ML20215N568

Forwards 860825-29 Rept Documenting IE Assessment of Three Technical Allegations Re Cable Tray Support Design at Facility.Allegation Re Load Carrying Adequacy of Connection Detail Used for Cable Tray Supports Included in Rept

ML20215N568
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/29/1986
From:	Partlow J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20215B109	List: ML20215B106 ML20215B133 ML20215J432 ML20215N568
References
FOIA-86-793 NUDOCS 8611060365
Download: ML20215N568 (8)

Text

'

'{

' Octcbsr 29, 1986

.s-

. MEMORANDUM FOR:

Roger D. Walker, Director o

Division of. Reactor Projects, RII FROM:

James G. Partiow, Director-Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (SHNPP)

ASSESSMENT OF' ALLEGATIONS The enclosed report documents an IE assessment of three technical allegations regarding cable tray support design at-SHNPP'on August 25-29, 1986.

~

One of the allegations, which concerns the load carrying adequacy of a connec-

~ tion detail used for cable tray supports, was substantiated, and included in the report is a potential enforcement action (Appendix A) for your use.

4 t

Subsequent to this assessment the licensee performed a generic review of end connections similar to those in question.

It is our understanding that Region II is presently evaluating the licensee's actions and will be issuing an inspection report on its. findings. We have no objection if you incorporate.

the potential enforcement action of Appendix A with your findings.

If you have questions concerning this matter please call me or J. E. Konklin (492-9656).

"O i ir g ne.1 sive.:: dy g, L, Spesser r W

L James G. Partlow, Director Division of Inspection Programs Office'of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Trip Report Distribution DCS-016

- RCPB R/F DI R/F.

JTaylor RStarostecki RSpessard JKonklin f TMcLellan

>/

f.

OFC :RCPB:DI:IE :RCPB

IE :00:0 4E

0IR:MI

.._ _... g'e#

NAME :TMcL 11an/v n

RSp sard

JPart ow

, DATE 10/ff786

$10/AI/86

$10/M/86

10/d/86 i

g,u $b d SW 10 M-4

.--r-----v-

..w,.~~---ee,

--.,---rw,,,.,,,_m..-,_

.-zww.,w,,

,,,,.w..

.ewww.-,,--m m---,,c~-,,,

--,-- +--

g--

..c SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Docket 50-400 Construction Permit CPPR-158 IE Staff:

T. K. McLellan, Reactor Construction Engineer Special Programs Section Reactor Construction Programs Branch Consultant:

0. Mallon Facility:

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP)

Dates of Assessment: August 25-29, 1986

Background

~b t

In response to a request from RII concerning allegations they had received, the above two inspectors visited the SHNPP site on August 25-29, 1986.

Interviews were conducted and applicable documentation relating to the allega-tions was reviewed.

Field observations of cable tray supports were made.

Summary The allegations were in the area of cable tray support design.

Based on the examination of relevant documents and field observations, the IE inspectors substantiated one allegation concerning a connection detail used on cable tray frames in the containment building.

The other allegations were not substan-tiated.

Discussion The following discussion lists each technical allegation, and notes the review and inspection efforts performed.

Table 1 provides a list of documents used to perform the assessment.

I l

l.

~

2860218002: Cable Tray Supports Desian Adequacy l

This allegation was that some installed cable tray supports may not be adequate for their intended purpose.

Based on discussions with the alleger this general allegation was divided into three specific allegations, which are discussed below.

2860218003:

Connection Detail Used on Cable Tray Supports This specific allegation was that there is a generic problem with supports at SHNPP.

For example, Work Package EN 26627T-A4, support 627T, generic detail G on drawing 2168-G-251-501 may not be adequate to support the design loads.

Detail G on drawing 2168-G-251-501 shows a standard connection of a cable tray support vertical tension member to the containment building structural steel..

6 In March 1986 the licensee identified a problem with the adequacy of this g

connection and issued FM-C-CAR-2168-G-251-501 (Rev. 1) which increased some of the fillet weld sizes from 1/4 inch to 3/8 inch.

Calculations to support this design change were apparently not performed and checked by the licensee until May 28, 1986, after the weld size change had been placed into effect.

