ML20141K238

Trip Rept of 851014-18 Site Visit Re Status of Comanche Peak Response Team Verification & Corrective Action Activities by S&W,Ebasco & Tera,Qa/Qc Const Verification Effort & Action Plan Implementation

ML20141K238
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/22/1985
From:	Keshishian P NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:	Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
Shared Package
ML20141K224	List: ML20141K221 ML20141K238
References
NUDOCS 8601220375
Download: ML20141K238 (10)

Text

_ .

OCT 2 21985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Pioject FROM: Prul Keshishian Comanche Peak Project

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM VERIFICATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION ACTIVITIES A review was conducted of the ongoing Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) activities during the period of October lh-18,1985 The principal CPRT activities in progress at the present time are those associated with the:

1.- Stone & Webster (SWEC) Design Verification Effort 2.- Ebasco Design Verification Effort

, 3.- TERL Design Verificat$on Effort i h.- QA/QC Construction Verification Effort 5.- TRT Issue Specific Action Pltns Implementation.

1. Stone & Webster Design Verification Effort 1

This effort will involve a reanalysis of Unit #1 large bore Class 2 and 3 piping and supports and an evaluation of non-Westinghouse designed

supports on Class 1 piping. In addition, for Unit #1, a sample reanalysis of small bore Class 2 and 3 piping will be performed. For Unit #2, similar work will be performed for large bore piping and supports, however, the i reanalysis will include 100% of Class 2 and 3 small bore piping. Tne re-analysis effort will be performed utilizing established SWEC methodologies.

TERA is conducting the third-party overview of this activity.

i a. Current Activities:

, (1) SWEC is continuing to mobilize manpower for this task at the site and off-site offices and present indications are that the work will be performed at a number of locations. The New York office of SWEC will manage and participate in the effort and design verification work will also be performed at their Houston, Boston, Cherry Hill and Toronto offices.

(2) SWEC is in the process of completing two key procedures necessary for their portion of the piping and support verification work. Comanche Peak Project Procedure (CPPP) #7 " Design Criteria j for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports" is expected to be issued by l October 25th. CPPP #6 " Pipe Stress Analysis for As-Built 8601220375 851022 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR

._= - _ _ _ __ ...

l i

_ ASME Class 2 and 3 Piping Systems" is expected to be issued by October 25th.

(3) Of the approximate 300 large bore pipe and support stress I analysis packages required by NEC for reanalysis of Unit t'

1. 1, 178 have been transmitted from the site to SWEC.

(h) Prior to the initiation of the SWEC effort TUGC0 had decided i

to modify some 200 large bore supports on each unit. This work was temporarily stopped the week of Auguart 26th. This '

modification work is now proceeding as previously scheduled.

The redesign of these supports by TUGC0 are being verified by the site SWEC engineers prior to being released to construction.

(5) SWEC is in the process of developing a methodology to permit representative sampling of the Unit #1 mall bore piping and

' supports to pemit stress analysis. It is anticipated that this effort will be completed by mid-November and then will

, be submitted for review by the NRC staff.

! (6) Piping and support analysis for Unit #2 has been initiated.

To date a few large bore-stress problems have been completed and 13 small bore stress problems are in the reconciliation phase.

Large bore stress problems will be nerformed off-site and #2 unit small bore stress problems will be prfomed by the on-site SWEC engineers.

(7) The present estimate for SWEC completion of Unit #1 work of the reanalysis effort is May 1986, and Unit #2 reanalysis by the Fall of 1986. The completion date for modifications and redesign re -

} sulting from the reanalysis effort will be dependent upon the extent of Modifications and redesign required.

(8) The SWEC reanalysis of and possible modification and redesign of. ,

supports for Comanche 1%sk will be considered to be the design of

record. Third party overview of SEC's effort will be performed

{

by TERA as described in the Program Plan.

l l (9) In .early October, the NRC staff met with SWEC and TUGC0 at a

! public meeting and discussed the issues of large bore piping '

' and support walkdowns. The attributes being reviewed by SWEC will be expanded during their walkdowns.

