IR 05000346/1975016
| ML19317F592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1975 |
| From: | Sutton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F576 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-75-16, NUDOCS 8001150913 | |
| Download: ML19317F592 (15) | |
Text
-
.
. -. -
. -
- _ -
-
- -
-
_ _.
.
..
. _.
._-.
N,
-
.
.
O U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
REGION III
.
Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-16 Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Plaza Toledo, Ohio 43652 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Unit 1 Category:
B Oak Harbor, Ohio Type of Licensee:
B&W PWR 871 MWe Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced O
Dates of Inspection:
Augusp18-20, 1975
'b bh\\
Principal Inspector:
n
.
.
(Date)
-
A b --
<
s Accompanying Inspector:
. J blonski () /y. ?$
' (Date)
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None d
Reviewed By:
D. W. Hayes, or Inspector
[Yf-7 5'
Construction and Engineering Support Branch (Date)
O 8001150 9/ 3
. -
.
.
.. - __
.--
-
-.
- - -
-..
__
-
-
.
m
)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS s~ /
,
Inspection Summary
.
Inspection of August 18-20, (75-16):
Routine inspection, reviewed licensee's action pertaining to the special site inspection of safety-related electrical wiring and raceways.
Reviewed documentation and made observations of areas relative to the resolution of previously identified unresolved matters.
Reviewed documentation pertaining to the repairs being made to three main coolant pumps.
One item of noncompliance was identified relative to repairs performed on a main coolant pump without an approved procedure.
Enforcement Action A.
Items of Noncompliance 1.
Violations None.
2.
Infraction Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Repairs O
to Reactor Coolant Pump 1B1 were being performed without an approved procedure.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1)
.
This infraction was identified by the IE inspector and had the potential for causing, or contributing to, an occurrence with safety significance.
Licensee Action on previously Identified Enforcement Matters Previous notices of Violations / Infractions:
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-09, Letter dated August 1, 1975.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-10, Letter dated August 5, 1975.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-13, Letter dated July 25, 1975.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-15, Letter dated August 20, 1975.
Although it was apparent that the licensee had taken action relative to these matters, answers to the notices of violations / infractions, had not been received at the time of the current inspection.
These matters remain open pending receipt of an acceptable response from the licensee.
-2-
a
-
4
_
Other Significant Findings I
I V
A.
Systems and Components Unresolved Items Reactor Coolant Pumps - Repairs 1.
Original NDE documentation for the Reactor Coolant Pumps ecsing was not available for the inspector's review for comparison with the pumps current base line NDE documentation.
2.
Verification is required as to what steps are to be taken to recertify the repaired RCPs to Babcock & Wilcox Company's Specification 1036, Paragraph 6.8, Hydrostatic test.
B.
Facility Items Current Status
.
1.
The licensee indicated that as of August 1975:
(1) Plant overall construction was 91% complete, and (2) design and engineering 98.8% complete.
2.
The special electrical inspection being conducted by the licensee is progressing on schedule.
Findings are being documented
[,')
and reviewed.
V C.
Managerial Items 1.
The inspector was informed that three additict3: M Engineers have been added to the licensee's site QA Depa.nment.
Two have been assigned to construction (electrical) and one to preoperational testing.
Bechtel's site QC organization has also added additional persannel to its staff.
2.
The inspector was informed that the stop work order issued to
,
Fischbach & Moore on June 16, 1975, relative to installation of
'
conduit carrying class IE cables was lifted on July 1, 1975.
A step werk order is still in effect for terminal boxes, supports and other associated equipment.
D.
Noncomp!.innce Identified and Corrected by Licensee None.
-3-
,
,
(
)
v F
,m
.
'
,~
,kd 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, No. 050-346/75-07 and No. 050-346/75-13)
This item remains open pending final review of Grinnel and TECO's activities pertaining to this matter.
2.
Class 1E Electrical Cable Trays (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/74-02, No. 050-346/74-04, No. 050-346/74-07, No. 050-
)46/74-10,No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07 and No.
u20-346/75-13)
The inspector reviewed revision 4 of Bechtel Drawing No.
7749-E-301A, Sheet 13.
Reference drawing Sheet 42 has not been approved. Cable tray inspection activities have not commenced.
This matter remains unresolved.
3.
