IR 05000346/1973002
| ML19319B563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1973 |
| From: | Erb C, Hayes D, Cale Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B556 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-73-02, 50-346-73-2, NUDOCS 8001270092 | |
| Download: ML19319B563 (26) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _. _ _ . . .. . O ' U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS l
REGION III
Report of Construction Inspection RO Inspection Report No. 050-346/73-02 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company i Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Oak Harbor, Ohio Category: A Type of Licensee: PWR (B&W) - 872 Mve Type of Inspection: Follow-up Quality Assurance Inspection Dates of Inspection: April 24 - 27, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspectiont. February 20 - 23, 1973 % ' l'i /yl5 ' aw c.
Principal Inspector: C. Young s (Date) c < ~~ ~J7^ 8/7//8 j Accompanying Inspectors: D. W ayes (Date) hdh'f" Gr [[$///J C. M. Erb (Date) Other Accompanying Personnel: None ["3/~73 Reviewed By: W. E. Vetter, Chief
Reactor Construction Branch (Date)
! l g o o1270 O '/2 , ..., - - - , _ - - _. .. _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _.
-, _ ..,,,,, _. ~ -, ., - _, _., _ _,.,. ,..,, _ -.
~ . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS g . Enforcement Action A.
Violations Provisions for and activities relative to the storage of Class I , piping appeared to be contrcry to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and the Toledo Edison Company (TECO) Quality Assurance Program.
(Paragraph 1.a.)
B.
Safety Ma'_ters , No safet.y matters were identified.
j Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Action No previously identified enforcement matters were involved.
Design Changes No design changes were identified.
Unusual Occurrences s.
No unusual occurrences were id-sntified.
s Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings Results of Inspection A follow-up quality assurance inspection, was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the quality assurance programs of the licensee and his site contractors as construction nears the 50% mark.
Two years have elapsed since the construction permit was issued on March 24, 1971, for the Davis-Besse facility. With the exception of the violation cited above, the quality assurance program of TECO and the major contractors at the site, the Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel), Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W), ITT Grinnell Company
(Grinnell), and Fishbach and Moore, Incorporated (F-M) were deter-mined to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and the Davis-Besse Final Safety Analysis Report (D-U FSAR).
' i - 2-f - - -
,----r y --c-,- -- - -.. - - - - - 7----%.--- - - - -,- --
, , _ . B.
Unresolved Matters 1.
Approval of Procurement Document Revisions ~ Records at the site did not clearly establish that TECO had approved all revisions to purchase specifications.
(Paragraph 3.d.)
2.
Review of Electrical Test Data Records at the site did not clearly establish that test data for electrical equipment and components had been reviewed and accepted by engineering.
(Paragraph 3.g.)
3.
Protection of Electrical Switchgear Control of water entry into the 4 KV switchgear room did not appear to be adequate to prevent possible deterioration (rusting) of anchor bolts and plates..Also, protection (covering) of 480-volt switchgear and associated transformers did not appear adequate to minimize entry of construction dust.
(Paragraphs 3. and 4.)
' 4.
Quarantine of Nonconforming Cable /'~'N Nonconforming cable, although properly tagged, was not segregated (,) from accgptable cable.
(Paragraph 3.m. ) 5.
Containment Spray Valve - Applicable Spacification The applicable revision to the procurement specification could not I' clearly established for valves supplied by the Velan Engineering Company, LTD (Velan). (Paragraph 6.f.)
C.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Matters Reactor Coolant Piping (R0 Inspection Report No. 050-346/72-06) The manufacturer's data report for the reactor coolant piping has not been received from the NSS supplier-because the stress analysis has not been completed.
This matter remains open.
Management Interview A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection.
. - 3-OV , . - - -. . . --
. - - - Toledo Edison Company (TECO) G. J. Sampson, Vice President - Power ~ E. C. Novak., Project Engineer G. W. Eichenauer, Field Quality Assurance Engineer B.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of management personnel, were as follows: 1.
The inspector stated that an apparent violation of AEC regulations was observed relative to storage of piping for essential systems.
The inspector added that the storage area, bounded by roads, is depressed below the road grade and, as a consequence, water collects after heavy rains.
Although the piping spools are lying on wooden dunnage, the elevation was not sufficient to keep the spools out of the water or, in some cases, ends off the ground.
The spools are received with taped protectors on the open ends and with desiccant attached to the inside of these protectors.
In two cases, the tape had been damaged in handling so that the inside of the spool was open for contamination and the effects of the desiccant nullified. The spools in question were identified for the licensee's QA representative.
2.
The inspector r ---d
- hat he had observed water on the floor and under som installed switchgear cabinets, in the north 4 KV sw.
.igear room, and that he had observed this same condition during a previous inspection. The inspector s - s added that, also during the inspection, it was noted that covers had not been installed over the 480-volt switchgear and auxiliary equipment to minimize entry of dust, although chipping of concrete was in progress in the room.
The licensee stated that the problem would be investigated and that the necessary corrective action would be taken.
3.
