ML19210D323: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:s*s , 7 h&w>*(412) 471-4300 435 Sixth Avenue
{{#Wiki_filter:s s
*Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 November 19, 1979 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 ATTENTION: Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director
7 h&w>
(412) 471-4300 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 November 19, 1979 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA             19406 ATTENTION: Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Significant Deficiency 79- J3 Gentlemen:
Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Significant Deficiency 79- J3 Gentlemen:
On November 2,1979, Duquesne Light Company, in accordance with the requirement of 10CFR50.55(e), notified your office of the omission of reinforcing steel in the containment crane wall of Beaver Valley Power Station Unit #2.
On November 2,1979, Duquesne Light Company, in accordance with the requirement of 10CFR50.55(e), notified your office of the omission of reinforcing steel in the containment crane wall of Beaver Valley Power Station Unit #2. Following our notification, we received your action letter of November 7,1979. This letter is to confirm our completion of the items / plan listed in that action letter.
Following our notification, we received your action letter of November 7,1979.
To organize our response, we have utilized the same paragraph numbers as shown in your letter for our direct response actions and include a summary of our conclusions and the corrective action we intend to imple-ment.
This letter is to confirm our completion of the items / plan listed in that action letter.
: 1) The localized crane wall "stop Work" order of October 23, 1979, was expanded to stop work on all Category I concrete placements November 7, 1979 (DLC-SQCL-#0592A).
To organize our response, we have utilized the same paragraph numbers as shown in your letter for our direct response actions and include a summary of our conclusions and the corrective action we intend to imple-ment.1) The localized crane wall "stop Work" order of October 23, 1979, was expanded to stop work on all Category I concrete placements November 7, 1979 (DLC-SQCL-#0592A).
: 2) A detailed Field Construction Prom 'ure (FCP-ll3) " Removing Sec-tion of Reactor Containment Crane M '1" was issued November 2, 1979. This procedure reflects the disposition of N&D #1159 and will be amended as required for each stage of the repair work as the disposition of the N&D is expanded.
: 2) A detailed Field Construction Prom 'ure (FCP-ll3) " Removing Sec-tion of Reactor Containment Crane M '1" was issued November 2, 1979.This procedure reflects the disposition of N&D #1159 and will be amended as required for each stage of the repair work as the disposition of the N&D is expanded.
: 3) Quality Control activities are already in process during this stage of the repairs. Their activities are governed by Inspection Report N&D #1159A.       This Inspection Report will also be amended to be compatible with the various stages of the disposition instruc-tions as they are obtained.
: 3) Quality Control activities are already in process during this stage of the repairs. Their activities are governed by Inspection Report N&D #1159A.
1391       119 79112 e0 301
This Inspection Report will also be amended to be compatible with the various stages of the disposition instruc-tions as they are obtained.
                                                                                                    .3
1391 119.79112 e0 301
 