! (10) TUGC0 has tentatively scheduled audits of the SEC site and New i

York Office activities for the latter part of October.

, SWEC Engineering Assurance has performed an audit of the SWEC

' New York Office activities and has scheduled audits of the Boston and Cherry Hill activities for November 1985. ,

(11) The current estimate for the SWEC reanalysis, modification 2

and redesign effort is estimated to be 675,000 manhours.- This estimate does not include the manhours associated with' the J physical hardware changes.

2. EBASCO Design Verification Effort This effort involves a complete verification of original design and as-built construction associated with the design and construction of the Unft #1 and #2 electrical cable tray and conduit suopn-ta.

a. Current Activities:

(1) For Unit #1 and those cable tray supports in the common area serving Unit #1, of h527 supports approximately 1270 have been as-built.'

Of these 1270, some 933 have been transmitted to EBASCO for design verification.

1 (2) At the time of the inspection there were 17 valkdown teams document-r ing Unit #1 as-built conditions for cable tray supports. These teams consist each of an engineer, QC inspector and construction

{a personnel. The present intent is to increase the number of teams i to 25 in order to complete the walkdown effort by the end of December.

(3) On Unit #1, TUGC0 has determined the total population of conduit .

i supports. This conduit population has been further subdivided i into discrete populations for power / control and lighting groups.

Samples of 60 runs will be selected for each of the two groups to l establish a statistically based sample and their walkdown teams will g doctament their as-built condition. Subsequent _to the as-built y determination TUGC0 will analyze the supports and perform design i' modifications ad required. _ The as-built walkdowns are presently underway and should be completed by mid-December. . The TUGC0 engi-

! neering analysis should be completed by the end of December and will be reviewed by Gibbs and Hill.

y

~

(14) The Unit #2 cable tray supports and those supports in the comanon area serving Unit #2, a total of 3859, have been as-built verified.

f Of the total supports, 2876 have been design verified. EBASCO ex-7 perience to dato indicates that approximately 25% of these will require

, actual field mitor and major modifications. These modifications are j now in progress sad of the estimated 950 supports requiring design

! modifications 680 have been design modified. To date very few of the supports have been field modified. The present schedule calls l

for completion of the design verification and modification effort by

} April 1986.

(5) Of approximately 15,000 conduit supports required for Unit #2 some. '

, 13,000 supports have been installed. These supports are being designed to more conservative criteria than that utilised for Unit #1 and

incorporate those modifications that were considered necessary for i

i 3

i

r 6

Unit #1. Many of the Unit #1 conduit supports had utilized Unistrut but on Unit #2 Unistrut has not been utilized for conduit support design.

(6) Corporate Consulting and Development has been conducting a series of tests for conduit supports. The purpose of this test program is to demonstrate that the Unistrut supports used in the Seismic Category I conduit and junction box supports are structurally adequate to withstand the maximum loads postuhted to be applied to the supports during the design basis earthquake condition. These tests are asso-ciated with the use of Unistrut, conduit clamps and junction boxes for the conduit and support installations. Some of the above testing is complete and the balance of the testing is expected to be completed by January 1986. As a result of these tests, modifications will be required to some Unistrut, conduit clamps and junction box installa-tions.

(7) Under TUGC0 direction, ANCO Engineers is planning to conduct a series of tests in support of the Unit #1 cable tray support program. These tests involve shake table testing, Hilti bolt base plate connections, cable tray clamps, and specific support configurations. The objective of this test progran is to verify modelling assumptions performed by Gibbs and Hill and to support modelling planned by TERA. This testing is scheduled to start in the first week of November at ANCO facili-ties in Culver City, California and the total test program is scheduled to be completed by March 1986.