In regard to segregation of nonconforming electrical cable, the licensee's representative stated that a " roped off" quarantine area would be established. The inspector stated that this matter would be reviewed again during future inspections.
4.
The inspector stated that, from the available construction site records, it could not be clearly established that TECO had approved all revisions to procurement specifications.
-4-
i
\\s' -
. - - .. - - _ -.. .._ _ _ __ . .. .- .-. l j ' l J l The licensee stated that it was their intent to review and
approve these documents and that they would review the matter and take indicated corrective action.
5.
The inspector reviewed the status of the B&W components onsite.
l lie stated that 8 of 18 components inspected were certified as j conforming to specifications by reports on file but that 10 ' components, including reactor coolant piping subassemblies, did not have required certifications on file and were, there-i
fore, not cleared for installation. He stated further that his review indicated that the B&W site quality assurance '
organization was functioning in accordance with requirements i but that the overall B&W quality assurance program was lagging, j as indicated by the lack of quality documentation for l important NSS components onsite.
! The licensee's representative stated that this problem had been ]! recognized and that corrective action was in progress.
6.
The inspector stated that the TECO vendor surveillance ) program appeared to be thorough, well planned, and well ] implemented.
He stated further that the increasing pace I of construction at the site would require increasing i surveillance of site construction activities by TECO QA
engineers.
f r i ! i ! '
1-5-7s ,
-. . . -- -__ - - - - - - - - _ ..- -..
- - -. )
i REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to individuals listed under the Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted during the inspection.
i I Toledo Edison Company (TECO) l W. G. Moring, Quality Assurance Engineer K. M. Cantrell, Quality Assurance Engineer M. D. Calcamuggio, Power Plant Electrical Engineer i Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel) l M. R. Stephens, Construction Manager R. A. Hamilton, Supervisor - Quality Assurance (Gaithersburg) ) H. A. Ablondi, Project Quality Assurance Engineer R. L. Lykens, Supervisor - Quality Control J. A. Arensen, Lead Mechanical Engineer R. F. Froid, Supervisor - Warehouse J. E. Banchich, Assistant Office Engineer O\\ R. J. McLaughlin, Quality Assurance Electrical Engineer , D. C. La Valla, Quality Assurance Engineer G. L. Aller, Inspector - Receiving R. Lewis, Quality Control Engineer - Mechanical E. V. Kapp, Quality Control Engineer - Civil C. M. Tubin, Electrical Engineer
G. C. Bell, Electrical Engineer
Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) l W. R. Klinger, Site Project Manager J. W. Marshall, Field Quality Control Supervisor
j ITT - Crinnell Company (Grinnell) ' D. R. Ciguere, Mana;er - Quality Assurance , Fishbach & Moore, Incorporated (F-M) and Colgan Electric Company (Colgan) J. D. Binford, Quality Control Manager ' ! -6-i ! - - - __ _ .. -.-. _ __ ___.
- - - - - - - ~ _.
. _ - - - _ _. . _. . _.
. ._ _ N Results of Inspection 1.
Follow-up Quality Assurance Inspection a.
Violation AEC regulations, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII, states, in part, that: " Measures shall be established to control the handling, storage, shipping, cleaning, and preser-vation of material and equipment in accordance with work and inspection instructions to prevent damage cr deterioration".
The TECO Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual, Appendix l-B, Section 2.14, requires that procedures be implemented to preserve equipment or materials from the time of shipping until after installation.
Bechtel Technical Specificatio.ts No. 7749-M-450, paragraph 2.4, and No. 7749-M-190, paragraph ' 11.1, applicable to Davis-Besse, require that outdoor storage areas be well drained and that piping be tightly sealed to minimize rusting.
Piping spools, both carbon steel aad stainless steel, were stored at the Davis-Besse site in an area which is below the grade level of the roads running along each side. Water was observed to have collected in the area.
The wooden dunnage (4" x 4" and 6" x 6") under the spools, did not keep all the jN spools above the water, and the ends of several spools were (,) observed in pools of water.
Furthermore two of the spools had their protectors partially ripped off during handling, thus opening the inside of the pipe to contamination, nullifying the effect of the desiccant inside. The affected spools are listed below: Identification System Material 33A-53 Borated H O Suction Stainless
33B-5 LP Injection Stainless 41HBC-47-13 Service H O Carbon
7 EBB 3-12 Steam Generator carbon Drain to Condenser 34HCB-8-29 Containment Spray Stainless b.
Adequacy of QA Programs With the exception of the violation discussed above, the quality assurance programs of TECO and the major contractors
-7-a
. - -. -. - .. -_ , ____ ,
-- -_ . _ _ -. _ . -- - 'N at the site were determined to meet the requirements of - 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and the Davis-Besse FSAR at this stage of construction.
The major contractors, whose-quality assurance programs were reviewed, were Bechtel, the construction manager; B&W, the NSS supplier; Grinnell, the major piping contractor; and F-M, the major electrical contractor.
