IR 05000346/1975023
| ML19317F600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1975 |
| From: | Hayes D, Jablonski F, Sutton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F594 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-75-23, NUDOCS 8001150919 | |
| Download: ML19317F600 (18) | |
Text
-
-
.
-
-.
. - -.
-.
- l
}.;
..
.L\\
'
..
'
l l
-
~~
'
.
'
'
.
.
\\
U. 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ttilSSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCElfENT t
REGION III
Report of Construction Inspectio IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-23
'
Licensee :
Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 30011adison
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 FMe Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
December 8-10, 1975 il 'N Principal Inspecter :
.W utt n (Date)
/
Accompanying Inspectors :
.J.Jabl$nski
['k'3 / S I (Datc)
.
g CLd1+/
a/uIn-e.%
-
(Date)
Other Accompanying P rsonnel: None v..
~
Reviewed By:
D. W. Hayes
/2 f /75~
Os
\\
Section Leader
/(D'ats)
Projects j
., j J
[g, f )
(
001h'h)
917 i
'
- _. - -
..
.
-
..
,
e
.
.
,
_
.~
w
.
.-
.
m
.
(v\\
'
.
"
SUtefARY OF FINDINGS i
Inspection Summary Inspection of December 8-10, (75-23) : Reviewed licensce's corrective action relative to previously identified unresolved matters including
,
status of inspection.ef fort and documentation relativ'c to the licensee's special inspeccion of saf ety related electrical wiring and raceways.
Enforcement Action Items of Noncompliance
'
None identified.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Lack of Documentation of RT Location thrks
_/
(iE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-21 Letter dated December 10, 1975.)
y
,
The licensee's reply to the above Notice of Violation / Infraction had not been received at the time 'of the current inspection.
This matter remains open pending receipt of an acceptable response from the licensee.
Other Significant Findings A.
Systems and Components I
l
-
'
1.
Unresolved Item - Reactor Protection and Safeguard System Cabinets The Protection and Safeguard Systems internal cabinet wiring appears to be in conflict with IEEE-279, Section 4.7.2.
IE headquarters staff notified for further review.
(Report Details, Paragraph 5)
2.
Unresolved Item - System for Retesting After Rework
,
'
No system for documentation was in effect which would preclude invalidating previously completed construction tests relative to ongoing. rework of electrical deficiencies.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1.d)
.
j#Ng
/
\\
-2-V
1 j
-
.-
i L.
~
.
..
'
'
'
i
.
s
,
l
,ssU
-
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
,
'
Current Status l.
The licensee indicated that, as of December 1975, Plant overall construction was 94% complete, and Design and Engineering was 98.8% complete.
l 2.
The special electrical inspection being conducted by the licensee is progressing on schedule.
C.
Managerial Items
-
None.
'
'
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensec None.
E.
Deviations g
,
b,/
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, No. 050-346 /7 5-16 and No. 050-346/75-20)
Documentation on the seal materials ard oil used in Hydraulic snubbers supplied to Specification 7749-C-32 and 7749-M-190 has been reviewed and determined acceptable.
This item is considered resolved.
(Report Details, Paragraph 6)
2.
Class IE Electrical Cable Trays (Inspection Reports No.
050-346/74-02, No. 050-346/74-04, No. 050-346/74-10, No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07, No. 050-346/75-13, No. 050-346/75-16 and No. 050-346/75-20)
.
The inspector reviewed procedures, drawings and inspection reports which indicated that this matter has been satis-factorily corrected.
This item is considered resolved.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2.a)
-
.
(
-3-
.
i
.
~
k.
-
-
'
..
t
.
,
.
,
-
-
,
,
l n
.
3.
Bagwell Coating, Incorporated (Bagwell) Stop-work order (Inspection Reports No. 050-346/74-07, No. 050-346/75-15 a'nd No. 050-346/75-20)
The stop-work order issued in 1974 concerning safety related painting work within containment remains in effect.