(8) TUGC0 recently employed Impell Corporation as a consultant to review the portion of the cable tray support design being performed by EBASCO. The objective of the Impell overview is to determine if some of the cable tray support modifications being recommended by EBASCO can be safely reduced.

(9) Within the past month T0000 corporate quality assurance and Gibbs and Hill quality assurance organizations have conducted audits of the EBASCO site and home office activities.

l (10) A revised estimate has been made of the effort required by EBASCO to complete their work associated with the cable tray and conduit supports.

The most recent estimate for the total EBASCO plant effort is 1,500,000 manhours.

3. TERA Design Verification Effort TERA is responsible for the Design Adequacy Plan, acts as third party reviewer for design review, resolution of TRT issue specific action plans for the mechanical, civil and structural areas, tracking all external i issues and will prepare and issue a final design adequacy report at the conclusion of their effort.

h s

I

. . . . . . , ~ . . . - . - - - . . . .. . . - - . - . - -

y I

a. Current Activities (1) TERA has essentially completed the De' sign Adequacy Procedures (DAP)

[ for implementation of their design review process. Of the total of 19 CPRT - DAP procedures required, 17 have been issued for use and  :

the remaining two have been released for interim use. -

(2) TERA's site force.of a manager and six issue. coordinators are per-l i forming their respective ..tetivities relative to the TRT Issue j' Specific Action Plans that they are participating in.

l (3) TERA has developed and placed in service'a computer based tracking system for all external source issues. This system, on demand, will L, identify the issue, the source of the issue, and status. The_ issues l

are being added to the tracking system and some lh0 specific-piping '

l and support issues have been identified and transmitted to Stone

i. and Webster.

(h) ' TERA has received the NRC's staff prograpunatic and detailed comments ll to the CPRT Program Plan and is in the process of presenting their j1 suggested revisions for their portion of the work to'the CPRT Senior Review Team.

/

4 - .

h (5) TERA is now completing the Phase 3 effort of their Design Adequacy

1. Plan. The Phase 3 effort involves the performance of validation - .

checks to confim that the design review areas selected can be .uti-l lized as representative of the total plant design. 'The NRC staff ~ plans ,.

4 to review this Phase 3 effort in the latter part of October. .

! (6) TERA is continuing to review detailed equipment' lists to identify 1

those vendors that supplied hardware unique to the Comanche Peak '

site. This effort is being performed to assure that habiware de- _

l l

livered to the site is in accordance with FSAR requirements and procurement specifications.  :

(7) TERA has essentially completed the review of the Gibbs and Hill

~

drawings for the redesign of.the contnol room ceiling. Their consnents

, i have been transmitted to Gibbs and Hill.-

i g (8) TERA is continuing to prepare procedures and inspection check lists. -

l to implement their design verification activities for the Auxiliary ~ l Feedntter System and the Electric Power System.

(9) The IE Division of-Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training- l Center Programs continues to evaluate the TERA _ Design Adequacy Program. -i i.

They are issuing weekly reports to document tbs progress of their .

evaluation of the DAP..

~

i b

l

=7- 9 -.y., .g_, . w y --w.- e p-v-,,e,e ,3,. .-.,. , , . e ., pp- , ,y ,, -,, w.,.,,s,.-,- ,,,,,..ee. . .,m,w -m..%., v-

m_ _ ___ . ._ _ . .. _ ._. . . _ _. . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___

A (10) The current estimate for the TERA scope of work involved in the

~

CPRT effort is now 110,000 manhours.

1 i h. QA/QC Construction Verification Effort

This effort encompasses a statistically based sample reinspection of QC accepted construction work supplemented by a review of related quality-documentation.

a. Current-Activities:

(1) The administrative control procedures for this effort are complete ,

j and issued. Overall control of this effort is also contained in a Management Plan that describes which of the 10CFR 50 Appendix B criteria are applicable to th;s effort.

