ML20199G620

Partially Withheld marked-up Rev 4 to Sser Re Allegation AQ-98 Concerning Extensive Delays in Repair of safety-related Matl

ML20199G620
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak, 05000000
Issue date:	03/13/1985
From:	Jackson L, Livermore H NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197J178	List: IR 05000445/1985009 ML20197J173 ML20197J273 ML20197J296 ML20199G064 ML20199G070 ML20199G083 ML20199G092 ML20199G099 ML20199G107 ML20199G116 ML20199G119 ML20199G124 ML20199G133 ML20199G146 ML20199G154 ML20199G163 ML20199G179 ML20199G212 ML20199G284 ML20199G292 ML20199G298 ML20199G306 ML20199G318 ML20199G331 ML20199G343 ML20199G352 ML20199G363 ML20199G383 ML20199G391 ML20199G402 ML20199G420 ML20199G432 ML20199G442 ML20199G453 ML20199G464 ML20199G575 ML20199G614 ML20199G620 ML20199G624 ML20199G630 ML20199G635 ML20199G641 ML20199G645 ML20199G649 ML20199G655 ML20199G661 ML20199G670 ML20199G675 ML20199G681 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606250292
Download: ML20199G620 (8)

Text

-

5p9,5 g1%

AQ-98 CP4 REV l} - 10/:/37 Y

3,h3lW SSER 1.

Allegation Category: QA/QC 5A, Extensive Delays in Repairing "Q" Material 2.

Allegation Number: AQ-98 3.

Characterization: It is alleged that extensive delays occurred in the

~

~'

repair of' safety-related material.

4.

Assessment of Safety Significance: The im ied si nificance o allegati n'is that exasUtiliObsElectrc ompany UEC) d(lays in repairing safety,related material nerease the proba ility that the material o't be ad ed but used as is.

driterion XVI of 10 CFR Pa t 50 Appe ix B, "

ective Action," requires ishd'oensbre that rheasures e est at c ndit ns ich could e

\\

.\\

1

/

/

adversely. af fect ua ity are promptly identified and corrected.

j s

TheNRCTechnicalReviewTeam(TRT)interviewedQA/QCmanagersandcon-firmed that some welding defects in the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) and component cooling system (CCS) systems were not repaired promptly.

The TRT found that, because of industry-wide concerns raised by.the accident at Three Mile Island, TUEC radiographed field welds on the AFW and CCS systems, even though the ASME Code does not require these types of welds to be examined radiographically.

These radiographs were not inter-preted promptly because the lack of ASME radiographic requirements means that there are no ASME acceptance criteria for this class of welds.

Sub-sequently, TUEC, having identified the defective welds, required them to 8606250292 860611 PDR FOIA GARDE 85-59 PDR

be repai/ed,. re-radiographad, accepted, do:u::.ented, and sigr.ed cf f p r or i

to hydrostatic testing on these systems p The TRT found no other examples of extensive delays in repair of safety-related material.

3l=--- Ale * &.vgj -T u s O - <'s W i vf d eS A S. x N

_ G - $5m Qm y A. -

5.

onclusion and Staff P5sitions: The TRT concludes that although this allegation was substantiated, TUEC's QA inspection program ensured that the welds in' question were re-examined and repaired prior to hydrostatic testing.

Accordingly, this allegation has neither safety significance ner generic implications.

a+

rA 2rrt.w 4 L w L1<.

6.

Actions Reouired: None.

-fh f4f h k ' it S.

Attachments: None.

9.

Reference Documents:

1.

CC-2-SB-42-1.

2.

GAP witness C #36, handwritten list dated April 84

10. This statement prepared by:

[,.;wt<>fAAML L [23 - b g l. H. Jackson, Date TRT Technical Reviewer

/

j s

Reviewed.by:

/ (, h t?

/-Z3-3

~

d. Livermore, Date Group Leader Approved by:

V. Noonan, Date Project Director

l. v* -. ::...., \\)

f'f7 0'

4 p @a(h a

q y

SSER WRITEUP' DOCUMENT C0tiTP[0L/ ROUTE SHEET

• dfb Allegation Numbers N ' // 7 C, n,,,:,4, )

Subject of Ai1egation Du o I: ra -f.'.

L, d ~ pia m G A r /c d TRT Group QA/cc e l 7 E o o t s.

SOA Author:

/h. M. 1/. e /c This sheet will be initialed by each reviewer.

It stays with all revisions to the SSER writeup and serves as a routing and review record.

It will be filed in the work package when the writeup is ' published.

Draft Number Draft 1

2 3

4 5

Author MM Group Leader i

'/

/

7 Tech. Editor

\\

/

\\/

/

tofo 9//I Wessman/Vietti

\\/

k'

/

. //

/

J. Gaoliardo

/\\

/\\

/

//

"I / 19 T. Ippolito e/

/

/

/

/

Revision Number Q Final M

b U

Author

]?L

\\

' Y Y

Tech. Editor

1. 4W#eA

/

94 '/ k M Group Leader

. //

/ '

r J. Gaoliardo f/

fe/ /,

cwt.O h/&

T. Ippolito

/

/-///t

/

Administrative Writeup integrated into SSER Potential Violations to Region IV Vorkpackage File Complete

'Workpackage Returned to Group Leader 7

7#

l D

A -I coJagJiJ e==_

emmeunae e

owee-

+W--.

m ewe- - "

• Docum:nt Name:

AQ-117 Requestor's ID:

JEAN Author's Name:

Poslusny Document Comments:

.14 % @5 REDRAFT 2l1klrf l

J

Revisiond 10/9/84 CP3 QA/QC Category No. 53 SSER 1.

