ML19329A937
| ML19329A937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1973 |
| From: | Erb C, Hayes D, Rohrbacher R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329A934 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-72-06, 50-346-72-6, NUDOCS 8001270080 | |
| Download: ML19329A937 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1972006
Text
-
.
-,
~,
..
O
,
k
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
'
REGION III
REPORT OF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
RO Inspection Report No. 050-346/72-06
Licensee:
Toledo Edison Company
-
Edison Plaza
'
300 Madison
Toledo, Ohio
43652
i
j
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
License No. CPPR-80
{
Oak Harbor, Ohio
Category:
A
Type of Licensee:
Type of Inspection:
Routine
m(J
h
Dates of Inspection:
November 29 and 30, 1972
Follow-up Inspection:
December 12 and 13, 1972
.
Dates of Previous Inspection:
September 12 - 14, 1972
y
..
C.(W.y
V*
h
E
,/-/6-7'3'
Principal Inspector:
-l
(Date)
W /-j:1 1 +.
!
/
'o
' J
,
Accompanying Inspectors:
D. W. Hayes
'
November 29 - 30, 1972'
(Date)
,
.. m
n/
i
/* [ j
}
=>.I.'
- ^
R. A. Rohrbacher
/~/JV ,/
November 329 - 30, 1972
(Date)
, (,f o
3
_,
Ci
Other Accompanying Personnel: C.Younk
/ ' '".
- '
'
Decembe612 - 11,1972
(Date)
D. W.j%>jr,I- ; ,..
-
'
.
Hayes,ISe or Project Inspector (Acting)
j -/i> - 7 5
Reviewed By:
(m-
,
)
Reactor Construction Branch
(Date)
0b
8001270
d
_ _
'
m
-
..
.
.
,
.
-
'
_
,
I
.,
'
'
-
_ SUFDfARY OF FINDINGS
-
_
Enforcement Action
,
,
-A..
Violations of AEC Requirements
1.
Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and the Toledo Edison
Co:npany QA Manual,- Class I; piping, tack welded by unqualified
,
personnel, was not identified.nor segregated to prevent its
inadvertent use or installation. Moreover, a nonconformance
report covering this material'had not been issued.
(Paragraph 2)
..:
.
.
l*
2.
Contrary to -10 CFR Part 50.55(e) prompt notification was not
i
given nor was a written report issued, although a significant
'
number of spools of' shop fabricated Class I piping were found
to have been tack welded by unqualified personnel in noncon-
'
F
formance with the applicable fabrication code.
(Paragraph 2)
j'
i
< ~
B.-
Safety Matters
!
3-
- -
-
,
- No safety matters were identified.
3
L icensee Action on -Previously -Identified -Enforcement ~ Action
No previously identified enforcement matters were involved.
'
4
.Dasten Changes-
~'
~
- .
.
.-
-
-
,
The instrumentation guide tubes and certain other related areas in the
reactor pressure vesse1~ had been. redesigned and' reworked at the Babcock
, and Wilcox (B&W) fabricating plant before. shipment to the site. The
' licensee' stated that the FSAR will include any required information.
Unusual Occurrences
-
s-
. . . .
-
,
No unusual occurrences were identified.
.
0ther Significant Findings
~
, ,
' _ . . '
~
'A.
. Current Findings
~
~
.
_. ' _ . _ . ,
.
l'.
Status of Construction
-
,
The reactor pressure vessel arrived at the site by barge on
,
December 7, 1972. The head was shipped by rail and was received
p
-
. (V
)
-2-
,
.
-
~ . .
-
,.
l
-
.
.
,,
..
,
h
,y
l
\\
5
/
on November 29, 1972.
Installation of the reactor pressure
i
~'
vessel and steam generator supports, and related concrete-
work, has been~ delayed due to some of the work being with-
drawn from P-X Engineering Company and contracted to other
fabricators.
As of November 1, 1972, the engineering effort
was estimated to be 87% complete and plant construction 33%
.
complete.
2.
Personnel
.
H. A. Ablondi has been appointed supervisor of Bechtel Quality
Assurance. He has replaced Mr._A. S. Martin in this position.
B.
Unresolved Matters
~
!
Reactor Pressure Vessel and Steam Generator Restraints
During the inspection of November 29 - 30, 1972, the inspector observed
that ultrasonic tests are specified for some of the subject restraints
i
but not for others.
