IR 05000346/1975013
| ML19319B376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1975 |
| From: | Hayes D, Jablonski F, Sutton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B377 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-75-13, NUDOCS 8001150957 | |
| Download: ML19319B376 (18) | |
Text
D
~
.
.
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
.
Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-13
'
Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80
'
Unit 1 Category:
B Oak Harbor, Ohio Type of Licensee:
FWR (B&W) - 872 MWe Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
June 24 - 26, 1975 Os Y
f*2 7-7 !
Principal Inspector:
J. W. Sutton
'""
99., st&sG
,
Accompanying Inspectors: F.,J./Jablonski 7-SV"73 I
(Date)
C#l
. R. Nai u
) ~ 3 Y ~? ),
(Date)
Other Accompanyi Personne,-
None f & d'
7-2V-7f Reviewed B.,t' D. W. Hayes Senior Reactor Inspector (Date)
Construction Branch
/
COPY SENT TO: FDR LTD3 O
NSIC ZIC
.
_-. _ _ - - _. __
_ _ _ _ - _ _
-
.
l.
/
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Inspection Summary Inspection of June 24 - 26 (75-13):
Reviewed documentation and made observations of areas relative to the resolution of previously identified unresolved matters. One (1) item of noncompliance was identified relative to storage of safety related equipment.
'
Enforcement Action
,
A.
Items of Noncompliance 1.
Violations T
None.
,
2.
Infractions Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII, electrical construction materials were not being stored or identified in accordance with Fischbach and Moore, Incorpor-ated, stprage procedures No. SP-7749-E14-5a.001 and No. SP-7749-E14;-5. 001. (Report Details,Section II, Paragraph 1)
N
'#
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with
safety significance.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, activities relative to the identification of noncomforming materials were not performed in accordance with Quality Assurance Procedure No. 6, Paragraph 5.3 of the Fischbach and Moore, Incorporated (F&M) Quality Control Manual.
The corrective action for the above item, as outlined in the Toledo Edison Company (TECO) letter of June 24, 1975, in response to the IE:III letter and report dated May 20, 1975, was found to have been satisfactorily accomplished and documented.
This matter is considered closed.
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 1)
_
x_
.
.
.
_.
..
'~'}
Other Significant Findings v
A.
Systems and Components
Unresolved Item The inspector reviewed various sheets of Bechtel Drawing No.
7749-E-302A and determined that, in some cases, the TECO approval signature was not apparent.
This item was discussed with cognizant TECO management.
TECO indicated they would review all project drawings and verify that TECO approval
~
signatures are affixed before the drawings are released for con.
struction use.
This matter will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
B.
Facility Items
,
Current Status The licensee indicated that, as of May 1975:
(1) plant overall construction was 86.1% complete, and (2) engineering was 98.8%
complete.
C.
Managerial Items 1.
The inspector was informed that Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
j has made the following personnel change at the Davis-Besse
\\s_ '
Unit 1 site.
Mr. P. R. Brituell has replaced Mr. H. A.
Ablondi as the Site Project Quality Assurance Engineer.
2.
The inspector was informed that on June 16, 1975, TECO issued a Stop Work Order to F&M/Colgan Electric (F&M)
stopping installation of conduit and associated equipment carrying Class IE cables, including supports for these components.
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 2)
E.
Deviations None.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 1.
Hydraulic Snubbers (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/74-07, No. 050-346/75-01, No. 050-346/75-03, and No. 050-346/75-07)
The inspector reviewed the available information and deter-mined that it was incomplete. The licensee stated that he will expedite the vendor to supply the necessary information.
This item remains open.
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 2)
O-3-
'
.
P
__
_ - -__- - __ _
.
..
[
2.
Cable Tray Installation Procedure (Inspection Report
\\s_,
No. 050-346/74-07)
,
-
The inspector reviewed the following documents:
Final Safety Analysis Report, Volume 8, page 8.1.2-1, a.
No. 1.
This section deleted the requirement for cable tray covers.
b.
FEH Procedure No. IIP-7749-E14-7a.001, paragraph 3.2(6).
