ML20211C418
| ML20211C418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1985 |
| From: | Thadani A NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211C348 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-312 NUDOCS 8606120312 | |
| Download: ML20211C418 (38) | |
Text
- ,
s
') *,. .
Ashok Thadani Draft '
March 29, 1985 l
Summary of Presentation by Civil / Structural and Mechanical / Piping Team 1
On March 28, 1985, the Contention 5 Panel met with Larry Shao and several members of his group to discuss further developments in the Civil / Structural !
and Mechanical Piping ar.eas (February 1, 1985 meeting minutes documented the Contention 5 Panel discussions held with this group on January' 30,1985).
Larry described his group's preliminary reaction to the applicant's presentation (held the week of March'6, 1985), on the open issues, status and new allegations, and the group's assessment of the data sheets. The attach'ed viewgraphs summarize Larry's presentation which was well focused. Two items of interest, not described in the attachment, are summarized below:
\
(1) New allegations:
a) Civil Structural The review of the 27 new CASE allegations will be completed in about 4 weeks. The schedule for resolution of 3 new allegatinns (by allegers) has not yet been developed.
b) Mechanical Piping Of the 280 allegations by A-45, the evaluation of those allegations considered important by the alleger is included in the the soon to be pub.lished SSER. The evaluation of the 10 new allegations by CASE Ehbo6120312 860606 PDR FOIA -
GARDE 85-312 PDR FotA 85-3 O
/Y/ '/f .
ev% e
~_ _ __ _ ,_ __
2-will be completed in about 4 weeks. The schedule for the 11 new allegations (provided by the allegers during the week 3/4/85) has not '
yet been established.
(2) The group believed the data sheets would be of value in integration and overall assessment of activities on Comanche Peak.
The reviewers indicated that the only difficult piece of information to provide was an estimate of the population from which the sample was selected. The reviewers also indicated their desire to provide feedback to further improve the quality of the data sheets.
\
l l
s.-
g- - -- ,.-,,,--,.w. -- ,- __ - - - - - - - - - ~ _u--- --- - , . - .- . - - . . - ,. - -
MEETING WITH COMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5 PANEL
\
i l
l
- PRESENTED BY L. C. SHA0 1
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL & MECHANICAL /
PIPING GROUPS 1 '
MARCH 28, 1985 D
M
.. .-, , . , . . _ . , , . . , ,. , . . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ . . _ . _ , _ _ . . - - , . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ , . _ _ _ . , _ . - - - - - - - .
D e
TOPICS l',' MEETINGS WITH TUEC ON PROPOSED ACTION PLANS
- 2. STATUS AND NEW ALLEGATIONS
- 3. DATA SHEET I
\
e l
l e
. - - . - - - . - - - - . - - - , , . . - - , - . - , - , - - - - . - - , - - - - - -- _-,v. - - -
~
. CIVIL / STRUCTURAL .
ACTION ITEM NUMBER II A REINFORCING STEEL IN THE REACTOR CAVITY ISSUE o STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF REACTOR CAVITY WALL'WITH OMITTED REBAR BETWEEN ELEVATIONS 812'-0" AND 819'-01" o ADEQUACY OF ENGINEERING / FIELD INTERFACE WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNICATION OF DESIGN CHANGES o EFFECTIVENESS OF FIELD PROCEDURES GOVERNING DISPOSITION OF OMITTED REBAR CASES TUEC INITIATIVES o ANALYSIS / DESIGN REVIEW 0F REACTOR CAVITY AS-BUILD CONDITION
\
o IDENTIFICATION / EVALUATION OF ALL REBAR OMISSION CASES o RE-EVALUATION / DESIGN REVIEW AS REQUIRED o REVIEW PROCESS / ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION FOR APPROVAL OR REBAR OMISSIONS o REVIEW ENGINEERING / FIELD INTERFACE AND CONTROLS FOR COMMUNICATING IMPENDING DESIGN CHANGES
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ACTION ITEM NUMBER II.A
, REINFORCING STEEL IN THE REACTOR CAVITY PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT o THE PROPOSED INITIATIVES APPEAR ADEQUATE o THIRD PARTY REVIEW 0F TUEC FINDINGS MAY BE REQUIRED '
'O
\
r
., -. - - - - - - - , - ~ , - - - - , - - - - - - - - , -
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ,
. ACTION ITEK NUMBER II.B ,
. CONCRETE COMPRESSION STRENGTH ISSUE o ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS o ADEQUACY OF CONCRETE STRENGTH TUEC INITIATIVES o VERIFICATION O'. QUALITY OF PLACED CONCRETE VIA TEST
. c SCHMIDT HAMMER TESTING BY SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE o COMPARISON OF TESTS RESULTS BETWEEN CONCRETE AT ISSUE AND CONTROLLED CONCRETE
\
l l
i e
e
, _y __,__. _,__, . _. _,,__,..
