ML20215J897
| ML20215J897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1986 |
| From: | Barnes I, Dale J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J811 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-446-86-02, 50-446-86-2, NUDOCS 8610270236 | |
| Download: ML20215J897 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000446/1986002
Text
-.
.
APPENDIX D
SPECIAL UNIT 2
CABLE TRAY SUPPORT "AS-BUILT" PROGRAM INSPECTION
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-446/86-02
Construction Perrait: CPPR-127
Docket:
50-446
Category: A2
Applicant:
TexasUtilitiesElectricCompany(TVEC)
Skyway Tower
400 North Olive Street
Lock Box 81
Dallas, Texas 75201
Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Unit 2
Inspection at: Glen Rose, Texas
Inspection Conducted: December 11-12, 1985
a/gg,
Inspector:
),
yo
,
. [ ale,itIV Consultant
Date
Participating NRR Personnel:
R. Lipinski
Participating NRR Consultants:
V. Ferrarini
T. Langowski
C. Richards
(
E. Solla
l
Approved:
8m
s J)6/}/
o
I. Barnes, Chief, Region IV CPSES Group
Date
i
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted: December 11-12,1985(Report 50-446/86-02)
Areas Inspected: Special, unannounced inspection of the Unit 2 safety-related
j
cable tray support program.
Results: Within the one area inspected, one violation (seven examples of
(
errors in the as-built inspection program, paragraph 3.b) was identified.
l
8610270236 861017
ADOCK 05000445
G
j
l
. . .
.
.
-2-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- J. F. Streeter, TUGCo QA Director
- C. R. Hooton, TUGCo Civil Engineering Supervisor
- 0. B. Jones, TUGCo Unit 2 Project Engineer
.
- C. A. Biggs, TUGC0 Quality Engineer
- P. E. Halstead, TUGCo Quality Control Manager
- H. A. Harrison, TUGCo Project Manager
~
T. G. Tyler, TUGCo Comanche Peak Response Team Program Director
- J. D. Hicks, TUGCo Quality Control Supervisor
~
- J. Duncan, TUGCo Quality Engineer
- W. A. Kattness, TUGCo Quality Engineer
D. Mercier, TUGCo
- E. J. Hee, TUGCo (Quality EngineerR.L. Cloud and Associates)
- Denotes those present at the December 12, 1985, exit interview.
The NRC inspectors also interviewed other employees of the applicant.
2.
Safety-Related Cable Tray Support Inspection
This inspection was performed to verify the adequacy of the walkdown
as-built inspection program for Unit 2 safety-related cable tray supports.
The bases used for this inspection were the following:
a.
TUGCo Procedure THE-AB-CS-3, Revision 0, dated September 3, 1985,
" Cable Tray Hanger 'As-Designed' and 'As-Built' Drawing Development."
b.
TUGCo Instruction QI-QP-11.10-2A, Revision 5, dated September 12,
1985, " Inspection of Cable Tray Supports in Unit II."
c.
TUGCo Instruction QI-QP-11.2-1, Revision 20, dated October 24, 1985,
" Installation of Hilti Drilled-In Bolts."
!
d.
TUGCo Instruction QI-QP-11.21-1, Revision 13, dated November 8, 1985,
l
" Requirements For Visual Weld Inspection."
i
e.
Appropriate drawings depicting cable tray configurations and related
inspection packages.
'
j
A total of 21 cable tray supports were selected by the NRC inspection team
using a random number generator. The supports were broken down between
,
i
three buildings. The sample included the following cable tray supports:
--
.--
-
-
.- .-
-
-
.
- -
-
_ - -
.
.
-3-
Reactor Building
CTH-2-11929
CTH-2-11592
CTH-2-10101
CTH-2-11516
CTH-2-9774
CTH-2-11529
CTH-2-10059
CTH-2-10119
CTH-2-11570
Safeguards Building
i
CTH-2-10264
CTH-2-7137
CTH-2-10420
CTH-2-11391
!
CTH-2-11068
Diesel Generator Building
CTH-2-9850
CTH-2-9825
CTH-2-9947
CTH-2-9866
CTH-2-9901
CTH-2-9977
CTH-2-9926
i
As a result of this inspection, violations were identified in major
I
attributes associated with the cable tray support as-built drawings and QC
acceptance of these drawings.
,
3.
Summary of Violations
,
A sumary of findings from this inspection which are in violation of
,
Criterion X of Appe.7 dix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the appropriate TUGCo
'
,7rocedures or instructions are as follows:
a.
