IR 05000317/1980018
| ML17331B457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1980 |
| From: | Durr J, Mattia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17331B456 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-5150 50-317-80-18, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8101300138 | |
| Download: ML17331B457 (11) | |
Text
U.S., NUCLEAR REGUL'ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-317/80-18 Docket No.
50-317 License No.
'riority
~
Licensee:
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Gas and Electric Building - Charles Center Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Facility Name:
Calvert Cliffs, Unit No.
Investigation at: 'usby-, Maryland Investigation cond cted:
October 14-16, 1980 Investigators:
J.
P Durr, Senior Resident Inspector Category C
date signed date signed date signed Approved by:
.. C. Mattia, Chief, Projects Section (Acting), RC8ES Branch date signed
/I 8 fG date s"'gne
- Investi ation Sumar
'nvesti ation on October 14-16 1980 Re ort 50-317/80-18 g
g t
tttgt tt PPP PP t
activities performed to comply with NRC Bulletin 79-02.
The investigation involved 15.5 investigator hours on-site. by one Regional based NRC investigator.
Results:
None of the allegations were substantiated.
Region I Form 143 (Rev. October 1977)
sxoxgso ~OS
A.
Reason for Investi ation I.
BACKGROUND The NRC staff met with the alleger on August 29, 1980 to discuss the previous investigation findings,
- IE Investigation Report 50-317/80-07, and to determine if any additional allegations existed.
This was the fourth meeting with the alleger and NRC staff members to identify possible safety concerns with the Calvert Cliffs hanger repair program.
The alleger provided 5 hanger repair and 4 radiological allegations at the previous meeting on April 4, 1980.
Four additional allegations were presented at this meeting.
The alleger stated that these were the last of his concerns relating to the Calvert Cliffs facility.
B.
Identification of Or anizations 1.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Baltimore, Maryland The NRC license holder-for Calvert Cliffs Units Nos.
1 and 2.
2.
Bechtel - Gaithersburg Gaithersburg, Maryland Contracted to Baltimore Gas-and Electric Company fot architect-engineering services.
3.
Catalytic, Inc.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Contracted to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company for maintenance-r epair services.
II.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS All'e ations and Investi ation Conclusions Alle ation No.
The alleger wrote 4000 psi assumed concrete values on Hanger Repair Procedure Nos. Ol, 02, 03 and 04 when it should have been 3000 psi.
A review of all Hanger Repair Procedures issued during the period the alleger had access to these documents did not disclose any procedures with incorrect concrete strength values.
The allegation was not substantiate Alle ation No.
The allegers supervisor made unauthorized interpolations of bolt torque values on Hanger Repair Procedures during the alleged time period.
A review of all Hanger Repair Procedures issued during the alleged time period did not disclose any "interpolated" bolt torque =values.
All peocedure bolt torque values were in accordance with the Civil Standard requirements.
The allegation was not substantiated.
Alle ation No.
Hanger bolt imbedment depth was not specified on Drawing Change Notices for Hanger Repair Procedur es M-79-4911 and M79-5605.
The identifying numbers, M79-XXXX are assigned to Maintenance Request packages which are utilized to track all associated documents.
The number M79-4911 was never issued as a hanger repair or any other request.
M79-5605 and its associated Drawing Change Notice does have minimum bolt embedment depths specified as do all Drawing Change Notices reviewed.,
The allegation was not'ubstantiated.
Alle ation No.
Weld symbols, such as J-28, were applied to Drawing Change Notices by the alleger where they were omitted.
These symbols were selected by two individuals who were not authorized to make changes to the drawings.
It was determined that one of the individuals was the design organizations site repr esentative who was authorized to make drawing changes.
In addition, the addition of the symbols did not constitute a design change, only added guidance.
Lastly,.field design changes were controlled and reviewed.
The allegation was not substantiate III.
DETAILS A.
Introduction This is the second investigation of the Calvert Cliff's hanger repair program initiated by the alleger.
Tbe first series of allegations were.
documented in investigation report 50-317/80-07, dated June 4, 1980.
In this report five allegations were made relative to hanger repair work-being performed in conjunction with IE Bulletin 79-02 and four concerning radiological practices.
None of the foregoing allegations were substantiated.
The second series of allegations resulted from a meeting between the alleger and his representative and NRC staff members on August 29, 1980, in the Region I offices at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Again, as before, every effort was made by the NRC staff to accurately identify and record the alleger's concerns that appeared to have any safety significance..
B.
Sco e of the Investi ation The alleger addressed concerns in the pipe support design/repair activities performed to satisfy IE Bulletin 79-02.
~
~
.C..
Persons Contacted Baltimore Gas and Electric Com an
- L. Russell, Chief Engineer
- '. Syndor, General Supervisor, Operations guality Assurance Nuclear Re ulator Commission
- R. Architzel, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those persons present at the exit interview.
D.
Investi ation of Alle ations Alle ation No.
Hanger Repair Procedure Nos. 01, 02, 03 and 04 were deficient in that assumed concrete values were written at the top.
The alleger wrote 4000 psi for assumed values where, in fact, it was 3000 psi.
NRC Investi ation The aspect of "assumed concrete values" was examined in Investigation Report 50-317/80-07, Allegation No.
2 and.found to be acceptable.
However, the alleger indicated in this interview that he had written 4000 psi values when 3000 psi was called fo The. time period that the alleger was employed on site is known.
All Hanger, Repair Pr ocedures (HRP's)
issued during this period can be determined from the Maintenance Request I og.
