ML19326A442
| ML19326A442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1969 |
| From: | Gwinn W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Racquel Powell US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002040600 | |
| Download: ML19326A442 (2) | |
Text
i-j n
November 6, 1909 R. Powell, Beactor Projects Branch f2 Division of Reactor Licensing THRU:j;') Operational Safety Branch, DEL Didley Thompson, Chief RSEUEST FCE ADDITIONAL INF0EMATION - CP REVIE"4 FOR THE TOLZD0 3DISON CCMPANY, DAVIS-BE333 3UCLEAR GCERATING STATION, DOCICf No. 50-346 Ref: Reviev Plan for Davis-3 esse, dated September 25, 1969 A1.litional infor=ation needed for our review of the Davis-Besse plant is outlined below.
It is based on the requirecents of a proposed amend =ent to 10 CFR 50. This proposed acendment would require the applicant to subctit, at tha time of the CP review, certain general descriptive inforsatica pertaining to e=ergency planning. This discussion should incluis, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) The proposed organization for coping with emergencies, incluiing procedures for notification of persons assigned to the organization; (b) The contacts to be made with local, state, and Federal agencies with responsibility for coping with emergencias; (c) The protective measures to be taken to prevent,in+re risk to the health and safety of both onsite and offsite personnel; (d) The provisions to be made for onsite emergency first aid, decontami-nation, and for emergency transportation to offsite treatment facilities.
(e) The contacts to be made concerning emergency treatment at offsite facilities; (f) The training progras for etaployees and for persons not employees of the applicant whose services may be required in coping with an amergency; (g) The features of the facility designed for ease of recovery and reentry.
i l
8002040W
R. Pbwell November 6, 1969 We find the Conduct of Operationa and Initial Test and Operations sections of the PSAR to be adequate, with exception of the infor: nation requested above. The applicant should be infor:ned that both of these subject areas will receive a more coczprehensive review at the POL stage.
hWilliamR.Gwinn Operational Safety Branch, DFL cc:
D. J. Skovbolt, AD/BO, DRL R. Tedeseo, Chief, RPBf2, DEL l
l T
OSS:DRL
_;gIJjDF1 omcs >
7dd'vinn:ja DThempson SURNAta >
11/6/69 11/'c/69 Foem ABC-5IS (Rev.9-55) ABCM 0240 st esemeess? mense omes i sees e-see-eas
b.
Cou rary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appena.
B, Criterion V, inspection and installation activities relative to cable and raceways were not being perforned in accordance with specifications and procedures.
(Reporr Details, Paragraph 3.c) c.
Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIV, completed cable routing inspections were determined to
. be incomplete.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3.b) d.
Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, conditions adverse to quality were not being corrected promptly.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2.).
These infractions were identified by the inspectors and had
.the potential for causing, or contributing to an occurrence 2
with safety significance.
Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Matters Not applicable.
Other Significant Findings A.
Syste=s and ccmoonents 1.
Lack of certification that cable identifying caterials and cable pulling compounds do not effect self extinguishing and nonpropa' gating flame charneteristics.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1.h)
~
2.
Improper labeling of motor control center position.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1.1)
- 3. ' All cabic material certifications were not available for review.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1.g)
B.
Facility Items: Not applicable.
C.
Mcnagerial Items: Not applicable.
e.
4 e
i l
- ~. ?.
~ ~ ~
Identified and Corrected by L. 2nsee D.
- Noncomplianc.
Not applicable.
E.
Deviations: Not applicable.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items:
Not applicable.
Management Interview A.
The following persons attended the =anagement interview at the
' conclusion of the inspection:
^
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
M. D. Calcamuggio, Power Plant Electrical Engineer G. W. Eichenauer, Quality Assurance Field Representative J. D. Lenardson, Quality Assurance Manager Power Engineering E. C. Novak, General Superintendent
~~
and Construction Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
~
H. A. Ablondi, Project-Quali+.y Assurance Engineer J. D. Heaton, Project Field Quality Control Engineer C. L. Huston, Field Constructica Manager W. C. Lowery, Electrical Quality Assurance Engineer B.
Matters discussed and co=ments, on the part of management personnel, were as follows:
1.
The inspector stated that this was a special inspection relating.
to electrical equip =ent installations. Various areas of noncompliance were identified. Specifie areas include:
lack of separation criteria; inadequate inspection activities; improper cable routing and slowness in the dispositioning of nonce:pliance reports.
