ML20236H399
| ML20236H399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1987 |
| From: | Mallanda J, Pearson J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4744 OL, NUDOCS 8711040102 | |
| Download: ML20236H399 (33) | |
Text
!
]
DOCKETED y
Ub C Filed:
l l
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ag7 g 2 P2 S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION QFFICEOFStQE1A8y before the U0CKETING a SERvlCE BRANCH ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL l
)
50-446-OL TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY et al.
)
)
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ANSWERS TO BOARD'S 14 QUESTIONS (Memo; Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986)
Regarding Action Plan Results Report I.a.2 i
i In accordance with the Board's Memorandum: Proposed Memo-randum and Order of April 14, 1986, the Applicants submit the answers of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT") to the 14 questions posed by the Board, with respect to the Results Report published by the CPRT in respect of CPRT Action Plan I.a.2,
" Inspection Reports on Butt-Splices."
Opening Reauest:
Produce copies of any CPRT-generated checklists that were used during the conduct of the action plan.
Response
The CPRT-generated checklists used are part of the attached procedure.
(See response to Question 2.)
Completed copies of these checklists are part of the ISAP files.
l 1
EA2iDM $!!!P
])g l
o
i' e
Question No. 1:
1.
Describe the problem areas addressed in the report.
Prior-to undertaking to address those areas through sampling, what did Applicants do to define the problem areas further?
How did it believe the problems arose?
What did it dis-cover about the QA/QC documentation ~for those areas?
How extensive did it believe the problems were?
Response
This ISAP was prepared'to respond to concerns raised by the TRT resulting from its investigation of three allegations of improper butt-splicing of cables in control panels.
The'TRT's primary concern was that inspection documentation did not appear l
i in all cases to indicate that QC had witnessed each butt-splice j
l as required.
1 4
The CpRT first reviewed the cases identified by the TRT-to I
1 determine whether the concern was valid.
An examination of the QC inspection documentation revealed that the required QC wit-ness had not in all cases been documented.
Sampling was not employed in this ISAP.
Once the concern was validated, the next phase of the ISAP included reinspection 4
and documentation review of all splices that could be identified
]
I by a review of drawings for control panels.
(Later, because of inaccuracies found in these drawings, more extensive searches for undocumented splices were performed.)
A formal root cause analysis was not performed before re-l l-inspections and document reviews for the ISAP were initiated.
A e
detailed root cause analysis of findings from the ISAP is pre-sented in the Results Report.
, 1 u_.--___-____
i ie With respect to the TRT concern about QC witness documenta-tion, the root causes included lack of QC hold points in the j
craft installation procedure, inadequate QC supervision, and an apparent breakdown in the interface between engineering and con-struction personnel.
Question No. 2:
2.
provide any procedures or other internal documents that are necessary to understand how the checklists should be inter-preted or applied.
Response
Attached are copies of all revisions to the procedure used i
to reinspect the butt-splices.
The associated documentation review consisted solely of a check to determine whether a record existed that QC had witnessed the butt-splice (though many other discrepancies were identified by the reviewers).
Consequently, the former Review Team Leader (Mr. Jones) did not consider a procedure to be necessary.
Mr. Mallanda and Mr. Pearson concur with this assessment.
Question No. 3:
3.
Explain any deviation of Shecklists-from the inspection report documents initially used in inspecting the same attributes.
Response
As discussed in the root cause' analysis section of the Results Report, neither the craft nor the.QC procedure used during the original installation and inspection contained adequate requirements for the installation or inspection of these splices before the TRT investigation took place.
The
-3*
l 4
le checklist used by the CPRT was based on AMP installation and i
l inspection instructions.
Consequently, the CPRT checklist con-tains significantly more attributes than the original inspection checklist.
(Revisions of the QC inspection procedure
]
(QI-QP-11.3-28) were previously forwarded to the Board with the responses to these questions for the related ISAP I.a.1, " Heat-Shrinkable Cable Insulation Sleeves.")
Question No. 4:
4.
Explain the extent to which the checklists contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes to which Applicants are committed to conform.
1
Response
The checklist includes all important attributes except verification of proper conductor insertion depth and a check for strands not inserted into the wire barrel of the splice.
These two attributes can only be verified completely by an in-process (i.e.,
" witness") inspection.
Question No. 5:
5.
(Answer Question 5 only if the answer to Question 4 is that l
the checklists do contain fewer attributes.)
Explain the engineering basis, if any, for believing that the safety margin for components (and the plant) has not been degraded by using checklists that contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes.
Response
The two attributes discussed in the response to question 4 and the unsatisfactory conditions noted in some cases for the remaining attributes led to the extensive analysis and testing discussed in detail in the Results Report (Section 5.2.6) and the ISAP files.
The analysis included a determination of l
l
- l
l l
worst-case pullout force that could be applied to a splice in a seismic event, and the testing consisted of a destructive pull-out test on a randomly-selected sample of splices that had been installed to the original procedures.
The conclusion from that analysis and testing was that the installed splices were capable l
of performing their intended safety function.
Question No. 6:
6.
Set forth any changes in checklists while they were in use, including the dates of the changes.
Response
1 No inspection was performed on Revisions 0 or 1 of QI-002, but inspections were performed on Revisions 2, 3,
and 4.
As documented in the ISAP file, Mr. Mallanda reviewed the changes from Revision 2 to Revision 3 and those from Revision 3 to Revision 4, concluding that either previous inspections had been backfit, or the changes did not have an impact on the previous inspections.
Question No. 7:
7.
Set forth the duration of training in the use of checklists and a summary of the content of that training, including field training or other practical training.
If the train-ing has changed or retraining occurred, explain the reason for the changes or retraining and set forth changes in duration or content.
Response
Among the responsibilities of the QA/QC Review Team Leader (Mr. Hansel) was inspector training for inspections performed by the QA/QC Review Team under this ISAP.
Based on information i
from Mr. Hansel, we understand that training consisted of
)
1
- l l
)
r 1
I familiarizing inspectors with the inspection procedure, check-list (s), and ISAP.
No further retraining was considered neces-I sary because of the limited nature of the reinspection, the q
l Level II or III qualification of inspectors, and their previous experience, nor was any further retraining undertaken.
Question No. 8:
8.
Provide any information in Applicants' possession concern-ing the accuracy of use of the checklists (or the inter-observer reliability in using the checklists).
Were there l
any time periods in which checklists were used with questionable training or QA/QC supervision?
If applicable, j
are problems of inter-observer reliability addressed statistically?
l
Response
1 Many splices that were removed from the field were still available for observation when Mr. Mallanda and Mr. Pearson assumed their positions on the Electrical Review Team.