This i
item remains unresolved and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
4.
Inappropriate Closure of Noncompliance Reports (NRC's)
(IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07,.
No. 050-346/75-13, No. 050-346/75-16 and No. 050-346/75-20)
Results of the tests performed by the CVI Corporation on the charcoal used in the filters, to determine the suitability for attentuation of radio-iodine as methyl-iodine have not been received on site.
This item remains unresolved.
5.
Incomplete Test Data (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07. No. 050-346/75-13, No. 050-346/75-16 nyl 7s No. 050-346/75-20)
. (- s-
.
Results of the tests performed by CVI Corporation on the
" minimum elongation before rupture" tests of filters, have not been received onsite.
This item remains unresolved.
6.
Audits of The Installation Restraints (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346 /75-03, No. 050-346/7 5-13, No. 050-346/75-16 and No. 050-346/75-20)
The inspector reviewed the corrective action taken to resolve deviations listed in the audits performed by the licensee and
determined it acceptable.
This item is considered resolved.
(Report Details, Paragraph 7)
-
7.
Cable Identifying and Pulling bbterial Certifications (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-09, No. 050-346/75-16
and No. 050-346/75-20)
Based upon results of the licensee's flame tests of cable pulling materials, the inspector determined that this item is resolved.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3.a)
4-
-
(
.
.
- - = - - - -
r
-
-
,-
,,,
-.. -,.
.,-.7.
--. -~.
_.
.
,.
t u..
\\
'
-
.
-g
.
.
i
x,
\\s_-
8.
Cahic Material Certifications (IE' Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-09, No,. 050-346/7 5-16 and No. 050-346/7 5-20)_
Based upon a review of documentation relative to cable specifications, the inspector concluded that cables used
'
at Davis-Besse, meet requirements of the specifications. This item is considered resolved.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4)
"Hilti Kwik" Devices (IE Inspection 9.
Equipment Secured by
-
Peports No. 050-346/75-10, No. 050-346/75-15, No. 050-346/75-16 and No. 050-346/75-20)
The inspector reviewed Bechtel letter FLl4-3232 dated December 9,1975, titled "Hilti-Kwik" and determined that all wedge type "Hilti-Kwik" anchors used to mount essential equipment and-supports would be retorquod to demonstrate proper anchor installation. This item remains unresolved pending further review.
10.
Motor Operated Valves (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-15,
~
No. 050,-346 /75-16 and No. 050-346 /7 5-20)
!
The inspector was informed that documentation was received fg (
)
from Velan Valves, Fbntreal, Canada on the Limitorque Motor x- /
Operators furnished with the valves which they supplied.
'
Documentation has not been roccived from two other valve suppliers pertaining to the motor operators for their valves.
.
This item remains unresolved.
,
I 11.
Valve Design and Manufacturer (IE Inspection Reports No.
050-346/75-15, No. 050-346/75-16 and No. 050-346/75-20)
Certification from Velan Valves (Montreal, Canada) dated December 2, 1975, indicated that valves and accessories
,
supplied to Specifications 7749-M-213A and 7749-M212 which are to be installed inside the containment were desi d to withstand an integrated radiation exposure of 1 x 10gnerads at ambient conditions of 1290 C, 45 psig and 100% relative humidity.
This item is considered resolved.
12.
Reactor Main Coolant Pumps - Repairs (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-16, No. 050-346/7 5-10 and No. 050-346/75-21)
The licensee indicated that the matter of reactor coolant
,
pump rccertification is under discussion with B&W and remains open pending review of the licensce's decision pertaining to
,
reradiographing of the repaired area. This item remains open.
,
10.
-5-q,)
.
-
.
p
---
n w-u
-
, ~, - -
e.,
-
-
\\'
,
.
.
-
,
.
,
r x
(s_,/)
I
13.
Elcetrical Penetrations (IE Inspection Reports No.