Review of Bagwell Coating, Incorporated (Bacwell) QA Manual gS (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/74-07, No. 050-346/74-10, t
)
No. 050-346/75-01, No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07 and
\\- '
No. 050-346/75-13)
The inspector reviewed documentation which indicated that the Bagwell QA manual for Installation of Protective Coatings had been approved by TECO and Bechtel on August 8, 1975.
This item is considered as closed.
The stop work order issued in 1974, concerning safety related painting work remains in effect.
This matter remains open and will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
4.
List of Safety-Related Items (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-01)
This item remains open pending a final review of the TECO man agement report.
5.
Inappropriate Closure of Nonconformance Reports (NCR's)
,
'
(Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07 and No. 050-346/75-13)
This item remains open pending review of the tests conducted on samples of activated charcoal used in the filters.
-
s (
)
-4-s_
-
O i
")
- - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _
~
.-
,
[
)
6.
Incomplete Test Data (Inspection deports No. 050-346/75-03,
\\~ /
No. 050-346/75-07 and No. 050-346/75-13)
.
Documentation on the results of the minimum elongation tests has not been received at the site.
This item remains open.
7.
Audits on the Installat1(n Restraints (Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-03 and No. 050-346/75-13)
This matter remains open pending review of the corrective action taken by the licensee.
8.
Emergency Diesel Generator Storage (Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-03 and No. 050-346/75-13)
The inspector reviewed five (5) surveillance records indicating that the generator tests (megger) had been performed according to procedure SP-7749-E14-SI.001, approval level 2.
The inspector made note and informed the licensee that the megger reading results indicated that the insulation resistance value of both generators' stator and rotor have continued to decrease, i.e.,
since May, 1975 to August, 1975 the value has changed incrementally from 25 gigaohns to 5 gigaohms and 2 gigaohms to.3 gigaohms respectively. This matter is considered closed.
/\\
9.
Johnson Controls Company (Johnson Controls) Subvendor Inspections k _,
(Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-07 and No. 050-346/75-13)
s This item remains open pending the inspector's final review of the Johnson Controls audit of their subvendor's QA/QC programs.
-
10.
Electrical Nonconformance Reports (Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-07 and No. 050-346/75-13)
The inspector determined that F&M nonconformance reports B-080A,
>
B-093, and B-100 have been dispositioned and satisfactorily closed out by the licensee. This matter is considered closed.
11.
Cable Identifying and Pulling Material Certifications (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-09)
The inspector was informed that TECO engineering has made v
arrangements to perform tests which will verify that cable pulling compounds do n: t effect cable self-extinguishing and non-propagating flame characteristics.
-
-5-
4
,.
.
-- - -,
-
_n gmm
__
.
,
.
x The inspector was further informed that cable identifying materials were the same as those used for commercial identification and therefore posed no fire related problems.
However, no certification or written statement from the manufacturer was available for review by the inspector.,This matter remains unresolved.
12. Motor Control Center Labeling (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-09)
480-V switchgear compartment BE110, in unit substation El, and compartment BF110, in unit substation F1, are not identified in accordance with figures 8-48, 8-10A, and 8-10B, of the FSAR.
The inspector visually inspected the switchgear and found that they now have been relabled and agree with the FSAR.
This matter is considered closed.
13., Cable Material Certifications (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-09)
This matter remains unresolved pending follow-up review.
14.
Equipment Secured by "Hilti-Kwik" Devices (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-10)
l The inspector was informed that TECO has directed Bechtcl-Gaithersburg to establish a sampling plan which would provide j
n acceptance or rejection criteria for subject anchoring installations f
prior to October 15, 1974.
This matter remains unresolved.
15.
TECO Drawing Approvals (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-13)
This item remains open pending the inspectors review of released construction drawings.
16. Mat: ~ Operated Valves (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-15)
This item remains open pending review of documentation.
17. Valve Design and Manufacturer (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-15)
j This item remains open pending further review.
18.
Temporary Pipe Hanger Procedure (Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-15)
This matter remains open pending review of an approval pipe hanger procedure.
-6-O
-
-
^'}
Management Interview
\\j A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the con-clusion of the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
M. D. Calcamuggio, Power Plant Flectrical Engineer G. W. Eichenauer, Quality Assurance Field Representative J. C. Buck, Field Quality Assurance Engineer C. R. Domek, Assistant Superintendent, Power Engineering and Construction R. E. Blanchong, Site Construction Superintendcnt T. W. Mitchell,, Field Quality Assurance Engineer
'
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
'
P. R. Britnell, Project Quality Assurance Engineer H. A. Mear, Assistant Project Field Quality Control Engineer W. C. Lowery, Electrical Quality Assurance Engineer D. D. Bilowus, Electrical Engineer, EIT Leader (Gaithersburg)
C. L. Houston, Field Construction Manager Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
)
(-]
W. R. Klingler, Project Manager
'\\'j B.