During the follow-up inspection, Mr. M. Stutsfield
of the Bechtel Washington, D.C. office was available and was questioned
in regard to this matter. He stated that the ultrasonic tests will be
performed at the construction site, instead of at the fabricator's
. plant. This matter is considered closed.
{
g ~'s
.
!
)C.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Matters
1.
Storage of Class I Piping
[
The piping storage area.was inspected ,and coverings, which were
a hindrance to inspection and air circulation, have been~ removed.
'This matter is' considered closed.
' i
\\
2 .'
Primary Coolant Recirculation Piping Subassemblies
f
l
A manufacturer's data report for the above piping assemblies has
not been received from the NSS supplier. This matter will remain
open until the data report is received at the site.
'
'3.
Repaired ~ Primary Pump' Volute
~
,
A primary pump volute, which was damaged when it fell from the
transporting truck while enroute-from Byron-Jackson (B-J) to the
site, has been repaired and returned to the. site. The receiving
documentation for this pump was examined, on December 13, 1972,
and found to be in' order.' This matter is closed.
,
/~'N .
-3-
I
t
Q.]
.
4.
4 -
y
--y-
- . ~
,
, ,~, , - - - - _ - .
w
.
.
?m)
\\'J
4.
Tagging and Desiccant Indicators on Components from the NSS
Contractt.r (B&W)
(a)
The tags on certain. Class I components, stored outdoors,
'are not waterproof and legibility of information has been
adversely affected by sun and moisture.
(b)
The indicator used to indicate the moisture content within
sealed components has acquired a nondescriptive color.
This makes it difficult to determine the condition of the
atmosphere within the component and, thus, when the desic-
cant should be renewed. This matter remains open pending
,
satisfactory resolution.
i
'
5.
Valve Wall Thickness Measurements
,
i
The Toledo Edison Company (TECO) informed AEC Region III that
,
Class I valves, installed within the reactor coolant pressure
boundary which are over one inch in nominal size, will be veri-
fled as having met minimum wall thickness requirements. TECO
i
,
and B&W purchase specifiaations are being revised to include
!
a requirement for documentation that valves, in the above
!
category being delivered to the Davis-Besse site, meet minimum
'
wall thickness requirements of the specified codes and standards.
s
The inspector will exunine valve records on a continuing basis
[
to assure that these requirements are met.
(Paragraph 1)
i
Management Interview (November 29 - 30, 1972, Inspection)
!
A.
The following persons attended the management interview at
conclusion of the inspection.
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
L. A. Haigh, Mechanical Engineer - TECO, Main Office
C. M. Gardam, Station Electrical Engineer
G. W. Eichenauer, Field Quality Assurance Engineer
R. E. Blanchtong, Supervisor - Maintenance and Construction
K. M. Cantrell, Quality Assurance Engineer - Electrical
M. D. Calcamuggio, Power Plant Electrical ngineer
W. G. Moring, Field Quality Assurance Engineer
Bechtel Carporation (Bechtel)
~L. F. Sirianni, Quality' Assurance Coordinator - Washington Office
H. A. Ablondi, Supervisor - Quality Assurance
- ' )
)
-4-
l
-l
a
.
.
,
.
.
.
.,
\\s_,
R. L. Lykens, -Quality Control Engineer
.
D. .L. Reddick, Project Field Engineer
,
R. J. McLaughlin, Quality Assurance - Electrical
A. Carr, Project Coordinator
D. C. La Valla, Quality Assurance Engineer
B.
Matters discussed and comments on the part of management personnel
were as follows.
1.
The NSS supplier, B&W, is responsible for the nanufacture and
installation of primary recirculation piping subassemblies.
The inspector commented that these items are in " hold" status
because of the lack of a data report and should not be installed
until the required documentation is received onsite. The
licensee stated that he understood this requirement.
2.
The inspector stated that the application of UT tests did not
appear to be consistent for reactor vessel, steam generator,
and priaary pump structural supports. The licensee stated that
the applic ble Bechtel specification (No. C-508A) would be
reviewed to determine the need for corrective action.
3.
The inspector stated that he had examined several tags fixed
to components supplied by the NSS supplier (B&W; and found
['N
that water had penetrated the tag covers, adversely affecting
\\
)
the legibility of tag information.
The inspector also com-
mented that indicators provided for sealed components containing
desiccant had faded, apparently from exposure to the sun, such
that meaningful information cannot be provided.
The licensee
stated that they would initiate the necessary corrective action.
The inspector added that he would review the results.
4.
