IR 05000346/1976002
| ML19319B449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1976 |
| From: | Hayes D, Sutton J, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B438 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-76-02, 50-346-76-2, NUDOCS 8001151015 | |
| Download: ML19319B449 (11) | |
Text
.
.
-- -
_.. -
-
._. - - - _ _ _ - - -
--_
.
.
-
p
.
.
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t@!SSION
/
(
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
'
REGION III
i-Report of Construction Inspection
.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/76-02
,
.
Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company
'
Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Unit 1
-
Category:
B
,
Oak Harbor, Ohio Type of Licensee:
B&W, PWR-871 MWe i
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced
)
Dates of Inspection:
February 11-13, 1976 v
I J.W.Sutton/
7///[76-Principal Inspector:
.>
_
' (Date)
'
.
Accompanying Inspectors. C. C b/
7 d'
/ (Dite)
A i-(
-abl:<5 W
\\
F. U..',' ablonski S - //' 752
-
.
(Date)
Other Accompanying Personnel:
D. W. Hayes (Febuary 11 and 12,,1976 only)
i 3./
O, c' t?ct Reviewed By:
. W. Ilayes, Micf
/ [/4 Projects Section
/(Dite)
%J
,
. f00llStof f
.
.
.
A w
w
~
v
,, *
,-
-,,,w-
-,e s,,
,
~-, ere-
,
,
..
.
,
.
,
/N SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
%
l
.
Ns-
.
Inspection Summary
.
Inspection of February 11-13, (76-02):
Reviewed licensee's cor-rective action relative to prev'iously identified noncompliances and other unresolved matters, including status of inspection effort and documentation relative to the licensee's special inspec-tion of safety related electrical wiring and raceways.
In addition principal construction inspection responsibility was transferred to Mr. C. C. Williams who has been designated as the Davis-Besse Unit 1, Project Inspector (Construction).
Two items of noncompliance were identified during the inspection relative to lack of docu-4-
mentation to establish qualification of inspection personnel and failure to promptly notify the NRC of a reportable deficiency.
One Deviation was identified relative to fire barrier installations.
Items of Noncompliance A.
Infraction
.
Contrary to 10 CFR, Part 50.55(c)(2), the licensee failed to promptly notify the Nuclear Regulatory Comrission Inspection N
and Enforcement Regional office of a repor*Able deficiency,
,\\ /
pertaining to the buckling of the top riots of the horated
<
water tank.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2)
B.
Deficiency Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, neither
. qualification nor training records were available to verify that certain personnel had received indoctrination, training and/or othe: qualifying experience to proficiently perform specific quality control functions relative to installation of safety equipment.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1.a(5)-(7))
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Item,s Lack of Documentation of RT Location Marks (IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-21)
The corrective action for the above item, as outlined in the Toledo
- Edison Company (TECO) letter of January 8,1976, in response to the-2-A I
i
\\_ /
l
-
-
t v--
-
w w
_
_
.- -
--
. _ _.
_
_ _ _
__. _. _ _
-
,
m_
-
.
.
.-
.
IE:III letter and report dated' December 10, 1975, was determined jN to have been satisfactorily' accomplished and documented.
This ( _ )
matter is considered closed.
.
Other Significant Findings i'
A.
Systems and Components
.
,
Unresolved Item - Identifi~ cation Requirements of IEEE 279-l There does not appear to be a documented system for distinctly I
identifying safety system protection field components.
(Report Details, Parag'raphs 1.a(1)-(4))
~
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
j None.
C.-
Managerial-Items The inspector was informed that Mr. Wendell A. Johnson, Customer Service Vice President, had been promoted to Senior Vice
,
.
President, Operations effective December 26, 1975.
Reporting
!
to Mr. Johnson will be the Vice Presidents of Customer Services, i
Energy Supply and Facilities Development.
The Davis-Besse
,
j
. Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 is under the jurisdiction of the Facilities Development Vice President.
i s
D.
. Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee s
None.
E.. -Deviation
-
,
I --
Contrary to.the intedt of item seven of commitments made to the
Commission during a site visit by members of the NRC Office
'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on October 15 and 16, 1975,
,
the licensee-is,considering the use of installed wireways as
!
providing a suitable fire barrier in certain1 areas of the L
. cable spreading room where minimum separation requirements mare'not met'.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3.c)
l-
F. - ' Status of Previously. Reported Unresolved Items 1. -.
Inappropriate Closure and Nonconformance Reports (NCR's)
-(Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07,
.
No. 050-346/75-13. No.-050-346/75-16, No. 050-346/75-20, RNo.-050-346/75-23 and No. 050-346/75-24)
If~.- Q.
,
-:3 -
Em l
'
'
r'-
r
-
,
,
,
i.
.
.
- -
-.
-
-
.
.
m. -.-
.-
_
_
_
..
. _.
'
.
- ,
.
.
['""i The-documentation received from CVI Corporation regarding Tj the charcoal used in-the filters was determined not to
-
-
meet required specifications. This item. remains, unresolved.
2.-
Incomplete Test Data (IE Inspecticn Reports No. 050-346/75-03, No. 050-346/75-07, No. 050-346/75-13, No. 050-346/75-16, No. 050-346/75-20, No. 050-346/75-23 and No. 050-346/75-24)
'
-The results of the CVI Corporation " minimum clongation before rupture" tests of filters is being evaluated.
This item remains unresolved.
.
,
3.
Equipment Secured by "Hilti-Kwik" Devices (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-10, No. 050-346/75-15, No. 050-346/75-16, No. 050-346/75-20, No. 050-346/75-23 and No. 050-346/75-24)
The inspector reviewed Fischbach and Moore's Installation Inspection Procedure for essential Anchor Bolts, No. IIP-7749-E14-7a.005 and a letter, Fischbach and Moore to Bechtel, No. 14LF3493.
Until all work is completed and inspected, this item remains unresolved.
4.
Motor Operated Valves (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-15, No. 050-346/75-16, No. 050-346/75-20, No. 050-346/75-23 and No. 050-346/75-24)
[
)
The inspector reviewed available documentation pertaining to
,
\\~./
Limitorque motor operators for Velan, B&W and Fisher valves.
'
As a result of this revieu, seismic requirements for the
.
Limitorque operators of the above mentioned valves have been satisfactorily documented. Valve body seismic requirements for the Fisher and B&W valves have not been documented.
This item remains unresolved.
5.
Reactor Main Coolant Pumps - Repairs (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-16, No. 050-346/75-10, No. 050-346/75-21,
-
No. 050-346/75-23 and No. 050-346/75-24)
The inspector reviewed B&W construction company letters of December 8 and 22, 1975, a TECO interoffice memo, File No.
S-13-M-508, dated January 5, 1976, and other related document-
ation pertaining to the Reactor Coolant Pumps casing repairs performed during the past few months.
As a result of this review and in consideration of conditions which could be encountered to recertify the pump casings, the inspector concluded that.
recertification of the main coolant pumi casings can be i-4-i s__-
.
.,
-
. _.
_.
_
__
'
.
.
-
,
.
Y
_
/'~
accomplished during the scheduled hydrostatic test t
of the main coolant piping, using hydrostatic unit
<
pressure as recertifying pressure.
This item.is considered resolved.
.
6.
Reactor Protection and Safeguard System Cabinets (TE I
Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-23 and No. 050-346/75-24)
The Protection and Safeguard Systems internal cabinet
- wiring appears to be in conflict with IEEE-279, 1971,
.
.Section 4.7.2.
This matter has been refered to IE
.
Headquarters for resolution.
-
'
7.
-System for Retesting After Rework (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-346/75-23 and No. 050-346/75-24)
The inspector determined that a retesting syhtem had been in effect previous to the above referenced inspection,
'
however, neither.the contractor nor the licensee appeared to have knowledge of it.
