IR 05000445/1985019: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML20140H403
| number = ML20202F221
| issue date = 03/28/1986
| issue date = 03/18/1986
| title = Insp Rept 50-445/85-19 on 851118-1218.Violations Noted: Failure to Determine & Verify as-built Cable Tray Support Attributes & Perform Periodic Audits of as-built Cable Tray Support Program
| title = Cable Tray Support As-Built Program Insp Rept 50-445/85-19 on 851118-1218.Violation Noted:Failure of Walkdown Teams & QC Inspectors to Correctly Determine & Verify as-built Cable Support Attributes
| author name = Barnes I, Dale J, Langowski T, Lipinski R, Solla E, Westerman T
| author name = Solla E
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 10: Line 10:
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 50-445-85-19, NUDOCS 8604040113
| case reference number = FOIA-86-382
| package number = ML20140H385
| document report number = 50-445-85-19-01, 50-445-85-19-1, NUDOCS 8607150114
| package number = ML20202F175
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 11
| page count = 11
Line 19: Line 20:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.
{{#Wiki_filter:
. .
APP 5NDIX SPECIAL UNIT 1 CABLE TRAY SUPPORT "AS-BUILT" PROGRAM INSPECTION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
==REGION IV==
NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/85-19 Construction Permit: CPPR-126 Docket: 50-445  Category: A2
' Applicant: Texas Utilities Electric Comoany (TUEC)
Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Unit 1 Inspection At: ' Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: November 18 - December 18, 1985 Inspectors: A >
kahM Da'te R.E.Lipinsy,NRR A
J " R. Dale, RIV Consultant shds Date
  /*
  /  3 7 Ob E. A. Solla, NRR Consultant  Date W  ?>f.24/W, T.Langowskdf,NRRConsultdt  Ddte h? AESER 8L** ,
 
    , . - - ~ . . . . _ _
.
.
 
.
Reviewed By: b<tm I. Barnes, Group Leader, Region IV CPSES Group-
      ~J /2 6/P6 Date Approved: 2 R-    Y18/f/,
'-
T. F. Westerman, Chief, RegTon IV CPSES Group  Date
,
; Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted November 18 - December 18, 1985 (Report 50-445/85-19)
. Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection of the Unit 1 cable tray  ,
, support as-built inspection program and the related QA audit program for this I activity. The inspection involved-224 inspector-hours onsite by six NRC personnel.
 
,
Results: Within the two areas inspected, three violations (failure of walkdown teams and QC inspectors to correctly determine and verify, respectively, as-built cable tray support attributes, paragraph 3.a-3.h; failure to perform 1 periodic audits of the as-built cable tray support program, paragraph 6; use of weld angles in cable tray supports which were below the permissible minimum
,
values, paragraph 5) were identified.
:
<
 
t l
,
 
- s ,,---,m.- - - - - ,-- -- , - - - - ~ , - -- ,---wnv - ,
 
.
.
.
 
DETAILS Persons Contacted (*)(**)R. A. Muldoon, Ebasco (*)R. B. Bronson, Ebasco (*)R. C. Iotti, Ebasco (*)(**)R. M. Kissinger, Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCo)
  (*)R.Siever,B&R (*)(**)C. R. Hooton, TUGCo (*)(**)R. E. Camp, TUGCo (*)(**)W. F. Rockwell, Ebasco C.' A. Briggs, TUGCo (**)H. A. Harrison, TUGCo (**)P. Halstead, TUGCo (**)T. Brandt, TUGCo-(**)J. S. Marshall, TUGCo (**)J. Vorderbrueggen, Impell H. A. Levin, TERA The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees during th'is ir.spection perio (*) Denotes those present during November 22, 1985, exit meetin ~(**) Denotes those present during December 5, 1985, exit meetin . Cable Tray Support As-Built Inspection Program The inspection was performed to verify the adequacy of the Unit I as-built inspection program for cable tray supports. The bases used for this inspection were: (a) TUGCo Nuclear Engineering (TNE)
Procedure THE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1, dated September 30, 1985, "As-Built Procedure, Cable Tray Hanger Design Adequacy Verification;" and (b) the as-built red lined drawings which were prepared by TUGCo walkdown teams (composed of a walkdown engineer and a QC inspector) in accordance with Procedure TNE-AB-CS-1, Revision From a total of 789 cable tray supports that had been through the walk-down program, a total of 66 supports were selected- by the NRC inspection team using a random number generator. These supports were then broken i
,  _ _ _ .-. - - .
. .
 