2.
The inspector stated that, according to inspection records, electrical installation work had been ccepleted but, a rein-spection by the IE inspectors identified several construction
' deficiencies in rbese same areas.
3.
The inspector atated that nonconforming items were being identified by the electrical contractor, but that the ti=e required for disposition was too long and, in one case, exceeded ten (10) months.
l g
l
~
\\
=
J
^
4.
The inspector stated that cable certifications relative to fire, radiatica, and LOCA environ =ent were satisfactory.
However, certifications relative to the cable identification material and cable pulling compounds, concerning fire and cable deterioration properties, were not available for review.
5.
The inspector stated that some cables were not routed according
~
to routing cards and, in some instances. routing cards did not match the caster circuit schedule. The licensee agreed that this was a serious problem but did not make any formal cocait-ment to rectify the matter.
6.
The inspector stated that the cisrouting of safety related cables appeared to be a catter of noncocpliance and that
~
further review of the other previously discussed catters would be required. The inspector further stated that the licensee would be infor=ed subsequent to the inspection of other items of nonco:pliance, if additional items are identified
.during the review.
7.
The inspector stated that based on discussions during the inspectics and as a result of this meeting it was his understanding there would be a 1007. physical inspection of all essential cable, cable tray, wireway, and associated cabinets relative to separatica requirements, as stated in ti e FSAR. The inspection would be conducted by Bechtel engineers frem Gaithersburg, assisted by TECO. cngineers. The inspection would commence on, or about, June 2, 1975. Whenever separation criteria could not be cet, the area would be documented. At these areas either an approved barrier would be installed or, in very limited cases, a com,lete, documented engineering evaluation would be p
ut.de to justify deviating from the criteria.
These evaluations are to be reviewed by cognizant TECO engineers.
The licensee acknowledged this =atter, but stated that TECO engineers may not be available for the entire inspection.
During the interim, electrical installations will continue with the guidance provided in Bechtel letter FLl4-2673, dated Nby 22, 1975, which was addressed to both site electrical contractors.
e D.
.e g
ij ji
s, :
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to the individuals listed unde $r the Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted:
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
\\
~
J. R. Knoke, Electrical Field Engineer W. C. Lowery, Electrical Quality Assurance Engineer
~
~~
J. Serino, Electrical Quality Control Engineer D. Stites, Electrical Quality Control Engineer E. M. Steudel, Assistant Electrical Project Engineer - Gaithersburg Fischbach and Moore, Incoroorsted (?&M)
W. L. Columbia, Assistant Project Manager
' F. Kollin, Project Manager D. M. Moeller, Quality Control Manager Toledo Edison Comenny (TECO)
J. C. Buck, Field Quality Assurance' Engineer G. K. Grover, Quality Control Engineer A. Topor, Power Plant Electrical Engineer Results of Insoection General The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain if the licensee had installed and inspected electrical cables, raceway, and supports in compliance with NRC requirements and with co=mit=ents in the Davis-Besse Unit 1 FSAR.
During certain portions of the inspection, me=bers of the TECO Power Plant Electrical Engineering Staff and Bechtel Project Engineering
~
Staff accompanied the IE Inspectors.
1.
Review of QC Records The' inspectors reviewed Forty-three (43) cable installation s.
records. In the review were safety related control and power cables, including those associated with the diesel generator start, reactor breaker trip, and Reactor Protection System a
.. e
\\
O e
.~
a
~ (RPS) m Safety Faaturss Actuatica Syr^ m (SFAS) power supply I
circuit.s. The records were signed ano sta= ped appropriately by quality control personnel, indicating that the installations were complete.
b.
During physical verification of.a cable installation by the use of a routing card, the relative cable, (4CY088) along with two others, was observed to be coiled at a mid-routing point.
Other QC records indicated that these cables were to be sub-sequently rerouted. This item was well documented.
A cable (No. 2CY14293) was routed according to the routing c.
card, but the routing did not confor= to that of the master circuit schedule. Records indicated that the pull was in accordance with a docu=ented approval change.
d.
Field Change Notices CFCN's) relative to modifications of the SFAS panels, were well docu=ented. However, the actual changes J
made did not include installation of gro==ets, bushings or other insulation to prevent damage to cables after the cutouts were enlarged to allow for extra clearance.
