IR 05000346/1975018
| ML19319B440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1975 |
| From: | Hayes D, Jablonski F, Sutton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B435 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-75-18, NUDOCS 8001151006 | |
| Download: ML19319B440 (22) | |
Text
-
.
.
.
'
.
h
'
[
.
kv/
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCDIENT
<
hy
REGION III
.
e Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspqction Report No. 050-346/75-18
.
"
Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza
~
300 Madison Tcledo, Ohio 43652 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Oak Harbor, Ohio Category:
B Type of Licensee:
B&W PWR-871 MWe Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
a Dates of Inspection:
September 22-24, 1975 Principal Inspector:
'. W. S
/C (-
//
' ),. yr )
/(Date)
/0
'b ab sk Acconpanying Inspecto
-
.
g 2, ~/
K. R. Naidu
/ //s
// _
Other Accompanying Per,sonnel: None I,O'
s Reviewed By:
D.
. Hayes
/MA-
)
Senior Inspector
'(Date)
,
Construction and Engineering j
'
Support Branch I
!
L l
O
,!
l
i l
\\._)
goo //510
-
.
{
.
i
__
-_
,
,
-
s
.
,
,'
-
.
'
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
Inspection Summary
'
Inspection of September 22 - 24, (75-18): Routine inspection; reviewed corrective action relative to previously identified noncompliances and other unresolved matters.
Reviewed inspection documentation relative to the current, special inspection of safety related electrical wiring and raceways presently being conducted.
Reviewed installations and documentation relative to safety related piping and restraints; reviewed documentation relative to main coolant pumps repairs; and ongoing base-
-
.
line in-service inspection.
One. item of nuncomplinace was identified concerning the use of an unapproved procedure for the main coolant pump repairs.
Corrective action was taken prior to the conclusion of the
.
inspection including steps.co prevent a future noncomplinace of this nature.
Consequently, no reply is required for this item.
Enforcement Action A.
Items of Noncompliance 1.
Violations
}
None.
'
2.
Infraction
!
Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, repairs i
to reactor coolant pump 131 were being performed without an approved procedure.
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 1)
This infraction was identified by the IE inspector and had the potential fer causing, or contributing to, an occurrence with safety significance.
Prior to the conclusion of the inspection, the inspector determined that corr'ective action had been taken with respect to this item of noncompliance.
Consequently, no reply to this item is required.
License'e Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Previous Notices of Violations:
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.
.
,
-
.
O-2-v
.
-
.
a
-
.
.
--
.
w
-
.
.
,
.
-
-
.
,
,
-
>
The licensce's corrective action, as outlined in Toledo Edison
.
s
Company's August 25 and September 15, 1975 responses to the above listed IE inspection reports, No. 346/75-09 and No. 346/75-15
-
was determ.ined to have been satisfactorily accomplished and
'
documented.
The corrective action taken by the licensee relative IE letters of July 25 and August 5, 1975,'was not completely (q.
'
reviewed during the current inspection.
.
Other Significant Findings
.
.
A.
Systems and Components
'
Unresolved Items 1.
Electrical Penetrations
,
,
,
Penetration assembly prototype test ults, required by Bechtel Specification No. 7749-E-25, 2ction 15.4.1, do not
,
have the required Bechtel engineering approvals.
(Report Details,Section II, Paragraph 2)
2.
TECO Review of Babcock & Jilcox Company (B&W) Velan Enginearing Company (Velan) Valve Data Package The TECO, August 8, 1975, report of the B&W data packages for Velan valves, purchased on Purchase Order (PO) No. 022614LS ('"')N with change orders 1 throuFh 6, indicated that the packages (
were incomplete. The inspy *or was informed that a noncon-
.
_,
formance report (NCR) would ce prepared, and the valves in question tagged.
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 7)
B.,
Facility Items current Status 1.
The licensee indicated that, as of September 1975: (1) plant
.
overall construction was 91% complete, and (2) design and engineering 98.8% complete.
J 2.
The special, electrical inspection being conducted by the licensee is progressing on schedule.
Findings are being documented and reviewed.
,
.
'C.
Managerial Items
-
'
The inspector was informed that the stop-work order issued to i
Fischback & Moore (F6M) on June 17, 1975, relative to the installation of terminal boxes, supports, and associated equipment, was still in effect awaiting issuance of approved design criteria.
s (
')
-3-
-
-
-
\\~ J
'
.
.
-
t
-
.
-
o
.
.
.
.
.
<~~s D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected,by Licensee
[
)
\\ sl None.
~
,
_,,
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, No.