down by building and type. An' engineered sample of 32 supports was selected. This sample included the following cable tray supports:
Reactor Building  Fuel Building CTH-1-42  CTH-1-1695
  'CTH-1-239  CTH-1-1716 CTH-1-4738  CTH-1-1742 CTH-1-5488  CTH-1-1845 CTH-1-5517  CTH-1-1853 CTH-1-5538  CTH-1-1963 CTH-1-5757  CTH-1-5352 CTH-1-5787  CTH-1-7047 CTH-1-5817 CTH-1-5873  Control Room CTH-1-5942  CTH-1-7199 CTH-1-5976 CTH-1-6041  Safeguards Building-CTH-1-6497  CTH-1-207 CTH-1-6517  CTH-1-607 CTH-1-6559  CTH-1-636 CTH-1-6631  CTH-1-707 CTH-1-12075 CTH-1-13026 As a result of this inspection, deficiencies were identified in major attributes associated with the. Unit 1 cable tray supports red-lined as-built drawing . Summary of Deficiencies (TNE-AB-CS-1)
A summary of the findings from this inspection which appear to be in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X and TNE AB-CS-1, Revision 1, are as follows: Tray Size (1) Procedure Requirements TNE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1, Section 4.2.2.8.7 requires verification of the following:
  " Cable Trays a. Width b. Depth
' Location within Support"
 
.
. .
.
 
(2) Findings CTH-1-5817 is recorded as a 4" x 12" tra It was found to be a 4" x 24" tray by NR b. Tray Span (1) Procedure Requirement
  'TNE-AB-CS-I, Revision 1 Section 4.3.2. requires verification
~
of the following:
  " Indicate span from support to support . . ."
(2) Findings
  *
CTH-1-5817 conduit span was in error by l'6".
 
CTH-1-239 spans were in error by 8" and 10".
 
'
c. Tray Clamps (1) Procedure Requirement TNE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1. Section 4.2.2.B.6 requires verification of the following:
  " Clamp Type (Attachment D) Bolted a'. Flat washer or bevel washer Welded Weld size and weld length will be verified in accordance with Reference 1-G."
 
(2) Findings
  *
CTH-1-12075 cable tray clamp was recorded as a Type B
  " Heavy Duty Clamp" 1" plate welded to channel. Actual clamp was a Type C bolted clam CTH-1-1845 cable tray clamp G-2 was recorded as a bevel washer only, actual clamp contained a bevel and a flat washer.
 
L
 
.
-
.
.
 
d. Member Size-(1). Procedure Requirement
*
TNE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1, Section 4.2.2.B requires verification of the following:
1" Hanger Configuration Member shape and nominal size per AISC (see Table 13 Or AISC manual of steel construction 7thedition)."
 
(2) Findings CTH-1-5787 angle shape under-tray was identified as 5/16".in thickness.- Actual thickness was 7/16".
 
e. Weld Qualitative Measurement (1) Procedure Requirement
  *
THE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1, Section 4.2.2.B. requires
    '
verification of the following:
  " Member Connection Details (Connection to support member) Welds shall be verified by the QC inspector in accordance with Reference 1-G."
 
Reference.1-G, QI-QP-11.10-9 Cable Tray Hanger As-Built,
  -
  (Inspection / Verification), Revision 2, Section 3. requires verification of the following:
  "3.3.5 Welding laspection 3.3.5.1 General Welding shall be inspected for quantitative and qualitative attributes as listed below without paint remove Quantitative Type of Weld (fillet, flare bevel, groove,etc.) Confi etc.)guration (two sides all around, Weld Length Weld size"
--
    -- . -. -- _ _ _ _ .
 