Matters discussed and comments on the part of management personnel
'
were as follows:
'
l.
The inspector stated that the main purpose of this inspection was to review the status of the reinspection of installed electrical equipment by the Electrical Inspection Team (EIT)
from Bechtel, Gaithersburg, and review unresolved items for possible resolution, (Report Details, Paragraph 3)
2.
The inspectors stated that the EIT effort appeared to be thorough and well documen'.ad.
The inspectors further stated that special effort woulo be required on the part of site QA-QC personnel to assure that the EIT findings were satisfactorily resolved and reinspected.
-7-Ci
!
)
v I
's
..
.
s%
(,/
3.
Concerning surveillance records pertaining to the storage of the
__
emergency diesel generators the inspector stated that procedures appeared to have been followed and that this matter would be closed out.
The inspector added, that altho still well above minimum requirements, megger readings indicated a continuing decrease in insulation resistance.
4.
The inspector stated that electrical relay coordination calculation sheets had been reviewed and verified that measures for checking and approval were available.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4)
5.
The inspector stated that during discussions with the Bechtel engineering team leader for seismic evaluation of installed electrical conduits, it was indicated that the evaluation and corrective time for the matter would extend from six to nine months.
The licensee indicated that this matter would be given further study.
6.
The inspector stated that during his review of Reactor Coolant Pump repair documentation it appeared that repairs to pump 1B1 were being performed without an approved repair procedure.
The inspector added that this was in nonconformance with Criterion V
['~'}
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
V The inspector further stated that he is requesting that the original radiographic film for the three repaired RCPs be made available for his review.
In addition, he' inquired how the repaired RCPs would be recertified to the B&W manufacturing specification regarding hydrostatic test requirements.
The licensee and B&W representatives indicated that these matters would be discussed further with their management.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1)
7.
The inspector further stated that the July 1, 1975 order lifting
'
the stop work order issued to Fischbach & Moore on June 16, 1975 did not indicate that work was to continue only on installation of conduits carrying IE cables and not on " associated equipment".
This item was brought to the attention of the licensee during the current inspection and a letter clarifying this matter was issued on August 20, 1975.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2)
-8-im
\\J i~
_
__
_
.._
_ _
_
__
_ __
%
.
=
.
i 8.
The inspectors stated that some confusion may result from changes made to the electrical and instrument installation specifications as a result of recent FSAR revisions and asked if some form of indoctrination was to be given to craft personnel.
The licensee indicated that this item and other matters discussed during the meeting would be given priority attention by TECO
,
management.
1 r
.
.
- 9-r~
,
--
-
. _ -.
-
-
--
.
. -. -.
_.
_ _ -,..
..
... -. _ -. -,
_.
. - _ _ - -
.
. -....
- = _ -
..._..
_
.. _..
=.
_ _.. - - - _. -. _ _ _ -. -_ - _..
\\
,.
-
.
REPORT DETAILS,
.
Persons Contacted i
.
,
The following persons, in additon to those listed in the Management interview section of this report, were contacted during the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
i B. R. Beyer, Maintenance Engineer Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
i
!
D. L. Johnson, Construction Manager (Gaithersburg)
M. J. Giarratano, Electrical Engiecer (Gaithersburg)
.
R. Mcdonald, Civil Engineer, (Gaithersburg)
Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W)
.
J. W. Marshall, Quality Control Supervisor R. Nelson, Quality Control Supervisor (In-Service)
'
Fischbach and Moore, Incorporated (F6M)
"
D. M. Moeller, Quality Control Manager
.
Results,',.' Inspection 1.
Repairs - Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCP)
.
l During the inspector's review of documentation pertaining to the repairs being made to the three RCP casings, it was brought to the
'
inspector's attention that repairs were in progress on RCP 1Bl.
Further information indicated that the pump casing had been inspected, ground and repaired in an area different from that initially intended
to be repaired. The mixup apparently occured because the layout of the intended area to be repaired had not been calculated correctly.
The inspector informed the licensee that the procedure used for the first repair was not applicabic to the area now being repaired and that a new procedure should have been developed.
Work on the pump-i l
.