Both the original calculations and the design calculations to support the changes in weld sizes were found by the IE inspectors to be inadequate and the results to not be conservative in all applications. The original calculations did not include the design of the weld size for the clip angle to the civil structural steel and the field modification calculation did not consider bending in the clip angle leg attached to the civil structural steel. These calculations were checked, verified and signed-off as acceptable by the licensee.

Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) personnel were informed of the IE inspectors' findings, and agreed that the methods used were not appropriate.

Subsequently CP&L reanalyzed the connection using finite element analysis (FEA).

The results of the FEA were reviewed by the IE inspectors which indicated that the ultimate load on the connection was 118 kips based on the field modification weld configuration.

In addition, based on the as-built condition, CP&L also recalculated the actual load on the structure and determined that the actual tensil-load was 15.2 kips instead of the 32.6 kips used in the original ann ysis.

The licensee also provided to the inspectors the results of a tensile test 9erformed on a full scale mockup of the connection (with the exception of the first 3/8 inch of weld from the heel of the clip angle, which was omitted).

The tensile test results indicated, that the ultimate capacity of the connec-tion was 69.4 kips, as compared to 70.0 kips from the results of an additional FEA run, nodeled in the tensile test configuration.

Based on the results of the tensile test and the reduced load (15.2K vs.

32.6K) on the connection, the IE inspectors concluded that the connection is adequate; however, the IE inspector's findings about the inadequate design review process and the generic implications for similiar end connections on cable tray supports and other areas are of concern.

At the time of writing II this report, the licensee has agreed to do a review of generic end connections I

L I

io

similar to Detail G on' drawing 2168-G-501.

The conclusions will'be reviewed by NRC Region:II.

This allegation was substantiated.

See Appendix A for a potential enforcement action writeup on this item.

'g t

4 l

1 l

[

2860218004:

Eccentricity of Tension Member Attached to a Platform Beam The specific allegation was that a tension member below a platform beam, with a requirement for a maximum clearance of 1/4 inch eccentricity, was, in fact, 7 inches off center, and that this field modification was not analyzed. The detail is in work plan EN 2367-A-3, cable tray support, No. 67 on elevation 236.

The IE inspectors reviewed the specific details of this allegation, and found that the licensee did not violate its procedures in performing this particular field modification of cable tray support No. 67, even though it was dcne prior to design verification. CP&L personnel stated that all field modifications are design verified prior to acceptance and that this particular modification was design verified on August 8, 1986. The IE inspectors reviewed the calcula-tions and found them to be adequate.

8 This allegation was not substantiated.

t l

1 i ;

a 2860218005:. Cable Tray Support Brace Anale The allegation was that a brace on a cable tray support had an angle changed between.the horizontal brace and the vertical member of the support.

In this case the horizontal location of the brace connection was changed from 3'-0" to 3'-4 1/2".

The alleger was told by the licensee that a new design calculation would be redundant and, consequently, the modification to the brace location was not analyzed at the time of the change. This information can be found in work plan EN 26242, Support No. 242 on elevation 262.

The IE inspector reviewed the specific details of this modification, and found that the licensee did not violate its procedures in performing this particular field modification of cable tray support No. 242, even though the work was done prior to design verification. This particular modification was design verified on August 23, 1986 and was found to be acceptable by the licensee.

The IE inspectors reviewed the calculations and concluded that the design change was

adequate, t

This allegation was not substantiated. -

~

'I,,.

q TABLE 1 Documents Used to Perform Independent Assessment-CP&L calculation and test result submitted 9-5-86 by memorandum to the NRC Senior Resident Inspector, from L. I. Loflin CP&L design verification FM-C-CAR-2168G-251-501 (Detail G), dated 5-28-86 CP&L design verification EN 26242 dated 7-1-86 CP&L design verification EN 2367-A-3 dated 8-11-86

'I CP&L General Design Guidelines for Civil / Structural Engineering, t

Unit 7.1.A, Rev. 10 e

~ ~ -

es-APPENDIX A

-POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION LAs a result of the assessment of August 25-29,'1986 at the SHNPP, the following itemLis referred to Region II as a Potential Enforcement Action.

10 CFR 50 Appendix 8 Criterion III, as implemented by PSAR Section 1.8.5.3, requires that design control measures provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of-alternate or simplified calculations methods,-or by the performance of~a suitable testing program.

