ML20209G438

Nuclear Safety Review Staff Investigation Rept I-85-968-SQN on 860205-11 Re Inadequate Knowledge of Electrical QC Inspectors

ML20209G438
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/20/1986
From:	Breeding C, Brock L, Stevens W TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20209G315	List: ML20209G310 ML20209G354 ML20209G375 ML20209G398 ML20209G423 ML20209G438
References
I-85-968-SQN, NUDOCS 8704300545
Download: ML20209G438 (19)

Text

-

. f .

hh h-y . .

1 i

a g.

h e, TENNESSEE' VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF y

NSRS JNVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-85-968-SQU -

A EMPLOYEE CONCERN 00-85-005-002

( -

SUBJECT:

INADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF ELECTRICAL QC INSPECTORS DATES OF INVESTIGATION: February 5-11, 1986

} .

5 '

INVESTIGATOR:

- m - J / b C'. L. Breeding Date REVIEWED BY:

l.. E. Brock 7!/f!fd Date APPROVED BY: N W. D. Stevens Date

n

. I

{']

4 4 - ,

3 a y .

e .

as Il r?

P-  :.

01103 5 8704300545 870427 4 hDR ADOCK 05000327

]; PDR 4

s.

. (.*.6. $.w0 kU I

I. BACKCROUND l A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation was conducted to l determine the validity of an expressed employee concern received by the l Quality Technology Company (QTC) Employee Response Team. The concern of

( record, as summarized on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Form from QTC and identified as 00-85-005-002, stated:

Sequoyah: - Electrical QC inspectors do not have adequate knowledge of what they are inspecting. And get by only with help of procedures. Because of their inexperience,

)

electrical inspectors sometimes accepted unevenly bent conduit and conduit joints with too many exposed threads. i This occurred in 1977. CI has no specifics or further information. Construction Department concern. ,

II." SCOPE ~

\

t The scope of this investigation was determined from the stated concern of record to be two issues requiring investigation.

A. Electrical Quality Control (QC) inspectors do not have adequate

. knowledge.

B. Inspectors accepted unevenly bent conduit and conduit joints with too many exposed threads, i The scope was confined to the construction period of work at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) since the concern specifies 1977. There was very little work involving #

the operating and maintenance _ organization at that -

time.  :.

III.

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS -

Requirements and Commitments A.

1. 10CFR5'.0, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" ,

2. TVA General Construction Specification C-40, " Installing

, Electrical Conduit Systems and conduit Boxes," R1 dated Decembec.3, 1976 -

3. TVA Division of Construction SNP Inspection Instruction No. 26,

" Exposed Conduit and Conduit Boxes Inspection," R0 dated May 26, 1977; R1 dated June 11. 1977; R2 dated September 13, 1977; R3 .

dated October 14, 1977  ;

1 i 6 b

3 g ____.__m_._ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - .

\# T

.f ,

W( \(7: V

4. Electrical Design Standard DS-E13.1.7, " Dimensions of Rigid and Flexible Metal Conduit Bends," issued September 30, 1976 B. Findings The concern stated that the QC inspectors needed procedures to aid them in their job. The use of procedures in this manner is encouraged so that the inspector will be able to base the inspection on areas contained in a documented set of guidelines. The i inspectors are trained in the use of the QC inspection procedures ..

such as SNP Inspe~' c tion Instruction No. 26, " Exposed Conduit and .

Conduit Boxes Inspection." This procedure was used by construction QC inspectors for conduit inspections. The procedure was issued and then revised three times in 1977. None of the revisions required that conduit bends be inspected. Interviews with past construction inspectors indicated that they never checked for proper conduit-bend radius. The procedure has clear instructions for inspection of conduit identification, grounds, conduit fittings and lubricant, 1 flexible conduit, burrs and sharp edges, physical separation, t t hangers, and termination. All of these areas were part of an inspection record the inspector filled out and signed. Exact specifications for conduit bends are found in the Electrical Design {

Standard DS-E13.1.7. This standard gives minimum bend radius and ,

minimum straight length required after the bend. It is not known if -}

this standard was actually used by craftsmen in the field at SQN. '

The standard states in section 1.0: "This standard gives the .j minimum band' radius requirements to be used in the design and .{

installation of conduit systems."