050-346/75-13, and No. 050-346/75-16)
,
~
This item remains unresolved pending final review by ITT
'.
Grinnell(Grinell) and TECO.
2.
Class lE Elect rical Cable Trays (Insnection Reports No.
050-346/74-02, No. 050-346/74-04, No. 050-346/74-07, No.
050-346/74-10, No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07, No.
050-346/75-13, and No. 050-346/75-16)
The inspector determined that drawings and procedures still require approval.
No inspection activities have been performed.
This item remains unresolved.
/'~'}
3.
Bagwell Coating, Incorporated (Bagwell) Stoo-work Order ( _,)
.(Inpsection Reports No. 050-346/74-07 and No. 050-346/75-16)
,
The stop-work order issued in 1974 concerning safety related i
painting work remains in effect.
This item remains unresolved and will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
4.*
List of Safety-Related Items (IE Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-01 and No. 050-346/75-16)
The inspector reviewed TECO documentation that indicated corrective steps had been taken to correct this item.
This matter is considered closed.
(Report Details, Section 1, Paragraph 3)
5.
Inappropriate Closure of Nonconfo~mance Reports (NCR's) (IE r
In_spection Reports No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07. No.
050-346/75-13, and No. 050-346/75-16)
This item remains open pending review of the tests conducted
,
on sample's of activated charcoal used in the f'ilters.
I
!
l
-4-
!
, ~s
!
,
i
/
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
_ _.
,-
- L.
.
.
,
.
,
,
x 6.
Incomplete Test Data (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03,
~
.
No. 050-346/75-07, No. 050-346/75-13, and No. 050-346/75-1o)
.
Documentation relative to the results of the minimum clongation tests has not been received at'the site.
This item remains unresolved.
.
7.
Audits of the Installation Restraints (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-13, and No. 050-346/75-16)
This item remains unresolved pending' review of the corrective
-
action taken by the licensee.
One item contained in the above inspection reportsi flame cutting, was discussed during the
.
,
~
current inspection and corrective action taken by Grinnell was
,
found to be in order.
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 4)
8.
Johnson Controls Company (Johnson) Subvendor Inspections (IE Inspection Reprots No. 050-346/75-07, No. 050-346/75-13, and No. 050-346/75-16)
The inspector reviewed documentation prepared by Johnson pertaining to open items contained in the Vendor Quality System Questionnaire, prepared by Unistrut Corporation (x)
was obtained by Johnsen via a documented telephone conver-(Unistrut) dated April 22, 1975.
Additional information g
sation on September 9, 1975.
Unistrut's reply to the open
.
items.was satisfactorily answered.
This item is considered as resolved.
9'.
Cable Identifying and Pulling Material Certifications (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/i5-09 and No. 050-346/75-16)
The inspector reviewed correspondence from the electrical cable suppliers and determined that Gem Gravure Type G ink will not have any deleterious effect upon cables usea at the Davis-Besse site.
However, cable p'ulling compound fire propagation test procedures and results have not been reviewed.
This item remains unresolved.
10.
Cable Material Certifications (IE Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-09 and No. 050-346/75-16)
Certifications are still required which will satisfy the requirements of Specifications No. 7749-E-13, No. 7749-E-15,
.and No. 7749-E-17 relative to radiation resistance tests, flame resistance tests, and concentrated borated steam spray tests. This item remains unresolved.
,
-
V-5-
-
.
e
.
.
.
T k
.
..
.
.
.
.
/
'
11.
Equipment Secured by "1111ti-Kwik" Devices (IE Inspectijon
-
Reports No. 050-346/75-10 and No. 050-346/75-16)
$y No action has been taken on this item.
This item remains unresolved.
12.
TECO Drawing Approvals (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-13
.
and No. 050-346/75-16)
, The inspector reviewed documentary evidence i.e. TECO correspond-ence to Bechtel (Caithersburg) dated August 7, 1975, and Bechtel's replies dated August 18, 1975, which indicated that satisfactory corrective action had been taken by TECO and Bechtel.
-
l
Motor operated valves (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-15 and No. 050-346/75-16)
This item remains unresolved pending further review.
14.
Valve Design and Manufacturer (IE Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-15 and No. 050-346/75-16)
This item remains unresolved pending further review.
s s7 15.
Temporary Pipe Hanger Procedure (IE Inspection Reports No.
/
050-346/75-15 and No. 050-346/75-16)
The inspector reviewed Grinnell Procedure No. RDlF-T-28 dated August 12, 1975, titled " Identification of Temporary Hangers" and determined that it was acceptable.