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL '
. ACTION ITEM NUMBER II.B CONCRETE COMPRESSION STRENGTH PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT O
TO PRESENT THIS DATA IN A MORE UNDERSTANDABLE -
MANNER ,
9
\
l* b l
l 1
l l
1 I
1
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ACTION ITEM NUMBER II.C
, MAINTENANCE OF AIR GAP BETWEEN CONCRETE STRUCTURES ISSUE
~
o EXTENT AND LOCATION OF DEBRIS BETWEEN STRUCTURES o CONSISTENCY OF AS-BUILT CONDITION AND SEISMIC ANALYSIS o EFFECTIVENESS OF QC PROGRAM
. TUEC INITIATIVES o PROFILING OF. CURRENT AS-BUILT CONDITION VIA VIDEO INSPECTION os ASSESSMENT OF DESIGN ADEQUACY OF AS-BUILT CONDITION DESIGN REVIEW 0F CALCULATIONS l REMOVAL OF DEBRIS (AS RE0'D) l l
0 DETERMINATION OF CAUSE VIA:
REVIEW 0F CONSTRUCTION HISTORY REVIEW 0F AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITION
- .--, -.-n,, - - - - ,- -,- - . -- - - -. -- - - - - , . - . -
~
j CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ~
' ACTION ITEM NUMBER II.C MAINTENANCE OF AIR GAP BETWEEN CONCRETE STRUCTURES PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT o
BESIDES THE NEED FOR THIRD PARTY AUDIT OF DESIGN 4
ADEQUACY CALCULATIONS THE PROPOSED INITIATIVES APPEAR TO BE ADEQUATE
~
E s
- l B l
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ,
ACTION ITEM NUMBER 11.D SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING ELEMENTS ,
ISSUE o SEISMIC DESIGN ADEQUACY OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING ELEMENTS '
FUNCTIONAL IMPACT TO SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT INJURY TO OPERATORS -
o ADEQUACY OF CATEGORY II SEISMIC ANALYSIS o POSTULATION OF FAILURE OF NON-SEISMIC ITEMS TUEC INITIATIVES o CONTROL ROOM CEILING DESIGN CHANGES
\
o ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES / DAMAGE STUDY o THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION OF DAMAGE STUDY PROGRAM
'O e
~ , - - - - - - - . --- ~c --------- - , - - - -- r~- - - - - --
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL :
ACTION ITEM NUMBER II.D SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONTROL ROOM CEILING ELEMENTS PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT o DEFINITION OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES SHOULD BE BROAD AND , ENCOMPASS ALL NON-SEISMIC ITEMS
. o THE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES TO QUALIFY SEISMIC .
CATEGORY II ITEMS REQUIRE MORE SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION o DAMPING VALUE FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS UNDER SSE NEEDS CLARIFICATION
's
\
O e
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ,
ACTION ITEM NUMBER II.E REBAR IN THE FUEL HANDLING BUILDING ISSUE o STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF FUEL HANDLING BUILDING SLAB CONSIDERING POTENTIAL REBAR CUTTING RESULTING FROM ANCHOR BOLT INSTALLATION TUEC INITIATIVES o ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE ASSUMING REBAR WAS CUT
,,,, o REVIEW 0F PROCEDURAL CONTROLS GOVERNING REBAR
,. CUTTING 1
o EVALUATION OF WORK OF SUBJECT CONSTRUCTION CREW o VERIFICATION OF SIMILAR BOLT INSTALLATIONS o- THIRD P RTY REVIEW 0F DESIGN CALCULATION, DOCUMENTATION FOR REBAR CUTTING AND ADEQUACY OF IN PROCESS PROCEDURES G
O 1
l
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL
, ACTION ITEM NUMBER II.E REBAR IN THE FUEL HANDLING BUILDING PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT o THE ABOVE DESCRIBED INITIATIVES APPEAR ADEQUATE 6
e
'4 I L f
f 4
1
MECHANICAL & PIPING ACTION ITEM INSTALLATION OF MAIN STEAM LINE ISSUE:
o POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO A UNIT 1 MAIN STEAM LINE DUE TO SETTLEMENT OF TEMPORARY SUPPORTS AND REPOSITIONING DURING ERECTION AND FLUSHING.