In order to evaluate the adequacy and effective-ness of the QA programs, selected electrical and mechanical components were inspected, and records at the site relating to these components were reviewed. Procurement records; receiving records, including quality documentation; storage and handling records; and ir.stallation records were reviewed , against the requirements of the applicable criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
In addition, other aspects of the quality assurance program, including QA manuals, vendor audits, shop inspection reports, and document control, were reviewed. Results of these inspections and reviews are described in paragraphs 2 - 6, below.
c.
Significant Changes in Program and Organization The initial QA inspection for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station was conducted in June 1970.
Since that time, the Davis-Besse quality assurance program has progressed from , i planning to implementation, and all positions in the TECO quality assurance organization have been filled.
N
g ! I d.
Vendor Inspections The TECO vendor surveillance program is the responsibility of the TECO quality assurance engineer. The objective of the program is to give assurance that the supplier's products meet quality requirements. The TECO plan calls for each supplier to be inspected at least once and major suppliers to be inspected at frequent intervals, including observation of important tests and review at special hold points.
Discus-sion with licensee personnel and review of records indicated that the program is proceding as planned.
One hundred and ninety-four inspections have been made of sixty organizations since the program was implemented in May 1970.
A series of inspections have been made of such organizations as B&W.
Lynchburg (nine) and B&W, Mt. Vernon (ten). Records indicated that the inspections are planned; discrepancies are ideatified
and properly reported; reports are written to TECO manage-
ment; and follow-up action is taken.
' -8- ,C \\
. -- - - - - -. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _,.., - _
- '} e.
Measures to Evaluate QC Activities \\s_ / Bechtel, the construction manager, is responsible for the inspection and surveillance of the activities of site contractors.
Bechtel quality control inspectors, functioning under the Bechtel construction manager, observe such activities as the receiving inspection and storage of components and equipment; verification of quality through inspection and review of documentation; and handling, installation, and testing of components and equipment.
Bechtel quality control inspectors document their activities.
Surveillance and auditing of the activities of the Bechtel quality control organization and the quality control organization of the other site contractors is the responsi-bility of the Bechtel quality assurance manager, functioning under the Bechtel project manager.
Review of documentation and discussion with responsible personnel indicated that the requirements of these programs are being met.
2.
TECO Quality Assurance Program a.
Organization ' Discussion with licensee personnel and review of records indicated that the TECO organization functions in regard to 's quality assurance matters as outlined in the FSAR.
i \\~ / b.
Program Bechtcl, the construction manager for the Davis-Besse site, also acts as TECO's agent in supervising quality assurance and quality control activities during design and construction.
TECO retains overall responsibility for the program and, in addition, retains specific responsibilities in certain areas as described in the FSAR.
Review of records, described in paragraph 3 - 6, below, and discussion with licensee personnel indicated that TECO is performing the functions in the following areas as described in the FSAR: design; procurement document control; instructions, procedures, and drawings; document control; control of purchased material, equipment, and services; identification and control of materials, parts, and components; control of special processes; inspection; test control; nonconforming materials, parts, and components; corrective action; and audits.
-9-m o i
-_ m c.
Audits TECO's vendor surveillance program is described in paragraph 1.d., above.
Included in this audit / surveillance program are audits of Bechtel headquarters, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and B&W, Lynchburg, Mt. Vernon and Barberton.
Seven audits have been conducted at Bechtel, Gaithersburg, in three years and 28 audits at the several B&W plants in this same time.
Review of records and discussion with licensee personnel indicated that activities for these audits are planned; plans are followed through; discrepancies are detected and reported; results are reported to TECO manage-ment, and follow-up action is taken.
d.
Site Audits TECO QA engineers are also responsible for the monitoring and auditing of the Bechtel project construction manager and other site contractors. Discussion with licensee person-nel and review of records indicated that basic requirements for these activities are being met but that, as the construc-tion pace quickens, increase surveillance of activities at the site by TECO QA engineers will be necessary. This comment is particularly applicable to monitoring and auditing in the electrical and the NSS areis, Os 3.
Bechtel Quality Assurance Program a.
General Associated documentation for the electrical equipment and components, listed below, were reviewed to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the QA programs of TECO, the licensee, Bechtel, the construction manager and F-M, the site electrical contractor involved in the procurement, receiving, handling and storage, installation and instal-lation inspection and tests of electrical equipment and components relative to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
. Equipment reviewed: 4160-volt switchgear essential busses C-1 and D-1 4160-vole circuit breakers (11) 4160/480-volt essential transformers FDlDF and FD2DF l - 10 - / ('~' 480-volt switchgear essential bus F-1 480-volt circuit breakers (27) Motor control center (essential) No.~F-llB - Decay heat, containment spray, and component coolant pump motors Motor operators for valves CF-HUlB and HP-HV25 l 15 KV and 5 KV electrical cable Seismic qualified cable tray, unistrut. and brackets
Documentation reviewed:
QA/QC manuals and procedures Procurement specificatons, codes, and standards Construction drawings Seismic reports Purchase orders Material receiving and inspection reports Electrical test data and reports Material certification reports Design and production test reports Letters of certification Nonconformance reports Suppliers' qualification and evaluation reports Vendor and field inspection.and audit reports Material certification reports Site inspection and audit reports b.
