ML20238D419: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 3
| page count = 3
}}
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 07100104/2012001]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:. _.
{{#Wiki_filter:. _.
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION I
                        .
TU Electric                                          Dockets:        50-445/87-31 50-446/87-23 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station                  Permits:        CPPR-126              I Units 1 and 2, Glen Rose, Texas                                      CPPR-127 I
                .
I During an NRC inspection conducted on November 4 through December 1, 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
                                                                  APPENDIX A
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure f or NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violations are listed below:
                                                            NOTICE OF VIOLATION
A.      Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented by Section 5.0, Revision 3 of the TU Electric Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), states, in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, or a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. . . . "
                                                                                                                            I
Section 7.7.1 of Revision 2 to EBASCO's Field Verification Method (FVM) CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033, states, in'part, "The Walkdown Engineer will identify each type of support by comparison with supplement I and/or 2323-S-0910 sketches or drawings, and will as-built the support on the applicable sketch or drawing . . . . " Paragraph K of this section of the FVM further states, "All dimensions and/or attributes shown will be verified . . . .      If the designed dimensions / attributes are incorrect, they shall be lined out and the actual dimension /
                              TU Electric                                          Dockets:        50-445/87-31
attribute recorded." Further, paragraph N states that the walkdown engineer will redline ".      . . any HKB/HSKB spacing violation per Table 2."
                                                                                                    50-446/87-23
Contrary to the above, the following conditions were identified:
                              Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station                  Permits:        CPPR-126              I
: 1. For support C13OO7808-04, which is a 2323-S-0910 Type CA-la support, the anchor bolts identified as bolts A, E, and F were lined out. This implied that anchor bolts did not exist at these locations for'this unique support. During a subsequent walkdown by the NRC inspector, however, an anchor bolt was found to exist at the location designated for anchor bolt A. This bolt was determined to be a 1/4" Hilti Kwik bolt with the letter designation "D" and a projection of 1". While the 8801040250 871218      ''
                              Units 1 and 2, Glen Rose, Texas                                      CPPR-127
PDR  ADOCK 05000445 G              PDR      ,
                                                                                                                            I
                                                                 .  .m i.n- aem . ..
                                                                                                                            I
                              During an NRC inspection conducted on November 4 through
                              December 1, 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
                              In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure
                              f or NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the
                              violations are listed below:
                              A.      Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented by
                                      Section 5.0, Revision 3 of the TU Electric Quality Assurance
                                      Plan (QAP), states, in part, " Activities affecting quality
                                      shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or
                                      drawings, or a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall
                                      be accomplished in accordance with these instructions,
                                      procedures, or drawings. . . . "
                                      Section 7.7.1 of Revision 2 to EBASCO's Field Verification
                                      Method (FVM) CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033, states, in'part, "The Walkdown
                                      Engineer will identify each type of support by comparison with
                                      supplement I and/or 2323-S-0910 sketches or drawings, and will
                                      as-built the support on the applicable sketch or
                                      drawing . . . . " Paragraph K of this section of the FVM
                                      further states, "All dimensions and/or attributes shown will
                                      be verified . . . .      If the designed dimensions / attributes are
                                      incorrect, they shall be lined out and the actual dimension /
                                      attribute recorded." Further, paragraph N states that the
                                      walkdown engineer will redline ".      . . any HKB/HSKB spacing
                                      violation per Table 2."
                                      Contrary to the above, the following conditions were
                                      identified:
                                      1.   For support C13OO7808-04, which is a 2323-S-0910
                                          Type CA-la support, the anchor bolts identified as
                                          bolts A, E, and F were lined out. This implied that
                                          anchor bolts did not exist at these locations for'this
                                          unique support. During a subsequent walkdown by the NRC
                                          inspector, however, an anchor bolt was found to exist at
                                          the location designated for anchor bolt A. This bolt was
                                          determined to be a 1/4" Hilti Kwik bolt with the letter
                                          designation "D" and a projection of 1". While the
                                  8801040250 871218      ''
                                  PDR  ADOCK 05000445
                                  G              PDR      ,
                                              -
                                                    . -    -
                                                                 .  .m
                                                                                  -
                                                                                      i.n- aem . ..
                                                                                                      -    -  -
                                                                                                                   -- . --1
                                                                                                                   -- . --1
-__-_m-.___-__--          ___  ____
-__-_m-.___-__--          ___  ____