Procedure Requirement
Paragraph 3.2.3 in Revision 5 to TUGCo Instruction QI-QP-11.10-2A
states, in part, "The QC inspector shall verify (s)he completed support
t
is in accordance with the work package drawing
This verification
.
shall include the following attributes . . . . Verification of
dimension shown on the work package drawing (s) . . . . All dimensions
shall have field measurement tolerances as follows . . . Modified
- '
structural shapes, field cut plates, etc; 1/8" . . . . Cable tray
span and cantilever tolerance is 16" . . . unless specific directions
i
are given on the work package drawing (s) . . . . The gauge distance .
tolerance measured from the centerline of the bolt / hole to the heel
of the angle is 11/4"; for all other shapes, the tolerance is
1/8" . . . . Tolerance for dimension between welded steel
attachments on embedded plates is il" when the dimension is shown on
i
the drawing . . . elevation . . . will be verified by Field
l
Engineering (Surveyors)."
i
Paragraph 2.4 in Revision 0 to TUGCo Procedure THE-AB-CS-3 states, in
l
part, "The walkdown drawing shall correctly depict the in-field
condition including all the information necessary for QC
'
verification. The drawing shall include . . . Support configuration
i
dimensions and material sizes . . . ."
E - - - -
_
.
_ _ _ , ,
_ _ _ _ _
- .
.
.
.
. .
..
.
.
-4-
b.
Findings
(1) The as-built drawing for support CTH-2-9774 did not show the
vertical dimensional location of the 3/8"X4"X5" plate in relation
to the C-6 channel.
Further, the dimensional location of the
tray clamp plate in relation to the C-6 channel was missing.
(2) The as-built drawing for support CTH-2-10264 showed the base
plate for this support to be 1-3/4" east of support CTH-2-10263
while the field measurement was actually 1-1/2" West.
(3) The as-built drawing for support CTH-2-10420 showed the location
of the C-6 channel iron in Section B-B as being 4-3/8" from a
welded conduit support; however, the actual field measurement was
5-3/4".
(4) The chart in the as-built drawing for support CTH-2-9850 showed
the "U" dimension for " Clamps Type B" as 1-5/16" while the actual
field measurement was 1-7/8".
(5) The as-built drawing for support CTH-2-11570 showed the elevation
of the channel supporting the cable tray as being 846'-06", while
the elevation as measured in the field was 848'-0-1/2".
(6) The as-built drawing for support CTh-2-10119 showed the gage
dimension for bolt G1 to be 1"; however, the actual field
treasurement was 1-3/16".
(7) The as-built drawing for support CTH-2-9825, showed the "L1" tray
span as being 3'-0"; however, the actual dimension as measured in
the field was 5'-05".
These findings constitute a violation (446/8602-V-14).
4.
Sunnary of Unresolved Items
a.
Gap Between Base Angle and Concrete
A gap of 1/16" existed between the base angle of support CTH-2-11570
and the concrete wall. Cable tray support procedures did not address
this type of condition, and as a result, may not be reflected in the
final as-built analysis. This condition is an unresolved item
(446/8602-U-15).
b.
The drawing for support CTH-2-7137 showed the adjacent cable tray
support identification number as being 288796. Observation of the
support showed the stamped number 288796, which was subsequently
determined to be the material heat number. The isometric drawing
showed the correct support identification number to be CTH-2-7136.
The reason for the use of a material heat number in lieu of a support
number could not be ascertained This item is unresolved
(446/8602-U-16).
.
.
-5-
5.
Exit Interview
An exit interview was conducted on December 12, 1985, with the applicant
representatives denoted in paragraph 1 of this appendix. During this
interview, the NRC inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the
inspection. The applicant acknowledged the findings.
l
!
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.'
WTm i:rh'NE
ENGINEERING SERVICES
TRIP REPOP,T NO. 2200
PROJECT 6410T
HVAC HANGER PROGRAM AUDIT
COMANCHE PEAK
FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 1986
Atttendees:
L. Shao - NRC
R. Camp - TUGC0
D. Jeng - NRC
J. J. Rivard - TES
T. Westerman - NRC
S. F. Superson - TES
C. Hoffman - Brookhaven
V. Ferrarini - EAS
J. Streeter - TUGC0
The purpose of this audit was to determine the status of the HVAC sup-
ports at Comanche Peak.
Mr. John Streeter of TUGC0 gave an overview of the
current status of the Unit I HVAC supports.
The following is a brief history of events in this area.