]'

TVA General' Construction Specification G-40, " Installing Electrical Conduit Systems and Conduit Boxes," states in section 3.2.4.1 (b), . .,'

" Running threads on field threaded conduits shall not be used on h metal conduits for connection at couplings." Running threads are 'l extra throeds; and when they are used at a coupling, the coupling or . 1 other connector will not cover all of the threads. The National.,, ,

f Electrical Code contains an almost identical statement about running ' I threads. TVA QC instructions did not require inspection for exposed threads. Adherence to the construction procedure and the National Electrical Code was the responsibility of the craftsman.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS t A. Conclusions. - I

(

This concern is partially substantiated. QC inspectors were not required to inspect conduit bends or exposed conduit threads. The electrical craftsmen were expected to properly install conduit and .

, I

, i n

2

]..

'N

. yw.ta p,+:J _

4 then critical elements of the installation, such as identification and grounding, were inspected by QC inspectors. Conduit with exposed threads may be subject to rust where the cutting of the threads has removed the protective coating from steel conduit.

i; i The part of the concern which stated that.QC inspectors did not have adequate knowledge was not substantiated. The concerned individual

.1 stated that QC inspectors used procedures in the performance of

[ their jobs. This is the proper and accepted method for QC inspectors to perform their duties.

q

>< B. Recommendations s I-85-968-SQN-01, Evaluation of Exposed Threads and Unevenly Bent conduit .

j]j *

-f ,

An engineering evaluation of the effect of unevenly bent conduit and i exposed threads at conduit joints should be made. If this

)- g evaluation determines that either of these conditions could have an *

, , adverse effect on the nuclear safety of SQN, then a search should be

}L made to find such conduit and repair it. [P2] -

B 9O O

l e

k.

1i .

h . .  :

Ji ..

e; .

B ,

S . ,

L ,

.t  :

I .

0 h.

i s, .

d c

A' f '

3

'" I , . . . . . _ so. s-5. ,_

. l l

{~f#

, yp%./

. \

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION I-85-968-SQN AND REFERENCES

1. 10CFR50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"

2. TVA General Construction Specification C-40, " Installing Electrical Conduit Systems and Conduit Boxes " RO dated December 3, 1976

3. TVA Division of Construction SNP Inspection Instruction No. 26,

" Exposed Conduit and Conduit Boxes Inspection," RO dated ,

May 26, 1977 "

4. TVA Division of Construction,,SNP Inspection Instruction No. 26

" Exposed Conduit and Conduit Boxes Inspection," El dated June 11, 1977 5.

TVA Division of Construction. SNP Inspection Instruction No. 26,

" Exposed Conduit and Conduit Boxes Inspection," R2 dated

}, September 13, 1977

6. TVA Division of Construction, SNP Inspection Instruction No. 26

" Exposed Conduit and,, Conduit Boxes Inspection," R3 dated October 14, 1977

7. Electrical Design Standard DS-E13.1.7, " Dimensions of Rigid and Flexible Metal Conduit Bends," issued September 30, 1976 N

I 0

e G8 h-4

• ~'

_____a **

- 'E (l:i Q

ATTACHMENT C

, s' ' . ,

ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Trackine Document (CATD)

.f

.s INITI ATION_ ,_ ,

r Innediate Corrective Action Required: // Yes /X/ No .

L 1.

2. Stop Work Recommended: /;/ Yes /I/ No -- -

3. CATD Ho. 80202-$0N-1 4. INITIATION DATE 9/16/86

5. RESPONSIBLJ. ORGANIZATION: Office of Nuclear Power

6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /1/ QR /~/ NQR Standard Practice SOM 2. Revision 19, " Maintenance Management-System", and NOAM, Part II, Section 2.1 allows any plant emplovee to initiate an MR or WR for plant corrective. taaintenance or

- repair work and subett it to his suoervisor for further __ ,

processing. Standard Practice SQM 2. however, does not provide MR or WR status information to the initiating individual or organization.

_ - / .'.' . / / ATTACHMENTS

7. PREPARED BY: NAME R. D. Halverson M __ DATE: f/AWf%.

'9 44 / Ms CEG-il 74::" / VM / DATE:

8. CONCURRENCE:

( DATE:

9. APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR:

CORRECTIVE ACTION ~

10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:

Standard Practice SQM-2 will j be revised to incorporate provisions for notifying the originating Currently the WR tracking i section of reiected or cancelled WRs. allows system is accessible from an online computer menu that '

the originating section to view any MR/WR by I.D.

j s

/ / / /'d , / / ATTACHMENTS 4

11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR / R: 4/M#//B//m# DATE: /o /f r//(.