The inspector stated that the overall commitments to single
{
failure criterion, and provisions for electrical and physical
i
separation of redundant system cables, appe~ared to be satis-
l
factory. However, the inspector pointed out that details for
implementing these commitments, normally found in specifications
and design data, were apparently lacking in the following areas:
Minimum requirements for separation and protection of
a.
redur: dant system cables in potential fire and missile
areas.
b.
Provisions to avoid vertical stacking of redundant trays.
'
Provisions to prevent location o. jower' cables (above 150
c.
volts) in cable spreading, relay, and control rooms.
w
Q
-5-
i
e
-,
,
.
.
.
-
-,
..
=rN
>
>
\\s_,)
d.
Provisions to prevent routing nonvital cables with vital
cables associated with more than 'ne redundant system.
The licensee stated that they would review this matter and
emphasized all Davis-Besse PSAR commitments would be met.
The
inspector stated that he did not consider this an unresolved
item but that his purpose in discussing it at this time was to
prevent possible future misunderstanding.
i
Management Interview (December 12 - 13, 1972, Followup Inspection)
A.
Personnel in Attendance
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)_
.
G. J. Sampson, Vice President - Pcwer
L. E. Roe, Project Engineer
E. C. Novak, Assistant Project Engineer
J. D. Lenardson, Quality Assurance Engineer
B.
Items Discussed
i
The inspector stated that he had reviewed records and talked to
personnel at the Davis-Besse construction site concerning Class
/~'
I (Q listed) piping spools fabricated by Grinnell Corporation
(N)
(Grinnell) using unqualified personnel to perform tack welds in
violation of the ASME Code. He stated further that he had inspected
Grinnell piping in storage at the site and observed that some of the
subject piping was being installed in the plant. The inspector com-
mented that, contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
B, and the TECO DA Manual, the subject piping had not been segregated
or identified, although it was known that all or part of the piping
was in nonconformance with specifications.
In addition, a noncon-
{
'
formance report had no.c been issued.
!
i
t
The inspector added that, although TECO had notified RO:III of this
'
problem on October 6, 1972, a written report had not been submitted
j
as required by 10 CFR Part 50.55(e).
,
The inspector stated that these matters would be brought to the
attention of corporate management by enclosure to the letter sum-
marizing the results of the inspection.
h[.
-6-
\\s._s
"
__.
_
._ . _--_ _ - - -_ _
_
--
,
.,
..
/m
I
)
\\_ /
'
REPORT DETAILS
-
Persons Contacted
The following persons, in addition to individuals listed under the
Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted during
the inspection.
Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
R. Klingler, Site Project Manager
.
D. Kinsala, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor
Grinnell Corporation (Grinnell)
,
J. J. Rafferty, Project Manager
D. R. Giguere, Quality Control Manager
l
T. E. Martin, Welding Supervisor
l
Fischback and Moore, Incorporated (F&M) and Colgan Electric Company
M. (NMI) Macleod, Project Manager
(' '}/
J. D. Binford, Quality Control Manager
R. D. Wile, Assistant Project Manager - Construction
( j
Results of Inspection
1.
Valve Wall Thickness Measurements
TECO has audited several valve vendors with regard to valve wall
.
thickness measuring techniques.
The Powell Valve Com 2ny (Powell)
normally checks wall thickness by mechanical measurement but, if
}
this is not practicable, then by ultrasonics. Audits were also
made of Velan, Rockwell, and Crosby who, according to the licensee,
implement proceae es similar to those used by Powell.
2.
Cless I Piping with Welds Containing Tacks Made by Unqualified
Personnel
Class I (Q listed) piping is being fabricated for the Davia-Besse
facility by Grinnell at their Kernersville, North Carolina, plant.
Portions of the piping was found, by the Bechtel shop inspector,
to have been. tack welded (during fitup) by unqualified personnel
'
. contrary to the requirements of ASME Boiler and Pressure Code,
Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components.
/ ~ 'N
-(f
-7-
,
6
-
-
~
,
-
,
.
- 4
Information in regard to this matter is listed below:
v
TECO personnel' were informed of the matter by' copy 'of a letter
a.
dated September 8,1972, from Bechtel to the Grinnell Kernersville
plant manager.
'-
b.
A TECO QA engineer made a trip to the Grinnell plant on
September 18 - 19, 1972, to investigate the matter and to
'
participate in a Bechtel audit of the plant.
i
TECO personnel were notified by a Bechtel letter dated
c.