.3  
Page 2 November 19, 1979
..Page 2 November 19, 1979
: 4) A review of the drawings and Inspection Reports related to the crane wall placement has been made. This was a detailed review of all drawings affecting the erection of the crane wall. Two separate teams were formed performing the review independently of each other; one team from DLC-SQC and one team from a com-bined construction group, each team consisting of three pairs of reviewers.
: 4) A review of the drawings and Inspection Reports related to the crane wall placement has been made.
This was a detailed review of all drawings affecting the erection of the crane wall.
Two separate teams were formed performing the review independently
-of each other; one team from DLC-SQC and one team from a com-bined construction group, each team consisting of three pairs of reviewers.
Resulting from this review, we found that the specific problem
Resulting from this review, we found that the specific problem
'of the relationship betweea the elevation stated on the fab-ricator's drawings, detailing the rebar and the rebar requirements shown for specific elevations on the engineering drawings, had occurred once before, and reported on cur N&D #710 dated August 16, 1978.This.rebar omission was evaluated by the engineers and the condition was found acceptable.
        'of the relationship betweea the elevation stated on the fab-ricator's drawings, detailing the rebar and the rebar requirements shown for specific elevations on the engineering drawings, had occurred once before, and reported on cur N&D #710 dated August 16, 1978. This.rebar omission was evaluated by the engineers and the condition was found acceptable. This earlier N&D was considered an isolated case and consequently, was not subject to trend analysis. An additional similar rebar " elevation" definition pro-blem was found applying to an area not yet placed at the same ele-vation as that reported on N&D #1159 which was the subject of 10CFR50.55(e) action.
This earlier N&D was considered an isolated case and consequently, was not subject to trend analysis. An additional similar rebar " elevation" definition pro-blem was found applying to an area not yet placed at the same ele-vation as that reported on N&D #1159 which was the subject of 10CFR50.55(e) action.
This review, however, was not limited to a search for identical problems, but was conducted to identify all differences between the fabricator's and engineers' drawings. This review has resulted in eight additional discrepancies, seven of which were resolved prior to or during the review, and one which has not yet been resolved.
This review, however, was not limited to a search for identical problems, but was conducted to identify all differences between the fabricator's and engineers' drawings.
This review has resulted in eight additional discrepancies, seven of which were resolved prior to or during the review, and one which has not yet been resolved.
The unresolved problem relates to sets of three #7 dowels from the crane wall to each stairwell wall required by the engineers' drawing with sets of two #7 dowels required by the fabricator's drawing for the North stairwell wall.
The unresolved problem relates to sets of three #7 dowels from the crane wall to each stairwell wall required by the engineers' drawing with sets of two #7 dowels required by the fabricator's drawing for the North stairwell wall.
There is some evidence that the dowels in question were installed in accordance with the engineers' drawings but the Inspection Report, although very detailed in its content, does not specifi-cally reference the applicable engineers' drawing that shows these dowels.
There is some evidence that the dowels in question were installed in accordance with the engineers' drawings but the Inspection Report, although very detailed in its content, does not specifi-cally reference the applicable engineers' drawing that shows these dowels.
: 5) The Inspection Procedure IP-6.2.3, effective date November 15, 1979, has been amended to clarify the application of the fabrica-. tor's and engineers' drawings during the inspection.
: 5) The Inspection Procedure IP-6.2.3, effective date November 15, 1979, has been amended to clarify the application of the fabrica-
: 6) Additional training to the QC Inspectors has been given and recorded.fhis training emphasized the application of the two types of drawings during the inspection required by IP-6.2.3.
          . tor's and engineers' drawings during the inspection.
: 6) Additional training to the QC Inspectors has been given and recorded. fhis training emphasized the application of the two types of drawings during the inspection required by IP-6.2.3.
7)' Two audits of the S&W design verification and drawing checking system were performed, one by DLC-QA and one by S&W Engineering.
7)' Two audits of the S&W design verification and drawing checking system were performed, one by DLC-QA and one by S&W Engineering.
a) The QA audit was set up to determine the adequacy of the 1391 120  
a) The QA audit was set up to determine the adequacy of the 1391   120
., Page 3 November 19, 1979 original drawing verification program.
 