The inspector observed temporary hangers identified with a red tag marked " temporary hanger" and determined that the procedure was being implemented.
This item is considered resolved.
.,
16.
Reactor' Main Coolant Pumps - Repairs (IE Inspection Report No.
050-346/75-16)
a.
Original NDE documentation for the reactor coolant pump j
casing was not available for the inspector's review for
'
comparison with the pumps.' current base'-line NDE documenta-
-
tion.
-
Verification is r' quired as to-what steps are to be taken to b.
e recertify the repaired reactor coolant pumps to B&W's Specification 1036, paragraph 6.8, Hydrostatic Test.
'
These items remain unresolved.
(Report Details,Section I, CN Paragraph 5)
Ns,-)
.
-6-
.
.
- - -
R
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
rx
.
(V)
.
Management Interviev f.
A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the
conclusion of the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
J. D. Lenardson, Quality Assurance Manager J. Evans, Station Superintendent J. W. Mitchell, Quality Assurance Engineer J. C. Buck, Field Quality Assurance Engineer P. Narducci, Field Quality Assurance Engineer E. M. Wilcox, Field Quality Assurance Engineer
,
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
C. L. Houston, Field Construction Manager W. C. Lowery, Electrical Quality Assurance Engineer
'
J. D. Heaton, Project Field Quality Control Engineer D. D. Bilowus, Electrical Engineer (Gaithersburg)
Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
W. R. Klingler, Project Manager
.
ITT Grinnell Company (Grinnell)
D. Giguere, Quality Assurance / Quality Control Manager L. A. McGuire, Project Manager Fischbach and Moore /Colgan Electric (F&M)
W. Columbia, Assistant Project Manager B.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of management personnel, were as follows:
1.
The inspector stated that the electrical inspection team effort appeared to be proceeding on schedule and that only minimal rework and reinspection had been performed.
(Report Details,Section II, Paragraph 1)
i 2.
.The inspector stated that the Bechtel specification change
letters relative to electrical and instrument installations
had been inco porated into the Johnson instrument installation procedures, but not the F6M clectrical installation procedures.
The licensee stated that revisions to the F&M procedures
,,
}
would receive-immediate attention.
i
,
a
.
-7-
i
-
.
.
.
.
.
.n
L.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ~g (Q
)
-
3.
The inspector expressed concern over the protection.of installed
-
equipment, as evidenced during the inspection.
He fprther indicated that the communications procedure, existing,.'between the ' interfacing coordinators, should be reexamined.
The licensee stated that this matter will be' discussed with construction management.
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 2)
-
4.
The inspector stated that documentation contained in Redoc Package No. 819, appeared to be incomplete relative to a performance test being conducted on the integral motor
.
operated valve unit. The licensee stated that this matter would be reviewed with the A-E.
(Report Details,Section III,
,
Paragraph.4)
.
5.
The inspector expressed concern that corrective action had not been initiated relative to the audit findings of TECO QA concerning incomplete B&W Nuclear Power Generation Department documentation.
The licensee acknowledged this deficiency and stated that dis ~cussion with B&W had been escalated to a management meeting at Lynchburgh on October 10, 1975.
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 6)
'y 6.
The inspector stated that further documentation is required
)
to verify that.the fan motors of the containment air cooling
-
, units meet requirements of Specification 7749-M-400, paragraph 7.2.2.
(Report Details,Section III, Paragraph 8)'
7.
The inspector stated that, during his review of the repair procedure for reactor coolant pump 1B1, it was noted, and brought to the licensee's attention, that the authorized
.
inspector had not signed off the revised procedure.
The inspector added that this was an item of noncompliance contrary to Criterion VI of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
He further added that due to the extenuating circumstances pertaining to this item, no corrective action correspondence would be required by the licensee.
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 1)
8.
The inspector acknowledged the' extenuating circumstances pertaining to the unavailability of the requested reactor coolant pump radiographs, and stated he hoped the radiographs would be availabic for his review during the next inspection.
The licensee and B&W representative stated that this matter
'
,
was documented and discussed with their respective management.;
,
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 5)
i t
!
[}f"%
\\
\\
-8-i
.
-
.
t t
i
.
,
I
.
.,
.
--..
~
.
'
.
'
J v'
9.
The inspector stated that d'ocumentary' evidence relative to
.
the stop-work order concerning reactor coolant pump (qpairs was not.available for review.
The inspector was infdrmed that a procedure to cover this item was not included as part of the B&W QC manual.
He was further informed that steps have been taken to clarify this matter.
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 6)
'
.
.