(2) The 26 hardware population d9scriptions for the construction veri-i ' ~, fication effort have been completed. For the present scope of

! reinspection about 22h0 inspection packages will be required to i conduct all reinspections. As of October 11, 1985 9h6 of these l packages had been utilized for field inspections. By this i measure, approximately h0% of the field inspections have been completed.

l +

t

(3) As a result of the hardware inspections 923 Deviation Reports-l (DRs) have been issued as of October 11, 1985. Of these 923 DRs  ;

j some h3h have been determined to be valid of which 187 have been

evaluated for safety significance. A separate Safety Significance

! Evaluation Group of 30 engineers conduct independent evaluations:

of valid DRs to detemine safety significance.

l I (h) Valid DRs are transmitted to TU0C0 where a TUGC0 Inspection Report- '. .'

! and Nonconfomance Report are generated for tracking,2 dispositioning l and implementing corrective action where necessary. This process

! maintains the facility inspection of record under TUGC0 control.and j places documentation and corrective action under the TUGC0 Quality .

l Assurance Program.

l (5) Region IV is maintaining its goal of witnessing 10% of _the rein-spections and independently inspecting 55. Monthly meetings are being

< held with TIKiC0 to comment on the reinspection effort and R-IV is 's currently issuing a monthly inspection report that documents their

! efforts in the hardware and documentation verification effort.

i (6) The internal Quality Assurance Program relative to the construction l verification effort is currently being implemented. .To date one audit i and 15 surveillances of their reinspection activities have, been '

conducted. -

d i

,, a y . . . _ ,--my.-,_.,.s..-,-e,. . ,..% -

.r..w.,. . , - . - , .,y-... _4 ,. ... -.-..-.,,..,,,-,-.-m-.a,r.c.a-.,,,,m.,w , , w r, ,- ... , ~ ,,,..r.,-

(7) Th review of hardware documentation packages is now in progress.

This effort is utilized to assess items that are inaccessible or non-recreatable. Of the approximate 2360 documentation packages to be reviewed, 580 packages have been issued and 360 have been reviewed as of October 11,1985. Of the packages reviewed, some 367 DRs have been generated. The determination of the validity and safety significance of these DRs has not yet fully commenced.

(8) Staffing for the QA/QC construction verification effort was at 171 persons on site during the week of October lh, 1985. It is anticipated:that this effort will peak out at about 180 persons.

(9) At the time of the inspection it is estimated that about 30% of the total hardware and documentation reinspection effort has been completed. This effort is now approximately one month behind schedule and is anticipated to be completed in February 1986.

(10) The current estimate for the construction verification and documenta-

+ ion review effort is approximately 190,000 manhours.

5. TRT issue Specific Action Plans-Implementation Each of SSER's prepared as a result of the TRT inspections resulted in specific actions required by TUEC to resolve outstanding deficiencies.

For each of the issue specific items TUEC has developed action plans and is in the process of implementing them. As each of the action plans is completed a results report will be prepared for each item. The specific details for each of the following TRT issue specific items can be found in the respective SSERs or in the Program Plan under Appendix C.

a. Current Activities:

The following is a listing of the TRT items and their status at the time of the site reviews ITEM STATUS

. Heat Shrinkable . Actions completed.

l Insulation Sleeves (I.a.1) Preparing results report i

. Inspection Reports on Butt Splices (I.a.2) . Actions completed. As result of QC Inspector reviews action plan being expanded.

i

. Butt Splice Qualification . Actions completed.

(I.a.3) Results report in review cycle.

l

( . Agreement Between DWGS . Actions completed.

and Field Term's (I.a.h) Revising results report.

. NCRs on Vendor Installed . Work completed.  !

Amp. Terminal Plugs (I.a.5) Results report in review cycle.

7 l

ITEM- STATUS

. Flexible Conduit To . Additional analysis in Flex. Conduit Separation (I.b.1) progress.

. Flex. Conduit to Cable . Additional analysis in Separation (I.b.2) progress.

. Conduit to Cable Tray . Actions completed.