o ADEQUACY OF PROCEDURES FOR TEMPORARY SUPPORTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
TUEC INITIATIVES:
o PERFORM ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO MAIN STEAM LINE. ,
p udds o DEV$ LOP REINSPECTION PLAN FOR MAIN STEAM LINEj Of ""
o REVIEW ADEQUACY OF ERECTION PROCEDURES REGARDING TEMPORARY SUPPORTS.
o IDENTIFICATION OF SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING INADEQUATE TEMPORARY SUPPORTS.
e
. I
m 8
MECHANICAL & PIPING
- ACTION ITEMS
~
INSTA[LATION OF MAIN STEAM LINE PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT
~
t o APPLICANT'S PRELIMINARY ANALYSES INDICATES M LINE WAS'NOT DAMAGED (MAXIMUM STRESS DURIN l WAS 11.1 xs1 VS YlELD STRESS OF 44.0 xst).
o APPLICANT'S RESPONSE REGARDING ADEQUACY OF P
)
- FOR TEMPORARY SUPPORTS YURING CONSTRUCTIO 0F INCIDENTS INVOLVING INADEQUATE TEMPORARY APPEAR TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
l x
e l
1
I MECHANICAL & PIPING .
ACTION ITEM IMPROPER SHORTENING 0F ANCHOR BOLTS IN STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT ISSUE:
o IMPROPER SHORTENING 0F ANCHOR BOLTS AND STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF AS-BUILT CONDITION .
o ANY GENERIC IMPLICATIONS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF Q C.
PROGRAM TUEC INITIATIVES:
o UT INSPECTION TO DETERMINE BOLT ENGAGEMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ONLY 36 0F THE 144 BOLTS HAVE THE DESIGN ENGAGEMENT OF 2%".
o THE AS-CONSTRUCTED CONFIGURATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE A/E TO BE SAFETY DEFICIENT.
o A 10 CFR 50.55(e) HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THESE BOLTS ON 1-17-85. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WILL BE PERFORMED TO ENSURE THESE BOLTS TO THEIR DESIGN ENGAGEMENTS.
o REVIEW THE GENERIC IMPLICATIONS AND DETERMINE ROOT CAUSES.
O ey
- 7
MECHANICAL AND PIPING ,
ACTION ITEM IMPROPER SHORTENING 0F ANCHOR BOLTS STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORTS PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT:
o '
THE APPROACH SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT IS ADEQUATE FOR THE LATERAL SUPPORT. <
o TRT WILL EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND DEPTH OF THE REVIEW 0F SIMILAR TYPES OF CONFIGURATIONS.
~
9 9 %
\
r I
8
(,
. . ,-~
MECHANICAL AND PIPING ,
ACTION ITEM
' I INSPECTION FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF SKEWED WELDS IN NF SUPPORTS ISSUE:
o LACK 0F PROPER INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION FOR SKEWED FILLETWELDSWHESWELDINGAPIPESTANCHIONTOAPIPE STANCHION OR A PIPE STANCHION TO A CURVED PLATE FOR CLASS 2 AND 3 NF SUPPORTS.
TUEC INITIATIVES:
o . ESTABLISH INSPECTION CHRON0 LOGY.
o REVIEW PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTATION.
o REINSPECT WELDS AS REQUIRED BASED ON DOCUMENTATION REVIEW. -
o ASSISSROOTCAUSEANDGENERICIMPLICATIONS.