This section supplies details of raceway. identification.
.
.
Bechtel Specification No. M255; purchase specifications c.
for fire barriers and seals.
d.
Bechtel Drawing No. E302A, sheets 16, 17, 23, 24, and 25; fire installation details.
Baced upon the review of these documents and the inspection effert of Bechtel engineers from Gaithersburg concerning the establishment of barrier criteria, this matter is considered closed.
3.
Cable Tray Storage (Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-07)
/N This matter is now considered to be an item of noncompliance.
k,)
(Report Details,Section II, Paragraph 1)
4.
Reactor Coolant Pump Suction Weldment Linear Indication-d (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/74-04, No. 050-346/74-07, No. 050-346/75-01, No. 050-346/75-03, and No. 050-346/75-07)
The inspector reviewed final documentation pertaining to the acceptance of welds No. WJ-2-2 and No. WJ-2-3.
The radio-graphs of the *.wo welds were reviewed by the inspector and were found to be in order. This item is considered as closed.
(Re9ert Details,Section I, Paragraph 3)
5.
Class lE Electrical Cable Trays (Inspection Reports No.
050-346/74-02, No. 050-346/74-04, No. 050-346/74-07, No.
050-346/74-10. No. 050-? ', '75-03, and No. 050-346/75-07)
The inspector reviewed F&M Procedures No. IIP-7749-E14-7.001 and No. IIP-7749-E14-7a.001. The procedures have been approved by TECO, but F&M has not performed inspections utilizing the new inspection checklists. The inspector observed that the cable tray grounding network was not being installed according to
,
-4-
.
e
_
,
-
.
.
Bechtel Drawing No. 7749-E-301A, sheet 13.
Reference drawing f~~
sheet 42 for inspection and test information has not been (\\,;
approved. This matter remains unresolved. Follow-up review
.
will be made during a subsequent inspection.
6.
Review of Bagwell Coating, Incorporated (Bagweli. QA Manual (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-07, No. 050-346/75-10, No. 050-346/75-01, No. 050-346/75-03, and No. 050-346/75-07)
This item remains open pending final review of the Bagwell QA manual. No quality related work is being performed by Bagwell.
7.
Incomplete Installed Equipment Reports (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/ 75-01, No. 050-346/ 75-03, and No. 050-346/75-07)
The inspector reviewed installed equipment reports and deter-mined that Bechtel construction management is verifying the accuracy of the installed equipment and making necebsary modifications to correct any deviations from the design drawings. The reports are being returned to Grinnell with necessary signoffs.
This item is considered closed.
8.
List of Safety Related Items (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-01)
This item remains open pending a final review of TECO's management report by the inspector.
O)
\\
9.
Documentation on Paint (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03 and No. 050-146/75-07)
The inspector reviewed letter FLil-430, dated May 11, 1975, from the Bechtel construction manager to Lum Irsay approving the actual paints used.
This item is considered closed.
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 3)
10.
Inappropriate Closure of Nonconformance Reports (NCR's)
(Inspection Eeports No. 050-346/75-03 and No. 050-346/75-07)
The vendor has not furnished information on the results of tests conducted on samples of a:tivated charcc al used in the filters supplied. This item retains open.
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 4)
-5-
.
I
~_ -
,
.
l
)
r-
.
-
!
,
!
.
_
_ _
_ _. _ _ _
.__
-_
'
11.
Incomplete Test Data (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03 and No. 050-346/75-07)
[
)
Documentation on the results of the minimum elongation tests
\\s_ /
has not been received at the site. This item remains open.
,
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 4)
12.
Audits on the Installed Restraints (Inspection Report No.
050-346/75-03)
The inspector reviewed the corrective action taken by the licensee to resolve deviations identified in the audits performed to date and determined that the action taken to date was incomplete. This item remains open.
(Report
.
Details,Section III, Paragraph 5)
13.
Emergency Diesel Generator Storage (Inspection Report No.