Their comparison of some of these specimens with the checklists showed that checklist information accurately reflected the actual con-dition of the specimens.
l Neither Mr. Ma11anda nor Mr. Pearson is aware of any infor-mation regarding inter-observer reliability of the checklists or of any time period in which checklists were used with question-able training or QA/QC supervision.
I Question No. 9:
9.
Summarize all audits or supervisory reviews (including reviews by employees or consultants) of training or of use of the checklists.
Provide the factual basis for believing that the audit and review activity was adequate and that each concern of the audit and review teams has been resolved in a way that is consistent with the validity of l
cor.clu s i ons..
Response
Other than the comparison of physical specimens previously 1
mentioned, no audits or supervisory reviews were performed by j
the Electrical Review Team, or, to their knowledge, by the QA/QC l
Review Team.
Question No. 10:
10.
Report any instances in which draft reports were modified l
in an important substantive way.as the result of management action.
Be sure to explain any change that was objected to (including by an employee, supervisor, or consultant) in writing or in a meeting in which at least one supervisory or management official or NRC employee was present.
Explain what the earlier drafts said and why they were modified.
Explain how dissenting views were resolved.
Response
As discussed in the Results Report (pages 22-24), the Elec-trical Review Team made a preliminary recommendation that all splices installed before a certain time period be replaced.
.As Result Report " drafts" were often used by the review team to assist in developing thoughts in process, this recommendation may have been included in the " draft" report at one tino.
Such a draft was never formally presented to the SRT, other TU Electric management, or the NRC; however, the content of the recommendation was presented in letter form to the SRT. -Upon questioning by the SRT, Mr. Mallanda and Mr. pearson stated that the subject splices were not known to be unacceptable, but.prov-ing their acceptability would be particularly difficult and time-consuming, and the conclusion was that the.most expeditious action would be to replace the splices.
7-
1 The SRT requested the Electrical Review Team to consider an alternative approach (e.g.,
a testing program).
The Electrical l
Review Team did not object to this approach from a technical perspective.
Question No. 11:
11.
Set forth any unexpected difficulties that were encountered in completing the work.of each task force.and that would be helpful to the Board in understanding the process by which conclusions were reached.
How were each of these un-l expected difficulties resolved?
)
Response
To aid in the Board's understanding of (1) how the issue became so complex and (2) why several tasks were added or changed while the ISAP was being implemented, a discussion follows regarding major problem areas encountered in carrying l
out the steps of the ISAP.
The original plan for resolving the issue employed the i
following approach (subsequent to issue validation discussed in 1
i the response to question 1):
- 1) Review drawings to determine which panels in the control room and cable spreading room had butt-splices shown and which did not.
- 2) For those that did not, conduct a reinspection on a sampling basis to confirm whether it was reasonable to conclude that these panels indeed had no splices installed.
- 3) For those that did, perform both a reinspection and a QC documentation review. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -
I l
- 4) If the actions from step 3 revealed unacceptable l
splices, extend the investigation to other plant areas.
Early in the reinspection process, it became clear that drawings did not always match conditions found in the field (i.e. some conductors were spliced that were not authorized by J
l engineering to be spliced, and some design documents indicated conductors were spliced when no such splice was found in the field).
Because of these discrepancies, two scope expansions were initiated by the CpRT.
First, the sampling approach stated in step 2 above was 1
superseded by a check of all panels.
(This check revealed no l
I unauthorized splices.)
Second, panels that appeared to have j
significant mismatches with the drawings were completely re-inspected to determine the extent of unauthorized splicing. The results of this activity are discussed in the Results Report.
1 i
l Question No. 12:
j 12.
Explain any ambiguities or open items in the Results Report.
Response
l Mr. Mallanda and Mr. Pearson know of no ambiguities in the Results Report.
Open items are discussed throughout'the Results Report and specifically summarized in Section 7.0,
" Ongoing Activities."
Question No. 13:
13.
Explain the extent to which there are actual or apparent conflicts of interest, including whether a worker or super-visor was reviewing or evaluating his own work or aupervis-ing any aspect of the review or evaluation of his own work or the work of those he previously supervised.
-g-
l u
l Responsa:
As all reinspection and documentation reviews except Phsee I
l I (which validated the TRT concern) were performed by third-party personnel, no known conflict of interest exists.
Question No. 10 l
dinoloses the naussus ~.*.- Ten.o. 0le that it ade,quate y,._,,,,,g4,u.RV$g
==na tt orthediscussiongivesrise88ou,vivu. goo.ss...,the am uu, un 108 gae i
Resnonse In preparing the responses to questions 1-13, Mr. Ms11anda I
Though no sabi-and Mr. Pearson have reread the Results Report.
left in guity of the type indicated would have been deliberately port publica-the report, this rereading (seversi months after re details tion) permitt+d a check for such ambiguities when the No such ambigu-were not so f!'esh in the minds of the authors.
ity was noted.
Respectfully submitted, mi-a J. R. Pearson Action Plan I.e.2 Issue coordinator t
4z C
J. Mayanda eview Ttas Leader foregoing The CPRT 8snior Review Tesa has reviewed the responses and concurs in thes.
- 10.-
Mb l.l O W d
$pggy Jg
..e.,-u
f}b.
l D8 l
'"I C0 CHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM 1
UALITY INSTRUCTION h
PRT ACTION ITEM I a.3 b)
"h.
=
a=
INSTRUCTION N0.
REVISION ISSUED DATE PAGE QI-002 0
1/3/85 10F2 l
Procedure for Class 1E Butt Splice Qualification - CPRT Action Item I.a.3 i
PREPARED BY:
h,5 //uAls.a/
DATE
/ /5 /M Evaluation ea Corporation
/d J/ 8meM DATE
/. f. W.
APPROVED BY:
Evaluayon Research Corp 6 ration APPROVED BY:
W DATE
//
- 5 RTL Ele Ins g entation 1.0 References 1.1 Office memo,12/7/84, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel
" Action Item T.a.3 - But,t Splice Qualifications".
1.2 EEI-8, " Class 1E and Non-Class 1E Cable Terminations"
2.0 Purpose and Scope
2.1 The purpose of this Quality Instruction is to define the method by which to assure that no splice in a cable bundle is adjacent to and pressing upon another splice. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Iter.1 1.a.3.
2.2 The scope of this Quality Instruction is limited to the physical inspec-tion of cable bundle's containing splices to insure that no splice is ad-jacent to and pressing upon another splice. This inspection will be limited to the Class 1E cabinets in the control room and cable spreading room that are known to have butt-splices in them.