DATE: s_4. /f 7 5

12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H L_ .

'I (

• ' SRP DATE:

l ECTC PROCRAM MCR: DATE:

j I

) VERITICATION AND CLOSEOUT

~

13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.

{

! ~

~

TITI.E DATE

-SIGN ATURE ,

e

% h

..... p-- .

ATTACHMENT D (l'a

, . Page 1 of 5 -

ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document

. (CATD) -

' ,. , y

.c N.

INITIATION -

~

T ,,=

?

1. Inunediate Corrective Action Required: /I/ Yes /_/ No.. ~ -

j, 2.- Stop Work Recomunended: /~/ Yes /I/ No - ' ' ^-

3. CATD No. 80202-SQN-2 4. INITIATION DATE 9/16/86 -

o

5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: Office of Nuclear Power '

6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: -/I] QR ./ /- NQR As described in Element Report 80202-SQN, Concern 00-85-005-002.

no orocedure exists that mandates quality control insoections of conduit bends and exoosed threads at conduit ioints that verify '

, specification requirements have been meet.

~

~ / /ATTACHM$NTS

7. PREPARED BY: NAME R. D. Halverson M DATE: 9//4/fg i

8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-R 7A>t /#1_- / - DATE: 9//*/ &

4

9. APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR:

DATEi

, CORRECTTVE ACTION .

10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN: A memorandum was issued .

(SOS 861009 821) reipsestisg DNE to perform an Angineering evaluation as recommended by ECTG (copy attached).

, . v

~

r 3 /// / / /ATTAC N MTS

11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECT 0gR: '" o/#f/Aff/////////7@

DATE: X>//$/p' '

, 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-E m E G M4; DATE* '

l SRP: '

DATE:

ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE:

VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT

13. Approved corrective actions have been verified, as satisfactorily implemented.

i i

SIGNATURE TITLE DATE s f

i k

e een

. , , _ - , - - . . - _ _ . . . . . .._~, - - - - ,--.--,..so--- - . _ _ _

, e S08 861009 821

^"*lHMEN pg 5 October 9, 1986 ,

D. W. Wilson

- -~ '

ONP, DSC-E, Sequoyah * * -

Subject:

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) ENPIAYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG)

ELEMENT REPORT 802.02-SQN - CORRECTIVE ACTION TRACKING. DOCUMENT . .

(CATD) 80202-SQN-2

~

As lead coordinator of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the subject report, I am requesting that DNE perform an engineering evaluation regarding

• the effect of unevenly bent conduit and exposed threads at conduit joints on nuclear safety at SQN.

For additional information, attached is a copy of the3ubject report an'd CATD. This evaluation is needed as a result of a recomunendation made by the ECTG in the subject report in response to Employee Concern No. 00-85-005-002.

If this evaluation determines that either of these conditions could have an-i adverse affect on the nuclear safety of SQN, please provide design criteria that SQN can use to establish inspection and acceptance criteria. When you

provide any needed design criteria, I will work with you and SQN Site plant 4

management to develop and implement an inspection program if required.

~

All future correspondence on this subject should be sent tio R. C. Denney, SQN Employee Concern Special Project (ECSP) Manager, and an information copy sent -

to me. Please call Mr. Denney (Ext. 7009) by Friday, October 10, 1986, with the estimated completion date of the requested engineering evaluation.

Any questions should be referred to Julio Nieri at Ext. 7335. '

i

- ~

. 2 .

W. E. Andrews g , , g, JLh..tLY:JSN:RJZ l ttachments h h

~

cc (Attachments): (f RIMS, MR 4N 72A-C i H. L. Abercrombie, ONP, O&PS-4, SQN (Attn: R. C. Denney) 0291K i

---e 7 -- rw-, -

-'---rW--+ = - w ---w-y,--,---------w- --r----t----W--+-'+=--'-'w-'-----e'-r w- m-w &hw-N----'u---wr'-='-m- '-'--:---""-~"'T' --'"-' ' ' - - ' -"-v-"""

Pzgs 3 of.5

.- 8. * : :. . - Q"/;' (p~S Standard Practics 'PIga 8

.' SQA166.