Organization No significant changes have occurred in the Bechtel QA/QC organization.
Staffing has increased, pursuant to the increased construction activities and, presently, adequately covers all disciplines. The Bechtel organizational elements are as shown in the D-B FSAR, Figure 17-1.
The site QA/QC organization is considered to have sufficient freedom and authority to accomplish their tasks, independent from those with cost and scheduling responsibilities.
c.
QA Program The principle Bechtel QA documents are as listed in the D-B FSAR, Section 17.1.2.2.1.
The program is considered to be adequate and responsive to the applicant's FSAR commitments and the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
The program provides for QA/QC documentation requirements and for one or more levels of surveillance, verification and - 11 - - . - - -
- _. _ . - ( audits of engineering, procurement and construction activi-ties. The program has been properly implemented, commen, surate with the project status.
However, the installation of Class I electrical equipment was not considered sufficient to allow an evaluation of the program effectiveness relative to installation and installation inspection and testing, in this area. Follow-up inspection, in regard to this matter, is planned for future inspections.
d.
Procurement Document Control Bechtel prepares and TECO reviews and approves procurement specifications and drawings for all Class I electrical equipment (except items furnished by the NSSS supplier). The TECO Purchasing Department is responsible for procurement, except for NSSS equipment supplied by B&W and miscellaneous items such as conduit, cable trays, support brackets, fitting, etc., which are purchased by the electrical contractor.
The purchase specifications for all electrical items, listed under section 3.a., above, were reviewed. The documents were found to adequately require suppliers to adhere to pertinent provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as well as to applicable sections of ANSI, IEEE, NEMA, IPCEA, NEC, ASTM, AWS, AEIC, and AFBMA codes and standards.
In three instances, it could not be established that TECO had approved the latest revisions of the purchase specifica-tions and, in another, it was not clear if TECO had approved a specification deletion.
In all cases, however, it was evident that TECO had received copies of the specification revisions and the Bechtel engineering letter authorizing the specification deletion. The prcblem appears to be a matter of maintaining up-to-date files. The licensee's representative stated that it was TECO's intent to review and approve all specification changes and that the matter would be investigated. Followup is planned in subsequent inspections.
e.
Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings For the areas inspected, the Bechtel instructions, procedures, and drawings appeared to be adequate and properly implemented ! to ensure that the activities involved were satisfactorily accomplished.
- 12 - I , p. , - _ _ -- .,.
_.
... . - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - a p-AD ( f.
Document Control Document and drawing control was reviewed and considered -to be adequate and consistent with requirements.
Current documents were dated and identified.
Superseded copies were noted to be properly voided.
All " approved for construction" drawings are date stamped and are issued to the site contractors by Bechtel.
An appropriate representative of the contractor must sign the drawing transmittal form which is filed and maintained by Bechtel and shows the latest revision number, date received, and distribution.
Once a drawing is issued, the responsibility for the control of that drawing, including accountability, rests with the contractor. To assist in this area, Bechtel issues a weekly current drawing list and maintains a master drawing stick and a route table drawing list.
In addition, Bechtel periodically audits the contractors for proper drawing and document control and reviews the print files against the current drawing list.
g.
Control of Purchased Material and Equipment All receiving records and quality documentation were reviewed against the specification requirements and the D-B FSAR Commitments for the equipment listed under section 3.a., above.
[ The record files appeared complete, well organized, and \\ maintained.
Site QA/QC personnel verify that quality documentation, including test reports, seismic, and other technical data required by the specification, are received. However, they do not check the technical data, test results, etc., against the codes and standards or specifications. The Bechtel representative stated that this review is performed by Bechtel engineering prior to transmitting the records to the site.
However, there was no evidence at the site to verify this engineering review and acceptance. Further review of this ' matter with QA/QC management disclosed that a letter deced l February 28, 1973, was sent to the project engineer requesting certification that the documentation has been checked and is ' complete and correct. Action, in regard to this request, was expected momentarily.
Follow-up review is planned for future inspections.
! - 13 - O . -
.- . Supplier acceptance and program evaluation reports were - reviewed for each vendor supplying the equipment listed under section 3.a., above. The evaluations were comprehensive and , appeared to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, ' Criterion VII, as well as the D-B FSAR commitments.
Ninety-five companies, including subvendors, have been evaluated and qualified (to date) to supply Class I equipment for the D-B project. The evaluation checklists included all elements of the AEC criteria.
Bechtel routinely inspects vendors and suppliers, as well as site contractors. Bechtel shop inspection and shop inspection audits are scheduled out of Bechtel's Gaithersburg, Maryland, office.
Copies of the inspection and audit reports are sent to the site and are reviewed by both TECO and Bechtel site QA/QC personnel.
Several volumes (10 - 14) of shop inspection reports were observed to be in TECO files.
Those reviewed were considered acceptable.
Although Bechtel shop inspectors, in most cases, must " release" equipment prior to shipment, responsibility for final acceptance is at the site.