3.0 Responsibilities 3.1 The Third Party Inspectors (ERC) shall be responsible for conducting the inspections of cable bundles containing splices and documenting the results.
The Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader is responsible for the I
review and approval Of the inspection results and responsible for identifi-cation of cabinets thct contain butt splices.
4.0 Instruction 4.1 The Quality Inspectors shall inspect the cabinets' cable bundles containing splices to insure that no splice in a bundle is adjacent to and pressing up-on another splice (Ref. : eel-8, Para 3.18 (c)).
),
h
a QI-002 REV. 0 PAGE 2 0F 2 4.2 Documentation 4.2.1 The Quality Inspectors will be furnished with the applicable drawings and documents required to inspect all cable splices in a panel to assure they are staggered within bundles.
4.2.2 The Quality Inspectors shall document the results of the inspection on the Inspection Report (IR) provided (Attachment 1). Complete a separate I.R.
for each piece of equipment or cabinet.
The I.R. shall be completed in accordance with Attachment 2.
The I.R. shall be reviewed for legibility, accuracy and completeness and approved by the ERC Level III. The completed I.R. shall be submitted to the Electrical /
Instrumentation Review Team Leader for review / approval.
I l
i
(
=
l l
r i
'I
\\
i
ATTACfMENT 1 PAGE 10F 2 l
~
'QI-002 REY. 0 SHEET 1 0F COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM INSPECTION REPORT CPRT ACTION ITEM I.a.3 DRAFT M REV ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Butt Splice Qualification EQUIPMENT MJMBER:
DRAWING NUMBER:
/
\\
REVISION DCA's h v
INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES:
Activity 1: Verify that comon group splices are staggered as per EEI-8 Para. 3.18 1
(c) " Splices within the same wire bundle shall be staggered so they.are not touching each other".
CABLE ID #
SPLICE LOCATION SAT.
UNSAT.
QC S_IGNATURE DATE COPMENTS h
h (9) h h
v v
v y
v v
REMARKS:
b
~
V INSPECTOR h
DATE BADGE NO.
v REVIEW AND APPROVAL 14 DATE EWhation Research Corporation REVIEW AND APPROVAL DATE ti eew1ca i/ instrumentation A. i.L..
I.
ATTACMENT 1 PAGE 2 0F 2
.QI-002 REV. O SHEET OF BUTT SPLICE QUALIFICATION CONTINUATION SHEET Action Itan I.a.3 DRAFT b EQUIPMENT NO.- b v
REV.
DRAWING NO.
3 REV.
U 1
1 CABLEJD #
SPLIC LLOCATION SAT. UNSAT.
QC SIGNATURE DATE COMMENTS l
(6)
- [7)
(8)
(9)
[10)
(11) y
~
U U
V U
U U
l i
l l
~
m REMARKS:
b V
),'
t ATTACHMENT 2 PAGE 1 0F 1 QI-002 REV 0
Procedure for Butt Spifce Qualification - CPRT Action Item I.a.3 INSPECTION REPORT (Completion Instruction)
The numbers below correspond to the numbered blocks on the inspection report:
1.
Enter the Draft and/or Revision number of Action Item I.a.3 as applicable.
2.
Enter the Equipment or Cabinet number.
3.
Enter the Drawing number.
4.
Enter the Revision of the Drawing.
I 5.
Enter all DCA's.
6.
Enter the Identification numb of the cable I
7.
Enter the Specific location of the splice.
8.
Indicate whether the splice is SATISFACTORY cr UNSATISFACTORY per Activity 1.
9.
Enter the Signature of the Inspector.
- 10. Enter the Date the Inspection was performed.
- 11. Indicate applicable DCA's.
- 12. Identify any discrepancies with Drawing number and applicable DCA's.
j
- 13. Signature, Date and Badge number of Inspector.
- 14. Approval Signature and Date of ERC Level III.
- 15. Approval Signature and Date of Review Team Leader.
1 i
I
____-._.___.._____.-.___.___.____.-__-__U
VJ. L.2.
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM Z 4. 2-3.003 QUALITY INSTRUCTION j'] #
h PRT ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 &
p g
INSTRUCTION NO.
01-002 1
1/8/85 10F 3 PROCEDURE FOR: CPRT ACTION ITEM I.a.2, INSPECTION REPORT ON BUTT SPLICES and CPRT ACTION ITEM I.a.3, BUTT SPLICE QUALIFICATIONS PREPARED BY
/1//d5 DATE
/[#d5~
Evaluation Research Corporation APPROVED BY haaM[
DATE T/Yr Evaluation fesearch Corporation k
I Md ]h DATE APPROVED BY
/
(.
~
l R'..L. p ec./ I upntation~
1.0 REFERENCES
1.1 Office Memo,1/4/85, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I.a.2 -
Inspection Reports on Butt Splices" 1.2 Office memo,12/7/84, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I.a.3 -
Butt Splice Qualifications" 1.3 Office memo, 10/10/84 W.I. Vogelsang to M. Warner, " Action Items
~
I.a.2 & I.a.3", List of Drawings Showing Class IE Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms with Butt Splices installed in them.
1.4 EEI-8, " Class IE and Non-Class 1E Cable Tenninations" 1.5 AMP Instruction / Maintenance / Inspection Sheet IS - 1559, Rev. 5/29/81.
1.6 Office Memo,1/7/85, W.I. Vogelsang to J.L. Hansel; List of Class 1E Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms that do not have butt splices install ed.
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.1 The purpose of this Quality Instruction is:
1.
To assure that no splice in a cable bundle is adjacent to and/or pressing upon another splice. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.3.
2.
To assure that drawings correctly reflect the as-built condition and that the installed splices meet the FSAR, Procedural and SER require-l ments. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.2.
2.2 The scope of the Quality Instruction is limited to the physical inspection of Class 1E cabinets in the control room and cable spreading room to determine the acceptability of cable installations containing butt splices.
This includes all cabinets known to contain butt splices and all cabinets where butt splices are not supposed to exist.
/g 1
\\
QI-002 Rev 1 Page 2 0F 3 3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 The Third' Party Inspectors (ERC) shall be responsible for conducting the inspections of cable bundles containing splices and documenting the results. The Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader is responsible for the review and approval of the inspection results and responsible for identification of cabinets that require inspection.-
4.0 INSTRUCTION i
'i 4.1 As this instruction covers inspect' ions for two action items, the se-l quencing of the inspections shall be as follows: PART A Inspection Attribute shall be inspected,by cabinet, prior to PART B Inspection Attributes in order to establish existing conditions of the butt splices for Action Item I.a.3.
The individual butt splices inspected for PART A will be all those identified and documented for PART B inspections.