9 9
0
. i
MECHANICAL AND PIPING :
ACTION ITEM INSPECTION FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF SKEWED WELDS IN NF SUPPORTS PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT:
o TRT FEELS THAT IF THE SAMPLING IS ADEQUATE THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WILL BE SATISFACTORY.
l 1
L
MECHANICAL & PIPING ACTION ITEM UNAUTHORIZED WELD REPAIR OF MISDRILLED H0LES ISSUE:
o EXISTENCE OF UNAUTHORIZED, UNDOCUMENTED AND UNINSPECTED WELD REPAIRS OF MISDRILLED H0LES IN SEISMIC CATEGIRY I PIPE SUPPORTS, BASE PLATES, AND CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS IN REACTOR UNITS 1 AND 2.
o STRUCTURAL. ADEQUACY OF COMPONENTS CONTAINING SUCH WELDS.
TUEC INITIATIVES:
o REVIEW EXISTING ENGINEERING AND QC PROGRAMS AND DOCUMENTATION FOR WELD REPAIR AND INSPECTION OF MISDRILLED H0LES.
~
o DEVELOP A VISUAL INSPECTION METHOD FOR LOCATING MISDRILLED H0LES WHICH HAVE BEEN REPAIRED BY WELDING.
o INSPECT SAMPLES OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS, PIPE SUPPORTS AND BASE PLATES FOR UNAUTHORIZED WELD REPAIR OF MISDRILLED H0LES.
o INSPECT ALL UNAUTHORIZED WELD REPAIRS FOUND. ASSESS ADEQUACY OF COMPONENTS BASED ON FINDINGS.
o DETERMINE GENERIC IMPLICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ADEQUACY OF QC DOCUMENTATION AND COMPONENT DESIGN.
3
MECHANICAL & PIPING
, ACTION ITEM UNAUTHORIZED WELD REPAIR OF MISDRILLED H0LES PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT Some TUEC INITIATIVES ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THAT VOLUMETRIC 3
INSPECTION IS PERFORMED IF UNAUTHORIZED WELD REPAIRS ARE FOUND SINCE SUCH WELDS WERE MADE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY HAVE PRECLUDED PROPER REPAIR TECHNIQUE.
e N
. l
)
MECHANICAL 8 PIPING ACTION ITEM ') /l DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR PIPING SYSTEMS BETWEEN SEISMIC / t CATEGORY I AND NON-SEISMIC CATEGORY I BUILDINGS 't ISSUE:
o UNSTf(
INFLUENCE OF NON-SEISMIC PORTION OF A PIPING RUN ON THE SEISMIC CATEGORY.I PORTION OF THE RUN.
o PARTICULARLY IN A CASE WHEN PIPING G0ES FROM SEISMIC CATEGORY I TO A NON-SEISMIC CATEGORY I BUILDING.
o ISOLATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY SEPARATION, BARRIER OR CONSTRAINT.
o IF ISOLATION IS NOT FEASIBLE, ONE MUST CONSIDER THE EFFECT ON SEISMIC CATEGORY I PIPING RUN DUE TO FAILURE OF NON-SEISMIC CATEGORY I PIPING RUN.
TUEC INITIATIVES:
o IDENTIFY PIPING SYSTEMS THAT G0 FROM SEISMIC CATEGORY I TO NON-CATEGORY I BUILDINGS.
o IDENTIFY NON-SEISMIC PIPING THAT HAS INTERFACE WITH
! SEISMIC LINES.
o REVIEW 0F ISOLATION CRITERIA AND THEIR ADEQUACY.
o REVIEW 0F IMPLEMENTATION AND DOCUMENTATION.
o IF CRITERIA OR IMPLEMENTATION IS INADEQUATE THEN REANALYSES OF PIPING AND IF DESIGN IS INADEQUATE THEN MODIFY AS REQUIRED. .
o ASSESSMENT OF ROOT CAUSE v
NO. OF CIVIL / STRUCTURAL AMD MECHANICAUPIPlliG ALLEGATIONS
- 1. CIVIUSTRUCTURAL NO. OF ALLEGATIONS ;-
1.1 ORIGINAL ALLEGATIONS 57 1,2 NEl-1 ALLEGATIONS FROM CASE 27 1.3 NEll ALLEGATIONS FROM ALLEGERS 3 (WEEK OF MARCH 4, 1985) .
f.4 TOTAL CIVIUSTRUCTURAL ALLEGATIONS 87 .