050-346/7 5-18 and No. 050-346/75-20)
.
The inspector reviewed Procedurc 7749-E25Q-19-3 relative to qualification tests of electric pcnctrations and deter-mined that the test report was complete and met the require-ments of Specification 7749-E-25.
This item is considered resolved.
14.
Base-line Inspection Procedure - Authorized Inspector Sign-Off (IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-20 and No. 050-346/75-21)
The inspector reviewed a letter issued by Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (HSB) to Toledo Edison Company (TECO), dated November 21, 1975.
The letter indicated that HSB personnel had reviewed the original Base-line Inspection Procc-dures and subsequent Revisions for compliance to the applicable e
Section XI of the ASME Inspection Code. This item is considered resolved.
Management Interview A.
The following' persons attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
,,
J. D. Lenardson, Quality Assurance }hnager C. T. Daf t, Field Quality Assurance Engineer G. W. Eichenaucr, Field Quality Assurance Engineer
.
M. D. Calcamuggio, Power Plant Electrical Engineer E. M. Wilcox, Field Quality Assurance Engineer R. E. Blanchong, Construction Superintendent J. M. Lastovka, Quality Assurance Engineer Bethtel Corporation (Bcchtel)
C. L. Houston, Field Construction Manager P. R. Britnell, Project Quality Assurance Engineer J. D. Heaton, Project Field Quality Control Engineer W. C. Lowery, Electrical Quality Assurance Engineer J. Gonzalez, Bechtel GPD (EIT)
B.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of the management personnel, were as follows:
1.
The inspector stated that the current inspection covered:
(a) a revicu of the status and corrective action being fh )
-6-(G
!
.
l
i
-
.
..
-
-
-
_-
__ _
.
,
(
)
taken as a result of the Special Electrical Inspection, (b) Review of documentation to close out.previously identified unresolved items, and (c) a discussion of the Reactor Coolant Pump Rccertification' Problem.
2.
The inspector stated that all 23 items chosen to verify reworked electrical installation appeared to bc corrected in accordance with analysis provided by Bechtel Engineering, Caitharsburg.
The inspector further stated that this was only a preliminary review and subsequent IE:III inspections would be conducted.
3.
The matter of cable material certification is resolved.
The inspector stated that documentation reviewed verified that the supplied cable met the design specification.
The licensee acknowledged the above statements.
4.
The inspector stated that based upon the in-depth tests performed by the licensee, it appeared that cable pulling compounds in no way affected flame characteristics of cables at Davis-Besse. However, it was noted by the inspector during his review of data, that power cables appeared to burn freely.
The licensee stated that this fact was known and documented in other test data.
The licensec further stated
'
~s that this particular type of cable at the Davis-Besse site is
'
)
routed in conduit and that flame tests conducted on conduit s- /
containing cable indicated that installations of this type greatly reduced the potential for fire propagation. The inspector stated that the tests results had been reviewed and that he had verified that power cabic is installed in conduit at the Davis-Besse site.
5.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's remarks in regard to the inspection of seismically installed conduit.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1.c)
6.
The inspector stated that the reactor protection and saf e-guard system cabincts did not appear to be wired in accordance with IEEE-279,1971, Section 4.7.2, and that this matter would be reviewed with Regional and the IE Headquarters personnel for clarification of requirraents.
7.
The inspector stated that a licensee representative. informed the inspector that covered wireways were considered to be equal to rigid conduf t in terms of fire retardation.
In response to questioning the licensee stated that this matter would be investigated.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2.b)
'
/7-7-
_
.
s_)-
4
-
,
.
,
,
, -
- -- -
_-.
. -..
_
_-. _ _ _ _ _ _.
. _. _ _... - _ __
__ _ __
-
__-___
'
.
.
I !
s l
.
8.
The inspector stated that although identified deficient items were being reworked, tests already conducted were perhaps being invalidated since there is no provision provided to assure retesting, recicaning, etc. whenever equipnent, either electrical or mechanical is disturbed.