I NOTE: The PART A inspection will also necessitate breaking of the cable bundl es. The bundles will be reinspected during implementation of PART B.
4.2 The Quality Inspectors shall inspect the Class IE Cabinets for the following:
1 J
4.2.1 INSPECTION ATTRIBUTE - Part A - Action Item I.a.3 Activity #1 - Verify installation of splices as per EEI-8 Para. 3.18(c),
'1
" Splices within the same wire bundle shall be staggered so that they are not touching each other."
l 4.2.2 INSPECTION ATTRIBUTE - Part B - Action Item I.a.2 Activity #1 - Verify that the correct butt splice sleeves are installed.
l (Ref.1.5 - figure 5 end Ref.1.1) l Activity #2 - Verify that the butt splice sleeve is correctly indented.
(Ref.1.5 - figure 5 'and Ref.1.1)
Activity #3 - Verify that no conductor strands show outside the barrel of the butt splice sleeve.
(Ref. 1.1)
Activity #4 - Verify that the wire on both sides of the splice is the i
same color and same conductor size. (Ref.1.4 para. 3.18.b and
.Ref. 1.1 Activity f 5 - Verify that the splices are documented on the design document.
(Ref.1.4 para. 3.18.a)
Activity #6 - Verify that the insulation of the butt splice sleeve has not been heat shrunk.
(Ref.1.1)
Activity #7 - After rebundling, verify that tutt splices within the same wire bundle shall be staggered so that they are not touching each other. (Ref.1.4 para. 3.18.c)
NOTE: All unsatisfactory activities shall be described in the Remarks section of the Inspection Report.
V 1
i
QI-002 Rev.1 Page 3 0F 3 4.3 DOCUMENTATION 4.3.1 The Quality Inspectors will be furnished with the applicable drawings and documents required to perform inspections required in para. 4.1. and 4.2.
4.3.2 The Quality Inspectors shall document the results of the inspection on the Inspection Report (IR) provided (Attachment 1). Complete a separate I.R.
for each piece of equipment or cabinet.
4.3.3 The I.R. shall be completed in accordance with Attachment 2.
The I.R.
shall be reviewed for legibility, accuracy and completeness and a) proved by the ERC Level III. The completed I.R. shall be submitted to t1e Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader for review / approval.
e e
I i
I i
1
)
A
-.\\
t s.
' I 3 I
s t
/
' \\3 t
i I
i 3
I t
QI-002 REV.1 TACHMENT 1 PAGE 1.
2 SHEET 1 0F l
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 DRAFT _._h REV.
I.a.3 DRAFT (2n REV.
j EQUIPMENT #
b TERMIt4ATION DRAWING #
h REVISION DCA's b INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART A - ACTION ITEM I.a.3 l ACTIVITY #1 SAT.
UNSAT.
INSPECTOR SIGN.
DATE INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART B - ACTION ITEM I.a.2
'^
^
^
^*
^
^
^
^
- COND, CABLE ID #
COLOR S U S U S U S U S U S U S U INSP SIGN.
DATE:
m @ 3 R a R
R e
l I
i 1
1 REMARKS:
O i
INSPECTOR h
DATE BADGE #
REVIEW AND APPROVAL e DATE Evilluation Research Corporation REVIEW AND APPROVAL h DATE R.T.L. El ec./ Instrumentation
j QI-002 REV.1
'ACHMENT 1 PAGE 2 0F 2 SHEET OF l
CPRT INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 DRAFT REV I.a.3 DRAFT cl n REV CONTINUATION.N SHEET U
l INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART B - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 EQUIPMENT #
b DRAWING #
REV
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
COND.'
^
CABLE'ID #
COLOR S U S U S U S U S U S U S U INSP, SIGN.
DATE
&(S ($ (& ($ ($
(1h &
v v
v v
v v
3
_m_
REMARKS:
M v
1 QI-002 REV.1 ATTACHMENT 2
' AGE 10F 1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 and I.a.3 INSPECTION REPORT COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS THE NUMBERS BELOW CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBERED BLOCKS ON THE INSPECTION RECORD.
j
)
i 1.
Enter the Equipment or Panel I.D. # being inspected, 2.
Enter Termination drawing to be used for inspection and it's revision.
3.
Enter all outstanding DCA's against the drawing.
i 4.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for Part A Activity #1.
5.
Inspector Signature and Date.
l 6.
Enter Cable I.D. # being inspected.
7.
Enter Cable Conductor color being inspected.
8.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #1 9.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #2.
10.
Indicate SATISFACT'ORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #3.
11.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #4.
,q 12.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #5.
13.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #6.
14.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #7.
15.
Inspectors Signature and Date.
16.
Describe UNSATISFACTORY items, list applicable DCA's and the cable numbers to l
which they relate, and any other inspection coments.
]
17.
Inspector Signature, Date and Badge #.
18.
Approval Signature and Date of ERC Level III.
19.
Approval Signature and Date of R.T.L. Elec./ Instrumentation.
20.
Enter Draft and Rev. of Action Item I.a.2.
21.
Enter Draft and Rev. of Action Item I.a.3.
b/
i QT-002 REV. 2 ATTACHMENT 2 MGE 10F 1 b
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 and I.a.3 INSPECTION REPORT COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS THE NUMBERS BELOW CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBERED BLOCKS ON THE INSPECTION RECORD.
1.
Enter the Equipment or Panel I.D. # being inspected.
2.
Enter Termination drawing to be used for inspection and it's revision.
3.
Enter all outstanding DCA's against the crawing.
4 Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for Part A, Activity #1.
5.
Inspector Signature and Date.
6.
Enter Cable I.D. # being inspected.
7.
Enter Cable Conductor color being inspected.
8.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #1 9.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #2.
10.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #3.
11.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #4.
12.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #5.
i 13.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #6.
14.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART B Activity #7.
l 15.
Inspectors Signature and Date.
I 16.
Describe UNSATISFACTORY items, list applicable DCA's and the cable numbers to which they relate, and any other inspection comments.
17.
Inspector Signature, Date and Badge #.
18.
Approval Signature and Date of ER'C Level III, 19.
Approval Signature and Date of R.T.L. Elec./ Instrumentation.
1 1
20.
Enter Draft and Rev. of Action Item I.a.2.
21.
Enter Draft and Rev. of Action Item I.a.3.
1 b/
1 L__________.._.
y3.3.3
~
Za.2-3.Wf q
.9
+ (hD l'
1 m
COMANCHE PEAK RE g
g' A
[
g
(
l QUALITY INSTR g
CPRT ACTION ITEMS I.
h*
INSTRUCTION NO.