050-346/75-03)
TheinspectorreviewedFkMProcedureNo.SP-7749-E14-5L.001, Revision 1, dated April 29, 1975. The revisions were considered to be acceptable; however, the procedure did not have Level I approval. This matter remains open pending review of documentation to establish that the revised pro-cedural instructions have been implemented.
14.
Design Changes to Seismic Class I Tubing Protection (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-03)
The inspector reviewed Bechtel Specifications No. 7749-M-328, ( _,7 Revision 7, sheet 3, figures 6 and 10, and No. 7749-M-329, Revision 7, sections 6.6.3, 6.6.4, and 7.6.5.
. Based upon this review and a telephone conversation with the Bechtel instrument engineering group supervisor, the inspector concluded that seismic Class I tubing protection criteria is now well documented.
All essential channel tubing will be routed in protective raceway.
This matter is considered closed.
15.
Johnson Controls Company (Johnson Controls) Subvendor 1 spections (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-07)
This item remains open pending the inspector'a review of a Johnson Controls audit of the subvendor's QA/QC activities.
-6-
'N i
%
.
h
,
, - - -
-
-
,
,
-
i
.
/N 16.
Cable Separation and Barrier Criteria (Inspection Report
]
(
)
No. 050-346/75-07)
In response to the Immediate Action Letter of May 30, 1975, TECO has involved Bechtel Engineering Gaithersburg, in an in-depth electrical inspection effort.
(IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-09) One of the Bechtel responsibili-ties is to establish barrier criteria and identify separation barrier locations.
These areas, as well as all other elec-trical in-depth inspection areas, will be subjects of subsequent inspections and reports. As a separate item, howeven this
-
matter is considered closed.
-
17.
Electrical Noncomformance Reports (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-07)
The inspector determined that nonconformance reports B-080A, B-093, and B-100 had not been dispositioned.
This matter remains unresolved and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
18.
Audits (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-07)
The inspector reviewed TECO's Audit No. 348 of F&M dated May 9 - 15, 1975, concerning cable installations, conduit installation, receipt and storage of trays, conduits and
-~g
!
cables, review of internal audits, and review of subvendor
'
audits. Three audit findings were identified and documented.
A response to the audit findings from the contractor was dated June 23, 1975. TECO's answer is forthcoming.
The next routine TECO audit of FSM is scheduled for April, 1976 (i.e. yearly audit) however, special audits can be conducted at any time. Audits will continue to be reviewed as part of the NRC routine inspection effort.
This matter is considered closed.
Management Interview A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspecticn.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
L. E. Roe, Vice President - Facilities Development E. C. Novak, General Superintendent - Power Engineering and Construction J. D. Lenardson, Quality Assurance Manager N
_7-
~
.
e n
_.
-
- -
.-
E. A. Wilcox, Field Quality Assurance Specialist C. T. Daft, Quality Assurance Engineer
J. Evans, Station Superintendent N!
M. D. Calcamuggio, Power Plant Electric Engineer
.
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
H. A. Ablondi, Project Quality Assurance Engineer C. L. Huston, Field Construction Manager J. D. Heaton, Project Field Quality Control Engineer P. R. Brituell, Quality Assurance Engineer J. B. Olmstead, Project Manager (Gaithersburg)
D. W. Kalligan, Manager - Division Engineering (Gaithersburg)
-
B.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of management personnel were as follows:
1.
The inspector stated that TECO's June 24, 1975 reply to IE:III
_
pertaining to the item of noncompliance, reported as a result of the April 21 - 23, 1975 site inspection, was found to be acceptable. The corrective action taken by TECO has been documented.
2.
The inspector stated that the IE inspectors concentrated on the dispositioning of unresolved items that have been open for a considerable time. He further stated that.,pproximately one-half of the unresolved items were being closed as a result of the current inspection.
NJ 3.
The inspector commented on the preliminary review the inspectors conducted relative to the special electrical inspection being performed by TECO/Bechtel.
It appears that the initial phase of the electrical inspection, i.e., cable tracing, is in progress however, preliminary results have not been evaluated. The inspector indicated that this matter will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
4.