Revision 8 Attachment A

. Page 1 of 2 - '?,.

~+. -, , , .~ ,,

Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation '..

Tracking Checklist .

.. c ECTG Report /CATD Number TC2 ,02. -$ W ID20 4 -6M- /, 742#2- 694/ -L Lead Organization Responsible for Corrective Action Plan '@vAsW/sme4Ncr ..

Initiation Date C t'T 2 / Tflo ,

~

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP) -

1. Does this report required corrective action? Yes X No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification)

See attached CATDs 80202-SQN-1 and 80202-SQN-2. ,

2. Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken.

~

3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings? Yes X No s 4.-Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cuality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.1? YES No X

5. IF a CAQ condition exists, what CAQ document was initiated?

r

6. Which site section/ organization is responsible for corrective action? '

SQN Maintenance' Scheduling (J. Ward) and DNE (Doug Wilson).

7. Is corrective action reguired for restart? Yes No X (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)

8. P2 zone number for restart' corrective action? Zone 7748

! 9. Estimate completion'date for correction action. December 12, 1956 ,

l

• i Completed By J. S., Nierk'.7lA/ Date 10/10/86 Approved By M E (> L 4 ~

Date /n/ N//d -

ECTG Concurrence Date ' V

)

I q -

g .

1 s

a 0206S/mit

!;I.

h

[ ,* . . * * - ATTACHMENT.D

(.I*91g29 I. '

Pcgs 4 of 5

'... SQA166 ,

Revision 8 -

ATTACHMDIT A Page 2 of 2 -

CAP CLOSURE >

10. Was your corrective action initiated and completed in accordance with step 1? ' -

Yes No

11. If step 10 is no, describe the corrective action taken. ,

V

12. Is the corrective action implementation complete? Yes No

13. Is the corrective action documentation closed? Yes -

No

14. What documents were used to implement the corrective action? -

Completed By: Date verified By: Date -

ECTG Closure: Date

.pe 3,. . ,.

(Step No.) Description .

2 C

e 0206S/mit

enrico srarcs covraxucxr C Pege 5 of 5 g S03 861016 803 "Memorandu m TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY .

TO -

. W.Nuclear R. Brown, Plant Program Manager, Employee Concerns Task G FROM -

roup, ONP, Watts Bar H. L. Abercronble, Site Director, ONP, O&PS-4 DATE  : October 20, 1986 , Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

SUBJECT:

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) P-(ECTG) ENPLOYEE CON REPORT

Reference:

802.02 SQN - QUALITY ASSURANCE ELEMENT ACTION PLAN (CAP)

CATEG Your memorandum to me dated September Plant - Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) uclear Element ' Re ort 80202-SQN - Inspection Procedures (Sequoyah)" (T25 860924 827)

I acknowledge receipt of your element report and in acco d r ance with your applicable corrective action. request (see reference), ee Element or Repo By this memorandum I an endorsing the site line organizatio the CAP for your review and concurrence.

requirement. This CAP is not a restartn CAP and attaching If you agree with the proposed CAP, please sign the ECTG co below item 9 on the CAP tracking checklist and return checklist. ncurrence thespace CAP tracking 80202-SQN-2) are being returned tomorandum. you .by way of this m 80202-SQN-1, LlMA L. Abercrombie RCD:JDS:JB:CS Attachment cc (Attachment): i RIMS, NR 4N 72A-C (S08 861014 873) RECEivro  !

A. G. Debbage, ONP, ECTG Building, WBN i.

0200T OfJ M $3 Empim? Co.. n::v c ca:wmi arlI aro  % ~ ,e n ,

4 G?A8//4 w

,M-ss i/ i, Op5b%.~T~Ql i

~

+H ,

+.  ; .

1 r-L.-

! Q.,AvcH  ;

p

h. "T- Q~]

p- . . . .l s r F-i n xcgce ws ,

1 -,!

i  : --

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Reenlar/v ~ % "- - " " w I

-- _. . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ __ __._________~_____-____.________

. .m o ,y .,

(~9 L:

. UNITED STATES GOVERN 5!ENT S03 8701""*801 Memorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY To .