REVISION ISSUE DATE PAGE 01-002 2
1/9/85 10F 3 PROCEDURE FOR: CPRT ACTION ITEM I.a.2, INSPECTION REPORT ON BUTT SPLICES and CPRT ACTION ITEM I.a.3, BUTT SPLICE QUALIFICATIONS PREPARED BY d4/4tf S/LM
_ _ DATE
//9 /r/5' Evaluation ear Corporation
,[ / G.(/4 /4 seed DATE
/. 9. f 5.
APPROVED BY p
^
Evalua on Research Corporation
/
DATE
/, T. s5 APPROVED BY R.T M U ec./l trumentation 1.0 REFERENCE 1.1 Office Memo,1/4/85, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I.a.2 -
Inspection Reports on Butt Splices" 1.2 Office memo,12/7/84, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I.a.3 -
Butt Splice Qualifications" 1.3 Office memo, 10/10/84, W.I. Vogelsang to M. Warner, " Action Items I.a.2 & I.a.3", List of Drawings Showing Class IE Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms with Butt Splices installed in them.
1.4 EEI-8, " Class IE and Non-Class 1E Cable Terminations" 1.5 AMP Instruction / Maintenance / Inspection Sheet IS - 1559, Rev. 5/29/81.
1.6 Office Memo,1/7/85, W.I. Vogelsang to J.L. Hansel; List of Class 1E Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms that do not have butt splices install ed.
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.1 The purpose of this Quality Instruction is:
1.
To assure that no splice in a cable bundle is adjacent to and/or pressing upon another splice. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.3.
2.
To assure that drawings correctly reflect the as-built condition and that the installed splices meet the FSAR, Procedural and SER require-ments. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.2.
2.2 The scope of the Quality Instruction is limited to the physical inspection of Class 1E cabinets in the control room and cable spreading room to determine the acceptability of cable installations containing butt splices.
\\
This includes all cabinets known to contain butt splices and all cabinets where butt splices are not supposed to exist
[A.M.4 i p
- 9. 5 3. Y COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM QUALITY INSTRUCTION CPRT ACTION ITEMS I 2 & I.a.3 I
REVISION ISSUE DATE PAGE i
3 1/14/85 1 074 v-l PROCEDURE FOR: CPRT
)
.a.2. INSPECTION REPORT ON BUTT SPLICES and I
CPRT 3 ITEM I.a.3, BUTT SPLICE QUALIFICATIONS PREPARED BY l ' DATE
/ //V/86
~
Evaluat46n Research Corporation
(
(A DATE
/ Y C
APPROVED BY x4 Ev uation Research Corporation i
jf N$ hA DATE
/ [
APPROVED BY R.T.L. ihfc./ Ins ntation
1.0 REFERENCES
1.1 Office Memo,1/4/85, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I.a.2 -
~
Inspection Reports on Butt Splices" 1.2 Office memo,12/7/84, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I a.3 -
Butt Splice Qualifications" 1.3 Office memo, 10/10/84, W.I. Vogelsang to M. Warner, " Action Items I.a.2 & I.a.3", List of Drawings Showing Class IE Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms with Butt Splices installed in them.
1.4 eel-8, " Class 1E and Non-Class IE Cable Terminations" l
1.5 AMP Instruction / Maintenance / Inspect. ion Sheet IS - 1559 Rev. 5/29/81.
1.6 Office Memo,1/7/85 W.I. Vogelsang to J.L. Hansel; List of Class IE Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms that do not have butt splices install ed.
1.7 Office memo,1/9/85, M.B. Jones to A.S. Hurbanek; " Sampling Plan - Action Item I.a.2" l
1.8 Office meno,1/11/85, W.I. Vogelsang to A.S. Hurbanek; Action Items I.a.2 I
and I.a.3 - Minimum Bending Radius for Permanent Conductor Training 1.9 Office memo,1/13/85, A.S. Huroanek to M.B. Jones; Action Item I.a.2 -
Sample Selection.
1.10 QI-QP-11.3-28 REV. 22 " Class IE Cabie Terminations" 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.1 The purpose of this Quality Instruction is:
gf 1.
To assure that no splice in a cable bundle is adjacent to and/or q
pressing upon another splice. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.3 L
1 o
QT-002 REV. 3 1
PAGE 2 0F 4 2.1 (cont. )
2.
To assure that drawings correctly reflect the as-built condition and that the installed splices meet the FSAR, Procedural and SER require-ments. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.2.
2.2 The scope of the Quality Instruction is limited to the documentation review for and physical inspection of cable installations in Class IE cabinets in the control and cable spreading room to verify the following:
1.
That randomly selected panels where butt splices are not supposed to exist do not have conductor butt splices installed.
2.
Acceptability of cable installations that contain butt splices.
3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 The Third Party Inspectors (ERC) shall be responsible for conducting in-spections to determine the existence of unidentified butt splices in panels, the inspection of cable bundles containing splices and the review of related documentation.
The Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader is responsible for the 6
review and approval of the inspection results and responsible for identifi cation of cabinets that require inspection.
4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 As the instruction covers inspections for two action items, the sunnary of activities shall be as follows:
- 1) PART A - Inspect by cabinet to identify existence of butt splices. Any cabinets found to be unsatisfactory (i.e. - cabinets that have butt splices where none should exist) during this inspection will be inspected in accordance with Parts B and C.
If insp'ections necessitate breaking of cable bundles, rebundling will be inspected per Part C, Activity 7.
- 2) PART B - Inspect, by cabinet, to serify existing staggered condition of butt splice installations.
- 3) PART C - Inspect butt splice installations.
NOTE: If Part B inspections necessitate breaking of the cable bundles, the bundles will be reinspected during implementation of Part C.
- 4) PART D - Review the inspection reports associated with the cables in-spected in Part C to' determine if splices had (previously) been witnessed. Acceptable documentation may be used, by Third Party Inspectors, to determine that the Quality Attributes of a splice have been met.
/
t Ql-002 REV.3 PAGE 3 0F 4 I
4.2 The Quality Inspectors shall inspect the Class IE Cabinets for the following:
1 4.2.1 INSPECTION, ATTRIBUTES - PART A - Action Item I.a.2 j
Activity #1 - Verify that randomly selected Class 1E panels (ref.1.9) do not contain butt spliced conductors.
4.2.2 INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES - PART B - Action Item I.a.3 Activity #1 - Verify installation of splices as per EEI-8 para. 3.18(c),
l
" Splices within the same wire bundle shall be staggered so that they are not touching each other."
4.2.3 INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES - Part C - Action Item I.a.2 Activity #1 - Verify that the correct butt splice sleeves are installed.