The system was in the form of a "Q" equipment modification record, QCD/7749-89, (MOD PAK) which had provisions for electrical retesting.
Other records and cable scheme No. ICBE1107F, indicated that-rework and retesting had been accomplished.
This item is considered resolved.
f Management Interview m
A.
The following persons attended the management interview at the l
conclusion of the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
,
i L. E. Roe, Vice' President, Facilities Development J. P. Lenardson,-Quality Assurance Manager i
G. W. Eichenhauer,: Field Quality Assurance Engineer E. C. Novak, Project Engineer
R. E. Blanchong, Construction Superintendent
'
J. Evans, Station Superintendent
.
E. M. Wilcox, Field Quality Assurance Engineer C. T. Daft, Field Quality Assurance Engineer M. D. Calcamuggio, Power Plant Electrical Engineer L. Stalter, Technical Engineer
1J. P. Lastovka, CEI/TECO Senior Electrical Engineer
.
T. M. Murray,-Operations E ;ineer
,,
W. Green, Station ~ Technical Assistant S.:A.'Gumm,. Operations-
'
- g
.
-5-
~
.
'
,
-
a
1
(
.-
'
.
,
.
,4
_
_.
,
,_
..,
. _ _. _
_,, _...
-.,,.
_,.. _ _,,,.,
..-
-
.
.
$
-
.
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtcl)
,-~s
~}
)
(_ /
C. L. Huston, Field Construction Manager J. D. Heaton,- Project Field Quality Control Enginee'r-G. G. Heiser, Quality Assurance Engineer P. R. Britncil, Quality Control Engineer W. C. Lowery, Electrical Quality Assurance Engineer J. Gonzalez, E1cetrical Inspection Team Leader (Gaithersburg)
. Johnson Controls Incorporated (JCI)
R. W. Jones, Quality Assurance Representative
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) The turnover of Project Site Construction responsibilities to Mr. C. C. Williams, Construction Projects, Region III, (b) a review of the status and corrective action being taken as a result of the Special Electrical Inspection, and (c) review of the documentation to close out identified unresolved items.
2.
The inspector stated that upon arrival at the site on j'~'N February 11, 1976, he was informed that on January 3,.
(
1976, several of the upper courses of the Borated Water Storage Tank had buckled during a flushing operation.
This item is considered reportable under provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.55(e).
The inspector stated that this condition had occurred over one month ago and that he and another IE Region III inspector had been at the site subsequent to the occurrence, however, neither of the inspectors had been informed of the occurrence.
Further-more, Part 50.55(e), Paragraph 2, requires the licensee to promptly (within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) notify the NRC Regional office of such occurrences.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2)
3.
The inspector stated that unresolved items relative to motor operated valves, CVI filter items, protective system cabinet wiring and equipments secured by Hilti-Kwik devices could not be resolved at this time.
4.
The inspector stated that the unresolved matter relative to'the retesting of reworked electrical items was considered-6-r~ x
/
\\~./
.
-
.
.
q
.
.
- _
-..
.
..
,-
.
.
L{' h resolved, however, the inspector expressed concern _that
'
- s _,f; cognizant personnel were not familiar with the system s
in existance at'the time of the previous inspection.
-
5.
The inspector stated that the consideration by the licensee AE to use covered wireways as equal to rigid' steel conduit in terms of fire retardancy appeared to be in conflict with the intent of the National Electric Code and certain aspects of a NRC licensing - TECO meeting held during
.
October, 1975. The licensee stated that the National Electric Code did not apply'to utilities, however, the
matter would be given further consideration.
Subsequent to the inspection and as a result of further IE discussion, this matter was considered t, be a deviation from previous licensee commitmen s.
The licensee was so informed by telephone.
(Rep'rt Details, Paragraph 3.c)
6.
Tne inspector stated that cable spreading room fire barrier and cable penetration blockout sealing installations were still to be reviewed by NRC.