The licensee stated that this matter t;ould be investigated.
l j
.
e
.
,
i
.
.
8-
-
.
- -
,
, - -
,
c r-~.
., _,..,, -,
.,,
., _.,, _,
,
,,,,, - -,
..,,7-,,
,,,.p-m m 7. p-,
-n
42_
....-
a 4..
..u.
..
a,
-
_ _...
.
-_-
-- --
y
-
i 1-
,
,
l i
.
--
,, ;
,
i
.
O REPORT DETAILS
-
-
'
'
i Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to individuals listed under the Management Interview section of this report, were c'ontacted during the inspection.
i Babcock and Wilcox (B&W)
a
B. Brooks, Representative
'
l F. R. Faist, Representative
,
c
D. V. Schaffer, Representative
-
.
,
Bechtel Corporation (Dechtel)
,
!
M. K. Arras, Electrical Engineer (Gaithersburg)
J. A. Baldauf', Electrical Quality Control Engineer D. D. Bilowus, Electircal Engineer, (Gaithersburg)
i J. Irving, Lead Systems Quality Control Engineer
J. C. Leary, Mechanical Quality Control Engineer
.
R. Rutledge, Quality Control Field Assistant
!
i'
Consolidated Controls Corporation (CCC)
D. Roosevelt, Representative
Fischbach and 1 bore, Incorporated (F&l0
.
F. Kollin, Project Manager
'
G. D. Kraus, Lead Field Engineer D. M. Moeller, Quality Control Manager
'
ITT Grinnell Company (Crinnell)
l D. Giguere, Quality Assurance / Control Manager
}
W. Swift, Quality Control Engineer Johnson Controls Company (Johnson)
,
]
D. D. Coppeler, Quality Engineer R. W. Jones, Quality Assurance Representative
.R. Resu, Quality Engineer
,
R. Swift, Quality Engineer
'
I
[d S
9-
-
.
.,
--
... - -. -,. -,
- -. -
.. - - - -....... _. -, -. -. - -, -.- - - -, --
_
.
._-.
- --
- -
- i l'
-J!s;
'l (
Results of Inspection,
.l O)
.
.
1.
Fallowup Elcetrical Inspection
,
The innpcetor randomly chose 23 cable installation that i
a.
had been reinspected by the licensee, to determine if rework and inspection uns being completed as documented.
,
Some of the areas considered included :
Cabic color coding, sharp edges, cabic routing, tray overloading and conduit
'
j identification. The inspector concluded by observation that the 23 items were corrected in accordance with the analysis provided by Bechtel Engineering and had met the
'
reinspection requirements.
b.
Inspection and reuork relative to installed electrical cables, cabic separation within cabinets, cables installed
..
in an adverse environment and seismic evaluation of installed conduit continues. Cable separation and adverse environment engineering analysis had been received and was being used as a reference to correct discrepant items.
The following table j
j indicates areas inspected and percentages of completed activities.
'
'
Area
% Inspected
% Discrepancies
% Rework % Reinspected
!
Cables
38
37 Cabinets 100
70
Rooms
104
0
,
,
Scismic
20 -
0
!
The inspector was advised that in some cases engineering c.
analysis required a Noncomformance Report (NCR) to be
prepared.
In these cases the Engineering Inspection Report (EIR) was considered to be closed out and the item then tracked * by the electrical contractor's NCR system.
The inspector was further informed that the conduit Seismic I
Inspection Team would only conduct an engineering evaluation
'
and design review of designated areas.
Installation inspection
would be prc,vided by the electrical contractor's QC department
-
in accordance with approved procedures, d.
Engineering Inspection Report (EIR) No. 431 required that a bushing be installed on a conduit.
Records indicated that tests (i.e., megger and ductor) performed on the cable prior to' the installation of the bushing had not been repeated. The inspector determined the following:
- 10 -
g (V'
-
-
'*a
-
---r
-.-.
