TXX-7031, Supplemental Deficiency Rept CP-86-46 & Interim Deficiency Rept CP-86-76 Re Gould Battery Racks.Initially Reported on 861021.Deficient Battery Racks Will Be Disassembled,Reworked & Components Replaced as Necessary.Next Rept by 880308: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:lj t | ||
+ | |||
Loij #'TXX-7031 a | |||
File # 10110 1 | |||
=M 908.3 | |||
) | |||
l | l i | ||
nlELECTRIC December 14,L1987 | d: | ||
Wimum G. Counsil Emytive Vice Presukat | Ref..# 10CFR50.55(e) i L | ||
~r | |||
= | |||
nlELECTRIC December 14,L1987 Wimum G. Counsil Emytive Vice Presukat l | |||
1 1 | |||
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |||
.i Attn: Document Control Desk; j | |||
Hashington, D. C. | |||
20555 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) | COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) i DOCKET N05. 50-445 AND 50-446 | ||
.1 GOULD BATTERY RACKS l | |||
SDAR: CP-86-46'(SUPPLEMENTALREPORT) | |||
SDAR: CP-86-76.(INTERIM REPORT) | SDAR: CP-86-76.(INTERIM REPORT) | ||
Gentlemen: | Gentlemen: | ||
On October 21, 1986, we notified you by our letter logged TXX-6052 of a. | On October 21, 1986, we notified you by our letter logged TXX-6052 of a. | ||
deficiency involving a site Design r.hange Authorization (DCA) to Gould battery racks without formal evaluation by the vendor. This deficiency was characterized as reportable under 10CFR50.55(e) and was assigned SDAR No. | deficiency involving a site Design r.hange Authorization (DCA) to Gould battery racks without formal evaluation by the vendor. | ||
CP-86-46. | This deficiency was characterized as reportable under 10CFR50.55(e) and was assigned SDAR No. | ||
CP-86-46. | |||
The DCA allowed the use of fewer bolts-than designed for installation of battery rack transverse bracing. | |||
The OCA was deemed necessary because vendor prefabrication of the battery racks did not permit installation per the vendor drawings. | |||
Resolution of this deficiency led to.the i | |||
identification of hardware deficiencies that are.being documented by SDAR CP-86-76. Our last interim report on this subject was logged TXX-7022, dated December 4, 1987. We have concluded that the deficiency identified by SDAR CP-86-76 is reportable under the provisions of'10CFR50.55(e). | |||
This is a supplemental report for SDAR CP-86-46. Gould battery rack deficiencies identified in SDAR CP-86-46 will be tracked.for completion of corrective actions.in SDAR CP-86-76, as described below. | This is a supplemental report for SDAR CP-86-46. Gould battery rack deficiencies identified in SDAR CP-86-46 will be tracked.for completion of corrective actions.in SDAR CP-86-76, as described below. | ||
Description of Problem l | |||
Specific problems noted in Unit 1 and/or Unit 2 included inaccurate inter-tell spacing, incorrect and improperly installed bolting, inadequate design'and installation tolerances, several improperly installed and/or supplied parts, and inadequate. design information f rom the vendor including detail drawings of 3 | |||
8712280057 871214 PDR | battery rack welding. | ||
The battery racks required f abrication by.Gould using | |||
~ | |||
full penetration welds. | |||
Because the weld details could not be provided by Gould, radiography was performad on four welds which indicated the welds were l' | |||
not-full' penetration welds as required for seismic gnalification. | |||
8712280057 871214 PDR ADOCK 05000445 g | |||
DCD f(t.1 i0l an u oin sacca tn si. v a. r -, m oi | |||
.4 o | |||
TXX-7031 December 14, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Our review of these deficiencies has concluded that the battery rack stressps could have exceeded design allowable limits under seismic loads. .This deficiency applies to all Class 1E battery racks in Units 1 and 2. | TXX-7031 December 14, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Our review of these deficiencies has concluded that the battery rack stressps could have exceeded design allowable limits under seismic loads..This deficiency applies to all Class 1E battery racks in Units 1 and 2. | ||
Generic implications associated with these deficiencies are receiving additional evaluation. | Generic implications associated with these deficiencies are receiving additional evaluation. | ||
Safety Implications In the event the subject deficiencies had remained uncorrected, the structural integrity of the battery racks following a seismic event could not be assured thereby affecting associated safety systems dependent upon Class 1E DC power. | Safety Implications In the event the subject deficiencies had remained uncorrected, the structural integrity of the battery racks following a seismic event could not be assured thereby affecting associated safety systems dependent upon Class 1E DC power. | ||
