ML19329B202
| ML19329B202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1974 |
| From: | Dickerson M, Hayes D, Sutton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329B201 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-74-04, 50-346-74-4, NUDOCS 8001310553 | |
| Download: ML19329B202 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000346/1974004
Text
.
.
&
.
.
O
I
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
(d
l
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
REGION III
Report of Construction Inspection
.
RO Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-04
'
~
Licensee: Toledo Edison Company
4
Edison Plaza
300 Madison Avenue
Toledo, Ohio
43652
Davis-Besse Unit 1
~
License No. CPPR-80
'
Oak Harbor, Ohio
Category-
A
.
Type of Licensee:
Type of Inspection: Routine - Announced
Dates of Inspection: June 4 and 5, 1974
-
d
Date of Previous Inspection: May 14, 1974 (Second Managenent Meeting)
hl
[ Zi/' 7f
Principal Inspector'
M. W. Dickerson
/(Datd)
h hew
AccompanyingInspector:!J.W.Sutton
d 8f!7f
'Dath)
(
,
?
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
hk%
Reviewed By f
D. W. Hayes, Senior Reactor Inspector
dJf
1'
Reactor Construction Branch
'(Dati)
.
/
DOFI E TO: PDR
LPDR
_
m
(m)
.. . . .
8001310 6 3
.
. . . .
.
. _.
,p
!
_
.- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
'
.
e
.
V
' SUMMARY'0F FINDINGS
Enforcement Action
A.
Violations
One of the activities at the Davis-Besse site appear to be in violation
'
of AEC regulations and in nonconformance with the Babcock and Wilcox
Company (B&W) welding procedure, as identified below, and 'is considered
to be of Category II severity.
I
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states, in part, that:
" Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented
instructions, procedures,
. and shall be accomplished in
...
_
accordance with those instructions, procedures, or drawings."
B&W welding instruction sheet WIN-120-2, Revision 0, indicated that
the maximum size ~ weld rod to be used for the main coolant pump
groove weld would be 1/8" diameter.
-
Contrary to the above, a 3/16" weld rod was used prior to being approved
by Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel) engineers for use on the designated
coolant pump weld.
(Paragraph 2)
i
x,,,/
B.
Safety Matters
.
No safety matters were identified.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
A.
Lack of Weld Inspection Procedure for Class lE Welds (R0 Inspection
' Reports No. 050-346/74-01 and No. 050-346/74-02)
During the inspection of January 8 - 10, 1974, it was established that
'
support and seismic welds, associated with Class 1E equipment, were being
inspected without benefit of written procedures or instructions. Moreover,
no documentation was available to establish that all the subject welds
were being inspeccad.
During this inspect 17n, the steps taken to correct this noncompliance, as
stated in the Toledo Edison Company (TECO) letter dated March 22, 1974,
were reviewed by the inspector and determined to be acceptable.
Included
was a review of detailed inspection procedures.
An extensive review of
records by the inspector, was also completed during the previous inspection.
This matter is considered resolved.
-2-
)
v
s
.
_
.~.
_ _ . .
__ . . _ .
. _ _ ,
i
'
.-
_ _ _____ --
.-
-. . . . . -.
.s.
.
.
p\\
(
s
/
g/
B.
Failure to Follow Class ~1E Weld Control Procedures (R0 Inspection Reports
No. 050-346/74-01 and No. 050-346/74-02)
During the inspection of January 8-10, 1974, documentation was not available
to establish that welding operation, associated with Class lE electrical
equipment, was being controlled in accordance with applicable procedures.
During this inspection, the steps taken to correct this nonconformance,
as stated in TECO letter dated March 22, 1974, were reviewed by the
inspector and determined to be acceptable. Included was a review of detailed
instructions relative to welding operations and the attendant inspection
requirements. This matter is considered resolved.
Decay Heat Removal Cooler Installed Without Proper Documentation Available
C.g'at the Site (RO Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-02)
During the previous inspection, it was established that the data package
for decay heat removal cooler DH-HX1B did not include a manufacturer's
data report (U-1) nor did the quality assurance release specify that a
manufacturer's data report was available for this vessel.
.
During this inspection, the steps taken to correct this matter, as stated
p
in TECO letter dated April 19, 1974, were reviewed by the inspector and
( j\\
determined to be acceptable. Included was a review of the manufacturer's
data report dated November 9, 1971. This matter is considered resolved.
x
Design Changes
No new design changes were identified.
Unusual Occurrences
No unusual occurrences were identified.
OtikerSignificantFindings
e
A.
Current Findings
1.
The licensee indicated that, as of June 1, 1974:
(1)
Construction was 64% complete, and (2)
engineering was 91% complete.
2.
The TECO quality assurance organization was augmented on May 20, 1974,
buy the addition of Mr. C. J. Greer as a Field Quality Assurance
Specialist.
.
-3-
/
s
,
.
- . - . .
.
. - - -
-.-
._-
. - .
__
_ . _ . _ _
.
-
,
~
.
(m
\\
B.
Unresolved Matters
)
sG'
1.