' Contrary to-the above, at the time of this assessment, the licensee's design verification program was not adequately implemented ~ in that inadequate calculations for Generic Detail G on Drawing 2168-G-251-501 were not identi-5 fied during the licensee's design review.

v.

t O

l'

- I

o e

Coalition for I;ovember i

Ahernathes h, Steven F.3[.ctz1956 e

a e

e Shcanin llartis CASH Legal Comnittee 237 McCauley St.

Utapel n111, av e rym (919) 929-1870 Donnie Grimsley Division of Rules and Records office of Administration US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REOUEST

~

Dear Mr. Griesley,

b d //-/2.-8(o Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522, the Coalition for Eddleman, pro.se., Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASH),

_et. seq.),

and Wells information, including but not limited torequests copies of any, and all,_NRC reco notes records, letters, memorana, drafts, miniutes, diaries, summaries,, interview reports, procedures, instruction 7., engineering $lans, drawings, files

graphs,

charts, handwritten notes

studies, data sheets interum a,nd final reports, status repor,ts, and any and all reco,rds relevent to and or generated in response to:

1.

The investigation of allagations, complaints or ar ed to the NRC, NRR, or the IO, by Ms. Patty Mirriello.guments present-the investigation, which we understand is considered closed by theParticelarly 10, of the multiple affidavits presented by Ms. Mirriello concerning:

harrasment, intimidation and blacklisting, by CF&L or a.

it's agents at the Shearon Harris and Brunswick Nuclear Fower Flants.

b.

documents related tothe inservice inspection process at the Shearon Harris Plant.

documents related to Ms. Mirriello's personel radiation c.

records while employed by CP&L or it's agents.

2.

The CASH /Eddleman Erief 6, 1986, and documentation c,oncerning: filed with the Commission on Oct6ber Remedial action, additions a.

ed or taken by Carolina Power a,nd Loght Co, the State ofmodifications North Carolina, the varrious Counties and other quasi-govern mental entities involved in the planning for or participation in the Emergency Preparedness Plan (evacuation plan) for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Fower Flant, since the Full Scale Exercise of the plan in May of 1985; or, b.

changes in the "on-sight prepared ness"for the SHNPP.

i 3.

NRC investigation of incidences, allagations taken by the NRC, CP&L or it's a6ents in response, or remedial' action to the discharge of CP&L or agents employees and subsequent Department of Labor investigations l

i Apex: 362-4717

• Cary: 828 0088,832 8558

• Chagwl llill: 942 1112, 9674812, 968-0567 Durharn: 683 3209,683 3209

• Ilillsboro: 732 8245

• Pitt3boru: 542-4114

• Raleigh: 828

'm y & W l

L

O.

in particular the McWeeney and VanEeck D.O.L. claims, investigations, and subsequent administrative actions, orders and appeals.

4 Provide the above requested documentation concerning the CASH /

Eddlemen 2.206 Show Cause Petition filed with the Director of Reactor Regulation on October 17, 1966 and any and all documentation Eenerated-which relates to:

-QA/QC arEuments contained therein; a.

b.

Wron6ful discharge of ecployees as stated in the arguments contained theirin; and, informantion concerning arEuments and allagations c.

concerning the investigation of placement numbers and procedures from the confidential informant.

(

0

~

~. -.-- -.

-.,,e- - _. _ -, - _,..,

---

,----,,,e---+

-.,m-----

+

V

\\Inouropinion,itisappropriateinthiscasethatsearch. charges be waived, pursuant to 5 USC 522(a)(4)(A),"...because furnishinE the information can be considered as.primarily benefiting.the general public".

CASH is a non-profit organization serving it's local mem-bers and the public at large in the effort.to assure that full public

_ participation be had in the NRC's-licensing and regulatory pro-cess.

For any documents or portions of d6cuments which you may deny due to specific FOIA Exceptions, please provide an index describinE and doc-umenting the portions withheld, and a justification for claiming such an Exception as required by Vaughn v Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir,1983)c We are looking forwpod to your prompt reply.

S*meprely,

//

,s'

/

g

/

i Stev F.

'atz f

CASH Legal Commit ee 9