W. R. Brown, Jr., Program Manager, Employee Concerns Task Group, ONP, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant FRO 3!  : H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, ONP, O&PS-4, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant DATE  : February 3, 1987 SUIUECT: SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) ELEMENT i REPORT 242.00 SQN R1 - ENGINEERING CATEGORY - CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)

Reference:

My memorandum to you dated December 4, 1986, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) - Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Element Report 802.02 SQN - Quality Assurance Category - Corrective Action Plan (CAP)" (S03 861202 805) l Attached is my revised CAP for Element Report 802.02 SQN for ycur f review / concurrence. This revised CAP supersedes the CAP previously transmitted to you (see above reference) and is not a restart requirement.

If you agree with the proposed CAP, please sign the ECTG concurrence space l below item 9 on the CAP tracking checklist and return the CAP tracking checklist.

3 0

Yhk%  !

q f H. L. Abercrombie RCD:JDS:JB:PW Attachment ec: RIMS, NR 4N 72A-C (B25 '870129 005)

T. C. Price, 5-212 SB-K (Attachment) RECE/ED l 0556T R3 4'g/

fE.'mtaCes7d

~ ,n -

s im

* ~:

1 ,, Y%

.. y

=

w . p --.

lg; 1. _L~ ::.:'~l.:

j

. .hh h.~:~

w . ~, .. p._ _

. .y - - - - .

. _,g.,...7-....

L v a-,.2.__ .

. --L; _

@p c[

,1 ._ A ce g ,[

(f)xe d Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan

y. W f Standard Practice Page 8 SQA164 navision 8

. , Attachment A

, Page 1 of 2 ,

p* Corrective Action Plaa of Suployee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist acro neport/CATD Number 802 O 2 - SG Al - 2.

Lead Organisation Responsible for Corrective Action Plan DA/E

~

Initiation Date OCT 9./986 e

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP) k

', 1. Does this report required corrective action? / \

(If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification)

Yes No _

S 6 E M TTA CNMEA/7' R I CRI ) . 5H 3 . 2 AND 3

. RI t

4rd 1 g

2. Identify any similar it instanees and corrective action taken.

NA I

' 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findingsT Yes - V" No

4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cuality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or Ntr 9.17 YES No / '

5. IF a CAQ oenditlen esists, what CRQ document was initiated? - - .. --

6. IGlich site section/e. ...1satten is responsible for corrective action?

E.te t 44 m#.C.s 4 ;o n

7. Is corrective estien required for restart? pg (This deteralastien la to be maes using Attachment C of SQA166 _.)

Yes uo 4 g

8. F2 sone number,for restart corrective action? Ione *J/A

9. Estimate completion date for correction action. O't AA A C TV i C eleted my a , rov.d my Je vuL aTv dwi d+ .- A nat.

not.

/r-/E//s t,

7 r# r L ECTG Concurrence _ '

Date _

TAP i \ t. m 'E 4o e v. c a s M I. A 2 - (,, . t.c ur dine.i td

, soak Rei k y 4 uuk.% (. E i e m m ua )

A\ sLbh b) g c, nJ, i 1 0

(. D uiE - EA. 6 )

c ., 1-Li-V7 c,,5 4 c, a t.cf t. c3 n d 3shw.dwlg.,,

4

( 0204s/ mat L

• O _ . _ _ _ _ m a

• . B . W  ;

ECSP CORRICTIVE Action Trackint Document .

(CATD)

. ~..

INITIATION =

~

1. I=sediate Cor ective Action Required: /I/ Yes // No ' -

2. Stop k'ork Reconsnanded: // Tes /1/ No

3. CATD No. 80202-50_N-2 4 INITIATION DATE 9/16/86

5. REsPottsists oncANIIATIon: of fice of Nuclear Power

6. PROBLIF. DESCRIPTION: /If QR // HQR As described in Element _Recort 80202-SON. Concern 00-85-005-002, no erecedure exists t_ hat sandates cualitr control insoec_tions of *

~ conduit bends and exoosed threads at conduit icints that verifv soecification recuirements have been meet.

- / /ATTAC191ENTS

7. PREPAAED BY: NAME R. D. Halverson M DATE: 9/4/3

8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-1 O M /J1) _ '

DATE: #N4/ W

9. APPROVAL: EOTG PROCM:t MGK: DATE: .

CORRECTIVE ACTION . . . ... .