The review was performed on 59 Engineers' drawings and 47 Fabricator's drawings, covering 11 basic areas of activity -- 4 areas of the Containment, 3-- Auxiliary Building, 2 - Service Building, and one each for the Main Steam Cable Vault and Fuel and Decontamination Building.
Page 3 November 19, 1979 original drawing verification program. The review was performed on 59 Engineers' drawings and 47 Fabricator's drawings, covering 11 basic areas of activity -- 4 areas of the Containment, 3-- Auxiliary Building, 2 - Service Building, and one each for the Main Steam Cable Vault and Fuel and Decontamination Building. The results of this review indicate that the original drawing verifica-tion was satisfactory.
The results of this review indicate that the original drawing verifica-tion was satisfactory.
b) S&W Engineering conducted a review comparing the title block elevation with the actual rebar content to establish whether similar problems regarding elevation definition occurred elsewhere. The review was applied to over 200 drawings and covered the Reactor Containment, Safeguards Building, Fuel and Decontamination Building, and Service Building. No further instances other than the three cases reported in Paragraph 4 were found.
, b) S&W Engineering conducted a review comparing the title block elevation with the actual rebar content to establish whether similar problems regarding elevation definition occurred elsewhere.
CONCLUSIONS Our investigation has led us to conclude that:
The review was applied to over 200 drawings and covered the Reactor Containment, Safeguards Building, Fuel and Decontamination Building, and Service Building.No further instances other than the three cases reported in Paragraph 4 were found.
CONCLUSIONS
'Our investigation has led us to conclude that:
a) Design changes were not incorporated into the affected fabricator's drawings applicable to the area of concern if the fabrication had either started or had been completed.
a) Design changes were not incorporated into the affected fabricator's drawings applicable to the area of concern if the fabrication had either started or had been completed.
b) Field reviews of the fabricator's drawings and supplementary infor-
b) Field reviews of the fabricator's drawings and supplementary infor-mation performed by the engineers and installer were not adequately formalized.
-mation performed by the engineers and installer were not adequately formalized.
c) Inspection Plans and construction instructions were not definitive with reference to the use of the engineers' latest design drawing to be used in the final pre-pour check.
c)Inspection Plans and construction instructions were not definitive with reference to the use of the engineers' latest design drawing to be used in the final pre-pour check.
CORRECTIVE ACTION a) S&W has instructed the fabricator to assure that in the future that the detailed drawing title accurately describes the area detailed on that sheet and that proper references be made to other detailed drawings covering the same or adjacent areas.
CORRECTIVE ACTION a) S&W has instructed the fabricator to assure that in the future that the detailed drawing title accurately describes the area detailed on that sheet and that proper references be made to other detailed drawings covering the same or adjacent areas.
b) Field Construction Procedure 118, " Engineer Review of Rebar Fabrication Drawings", has been issued to formalize the review program to be applied by engineering on all rebar fabrication
b) Field Construction Procedure 118, " Engineer Review of Rebar Fabrication Drawings", has been issued to formalize the review program to be applied by engineering on all rebar fabrication
~ drawings.
              ~ drawings.
c) Field Construction Procedure 119, " Placement of Refinforcing Steel" and IP-6.2.3, " Pre-Placement, Placement and Post-Placement of Con-crete", have been amended to clarify and emphasize the use of both the fabricator's and engineers' drawings with reference to installa-tion and final pre-pour check.
c) Field Construction Procedure 119, " Placement of Refinforcing Steel" and IP-6.2.3, " Pre-Placement, Placement and Post-Placement of Con-crete", have been amended to clarify and emphasize the use of both the fabricator's and engineers' drawings with reference to installa-tion and final pre-pour check.
1391 121.
1391     121
.*.Page 4 November 19, 1979 In accordance with yo':r request, we will await your concurrence with our plans to suspend our Stop Work Order and resumption of concrete placement activities.
 
-Very truly~yours,-.E.. WOOLEVER Vice President COPIES TO:
Page 4 November 19, 1979 In accordance with yo':r request, we will await your concurrence with our plans to suspend our Stop Work Order and resumption of concrete
Dr. V.Stello (15)
    - placement activities.
Mr. W.G. Mcdonald (1) 1391 122.}}
Very truly~yours, E.   . WOOLEVER Vice President COPIES TO:     Dr. V. Stello (15)
Mr. W. G. Mcdonald     (1) 1391     122
                                  .}}

Latest revision as of 04:20, 2 February 2020

Final Deficiency Rept Re Significant Deficiency 79-03: Omission of Reinforcing in Containment Crane Wall.Facility Will Await NRC Concurrence W/Plans to Suspend Stop Work Order & Resumption of Concrete Placement
ML19210D323
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley
Issue date: 11/19/1979
From: Woolever E
DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7911260302
Download: ML19210D323 (4)
v • d • e


Text

s s

7 h&w>

(412) 471-4300 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 November 19, 1979 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 ATTENTION: Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director

SUBJECT:

Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Significant Deficiency 79- J3 Gentlemen:

On November 2,1979, Duquesne Light Company, in accordance with the requirement of 10CFR50.55(e), notified your office of the omission of reinforcing steel in the containment crane wall of Beaver Valley Power Station Unit #2. Following our notification, we received your action letter of November 7,1979. This letter is to confirm our completion of the items / plan listed in that action letter.

To organize our response, we have utilized the same paragraph numbers as shown in your letter for our direct response actions and include a summary of our conclusions and the corrective action we intend to imple-ment.

1) The localized crane wall "stop Work" order of October 23, 1979, was expanded to stop work on all Category I concrete placements November 7, 1979 (DLC-SQCL-#0592A).
2) A detailed Field Construction Prom 'ure (FCP-ll3) " Removing Sec-tion of Reactor Containment Crane M '1" was issued November 2, 1979. This procedure reflects the disposition of N&D #1159 and will be amended as required for each stage of the repair work as the disposition of the N&D is expanded.
3) Quality Control activities are already in process during this stage of the repairs. Their activities are governed by Inspection Report N&D #1159A. This Inspection Report will also be amended to be compatible with the various stages of the disposition instruc-tions as they are obtained.