September.20, 1972, that some of the piping, tack welded by
-
unqualified personnel at Grinnell, had been shipped to the
Davis-Besse site.
!
d.
TECO notified RO:III of the problem by telephone on October 6,
'
1972 (R0 Inquiry Report No. 50-346/72-03Q).
t
l
Only ASME Class II and Class III piping is involved.
No ASME
e.
Class I is involved.
f.
About 433 " spools" of Q-listed, ASME Class II and Class III
piping has been received at the Davis-Besse site from Grinnell.
Some of the spools (exact number apparently unknown) were tack
welded by unqualified personnel.
O\\
(
l
g.
The documentation at the Davis-Besse site, relative to the 433
' ' '
spools of piping, indicate that all the piping meets the
requirements of the ASME Code. The records do not contain
information concerning the tack welding.
h.
The Grinnell piping, although known to have welds containing
" tacks" made by unqualified personnel, was not segregated or
l-
otherwise identified as nonconforming.
1.
A letter from TECO to Bechtel dated October 6, 1972, established
TECO's criteria for acceptance of the piping tack welded by
unqualified personnel. The acceptance criteria included:
(1)
Retroactive qualificar'cn of the personnel involved.
(2)
Reexamination of radiograph film for ASME Class II pipe
welds for defects arising from tacks.
(Code requires
100% radiography of Class II piping welds.)
(~N
- 8-
.
1
\\
,-
_,
.
,
f.
.
.
-
.
(-
(
)
(3)
For the ASME Class III pipe, four welds minimum from two
spools to be 100% radiographed for each unqualified welder.
~
If the welder is no longer employed, then 100% of his
welds to be radiographed.
(The code does not require
Class III pipe welds to be radiographed.)
(4)
The Grinnell QA program to be revised to prevent recurrence
of the nonconformance.
i
'
During the inspection, it could not be clearly established that
!
the piping onsite met TECO's acceptance criteria or if the NDT
I
stamp was valid.
j.
TECO QA personnel verbally requested Bechtel not to install
.
Grinnell shop fabricated ASME Class III piping in concrete
embedments, unless the piping had been 100% radiographed.
,
The request was documented by a TECO internal memo dated
October 6,1972.
,
The licensee was informed that it appeared that the quality and con-
formance to specifications of the subject piping had not been clearly
established and that failure to segregate, or otherwise identify the
piping, was in violation of the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, Criterion XV.
The licensee was also informed that it
appeared this matter should have been reported under the requirements
O
of 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) .
The inspector stated that these matters would be brought to the
attention of corporate management by enclosure to the letter sum-
marizing the results of the inspection.
3.
Electrical
a.
Implementation of QA Program
.
'
i
The licensee, construction manager, and electrical contractor
organization structures were reviewed with respect to both line
and quality control organizations for procurement, receiving,
installation, and testing of electrical components and equipment
(including cables) and appeared to conform to the licensee's-
commitments, as well as 10 CFR-Part 50, Appendix B.
Bechtel is the architect engineer and construction manager for
the Davis-Besse facility.
Bechtel prepares purchase and instal-
lation specifications for all Class I electrical components and
equipment. TECO approves the specifications and procures the
.
p ..
-9-
(vl-
_
__._
_
-.
~
~N
'
-
.
,
,
,,,
~{
\\
\\,_,/
majority of electrical Class I material.
Bechtel per. forms vendor
shop QC inspections and receives all TECO purchased material.
The electrical contractor, F&M, and Colgan Electric Company,
Incorporated,* has storage, installation, and most testing
responsibilities but will procure and receive some Class I
electrical components, such as cable trays, conduit, supports,
fittings, etc.
'
F&M will have a site quality control group consisting initially
of three inspectors and a manager. Additional inspectors will
.
f
be added as required.
F&M also has an offsite QA group who will
perform periodic audits of site activities. Bechtel and TECO
'
site QA personnel will also audit electrical work (including
work performed by vendors) .
In addition, Bechtel site QC
,
engineers will perform routine inspections of receipt, storage,
installation, and testing of electrical components and equipment.
l
Audit and inspection results will be documented.
!
'
The approved F-M QA/QC manual was reviewed and judged to meet
!
requirements of specifications and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
except as noted below:
(1)
Preparation of all work and inspection procedures anc
documentation forms have not been completed.
,_
ir
i
\\
)
(2)
The manual did not clearly state that NDT procedures
,
would be qualified or specify qualification requirements
for NDT personnel.