,. i

10. TROPOSEDCORRECTIV5ACTIONPLAN: SEE CAP RTTACHMENT A , PAGE I 0F= E s -

a

~

• j .,2-q#C /%/ATTACHMZHTS

11. FROPOSED SY DIRECTO / D'TE:

A

12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-E M DATE: .a 4 /# 7 SRP: DATE:

ECTG PROGRAM MGK: __

DATE:

VERITICATI'ONANDCI.0'SkOUT

13. Approved correceive actions have been verified. as satisfactorily implemented.

SIC;IATURE T * :.I DATE e

O t

. m

-""n-...n_._~,---n,

~

r -

• '~ h.h

(,

ATTACHNENT A1(R1) SHEET 1 0F 3 TO CATD N0. 80202-SQN-2 I. No corrective action is required to inspect the presently installed conduit system for inappropriate running threads or unevenly field bent conduit. Justification to use existing conduit / fittings as is and the absence of a condition adverse to quality is based on the following evaluation.

EVALUATION 1.0 Construction specifications have addressed these requirements since 1962. (G-3. N2E-F60 and G-40).

F

? 2.0 Trained, knowledgeable craftsmen were/are qualified to 3 install conduit systems per the applicable construction specification.

l 3.0 The employee concern did not provide evidence of an existing C&Q, only the potential for it's occurrence.

i However, as a basis for supporting the structural and l electrical integrity of the existing installation, relevant l to this employee concern. DNE's research has resulted in the following findings.

?,

4 3.1 RUNNING TNARADS 1

, 3.1.1 Nechanical integrity of conduit raceway is not i breached.

3.1.1.1 G-40 allows running threads to be used on one side

)j of a coupler as long as the conduit installed in the opposite end of the coupler has tapered j thread. Running threads are also allowed at equipment, bones, conduit accessories such as j conduit fittings, conduit bodies etc.

I 3.1.1.2 Conduit was purchased in ten feet lengths threaded (tapered threads) each end.

/

3.1.1.3 Coupler / fittings are located every ten feet nazimum.

3.1.1.4 Couplers and fittings are wrench tight.

3.1.1.5 Conduit couplers / fittings on ten feet centers (see Section 3.1.1.3) have as a min, a conduit support on each side.

l 3.1.1.6 The Design Criteria (SQN-DC-V-13.10 R2) used for determining the spacing of supports for rigid conduit system was modeled and is a conservative

! representation of the conduit system, including conduit fittings. Conduit supports are located from five feet to ten feet apart.

DNE2 - 0484H 1/22/87 hl - --

(* b

- ATTACHMENT A1(RI) SHEET 2 0F 3 TO CATD NO. 80202-SQN-2 ,

+

3.1.2 Rusting No Problem '

Conduit joints and connections shall be made t-water-tight and rustproof by moons of the application of a thread compound which will not insulate the joint per G-40, Section 3.2.4.2.

, 3.1.3 Running threads are external, therefore no danger to damaging cable.

3.2 UNEVENLY FIELD BgNT CONDUIT 3.2.1 Potential conduit bend radius violation.

3.2.1.1 Field bonds on metal conduit are made, using conduit bending equipment. This equipment produces acceptable conduit bonds consistently.

3.2.1.2 Unevenly bent conduit (e.g., ripples, flat spots, etc.), that does not violate conduit minimum bend radius is an aesthetic concern, not a technical problem.

3.2.2 Potential Conduit Damage ,

The construction specification instructs the I installer (craftsman) to make field bends such that I the laternal diameter of the conduit is not k materially changed and the protective coating on the '

inside and outside of the conduit is not significantly damaged. The installer is farther lastructed to abandon conduit bonds willeh result in a kink or split in the conduit and to repair nicks and abrasions resulting in significant damage to the protective coating by spraying or painting galvanize en the damaged areas.