,,..._ i.,,,.,,
,
..,,,.4
-.
-%,-.m--w
U
-
l,
.
-
-
,
_]
.
'
"
.
,
,
,
I I
~s (1)
Neither the licensee nor the contractor knew'if
.
" split" bushings were allowed to be used on the proj ect.
In the above case, a split bushing was not used, however, EIR No. 233 was corrected by using a split bushing.
If a split bushing had been used to correct EIR No. 431, no further retesting would be required.
(2) The licensee had not developed a system which would verify that in the event of cable de-termination or other types of action which would invalidate previous tests, retesting would be required.
.
Considering the amount of ongoing r euork, the establishmeng
_
of a system to document action taken, requires the licensee's immediate attention. These matters were brought to the attention of cognizant TECO management, The following documents were revicued and used as a basis e.
for the inspection:
(1)
EIRS numbered 19, 21, 22, 31, 35, 65, 90, 95, 103, 105, 110, 124, 148, 150, 173, 197, 233, 278, 317, 342. 356,
/'_
(
398, and 431.
-
(2)
Bechtel conduit installation drawings E302A, sheets 150A and 150B.
,
(3)
F&M Procedures IP-7749-E14-6a.003 and IIP-7749-E-14-7a.003,
" Installation and Inspection of Hangets and Supports" for conduit and tray.
,
'
2.
Class IE Electrical Cable Trays
The inspector reviewed F6M Procedure IIP-7749-E-7a.001, a.
" Installation Inspection Procedure for Tray and Wireway Carrying Essential Cable" and determined that provisions exist to preclude misrouting of cable, improper support,
.
identification, securement, grounding, sharp edges and workmanship.- Drawing 7749-E-301A, Sheet 42 pertaining to cable tray grounding has been revised and approved. The inspector reviewed 14 raceway inspection records and determined that discopant items were being identified.
Inspection Report (IR) No. 0420 and Inspection Pick Up (IPU) No. 30483 identified discropancies such as supports requiring retorquing and trays requiring identification. The inspector concluded that meaningful tray inspections were conducted. in accardance with the above procedurcs.
g
,
v
.
- 11 -
.
-
-
.
g
-
-m,
,
.
,.
~
ll v-
--
r
!
-
-
(
.
G b.
The inspector was informed by a licensee representative that " wireways," if covered, were considered to be equal to rigid steel conduit in terms of fire retarding ability and would preclude the use of other fire barriers in areas of the cable spreading room which did not meet separation requirements.
In response to questioning;the licensee indicated that a review of this matter would be made.
Cable Identifying and Pulling Material Certification
.
The inspector reviewed the test procedure and results of a.
" Flame Propagation Characteristics of Cable Pulling Compounds",
performed by the Itcensee during September, 1975.
It was h
determined that the compounds used at the Davis-Desse sitc
- '
did not have any adverse effect on the flame characteristics
,
of cables installed at the site.
This matter is considered resolved.
- b.
During review of the test results discussed in item 3.2 above, it was noted from the photographs, that Okonite type AG-2 power cable, required a fire extinguisher for flame control.
During discussions with the licensee it was determined that other
,_s (
)
TECO tests, also clearly brought out this fact.
A redeeming
\\ _,/
factor is that all power cabic, i.e.,
SKV and above, installed at Davis-Besse site, is routed in rigid steel conduit.
In addition, the licensee has performed tests, which verify that cables installed in conduit have greatly improved flame retardant characteristics.
4.
Cable Material Certifications
.
The inspector reviewed documentation supplied by the licensee to certify that, cable specification had been met.
a.
Specification 7749-E-13 (1)
Letters dated July 18 and August 14, 1975, Hogan to Anas, documents conformance to the IPCEA S-19-81 fire test.