The NRC Construction Assessment Team (CAT) performed field inspections
of the Comanche Peak HVAC supports during January, February and March of
1983.
During this inspection, welds were inspected on fourteen supports,
and nine additional supports were inspected for proper location, configura-
tion, conformance to drawing, dhsign and procedural requirements.
At this
time deviations were noted in 45 percent of the welds inspected, while five
of the nine supports reviewed for dimensions had deviations.
Due to the findings of the CAT audit of the HVAC supporn , TUGC0
issued a stop-work notice for all Bahnsan Service Company's (Bahnsan
installed the HVAC supports) structural welding on March 3,1983.
TUGC0
also began what resulted in a four-phase review of the HVAC supports.
Phase I (3/83) consisted of a walkdown by Bahnsan of 10a random
supports.
Welds and member dimensions were looked at.
Bahnsan reported a
number of deviations with both welds and dimensions.
This as-built infor-
mation was transmitted to Corporate Consulting Limited (CCL).
(CCL
analyzed the HVAC ducts and supports.)
CCL found that all the deviations
were not safety significant.
CCL did coment that all the supports
,
,
e
,
,
.'
Trip Report
"RTri prt(NE
'
-
No. 2200
-2-
ENGINEERING SERVICES
reviewed had relatively low weld and member stresses and suggested that the
review be expanded to include supports with larger stresses.
This resulted
in Phase II.
Phase II (3/83) consisted of a review (no field walkdown) of all
supports with weld stresses greater than one-half the SSE allowable-
(14,000 psi).
A total of 240 duct su'pports were identified.
It was
assumed that the welds of these supports were one-half the size and three-
quarters the length of that shown on the' design drawings.
These reduced
weld sizes were based on weld deviations found in Phase I.
An analysis
based on the assumed welds indicated that three of the supports had
stresses above the appropriate allowables.
However, an analysis of the as-
built condition of these three supports indicated stresses below the
allowables.
Due to the results of Phase I and II, the stop-work order was
lifted at the end of April 1983 and work continued.
Phase III was conducted in June 1983.
This phase consisted of a com-
plete field review of 285 supports.
Included in this group were the 180
accessible supports in Phase II and 100 additional supports with weld
stresses between 9,000 psi and 14,000 psi.
This review consisted of
Bahnsan performing the as-builts of the supports and sending this as-built
information to CCL for an as-built analysis.
All supports were found to be
acceptable by CCL.
Phase IV performed in July 1983 consisted of a detailed review by CCL
of the analysis of the Phase II supports noted as being inaccessible.
Since these supports were inaccessible, CCL used a statistical approach for
their evaluation and found these supports to be acceptable.
'
In addition to the four-phase review by TUGC0 (Bahnsan and CCL),
Evaluation Research Corportion (ERC) is inspecting HVAC supports as part of
the Construction Adequacy Plan.
ERC has reviewed 68 supports on Unit I
noting 202 deviations.
The deviations include welding, support configura-
tion, and duct-to-support attachment.
There were no details of these
attribute deviations.
-
-
-
.
.
,
,
Trip Report
'WIW
NE
.
ao. 2200
-3-
ENGINEERING SERVICES
in order to complete the Seismic Qualification Report for the HVAC
'
cucT.:. and supports, Bahnsan is required to send CCL an as-built of the HVAC
supports to be analyzed by CCL.
Preliminary results of the as-built anal-
ysis for approximately 500 supports include the following deviations.
Based on analysis, between 50 and 60 of the supports reviewed
-
should have the HVAC duct attached to the support.
However, the
design arawing contains no detail for the attachment.
Of the 50 to 60 supports requiring duct-to-support attachments,
-
10 have no attachments.
The remaining 40 plus do have an attach-
,
ment in the field.
There is no design detail for the attachment of the duct to sup-
-
port which is required by analysis.
There is no analysis for four supports in the Reactor Building.
-
Five supports have member-dimension deviations.
-
CCL did not receive all of the Bahnsan design changes.
-
'
This as-built support analysis began in January 1985, and the project
has not yet determined the full impact of these deviations.
However, due
to these findings, the status of CPSES Seismic Qualification Report of
Seismic Category I Duct Work and Hangers was previously changed from
'
" Approved" to "Not Approved" on January 21, 1986.
Ank$
[ James d. Rivard
Y
In w -
l
'
$tephen F. Si/ person
JJR:jej
1 - Trip Report File
l
1 - D. F. Landers (TES)
1 - S. F. Superson (TES)
l
L
>