3.2.3 Potential cable Damage And Bond Radius Violation To confirm the adequacy of its cable installation practices. TVA recently reviewed the identified cable failures on several of its plants including the two nuclear units at Sequoyah. This review did not identify any failures which could be attributed to improper cable installation or unevenly bent conduit.

l DNg2 - 0484H 1/22/87

3

...~ .

g W 4

? '

y

. ATTACHMENT A1(R1) SHEET 3 0F 3 TO CATD NO. 80202-SQN-2 TVA has established a trending program to evaluate

) all failures, including those related to electrical 9 cable, to determine the cause, potential generic sj y

applicability, and corrective action. This program will ensure lamediate action is taken should a

( future failure occur. (For reference see memorandum s'

,, to John A. Raulston, dated October 14, 1986 (843

$61014 901.)

v M

II. As state'd in Section I, this employee concern has been '

b determined to not be a condition adverse to quality; however, to (

[1 more specifically state the duties of the inspector relative to i

conduit bonds and running threads, the following revisions to N&AI-6, R7 are to be made.

[1 d Add to Section 4.1 the followina inspection recuirements:

M. Conduit Bond Radius 9

j N. Funning Threads

$ Remsve from Section 4.2(A). and add as Section 4.2(M) the q

1 followina sentence: -

g M. The bond radius of rigid conduit shall be as a minimum in accordance with DS-R13.1.7.

i U

Add the accostance criteria for running threads at the end of Section 4.2:

N. Runnlag Threads j d 1. Acceptance criteria statement per G-40 based on Section 4.2.4.1(b).

4 I

i I

?

• ? .

P l c 1 e

t i

L DNE2 - 0484H 1/22/87

, no .*.

ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document (CATD)

INITIATION

1. Isenediate Corrective Action Required: /_X/ Yes // No

2. Stop Work Recosamended: // Yes /X/ No

3. CATD No. 80202-SQN-03 4. INITIATION DATE 04/02/87

5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: Maintenance Planning-SQN

6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /X/ QR /2/NQR See Attached 80202-SQN-03 Fact Sheet J

/X/ ATTACHMENTS I

7. PREPARED BY NAME R. D. Halverson # A DATE: 04/02/87

8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H A7 M h DATE: 04/02/87

.9. APPROVAL:. ECTG PROGK1M MGR: DATE: ,

CORRECTIVE ACTION

10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:

4 t

/ / ATTACHMENTS

11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: DATE:

12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H DATE: /

j SRP: DATE:

ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE:

i VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT I 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.

,/

SIGNATURE TITLE DATE

. EDTE: This applies to concern number (s) XX-85-102-008 I

l v.

n- ,

j - f. 8,

) uh ,

l CATD FACT SHEET t

CATD No. 80202-SQN-03 Date: 04/02/87

$ Concern No(s). XX-85-102-008 1

3

Problem

Description:

3 QA review of SQM2, Revision 22, " Maintenance Managetsent system," revealed the I following discrepancies:

I. a. Contrary to the requirements of AI-2.8.5 " Conditions Adverse to Quality--

Corrective Action," TVA Standard Practice SQM2 states; "The WR Program is an acceptable method for reporting and correcting conditions adverse to j, quality."

1 l b. AI-2.8.5, Revision 0, Paragraph 2.1 states; "The following is a list of

) types of CAQs and potential sources of such CAQs which are subject to the 4

^

requirements of this instruction." Paragraph 2.1.2 states in part, "Any j confirmed degradation, damage, failure, malfunction, or loss of plant 4 structures, systems, and components that could adversely affect the j performance of a safety-related function (i.e., nonconformance. This would 3 include but not limited to...) failure to meet design requirements..."

] Failure to meet design requirements is a nonconforming condition and is

'8 required to be document as a CAQ. Contrary to this requirement, SQM2 I

(" Responsibility" Section) requires the utilization of AI-25, " Drawing

. Control After Licensing," when in the performance of work, it is discovered that plant configuration does not agree with the as constructed drawing and there is no temporary alteration control in effect.

a '

c. Contrary to SQM2, Revision 22, Punch List No. 7, Flow Chart (Attachestn 1) does not show a line of notification of cancelled MRs/WRs to the MRs/WRs j originator.

i

d. SQM2 does not fully describe the purpose and the function of the " Report of J

Failure" Form (Attachment 8)

' SQM2 incorrectly makes reference to AI-12 " Adverse Condition and Corrective e.

Action."

) f. Various typographical errors a

,f

( Remarks:

1

Preparer

R. D. Halverson i

t

--- .- -.___--_____ _. -