The inspector stated that the unresolved item pertaining to F&M cable tray storage was being classed as a noncompliance, due to conditions noted during the inspection.
The inspector further stated that the condition noted was contrary to the requirements of F&M Storage Procedure SP-7749.E14-5a.001 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII.
5.
The inspector stated that the procedure presently being followed regarding TECO's signoff of prints and drawings released for construction could lead to problems, due to
_g_
O)
i-e
.*
O
_.. - _,
_. _, _ _ _ -,
.
y
-
- -
-
__
.
.
the fact that each drawing / print does not show a final TECO approval.
The inspectors were informed by the licensee that a cover letter, transmitted with the prints / drawings, contained the approval.
The licensee further indicated that
,
-
all construction prints / drawings in use would be checked for individual signoff. The inspector stated that this item would be further reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
6.
The inspector stated that the cable tray grounding problem has not been satisfactorily resolved.
He indicated that, during the current inspection, the inspectors noted that the grounding connections were not being installed according to
~
the drawings. The licensee stated that this matter would b'e discussed with Bechtel.
.
i i
)
.
~
- i T*
.
. -.., _
--- -. -. - -, - -.-
-- _
. - -
_.y,. -..
..y.
. -..
.
. r
,_._.
,.-,
y
__~
_m-,,
.-r
,-,
.
.
(7 REPORT DETAILS
\\'
Section I
.
Prepared by:
J. W. Sutton Persons Contacted
'
'The following person, in addition to those listed in the Management Interview section of this report, was contacted during the inspection.
Johnson Controls Company (Johnson Controls)
'
R. Jones, Quality Assurance Minager Results of Inspection 1.
Licensee Corrective Action, Enforcement Matters The inspector reviewed tha licensee's implementation of corrective action, as stated in the TECO letter to IE:III, dated June, 24, 1975. The licensee's corrective action covered the activities g-relative to identification of nonconforming materials as designated (
in the F&M Quality Assurance Manual.
%
The following were reviewed and observed during the inspection:
a.
F&M hold tags were found to be in place at equipment DC
,
'
panels DIP, D2P, DIN, and D2N.
b.
The written instructions issued by F&M pertain'ing to their surveillance of hold tags were reviewed.
c.
TECO Audit of F&M, conducted on May 9-15, 1975, was reviewed.
Audit findings were identified and transmitted to F&M QA/QC personnel.
d.
TECO audit, performed June 13-16, 1975, on use of F&M Procedure No. 6, Nonconformance Tagging. Audit findings were made and submitted to F&M managment. The findings were found to have been satisfactorily corrected. Future audits of F&M will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
- 10 -
O0
<
.
.
. - - -. -
-
-, -
-. - -
-
.
2.
Stop-Work Order (F&_M)
(' '
The inspector reviewed the following documentation pertaining to
.
the stop-vork order issued to F&M on June 16, 1975:
.
d.
TECO letter dated June 16, 1975, to the Bechtel site project manager, indicating that the installation of conduits and associated equipment carrying Class IE essential cables was to be stopped. The letter indicated that Bechtel was directed to perforn an engineering analysis to confirm the adequacy or installed conduit and associated equipment, including supports,
'
carrying Class 1E cable to maintain its integrity under sit'e design seismic conditions. Resumption of work would be permitted upon receipt by Bechtel construction management of conduit installation details, properly approved by both Bachtel and TECO Engineering.
b.
Letter, Bechtel to F&M, dated June 16, 1975, indicating that they should stop work on essential equipment carrying 1E cables.
This matter will be further reviewed during subsequent inspections.
l 3.
Reactor Coolant Pump Suction Weldment Linear Indication The inspector reviewed documentation that has been generated for the repair of pump welds WJ-2-2 and WJ-2-3.
The records indicated that repair procedure H27-01-9-13-74, with hold and signoff points, p)
had been completely filled out and signed as required.
Third-party (N- /
inspection was used during the repair.
The qualification records of the welders and NDE personnel were reviewed and found to be in order. The inspector also reviewed the final radiographic film for both welds. The film was found to be in order and signed off by B&W, Bechtel, TECO, and HSB personnel, as required by the repair procedure.