1391 119 79112 e0 301

.3

Page 2 November 19, 1979

4) A review of the drawings and Inspection Reports related to the crane wall placement has been made. This was a detailed review of all drawings affecting the erection of the crane wall. Two separate teams were formed performing the review independently of each other; one team from DLC-SQC and one team from a com-bined construction group, each team consisting of three pairs of reviewers.

Resulting from this review, we found that the specific problem

'of the relationship betweea the elevation stated on the fab-ricator's drawings, detailing the rebar and the rebar requirements shown for specific elevations on the engineering drawings, had occurred once before, and reported on cur N&D #710 dated August 16, 1978. This.rebar omission was evaluated by the engineers and the condition was found acceptable. This earlier N&D was considered an isolated case and consequently, was not subject to trend analysis. An additional similar rebar " elevation" definition pro-blem was found applying to an area not yet placed at the same ele-vation as that reported on N&D #1159 which was the subject of 10CFR50.55(e) action.

This review, however, was not limited to a search for identical problems, but was conducted to identify all differences between the fabricator's and engineers' drawings. This review has resulted in eight additional discrepancies, seven of which were resolved prior to or during the review, and one which has not yet been resolved.

The unresolved problem relates to sets of three #7 dowels from the crane wall to each stairwell wall required by the engineers' drawing with sets of two #7 dowels required by the fabricator's drawing for the North stairwell wall.

There is some evidence that the dowels in question were installed in accordance with the engineers' drawings but the Inspection Report, although very detailed in its content, does not specifi-cally reference the applicable engineers' drawing that shows these dowels.

5) The Inspection Procedure IP-6.2.3, effective date November 15, 1979, has been amended to clarify the application of the fabrica-

. tor's and engineers' drawings during the inspection.

6) Additional training to the QC Inspectors has been given and recorded. fhis training emphasized the application of the two types of drawings during the inspection required by IP-6.2.3.

7)' Two audits of the S&W design verification and drawing checking system were performed, one by DLC-QA and one by S&W Engineering.

a) The QA audit was set up to determine the adequacy of the 1391 120

Page 3 November 19, 1979 original drawing verification program. The review was performed on 59 Engineers' drawings and 47 Fabricator's drawings, covering 11 basic areas of activity -- 4 areas of the Containment, 3-- Auxiliary Building, 2 - Service Building, and one each for the Main Steam Cable Vault and Fuel and Decontamination Building. The results of this review indicate that the original drawing verifica-tion was satisfactory.

b) S&W Engineering conducted a review comparing the title block elevation with the actual rebar content to establish whether similar problems regarding elevation definition occurred elsewhere. The review was applied to over 200 drawings and covered the Reactor Containment, Safeguards Building, Fuel and Decontamination Building, and Service Building. No further instances other than the three cases reported in Paragraph 4 were found.

CONCLUSIONS Our investigation has led us to conclude that:

a) Design changes were not incorporated into the affected fabricator's drawings applicable to the area of concern if the fabrication had either started or had been completed.

b) Field reviews of the fabricator's drawings and supplementary infor-mation performed by the engineers and installer were not adequately formalized.

c) Inspection Plans and construction instructions were not definitive with reference to the use of the engineers' latest design drawing to be used in the final pre-pour check.

CORRECTIVE ACTION a) S&W has instructed the fabricator to assure that in the future that the detailed drawing title accurately describes the area detailed on that sheet and that proper references be made to other detailed drawings covering the same or adjacent areas.

b) Field Construction Procedure 118, " Engineer Review of Rebar Fabrication Drawings", has been issued to formalize the review program to be applied by engineering on all rebar fabrication

~ drawings.

c) Field Construction Procedure 119, " Placement of Refinforcing Steel" and IP-6.2.3, " Pre-Placement, Placement and Post-Placement of Con-crete", have been amended to clarify and emphasize the use of both the fabricator's and engineers' drawings with reference to installa-tion and final pre-pour check.

1391 121

Page 4 November 19, 1979 In accordance with yo':r request, we will await your concurrence with our plans to suspend our Stop Work Order and resumption of concrete

- placement activities.

Very truly~yours, E. . WOOLEVER Vice President COPIES TO: Dr. V. Stello (15)

Mr. W. G. Mcdonald (1) 1391 122

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19210D323&oldid=2390187"