The licensee's representative and the F-M project and QC
managers assured the inspectors that work and inspection pro-
cedures would be completed and approved prior to starting the
work involved.
Also, that NDT procedures and personnel would
be qualified in accordance with 1pplicable standards.
b.
Review of QC Systems
(1)
TECO engineering will perform the necessary relay coordina-
tion studies and specify protective relay settings. Relay
specialists (within the TECO organization) will calibrate,
set, and test protective relays.
Dated and initialed
stickers will be attached to devices following successful
completion of tests.
I
- The Colgan Electric Company, Incorporated, is a local contractor
and will provide tic electrical craftsmen.
l
.
\\
(
)
- 10 -
\\_/
s
l
i
[
. _ .
.
.. . __.
_
.
.n
,
. .
,
,
I
m
'(2). Two electrical purchase specifications for Class I-E
s-
electrical equipment (Q-list. items).were reviewed for
inspection and testing provisions .
Bechtel Speci-
. ..
L
fication No. 7749-E-7, Revision 1 (June 26, 1972) titled
'
"480-Volt Unit Substations," and Bechtel Specification
No. 7749-E-5, Revision 1 (June 26, 1972) titled "4160
and 13,800-Volt Metal-Clad Switch Gear." These specifi-
cations adequately cover provisions for testing and QC
-
procedures including requirements for carthquake resis-
~
tance and certification of prototype and production
testing. QC requirements of these specifications provide
.
for documentation to establish that the specific require-
1
_
i
ments of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, have been met by the
.
manufacturer.
4. '
. Electrical - Instrument Cables and Terminations
4
a.
Implementation of QA Program.
.
_
See item a., under item No. 3, Electrical.
-
.
b.
Review of QC Systems
,
!
(1) The Davis-Besse PSAR commitments provide assurances, with
j
regard to installation of electrical cable, such that:
%
(1) No single component failure will prevent operation of
'
,
the reactor protection systcm or required engineered safety
,-
features, and (2) electrical and physical separation of
cables associated with redundant elements of engineered
I.
safety features and reactor protective system will be
a
i
provided. Available installation specifications, or
, .
!
design data, did not appear to provide details as to how
'
'
l
these commitments would be satisfied relative to:
~
j
(a) Minimum requirements for separation and protection
of redundant system cables'in potential fire and
missile areas.
I
(b)
Provisions to avoid vertical stacking of redundant
- -
trays.-
i
(c)
ProvisiIon to prevent routing or locating power cables
,
(above 150 volts) in cable spreading, relay, and control
,
.
{
rooms.-
(. d)
Provisions to prevent routing nonvital cables with
,
vital cables associated with more than one redundant
. system.
.
'
..
- ls ,/ .
- 11.-
'
o
L
,
jA
4
a *
b.,
q b.
I
, ;,
..
.
.
- ,.
~_.,-,J
--
0.--
.
,,., .- ,-_.
..
-
.
.
-
.
-
-
--
.
. .
.
..
.-
-
.
.
~
In response to questioning, the licensee's representative
stated- that he had discussed this matter with the Bechtel
project engineer who assured him that the Davis-Besse PSAR
commitments would be met but that no further elaboration
it
ofl design criteria was plannad beyond'that provided in
~
,
.responee-to "L" question No. 7.5.
This is not considered
-
an open item, but future inspections will be made in these
areas in terms of the basic commitments stated above.
(2) ~ Two electrical cable purchase specifications for Class I-E
l
cable were reviewed for inspection and testing provisions
'
(Bechtel Specification No. 7749-E-13, Revision 1, June 14,
1972, medium voltage cable, and Bechtel. Specification No.
7749-E-15, Revision 1, November 7, 1972, low voltage power
-
and control cable). .These specifications adequately cover
l
provisions for testing and QC procedures (inspections and
recordc). Prototype tests include radiation resistance,
'
- flame resistance, and physical tests. Production tests
,
include high voltage, insulation, power factor, corona,
,
and continuity. tests. The QC requirements of these speci-
4
fications require documentation to establish that require-
7
ments of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, have been met by the
- manufacturer.
,
l
1-
(3) The Bechtel Procedura for material receipt and inspection
{
O
of TECO-furnished Q-list items (Davis-Besse field quality
>
control procedure No. 9-4, Revision 7 dated June 23, 1972)
and the Bechtel field quality control procedures for pro-
cessing of nonconforming items (Davis-Besse field quality
3
control procedure No. D,-5, Revision 3 dated March 17, 1972)
were reviewed and found to be adequate in areas of receipt
- inspection and documentation, reporting and processing of
j
. nonconforming components or work, and quarantine of non-
,
conforming components.