2
                .
                                                         ;xistence of this additional anchor bolt Mill not have a detrimental effect on the structural integrity of the support, the fact that it was not identified during the EBASCO walkdown is of significance relative to the-adequacy of the walkdown itself.
        .
: 2. On support C14G21398-03 the walkdown engineer failed to record one of the dimensions required to fully locate the structural tubing on the base plate. This information is required in order to calculate base plate stress and anchor bolt loads. This dimension is one of the dimensions required to be reported for this type of l                                                        support (2323-S-0910 sh. CSM-18 type support).
                                                                                2
                                                         ;xistence of this additional anchor bolt Mill not have a
                                                        detrimental effect on the structural integrity of the
                                                        support, the fact that it was not identified during the
                                                        EBASCO walkdown is of significance relative to the-
                                                        adequacy of the walkdown itself.
                                                  2.   On support C14G21398-03 the walkdown engineer failed to
                                                        record one of the dimensions required to fully locate the
                                                        structural tubing on the base plate. This information is
                                                        required in order to calculate base plate stress and
                                                        anchor bolt loads. This dimension is one of the
                                                        dimensions required to be reported for this type of
l                                                        support (2323-S-0910 sh. CSM-18 type support).
1
1
: 3. On support C14B13125-02, Lie walkdown engineer. failed to note a spacing violation between the 1/4" Hilti Kwik bolt designated as Bolt F on the support in question, and a 3/8" HKB on an adjacent conduit support. The NRC inspector found these anchor bolts to be 2 1/4" apart;                  j while the FVM required a spacing of at least 3 1/8".
                                                  3.   On support C14B13125-02, Lie walkdown engineer. failed to
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II)
                                                        note a spacing violation between the 1/4" Hilti Kwik bolt
(445/8731-V-01).                    -
                                                        designated as Bolt F on the support in question, and a
B.        Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented by Section 16.0, Revision 0, of the TU Electric QAP, states, in part, " Measures shall be established to assure that-conditions adverse to quality . . . are promptly identified and corrected . . . and corrective action taken to preclude repetition."                                                                .!
                                                        3/8" HKB on an adjacent conduit support. The NRC
                                                        inspector found these anchor bolts to be 2 1/4" apart;                  j
                                                        while the FVM required a spacing of at least 3 1/8".
                                                  This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II)
                                                    (445/8731-V-01).                    -
                                        B.        Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented
                                                  by Section 16.0, Revision 0, of the TU Electric QAP, states,
                                                  in part, " Measures shall be established to assure that-
                                                  conditions adverse to quality . . . are promptly identified
                                                  and corrected . . . and corrective action taken to preclude
                                                  repetition."                                                                .!
l                                                  Nuclear Engineering and Operation Procedure NEO 3.06,
l                                                  Nuclear Engineering and Operation Procedure NEO 3.06,
                                                   " Reporting and Control of Deficiencies," requires deficiencies (principally programmatic and not directly related to hardware              i problems) to be identified,'the cause established, and action                !
                                                   " Reporting and Control of Deficiencies," requires deficiencies
,                                                  taken to prevent repetition.                                                I' 1
                                                  (principally programmatic and not directly related to hardware              i
Contrary to the above, the " rework" dispositions of NCRs I-85-101890SX and C-86-200378X were incorrectly revised to "Use-As-Is" dispositions, subsequent to engineering becoming aware that the conditions which created the need for the NCRs had been corrected outside of the scope and control of the NCRs. By revising the dispositions and closing out the NCRs, actions were not taken to determine the cause of the deficiency (uncontrolled work) or to prevent repetition.
                                                  problems) to be identified,'the cause established, and action                !
This is a Severity Level IV violation (supplement II)
,                                                  taken to prevent repetition.                                                I'
(445/8731-V-02; 446/8723-V-01).
1
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, TU Electric is hereby                      '
                                                  Contrary to the above, the " rework" dispositions of NCRs
required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U. S.
                                                  I-85-101890SX and C-86-200378X were incorrectly revised to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk,
                                                  "Use-As-Is" dispositions, subsequent to engineering becoming
                                                  aware that the conditions which created the need for the NCRs
                                                  had been corrected outside of the scope and control of the
                                                  NCRs.   By revising the dispositions and closing out the NCRs,
                                                  actions were not taken to determine the cause of the
                                                  deficiency (uncontrolled work) or to prevent repetition.
                                                  This is a Severity Level IV violation (supplement II)
                                                  (445/8731-V-02; 446/8723-V-01).
                                        Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, TU Electric is hereby                      '
                                        required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U. S.
                                        Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk,
-_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ -          . _ _ _                                                _ __ _ _ _ >


l
                                                                                                      l
   .                                                                                                    1 i
   .                                                                                                    1
3 l
                                                                                                      i
Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Assistant Director for Inspection Programs, Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Special Projects, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a
                                      3
     " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:  (1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the                                <
.
corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective ateps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
                                                                                                        l
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in                                  ,
    Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Assistant Director for
this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license                                  l should not be modified, suspended, or revoked er why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
    Inspection Programs, Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of
J FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
    Special Projects, within 30 days of the date of the letter
    transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a
     " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each
    violation:  (1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the                                <
    corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved,
    (3) the corrective ateps that will be taken to avoid further
    violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
    If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in                                  ,
    this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license                                  l
                                                                                                        !
    should not be modified, suspended, or revoked er why such other
    action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be
    given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
                                                                                                      J
                                  FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                                                                                        l
                                     $$fh&
                                     $$fh&
Dated at Comanche Peak Site this 18th day of December 1987 l
    Dated at Comanche Peak Site
1
    this 18th day of December 1987
                                                           - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _}}
                                                                                                        l
                                                                                                        1
                                                                                                        :
                                                           - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _
}}

Latest revision as of 01:21, 5 September 2023

Notice of Violation from Insp on 871104-1201.Violation Noted:Walkdown Engineer Failed to Record One Dimension Required to Fully Locate Structural Tubing on Base Plate
ML20238D419
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 12/18/1987
From: Warnick R
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20238D401 List:
References
50-445-87-31, 50-446-87-23, NUDOCS 8801040250
Download: ML20238D419 (3)


See also: IR 07100104/2012001

Text

. _.