2'. MECHANICAUPIPING 2.1 ORIGINAL ALLEGATIONS 151 2.2 NEll MISCELLAllEDUS ALLEGATIONS FROM A-45 280 2.3 NEi! ALLEGATI0hS FROM CASE .
10 2.4 NEW ALLEGATIONS FROM ALLEGERS 11 (WEEK OF MARCH 4,'.1985) 2'.'5 TOTAL MECHANICAUPIPING All_EGAT10llS 452 3', TOTAL CIVIUSTRUCTURAL AND NECHANICAUPIPING ALLEGATIONS 539 b
e 9
,i
^
.. l MEHCANICAL AND PIPING .
ACTION ITEM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR PIPING SYSTEMS BETWEEN SEISMIC CATEGORY I AND NON-SEISMIC CATEGORY I BUILDINGS i
PRELIMINARY TRT ASSESSMENT:
o TUECHASAGOODijNDERSTANDING0FTHEPROBLEMANDTHE ACTION PLAN FOR RESOLVING THIS OPEN ISSUE IS ACCEPTABLE.
o TUEC HAS JUST STARTED THIS REVIEW, THEREFORE, N0
,,, RESULTS WERE PRESENTED.
.I s
t B
B
- =
j :
CIVillST' UCTURAL R
l SUf7%RY OF ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS ORIGINATED FROM CASE j
TIENTY-SEVEN (27) ALLEGATIONS ERE IDENTIFIED FROM A NOV. 7? 1984 EETING BETWE THE TRT AND CASE AND A LETTER FROM CASE TO THE TRT DATED 12-1-84'. THESE-27 ALLEGATIONS WERE GROUPED INTO TWELVE (12) CATEGORIES:
CATEGORY 18 REINFORCINGSTEEL-(AC-53?AC-55?AC-56',AC-58'AC-59,AC-60*)
REINFORCING STEEL WAS OMITTED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS',
CATEGORY 19 CONCRETE VOIDS -(AC-61f AC-62) VARIOUS INSTANCES OF VOIDS AND
~
i HONEYCOMBING OF CONCRETE WERE IDENTIFIED.'
CATEGORY 20 CRACKING OF CONCRETE - (AC-57, AC-631 AC-64") GENERAL CRACKING OF CONCRETE INCLUDING THE CRACKS IN THE UNIT 1 REACTOR CAVITY NALL'..
CATEGORY 21 SCHMIDT HAMER TESTING - (AC-65, AC-66) VALIDITY OF THE SCHMIDT HAMMER TESTS AND WHY SOME CONCRETE THAT WAS TO BE RETESTED WAS NOT.
CATEGORY 22 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS - (AC-68? AC-70) PROJECTILE RANGE USED IN Tile l DAMAGE STUDY PROGRAM AHD THE USE OF Al'.5 FACTOR IN STATIC LOAD j CALCULATIONS.
l
SUMMARY
OF ADDITIONAL ALEGATIONS ORIGINATED FROM CASE (CONTINUED) .
} l
~
CATEGORY 23 CONCRETE STRENGTH - (AC-69, AC-71,' AC-76) WHERE MAS 2500 PSI CONCRETE USED: DID ANALYSIS REFECT 2500 PSI OR 4000 PSI AND HERE RICHMOND i INSERTS INSTALED IN 2500' PSI CONCRETE
I CATEGORY 24 CONCRETE COVER - (AC-54) INADEQUATE CONCRETE C0VEP. DVER REDAR.
CATEGORY 25 SEISMIC GAP - (AC-67)'AT A DOORWAY BETHEEN THE UNIT 1 CONTAINMENT AND
~
. THE SAFEGilARDS BUILDING N0 GAP EXISTS.'
CATEGORY 2G DAMPING VALVES AND HILTI-BOLT SAFETY FACTORS - (AC-75, AC-77) VALIDITY OF DAMPING VALVES USED FOR CABE TRAY SUPPORTS AND SAFETY FACTORS USED l FOR HILTI-BOLT IN CABE TRAY SUPPORTS.