With the exceptior e discussed above, the program and its implementation was considered adequate and effective in the control of purchased equipment and material.
- '
/\\ h.
Identification and Control of Material, Parts, and Components The program provisions for the identification and control of material parts and components were considered adequate and responsive to the requirements in the areas reviewed.
During the inspection, the items, listed in section 3.a., above, were first identified in the field (e.g., by serial number, lot number, cable reel number, etc.) then the item and its identification was checked against the quality documents and records. No discrepancies were found.
1.
Control of Special Processes Bechtel's QA/QC programs provide for control of special processes, but evaluation of the implementation and effective-ness was not considered possible because of the small amount of Class I electrical equipment presently installed in the plant.
Followup is planned during future inspection.
- 14 - \\ V < .. . _ _ . - ._ -. - -_
- - - -.. ._ - .- _ -- .- . s j.
Inspection (Site) The first level of inspection is the responsibility of the electrical contractor. Bechtel's field QC engineers routinely ! make in-process inspection surveillance of activities affecting quality.
Inspection reports reviewed were considered adequate, i and provisions exist for followup and correction of deficient items.
I
k.
Control of Measuring and Test Equipment ! ! The QA program appears to adequately provide for the control ! of measuring and test equipment. However, evaluation of the ' effectiveness of these provisions was not considered possible, at this time, because of the limcted need and use of test instruments and equipment (i.e., relative small amount of instrument-electrical equipment installed.)
Followup is plan.'ed during future inspections.
1.
Handling, Storage, and Shipping
! The Bechtel QA/QC program appears to provide adequately
for the control of handling, storage, shipping, and preservation of material and equipment in accordance with ! the requirements of Criterion XIII.
The purchase specifi- ' /T cations contain instructions for packaging and shipping, and \\j the Bechtel shop and receiving inspection reports provide ' evidence of adherence to these requirements.
Specific handling l . and storage protection requirements, as well as general instructions, , i are entered on the material instructions and receiving reports.
l Bechtel QC personnel conduct weekly inspections of material j and equipment storage areas.
Additionally, the daily field
engineering reports also contain notations of storage ', conditions in the plant. Access to the warehouses is
controlled, and the warehouse areas inspected were found to be clean and orderly.
i
! Water was observed on the floor and under some of the l '
installed switchgear cabinets in the north 4 KV switchgear i room. This same condition was noted during a previous i inspection.
Although storage control and protection of l electrical equipment is the responsibility of the electrical j ! contractor, this problem was also discussed with Bechtel i because of the involvement of other contractors.
The Bechtel r,epresentative stated that corrective action was in progress and that water entry into this area should not recur.
Followup ! is planned during subsequent inspections.
l - 15 - l \\ I !
-. -
_ _ - -. - -.. - ,, - - -,. __- ., - -... ,.. -
- -_ _ .. - _ _ __ .- ( m.
Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components Provisions and procedures for the control of materials, parts, or components, which do not conform to requirements, were reviewed and were considered to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
Implementation appeared adequate. Observations and records indicated proper notifica-tion, documentation, identification, and resolution.
Nonconforming equipment (pumps and switchgear) was observed stored within the plant. The equipment was properly tagged, and storage location was in accordance with applicable procedures.
Although presently not considered excessive, the licensee was cautioned that in-place storage of nonconforming items, within the plant, should be an exception and for good reason.
Class lE nonconforming cable, though properly tagged, was not segregated from accepted Class lE cable in the storage yard. The inspector stated that segregation should be considered for all nonconforming material and equipment and that the provisions to prevent inadvertent use of nonconform-ing materials should not rely wholly on tagging.
The licensee and the contractor's representative stated that N they would review the matter and that, for nonconforming _ ) cable, roped-off, quarantine areas would be established in the future. Followup is planned for subsequent inspections.
' n.
Corrective Action The program provisions and procedures, to assure that condi-tions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected, were reviewed and appear to be adequate and properly implemented.
One possible exception was observed during the inspection.
Ground water was entering one of the lower elevation rooms in the auxiliary building.
It was evident that the water (entering via an unused electrical conduit in the ceiling) had splashed for several days onto a ventilation duct and onto the No. 2 high pressure injection and decay heat pump-motor assemblies located in the room.
The pump-motor assemblies were wrapped in plastic.
Following questioning, this situation was immediately corrected and the water was collected and routed to a drain. Grouting was in progress prior to the inspection in an attempt to permanently plug the water entry point.
- 16 - %v _ _ - - - --. - _ _ _. _ -, .-
g' ( o.
Quality Assurance Records % For the areas reviewed, the quality assurance records were found to be complete, properly identified, and easily retrievable.
Bechtel recently constructed a new, larger vault area for the retention of Davis-Besse quality documen-tation.
p.
Audits Bechtel conducts a comprehensive audit program which includes evaluation of the prospective supplier before contracts are let, evaluation of the supplier's QA program after the contract is let and before work begins, continuing evaluation during manufacture, including audits in conjunction with licensee personnel, and regular shop inspections by Bechtel inspectors.