'
-
(4). Installation specifications for electric cable routing and
tray loading.is' included in Be'chtel engineering Procedure
i
'
No. EF-553. Tray loadings greater than design ~ intent (40%
- by volume) will be identified.'
Cable record cards (for
cable pulls) will 'not be made up until it has been established
,
that the cable meets applicable requirements. Most of the
i
'
power' cables will be' installed in' conduit. .At.the present
time, covered cable trays are not expected to be used.
Site
- NDT. cable testing provisions include megger and hi-pot tests.
i
.
.
_
4 p)
-- 12 -
n
p
=q
.
'
W
y
'
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
_
.
_,; .
.. ..
. a. .
.
2,-_
- -__ __ -
__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
/
\\
t
\\
/
F-M will install (but will not terminate) cables to instru' -
ment components in the field or to terminal strips in analog,
logic, and control room panels. The instrument installation
contractor is to make these terminations.
Electrical terminations made in switchgear cabinets, MCC's,
etc., will use crimp type connectors. A locking type
crimping tool will be used to assure proper connections.
Design review is still in progress regarding routing of DC
power cables to analog, logic, and control room panels.
It is a policy of Bechtel not to allow cable splicing in
trays.
If splicing is unavoidable, authorization in
advance must be made by the Be:htel construction manager.
Electrical system design will be based on:
(1) relevant
ANSI, NEC, NEMA, and IEEE recommendations, (2) a require-
ment for electrical and physical separation of cable and
equipment associated with redundant elements of engineered
safety features, and (3) a requirement that no single
component failure will prevent operation of required
engineered safety features.
_
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping - Welding
.
Review of QC System
Grinnell work and QC procedures related to weld rod control were
reviewed.
Procedures for storage (before use and at the work site)
issue control, and disposal of unused rod were found to be adequate.
)
(Grinnell colors all weld rod ends green to aid in identifying
Grinnell rod at the construction site.)
6.
a.
Handling and lifting procedures will be used by B&W for any lift
over 50 tons.
Lifting equipment will be proof tested and steel
billets will be used for these tests. The steam generators and
the reactor pressure vessel will be lifted with the same equip-
ment.
b.
In-service inspection of the reactor pressure vessel will be
performed by Southwest Research Institute.
Base line inspection
1
will be performed by B&W Nuclear Steam Supply from Lynchburg,
r%
- 13 -
!
\\
')
~
.
,
i
.-
.
-.
._
.
+-
.
..
__
l
)
w
c.
Quality Control System
.
-All welders will be hired locally but are to'lut qualified by
B&W personnel from Copley, Ohio. All test materials will be
supplied-from the Copley Plant. Nondestructive test services
will be performed by personnel from the Copley Plant.
d.
The approved Quality Control Manual from B&W is onsite.
7.
Reactor Pressure Vessel Supports, Steam Generator Supports,
and Pipe Restraints on Main Recirculation Piping
Bechtel Specifications C-48 and C-48A govern with respect to NDT
i
of the subject items. Due to scheduling requirements, steam
generator supports No. 349-3 and No. 349-4 will be returned to
the site from P-X Engineering and required NDT is to be completed
-
by B&W.
The reactor pressure vessel supports, supplied by P-X Engineering,
have been accepted and are in place. The RPV pipe whip restraints
are still in the P-X Engineering Shop pending completion of RT of
butt welds and UT of fillet welds.
L. A. Bentley & Son are to complete-one hot leg restraint, with
full radiography of all~ butt welds.
,
)
Qualification of L. A. Bentley welders will be handled by Pittsburgh
Testing Laboratory.
Nondestructive testing for production welding performed by L. A.
Bentley will be handled by Testmaster.
- The L. A. Bentley weld procedure was qualified to AWS D.2.0.69
.
and approved by TECO'on September 22, 1972.
The coolant pump support frames are being produced by CB&I instead
of P-X Engineering. Qualified procedures, welders, and NDT will
be furnished by CB&I.
i
.
14 -
j.
-
-
i
,
4
&
p
r
7
-
+er"
ur
tp
p
1
==
c--
-
m-
r
<
-4e
5
sp
-
v
---eTT
h---
m mr W --#1-T