CATEGORY 27 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF_CABE. TRAY SUPPORTS AND LINER PLATE-(AC-72, AC-73, AC-74) H0LES WERE DRILED TilRU FLANGES OF CABLE TPAY SUPPORTS', DO l ALLOUABLE STRESSES G0 $EYOND YIELD FOR CABE TRAY SUPPORTS IN MENT, A PIPE SUPPORT ATTACHED TO LINEP, PLATE WAS STRESSED TO 100 KSI.
l CATEGORY 28 STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATEPAL SUPPORT - (AC-78) STRESSES IN RESTRAINT BEAM AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURE DUE TO THERMAL. EFFECTS.
CATEGORY 29 USE OF NON-APPROVED BACKFILL MATEP.IAL - (AC-79) NON APPROVED BACKFILL
! MATERIAL HAS USED AT JUNCTION OF UNIT #1 CONTAINMENT AND FUEL BUILDING.
1 i THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED BY THE CIVIL / STRUCTURAL GROUP
1
\ _.
CIVIL /STR'UCTURAL l
l NEW ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY ALLEGER ON 3/6/85 ._ .
- .> j
. THREE ADDITIONAL NEW'AELEGATIONS WERE IMNTIFIED DURING A CLOSING INTERVIEW t
- ~ BETEEN THE CIVIL / STRUCTURAL STAFF AND ALLEGER ON 3-6-85 AT GRAt! BURY',' TEXAS.
- 1. #18 REINFORCING STEEL THAT WAS USED TO FABRICATE RADIAL SHEAR BARS l ., j FOR UNIT 1 AND 2 CONTAINENT STRUCTURES FAS LONGIT 0DINALLY CRACKED j ,
OR SPLIT EXCESSIVELY (AC-79).
C
- 2. IN THE PROCESS OF CORE BORING. HOLES THRU VARIOUS UNIDENTIFIED REIMFORCED j CONCRETE WALLS AND SLABS VOIDS AND CONCRETE OF POOR QUALITY WAS ENCOUNTERED .
(A.C-80)',
- 3. POTENTIAL VOIDS EXIST BEHIND THE STAINLESS STEEL LINERS OF THE REACTOR l
~
CAVITY REFUELING POOLS IN THE UNIT 1 CONTAINMENT BUILDINGS.' ALSO i DURING THE FABRICATION OF THE LINERS FOR UNITS 1 AND 2 VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION
) DEFICIENCIES OCCURRED: E.G., LEAK CHASE CHAHHELS WERE OMITTED, GAPS BET!!EEN ADJACENT PLATES HERE EXCESSIVE, FLOOR ELEVATIONS WEP.E OUT OF TOLEP.ANCE (AC-81).
l l ..
u rs r; i
MECHANICAL & PIPING MISCELLANE0US CONCERNS OF A-45 280 ALLEGATIONS FROM ONE ALLEGER BACKGROUND:
o 5 LOG BOOKS CONTAINING 280 ALLEGED DEFECTIVE ITEMS o LIST OF 63 ITEMS WHICH THE ALLEGER CONSIDERED MOST SIGNIFICANT WERE' SAMPLED BY REVIEWING 22 ITEMS IN 4 SEPARATE GROUPS:
FITUP & WELDING - 9 ITEMS ALL DEALING WITH IMPROPER FIT UP DN WELDED MEMBERS.
TORQUE - 2 ITEMS: ONE ITEM DEALS WITH TORQUING OF A-490 BOLTS AND THE SECOND ITEM DEALS WITH THE MEASURING 0F BREAXAWAY TORQUE ON R.C. PUMP, EQUIPMENT - 3~ ITEMS:
o PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT WELDING o REACTOR TOP CLOSURE HEAD
'o SUPPORT BEAM FOR SAFETY INJECTION WHIP RESTRAINT.
MISCELLANE0US 8 ITEMS WHICH INCLUDED DCA AND NCR DOCUMENTS.
I IRT RESULTS THE TRT REVIEW 0F THESE ITEMS FOUND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT ITEMS SAMPLED THAT WOULD CAUSE CONCERN. MOST OF THE ITEMS REVIEWED WERE UNCLOSED NCRs THAT WERE ENTERED 'IN THE ALLEGERS LOG. THESE NCRs WERE LATER CLOSED VIA THE NORMAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM. OTHER ITEMS WERE FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS CONSTRUCTED. RESULTS WERE FED BACK TO THE ALLEGER. 1HE ALLEGER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE TRT FINDINGS.