.

.

APPENDIX A

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

I

TU Electric Dockets: 50-445/87-31

50-446/87-23

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Permits: CPPR-126 I

Units 1 and 2, Glen Rose, Texas CPPR-127

I

I

During an NRC inspection conducted on November 4 through

December 1, 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified.

In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure

f or NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the

violations are listed below:

A. Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented by

Section 5.0, Revision 3 of the TU Electric Quality Assurance

Plan (QAP), states, in part, " Activities affecting quality

shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or

drawings, or a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall

be accomplished in accordance with these instructions,

procedures, or drawings. . . . "

Section 7.7.1 of Revision 2 to EBASCO's Field Verification

Method (FVM) CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033, states, in'part, "The Walkdown

Engineer will identify each type of support by comparison with

supplement I and/or 2323-S-0910 sketches or drawings, and will

as-built the support on the applicable sketch or

drawing . . . . " Paragraph K of this section of the FVM

further states, "All dimensions and/or attributes shown will

be verified . . . . If the designed dimensions / attributes are

incorrect, they shall be lined out and the actual dimension /

attribute recorded." Further, paragraph N states that the

walkdown engineer will redline ". . . any HKB/HSKB spacing

violation per Table 2."

Contrary to the above, the following conditions were

identified:

1. For support C13OO7808-04, which is a 2323-S-0910

Type CA-la support, the anchor bolts identified as

bolts A, E, and F were lined out. This implied that

anchor bolts did not exist at these locations for'this

unique support. During a subsequent walkdown by the NRC

inspector, however, an anchor bolt was found to exist at

the location designated for anchor bolt A. This bolt was

determined to be a 1/4" Hilti Kwik bolt with the letter

designation "D" and a projection of 1". While the

8801040250 871218

PDR ADOCK 05000445

G PDR ,

-

. - -

. .m

-

i.n- aem . ..

- - -

-- . --1

-__-_m-.___-__-- ___ ____

.

.

2

xistence of this additional anchor bolt Mill not have a

detrimental effect on the structural integrity of the

support, the fact that it was not identified during the

EBASCO walkdown is of significance relative to the-

adequacy of the walkdown itself.

2. On support C14G21398-03 the walkdown engineer failed to

record one of the dimensions required to fully locate the

structural tubing on the base plate. This information is

required in order to calculate base plate stress and

anchor bolt loads. This dimension is one of the

dimensions required to be reported for this type of

l support (2323-S-0910 sh. CSM-18 type support).

1

3. On support C14B13125-02, Lie walkdown engineer. failed to

note a spacing violation between the 1/4" Hilti Kwik bolt

designated as Bolt F on the support in question, and a

3/8" HKB on an adjacent conduit support. The NRC

inspector found these anchor bolts to be 2 1/4" apart; j

while the FVM required a spacing of at least 3 1/8".

This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II)

(445/8731-V-01). -

B. Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented

by Section 16.0, Revision 0, of the TU Electric QAP, states,

in part, " Measures shall be established to assure that-

conditions adverse to quality . . . are promptly identified

and corrected . . . and corrective action taken to preclude

repetition." .!

l Nuclear Engineering and Operation Procedure NEO 3.06,

" Reporting and Control of Deficiencies," requires deficiencies

(principally programmatic and not directly related to hardware i

problems) to be identified,'the cause established, and action  !

, taken to prevent repetition. I'

1

Contrary to the above, the " rework" dispositions of NCRs

I-85-101890SX and C-86-200378X were incorrectly revised to

"Use-As-Is" dispositions, subsequent to engineering becoming

aware that the conditions which created the need for the NCRs

had been corrected outside of the scope and control of the

NCRs. By revising the dispositions and closing out the NCRs,

actions were not taken to determine the cause of the

deficiency (uncontrolled work) or to prevent repetition.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (supplement II)

(445/8731-V-02; 446/8723-V-01).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, TU Electric is hereby '

required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk,

-_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ >

l

. 1

i

3

.

l

Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Assistant Director for

Inspection Programs, Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of

Special Projects, within 30 days of the date of the letter

transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a

" Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each

violation: (1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the <

corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved,

(3) the corrective ateps that will be taken to avoid further

violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in ,

this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license l

!

should not be modified, suspended, or revoked er why such other

action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be

given to extending the response time for good cause shown.

J

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

l

$$fh&

Dated at Comanche Peak Site

this 18th day of December 1987

l

1

- - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _