ML20207L226
| ML20207L226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1986 |
| From: | Russell Gibbs TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207K584 | List: |
| References | |
| 222.3-(B), 222.3-(B)-R01, 222.3-(B)-R1, NUDOCS 8701120035 | |
| Download: ML20207L226 (16) | |
Text
'
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER: 1
{
TITLE: SUPPORT WELD DESIGN Drawings Do Not Always Show Weld Size PAGE 1 0F 15 REASON FOR REVISION:
- l. To incorporate comments by SRP, TAS, and TVA, include TVA's corrective action plan information (see Section 10), and to comply with current format.
4
( PREPARED BY:
I2-I2-BG,
~?fh h b & / MTURE
~
DATE
- REVIEWS REVIEW C0tti 11 E
-1111 /' - = ^ e .%
l lb hb
' U IGNATURE
/ DATE
,N. ,,t 2d/ eEA
' Mk' DATE g,, AMSiesif SIGNATURE CONCURRENCES 4
~# N bhO
, DO 27. .
~
CEG-H:b N b' d I 2 A C 2'l
-i SRP: & y) $hpxt- iz 8(s
- DATE SIGNATURE DATE / SIGNATU p
}
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
APPROVED BY:
'JN. 3.MO. ~ t1 f 3lfMc N/A DATE DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER d vECSP MANAGER
(, CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS kEPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 2 0F 15
- 1. CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE (S):
Concerns: Issues:
EX-85-061-004 a. Pipe support drawings do not
" Drawings do not always show always show all details, complete details, i.e., specific particularly weld sizes.
weld size. Construction concern.
CI has no additional detail." b. Welds are not detailed properly on pipe support drawings.
OE-QMS-8 "Two areas regarding design c. Effect of base plate flexibility methods for pipe supports are onanchorboltdesignisnot not receiving proper consideration: being considered. tDiscussed in Construction Subcategory 10400.)
o Effect of baseplate flexibility on anchor loads.
o detailing methods for welds."
- 2. HAVE ISSUE (S) BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES X NO
( o Identified by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Date 08/26/86 NRC Report No. 50-327, 328/86-33 o Identified by Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS)
Date 03/07/86 NSRS Investigation Report #1-85-473 NPS
- 3. DOCUMENT NOS., TAG N05., LOCATIONS OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT.
None
- 4. INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:
Review of interview files for concerns EX-85-061-004 and OE-QMS-8 shows the following information:
Concern: EX-85-061-004 o K-forms: 001, 002, 003, 004, and 005 k
1010d - 12/11/86
. t
~
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 (e' PAGE 3 0F 15 Concern: OE-QMS-8 o Interoffice memos between CI and his supervisors.
o NCRs: W8N WBP 8340 and WBN WBP 8341, for base plate flexibility considerations.
o CEB memo (CEB 820521 003), for rigid plate method justification.
- 5. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
See Appendix A.
- 6. WHAT REGULATIONS, LICENSING C0feITMENTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
See Appendix A.
- 7. LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND OTHER
(- DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
See Appendix A.
- 8. EVALUATION PROCESS:
Selected a sample of pipe support drawings for review. I a.
- b. Reviewed supports selected in item (a) to verify completeness I of the drawings.
- c. Verified as-built condition if the drawings reviewed had l l incomplete information.
- 9. DISCUSSION, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Chronology:
10/18/85: TVA receives Employee Concern EX-85-061-004 11/85: NSRS Investigates the employee concerns (NSRS Investigation Report I-85-473 NPS) k 1010d - 12/11/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 4 0F 15 01/08/86: TVA issues memo from M. M. McGuire to H. L.
Abercrombie,
Subject:
Prograni Plan for Conversion to Configuration Control Drawings Early 86: TVA implements a welding project review plan 06/07/86: NRC audits TVA's welding project Phase II report 07/24/86: TVA receives Employee Concern OE-QMS-8 Discussion:
The issues "a" and "b" refer to incompleteness of pipe support design drawings, especially in terms of weld sizes and details. I Issue "c" refers to the effect of base plate flexibility on the anchor bolt design. The first two issues are discussed here. The third issue is in the scope of the Construction group and is evaluated under Subcategory #10400.
To evaluate the validity of the concern, the 34 pipe support
. drawings listed in App. A, 5.f were selected for review. These
- l. supperts were random 1v -'ected from the systems listed below.
During their selectic. ansideration was given to include different types of supports such as snubbers, struts, springs, anchors, and rigid frames.
o Main Steam o Aux. Feedwater o Upper Head Injection o Blow Down o Containment Cooling o Containment Spray o Fuel Pool Cooling
- o Reactor Coolant c Safety Injection o Condensate o Chemical Volume Control Each of the 34 support drawings was reviewed to determine if: l o All welded connections have the required weld symbols o All items specified in the bill of materials are correct and complete
(
1010d - 12/11/86
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 b PAGE 5 0F 15 o Sufficient dimensional information is included for use by Construction o Design details are presented with sufficient clarity o Degree of completeness for other miscellaneous items (location plan, load or movement information, clearances, etc.) is acceptable o Detailing method for welds is properly considered
. Of the total 34 support designs reviewed, 16 were determined to be complete in every major respect. For the remaining 18 support designs the following observations were made:
Support Item MK No. Rev Observations Comments 1 1-MSH-77 2 Weld size missing for Field Change Request (FCR) l
(
item 1 to item 2 should have been generated before installation.
2 1-MSH-300 905 North arrow not Drafting error. No impact specified on plan view on construction.
3 1-MSH-357 905 Item 4 material not FCR should have been generated specified in bill of before installation.
materials. Weld for item 4 to item 1 and to pipe clamp not specified l
l Fillet weld specified FCR should have been generated l
for item 2 to existing before installation.
steel is incorrect
'- 4 1-AFDH-270A 5 Installation orienta- May delay construction /
tion for item 7 not QC inspection, but is not specified a safety concern.
b.
1010d - 12/11/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 b PAGE 6 0F 15 Support Item MK No. Rev Observations Comments 5 1-AFDH-369 906 Weld for item 1 to FCR should have been generated item 2 not specified before installation.
6 1-F0H-45 1 Weld size is missing FCR should have been generated for item 1 and item 2 before installation.
7 2-UHIH-145 905 Fillet weld specified FCR should have been generated for item 1 to item 5 is before installation.
incorrect 8 2-SGBH-70 1 Weld size to process FCR should have been generated pipe not specified before installation.
(
FCR should have been generated 9 2-SGBH-72 1 The fillet and pene-tration welds specified before installation.
for item 1 to item 2 are conflicting 10 2-H10-352 1 Mark No. should be Drafting error. No impact 2CCH-352 on construction.
11 2-CCH-367 1 Minimu:n thickness for FCR should have been generated item 7 not specified before installation.
12 2-CCH-372 2 Weld size item 1 to FCR should have been generated item 10 not specified before installation.
Section "B-B" is used Drafting error. No impact on for two different installation.
sections k
1010d - 12/11/86 l
1
B ,
-TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 7 0F 15 Support Item MK No. Rev Observations Comments 13 2-CCH-374 1 Weld for item 3 to FCR should have been generated item 7 not specified before installation.
Dimensions for FCR should have been generated installation for item before installation.
13 not shown Item 3 quantity Drafting error. No impact on should be 2 installation.
14 2-CSH-15 905 No weld specified for FCR should have been generated item 5 before installation.
c 15 1-FPCH-527 2 Weld for item 13 to FCR should have been generated 0 item 16 not specified before installation.
16 1-RCH-134 905 Item 6 not numbered Drafting error. No impact on in bill of materials construction.
Weld shown in Sec. Drafting error. No impact on B-B is not clear construction.
17 2-RCH-242 903 3/16 all-around weld Drafting error. No impact on (near item 2) is an construction.
error 3/16 weld for RBKT Drafting error. No impact on '
to PL is pointing to construction, wrong direction 18 2-CVCH-614 904 No location reference FCR should have been generated is given for item 2. before installation.
b 1010d - 12/11/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
{ PAGE 8 0F 15 Summary of observations:
- b. Improper weld details, i.e., - 17%
wrong weld symbols
- c. Miscellaneous; such as item - 28%
missing in bill of materials, wrong hanger mark, no orientation and location for
, item, and missing north arrows for plan views Sequoyah (SQh) was requested to verify as-built weld size, type, I and design adequacy for the missing welds identified in the above review for the following support drawings:
- a. 1-MSH-77
- b. 1-AFDH-369
- c. 1-FDH-45
- d. 1-FPCH-527 l In response to this request, SQN performed walkdowns (App. A, 5.m) to verify the missing welds, and found all-around fillet weld in all cases. In addition, TVA verified the design adequacy of these welds by evaluating weld calculations (App. A, 7 9). This verification indicates that adequate welds were performed, even though they were missing on the support drawings. The performance of adequate welding by Construction can be attributed to their informal communication with Engineering.
TVA implemented a welding project review plan in early 1986 to address various welding concerns for their nuclear plants. The scope of this program is to determine the adequacy of TVA's welding program and to assure that installed weldments meet code and the regulatory requirements.
During Phase II of the welding review program, SQN inspected structural welds in accordance with NCIG-01 requirements published by Nuclear Construction Issues Group. Welds for 403 joints (50 structures) were inspected from pipe, conduit, HVAC, and cable tray supports and other miscellaneous structure supports. Of the total 50 structures inspected, 33 were from pipe supports. Sixteen l percent of pipe support components welds were found with deficiencies such as joints with weld missing, or..itted weld, and size. Tnese deficiencies were evaluated by SQN (OE) and were b accepted by engineering evaluations for design loads.
1010d - 12/11/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 9 0F 15 In June and July 1986, NRC audited TVA's welding project Phase II Report. NRC team inspected 32 pipe supports involving approximately 582 structural welds (App. A, 5.k and 5.1). All of these welds were previously inspected by TVA per the above described program. The supporting engineering calculations for the welds, found to be deficient during the TVA inspection effort, were also reviewed for adequacy. The following observations were noted by the NRC:
- a. Five supports had flare welds which were not shown on the drawings.
- b. Two support drawings did not have adequate weld details. I
- c. Four supports had shimming plates added that were not shown on the drawings.
- d. The vertical position of one support differed from the support drawing.
7
- e. In some cases the drawings called for fillet weld while the G actual welds were found to be bevel welds.
The NRC conclusion of the audit finding is quoted below:
"With the exception of the items identified above, the inspected welding activities were found to comply with the applicable specifications. Most of the identified weld deficiencies have been identified and evaluated as a result of the TVA reinspection effort. The deficient welds were determined to be adequate for the intended application. The NRC inspectors reviewed the supporting engineering calculations for those welds and no problems or discrepancies were noted."
The evaluation team's findings and similar findings of NRC audit team conclude that the pipe support drawings do not show complete details and welds are not detailed properly. However, the verification of the missing welds by TVA and the verification of the TVA Welding Program Phase II report by NRC demonstrate that the supports were adequately installed and there is no safety concern.
1010d - 12/11/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 I PAGE 10 0F 15 Four employee concerns on SQN related to inaccurate design drawings and lack of their agreement with as constructed configuration were investigated and reported by Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) in March 1986. This investigation report (App. A, 5.a) concluded that:
o The employee concerns were valid.
o SQN did not have adequate control of processing Field Change Requests (FCRs).
o SQN did not have adequate control of reporting configuration deviation which is required by SQN procedure AI-25.
o SQN did not have a systematic overall configuration control program in place.
As a result of the above report, SQN committed to a " program plan for conversion to configuration control drawings," (App. A, 5.b).
