IR 05000346/1977009
| ML19329B611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1977 |
| From: | Naidu K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329B425 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-77-09, 50-346-77-9, NUDOCS 8002050729 | |
| Download: ML19329B611 (10) | |
Text
__.
. --..
-
_-
. -. -. -.
',
-
..
.-
L...
-
- O
.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:etISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
'
Report of Construction Inspection
,
IE Inspection Report No. 050-346/77-09
!
Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza c
300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, OH 43652
'
.
-
'
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-80 Unit 1 Category:
B Oak Harbor, OH
,
!
.
Type of Licensee:
PWR (B&W) 2772 MWe, 926 MWe Type of Inspection:
Special. Announced at B&W Lynchburg l
Dates of Inspectien:
ch 16-18, 1977 r 11 U
l Principal Inspector:
K. R.(Naidu 4 '/'77
.;
(Date)
Accompanying Inspectors:
None
!
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None i
i
_
)
Reviewed By:
E.
L ordan, Chier k [/ 72
.,
Engi eering Support Section f(Dfte)
,
l l
h 8 0
-
.
.
.
,.. - -
.... _. - _ _ _ - -.., _
_., _, _,,,,,,
_ _,,
-
.
..
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
~-
Inspection Summary i
Inspection of March 16-18, 1977, (Unit 1, 77-09):
Selective review of supporting documents to assure that the original procurement and sub-sequent modifications to the Velan valves with Kieley-Mueller operators and the High Pressure Injection pump forced lube oil system, were in
,
accordance with established procedures, specifications and applicable l
10 CFR 50, Appendix B criteria.
1,tems of Noncompliance None.
<
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
.
Not reviewed.
!
Other Significant Items A.
Systems and Components
None.
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
None.
i C.
Managerial Items
'
l None.
D.
Deviations
-
l None.
E.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items None.
i Management Interview A.
The following persons attended the Management Interview at the conclusion of the inspection:
(As)
-2-
.
.
e
,, --
-,
,n
- - - - -
-,n
..--------,--w
--.-
_
-
-
,
y.
,
.
A k
Babcock &Wilcox(B&W)Lydchburg C. A. Armantrout, QA Enginaer H. Fires, Engineer, Stress Analysis S. H. Klein, Manager, QA Engineering
~
.
J. A. Lauer, Project Manager A. L. Mackinney, Manager,L Quality Assurance Department f
Toledo Edison Ccmpany (TECo) Toledo
,
E. M. Wilcox, Field Quality Assurance Representative B.
Matters \\ discussed and comments made on the part of the management personnel were as follows:
c The inspector requested that B&W furnish TECo the following documents for NRC review at Davis-Besse site:
. -
1.
A Velan purchase order to Kieley-Mueller (KM) for the valve operators.
(Paragraph 1.c. (1), Report Details)
2.
Objective evidence such as, inspection / audit reports to dem-
'
onstrate that the original documents supporting KM certi-7 ~~s ficates of conformance for KM operators, yoke material and (
)
replacement stems.
(Paragraph 1.c.(2), Report Details)
3.
Audit review of the documentation of those valves which were classified as essentiality Level III during procurement to determine whether the data packages are complete.
Subsequent to the inspection, B&W informed TECo in their letter BWT/QA-13 dated March 22, 1977 that the data packages of the subject valves were reviewed and determined that the valves with "Essentiality Level III" contain seismic qualifica-tions and material certifications.
The inspector has no
'
further, questions on this subject.
(Paragraph 1.c. (3), Report Details)
4.
Audit review of the test reports of those valves which were procured without specifying valve closure times to determine whether,the closing times comply with Table 6-8 of the Davis-
'
Besse Unit i FSAR.
,
,
D
/
Subsequent to the inspection, B&W in a letter BWT/QA-13 dated March 22l 1977, informed TEco that valve MU-HV38, a Seal Return Isolation Valve, had a closing time of 14.6 second which exceeded the prescribed 10-12 seconds closing time indicated in Table 6-8 of the FSAR, and that their NSS Dasign e'~s Unit evaluated the' closing time and determined it adequate.
(' ')
.The inspector has no further questions on this subject.
,
'
(Paragraph 1.c.(4), Report Details)
.
.
'
3-
-
<-
,
L~
-
-
.
.
'
,
~
i
!
J
i
!
t 5.
Additional documents such as material certificates for the
components used for the field modification of the High Pres-sure Injection pump forced lube oil system.
The B&W personnel stated that they would obtain the above documents and furnish them to TECo.
J i
!
!'
.!
!
l
.
d J
i e
!
i i
I
.
>
,
d
- s
,
I i
!
~
1
3
'
,
t 4-
-
I
b o
g
!
!
.
l
.-
- -
..
- -..
-
.
-
-
..
-. -,,.. _.. - -..
.
.
...
L.
.,;
.
.
.