7.
The inspector stated that none of the cable separations or adverse environment rework items were available for IE inspection. The inspector requested that he be provided (N)
with estimated completica dates for this work in order (
to facilitate IE Inspection scheduling.
The licensee stated that estimated dates would be provided.
'
8.
The inspector stated that during observations of partially installed instrumentation systems, the assigned JCI
.
Quality Engineer, when questioned, seemed totally un-familiar with instrumentation separation requirements and furthermore, no records were available to indicate that indoctrination or training had been provided to this inspector. This condition was considered to be an item of noncompliance, contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII.
(Report
<
Details, Paragraphs 1.a(5)-(7))
E
.9.
'The insmector stated that contrary to IEEE 279, the licensee did not appear to have an acceptable instrumentation component identification system. The licensee stated that no confusion existed with TECO staff members.
The inspector stated that this matter would be considered as
. unresolved-pending further review.
(Report Details, Para-graphs 1.a(1)-(4))
.
-.
a
~7-
\\_/
.
.
,
,,,
-
_
.. - -... -
-
,
-
,
.
~. - - _. -.
..-
... -.-
...
-,
-
-
y
.
.
,'
<
REPORT DETAILS C
.
<
'
i
-
- \\ _.}
_
.
.
- Persons Contacted
' The following persons, in addition to-individuals listed under the Management l Interview section of'this report, were con'tacted during
.
.
. the inspection.
!
.
.
_.
i Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
.
- J. T. Bombard,
- Field Start up Coordinator J. O., Gray,' Lead Instrument Quality Control Engineer i
L. D. Jensen, Instrument Engineer
,
'
. Fischbach and Moore, Incorporated (F&M)
- '
G. D. Kraus, Lead Field Engineer D. M. Moeller, Quality Control Manager
- .
Johnson Controls, Incorporated (JCI)
'
.
R. J. R0au, Quality Engineer-l J.-H.-Stanger,- In-Process Inspector, Electrical
,
Results'of It.spection
'
<-
-
1.
Observations of Instrument Installations s
a.
The inspector observed several partially installed instrument i
installations and determined the following:
,
.
.
l (1). Instruments as listed on Figure.7-1 of the FSAR were not likewise listed'in the Master Instrument-Index, e.g.
Figure _ 7-1 reads "RC-FT-1Al" the Master'Index reads
"FT-RC-1Al".
-(2) With~ reference to (1)'above, field instruments were actually identified with a tag bearing both identification numbers
,
as well as another number alleged to be a "TEC0" number.
.
.
F
- (3)
Two pressure transmitters were mounted side by side and appeared to be identical except for instrument numbers.-
'
l Cognizant pe' u'nc1 were unable to identify which one-
'
~ was the safety system. instrument.
Subsequently, a telephoneLeall was made and~ identification determined o
l
-
via the Master Instrument'Index.
!
!
.
6 '
W
_
-
!
.
&
. -.
.
-.
,
,
.%-
- ...,; n __
,,. _,.._., _ _,
,_,~,...,;,.,.__m.
,,.,
. - -
_
__
,
-
-..
.-
.
.
'(4)
Based upon the above observations and centrary to l'-s.)
the intent of IEEC 279, there does not appear to be
\\ _s/
a system for distinctly identifying protection system s
field instruments.
This matter is unresolv'ed.
(5)
Some instrument installations did not. appear to meet physical separation requirements of the FSAR, or other specifications, procedures and drawir s.
(See Items
-
b. (2)-(7) below)
(6) The JCI cognizant Quality Engineer seemed unfamiliar with the instrumentation separation requirements.
This finding was substantiated during the inspector's conversations with the JCI Quality Adsurance Represent-ative. Furthermore, neither qualification nor training records were available to indicate that the Quality Engineer had received indoctrination, training and/or other qualifying experience to proficiently perform quality inspection functions.
.