(Ref.1.5 - figure 5 and Ref.1.1)-
Activity #2 - Verify that the butt splice sleeve is correctly indented.
(Ref. 1.5 - figure 5 and Ref. 1.1)
Activity #3 - Verify that no conductor strands show outside the barrel of r J
the butt splice sleeve.
(Ref. 1.1)
Activity #4 - Verify that the wire on both sides of the splice is the same color and same conductor size.
(Ref.1.4 para. 3.18.b and j
Ref. 1.1)
Activity #5 - Verify that the splices are documented on the design document.
(Ref. 1.4 para 3.18.a)
]
Activity #6 - Verify that the insulation of the butt splice sleeve has not been heat shrunk.
(Ref. 1.1)
Activity #7 - Verify satisfactory rebundling of conductors. Rebundling will be considered satisfactory if:
j 1.
Butt splices within the same bundle are staggered so that they are not touching each other.
(Ref.1.4 para. 3.18c) 2.
Permanent conductor training bend radius meets the minimum i
bend radius requirements.
(Ref. 1.8).
3.
Cable separation meets requirements of reference 1.10 para.
3.2.14a.
NOTE: All unsatisfactory activities shall be described in the Remarks section of the Inspection Report.
4.2.4 DOCUMENT REVIEW ATTRIBUTES - Part D-Action Item I.a.2 Activity #1 - Review the inspection reports associated with cables inspected in Part C to determine if splices had previously been witnessed.
/)
QI-002 REV. 3 PAGE 4 0F 4 4.3 DOCUMENTATION 4. 3.1 The Quality Inspectors will be fu'rnished with the applicable drawings and documents required to perform inspec,tions required f n para. 4.1 and 4.2.
4.3.2 The Quality Inspectors shall document the rm.Its of inspections and document reviews as follows:
PART A (Inspections) - Attachment 3 PARY B & C (Inspections) - Attachment 1 PART D (Review) - Memorandum to E1ectrical/ Instrumentation Review Team Leader.
NOTE: If part C inspections necessitate the use of previous inspection results to determine the acceptability of an attribute, the inspector shall note the activity number and the previous I.R. number in the remarks section of the I.R.
4.3.3 The I.R.'s shall be completed in accordance with Attachments 2 and 3, as applicable. The I.R.'s shall be reviewed for legibility, accuracy and completeness and approved by the ERC Level III. The completed I.R. shall be submitted to the Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader for review / approval.
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
/
1
4 QI-002 REV.3
- ~ACHMENT 1 PAGE 1 0F '
SHEET 1 0F COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM
~
INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 DRAFT __ (20')
REY.
I.a.3 DRAFT flh REV.
v EQUIPMENT #
TERMINATION DRAWING #
REVISION h
DCA's INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART B - ACTION ITEM I.a.3 ACTIVITY ill SAT.
UNSAT.
INSPECTOR SIGN.
DATE b
INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART C - ACTION ITEM I a.2 A
A 2 AC1 3 AC.4 ACT.5 AC1 6 ACT.7 COND.
CABLE ID #
COLOR S U S U S U S U S U S U S
U, INSP. SIGN.
DATE I b_
(@
h_
b b b k
(@
M.
k I
f h
RE'1 ARKS:
DATE BADGE #
INSPECTOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL (18')
DATE Evaluation Research Corporation REVIEW AND APPROVAL (19)
DATE R.T.L.Tl ec./ Instrumentation b/
1 8
i QI-002 REV. 3 ACfNENT 1 PAGE 2 0F 2 SHEET OF CPRT INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 DRAFT b
REV I.a.3 DRAFT
/lh REV CONTINUATION SHEET v
INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART C - ACTI9N ITEM I.a.2 EQUIPMENT #
(Il h
REV DCA'S (h
DRAWING #
v
^^
COND.
^
^
^
^
^
- ABLE 10 f COLOR S U S U S U S U S U S U S U INSP. SIGN.
DATE O @ @
@ @ 3 l
1 l
i i
i i
REMARKS:
b b/
l
QI-002 REY,3 ATTACHMENT 2 PAGE 1 0F 1 1
t 1MCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 and I.a.3 INSPECTION REPORT COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS
~
T HE MJMBERS BELOW CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBERED BLOCKS ON THE INSPECTION RECORD.
1.
Enter the Equipment or Panel I.D. # being inspected.
j 1
2.
Enter Termination drawing to be used for inspection and it's revision.
3.
Enter all outstanding DCA's against the drawing.
i 4 '.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for Part B, Activity #1.
5.
Inspector Sig.,ature and Date.
I 6.
Enter Cable I.D. # being inspected.
7.
Enter Cable Conductor color being inspected.
8.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #1 9.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #2.
7 10.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #3..
11.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #4.
12.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #5.
13.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #6.
l 14.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #7.
15.
Inspectors Signature and Date.
16.
Describe UNSATISFACTORY items, list applicable DCA's and the cable numbers to which they relate, and any other inspection coments.
17.
Inspector Signature, Date and Badge f.
a 18.
Approval Signature and Date of ERC Level III.
19.
Approval Signature and Date of R.T.L. Elec./ Instrumentation.
20.
Enter Draft and/or Rev. of Action Item I.a.2.
.)
21.
Enter Draft and/or Rev. of Action Item I.a.3.
j t
<17
TTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 2 QI-002 REV. 3 SilEET 10F COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 DRAFT M REV.
Inspection Attribute - Part A - Action Item I'.a.2 4CTIVITY #1 INSPECTOR l EQUIPMENT #
ORAWING #/REV.
DATE I
O O
i t
h REMARKS:
TNSPECTOR b
DATE BADGE #
REVIEW AND APPROVAL h
DATE Evaluation Research Corporation REVIEW AND APPROVAL h
DATE Review Team LeacFer Elec./ Instrumentation c
/
d QI-002 REV. 3 ATTACHMENT 3 PAGE 2 0F 2 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ACTION ITEM I.a.2 INSPECTION REPORT COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS 1)
Enter Draft and/or Revision of Action. Item I.a.2.
2)
Enter Equipment number of panel inspected.
3)
Enter Drawing used for inspection and current revision.
4)
Enter all outstanding DCA's.
5)
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for Activity #1.
l 6)
Enter Inspector Signature.
-l 7)
Enter Date of Inspection.
8)
Describe UNSATISFACTORY items, list applicable DCA's and the cable numbers l
to which they relate, and any other inspection comments.
l 9)
Inspector Signature, Date and Badge Number.
10)
Signature and Date of ERC Level III review.
l 11)
Signature and Date of Review Team Leader Elec./ Instrumentation.