Corrective Actions the deficient battery racks will be disassembled, reworked, and components replaced as necessary in accordance with revised design documents. A schedule for completion of the associated re-work for Unit 1 and Unit 2 wi?1 be provided in a supplemental report for SDAR CP-86-76, to be submitt ed by March 8,1988. The results of our evaluation regarding generic implications of the deficiencies will also be provided at that time. | Corrective Actions the deficient battery racks will be disassembled, reworked, and components replaced as necessary in accordance with revised design documents. A schedule for completion of the associated re-work for Unit 1 and Unit 2 wi?1 be provided in a supplemental report for SDAR CP-86-76, to be submitt ed by March 8,1988. | ||
The results of our evaluation regarding generic implications of the deficiencies will also be provided at that time. | |||
Very truly yours, f | Very truly yours, f | ||
W. G. Counsil RWH/grr c - Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident inspectors, CPSES (3)}} | W. G. Counsil RWH/grr c - Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident inspectors, CPSES (3)}} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:54, 2 December 2024
| ML20237D962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1987 |
| From: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| CP-86-46, CP-86-76, TXX-7031, NUDOCS 8712280057 | |
| Download: ML20237D962 (2) | |
Text
lj t
+
Loij #'TXX-7031 a
File # 10110 1
=M 908.3
)
l i
d:
Ref..# 10CFR50.55(e) i L
~r
=
nlELECTRIC December 14,L1987 Wimum G. Counsil Emytive Vice Presukat l
1 1
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.i Attn: Document Control Desk; j
Hashington, D. C.
20555
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) i DOCKET N05. 50-445 AND 50-446
.1 GOULD BATTERY RACKS l
SDAR: CP-86-46'(SUPPLEMENTALREPORT)
SDAR: CP-86-76.(INTERIM REPORT)
Gentlemen:
On October 21, 1986, we notified you by our letter logged TXX-6052 of a.
deficiency involving a site Design r.hange Authorization (DCA) to Gould battery racks without formal evaluation by the vendor.
This deficiency was characterized as reportable under 10CFR50.55(e) and was assigned SDAR No.
The DCA allowed the use of fewer bolts-than designed for installation of battery rack transverse bracing.
The OCA was deemed necessary because vendor prefabrication of the battery racks did not permit installation per the vendor drawings.
Resolution of this deficiency led to.the i
identification of hardware deficiencies that are.being documented by SDAR CP-86-76. Our last interim report on this subject was logged TXX-7022, dated December 4, 1987. We have concluded that the deficiency identified by SDAR CP-86-76 is reportable under the provisions of'10CFR50.55(e).
This is a supplemental report for SDAR CP-86-46. Gould battery rack deficiencies identified in SDAR CP-86-46 will be tracked.for completion of corrective actions.in SDAR CP-86-76, as described below.
Description of Problem l
Specific problems noted in Unit 1 and/or Unit 2 included inaccurate inter-tell spacing, incorrect and improperly installed bolting, inadequate design'and installation tolerances, several improperly installed and/or supplied parts, and inadequate. design information f rom the vendor including detail drawings of 3
battery rack welding.
The battery racks required f abrication by.Gould using
~
full penetration welds.
Because the weld details could not be provided by Gould, radiography was performad on four welds which indicated the welds were l'
not-full' penetration welds as required for seismic gnalification.
8712280057 871214 PDR ADOCK 05000445 g
DCD f(t.1 i0l an u oin sacca tn si. v a. r -, m oi
.4 o
TXX-7031 December 14, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Our review of these deficiencies has concluded that the battery rack stressps could have exceeded design allowable limits under seismic loads..This deficiency applies to all Class 1E battery racks in Units 1 and 2.
Generic implications associated with these deficiencies are receiving additional evaluation.
Safety Implications In the event the subject deficiencies had remained uncorrected, the structural integrity of the battery racks following a seismic event could not be assured thereby affecting associated safety systems dependent upon Class 1E DC power.
Corrective Actions the deficient battery racks will be disassembled, reworked, and components replaced as necessary in accordance with revised design documents. A schedule for completion of the associated re-work for Unit 1 and Unit 2 wi?1 be provided in a supplemental report for SDAR CP-86-76, to be submitt ed by March 8,1988.
The results of our evaluation regarding generic implications of the deficiencies will also be provided at that time.
Very truly yours, f
W. G. Counsil RWH/grr c - Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident inspectors, CPSES (3)