SQN has also committed to NRC (App. A, 5.k) that this program, when implemented, will address irregularities in support details as quoted below:
"Section 3 of Volume II of TVA's revised nuclear performance plan for Sequoyah provides an action plan that will improve the design control program for the Sequoyah nuclear plant when implemented. This plan includes the reconciliation of 'as-constructed' and
'as-designed' drawings to achieve a single set of plant drawings. This plan should address the irregularities identified above to ensure that the welds and welding requirements stated on the 'as designed' drawings match the installed hardware."
Findings
- a. The concern is valid as SQN pipe support drawings do not always show complete details such as weld size, type, etc.
- b. In spite of the abcve incomplete information, the actual pipe support installations are complete, especially for adequate welds (App.A,5.m). l k
1010d - 12/11/86
?
9
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: I h PAGE 11 0F 15
- c. SQN has committed to a program plan for conversion to configuration control drawings to correct the problem of incomplete details on design drawings.
Conclusion:
The concern about incomplete details and welds not being detailed properly on pipe support drawings is valid; however, there is no safety implication as the actual installations have been verified (on a sample basis) to be adequate for the intended applications. l
- 10. CORRECTIVE ACTION:
In its corrective action plan (CAP) (App. A, 5.p), TVA commits to documenting modifications to the supports on configuration control drawings. This will be done in accordance with SQN procedures SQEP-13 and SQEP-17 (App. A, 5.n and 5.0). The evaluation team concurs with the CAP.
h.
lC 1010d - 12/11/86
\
~
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 b PAGE 12 0F 15 APPENDIX A
- 5. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
- a. NSRS Investigation Report No. I-85-473 NPS,
Subject:
Configuration Control at SQN, BFN and OE, (03/07/86)
- b. TVA Memo from M. M. McGuire to H. L. Abercrombie,
Subject:
Program Plan for Conversion to Configuration Contro's Drawings,(01/08/86)
. c. TVA Pipe Support Manual for SQN, Volume 2, 3 and 4, Rev. O, (04/22/83)
- d. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-24.1, Rev. 0, (06/23/86),
" Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category I Structures"
- e. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-2.14, Rev. O, (06/30/86),
" Piping System Anchors Installed in Category I Structures"
- f. Pipe Support Drawings
({
1-MSH-77(H1-17)/R2 2-CCH-372(2-H10-372)/R2 1-MSH-130(H1-77,78)/R1 2-CCH-374(2-H10-374)/R1 1-MSH-165(H1-120)/R4 1-CSH-44(1-H21-44)/R904 1-MSH-300(1-H1-300)/R905 2-CSH-14(2-H21-14)/R906 1-MSH-301(1-H1-301)/R906 2-C5H-15(2-H21-15)/R905 1-MSH-357(1-H1-357)/R905 1-FPCH-505(H50-505)/R901 1-MSH-503(H1-503)/R4 1-FPCH-527(H50-527)/R2 1-AFDH270A(H3-280A)/R5 1-RCH-134(1-H36-134)/R905 1-AFDH-369(H3-424)/R906 1-RCH-136(1-H36-136)/R4 1-FDH-45(H4-43)/R1 1-RCH-138(1-H36-138)/R1 1-FDH-201(1-H4-201)/R1 2-RCH-242(2-H26-242)/R903 2-UHIH-144(2-H45-144)/R02 1-SIH-365(1-SIH-365)/R2 2-UHIH-145(2-H45-145)/R905 1-CH-78(H6-78)/R2 2-SGBH-70(2-H47-70)/R1 2-CVCH-614(2-H34-614)/R904 2-SGBH-72(2-H47-72)/R1 2-CVCH-615(2-H34-615)/R4 2-H10-352 2-H10-352 /R1 2-CVCH-806 2-H34-806 /R902 2-CCH-367 2-H10-367 /R1 2-CVCH-813 2-H34-813 /R0