Site contractors sre also audited regularly by Bechtel.
Documentation, concerning this audit program, was reviewed, including lists of vendors inspected, examples of vendor evaluations and QA program audits, shop inspection reports, and site audits.
Review of documentation and discussion with responsible personnel indicated that requirements for audits in the Bechtel QA program are being met.
4.
F-M Quality Assurance Program ('_ \\ \\s_,/ The F-M quality assurance program was recently reviewed (see RO Inspection Report No. 050-346/72-06) and, except for development of work and inspection procedures, was considered to meet the licensee's commitments and the requirements of the Appendix B criteria. No significant changes have occurred, and procedures are being developed in a timely manner.
Overall implementatioa and effectiveness of the program is considered adequate, commen-surate with the status of electrical work.
Further review is planned for future inspections as installation and inspection activities for electrical equipment and components increase.
Receiving and quality documentation for Q-listed (seismically qualified) cable trays and supports, purchased by F-M to Bechtel specification, were reviewed and found to be in accordance with procedures and specification requirements.
During the inspection, it was noted that covers had not been installed over equipment in one of the 480-volt switchgear rooms, although chipping of concrete was in progress in the room. The , licensee and the contractor's representative stated that correc-tive action would be taken to prevent recurrence.
) - 17 - ga
"N 5.
B&W Quality Assurance Program a.
General Eighteen B&W components at the site were inspected and documentation reviewed relative to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
Rer,ults of these inspections and reviews are described in the succeeding paragraphs.
b.
Pressurizer (1) The pressurizer is stored on timbers in the B&W storage yard which is isolated and restricted from general traffic.
It is inspected regularly by B&W, and the inspections are documented.
During inspections, the status of the desiccant is checked.
Inspection of the pressurizer and associated documen.ation indicated that storage requirements are being met.
(Criteria XIII applies.)
(2) Documentation concerning the pressurizer was reviewed as follows: (a) The purchase order is a part of the documentation package.
Specifications are cited in the purchase order and are on file. These documents were checked \\ against the requirements of the FSAR and agreement ' was confirmed.
(b) A B&W form entitled " Quality Documentation of Equipment" and attached " Quality Assurance Data Sheets", signed by the Nuclear Power Generation Department (NPGD) QA manager, were reviewed. The NPGD QA manager certified that the pressurizer meets specifications and that the documentation required by the "QA Data Sheets" had been reviewed and found acceptable in arriving at this determination. The "QA Data Sheets" require information concerning material certifications, welding, welding and NDT procedures, testing, cleaning, packaging, and records to be maintained.
(c) Receiving inspection reports were reviewed which indicated that the pressurizer was received in good condition.
The pressurizer was received without quality documentation; a B&W "NSS Deviation Report" - 18 - O\\v) . - - - -_ _
_ s ) was therefore completed and sent to B&W; and the g pressurizer was marked " Rejected".
Subsequently, the quality documentation described in (b) above was received, and the pressurizer was cleared for installation.
, (d) Criteria IV, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XV, are applicable to these activities.
c.
Other Components Other components were inspected and documentation reviewed in a manner similar to the pressurizer's inspection and documen-tation review.
Following is a summcry of results: (1) Steam Generators Steam generator quality assurance records are not at the site. A B&W letter indicates a contract variation which must be sesolved.
The steam generators are marked , " Rejected" due to the lack of QA documentation.
(2) Reactor Coolant Piping Subassemblies A " Quality Documentation of Equipment" signed by B&W s ) NPGD QA manager, with notation that stress analysis s_ / report has not been issued, was reviewed. A B&W letter to TECO, stating that RC piping is not certified to , B31.7 due to lack of stress analysis, was also reviewed.
! The inspector established that the piping subassemblies are being properly treated as nonconforming.
(3) Reactor Coolant Pumps Three reactor coolant pumps (casings and internals) are at the site.
The casing for the fourth pump is at the site, but the internals have not been delivered.
Quality documentation, certifying that one of these pumps meets specifications, is at the site; similar documentation is lacking for the other pumps. Quality assurance personnel have issued deficiency reports regarding the records that are lacking.
A ! (4) Core Flooding Tanks The two core flooding tanks are at the site, and a " Quality Documentation of Equipment" certifying that both tanks meet specifications is in the files.
O \\ - 19 - (s -l
' . _ . ._ . -_ .-.
(5) Decay Heat Pumps and Motors , High Pressure Injection Pumps and Motors The two decay heat pumps and motors and the two high pressure injection pumps and motors are at the site.
Records are in the file which certify that all the motors meet specifications.
Records are not available certifying that the pumps meet specifications.
Deficiency reports have been issued regarding the records which are lacking.
(6) Makeun Pumps and Motors The two makeup pumps and motors are at the site, and records certifying that these pumps and motors meet specifications are on file.
(7) Valves Two valves to be installed within the reactor coolant pressure boundary (CF HVlB and HP HV2B) were inspected and records reviewed.
Records indicated that these valves and attached motor operators meet specifications.