The inspector also reviewed the following documentation:
a.
TECO audit, conducted on April 8-9, 1975, of B&W site document-ation files pertaining to the reactor coolant pump suction welds.
b.
B&W's final report of pump suction welds, dated May 6, 1975, prepared by the Quality Assurance Manager, B&W.
The report summarized the entire weld repair activity from discoscry to final weld acceptance.
c.
B&W audit report, dated May 22, 1975, of an audit conducted on May 15 - 16, 1975, of the Quality Control Program for TECO.
The audit covered:
(1) reports of nonconformity, (2) field construction procedures and associated documentation, and (3) review of data collection and code data report forms.
.
s _-)
'
- 11 -
-
-
7.
-
,
,---
-
- -... -. -.
..
--
-
_ _ _ _ _
_
.
..
'
The inspector found that the records produced during the repairs (
of reactor coolant pump suction weldments No. WJ-2-1, No. WJ-2-2,
\\
No. WJ-2-3, and No. WJ-2-4 were well documented and in order.
The welds were found to have been repaired in accordance with the
.
requirements of ASME Code,Section III.
4.
General Electric 480 V Circuit Breakers Final 50.55(e) Reports No. 10-3-74 and 3-14-75
,
The inspector reviewed the licensee's final report dated March 14, 1975. The corrective action taken has been examined and found to be acceptable. No further followup is warranted..
.
.
.
O
I
!
!
.
12 -
.
i.
.
l
.
,,,v.,,__
_.___.._w--
. -...., _
.,,.
_. _
_ _ _
.. _ - -
, -, _ _.. - _ _ _ _ -.
.. _. -.... _ _ -. -, - _ -... _.. -.
-
-
_ _ _ _
.
..
REPORT DETAILS O
Section II Prepared by:
F. J. Jablonski Persons Contacted
. The following persons, in addition to those listed in 'the Management,
Interview section of this report, were contacted during the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO) Operations Branch (OB)
J. E. Orkins, OB - Instrument and Control Engineer J. C. Buck, Quality Assuarnce Engineer A. Topor, Power Plant Electric Engineer Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
D. D. Bilowus, Electrical Engineer '(Gaithersburg)
R. F. Ertukel, Project Electric Engineer (Gaithersbury,)
V. W. Howard, Instrument Engineering Group Supervisor Telephone)
(Gaithersburg
-
S. N. Saba, Electrical Supervisor - Davis-Besse Design (Gaithersburg)
Fischbach and Moore, Incorporated (F&M)
i
'
W. L. Columbia, Assistant Project Manager F. Kollin, Project Manager l
D. M. Moeller, Quality Control Manager
~
Results of Inspecticn 1.
Ccble Tray Storage The inspector reviewed documents and made observations concerning the storage of cable trays. Based on this review, the following was determined:
a.
The installation of cable tray was included as part of Revision 11 to the "QA-List" (safety related) dated February 5, 1975.
- 13 -
M
.
.
-,.,
-
..,.
--...-
-,.
-
.
...e.
-..
,. - -. - - -
- -,
.
-
.
. __
__
.
b.
F&M Procedures No. SP-7749-E14-5a.001 and No. SP-7749-E14-5.001 f%
were approved with Level 1 status on April 10, 1975.
The (' )
revision included the addition of raceway and tray supports as items requiring storage surveillance.
.
A review of the Aprit and May 1975 monthly storage records c.
did not indicate any discrepancies.
d.
A visual inspection of the outdoor storage area was made, and the following discrepancies were noted:
(1) Safety related, "Q", and nonsafety rela,ted materials were stored together.
-
(2)
In several cases, cable tray acceptance tags were not secured to the tray bundles.
(3)
Several acceptance tags were scattered about the ground in the areas of cable tray and conduit.
(4)
Several wireways indicated severe rusting conditions.
An acceptance tag, attached to this equipment, was removed by the F&M QC manager indicating that this item was not considered to be safety related, "Q".