9
MECHANICAL 8 PIPING NEW ALLEGATIONS FROM CASE (10 ALLEGATIONS)
ISSUES:
IN PIPING AREA:
o PIPE WALL THICKNESS DOES NOT MEET CODE REQUIREMENT o VIOLATION OF MIN. PIPE WALL THICKNESS DUE TO TORCH BURNING DURING WELDING. .
IN SUPPORT AREA o SUPPORTS UPGRADED FROM CLASS 2 TO CLASS 1 DO NOT MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS 1.
o GAP SIZE IN SUPPORTS WAS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED.
o MISINTERPRETATION OF PdNCHING SHEAR EFFECTS IN SUPPORT DESIGN.
IN WELDING AREA:
o PIPE WELDING REPAIR WITHOUT RE-DONE HYDR 0 TEST.
o\ INADEQUATE INTERPASS TEMPERATURE CONTROL ON WELDING 0F NOTCH TOUGHNESS MATERIALS.
o INADE0VATE NON-ELEVATED PREHEAT CONTROL ON WELDS.
~
o VIOLATION OF ASME CODE, SECTION XI DUE TO DIFFICULTIES IN SUPPORT TYPES FOR ISI.
0THERS:
o IMPROPER DISPOSITION OF 10 CFR 50.55(e) BY ALTERING NCR,
. . - _ _ _ _ . - - - .. = . _- __ - .
MECHANICAL AND PIPING
, t
! 11 NEW ALLEGATIONS (WEEK 0F 3/14/85)
I 11 NEW ALLEGATIONS AND IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO HILTI BOLTS, SUPPORTS AND WELDING.
- i. ,
i I
i i **s e
.e f
S J \.
l e
j
- e i
4 I
I
- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ . . _ . _ . ._ _ _.__._._.~_____
~
MECHANICAL AND PIPING NEW ALLEGATIONS (WEEK 0F 3/4/85)
(11 NEW ALLEGATIONS)
ISSUES: -
RELATED WITH HILTI BOLTS o NUT JAMMED DUE TO GALLED THREADS. SHIMS WERE USED (B2) o BENT THE BOLT STRAIGHT TO ACCOMf10DATE 100 H0LE (B3) o FILL OVERSIZED H0LE WITH GROUT AND EP0XY GLUE (B4) .
. o DRILLED H0LES OF A REMOVED WALL PLATE WERE NOT FILLED IN WITH GROUT (B5) ,
o A PIPE WAS G0UGED BY THE JAMMED DRILL DUE TO SKEWED DRILLING (B6) o if"MARKINGWASUSEDFORANACTUALLYSfl0RTENE
' 6" BOLT (B11)
RELATED WITH SUPPORTS o SHIMS WERE WELDED UNDER B0X MEMBERS OF PIPE SUPPORTS FOR FIT-UP PURPOSE (B1) o A HANGER WAS REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER PAPERWORK (B7) o A SCRAPED PIECE WAS WELDED TO AND CARRIED THE HEAT NUMBER OF A HANGER PIECE, WHICH WAS T00 SHORT (B9)
r
, ,2 9, e 2_
RELATED WITH WELDING o WELD RODS WERE LEFT OUT OVERNIGHT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION (B8) o OVERSIZED FITUP GAP ON SKEWED WELDS WERE SLUGGED UP WITH WELDING MATERIAL (B10)
REMARKS .
at ALLEGER WILL POINT OUT EXACT LOCATIONS 0F CONCERN o TRT REVIEW WILL FOLLOW o FOR 11 ALLEGATIONS, ONLY ONE SIMILAR TO OLD ALLEGATION AN{WASEVALUATEDBYTRT i
a
(
/.
t CONTENTION 5 DATA BASE
- 1. CIVIL / STRUCTURAL TRT 1.1 57 ORIGINAL ALLEGATIONS IN DESIGN, TESTING AND INSPECTION, AND CONSTRUCTION, 1.2 11 POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS.
1.3 5 OPEN ISSUES.
1.4 AVERAGE TIME PER ALLEGATION TO COMPLETE.
DATA SHEET - 29 MINUTES.
- 2. MECHANICAL / PIPING TRT .