(2)
Okonite Engineering Report No. 141, dated February 29, 1972, documents that insulation and jacket sanples,
"OK0 GUARD and OK0PRENE", similar to those used at the Davis-Besse site had successfully passed radiation resistance and borated steam spray tests.
o
- 12 -
(
)
,
i
%,,/
e
t t
-
,
!
-s i
j b.
Specification 7749-E-15
' xJ (1) Kerite " Report on Fire Test" dated thy 9,1972 and Kerite letter Budrow to Anas dated December 9, 1975, documents conformance to the IPCEA S-19-81 fire test.
(2)
Letter, TECO file 0273, E-15 with enclosure and Kerite letter dated December 1,1975, Budrow to Anas, documents that protype cabics similar to those supplied to the Davis-Besse sito had successfully withstood radiation and borated water spray tests.
c.
Specification 7749-E-17 (1)
Boston Insulated Wire job No. LSS 1885A, documents conformance to the above specification relative to-
,
,,
IPCEA S-19-81 fire tests and to post accident environment tests.
(2)
The above tests were performed on Cross Linked Polyethylene (XLTE) insulations.
5.
Reactor Protection and Safeguard System Cabinets
[-~
The IE inspectors had received information which indicated that
the above cabincts were not wired in accordance with IEEE-279,1971, (,)
Sccion 4.7.2.
Based upon discussions uith the licensec and
_
manufacturers' representative and physical verification by the IE inspectors, it was concluded that no actual design effort had been made to provide internal separation between protective and control function outputs within the cabinets.
In addition, there
<
was no evidence t& indicate that an engineering analysis had been conducted.
.
Due to the possible generic nature of this design and question as to applicability of the requirements to Davis-Besse 1 this matter has been referred to IE headquarters staff for further review.
6.
Hydraulic Snubbers a.
Specification 7749-C-32 for Steam Generator Snubbers The inspector reviewed report No. PIID 5347-2R dated October 3, 1975, prepared by ITT Grinnell Corporation titled " Radiation and Environmental Test of Seal and Fluid !!aterials for Snubbers".
The report was based on tests conducted at Isomedix, Inc.,
Parsippany, Ncv Jersey on the following types of compounds:
',s A
!
- 13 -
v
.
-
_
..
_
_
_ __
I
!
..
~
.
.
'.
-.J *
- i.
.
,
,
'
i i
/
\\
a.
National, E-50 b.
Acushnet, E-17018
.
c.
Parker, E-740-75
!
"',,
d.
Parker, E-692-75 c.
Salisbury, 80154 f.
Minnesota, 559EQ g.
Manta Line, 70 Duro EPOM h.
Parker, E-515-80 The above materials were subjected to a tota'l integrated radiation dose of 3 x 107 rads and the average percentage changes in the durometer, tensile and compression strengths were measured and tabulated. The specimens were then subjected to 100% steam and 2680F test for a period of 73
-
hours and the changes in durometer average, compression and tensile strengths were measured and tabulated.
Four of the above compounds have been ucca in the steam generator snubbers for Davis Besse Unit No. 1 (National E-50, Salisbury 90154, Innnesota 559EQ, and Manta Line 70 Duro EPDM).
'
.
General Electric Type SF 1154 Hydraulic fluid mixed with American Cynamid Co's Dye Calco Oil Blue V was also reported N
irradiated uithout deleterious effects.
The report stated
,
)
that a Cobalt-60r field was used for the test and that dosimetry was measured using a Victoreen Model 555 Integrated Dose Rate Meter and Probe which had been calibrated on January 15, 1974 Co-60 and Cs-137 calibration sources traceable to National Bureau of Standards were used.
'
The above report had beca revfewed and approved by Bechtel, Gaithersburg and documented in a letter dated December 9, 1975.
.
This matter is now considered resolved.
b.
Specification 7749-M-190 Previously the inspector informed the licensee that the
-
certificate from ITT Grinnell, Providence, dated September 18, 1975, relative to the seal material was unacceptable.