10. The inspector indicated that the subject of flame cutting and weld rod control appeared to have been properly implemented. However, documentary evidence is required
to verify that flame cutting which had been performed
' prior to issuance of the controls.had not caused metal-
.
lurgical damage to any of the flame-cut items.
The inspector
,
was informed that this item would be reviewed by engineering.
11.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed the contractor's nonconformance report logs and made a preliminary review of the documentation pertaining to the base-line inspections and that, with the exception of two areas concerned with the base-line inspection, the records appeared to be in order.
(Report Details,Section I, Paragraph 7)
\\~,)
.
.
.
.
m e
e WW 9-
$
-
x,_<#
-
.
.
O t
._
-
_ _
. __ _ -
_.
k
.
e
.
~:
.
'
.
.
.
"%
J.
REPORT DETAILS
.
Section I
$$*
,
Prepared by J. W. Sutton
.
Persons Contacted
'
The following persons,- in additon to those listed in the Management Interview Section and in Sections II and III of Report Details of
'
this report, were contacted during the inspection.
,
,
Babcock & Wilcox construction Company
-
C. R. Honeycutt, Supervisor - Manuals and Supports F. G. Whytsell, Group Leader T. McDermott, Field Operations Supervisor j
R. E. Nelson, Quality Control Engineer Babcock & Wilcox Company B&W i
J. W. Marsha).1, Quality Control Supervisor (Site)
~
,
, Hartford St.eam Boiler Company (HSB)
R. Russ, Authorized Inspector (AI)
Rcsults of Inspection 1.
Repairs and Documentation - Reactor Coolant Pumo
,
During the inspector's follow-up review of the repair which had
,
been made to reactor coolant pump 1B1, he noted and brought to the licensee's and B&W's attention that the signoff of the repair procedure by the AI was not evident.
The inspector indicated that this would constitute an item of noncompliance contrary to the requirements.of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendi:: B,
.
Criterion VI, and B&W QC Procedure No. 9A112-1, revision 6, paragraph 2.5., titled " Procedure for Handling Deviations to
Field Construction Procedures".
However, the AI had made a final review of the entire reactor coolant pump repair package and signed off.as completed and acceptable.
The inspector i
determined that due to the circumstances surrounding the failure
.
m
'
- 10 -
,
~
,
.
.
$
e
+
-
,. -
r
--,
--
e'
- '-
--r-
-
v-m
'-
._.
_
e s
.
.
.
.
.
.
of the Al to sign the revised repair procedure (i.e. new,
secretary,and new AI) that the noncompliance would be conkfdered as an infraction but no response would be required.
2.
Previous Enforcerggt Matters The inspector obser a the corrective actien taken and reviewed documentation by the ticensee and/or his agent relative to previously identified noncompliances as follows:
a.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-146/75-09, May 19 -22, 1975 (TECO Reply Dated August 25, 1975 to the IE Notice of
.
Violation Dated August 1, 1975)
.
(1)
General Comments i
(a) Additional personnel have been assigned to the TECO Qual,ity Assurance Department.
(b)
Results of the special piping inspection were documented in TECO and Bechtel correspondence telative to the inspections of August 4, 6, and 25, 1975, from Bechtel, and August 7, 1975, from
)
~-
-
TECO.
.
(c)
The Bechtel Quality Control Group has b'ecn reorganized to operate independent from other site activities.
.
(d) Additional QA/QC instructionsare in the process of being developed and implemented.
-
(2) Violation Responses (a)
Infraction No. 1 The electrical standards and drawings for seismic support of conduits carrying Class 1E circuits have been., and are, in the process of being revised and approve'.
Engineering teams for inspection of d
the electrical installations have been formed and are inspecting and documenting their' findings.
This inspection activity is being reviewed and documented during IE Site inspection;.
I
!
!
- 11 -
'
'
'
O
'
'
.
N_ /
.
i i
!
'
-
\\
-
-
,
<
_
_-
_
e
-
-
.
.
.
.
,
p.
k,,
(b)
Infraction No. 2
-
ContractorandBechtelqualitycontrolinsfaction activities have been increased.
Additional'QC inspection procedures have been developed and approved.
.
(c)
Infraction No. 3
-
Cable raceway and inspection procedures have been revised and approved for use.
Procedure No.
7749-E-14-6C, installe:io6 procedure for pulling
-
essential cable, and procedure No'. 7749-E-14-7C, installation inspection procedure for pulling of
.
essential cables, contain the necessary information
.
to preclude improper routing and documentation of the remaining cables to be pulled.