O
-
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted The following persons other than those listed under the Management Interview section of this report, were contacted during this inspection.
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Lynchburg S. Funkhauser,' Manager, Stress Analysis L. P. King, Manager Fluid Systems Engineer: lng S. A. Lamana, Engineer, Fluid Systems
"
Results of Inspection
.
1.
a.
Inspection Objectives To ascertain by review of supporting documentation that the following components were designed, fabricated, procured and modified in accordance with specifications, applicable 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements and to assure that they g
vill satisfactorily perform in their intended services.
(1)
Seven (7) valves manufactured by Velan with pneumatic operators supplied by Kiely-Mueller, identification numbers MU-HV 3, 33, 38, 66A, 66R, 66C and 66D.
(2) Two (2) high pressure injection pumps including modi-fications to the forced bearing lubrication system
-'
performed in the field.
(Field Change #100)
b.
Inspection Objective Accomplished By:
(1) Review of the following correspondence.
(a)
B&W letter.BWR-130 dated October 1, 1976, to TECo stating that Kiely-Mueller supplied cast iron yokes for the valve operators instead of cast steel; that replacement cast steel yokes would be supplied.
(b)
B&W letter BWT-1429 dated November 17, 1976, to TECo
~
stating that B&W supplied valves were not properly cupported during installation; suggested that Bechtel review the installation of these valves and operators to_ ensure that they are supported as required by the vendor supplied drawings.
'
-5-
.
.
.
e
,
i
-
.
..
,
-
L_ _
,
'
-
.
.
\\
(c) B&W letter dated November 18, 1976, to the site Manager enclosing the packing list for Field Change
- 100.
(d)
B&W letter BWT-1442 dated December 13, 1976, to TECo stating that seismic analysis reports on valves and operators for the valves in question including material certifications will be available by December 22, 1976.
(e)
B&W 1etter BWT-1452 dated January 12, 1977, to TECo explaining the concerns related to inadequate docu-mentation on Field Change #100 and seismic calculations
,
for the 7 valves.
-
(f) TECo letter to B&W dated January 13, 1977, conveying excerpts of NRC/TECo telecon dated January 11, 1977.
(g)
B&W letter BWT-1456 dated January 14, 1977, to TEco answering concerns expressed in the TEco letter dated January 11, 1977.
_,
O (h)
B&W letter BWT-1461 dated January 18, 1977 to TECo reply-ing to TECo's concerns relating to the forces on the actuator stem.
(i) TECo letter TBW-439 dated February 1, 1977, answering B&W letter BWT-1461 dated January 18, 1977, repeating their concern that the diameter of the threads of the actuator stem to the valve stem was not capable of withstanding the calculated 10,000 pound force.
(j)
B&W letter BWT-1473 dated February 9, 1977, clarifying the subject matter in letter BWT-1452 dated January 12, 1977.
(k)
B&W letter BWT/QA-8 dated February 9, 1977, to TECo stating that the documents certifying the components for the FC #100 Rev. 3, modification would be sent to i
the site.
(1) TECo letter TBW-441 dated February 15, 1977, to B&W requesting new srismic documentation to cover the change to the stem coupling (valve stem to actuator stem).
N
-6-
<
.
.
e
~
~
'
~
.
.
..
.
'
E
\\
--
(m)
B&W 1etter BWT-1486 dated February 28, 1977, to TECo stating that both cast iron and cast steel yokes were considered in the seismic analysis; the con-servative value for the modulus of elasticity for cast iron yokes was used in the calculations and that correcting the error would be inconsequential.
(n)
B&W 1etter BWT-1465 dated January 26, 1977, to TECo correcting certain statements made in their earlier
letter BWT-1442 dated December 13, 1976.
,
(2) Review of the specifications for the following:
(a)
Basic valve, 1025/0469 dated April 28, 1969.
.
-
(b) Motor operator, 1027/0369 dated March 10, 1969.
(c) General for auxiliary equipment, CS-3-106 dated June 14, 1968.
(d) Quality Assurance, 1152/1069 dated October 10, 1969.
.,
(" s\\
.
<
(s_,,)
(e)
Seismic requirements, 1107/NSS-14 dated April 24,
1970.
(f)
Centrifugal pumps for safeguard service, 1130/NSS-14/1069.
J (3) Review of the following Purchase Orders:
(a) PO #02261 4LS dated September 14, 1970, for the valves.
(b) PO #2260 ILV dated September 10, 1972, for the HPI pumps.
(c)
Change Order #13 to implement FCN for Forced Lube Oil mcdification system.
(4)
Review of the following sections of B&W QA manual /QA
,
specifications - 19A-N.
(a)
Procedure 19A-3A dated June 5, 1970.
(b)
Section 3.3-B&W-NPGD Procedure - Nuclear Systems Engineering Design Document Check Procedures f-,
/
(1G (15)2 - 5.7.1) dated October 19, 1970.
(.
.
.
.