Based on items c. and d., above, and the fact that these items were f-~
originally identified during the inspection of October 23-25, 1974, Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-07, the inspector concluded (\\- ';
that this matter was contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII, in that electrical construction materials were not being stored or identified in accordance with F&M storage pro-cedures No. SP-7749-E14-Sa.001 and No. SP-7749-E14-5.001.
Cognizant TECO management was advised of this matter.
2.
Calibration Tests The inspector met with the TECO instrument and control engineer and determined that there are program procedures which specifically require component and loop calibration tests of the reactor pro-tection system, safety features actuation system, integrated con-trol system, in-core monitoring system, control rod drive system, and other safety related systems.
Set point and other calibration data is provided in the Station Technical Specifications, Final Safety Analysis Report and Mea!.anical Specifications. Detailed testing procedures are available for the calibration of all instrument devices. Only a limited number of safety related instrument calibration has been accomplished.
The inspector determined that calibration test procedures and the availability of set point criteria meet the requirements of the NRC.
)
/
N_/
- 14 -
s
.
f a
e
.
'
.
REPORT DETAILS
-
Section III
!
Prepared by:
K. R. Naidu
>
I Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to individuals listed under the
' Management Interview section of this report, were contacted during
-
!
this inspection.
'
Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
,
.
W. R. Klingler, Project Manager
'J. W. Marchall, Quality Control Supervisor
<
ITT Grinnell Corporation (Grinnell)
D. Giguere, Quality Control Manager Results of Inspection 1.
Protection of Installed Safety Related Items s
As a result of the previous inspection findings, the Bechtel construction manager issued a letter, dated April 25, 1975, to all contractors requesting them to take adequate precautions to protect the integrity of installed equipment while performing construction activities in the vicinity. The inspector noted that the diesel generators appeared to be adequately covered with plastic sbr.ets.
2.
Hydraulic Snubbers The hydraulic snubbers have been specified in two different specifications; Large Hydraulic Snubber Systems, 7749-C-32, and Small Hydraulic Snubbers, 7749-M-190.
As such, they are being discussed separately, Specification No. 7749-C-32 i
a.
Large Hydraulic Snubber Systems
-
Grinnell was awarded the contract to supply these snubber systems. The inspector was informed that certain components were subcontracted to Miller Fluid Power Division, Chicago, 15 -
'
-
.
+
e
.
.
%
-
-..
- - -.
...
,,.. _,.
_ _.... _ _ _, _..., _ _ _ _, _,
.,, _,
,, _.
_ - _ _ - _ _. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m
.
N Illinois. All the snubbers are reported to be in the process f()
of manufacture.
The current specification reflects require-ments for the seal material relative to high temperature
_,
.
and radiation environment. The licensee infor=ed the inspec-tor that the vendor proposed to conduct radiation tests on the seal material at Isometics,Parsipanny, New Jersey.
A test procedure outlining the radiation test parameters is reported to be under preparation for this purpose.
The inspector reviewed several Audit Findings Reports, dated May 28, 1975, which were generated by the licensee as a result of an in-depth QA audit.
The inspector will review the
'
corrective action taken on these deficiencies during a sub-sequent inspection.
b.
Small Hydraulic Snubbers These snubbers are covered in Part II, Pipe Supports, of Specification No. 7749-M-190.
Some of these snubbers have been delivered and installed at the site. During an inspec-tion in October 1974, the inspector noticed that the original specification did not specify that the seal material used in the snubbers should withstand radiation without deleterious effects. The specification has since been revised. Revision 12 now specifies the radiation levels the
~x seal material should withstand.
The inspector expreesed
)
concern regarding the snubbers already installed, and g
\\~~'
the snubbers being installed, in the absence of verification that the seals used therein will withstand high temperature and radiation without deleterious effects. The licensee stated the vendor will be requested to supply this information.
3.