(d)
Infraction No. 4 Procedural changes have been made to the Bechtel Field Inspection Manual to provide for expeditious processing of contractor nonconfor=ance reports.
The new procedures have been reviewed and approved
{
for use.
.
\\'-
b.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-15, July 29 -31, 1975
TECO Reply Dated Seoteeber 15, 1975, to the IE Letter Dated August 20, 1975
.
The inspector reviewed the following documentation:
'
Bechtel letter to all contractors dated August 1, 1975, relative to poor housekeeping practice and Grinnel correspon-dence,to all personnel relative to poor construction practices.
Housekeeping conditions were noted by the inspector and
.
discussed with the licensee during scheduled inspections.
3.
Safety Related Items The inspector reviewed available documentation relative to TECO's review of the Davis-Besse Unit I list of safety related items.
This is referred to'as the "Q" list.
The correspondence reviewed indicated that the Engineering Department of TECO had reviewed and commented to Bechtel engineering on the results of their study.
Revision 12 to the Davis-Besse FSAR reflects the changes made to the list of safety related equipment and components. The TECO
.
-
/
12 -
/
)
-
\\.J
-
.
.
o S
O
~
L
.
'
.
'
.
/N.
\\
.
EngineeringGroupbasedthereviewcriteriaonanddeterm(ned the results by using: (1) 10 CFR Part 50, (20 PSAR/FSAR co$mit-ments), and (3) NRC Regulatory and Safety Guides.
The inspector reviewed a March 4, 1975, letter and conference. notes dated April 17, 1975, that reflected the extent of the study.
It
>
appears that an in-depth review was performed and the results were properly documented.
'4.
Flame Cutting of Hangers and Supports
,
During previous IE inspections (IE Inspection Reports No.
-
'
050-346/75-13 and No. 0$0-34B/75-15) it was brought to the 11censee's attention that flame cutting of hangers and supports,
.
as' stated in Bechtel's Specification No. 7749-M-453, paragraph 7.6, had been commented upon in correspondence between Bechtel and Grinnell.
The following correspondence was reviewed: Grinnell letters of March 24, April 18, August 29, and September : 7,1975; Deviation Report No. 327; and Bechtel letters of April 7, April 24, and September 17, 1975.
The correspondence reviewed indicated the conditions that would be required to flame cut in the hanger and support areas.
During the inspector's
'~ 'N
/
previous conversations with :he licensee and Grinnell, the subject (s_,)
of certifying those areas which had been previously flame cut was
,
discussed.
If plates had knen flame cut without grinding, repairs
-
would be required.
The Grina allletter of August 29, 1973, addressed this area.
The inspr
?..d requested that an inspection and engineering evaluatic e made of hanger support plates to determine if the flame cutting of holes has physically damaged the plate.
This item will be reviewed during o subsequent inspection.
The inspector determined that adequate controls have now been instituted to control flame cutting of hangers and, supports components.
5.
Reactor Coolant Pump Repairs
-
During the previou. inspection (IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-16)
the inspector requested that the original radiographic (RT) film of the weld area being repaired be made available for his review.
Further, he requested that he be informed of the steps to be taken by B6W to recertify the pumps according to their specifications.
When the inspector requested the above items, he was informed that Byron-Jackson (B-J) had shipped 300 pounds of RT film to B&W, Lynchburg, to be reviewed.
Furthermore, B&W Engineering had not informed the site personnel that the films in question, or the engineering evaluation, would not be available during the current
-
-
inspection.
The inspector stated that he would expect to see che-s documentation-rcquested at his next scheduled inspection.
l v
- 13 -
-
.
4 r
'
'
.
.
.
.
<~
v]
f 6.
Reactor Coolant Pump Repair, Stop-work Order Is-The inspector inquired if the B&W site QC supervisor had documented the stop-work order that had been issued relative to the repair of RCP 1B1 and reported during our previous inspection (IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-16).
The inspector was informed that the stop-work order had not been documented.
He was further informed that the B&W QC Manual did not contain definite requirements for recording a stop-work order.
B&W Quality Assurance Policy 9QA-02 contains the authority to stop work.
The inspector stated that the necessary instructions si d be provided to implement this authority.
Prior to the conclusion.ot the inspection, the inspector was provided
.
with copies of correspondence to B&W QA Manager, R. L. Allison,
,
pertaining to documenting the site activity in stopping work on the RCP repair and a memo to Mr. C. D. Thompson, Quality Assurance, relative to reviewing the applicability of including stop-work documentation requirements to be included in the QA/QC corporate manuals.
This item will be further reviewed during c subsequent inspection.
7.