_
.
. .
.
 
In Supplementary Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) 12, Section 3.8.3 which addresses FSAR Amendment 55, the applicant has been given' approval to use Nuclear Construction Issue Group (NCIG) document NCIG-01, Revision 2 " Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding to Nuclear Power Plants" (VWAC). VWAC specifies the following acceptance criteria for fillet welds:
  "3.5.2.2 Acceptance. Criteria: a fillet weld shall be permitted to be less than the size specified by 1/16-for i the length of the weld."
 
(2) Findings CTH-1-5942 fillet weld #1 was found to be 1/16" undersized from that recorded for greater than 1/4 of its lengt *
CTH-1-1845 fillet weld detail B was found to be 5/16" undersized from the recorded for greater 1/4 of its length.
 
.
  -CTH-1-5517 fillet weld #1 was found to be 1/16" undersized from that recorded for greater than 1/4 of its . lengt CTH-1-5488 fillet weld was found to be undersized 1/16"
  -
from that recorded for greater than 1/4 of its lengt ,
CTH-1-4738 fillet weld was found to be undersized 1/16" from that recorded for greater than 1/4 of its lengt CTH-1-12075 measurement of the top and bottom of member weld lengths was recorded in reverse CTH-1-1853 measurement of the top and bottom of member weld lengths was recorded in reverse Dimensional Measurements (1) Procedure Requirements TNE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1, Section 4.2.2. requires verification of the following:
  "A.2 Elevation (of lowest horizontal member)
___
B.2. hanger Configuration Dimension, including addition of required dimension .__
-    -  -_
 
.
. .
.
8 Expansion anchor bolt projection and/or embedment (Table 12).
 
.__
B.4 Support Anchorage
  - Bolt distance from heel of angle or channel, etc. .(Gage 'G' dimension)"
(2) Findings
  *
CTH-1-5942 dimension to edge of column was in error 1".
 
CTH-1-1845 dimension between attachments was in error l' 3/4".
 
*
CTH-1-1963 elevation was in error by 3" (Elevation A-A).
 
*
CTH-1-42 gage dimension was in error 1".
 
*
CTH-1-239 gage measurement was in error 5/16".
 
*
CTH-1-1845 bolt projection measurement was in error 3/4"
  *
CTH-1-7047 bolt projection for bolts #1, and #2, was in error 1" ~and bolt #3 was in error 3/16".
 
*
CTH-1-5976 bolt projection measurement was in error 1/2"
. g. Bolt Size (1) Procedure Requirement TNE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1, Section 4.2.2.B requires verification of the following:
  "3.b Bolts 1-Size" (2) Findings CTH-1-6631 hex nut was standard when a heavy hex nut was specifie h. Member Orientation (1) Procedure Requirements
  *
THE-AB-CS-1, Revision 1, Section 4.2.2.B requires verification of the following:
  " ilanger Configuration" w
 
,
.
. .
.
9-(2) Findings CTH-1-1845 angle to wall was rotated 90 degrees from drawing detai . .0ther Findings Related to TNE-AB-CS-1 Measurements Criteria were not provided with respect t'o the required acuracy of measurements in obtaining TNE-AB-CS-1 red-line data. Variations in~
    ~
bolt projection and gage measurements were identified which appear to be attributable, in part, to the many different methods used to make the measurements. The applicant has indicated that TNE-AB-CS-1 will be revised to provide clear guidance with respect to measurements. This in considered an open item (445/8519-0-01).
 
