ML20127F493

Notice of Violation from Insp on 850401-04

ML20127F493
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	04/26/1985
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127F482	List: IR 05000259/1985021 ML20127F480 ML20127F493
References
50-296-85-21, NUDOCS 8505200468
Download: ML20127F493 (4)

Text

c Y

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Vsiley Authority Docket No. 50-296 Brcur.: Ferry License No. DPR-68 The f allowing violation was identified during an inspection conducted on April 1-4,1985.

The Severity Level was assigned in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C).

10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III requires that measures to assure design control shall include provisions to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified and included in design documents; the design control measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design.

TVA Engineering Procedure 3.03, Design Calculations, paragraph 2.3, requires that all design calculations shall be checked for adequacy by a qualified person.

The checker must be able to provide independent review.

Para-graph 4.5 requires that any configuration change given by an as-constructed drawing must be reconciled with the associated calculations. The preparers must ensure that each sheet is identifiable with the document, that the status of each sheet is clear, and that the document has continuity.

Contrary to the above, a system required to mitigate the consequences of a postulated accident was not being designed to an appropriate quality standard in that a review of design calculations for pipe support HPCI R-86, R2, revealed various discrepancies identified below:

a.

Calculation Sheet 2 specified 1" plate, the as-built plate was 1 1/2" thick.

The 5/16" fillet weld which was subject to 12,000 pound load was simply evaluated by engineering judgement.

No weld calcu-lations were included.

b.

Calculation Sheet 3 specified a 3/4" plate for qualification, actual calculation was based on 1 1/2" thick.

Ceoss-sectional area of the plate was shown as 8 square inches, actual plate cross-sectional area should be 12 square inches.

c.

Sheet 5 showed two structural members (one vertical and one sloped),

these two members had been removed.

There were no notes to indicate that these members were either voided or superseded. No weld calculations were found for the two attachment plates (1 1/2"x8"x8") shown on the as-built drawing.

8505200468 850426 PDR ADOCK 05000259 G

PDR

-Tennessee Valley' Authority Docket No. 50-296

-Browns Ferry 2

License No. DPR-68 1

d.

Sheet 6.specified a plate size of l'1/2"x12"x1'-2" with 3/4" diameter bolts. There were no notes to indicate that the plate had been revised to 1 1/2"x15"x1'-3", and bolt size had been changed to 1 1/4" diameter.

The as-built drawing showed a weld connection between strut assembly.

and the steel beam.. No weld calculations were found.

'e.

Sheets 10 thru 13 showed support No. R-90 and support detail assembly.

There were no notes-to indicate that the R-90 and the support assembly.

were voided or superseded.

This is a Severity Level.Y violation (Supplement I).

Pursuant to 10-CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within 30 days of-the date of this - Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply.

-including:

(1) admission or denial of i.ha alleged violation; (2) the reasons

'for the violation if. admitted; (3) t.1e corrective steps whia.h have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

Security-or safeguards information should be submitted as an enclosure to facilitate withholding it from public disclosure as required by 10 CFR 2.790(d) or.10 CFR 73.21.

U I61995 Date:

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Valley Authority Docket No. 50-296 Browns Ferry License No. DPR-68 The following violation was identified during an inspection conducted on April 1-4, 1985.

The Severity Level was assigned in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C).

10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III requires that measures to assure design control shall include provisions to assure that appropriate quality standards are specified and included in design documents; the design control measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design.

TVA Engineering Procedure 3.03, Design Calculations, paragraph 2.3, requires that all design calculations shall be checked for adequacy by a qualified person.

The checker.must be able to provide independent review.

Para-graph 4.5 requires that any configuration change given by an as-constructed drawing must be reconciled with the associated calculations. 'The preparers must ensure that each sheet is identifiable with the document, that the status of each sheet is clear, and that the document has continuity.

Contrary to the above, a system required to mitigate the consequences of a postulated accident was not being designed to an appropriate quality standard in that a review of design calculations for pipe support HPCI R-86, R2, revealed various discrepancies identified below:

a.

Calculation Sheet 2 specified l" plate, the as-built plate was 1 1/2" thick.

The 5/16" fillet weld which was subject to 12,000 pound load was simply evaluated by engineering judgement.

No weld calcu-lations were included.

b.

Calculation Sheet 3 specified a 3/4" plate for qualification, actual l

calculation was based on 1 1/2" thick.

Cross-sectional area of the plate was shown as 8 square inches, actual plate cross-sectional area should be 12 square inches.

c.

Sheet 5 showed two structural members (one vertical and one sloped),

these two members had been removed.

There were no notes to indicate that these members were either voided or superseded.

No weld calculations i

were found for the two attachment plates (1 1/2"x8"x8") shown on the as-built drawing.

l I-

Tennessee' Valley Authority' 2

License No. DPR-68 Docket No. 50-296 Browns Ferry-d.

Sheet 6 specified a plate size of 1 1/2"x12"x1'-2" with 3/4" diameter bolts. There were no notes to indicate that the plate had been revised to 1-1/2"x15"x1'-3", and bolt size had been changed to 1 1/4" diameter.

-The as-built drawing showed a weld connection between strut assembly and the steel beam. No weld calculations were found.

e.

Sheets 10 thru 13 showed support No. R-90 and support detail assembly.

There were no notes to indicate that the R-90 and the support assembly

. ere voided.or superseded.

w This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, you-are required to submit to this office within 30

. days of. the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:

(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons

.for the. violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

' Security or safeguards information ~ should be submitted as an enclosure to facilitate withholding-it-from public disclosure as required by 10 CFR 2.790(d) or 10 CFR 73.21.

Date:

L l

I I

i I-I i

i l-k.