Base-line Inspection
_
The inspector made a preliminary review of available documer.tation
[s}
relative to the performance of the base-line inspection of the N,/
reactor vessel and associated piping being conduc*ed by B&W Construccion Company personnel.
The inspector reviewed TECO's review of the proposed base-line inspection and documentation of audits.
The following corre-spondence was examined:
a.
TECO Audit Report No. 329, February 20, 1975, Personnel Qualifications.
.
b.
Various B&W replies to audit findings, March 11 and 18, 1975.
c.
B&L ?udic Report on ISI, February 27 and 28, 1975.
d.
Variors TECO replies to Audit No. 335.
e.
TECO Aedit Report No. 352, May 23 and 27, 1975.
f.
Varioca B&W replies to Audit Report No. '!
The B&W QA Manual, 9-QA-201, Revision 3, June 6, 1975, was examined.
,
,
The TECO r.pproval date indicated a June 16, 1975 approval.
The June 16 1975, and June 6, 1975 dates did not appear to be correct.
M
- 14 -
I
-
.
e
.
.
.
.
-.
,
/\\
.
The inspector also reviewed the search unit's accoustical, analysis documentation for'12 transducers used with the Automatic Senctor Inspection System (ARIS).
It was noted that this documentation was not properly dated.
A further review of this and the above items relative to.the B&W QA manual will be conducted during a subsequent inspection.
.
The ARIS equipment was onsite to provide base-line inspection for the reactor vessel.
The qualifications of the operators and personnel assigned to the ARIS equipment were determined to be in order.
A Level II NDE operator would be assigned to the equipment during operation to interpret the automated equipment results.
,
,
It appeared from the preliminary review made by the inspector,
-
that the TECO QA commitments pertaining to review of the base-line inspection QA manual and procedures had been carried out and approved prior to commencement of the examination.
A further review of the entire base-line inspection is to be conducted during a subsequent inspection.
8.
Summary of Stearns-Rogers Review of NCR's
.
The inspector reviewed a TECO letter to Bechtel, dated August 18, ('~'N 1975, that contained the results of the special in-depth review (,,/
that was conj 'cted by Stearns-Roger (S-R) relative to the NCR's contained in the Bechtel QA vault.
Resolutions to the probler.s found have not yet been developed by Bechtel.
The inspector indicated that he would conduct a further review of the entire NCR inspection program during a, subsequent inspection.
,
.
e
0 e
15'-
-
['N
-
,
(__-)
'
.
F5
.
_
_
.
-
.
.
.
.
O-e t~
REPORT DETAILS
\\
Section II e
?>"
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.
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel),
,
,
'
J. A. Baldauf, Electrical Quality Control Engineer A. F. DiLorenzo, Lead Electrical Quality Control Engineer R. E. Glass, Lead Electrical Field Engineer J. R. Knoke,. Electrical Field Engineer Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI)
J. M. Lastovka., Senior Electrical Engineer Fischbach & Moore, Incorporated (FEM)
s (
\\s_ -)
D. M. Moeller, Quality Control Manager
.
Johnson Controls Company (Johnson)
D. D. Coppeler, Quality Engineer R. W. Jones, Quality Assurance Representative Results of Inspection
.
1.
Follow-up Electrical Inspection
.
The inspector reviewed Engineering Inspection Reports (EIR)
a.
of the Bechtel - Gatrhersburg, Engineering Inspection Team (EIT)
relative to installed electrical cables, cabic separation within cabinets, and cables 1, ten 11ed in an adverse environment.
Analysis by Gaithersburg Engineering is continuing.
Only mini-mal contractor rework and subsequent EIT inspections have been accomplished. The following table indicates areas inspected and percentages of completed activities.
-
.
- 16 -
I (J
-
.
e e
VD.
.
.
.
.
.
.
)
\\_,/
.
Area
% Inspected
% Discrepancies *
% Rework % Reinspected F*N*
Cables
29
Cabinets 100
0
Rooms
28
0
'
El EIT inspections will continue to be performed on both the electrical and instrument installation contractors until all pertinent procedures regarding specification change notices have been appropriately approved.
,
Upon conclusion of the EIT e5 fort, including inspection of reworked areas, the NRC will randomly reinspect items to
,
verify that installations meet requirements, b.
The following records were reviewed:
(1)
Bechtel letter No. BBC 3725, Analysis of EIR's (cables)
414 through 459, dated September 15, 1975.
(2)
EIR's (cables) 415 through 480.
(3)
EIR's (cabinets) 2001 through 2409.
(4)
ElR's (adverse environment)
5014 through 5046.
f'~')s c.