Subse-quent to the current inspection the inspector was furnished a revised certificate from Grinnel, dated December 15, 1975.
The certificate indicated:
(1)
The seal materials used in the snubbers for this specification that were supplied after November 25, 1974, o
- 14 -
}
.
v
.
... -
-.
.
-
-
.
-- -
. -
..
'
.
a
.
..
,
'
-
.
~
,
.
'
- Q
,
(2) The seals are capabic of withstanding.3 x 10. rads radiation 264 F temperature, 100% relative humidty.
,
(3)
The G.E. type SF 1154 fluid was used.
(4)
The seal materials were tested and the.results are J
contained in Report No. PilD 5347-2R, dated October 3,1975.
'
.
The inspector determined that the revised certification was
~
acceptable.
Grinnell has identified snubbers supplied for the Davis-Besse site, prior to November 25, 1974 and has obtained approval to replace the existing seal material with certified seal material, e,
.
The inspector considers the corrective action taken as satisfactory.
'
This item is considered closed.
'
7.
Audits on Installed Restraints
&
a.
The inspector reviewed a copy of a Bechtel letter, FL 12-2383, j
dated April 23, 1975, from the Construction Manager to the Grinnell site Office with a distribution list stanped on it
'
j to indicate that the letter was being issued to the craft foreman
'
of thc+ ITT Grinnell.
The letter stated that " Flame cur. ting is
,
not to be used for cutting hanger rods, or making holes in steel
~
where tolerances are small or materials not contractor furnished."
The inspector determined that ' the corrective action to inform
'
the craft to prevent recurrences in the future, is satisfactory, b.
The inspector reviewed Grinnell letter, A-12-LF-13, dated November 11, 1975, to the construction manager which included enclosed information that flame cutting of 9/16" diameter holes
.
in carbon steel type ASTM A 285 grade A, ASTM A 285 Gr e and ASTM A 515 Gr 65, would not change the metallurgical properties.
The letter referenced Section 3.A of the Welding llandbook and the Oxyacetylene Handbook and concluded that the carbon steel plates will be suitable for service in the as-cut condition.
The inspector reviewed. a Bechtcl, Gaithersburg, letter dated c.
December 8,1975, to the licensee relative to the engineering evaluation on the hanger support anchor plate holes widened
'
by flame cutting,
.
d.
The insyector reviewed the corrective action initiated to repair anchor plates identified to have flame cut holcs using a procedure titled Recommended method for correcting flame cu' Soles in pipe
-
support and anchor plates".
- \\v)
The inspector considered the corrective action taken as satisfactory.
This item is considered closed.
-
.
15'-
-
,
--
-w-
~
,,-w,
,
,-.am-w
,
-, -
-- -
, -, - - -, -,,. -
pe mm e,,,,
p.
>,,,-wwe.r-,en-
_
_
. - _ _
._ -
-
-
_
_ _. _ - -.
_.
.
.
J-3
-,
.
,
.t i
-
!
,,,_
Review of Johnson OA Manual-Welding Section 8.-
As followup to IE inspection documented in Report No. 050-346/74-10,
' -
the inspector reviewed the welding section of the Johnson-QA Manual-for the following requirements and determined them to be acceptabic, a.
The QC ' Form identifies the inspection p ogram and mandatory hold points.
b.
Qualified personnel are used for in-process inspection.
c.
Approved welding procedures are used.
i d.
Welding personnel were qua #fied'to procedures and qualification welds were evaluated by radiographic examination by Testmaster
Inspection Company.
-
e.
The following requirements were used to control and record
!
welding:
{
(1)
Weld location was identified on drawings.
!
t
]
'(2)
Welders initials and clock number.
.
(3) Welding procedure and weld filler material were l
identified on the Weld Material Requisition form.
i The inspector selected to review the qualification records of a
'
welder identified by initials HS and clock No. 2622 and determined he was qualified to test No. 32, welding material SA 312.304 to
<
SA 312-306 (P8-P8), thickness 1/16" to.436.