Cable insulation damage was identified on an inspection report e.
The inspection report ir.cluded a reference to a nonco=formance report (FM nu=ber 099) but the fact that insulation da= age occurred and was an item to be reselved was not clearly documented in the nonconfor=ance report.
f.
Cab 1'c testing (eeggar) sheets were well documented. However, as stated elsewhere in this report, in so=e cases, these tests were performed before the cable installations were completed.
Cable material certifications for Kerrite, Okonite, and Boston g.
insulated cable were reviewed. Prototype tests were performed relative to fla=e, radiation, and stea=/ chemical spray exposures.
As originally reviewed, the test results appeared to be accept-able. However, it was deter =ined that further infor=ation (i.e., does each type of cable meet require =ents) would be required before an acceptance finding could be =ade.
This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
h.
Cable pulling co= pounds such as Ideal Industries' " yellow 77",
Thomas & Betts' Jet line "MT4" and " GP-66," and ITT Holub's "Hi Green", and the cable color coding inks, have not been f
deter =ined to be acceptable as non-fla=e propagating or cable deteriorating materials. This ites will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
- r e
g m
g w s.
1.
480-V s
.chgear compart=ent BE110, in
- ,t substaticn El, and compartment BF110, in unit substation F1, are not identified in accordance with figures 8-48, 8-10A, and 8-103, of the FSAR.
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
Records reviewed during the inspection included:
(1)
Cable numbers:
I 12RPSM04A IPAC108A 2 CAD 12DFF 2 PAD 101B f.
'14RPSM01H IPAC109A 2CBDF11A 2 PAD 107A ICBE1102C IPAC112A 2CBDF12A 2 PAD 108A
'1CBEll73C iPAC113A 2CBF1120F 2 PAD 109A ICCRD287 1PBE1101A 2CBF1180C 2 PAD 112A ICGD104B IPBE1224A 2CCF1203C 2PBF1202A ICGD104C 2CADllDFD 2CBF1203D 2PBF1206A ICV 179AD 2 CAD 11DFE 2CCRD286 3CY308A ICYE204F 2 CAD 11DFF 2CGD204C 4CY408A ICY 109A 2 CAD 12DFD 2CV1429B 4LRPSC053
~
IPAC101B 2 CAD 12DFE 2CVDH13AE (The above cables and associated raceway were used as a basis for the physical aspect of the inspection).
(2) Cabic nunbers:
IPD1P07A 2PBF1202A 2PDIN07A
~ 2 CAB 12DFE 2PF31221A 4PD2707A 2CF1505D 3PD1P07A 4PYR4A (These cables were also observed to have separation and installation problems but records were not reviewed as thoroughly as those listed under (1) above ).
(3)
Cable Pull Card Change Log, Authority No. 62.
5 (4) F&M Mod. Pak No. 22, dated May 15, 1975.
t (5) Bus and Cable Test Data Sheets No. 51 and No. 60D.
(6) Bechtel FCN's No. 2508, No. 2549, and No. 2764.
(7) F&M Nonconformance Log data May 18, 1973, to May 15, 1975.
(8) F&M Inspection Report No. 301.
.s-l
(9)
Sp.
fications Nos. 7749-E-13, 774
- -14, cad 7749-E-
,. j 17Q-10-1.
u
~
(10) Engineering Report No. 141 of February 29, 1972.
(11) Engineering Report No. 164 of October 17,1972.
2.
Nonconfomance Reports (NCR)
The inspector reviewed the F&M NCR log from Nby 18, 1973, to thy 15,1975. These NCR's are nor= ally dispositioned by Bechtel.
Item 80, dated July 15, 1974, had not been dispositioned.
Items 87 and 91, relating to raceway supports,' were dispositioned to
'., "~ " accept as is".
Twenty-six (26) ite=s re=ain unresolved, some older than ten (10) =onths, eighteen (18) of these relate directly to items observed during this inspection.
.. The inspector concluded that this ites was contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, in that conditions adverse to quality were not being promptly and, in some cases, adequately corrected.
Cognizant TECO =anagement was subsequently advised of this matter.
3.
Observations of Work The inspectors observed several s'afety related cable installations and deter =ined the following:
Cable Seoaration and Seic=ic Support Criteria a.