(8) Summary ss ) Eight of the eighteen components inspected were certified as meeting the requirements of the specifications by records available at the site. Ten components lacked this certification, and the B&W site QA organization had issued deficiency reports to document this fact and to expedite delivery of the required quality documenta-tion.
d.
Summary , Inspection of the 18 B&W components, review of records, and discussion with responsible personnel established that the B&W quality assurance program at the Davis-Besse site is functioning in accordance with requirements at this stage of cons t ruction.
Inspection also established that the quality assurance program of B&W is lagging in that documentation certifying that major components, which have been delivered to the site, are built to specifications is not available and installation of these components cannot proceed.
l - 20 - s %ss . - . _ - - .. -
) 6.
ITT - Grinnell Quality Assurance Program d a.
General This inspection had the specific goal of ascertaining whether the licensee and other contractors supplying equipment and services to the Davis-Besse site were performing in accordance with the requirements of the Davis-Besse FSAR and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
This section of the report describes the findings of the inspection concerning the Grinnell quality assurance program and the interaction between Grinnell and TECO, the licensee, and Bechtel, the construction manager.
b.
Quality Assurance Program - Piping Grinnell has initiated and is implementing a satisfactory quality program for the Class I piping spools.
Procurement, receiving, installation, and testing conform to the FSAR and applicable codes. TECO and Bechtel have made satisfactory provision for audit of the QA system at the Grinnell fabricating plant in Kernersville, North Carolina, and at the Davis-Besse site, where Grinnell erects the piping systems.
c.
Quality Control System and Records - Main Steam Piping i (s The records for spool No. PM-203A were examined in detail.
A ( This piping spool is specified to conform to ASME Section III, N-- Class 2, and was ordered by B&W.
The materials and test certifications were satisfactory, and all nondestructive test information was available.
A sockolet was identified in the spool, together with the applicable specification. The insert ring material used and weld rod were properly identified with satisfactory test results. The results of impact testing were also included in the documentation package together with weld stress relief records.
Radiographs and MT records were in order and signed by Grinnell QC and by the resident Bechtel QC inspector.
A forming and bending procedure, No. ES-101-N3, is applicable to carbon steel piping however, no bending is to be performed at the site.
If performed at Grinnell, Kernersville, an ultra-sonic thickness test will be employed to assure that excessive thinning does not occur in pipe walls.
' , - 21 - C\\U
. ,. The storage of piping is governed by Specification No.
7749-M-190. This specification requires that carbon steel piping be shipped with end protectors securely taped to each end of the spools. Desiccant bags are attached to the inner surface of each end protector, and the spools are required to be laid on dunnage so that ground contact does not occur.
See paragraph 1.a., above, in regard to an apparent violation of this requirement, d.
Quality Control System and Records on Piping Spools - other i Class I Systems Personnel were interviewed and documentation examined to assure that Criteria IV, VI, VII, XV, XVII, and XVIII of Appendix B, L0 CFR Part 50, were being properly implemented by TECO, Bechtel, and Grinnell.
Documentation examined related to the piping spools tabulated below: Identification Components Specification Tests 41HBC-42-3 Reducing Tee FS10lN MT (Service water 18" pipe System) LRWE RFWN i 34HCB-8-3 (5) 8" x 1" FS350-11 UT Bend (Containment Nozzles Spray System) WN Flange 8" Pipe 33A-HCB-1-7 18" x 14" Tee FS350ll RT, LP (Emergency 18" Pipe Core Cooling System) 33A-CCA-4-2 12" LRWE 90" FS350N RT, LP (Decay Heat 12" Seamless Spec. Clean Removal System) Pipe 33B-CCB-6-7 LRWE FS35011 RT, LP (LP Injection 3/4" Sockolet and Core 10" Pipe Flooding System) These spools were inspected at the fabrication source, Grinnell, by a Bechtel QC representative, and all record packages were properly signed and spool pieces code stamped.
- 22 - m , - _ _ . - _. -- - - -
/ \\ N TECO and Bechtel have made audits of Grinnell, Kernersville, which are documented. TECO and Bechtel also audited Grinnell field operations on April 10, 1973. This audit was concerned with Q-listed piping and supports, 2" diameter and under.
c.
QA/QC and Records - Class I Valves The documentation for several 6", 8", and 10" gate valves, supplied by the Velan Valve Company of Montreal, Canada, was examined. These valves were procured to specification i No. 7749-M-212 and meet the requirements of ASME Section III, 1971 Addenda, July 1, 1971 Case No. 1335-6.
Certifications and test records were examined and appeared to be complete for all the materials and components used in fabricating these valves.
Certification of design was signed by the manager of inspection for Velan.
The certificate of compliance and the production test report were approved by the Bechtel QC representative. The certificate of shop inspection has been signed by W. R. Dionne, No. 5512, National Board, Boiler and Pressure Vessel of Quebec. Wall thickness measurements for valves are being made to a specific procedure, and certification is made that no mercury contamination exists on any part of the valves.