Seismic evaluation of previously (prior to June 16, 1975) in-(
stalled electrical conduit has not commenced.
Procedures
~
have been developed, but have not been' approved.. Inspection procedures for on-going conduit installations (subsequent to July 1, 1975) have been prepared and are being utilized.
d.
Drawings for the installation of cable spreading room raceway fire barriers are being developed.
Provisions are being made for both horizontal ^and vertical barriers.
Preliminary documents indicate physical location and type of barrier to b'e used.
e.
Materials and equipment for cable penetration and block-out closures are being considered.
No contract has been awarded.
2.
Electrical Penetrations a.
Electrical peactrations have attachnent flanges wclded in place by
- This column should not be construed to mean the total, individual cable, cabinet, or room discrepancies. The majority of the installations were ;
acceptable; however, in some cases, multiple discrepancies have been identi-fled with a single item.
l
}
fm
- 17 -
!
,
'
.
.
'
i
'
.
I
-
.
l n
e,
~
{
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,O
.
.
Grinnc11. All electrical installation, storage, tes5s, etc.,
are performed by F&M.
QA/QC organization requircments have been verified by others, as recorded in prior IE inspection reports.
,
b.
The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) indicates that the penetrations were designed and tested to meet IEEE 317-1971.
c.
TECO purchased 47 penetrations, (Purchase Order No. 1522, dated
July 25, 1972, with reference to Bechtel Specification 7749-E-25)
-
from Amphenol SAMS Company, Chatsworth, California.
d.
The inspector chose penetrations PIC2L, P3L4S, and P3P4C as
.
inspection samples and determined the following:
(1) Production test procedures and results as documented, complied with IEEE 317-1971.
(2)
Prototype test results were available in preliminary form, but not approved by Bechtel Engineering - Caithersburg.
(3) All receiving records indicated that prototype test documentation was missing and nonconformance reports were x
prepared accordingly.
I
.(4) Certified statements of conformance were available
attesting that-t.he penetrations met the requirements of the purchase order and specifications.
(5) F&M-had prepared procedures regarding receiving, storage installation, inspection, and testing.
(6) Penetration No. P3L4S was received in a damaged condition
and NCR No. 486 was prepared.
Damage was subsequently re-paired, and the NCR appropriately closed out.
(7) The penetrations are being stored in place.
Storage records indicated that weekly surveillance inspections are made by F&M and that the " heads" are pressurized according to the manufacturer's instructions.
(8)
Protective covers were placed over the penetrations.
All gauges indicated greater than minimum values and had been calibrated at the required interval.
e.
Welding requirements will be verified by the IE inspector during the next scheduled inspection.
3.
!
The inspector reviewed the Johnson Discrepancy Report Log and !
a.
determined that 33 of the 120 items remain open, dating back to January 7, 1975.
The primary purpose of the review was to establish
,O that a meaningful effort was being put forth by the inspection g
.
/
organization.'
.
- 18 -
i
!
-
.
.
.
.
.
-.
.
-
.
.
-
-
.
.
'
m
.
.
i
.
'
b.
Received material, determined by Johnson personnel to be discrepant was identified by hold tags traccable to [s.
QC documents, and placed in the appropriate storage aies.
l The hold arca was barricaded, and access was limited per procedures, c.
Electrical cable termination procedures had been appropriately
-
revised to. include the requirements of the Bechtel instrument i
installation specification change notice.
The quality assurance representative scened cognir. ant of the changes and
'
indicated that Bechtel Field Engineering personnel discussed I
_
the changes with him.
The procedttres were being revieued by
.
Bechtel Engitecring.
Further discussion and clarification of
'
.
the specification changes are forthcoming from Fechtel.
.
.
.
.
emo
.
t
.
19 -
\\
-
.
J
-
.
..
.
.
.
-m
-..
e w,
,a
-
- - -
---
--,
L
'
.
-
.
.
.
b; V
REPORT DETAILS
~ s'
SF Section II
'
.
Prepared by K. R. Naidu Persons Contacted
.
.
The following persons, in addition to those listed in the Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted during this inspection.
-
Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W)
J. W. Marshall, Quality Control Supervisor (Site)
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
J. Leary, Quality Control fnspector Results of Inspection 2.
General
.
[
)
The inspection covered the auxiliary steam-driven feedwater pumps
\\s /
piping installation, including review of QA records.
The system
-
was considered to be incomplete.
Some of the piping spool pieces had not been installed.
The majority of supporting equipment appears to have been installed.
Components of this system were randomly selected, and their documentation was reviewed.