The weld uns
'
evaluated by radiography by the Testmaster Inspection Company, i
9.
Review of NDE Services for Johnson
Johnson utilizies Testmaster Inspection Company (Testmasters)
12601 Road, Perrysburg, Ohio, for onsite NDE Services.
Testmasters were originally surveyed and qualified on Augus't 28,
,
1973, and requalified in July 1975 by a three member audit team consisting of a Dechtel Welding Engineer, Hartford Boiler Inspector (Authorized Inspector) and the Johnson QA lbnager. The Vendor
+
Quality ' System Questionnaire as required by the Johnson QA Manual
'
for survey and qualification was used.
Deficiencies identified
_
during an earlier survey were reported satisfactorily resolved, i
Testmasters perform only Liquid Penetrant Examination for Johnson l
at Davis-Besse. site. The qualifications of one inspector, identified ll(V3
- -
- 16 -
,
-
_. _
__
_-
.
.
.
.
'
.
..
.
-
.
.
,
-
,
-
N L_. -
,,
l
-
.
,7
-
N]
'
by Social Security No. 237-70-3297, were reviewed and it was determined he was certified for RT (G), RT (X), PP and PT, (level II: SNT-TC-1A) and had acceptable eye sight est.ablished by the Jaeger'. and color vision test.
Testmaster Liquid Penetrant Procedurc QAS-622 is being used and Report Form 103-DB-3-75 is used to document tlic results.
The reports are signed by the NDE examiner and the Johnson in-process Inspector. Developer D-495-A, Penetrant P300A and cicaner K-410A manufactured by Tracer Tech are being used for L.P. Examination and are certified to conform to MIL group 25135 I and II and contain less than 1% halogen and sulphur.
,s.
-
Based on the above findings, the IE:III inspector determined that Johnson qualifications of Testmasters was in accordance with Johnson QA Manual requirementi and that Testmasters is conducting Liquid Penetrant Examinations using qualified personnel and approved procc-dures.
.
10.
Record Revieu of Electrical Penetration Flange Welds O
The inspector reviewed the records of welding performed by Grinnell
.
on attachment flanges for electrical penetrations PIC2L, P3L4S and P3P4C. The documentation reviewed included the following:
a.
Welding on attachment flanges for penetrations PIC2L, P3L4S and P3P4C vere identified as Field Welds (FW) FW38, FW29, and FW17 respectively on the drawings.
'
b.
Welders were identified by their names and initials. The initials of the welder was verified on the actual weld and determined to
,
be correct.
c.
Weld procedure 1-41-2-4 was used for the velding and was approved.
The procedure was qualified on June 20, 1973, and accepted by the TECO QA representative.
- d.
Weld rod requisitions were used to draw weld rods type E 7018 conforming to ASME Specification SFA51 for the velding.
The weld rod heat and lot numbers were recorded.
c.
Weld data report form FF 106A was used to record inspections performed.
f.
The procedure did not require preheat and stress relief.
O
\\,/
- 17 -
,. _. - _ _ _ _. _.. _.._. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ ~ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
,
4.
u.
,.
9..
g
'
-
.
,,
$
'
.
-
.
!@
~
-
{_
-
The welds were radiographed as per RT inspection procedure
!
. g.
1-SF-lGil-4, dated August 15, 1972 using a I-192 source.
j
-
j Evaluation of the radiographs indicated varying quantitics of i
slag, tungsten and porosity.
The inclusions were verified to be within acceptabic limits as specified in II.tcrpertaion j
' procedure 1-SF-1711, dated March 22, 1971.
!
l I
h.
The welder qualification records which were made available j.
at Grinnell indicated that the welders were qualified in l'
March 1974 and were determined to be acceptable.
.
I i
-
.
.
,
!
!
.
i
!
.
a
.
t
-
!
l i
.
-
I P
l
- 18 -
.
O e