I 1
!/q
/
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM
[A. 2 -8.Od8 QUALITY INSTRUCTION i
CPRT ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 & I.a.3 INSTRUCTION N0.
REVISION ISSUE DATE PAGE QI-002 4
2/5/85 J OF 4 PROCEDURE FOR: CPRT ACTION ITEM I.a.2, INSPECTION REPORT ON BUTT SPLICES and CPRT ACTION ITEM I.a.';, BUTT SPLICE QUALIFICATIONS PREPARED BY d'
DATE c7/6 /86
'Evaluatjbn Rese.srch Corporation l\\PPROVED BY d/
.h
- nL. //nkset DATE 2/rl2.s' I
/
Evaluation Research(Corporation APPROVED BY *I'wb.t A7ARisu b.
MEs DATE e /5 85 u
R.T.jp. Elecgj Inspumentation ga,$, CPgY-724
1.0 REFERENCES
1.1 Office Memo,1/4/85, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I a.2 -
l Inspection Reports on Butt Splices" 1.2 Office memo,12/7/84, M.B. Jones to J.L. Hansel " Action Item I.a.3 -
I l
~
Butt Splice Qualifications" 1.3 Office memo, 10/10/84, W.I. Vogelsang to M. Warner, " Action Items I.a.2 & I.a.3", List of Drawings Showing Class 1E Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms with Butt Splices installed in them.
l.1 eel-8, " Class 1E and Non-Class IE Cable Terminations" l
1.5 AMP Instruction / Maintenance / Inspection Sheet IS - 1559, Rev. 5/29/81.
)
l l
1.6 Office Memo,1/7/85, W.I. Vogelsang to J.L. Hansel; List of Class 1E Cabinets in the Control and Spreader Rooms that do not have butt splices i
ins tall ed.
1.7 Office memo,1/9/85, M.B. Jones to A.S. Hurbanek; " Sampling Plan - Action i
Item I.a.2" 1.8 Office memo,1/11/85. W.I. Vogelsang to A.S. Hurbanek; Action Items I.a.2 and I.a.3 - Minimum Bending Radius for Permanent Conductor Training 1.9 Office memo,1/13/85, A.S. Hurbanek to M.B. Jones; Action Item I.a.2 -
Sample Selection.
1.10 QI-QP-11.3-28 REV. 22 " Class IE Cable Terminations" 1.11 Office memo,1/31/85/ M.B. Jones to A.S. Hurbanek, " Action Plans I.a.2 and 4
I.a.3 - Additional Butt Splices Inspection" hl
QI-002 REV. 4 PAGE 2 0F 4 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.1 The purpose of this Quality Instruction is:
1.
To assure that no splice in a cable bundle is adjacent to and/or pressing upon another splice. This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.3.
2.
To assure that drawings correctly reflect the as-built condition and that installed splices meet the FSAR, Procedural and SER requirements.
This is in direct support of the CPRT Action Item I.a.2.
2.2 The scope of the Quality Instruction is limited to the documentation review for and physical inspection of cable installations in Class IE cabinets in the control and cable spreading room to verify the following:
1.
That randomly selected panels where butt splices are not supposed to exist do not have conductor butt splices installed.
2.
Acceptability of cable installations that contain butt splices.
NOTE: At the direction of the Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader l
the scope of this Quality Instruction may be expanded to include 4
Class 1E cabinets in areas other than the control and spreading room, l
3.0 RESPONSIBILITIQ 3.1 The Third Part Inspectors (ERC) shall be responsible for conducting inspections to determine the existence of unidentified butt splices in panels, the in-
)
spection of cable bundles containing splices and the review of related docu-mentation.
The Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader is responsible for the re-view and approval of the inspection results and responsible for identification I
of cabinets that require inspection.
4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 As the instruction covers inspections for two action items, the sumary of activities shall be as follows:
- 1) PART A - Inspect by cabinets to identify existence of butt splices. Any cabinets found to be unsatisfactory (i.e. - Cabinets that have butt splices where none should exist) during this inspection.will be inspected in accordance with Parts "B" and "C".
If inspections I
necessitate breaking of cable bundles, rebundling will be inspected per Part C, Activity 7.
l
- 2) PART B - Inspect, by cabinet, to verify existing staggered condition of butt splice installations.
- 3) PART C - Inspect butt splice installations.
NOTE:
If Part B inspections necessitate breaking of the cable bundles, the bundles will be reinspected during implementation of Part C.
@/
QI-002 REY.4 PAGE 3 0F 4 i
4.1 (cont. )
- 4) PART D - Review of the inspection reports associated with the cables in-spected in Part C to determine if splices had (previously) been witnessed. Acceptable documentation may be used, by Third Party Inspectors, to determine that the quality attributes of a splice have been met.
'1 4.2 The Quality Inspectors shall inspect the Class IE Cabinets for the following:
i 4.2.1 INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES - PART A - Action Item I.a.2 Activity #1 - Verify that randomly selected Class 1E panels (ref.1.9) do not l
contain butt spliced conductors.
4.2.2 INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES - PART 8 - Action Item I.a.3 Activity #1 - Verify installation of slices as per EEI-8 para. 3.18(c),
i I
" Splices within the same wire bundle shall be staggered so that they are not touching each other."
4.2.3 INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES - Part C - Action Item I.a.2 i
Activity #1 - Verify that the correct butt splice sleeves are installed, (Ref. 1.5 - figure 5 and Ref. 1.1)
Activity #2 - Verify that the butt splice sleeve is correctly indented.
(Ref.1.5 - figure 5 and Ref.1.1)
Activity #3 - Verify that no conductor strands show outside the barrel of the butt splice sleeve.
(Ref. 1.1)
Activity #4 - Verify that the wire on both sides of the splice is the same color and same conductor size.
(Ref.1.4 para. 3.18.b and Ref. 1.1)
Activity #5 - Verify that the splices are documented on the design document.
l (Ref.1.4 para 3.18.a)
Activity #5 - Verify that the insulation of the butt splice sleeve has not been heat shrunk.
(Ref. 1.1)
Activity #7 - Verify satisfactory rebundling of conductors. Rebundling will be considered satisfactory if:
1.
Butt splices within the same bundle are staggered so that they are not touching each other.
(Ref.1.4 para. 3.18c) 2.
Permanent conductor training bend radius meets the minimum bend radius requirements.
(Ref. 1.8).
3.
Cable separation meets requirements of reference 1.10 para.
3.2.14a.
NOTE: All unsatisfactory activities shall be described in the Remarks section 9
of the Inspection Report.