I l
i
_ 10 _
!O
.
I 9'
I-m
-
m-
-
- - -..,
,. -
-
,,~,,_g-n.---,
~c_.,,,,
_.a
_.
,
,e,
-,, -
-w.-
-,,
,-n-,e,-
-,
.._._.
.
N
-
I t
was suspended until an approved procedure could be developed.
The
_ \\
inspector concluded that this matter was contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and B&W OA Policy'No. 9QA-05 and QC Field Construction Procedure No. 9A-178, in that the new repair I
was being performed without an approved procedure.
Another matter discussed during the inspection was that the area being repaired, was considered as a rejectable indication under the ASME Code requirements, but the original documentation was not available that recorded this condition. The inspector requested that the original NDE documentation and film be made available for his review.
The inspector was informed that the films were presently stored at the vendor's plant, but that B&W would request that the a
records be made avilable for the inspector's review.
'
J f
The inspector further inquired if the repaired RCPs casings would
!
be retested /recertified - to meet B&W RCP Specification No. 1036/0569,
!
paragraph 6.8.
The B&W representative indicated that this matter would be discussed with his managament.
The above items will be reviewed during the next inspection.
The following repair documentations were reviewed by the inspector:
a.
B&W Repair Procedures No. 152, No. 153, Revision 2, and No. 155, Revision 1, for repairs to RCP casings PlA1, PlA2, and PlBl.
'"'
!
b.
B&W letter to TECO, dated July 3, 1975, indicating the results
'
of the B&W base-line inspection findings for the RC pumps,
'
. Reviewed RT film developed as a result of the repairs.
The c.
films for pumps PlAl and PIB1 were found to be properly reviewed and signed off by B&W and the Al.
Bechtel had not
,
'
reviewed the film.t.
!
d.
B&W '.leiding Procedure No. WIN-119.6, Revision 0, dated July 8, 1975.
e.
Welders' and NDE personnel qualification records.
f.
Weld repair record sheets and material certifications.
>
!
The documentation reviewed was found to be in order and signed by desi nated personnel.
- 11 -
k _/
s i
i i
.
,
.,
- - -
. - - -- ;
r -
g g-,,-
..
,.
f s
Q 2.
Stop-work Order (Electrical)
'
The inspector was informed that the TECO order, issued to Fischbach and Moore on June 16, 1975, to stop work on the installation of conduits and " associated equipment" carrying Class 1E essential cable, had been lifted on July 1, 1975.
Further review of correspondence removing this restriction indicated that receipt of Bechtel approved drawings would be required before lif ting the stop-work crder.
The inspector was shown Bechtel approved drawing No. 7749, E302A, sheets 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, and 133, Revision 0, that indicated the requirements for conduit installation.
Further review of the Bechtel July 1, 1975 letter did not differentiate between conduits and associated equipment.
The inspector requested to review the approved drawings for " associated equipment".
He was informed that these drawings had not been issued, but were in the process of being developed. The inspector stated that the July 1, 1975 letter to the electrical contractor should have indicated that only the stop work order on installation of conduit was being lifted, and that the stop work on associated equipment would still be in effect.
TECO instructed Bechtel to issue a clarifying letter to the electrical contractor on August 20, 1975.
The letter indicated that the stop-work order was only lifted on conduit installations.
Stop work was still in effect for " associated equipment", pending receipt of approved drawings. This matter will be reviewed during the next inspection.
3.
Follow-up Electrical Inspection The inspector reviewed the three Engineering Inspection Procedures a.
- used by the Gaithersburg Engineering Inspection Team.
They are:
,
(1) Procedure EIP-008-1, " Installation Inspection of Essential Cables",
(2) Procedure EIP-008-2, " Engineering Evaluation of Cable Separation",
(3) Procedure EIP-008-5, " Essential Electrical Equipment -
Exposure to Adverse Environment".
The procedures were reviewed, revised and appropriately approved.
- 12 -
O)
v
.
.-
-
-.
.
x
~'
b.
The inspectors reviewed revision 14, page 8-22a, of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
This revision resulted in the superceeding of Bechtel's letter (FL14-2673) of May 22, 1975
regarding cable separation requirements within cabinets and was cause for a revision to both the electrical and 3.nstrument installation specifications (7749-E-14 and 7749-M-329).
These specification changes created some confusion on the part of the IE inspectors, however, the changes appear to be consistent with the intent of the FSAR.