The NRC~in'spectors compared NRC measured dimensions and the red-line recorded dimensions to the tolerances given in tables attached to TNE-AB-CS-1. Measurements which violated these tolerances are identified in paragraph 3 abov Inaccessibility The NRC inspectors identified that there were attributes which appeared accessible, although they had been identified as inaccessibl The applicant. stated that the training provided to the walkdown personnel instructed that measurements be taken only if they were fully accessible at the support. Further, the training provided gave instruction that~ all attributes of a particular component be-fully accessible before it is inspecte The' applicant has indicated that the term inaccessible will be
!  clarified by revision to THE-AB-CS- This considered an open item (445/8519-0-02). Weld Bevel In addition, the NRC inspectors noted weld bevels which appeared to be in violation of the American Welding (AWS) D1.1 Society Code. The quantita-tive weld attributes, such as bevel,'were inspected by the applicant only for the first 100 supports in accordance with TNE-AB-CS-1. It was there-fore not a requirement of the Unit 1 as-built cable tray program to verify weld bevel beyond the first 100 supports inspected, r
;
    .. . , . _ _ _ y
 
..
. .
.
 
The FSAR, Table 17A-1 states that cable tray _ hangers will be constructed in accordance with American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Cod The AISC Code, Seventh Edition, Page 4-131, states that "The AISC
' Specification and the American Welding Society exempt from tests and qualification most of the comon welding joints applicable to steel structures. - When the joints . . . as designated as prequalified . . ."
Gibbs and Hill, Inc., Spectfication 2323-SS-168, Section 6.4, dated May 7, 1975, states, "Weldiiq construction shall conform to AISC Specifi-cation for Design, Fabricatic.' and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings and AWS D1.1."
 
The AWS D1.1-75 Code, Section 2.9.2.4 states with respect to weld groove angle, "The groove angle is minimum. It may be detailed to exceed the dimension shown by no more tFan 10 degrees."
 
The weld bevel for hanger drawing CTH-1-5538, full penetration weld #2, was found to be 30 by the NRC inspector. In addition, the weld bevel for hanger CTH-1-5517,1" plate full penetration weld, was measured to be 36 -38 . The prequalified weld bevel specified by the hanger drawings (CTH-1-5538 and CTH-1-5517) was 45 .
The failure to control weld bevel angles appears to be in violation of the AISC Code /AWS D1.1 Code and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion I . Audit of As-Built Cable Tray Support Inspection Program The NRC inspectors could find no objective evidence that the cable tray support as-built inspection program had been audited or scheduled to be audite The failure to establish planned periodic audits of the cable tray support as-built inspection program is considered to be in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII . Applicant Corrective Actions The applicant promptly initiated the following corrective actions:
TUGCo Engineering was requested to document and evaluate each finding to determine corrective action on November 22, 1985.
 
'
*
Stop Work was issued to field activities associated with Unit 1 as-built / inspection program on November 26, 198 ,
*
  .A Corrective Action Request was issued on November 26, 198 _,
_-
.
. .
.
 
*
A TUGCo investigation was initiated to determine the caus Personnel actions have resulted from the investigation underwa *
Inspection of the as-built program Unit 2 was initiated to determine if similar problems existed in Unit *
The evaluation of actions necessary to resume the as-built program is in. progres .
8. Exit Meeting Exit meetings were held on November 22, 1985, and December 5, 1985, respectively, to discuss.the initial and fi.nal findings from this inspectio A subsequent exit meeting was held with TUGCo corporate management on December 18, 1985, to review the findings from this inspection, at which time, potential escalated enforcement action was discusse Those present included:
TUGCo W. G. Council J. W. Beck NRC-R. D. Martin V. S. Noonan
-_
_;
}}
}}

Revision as of 02:06, 15 December 2020

Cable Tray Support As-Built Program Insp Rept 50-445/85-19 on 851118-1218.Violation Noted:Failure of Walkdown Teams & QC Inspectors to Correctly Determine & Verify as-built Cable Support Attributes
ML20202F221
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 03/18/1986
From: Solla E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202F175 List:
References
FOIA-86-382 50-445-85-19-01, 50-445-85-19-1, NUDOCS 8607150114
Preceding documents:
Download: ML20202F221 (11)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000445/1985019&oldid=3036800"