The licensee was informed that this matter was consider-ed to be in noncompliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII.
b.
Instruments and other references reviewed include:
(1)
LT 1525B and LT 1525D.
"'
(2) PT 12A1 and 2, RC-FT-1Al-1B1-1Cl-1D1 and PT-RC-2A4.
(3)
Bechtel Specification M329, Section 9.6.2.
(4)
Bechtel Drawing 7749-M-554, Revision 3.
(5) JCI Procedure No. QAS-615, " Installation Instructions Nuclear and Seismic Class one Instrumentation Instal-lation".
i (6) JCI System Test Report, Section 6.6.
,
(7) FSAR, Section 7.1.2.3.1.
.2.
Borated-Water Storage Tank (BWIT)
When the inspector arrived on site February 11, 1976, he was informed that the licensee was reporting an occurrence considered-9-C T.
t
/-
V
.
.
m
.
.
j]
to be reportabic under the requirements of 50.SS(e).
During (
!
flushing operations of January 3,1976, a vacuum uns produced
' ~ ' '
uhich buckled several areas of the top two rings of. the BWST.
The vacuum relief valve failed to function and the tank vent line was determined to be plugged. A Nonconformance Report (NCR)
was prepared and disposition requested from engineering.
The inspector understands that seismic qualifications may have been impaired and that repairs are to be made to the tank.
The licensee was informed that failure to promptly report this matter was considered to be in noncompliance with requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Paragraph 50.55(c)(2).
3.
Followup Electrical Inspection a.
The inspector randomly chose 14 Engineering Inspection Report items for evaluation. One item was not safety related, another was administratively closed out and the others remain open because contractor quality con-trol functions had not been performed.
The licensee is to supply estimated completion dates so that future NBC inspection can be more meaningful, b.
The licensee's AE representative reports the following inspection and reinspection status:
f~h (
'
Area
% Inspected
% Reinspected LJ Cables
58 Cabinets 100
Rooms
0 Seismic No Report
-
c.
During.a previous inspection (IE-Inspection Report No. 050-346/75-23) the inspector was informed by the licensee's AE representative that covered wireways were considered to be equal to rigid steel conduit in terms of fire retarding ability and therefore, would preclude the use of fire barriers in certain areas of the cable spreading room with wireways already installed, which did not meet separation requirements.
During the current inspection the same response was obtained from the licensee even though there was no test documentation or other analysis to justify the cor_ sideration.
The inspector informed the licensee that according to definitions provided
- 10 -
7,
?
.
-
-
.
..
-
.
. --_. -
' t
.,
.
a
/'~'N in the National Electric Code, conduit and covered wireways (,/
could not be considered to be equal for fire retarding pur-
_
poses. The inspector then made reference to a site visit
,
of October.15 and 16, 1976, by members of the NRC Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Hegulation to wit certain mutual agreements were made regarding minimum separation distances, and fire barrier installations. At no time was the consideration of a wireway
'
to be a conduit, cable tray or anything else, ever discussed.
The licensee's consideration is not in keeping with the intent of the above mentioned definitions'and commitments, therefore, this matter is considered to be a Deviation.
4.
Westinghouse Type OT-2 Control Switches The inspector reviewed the action taken by the licensee pertaining to IE Bulletin No. 75-06.
The licinsee submitted a report to IE, Region III, dated January 7, 1976, indicating their study of this item.
The inspector reviewed the results and concurs with the results.
This item is considered closed.
5.
Incorrect Coils in Westinghouse Type SC Relays The inspector reviewed the corrective action taken by the licensee and reported in TECO letter to Region III, dated November 26. 1974.
The report was required by DRO Bulletin No. 74-12.
The corrective fs action taken was found to be in order.
This item is considered
g, j.
closed.
v r
l '
l'
i s
.1 l,
j
.11 -
xx
.
.
.o.
,
,,
,, -
--m m
-
,
'w.
- +-
-'7-'
- - - ' -- - * - -