Documentation on Paint The inspector reviewed the available correspondence between the licensee, Bechtel (A-E) and Lum Irsay (contractor) and determined that two zine primers, Durazine K815 and ZRC, were used by the contractor during the manufacture and repair of the ventilation duct. Prior approval by the construction manager to use the paint as required by Technical Specification No. 7749-M-410, Subsection B, page 3 of paragraph 4.1, was not obtained. The use of the paints has been approved in the field construction manager's letter, FL11-430, dated May 14, 1975, to Lum Irsay.
However, the paints actually used appear to be different than those specified in table 6-10A, page 6-59a, Chapter 6 of the FSAR. The licensee stated that he intends to revise the FSAR to reflect this change.
This item has been transferred to " Items to be Checked" and will be reviewed at a later date.
O
.16 -
y
.
.
"
,
4.
Inappropriate Closure of Nonconformance Reports and Incomplete Test Data (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03 and No.
050-346/75-07)
\\s
,
The inspector reviewed the corrective action taken to date by the licensee to verify that the HEPA filters, which were manufactured and supplied by the CVI Corporation, meet the requirements of the relevant Specification No. 7749-M404, Revision.4, paragraph 8.1.1.
The licensee appears to have examined Redoc Packages No. 357 and No. 367 and determined that information was required to satisfy the specification test requirements and requested Bechtel (A-E) to,obtain the information from the vendor.
Bechtel, in their letter dated
-
May 5, 1975 to CVI Corporation, requested information on
'
four specific test items.
A reminder was issued on June 13, 1975, to CVI Corporation requesting the information. The inspector will review the information received during a subsequent inspection.
.
5.
Audits on the Installed Restraints The licensee was able to take corrective action on some of the Audit Finding Reports. At the time of the current inspection, the inspector was informed that a Management Corrective Action Letter was being drafted to draw management's attention to the unresolved deficiencies.
(/)
To prevent pipe hanger support location changes without appropriate verification and approval, two procedures, No. SS-1355 and No. SS-1356 sm-dated April 24, 1975, have been initiated byGrinnell. These procedures have been approved with comments by Bechtel.
To identify instances where Phillips Red-Head Anchor Bolts were substituted instead of the originally specified Wej-it type anchor bolts, Grinnell prepared Specification No. RD1F-T-25, dated June 26, 1975, instructing the walk-down crew to identify and update the field drawings accordingly during installed materials verification walkdowns.
An AFR identified anchor base plate holes with small tolerances that were being widened by flame cutting.
This is expressly prohibited in Specification M-453," Installation of Prefabricated
and Field-Fabricated Piping", Section 7.6, except when approved by the construction manager. Work done so far had been approved by the construction manager. The inspector expressed the following
!
concerns of flame cutting for this application:
- 17 -
.
_
.
7-
.
t
.
-
-
.
.
a.
Flame cutting invariably does not widen the mounting hole ('~'s concentrically; gouging often results. The intent of (
)
" snug fit" may be destroyed, and the hangers may develop play resulting in pipe vibration.
.
b.
To maintain the structuralintegrity of the hanger support steel, if flame cutting were to be used, preheating and post-heating treatments are recommended to overcome the
'
effect of the heat cycle, particularly the quench effect.
c.
The calculated tensile strength and shear strength of a plate may be reduced if the tolerances between the hole and
'
the plate sides are considerably reduced.
d.
Since all the support steel with prepunched holes is included in the scope of supply of the contractor as stated in paragraph 2.0, Work Included, Technical Specification 7749-M-190, the contractor's'QC program should be reviewed to ensure that appropriate in-process dimensional tolerance inspections are being made during the fabrication.
e.
Receipt inspection pr'ocedures should be reviewed to determine whether they should be reviewed to prevent acceptance of nonconforming (base plates) materials.
The inspector stated that the current Grinnell procedure for the installation of snubbers and hangers does not reference the do's and don'ts mentioned in the relevant
'--
sections of Bechtel Specifications No. M-190 and No.
M-453 for guidance.
The licensee stated he would review this matter with Bechtel and Grinnell. The inspector will review the corrective action during a subsequent inspection.
,
1 k
- 18 -
.
V e
- - - - - - -
--
, - -.. ~ ~
~
~
-
,
n
--