The inspectors suggested that the licensee advise craftsmen of the changes to avoid confusion during the termination of electrical conductors within cabinets.
The inspectors reviewed several " Engineering Inspection Reports" c.
of the Bechtel-Gaithersburg Engineering Inspection Team relative to installed electrical cable, and adverse environment.
An engineering analysis has been made by Bechtel-Gaithersburg and the findings forwarded to the electrical contractor for rework.
The following table indicates areas inspected and percentages of completed activities.
Area
% Inspected
% Discrepancies
% Rework
% Reinspected Cables
21
0 Cabinets
0
0 Rooms
9
0
,
[
)
The discrepancies ident.ified by the Engineering Inspection Teaa
_/
parallel those identified by the NRC inspectors during the Special Electrical Inspection, (IE Report No. 050-346/75-09), and include items such as sharp edges, misrouting of cables, cabic color coding, raceway identification, etc.
d.
Other records reviewed during the inspection include:
(1)
Bechtel to F&M letter No. FL14-2904, dated August 13, 1975.
(2)
Bechtel Letter No. BBC-3568, Anas to Huston, dated August 11, 1975.
(3)
Bechtel Letter No. BBC-3569, Anas to Houston, dated August 11, 1975.
(4)
Engineering Inspection Reports (cables) I through 414.
(5)
Analysis of Engineering Inspection Reports (cables) I through 298 contained in Bechtel Letters No.. BBC-3427, 3501, 3539, 3540, 3547 and 3571.
- 13 -
m d
>
_
.
..___-___ _ __
_ _ _
T
~
.
g,j (6)
Engineering Inspection Reports (adverse environment)
5001 through 5013.
,
i The inspectors concluded that the inspection effort is comprehensive and well documented. Rework and reinspection efforts will be reviewed during subsequent NRC inspections.
4.
Relay Coordination Study
!
The inspector verified that measures exist which require appropriate relay coordination studies and prescribes settings for protective relays.
Bechtel calculation sheets were prepared and checked by qualified personnel. Appropriate TECO review and approval was apparent on all electrical device setting sheets.
Those sheets reviewed include:
a.
Sheet 12, dated January 16, 1975 b.
Sheet 24, dated March 26, 1974, No. OC-39'
c.
Sheet 35, dated June 6, 1975, No. OC-93 d.
Sheet 35c, dated June 6, 1975, No. OC-38C i
's 5.
Audits
1
\\~~/
The inspector reviewed the audit activities conducted by TECO and Bechtel QA/QC personnel.
It was noted that the audit activities have been accelerated by both parties during the past two months.
l
TECO conducted an in-depth audit of the Bechtel Audit Finding l
Program's effectiveness and implenentation on June 26 and 27, 1975.
'
Audit findings were made and submitted to Bechtel management. The findings are still under review.
Bechtel QA has completed and submitted ten (10) audits of construction activities during June and July 1975.
Bechtel QA Audit No. 189,
,
conducted June 16-20, 1975, pertained to the audit of activity resulting from the commitments made to TECO and NRC regarding discrepancies identified during NRC's special electrical inspection.
The audit reptrts reviewed appeared to have been conducted according to the
.
QA procedures of TECO and Bechtel.
'
!
The inspector was informed that Stear.s-Roger has completed their review of the project nonconformance reports (NCR's).
The results of this survey will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
- 14 -
f'~'N (
)
,
x- /
r
7
-
- - -
- - - -
_.
,
_
. _., -
__.
., -.
__-
. -. _ _..
- - - -
-... _. -..
- - -.-
..._. _ -.. -.
. _ -
-
- - ___ _ _ -_._.
- -
--
.
T
-
.
!
!
!
6.
Site Contractor's NCR's - Open Items - Audit Findings The inspector reviewed the monthly logs and lists that have been l
,
l prepared by TECO and Bechtel.
Scrutiny will be used to verify l
)
that. reported results of inspections / audits are resolved in an
!
acceptable and timely manner.
Further review of these matters will i
be made during subsequent inspections.
i
'
.
I l
!
.
'!.
I s
'
'
I i
i
,
)
.
.
,
.:
l I
.
i
.
i l
'
- 15 -
,
I i
i i
!.
,
f I
!,
P
'
,
... - -,
.....,.. _ _,. _ _ _.
.. -. _..... -... _ _,, _.. _ _ _. -. _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _, _
_ _ ~ _.. _,.. -.,. _ _ _ _
- - _,
-