QI-002 REV.4 PAGE 4 0F 4 A
4.2.4 DOCUMENT REVIEW ATTRIBUTES Part 0 - Action Item I.a.2 Activity #1 - Review the inspe. tion reports associated with cables inspected in Part C to determine if splices had pre-viously been witnessed.
4.3 DOCUMENTATION 4.3.1 The Quality Inspectors will.be furnished with the applicable drawings and j
documents required to perform inspections required in para. 4.1 and 4.2.
4.3.2 The Quality Inspectors shall document the results of inspections and docu-ment reviews as follows:
PART A (Inspections) - Attachment 3.
PART B & C (Inspections) - Attachment 1 PART D (Review) - Memorandum to Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader.
NOTE:
If Part C inspections necessitate the use of previous inspection re-sults to detennine the acceptability of an attribute, the inspector shall note the activity number and the previous I.R. number in the remarks section of the I.R.
4.3.3 The I.R.'s shall be completed in accorrdance with Attachments 2 and 3, as applicabl e.
The I.R.'s shall be reviewed for legibility, accuracy and completeness and approved by the ERC Level III. The completed I.R. shall be submitted to the Electrical / Instrumentation Review Team Leader for review / approval.
..e d/
QI-Ud2 REV.4 ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 1 0F 2 SHEET I 0F COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 DRAFT 60)
REV.
d I.a.3 DRAFT (2TT REV.
v
('ll l
EQUIPMENT 0 TERMIflATION DRAWING #
h' REVISION DCA's M INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART B - ACTION ITEM I.a.3 ACTIVITY #1 SAT.
UNSAT.
INSPECTOR SIGft.
DATE IllSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART C - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 l
^
' ' ^
' ^
^
COND.
- AGLE ID #
COLOR S U SU SU S U SU S
U S U INSP, SIG't.
DATE 1
M k
(13)
(@
h
@(b (3
I I
}
REAF,KS :
h BADGE #
INSPECTOR (9)
, DATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL (18')
DATE EvaluaMon Research Corporation REVIEW AND APPROVAL (3)
DATE R.T.L.Tl ec./ instrumentation d
7
QI-002 REV. 4 ATTACHiENT 1 PAGE 2 0F 2 SHEET OF CPRT INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEMS I.a.2 DRAFT h
REV I.a.3 DRAFT
/2TT REV CONTINUATION SHEET v
INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: PART C - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 EQUIPMENT f M_
DRAWING f REV DCA'S coy,,. ACU AC M AC.3lACT.4 ACT.5 ACT.S ACT.7 lABLE 10 i COLOR S
U S U S U S U S U S U S U INSP. SIGN.
DATE
@ @ 8 l
I i
l l
l l
l l
l l
h REMARKS:
l
/
n QI-002 REV.4 ATTACHMENT 2 '
PAGE 10F 1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 and I.a.3 INSPECTION REPORT COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS THE NUMBERS BELOW CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBERED BLOCKS ON THE INSPECTION RECORD.
1.
Enter the Equipment or Panel I.D. f being inspected.
2.
Enter Termination drawing to be used for inspection and it's revision.
3.
Enter all outstanding DCA's against the drawing.
4.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for Part 8. Activity fl.
5.
Inspector Signature and Date.
6.
Enter Cable I.D. f being inspected.
7.
Enter Cable Conductor color being inspected.
8.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #1 9.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #2.
10.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity f 3.
11.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity f4.
12.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #5.
i 13.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity f6.
14.
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for PART C Activity #7.
15.
Inspectors Signature and Date.
16.
Describe UNSATISFACTORY items, list applicable DCA's and the cable numbers to which they relate, and any other inspection comments.
17.
Inspector Signature, Date and Badge f.
18.
Approval Signature and Date of ERC Level III.
19.
Approval Signature and Date of R.T.L. Elec./ Instrumentation.
20.
Enter Draft and/or Rev of Action Item I.a.2.
21.
Enter Draf t and/or Rev. of Action Item I.a.3.
fl/
i
_________________-_____s
ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 2
- QI-002 REY. 4
' SHEET 1 0F COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM INSPECTION REPORT - ACTION ITEM I.a.2 DRAFT M REV.
I Inspection Attribute - Part A - Action Item I.a.2 4CTIVITY #1 INSPECTOR l EQUIPMElli #
ORAWING f/REV.
OCA's SAT UNSAT SIGNATURE DATE l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
__ h REMARKS:
l INSPECTOR h
DATE BADGE #
REVIEW AND APPROVAL h
DATE Evaluation Research Corporation REVIEW AND APPROVAL h
DATE Review Team Leacer Elec./ Instrumentation
~
l
f
,' ' Ql-002' REY. 4 AllADNENI 3 PAGE / Of 2 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ACTION ITEM I.a.2 INSPECTION REPORT COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS l
1)
Enter Draft and/or Revision of Action Item I.a.2.
2)
Enter Equipment number of panel inspected.
3)
Enter Drawing used for inspection and current revision.
4)
Enter all outstanding DCA's.
5)
Indicate SATISFACTORY or UNSATISFACTORY for Activity #1.
6)
Enter Inspector Signature.
7)
Enter Date of Inspection.
8)
Describe UNSATISFACTORY items, list applicable DCA's and the cable numbers i
to which they relate, and any other inspection comments.
9)
Inspector Signature, Date and Badge Number.
10)
Signature and Date of ERC Level III review.
11)
Signature and Date of Review Team Leader Elec./ Instrumentation.
(
e a
(
DOCKETED USNRC 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE g7 @ ~2 P2.%
I, R. K. Gad III, herebycertifythatonOcg 7
I made service of " Answers to Board's 14 Questions (Mem8fADPoposed 1
Memo of April 14, 1986) Regarding Action Plan Results Report I.a.2" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
1 Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Asst. Director for Inspection Chairman Programs l
Administrative Judge Comanche Peak Project Division l
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O.
Box 1029 Commission Granbury, Texas 76048 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Administrative Judge GAP-MidweJt Office 881 W. Outer Drive 104 E.
'isconsin Ave. - B I
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Applet 1,
WI 54911-4897 1
Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I
Commission Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Janice E. Moore Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the General Counsel President, CASE j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1426 S. Polk Street I
Commission Dallas, Texas 75224 Washington, D.C.
20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsburg, Esquire l
l Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel l
P.
O.
Box 12548 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l
4 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Suite 600 Christic Institute 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20005 Washington, D.C.
20002 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D. Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000
.I l
611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire-Administrative Judge Office of the Executive i
Legal Director Oak Ridge National Laboratory
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O.
Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Nancy H. Williams 2121 N. California Blvd.
Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 R. K. Gad III/
l l
l
-