Allegation Group:

QA/QC Category No. 5A 2.

Allegation Number: AQ-117 3.

Characterizction: It is alleged that duplicate paperwork on flange travelers indicates a lack of communication between departments.

4.

Assessment of Safety Sionificance: The implied sa e y signi

- e of thisallga*ionisthatduplicatph'erwor

! comp om

'ty co Contr u

'QC ci eg rack e

ork and th render he

, tyjof are as i

~ terminate.

e The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) reviewed the flange travelers 'identi-fied in the allegation and found that they did contain duplicate informa-tion, although'it did not involve material of safety significance. The duplication was verified by both vault paperwork and the Brown & Root (B&R) traveler coordinator. The paperwork in the vault shows that flange travelers MP 83-2389-F-1000 and M-83-2389-I-1000 were voided, and flange travelers MP 83-2389-G-1000 and MP-83-2389-H-1000 contain essentially the

^

same information; they differed orily in the stated reason why the flange required rewor.k.

The voided travelers were voided for: valid but unrelated

~

reasons, and the duplicate travelers. identified in the allegation were issued the same day.

Flange travelers are basically all duplicates of each other in that-they contain standardized steps to assemble and dis-assemble the flange; they differ on,1y in the flange number and in the' reason why the flange required rework.

This duplication occurred during a turnover period between Brown & Root (B&R) piping and Texas Utilities Electric Company (TVEC) start-up depart-ments. Construction management, having recognized this duplication l

problem, now processes all flange travelers through a single control F

point, the Paper Flow Group (PFG). Other construction operation travelers o

,. 3

- for su'ch items as valves, pumps, piping, and motors are also being coordinated by the PFG.

The PFG has added the needed assurance that duplicate work orders are not being processed.

A TRT review of rt:ent construction operation travelers revccic "r' "i "

=

s

'e -w T " could not detect any additional duplication since the PFG took control.

5.

Conclusion and Staff Positions:

The TRT concludes that the duplicate travelers did indicate a lack of communication betwe'en k " Y $

However, a B&R traveler coordinator did detect the problem and was able to prevent duplicate work on 3= flanges indicating'that they have an effective check and balance system.

The TRT concludes this allecation has neither safety significance nor generic implications.

/

In a meeting with the alleger on December 10, 1984, t$e TRT pre,sented the.

results of the assessment of the allegation and the TRT's conclusion.a brief discussion ensued.

There were no major items of disagreemen: Ed no new concerns or allegations were identified.

6.

Actions Recuired: None.

'8.

Attachments:

None.

9.

Reference Documents:

1.

ISO DP-Y-AB-003.

2.

Flange travelers MP-S3-2389-F-1000, 3.

Flange travelers MP-S3-23S9-G-1000.

4.

Flange travelers MP-S3-2389-H-1000.

'5.

Flange travelers MP-33-2389-I-1000.

6.

A-1 Statement #2 and A-1, Interview p. 80.

7.

A -1,naZL w dm t g I 'tPy, f. V7

. 10.

This statement prepared by:

Milton Bullock, TRT 08/84 Technical Reviewer Reviewed by:

Herbert Livermore, Date Group Leader 4

i Approved by:

Vincent Noonan, Date Project Director 9

e

• =we-=+e m me

-,eamp,e

=e-w-We**

'e p

/

7 Y

m.

s t

L SSER WR.ITEUP DOCUMENT CONTROL / ROUTE SHEET

.11egation Numbers A C-/50

, + L, S

Subject af ki1egation'7);iereoci,ea a:sV'LeLk,,4,. /GJe%s n Aware,.s ons />fe 4,,

TRT Group O/7/o +

eg, Author:

/. d. Uo ie se This sheet will be initialed by each reviewer.

It stays witn all revis4ons to the SSER writeup and serves as a r' outing and review record.

It will be filed in the work package when the writeup is published.

/

Draft Number

/

Draft 1

2 3

4 5

Author Ud _M f

Group Leader

/

f//I/' F-k

1. # 4 /-23 -6 Tech. Editor

/

DJL W )Qh Wessman/Vietti

/

9 [._t> Eetw 1Ctw/YA J. Gaaliardo

/

T. Ippolito Revision Number Final 1

2 3

4 5

i Author o

_ Tech. Editor Group Leader J. Gaaliardo T. Ippolito Administrative a

Writeup integrated into SSER Potential Violations to Region IV Workpackage File Complete Workpackage Returned to Group Leader m

p, o

'/

a

,/

'M i

/

,' v

/

VW

~

/-'j. s.

/

x s

\\w

/

e r~

~~

~ ~ - ~

' ~ ' ~

' ' - - - ' ' ~

~

.