Class 1E Electrical Weld Acceptability
Nonconformance Reports (NCR's) No. BC-048, dated January 28, 1974, and
No. BC-052, dated February 18, 1974, were issued by Fischback and Moore
(FEM) relative to the possible use of damaged and/or wet electrodes in
the production welding of Class 1E welds prior to the 'Stop Work Order'
of January 8, 1974. Resolution of the NCR's was based upon the opinion
of the Bechtel construction manager's representative that failure of a
number of welds tested was not due to the use of damaged and/or wet
electrodes. However, this conclusion does not appear to be based on a
sound engineering evaluation. Moreover, of the 25 welds examined by
,
penetrant testing, saven were rejected, and it appears that the accept-
ability of the welds completad prior to the 'Stop Work Order' are ques-
tionable.
These matters remain open pending the results of additional
f
review by the licensee.
(Paragraph 1)
-
2.
Reactor Coolant Pumps Suction Weldment Linear Indications
The above matter was reported by TECO to RO:III in conformance with
10 CFR Part 50.55(e) requirements. A final report on the detailed
findings was not available for review during the current inspection.
,
(Paragraph 3, Report Details)
,
3.
Incomplete Welding Records, Reactor Coolant Pump - Primary Piping
'~'
Weld material and weld documentation records do not reflect the exact
record of work in progress. This matter will be reviewed during the
next scheduled inspection.
C.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Matters ,
, , -
1.
Class lE Electrical Cable Trays (R0 Inspection Report No. 050-346/74-02)
During the previous inspection,.it was learned that procurement and
receipt of electrical cable trays for Class lE electrical cable was
-
no longer considered Q-listed (Class lE) .
(The tray installation was
still considered as Q-listed). No information, verbal or documented,
was made available in regard to the basis for this decision.
During this inspection, it was learned that the installation of trays
for Class lE cable was
also not considered Q-listed.
Relative to justificatien for removal of the trays from the Q-list, Bechtel
,
letter Anas to Novak, dated March 7, 1974, states that there is no
requirement that the trays be Q-listed.
This is apparently based on the
statement that, if the tray fails during a seismic event, the cable would
be capable of supporting itself between the supports.
A
-4-
(~. J
.
.
-- -
.o
-
..
. . . , - .
- - - . - - .
--
,
.
.
Since the rationale that the tray, supported by and supporting Class lE
equipment, does not have to be treated accordingly, appears to be
inconsistent, this matter has been referred to Headquarters for resolution.
2.
. estinghouse Electric Corporation (W) High Pressure Injection Pump
W
Motors (R0 Inspection Reports No. 050-346/74-01 and No. 050-346/74-02
During the referenced inspections, it was reported that:
(1) the subject
,
motor acceleration time was 6.46 seconds at 70% rated supply voltage,
whereas the specification requires the motors to accelerate their drives
- .
to normal operating speed within six (6) second at this voltage, and
(2) a resolution of the pump motor deficiency was underway by W.
During.this inspection, it was determined that the two motors, No.
,
HP-P1B and No HP-PlA, were shipped by B&W to W on March 29, 1974, and
April 11, 1974, respec:ively. This matter remains open pending a
satisfactory resolution of the deficiency.
-
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 Engineer
G. W. Eichenauer, Quality Assurance Field Representative
j
E. C. Novak, Chief Mechanical Engineer
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
H. A. Ablondi, Project Quality Assurance Engineer
B.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of management personnel, were
as follows.
,
1.
The inspector reviewed the status of previously unresolved matters described
in the Summary Section of this report. During this review, the satis-
,
factory resolution of previous violations for:
(1) lack of a weld inspectiod
procedure for Class lE welds, (2) failure to follow Class lE weld control
procedures, and (3) the installation of decay heat removal cooler, DH-HX1B,
without proper documentation available at the site, were also discussed.
2.
The inspector stated that, based on his review of NCR's No. BC-048 and
No. BC-052, it appeared that they had been resolved on the basis of
opinion, rather than a sound engineering decision. Moreover, that of the
.
25 welds randomly selected for penetrant testing, seven had been rejected
for excessive porosity, slag, or linear indications and that, with this
high rejection rate, all of the welds made prior to January 8,1974,
-5-
.
. . .
o
!
l
'
<
.
i
O-
appeared to be suspect. A representative of the licensee indicated
that these matters would receive additional revi'ew.
.
3.
The inspector stated that, during his review of documentation pertaining
to the main coolant pump welds, it appeared that weld material was
used without a formal review and approval by Bechtel. The licensee
was informed that this appeared to be in violation of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, Criterton V.
,
4.
The inspector stated that it appeared that the main coolant pump weld
material and weld documents reviewed did not reflect the exact record
of the work in pror;ess. The results indicate that an in-depth audit
of the welding records would be advisable and that RO would review the
. ,
results during the next scheduled inspection.
The licensee indicated
that this matter would be discussed and be resolved.
$
_
.
.
+
.
O
I
,
.
e
4
-6-
l0
-
l
l
.
l
.
.
--.
--
.
- ..
. . . .