QA'
documentation on containment air fan motors was also reviewed.
2.
Protection of Safety Related Items
,
.
During the inspection, the inspector observed and brought to the~
.
licensee's attention the following conditions:
Sections of the concrete wall, to which snubber 3A-EBD19-H46 was fastened, appeared to have been demolished.
The piping contractor
'
reported that he was not aware of this' situation and, therefore, did not verify whether additional supports were required.
The
'
inspector informed the licensee that communications should bo improved so that interfacing contractors take necessary steps to protect installed equipment.
The licensee replied tirat he will dicuss this with construction managment and take adequate steps to prevent recurrence.
Corrective action taken will bc
,
.
reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
\\
)
- 20 -
s,
-
-
.
e
.
.c
_.
--,
-
,,
,
,--
-
-
l
L.
.
,
,
.
-
,
.
rh (v).
.
4.
Redoc Package No. 819 Review
$e This package consisted of documentation relative to motoreopera ted gate valve, HV790 cight-inches, 150. pounds, installed in the i
auxiliary feedwater system, and supplied by Wm.,Powell to Specification 7749-M-210, Revision 12.
.
The fol'.owing documents were reviewed and determined to be a.
in order.
'
(1) Test certificate on hydrostatic pressure and seat leakage with air.
.
.
(2)
Material certification that material meets ASTM 216, Grade
,
WCB.
(3)
Heat treatment by normalizing at 17000F for three hours and tempering at 1225 F for three hours.
(4)
Several weld repairs were documented, but only visual inspections were made as per MSS-SP-55.
b.
The following documents were not available for review:
(1) Test certificates on the motor operator (Limitorque).
,
(2) Performance test on the valve with the motor operator mounted, as required in Section 8.4, paragraph c, of the specification.
,
5.
Welding Record Review
%
An examination of the weld records of two welds, No. FWl-FH35 and No. FWl-FH36, flued head to penetra*tions, where all welding and inspection activities were completed, established that the
.
requirements of applicable codes, QC, and work performance
'
procedures were satisfactorily met.
)
l The weld records reviewed for'each weld selected included the followin'g:
a.
QC inspection records covering visual inspection of weld preparation, preweld cleanliness, and alignment.
b.
. Weld history records.
c.
RT records covering evaluation of. welds.
-
-
/~~
[
\\
d.
Welding material control records.
-)
s 21,.
-
,
.
S
.
.,
-
,
.
.
.
(v)
e.
Interpass temperature and temperature control.
ThequalificationsoftheweldersandtheNDEinspecf*ots f.
were current.
The records did not indicate any deviation reports or weld repairs.
,
6.
Review of Licensee Audit on B&W - Nuclear Power Generation Department Data Packages - General.
The inspector reviewed the audits performed by the licensee of B&W relative to QA documentation.
B&W utilized the certification system which permits B&W to retain original test certificates at their Lynchburg office and send a certificate to the site stating
-
that the originals were reviewed and determined to be acceptable.
The audit reports indicated that the licensee discovered instances where the documentation held at Lynchburg was inadequate and remained unresolved for a prolonged period of time.
The inspector was informed that the licensee has scheduled a management level meeting with B&W, Lynchburg, on October 10, 1975, to discuss these outstanding issues.
Corrective action taken as a result of this meeting will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
7.
Review of Licensee Audit on B&W Data Packaces Relative to Velan Valves.
As a result of discrepancies identified during the previous IE
-
s,_-
inspection, the licensee conducted an audit on the B&W documenta-tion on Velan manufactured valves. A preliminary report, dated August 8,1975, indicated discrepancies such as incomplete aging, heat treatment data on valve stems and bodies, inconsistent material test reports, inconsistent valve minimum valve thickness measure-ments, and inadequate QA signoffs.
The inspector informed the licensee that all valves (with incompleted documentation) should be identified with NCR tags until the mattbr is resolved.
The licensee informed the inspector that this item was also on the agenda of the meeting with B&W management mentioned in the previous Paragraph.
8.
Review of Redoc Packages No. 707, No. '708, and No. 709 The above Redoc packages contained QA records relative to the containment air cooling fans Cl-1, Cl-2, and Cl-3.
The service conditions under which the motors are to operate were listed in paragraph 7.2.2 ef Technical Specification for Air Cooler Units, No. 7749-M-400. The inspector was not provided with certifica-tions that the fan motors were tested and determined satisfactory to operate within the service conditions.
The licensee stated
.
,
that he would investigate this item.
O
\\
!
- 22 -
v'
-
.
.
'
fP - -
-