- g. Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP), of Volume II, Rev.1, l (07/14/86)
- h. Excerpts from program plan that relates to the drawing conversion process, (7/21/86) b 1010d - 12/11/86 i
E
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 13 0F 15 APPENDIX A (cont'd)
- 1. TVA Welding Project Review Plan J. Memo from R. G. Domer to H. L. Abercrombie, Subject " Welding Project-Sequoyah Update" (02/10/86)
~
- k. NRC letter to TVA, docket Nos. 50-327 & 50-328 (08/25/86)
- 1. NRC Report No. 50-327, 328/86-33, docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 (08/25/86)
- m. As-built information for missing welds (10/09/86)
- n. Sequoyah Engineering Procedure SQEP-13 for Transition and Design Change Control, R1, (08/25/86)
- o. Sequoyah Engineering Procedure SQEP-17 for Origination and Categorization of Configuration Control Drawings, R1, (07/31/86)
( p. TCAB-023, Corrective Action Plan for Element 222.3 (12/08/86)
- 6. WHAT REGULATIONS, LICENSING COMMITMENTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
- b. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-24.1, Rev. O, " Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category I Structures" (06/23/86)
- c. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-2.14, Rev. O, " Piping System Anchors Installed in Category I Structures" (06/30/86)
- 7. LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEE NT.
- a. RFI #SQN-515, (08/24/86)
- b. RFI #5QN-579, (09/22/86)
- . RFI #SQN-614, (10/03/86)
C..
1010d - 12/11/86 J
REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 b PAGE 14 0F 15
- d. RFI #SQN 628,(10/09/86)
- e. RFI #SQN-634, (10/15/86)
- f. TVA Transmittal flo. 126 (10/06/86)
- g. Telecon between Sandra Cook, TVA, and K. Jandu, Bechtel, IOM #304, (10/08/86)
[_
t i
1010d - 12/11/86 I
- * . TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
- h- PAGE 15 0F 15 CATD LIST The following CATDs identify and provide corrective actions for the findings included in this report:
i 222 03 SQN 01 (11/05/86) i e
c D
t i
i i
l
.j L
i 1010d - 12/11/86 i
. . - - , ~ . , . . - - - , ,.- - -,_ ._,,- -.~,,----,~ - --.--- - - _ - - . - - - , . . - _
r ,y ,
P %
.. p ill i
REFERENCE - ECPS120J-ECPS121C TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE -
101 . *
-, FREQUENCY - REQUEST
~
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR POWER RUN TIME - 12:57:19
- ONP - ISSS - RHM EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS) RUN DATE - 12/02/86 LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION CATEGORY: EN DES PROCESS & OUTPUT SUBCATEGORY: 22203 DRAHINGS DO NOT ALHAYS SH0H HELD SIZE
~
) S GENERIC KEYHORD A H APPL QTC/NSRS P KEYHORD B CONCERN SUB R PLT BBSH INVESTIGATION S CONCERN KEYNORD C
) NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FL45 REPORT R DESCRIPTION KEYHORD D EX 061-004 EN 20404 S HBN YYYY SR DRAHINGS DO NOT ALHAYS SH0H COMPLETE DOCUMENT CONTROL T50183 EN 22203 REPORT DETAILS, I.E. SPECIFIC HELD SIZE. DRAHINGS CONSTRUCTION CONCERN. CI HAS NO ADD HELDING ITIONAL DETAIL. HELDS D E-QfiS-8 CD 10400 S NPS YYYY SS TH0 AREAS REGARDING DESIGN METHODS F EN 22203 REPORT OR PIPE SUPPORTS ARE NOT RECEIVING P
) R0PER CONSIDERATION: 1) EFFECT OF 5 ASEPLATE FLEXIBILITY ON ANCHOR LOADS
. 2) DETAILING METHODS FOR HELDS.
SI 2 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY EN SUBCATEGORY 22203
)
.)
J
)
J
.)
J J
_