The valves were observed stored indoors, and satisfactory g ) receiving inspection records were available.
'd t.
QC Records - Containment Spray Valve ~ Documentation for containment spray valve S/N 0017 (10" gate valve supplied by Velan) was examined.
Certifications and all ASME requirements were in order. However, it was not clear which revision of the applicable specification, No. 7749-M-212, applied. The shipping papers, dated January 19, 1973, from Velan, indicated Revision 2 applied, although a Revision 3 had been issued on December 21, 1972. A Revision 4 specificiation was in evidence, although it had not been , apprcved by TECO.
A closer control on effective dates of ' revisions and dissemination of specifications, not approved by TEC0, appear to be desirable and was brought to the attention , i of the licensee.
The licensee stated that no unapproved specifications should be distributed. This matter will be reviewed during subsequent inspection.
- 23 - o. -.. - -. - _ ~. . _ . = _. . ._ . . .- -- ] <s ~ ! - l i g.
Additional OA/QC and Records . Documentation on the following items was examined, and the
QA system appeared to be functioning in a satisfactory manner.
i Item Supplier Status
Component Cooling Struthers Wells Accep'ted and Installed Heat Exchanger Component Cooling Gould Pump, NCR Outstanding Pumps Incorporated Containment Spray Gould Pump, NCR Outstanding
Pump Incorporated Emergency Diesel Richmond Engineer-Accepted, Stored Day Tank ing Company Emergency Ventila-CVI Division NCR Outstanding tion Filter Pennwalt I h.
Criteria I and II - Organization and Quality Assurance Program The organization of the QA program was examined as it exists ) between TECO, Bechtel, and Grinnell. Grinnell performs the receiving inspection on piping spools, and audits on this cctivity are carr*cd out by TECO and Bechtel.
Bechtel has the responsibility for quality on valves procured to TECO , j purchase orders and are audited by TECO. The requirements i for clearly defined and operating quality organizations, j under the licensee, are met at this site. The quality assurance J prcgram areas are identified and are being satisfactorily implemented.
1.
Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings -
Criterion VI, Document Control The planning sheets, specifications, weld procedures, and iso-metric drawings, controlling the activities of Grinnell, were examined and found to be adequate.
Engineering changes are made by Grinnell in the home office in Providence, with the licensee's approval.
Document releases and changes were handled in a satisfactory manner.
1,
- 24 -
. .- . . - ._ ~ ,. _. _ , _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _.. _ _... _ -.
. _ _ . _ - .. _ __ ,m . ) j.
Criterion VII, Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, ( and Services - Criterion VIII, Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components Documentation for several piping spools was examined and , appears to be satisfactory. Material certifications and test results, from Grinnell and their subcontractors, were included, together with the necessary identification. Various items incorporated in spools were identified as to supplier, heat number, test results, and applicable specifications. Trace-ability of the hardware to the paper work had been satisfactorily . established.
! k.
Criterion IX, Control of Special Processes - Cciterion X, Inspection Records were in the file establishing that welding, heat treating and nondestructive testing were being performed by qualified personnel using qualified procedures in accordance with applicable codes. A satisfactory program of inspection and verification of quality has been implemented by Grinnell, Bechtel, and the licensee.
1.
Criterion XIV, Inspection, Test, and Operating Status Criterion XV, Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components Criterion XVI, Corrective Action f) The system for identification of accepted materials or components N/ and nonconforning items was examined. Tags were hung on all materials and equipment which had outstanding nonconforman-?s, and the tags were numbered so that they could be traced t, a records. Grinnell has an acceptable quality plan which it.
,2 des i , referral to engineering, when required, and includes a revised ! planning sheet of the fabrication required.
Procedures involved l in rework were properly documented and signed.
The program provision for corrective action also appeared to be satisfactory.
Grinnell (site) had made definite recommendations to their fabricator with regard to protective end closures on piping spools.
m.
Criterion XVII, Quality Assurance Records - Criterion XVIII, I Audits The quality assurance records for piping spools, to be installed in five diff arent Class I (Q-listed) systems, were examined.
These records were complete and contained certifications and
- 25 - lO . -
. _. _. _. _.
-.. . -- _.
_ _ - _- _ _ _. . - -.
4 , I i test results from all subcontractors to Grinnell.
Radiographs and nondestructive test records were included in.the documenta- ' tion package.
Grinnell had records in the file of audits made on their j l suppliers.
Grinnell, onsite, have also inspected Grinnell at Kernersville with regard to the QA program.
TECO and Bechtel have a very extensive and complete vendor < audit program.
Bechtel maintains full-time quality inspection at Grinnell, Kernersville, as well as making source inspections, ! when required, at a number of other vendors. The five people in the TECO quality assurance group all made inspections at vendors. Their inspection plans were complete and extended
to the suppliers of the main contractor.
!,
i , T - 26 - ! , ! ' , ' i I - - - -, - - - - - -,. ~,, - - - -, - - -,,,, -, - -. - -. - - - -, -. - -. -. - - ,.,, - -.,, -, ..-- - - - - - -. - - - - - -. . }}