Based on this information, the 24 HRP's issued during this time were examined for incorrect information.
The concrete strength valves are based on the May 3, 1979 speed letter from Bechtel which defines values by.str'ucture and.elevation.
The inspector compared the information recorded in the 24 HRP's with the May 3, 1979 instructions and found no incorrect entries.
Only one anomaly was noted wherein the turbine building was entered as 4000 psi concrete.
The licensee's project engineer stated that this was a conscious decision to use more conservative values due to a lack of immediate information.
NRC Conclusion The allegation was not"substantiated.
No incorrect entries of "assumed concrete values!'ere made during the time period the alleger was on-site.
Alle ation No.
The alleger's supervisor made unauthorized interpolations of bolt torque values on the HRP's during the time period the alleger was on-site.
NRC Investi ation The licensee developed
" site. specific" torque versus tension curves for use during the.,hanger repair program.
This information was transmitted for use by the. engineers via Civil Standard CS-5.
The information is presented in tabular form and lists all the standard bolt sizes such as 1/2", 5/8", 3/4" etc.
and'he allowable torque ranges (85-105 ft.-lbs.).
A review of all HRP's issued during the alleged time period disclosed that no incorrect or "interpolated" values were used.
A possible explanation for the "interpolated" values may stem from the range of values presented in Civil Standard CS-5.
As an example, for 3/4" diameter bolts the torque values are 85 to 105 ft.-lbs.
The HRP torque values are sometimes recorded as 95 ft.-lbs. which is the midrange rather than the interpolated value.
The licensee's hanger repair program required that anchor bolts be tested to determine their acceptability.
The inspector noted during this investigation that the earlier editions of Technical Support Procedure No.
24 had a
lower range of bolt torque values specified than were ultimately established by the site-specific test data developed for testing of bolts.
This means that the bolts tested and preloaded earlier in the program were loaded at the lower values.
For example, 3/4" diameter bolts were tested and pre-loaded to 80 ft.-lbs. in 4000 psi concrete in the earlier version while later
tests were made at 97 ft.-lbs.
A change oj 17 ft.-lbs. is equivalent to a 20% reduction in load.
This item, although not related to the inyes-tigation, is considered unr esolved.
(317/80-18-01)
NRC Conclusion'he allegation was not substantiated.
There is no evidence to indicate that anyone interpolated bolt torque values.
Alle ation No.
Hanger bolt embedment depth was not specified on Drawing Change Notices (DCN's) for-HRP packages M79-4911 and M79-5605.
NRC Investi ation The M79-XXXX numbers are serial numbers given to "Maintenance Requests".
These documents cover all aspects of plant maintenance including the hanger repair program.
The
"M" represents a mechanical request, issued in 1979, and sequence number XXXX.
The hanger repair program used the block of sequence numbers beginning with 5XXX for Unit No.
1 and 9XXX for Unit No. 2.
All other M79 requests are below sequence number 45XX.
Thus, there is no M79-4911.
Maintenance Request M79-5605 was issued during the alleged time period.
It was examined along with the other 23 previously described in allegations Nos.
and 2.
The DCN associated with M79-5605 consists of 3 pages.
Page 1 of 3 does not give any bolt embed information.
However, pages 2 and 3, which provide details, do specify bolt embed depth requirements.
In addition,, all DCN's issued with HRP's prepared during the alleged time period were examined and found to contain the appropriate bolt embed depth infor-mation.
The Civil Standard, CS-5, has a general note that states the bolt embed depth information presented is only a guide and that the appropriate design drawing (DCN) should be consulted for requirements.
NRC Conclusion The allegation was not substantiated.
A~At ti N.t Weld symbols, such as J-28, were applied to DCN's by the alleger where they were omitted.
These were selected by Mr. Dwight
, a Baltimore N
dti ti giy
.
N.y g
.tt Plg g
t The alleger feels that they were not authorized to make these changes and that the DCN's may not have been properly reviewe NRC Investi ation It was determined that the alleger was referring to Mr. Dwight Cornell, a Bechtel employee, and a Registered Professional Engineer in Connecticut, Rhode Island,, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Michigan. It was Mr. Cornell 's responsibility to make field changes as necessary to expedite the work.
These field changes, for whatever reason, were required to be reviewed by the originating design group.
This change and review procedure was described in a document titled, "Expanded Guidelines for Acceptable Installation Practices on DCN's Which Do Not Impair the Load Carrying Capacities of the Pipe Support".
Thus, Mr. Cornell.was authorized to make changes to Drawing Change Notices.
The J-28 welding symbol and its technical application were discussed in IE Investigation Report 50-317/80-07.
The OCN's have standard American Melding Society (AWS) welding symbols applied to denote fillet or groove welds.
The application of the J-28 or similar symbols is only a correlation of the AWS symbol with the BG 5 E specification which further describes that weld configurati:on.
This does not require an engineering decision, It only expands the design decision (i.e., the AWS symbol) to one that provides more detailed information.
Therefore, the application of the J-28 did not constitute a design change.
NRC Conclusion The allegation was not substantiated based on (1) Mr. Cornell was the responsible design organization's designated representative authorized to alter DCN's; (2)
DCN alterations were reviewed by the original design group; and (3) the addition of the symbols only expanded established engineering information, not alter it.
E.
Exit Interview The. investigator met with members of the licensee's staff, denoted in paragraph C, at the conclusion of the investigation on October 16, 1980.
He sumoarized the scope and findings of the investigation.