1.1 15f0RIGINALALLEGATIONSINWELDING, PIPING, SUPPORTS AND OTHERS -
1.2 280 MISCELLANEOUS ALLEGATIONS OF WHICH 22 WERE SELECTED AS A SAMPLING.
1.3 26 POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS.
1.4 5 OPEN ISSUES.
1.5 AVERAGE TIME PER ALLEGATION TO COMPLETE DATA SHEET - 18 MINUTES.
C5 DATA SHEET INFORMATION '
THE CPSES TRT CONSIDERS THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION -
ACCUMULATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ALLEGATIONS AS AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONTENTION 5 PANEL. WITH THIS IN MIND, THE TRT HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION ON THE DATA SHEETS.
POINT 1 '
ADJUSTING INPUT TO FIT DATA SHEETS.
. POINT 2 DATA MANUPULATION TO DEVELOP TRENDS.
POINT 3
' IMPROVE DATA SHEET TO MAKE INFORMATION MORE MEANINGFUL.
i e .-..-.--- --- . . . - ._.
, C5 DATA BASE INPUT SHEET :
- 1. PRINCIPAL CONTENTION 5 AREA 1.1 CAN THIS BE BROADENED / EXPANDED 7
- 2. TOPICAL AREA 2.1 BASED ON TRT FEEDBACK THIS COULD BE EXPANDED.
- 3. ACCIDENT PREVENTION / MITIGATION SYSTEM 3.1 MANY CPSES SYSTEMS NOT LISTED.'
- 4. NATURE OF WORK 4.1 COULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE PROCEDURES, TESTIMONY, ETC.
- 5. REPRESENTATIVE TYPE OF ITEM 5.1 DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY ESTIMATE A POPULATION FROM WHICH SAMPLE WAS SELECTED.
- +
5 0
C'IG M 4
.-m- g- .e wp -*ep + e y .e.,.e. m .,
p kese s o%cuve l
l 1, 2. _.
b 'Yh*'* f**:) wrsuss es & fuL*Q Q.
l Vsn:v. In
.. NO u n t,h6 fu k jlway/n a
- . . ._ vNda ,v/is 8 ltsl'8 5 j dt -
(p.p.,gg,a ,lup
.5 _ _ _
3, tu.l. a, %L nl4:km Awy ek. M +u.,
m ,et 4 % <eutuu w:ud att Asc75 w
- Mbs ALL/i dw'gw w help =*)vam hw eavno f (mukvt u k.m .ts. )
y Sh4 MI, %1). .U5d l'u> Wiw 9 w gL, A5 kII vW%"'NT b M L .b. 4 2 ok Q
. {h2.ykJ.itbeym5 PQsa, $ p eniaken I, t E9R% 8 3 :$xl futfe.1 Go g 7 % A l
3 NGJe 132.0 W 'E len.u I , b% J t.o (,%.3 r w.b etw wf also jwp ~ rsuimapw l ASL3 wa ,,s Lg,% spa %
9 C G. M 5 , tvis blw ( brass Erg MhAewn md Wp ci-Mh
/~otA ss-3/D l /E'/f -
4[/9 . -- -
I R te q L19MA _.m[ dtyp . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 /"v' 9 . '
cy,nA is wi n. e " v e t l i u ssm Q % r f wrour
- . . . . 4* kisns . a.. W*M' 's * & Wa Ah 66 A~ gete W 4 us.u&m~k*ma p,-uu4 u.t a-s .
, iu A L o~p e.u a ? .b. a < u
~
/u~mavu be c4,s.<f L nu.$vco@ %L..A~pyw h 3.
. % %- J L. s u 4 en,mA w k--
b% & h" com c A A m " p d j f
_. . G P5 M %M mun . M'y m ula bl.a- . .
bovJd Mi c yo ura % du u , % k
. cvv~ IAL. m ihs Lu 4 a nf (_; ko n .s e k u l u h exh eus-}. <A. n. .L is y ige.r - S"'
lbo3,t4, t$ wi h k nyh d wkl M* d /c {j .h Afd l W 'Outsri t w Jk /%l e mjma a.sg .
xx S a.k W , J h u'l n d aa l d -IL M 4 c,
&F hy Dwsud m 4/A T(~> nyl-v3 L/ /p bA y eGb 9, A L3 8,tico et h >
pi- zc 5LL . EY , RM 85 j,y',