with relative building anotions.

l Perform walkdowns, resolve interactions assoicated with horizontal motion of sur: pended light fixtures.

Prepare engineering evaluation.

~

~ -

.  ; _ .., , . , _ , . ,,s __ 7 , --

P093 3 of 3.

ISSUE II.d - SEISMIC DESIGF OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING cont.

F. STEPS pa:OUIRED FOR CLOSURI Complete evaluation of Damage Study Program.

Results Report i

~~ ^

1

~

i . ~....; .- .

ISSUE II. e a REBAR IN THE FUEL HANDLING BUILDING A. ISSUE -

TRT investigated alleged unauthorized cutting of a 2nd rebar (3rd layer). TRT concluded that if the holes were drilled as deep as alleged rebar in the 3rd layer could have been cut.

h. SUPE!ARY OF INITIATIVES *

! i Structural evaluation of the sub,ect case. (=omplete) l Procedures review. (complete)

Review and evaluate all rebar cut requests for Hilti bolt installatim for potential unauthorized cutting of addi-tional rebar. (in process)

Review of other Bilti bolt installation by the crew that l installed the subject Bilti bolts. (complete 3 l -

Review of potential rebar cuttinc for shear lugs.

l -

(complete) t 1

. C. PROGRAM CRANGES None D.

SUMMARY

OF IMPLEMENTATION l

Analysis of as-built condition for the subject ca'se complete and reviewed by 3rd Party. Analysis confirmed adequacy of the structure assuming that the so. 18 bars in both the first and third layers had been cut.

Procedure / process review.

Core boring required authorization to cut rebar and

QC inspection of hole for cut rebar (associated with l grout card).

Drilling to cut rebar for Hilti bolt installation did not require QC inspection for rebar cutting.

Procedures revised to require a traveler with QC inspection hold point for all robar cutting.

l l

- , - < ~ . -

Page 2 of 2.

ISSUd II.e - REBAR IN THE FUEL HANDLING BUILDING cont.

- Review 161 rebar cut requests for Hilti bolt in.stallationo

  • 103 cases have been reviewed and are acceptable.
  • 58 cases are being evaluated.

- Review of the work of the subject crew during the period they worked together is complete. .

  • Worked on 6 civil / structural items where Hilti bolts l were installed - 3 rebar cut requests.
  • Of the 3 cut requests I was the subject case and 2 had possibility of cutting an additional rebar.

- Shear lug review complete.

  • 24 cases evaluated and found acceptable.

E. ON-GOING ACTIVITIES 4 l

- Review all CMC's and DCA's issued against concreta outline and reinforcement drawings to verify ccgleteness of rebar cut requests log.

- Evaluating rebar cut requests.

F. STEPS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE

- 3rd Party review of cut rebar evaluations.

I - Results Report I .

l e

i 1

- ' ' ~

ISSUE V. b - IhPPROPER SHORTENING CF ANCHOR BOLTS IN STEAM GENERATOR LATERAL SUPPOR"S i

i

(

l A. ISSUE l

The TRT was unable to substantiate the alleged bolt cutting incident due to a lack of installation records for the Umit I upper lateral support. Both the unauthorized bolt cmtting and the lack of installatten inspection records violate QA procedures and Criterien XVII in Appendix B to 19CFR50. -

B. 5:UMMARY OF INITIATIVE

- Inspect Steam Generator Upper ll,ateral (SOUL) bolts in both Units.

- Evaluate Project calculations for required thread engagement for the SGUL supper. bolts.

- Evaluate fabrication / installation process for the SGUL support to assess the cause cf bolt modification / thread damage.

Assess of potential generic applicability of the bolt thread engagement issue for tw: other populations:

  • Richmond inserts in ASME pipe supports.

l Bolted connections using blind holes.

Evaluate process for specifyin- inspection attributes for threaded engagements and tie associated documenta-tion requirements.

C. P'ROGRAM CHANGES 1

None l D. 5:UMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION

- Inspection of SGUL bolts and enbedments is complete for Unit 1. Unit II not yet inspe ted.

Reanalysis of SG upper aad lenser lateral anchorage is

! complete.

Reanalysis of SG upper lateral beam is complete.

- Identification of Richmond insert population and sa:mple selection complete.

~

, - - . . ~_- ;. .,

Page 2 of 2.

ISSUE V.b - IMPROPER SHORTENING OF ANCHOR BOLTS IN STEAM GENERATOR LATERAL SUPPORTS Identification of other bolted population complete.

E. ON-GOINO ACTIVITIES Reinstallation of SGUL bolts in Unit 1.

Engineering evaluation of non-conforming SGUL embed holeso Inspection of Richmond insert sample.

l Expect to start inspection of bolted connection sample 5-29-86.

Evaluate f abrication/ installation process.

Programmatic and procedural review of the attributes of bolted connections by 3rd Party.

3rd Party review adequacy of support calculations.

F. STEPS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE Complete reinstallation of SGUL bolts Complete inspection of other bolted connection population 0 3rd Party review adequacy of engineering evaluation of non-conforning SGUL embed holes.

Results Report.

1 .

-. - _ .~,

I l

AttacMen: 3 I

Additional Infomatic- Requested 9

f

?

l s

" ' ' ' ' - - - - - - _-_ ._h___ -- --- - . , _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'j . . ACCITIONAL INFORN*lON 1EQUESTED 1

4

/ 1)52-910 Package 2)^ Unit 1 & 2 criteria nocunents

3) 5-0910 when revised
4) 52-09:0 package equt eale-t for Unti 2 in .
5) Cygna issue list res.:1ution report.s prepa ed by Ebascc. Impe11, etc.. tr

,HVAC, ccnduit

6) Latest revision Impe'l ard Ebasco c*iterin and prof ect instruction documer.ts
7) SDAR 85-42
8) Revisec Ql-QP-11.10.2A .
9) Revisec ECP-10A
10) Revise:: criteria for Tra'n C

. 11) Walkoa.e procedure fee Train C

12) Referer.:es related t.: resolution a* conrierts (Trair C:

-13) Train C conduit sampling study struu-ies pving nargirs

14) Train C conduit sampling study cai:tlatiots trans.mt ted. to TER*
15) TERA ceents on HVA~, cable trays , condu ts (? n:lt.rjirg Train C:.
16) Documer.:s pertaining to resolution If App. P !ssses (ERC matrix;
17) Road m.a; for damage study review
18) Contrcl Room Ceiling - Design Spec.

D gs. -

Celes.

19) BSC as-:uilt support anc attachmec1 walkd:w9s DFC USI-018/Rev. 1: 03/27/86
20) BSC OC as-built vert fications QC:-:DSES-019/Rev. 0: 04/15/86
21) BSC as-:uilt layout c an'ng walkdcar s DF; 'USI-021/Draf.
22) CCL erg neering eval tatt:n procedui e No. :2-8000/ Draft
23) TUGC0 0: as-built ve-ifications '
24) SDAR 85-54
25) WAC wa-k scope doctamer,t 8

h se si n -

- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20209J318&oldid=3315359"