(1) Cable separation of four (4) feet vertical and eighteen (18) inches horizontal,between redundant channels was not maintained. In some cases in the cable spreading roos,
-l
- horizontal spacing was less than one inch.
(FSAR, Paragraph 8.3.1.2.20)
.(2) Ednimum separation d'istance of twelve (12) inches within protection cabinets and control panels was not =aintained.
In some cases, redundant channel cables were in direct contact.
(FSAR, Paragraph 8.3.1.2.25)
(3) Power cables routed in conduit were noted to be cross routed and separation distances were not maintained when passing through a manhole.
(FSAR, Paragraph 8.3.1.2.20)
(4)
In no case was barrier criteria documented to indicate how cable separation violations would.be corrected.
(FSAR, Paragraphs 7.1.2.3.1 and 8.3.1.2.26)
'9 *.
(5) Conduit wma not proptrly supportrd. A slight pulling fo caused a section of conduit move downward approxi-mately three (3) inches.
(FSAR, 8.3.1.2.10)
Subsequent to this inspection, the inspector determined that requirements, relative to the seismic support of conduits and associated equipment which carry safety related cables, have not been translated into specifications, procedures or instructions.
(FSAR, Paragraph 8.3.1.2.24)
Th,e inspector concluded that items (1) through (5), above were i
items of noncocpliance contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
/.
Criterion III, in that NRC requirements and FSAR cc==itments have not been translated into specifications, procedures, or instructions.. Cognizant TECO manage =ent was subsequently
. informed of this c
.er, b.
Cable Routing Inscections
[.
In some cases safety related cable; were not routed according to the routing cards, in one case routing was according to the card even though the specified route did not catch that of the master circuit schedule. The cards were stamped indicating that inspections were completed and approved by F&M quality control.
The inspector concluded that this item was an iten of noncos,
pliance contrary to 10 CFR Part -50, Appendix B, Criterion XIV, in that inspections docu=ented to be complete were determined to be unacceptable by the IE Inspector.
Cognizant TECO management was informed of this matter.
c.
Installation
- (1)
Cable tray contained debric, including rags, pieces of conduits, unistrut =aterial, etc.
(2) Wireways appeared to be overloaded. This was quite apparent regarding interconnecting cables of the SFAS panels and the RPS panels.
(3)
Several conductors located in the SFAS cabinets pere not properly supported or secured. A number of exposed electrical terminals were within 1/8 inch of the cabinet door when closed.
Some conductor terminals were bent at 90 degree angles to acco==,odate the closure of the cabinet o.
h 90 e
e
- f '
~
doc..
Several teflon coated condut_srs were pulled from a.
conn'ectors.
Cable separation was in gross conflict with FSAR requirements.
Metal drilling fragments were lying on the bottom of the cabinet.
(4) Identification by color coding of prefabricated cable between individual SFAS channels and the main control panel was not accomplished as required by procedures.
l (5) An identification tag attached to a cable did not match that of the routing card.
J (6) Identification of raceway was not in accordance with procedures.
(7)
Sharp edges were apparent at most wireway installations.
Cables and conductors were noted to have insulation damage.
~.
^ (8)
Sharp edges were apparent at holes which were cut between SFAS panels to acco=modate prefabricated cable connecting
~
plugs. Bushings or other protection devices were not installed according to field drawings.'
(FCN 's).
(9)
Safety related cables had been prematurely tested (ccagered) and terminated at one end before being g:-
completely installed in the raceway.
(10) A nonsafety related cable was observed to be installed in such a way as to cross and be in physical contact with two redundant safety related syste=s.
(11) Some cables were observed on which the mini =um bending radius had been exceeded.
The inspector concluded that items (1) through (11) were
. contrary to the requirements of F&M Installation Inspection Procedure (II?) No. 7a.001 and No. 7c.001 and Criterion V of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3. Cognizant TECO =anagement was subsequently informed of the matter.
u 4.
Inspection Conclusion A breakdown in the licensees manageaent and procedural controls was evident by the identification of several items of nonccmplisace relative to the installation and inspection of electrical equip:ent.
Based upon the limited sa=ple chosen for the inspection and the results of the inspection, the inspectors concluded that this l
l vas an item of noncompliance contrary to 10 CFR ? art 50, Appendix 3, Criterior II.
Cognizant TECO ManaBe=ent was advised of this =atter.
l 11 -
O '
G S