-7-
_
..
-
_
- - -
_
-... -
. -
_
_
.
.
- -.
--
-.
.. _ -
_-.
. _ -
.
. -
L_;
-
-
- -
-
s
,
.
.
(
i (c) Procedure 19A-6A Control of Purchased Materials i
Equipment and Services Evaluation of subcontractors
~ ~ '
and service.
-
(d) Procedure 19A-6B, Periodic Supplier Audit.
(e) Procedure 19A-6C, Source Surveillance.
,
. (f) Preparation of'QA Data Packages.
.'
(5) Review of the following B&W Inspection Reports (IR) of Velan
!
Valves.
(a)
IR #02:
Valve MU-HV38 - Tests were witnessed on
<
j March 27, 28 and 29 for hydro, seat leak, operational-and minimum wall thickness.
.
]
(b)
IR #03:
Valve MU-E7 66A, B&D - hydro operational, visual, dimensional, minimum wall thickness were
.
inspected.
RT of the disc reviewed.
All three l
valves were found satisfactory.
(c)
IR #04:
Valve MU-HV66C - hydro, operational, completed visual, dimensional, minimum wall thickness were inspec-
.
ted.
Reviewed RT film on the disc.
(6) Review of the following B&W audits of Velan Engineering Company,
+
Montreal, Canada.
,
(a) Audit Report dated September 23, 1970.
(b) Audit Report dated December. 14, 1970.
(c) Audit Report dated January 27, 1972.
(d) Audit Report dated February 9, 1972.
(e) ' Audit Report dated February 11, 1972.
l (f) Audit Report dated August 30, 1972.
-(g)
Audit Report dated January 14, 1974.
.
l l
(7) Discussions with B&W personnel.
I i
8-
-
.
.
- +
r-
~
r,-,
+
,n
--,---4-n-
. - -
,,n-r--
r-
--wn--,r,a----ogmr n,-
-,w
,-,.,we--,.---r,,-,e--e-ww w a-e-,
ww,-r-v,-w~'w-em a'
-m.w-
...
..
.
.,
.
'
.
.
)
\\g,,/
c.
Inspection Findings (1) A Velan purchase order to KM for the valve operators was not
~~
available to substantiate B&W statement (Paragraph 2, BWT-1456 dated January 14, 1977) asserting that Velan attaches the B&W equipment specification to their purchase order to their vendor KM.
(2) Documents were not available at B&W to demonstrate that B&W reviewed original documents supporting the KM certificates of conformance (COCs).for the KM operator, the yoke material and replacement stems.
Neither the audit reports nor the inspection reports referenced above, indicated that the above (1.c.(1)
,
and 1.c.(2)) were verified as required by B&W QA Program.
B&W stated that they would review the original documents supporting the C0Cs.
(3)
The valve tabulation sheets attached to the drawings /
specifications 1025/049 dated April 28, 1969, indicated that several valves such as MU-HV4, MU-HV10A, 10B which are necessary for operation during a seismic event (as f
indicated in Paragraph 1, in U&W letter #1442 dated (
December 2, 1976) were classified as "Essentiality Level
-
\\'
III" which does not require the vendor to follow a QA program.
(4)
B&W engineering Change No. SC 119 covered the revision of
.the Valve Tabulation Sheet to reflect the change from
" Electrical Motor Operated" control to piston operated solenoid controlled valves even though the change under-went the prescribed review, as indicated by the required signoffs, several items such as cycle time, make, model and type for operator were not included in the data sheets.
The inspector inquired how B&W planned to verify that the procured valves met the closing times specified in Table 6-8 of the FSAR.
(5) The design change documents for the Field Change Notice (FCN) #100 including subsequent revisions contained the necessary design review sign offs of B&W Lynchburg personnel.
It was stated that eventhough B&W Canada.was the original designer and manufacturer of the HPI pump, B&W Lynchburg reviewed and approved the FCN maintaining liason with the O(j)
I-9-i l
.
I r--d
.
...
_.
._
_
. _ __._. _ __
_
.. _ _
_... _. ___..
_._ _ __.. _ _ _
'
r,.
-
.
,g,
.
-
.
,
.!
,
.
.
-
i I
manufacturer; the components were supplied by B&W Canada.
,
The seismic reports on the HPI pump and the components
_
used for the FCN #100, Rev. I through 3, were considered
,
complete.
However, the site QA documents require to be
j upgraded to include all applicable documents such as
!
material certifications.
!
,
r
.
!
<
.
4
!
,
i
!
.
I J
!
!
(
!
i
!'
i i
!
a 10 -
-
,
,
.
.
--
--
---
-
>--
e-
--
e-.-%
..e,
.w-wo-w-v yy--
g-ww,r
,
wy-vg,%,e g,,y-,,,
-.,,,y y
-
9-&myy,w9,,-
95,7-
-a,-ye-we'gmm.g-->,mm-, ewe
-