Separation (I.b.3) Results report in review cycle.

. Barrier Removal (I.b.h) . Actions completed.

Preparing results report.

. Electrical Conduit . Analysis and walkdowns in Supports (I.C) progress.

. QC Inspector Qual's . Electrical Inspector (I.d.1) Qualifications Review in progress.

. Guidelines for Admin. . Procedure completed.

Of QC Inspection Test (I.d.2) Reviewing implementation.

Preparing results report.

. Reinforcing Steel In . Work completed.

The Reactor Cavity (II.a) Results report in preparation.

g

. Concrete Compression . Field work completed.

Strength (II.b) Preparing results report.

. Maint. of Air Gap . Mapping of air gaps is between Concrete complete. Removal of Buildings (II.c) concrete and debris to start shortly.

Seismic Design of . Gibbs & Hill design of Control Room Ceiling new ceiling complete. TERA Elements (II.d) reviewed design and submitted comments.

. Rebar in the Fuel . Evaluation in progress.

Handling Building (II.e)

. Hot Functional (HFT) . Review completed.

Data Packages (III.a.1) Preparing results report.

. JTG Approval ofcTest . Work complete.Results LData (III.a.2) report in review cycle.

8

v q

l

.= 1 a

ITEM STATUS

. Technical Specification . Work ccmplete. Action For Deferred Tests (III.a.3) Plan implemented.

. Traceability of Test . Work complete. Results Equi;xnent (III.a.h) report in review cycle.

Conduct of CILRT (III.b) . Work complete. Preparing results, report.

. Prerequisite Testing (III.c) . Evaluation complete.

Results report in review cycle.

. Preoperational Testing (III.d) . Review completed.

Results report in review dycle.

. Skewed Welds in NF . Sanple inspected.

Supports (V.a) Engineers evaluating results.

. Steam Generator . Work on " Hold". Awaiting Anchor Bolts (V.b) completion <of evaluation of

. upper lateral support by Gibbs and Hill.

. Design Consideration For Piping Systems Bet.

. Reanalysis .to be perfomed by SWEC with overview Seis CAT I & Non-Seismic by TERA.

Cat I Bldgs. (V.c)

. Plug Welds (V.d) . Inspection in Progress.

. Installation of Main . Completed field work.

Steam Pipes (V.e) Results report in review cycle.

. Gap Between Reactor . Design change and critical Vessel Insulation a space review in progress.

i Biological Shield Wall (VI.a) Preparing sample population list and. conducting < reviews.

. Polar Crane Shimming (VI.b) .

Crane Rail motion test complete.

To make final inspections.

. Valve Disassembly (VII.b.2) . Results report in review cycle. , i w

9 l

l l

I l

1 I

I ITEM STATUS '

. Material Traceability . Review pending input (VII.a.1) from other reinspection activities.

. Non-conformance and . Review of various corrective Corrective Action Systems action systems continues.

(VII.a.2)

. Document Control (VII.a.3) . Review pending results '

from VII.c document review

. Audit Program and Auditor . Results report in review Qualification (VII.a.h) cycle.

. Management Assessment . Review in progress.

(VII.s.5) Examining INPO and other utility programs.

. Exit Interviews (VII.a.6) . Review in progress.

Ev= mining other utility programs.

. Housekeeping and system . Preparing results report.

Cleanliness (VII.a.7)

. Fuel Pool Liner Documentation . Review of travellers (VII.a.8) in progress.

. Onsite Fabrication .

Sample selection completed.

VII.b.1) Review of packages to start shortly

. Valve Disesembly . Results report in (VII.b.2) review cycle.

. Pipe Supports (VII.b.3) . Issuing reinspection packages.

I

. Hilti Bolts (VII.b.h) . Developing torque test program.

. Electrical Raceway Supports . Selected sample, (VII.b.5) preparing inspection packages.

eseg/k:

• z Paul Keshishian Comanche Peak Project l

l l

_