&
'
--
-
--
- - = _ _
. _ _ _ __
_
,
.
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.
.
i
Toledo Edison Company (TECO)
-
E. A. Wilcox, Quality Assurance Field Specialist
w
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
s
J. G. Grover, Quality Control Engineer - Electrical
g
W. B. Daly, Senior Field Welding Engineer
'
?lschback and Moore, Incorporated (F-M)
D. M. Moeller, Quality Control Manager
H. J. Harris, Lead Inspector (Acting)
-
Bubcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
W. R. Klinger, Site Project Manager
j
J. W. Marshall, Quality Control Supervisor
s_/
D. E. Kinsala, Project Engineer
Results of Inspection
1.
Class lE Electrical Weld Acceptability
Review of F-M NCR's No. BC-048, dated January 28, 1974, and No. BC-052,
dated February 18, 1974, established that:
(1) they had been resolved by
Bechtel based upon opinion, and (2) welds completed prior to the 'Stop Work
Order' of January 8, 1974, were being accepted, based upon visual inspection
'
in spite of the rejection of seven of 25 randomly selected welds subjected
to liquid penetrant avamination.
NCR No. BC-048 had been issued as a result of a Bechtel audit (No. 115)
dated January 7, 1974, which resulted in the 'Stop Work Order' of January 8,
1974.
The NCR was issued because uncontrolled weld rod was found " cold"
and " unused" in the F-M fabrication shop. As a satisfactory condicion
for resolution, Bechtel field e 3 ncering recommended that:
(1) 25
1
'i
of the Q-listed welds, completed prior to January 8, 1974, be ground and
liquid penetrant examined in accordance with ASME Section VIII, Division
I, to verify that the welds meet the requirements of AWS Dl.0-69 and do
-7-
<
l
l
1
i
-
_.. -
.. ._
. . _ .
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
.
. . -
- -
_
_
- - _ _
_
.
-
-
..
.
. -
. . . . - _ .
.m,
-
-
-
.
O
\\\\ 'J
not contain defects caused by use of wet or damaged electrodes.
The welds
were to be chosen at random and, if found satisfactory, the remaining welds
would be considered satisfactory upon visual examination in accordance with
AWS Dl.0-69.
In the event any of the 25 welds were found unsatisfactory
due to wet or damaged electrodes in the opinion of the construction manager's
representative, another sample of 25 welds would be chosen.
As a result of the liquid penetrant examination, seven welds were rej ected,
and NCR No. BC-052 was issued. Resolution was by repair and reinspection of
the seven welds, plus a statement that, in the opinion of the sonstruction
manager's representativg, the in.*.tial rejects (porosity, Flag, and linear
indications) were not caused by wet or damaged weld rods.
la technical
,
assessment or engineering evaluation was available to substantiate this
decision (other than the reports of inspection by Testmaster dated February 12,
1974, and February 26, 1974). Moreover, no engineering evaluation was
8 available which would substantiate the apparent decision to accept all welds
~
made prior to January 8, 1974, based on a visual examiniation in spite of
the relatively high failure rate of those which were examined by the liquid
penetrant method. As a result of this review, the inspector requested that
the licensee provide additional justification for the acceptance of NCR's No.
BC-0484 and No. BC-052 and acceptance of welds made prior to January 8, 1974,
based upon visual evnmination. This matter remains open pending this addi-
tional justification.
nf)
2.
Welding Procedare No. WIN-120-2, Revision 0
'%_,/
During the inspector's review of records pertaining to the Inconel reactor
coolant pump weldment, No. WJ-2-1, it is noted that welding procedure No.
WIN-120-2, Revision 0, was in use for only one day, October 1, 1973.
The
procedure allowed a maximum of 1/8" weld rod to be used for this weldment.
On October 2, 1973, the weld rod size was changed to 5/32". A revision to
the procedure was submitted for Bechtel approval on October 8,1973. Formal
Bechtel approval to use this size rod was made on November 6, 1973, as
Revision 1 to WIN-120-2. Welding operations, using 5/32" weld rod was
carried on during the period October 2, 1973, to November 6, 1973, without
formal approval.
-
-
3.
Reactor Coolant Pump Weldments
The inspector reviewed available documentation pertaining to the discovery,
by RT, of microfissures in the suction weldment (WJ-2-1) of reactor coolant
_,
pump PlA2. This matter was reported to RO:III under 10 CFR Part 50:55(e)
requirements.
Two B&W letters to Bechtel, dated March 22, 1974, and April 19,
1974, were reviewed. The March 22 letter indicated the steps to be taken
.
to determine the origin of the ceramic constituents found during study of
the weldment sample taken from weld WJ-2-1.
The letter of April 19 indicated
the progress and additional investigation being made to resolve this matter.
)
-8-
\\
.
%.J
- _ _ . .
_
_.
_
,
,
..
_
- . _ _
_
.A
. ~ .
.
-
.
V
The avaminntion of a sample from the stainless steel-pump discharge weldment,
which had shown similnr radiographic indications as the Inconel weldment,
indicated '. hat the indications in the stainless welds resulted from slag
inclusion and that microfissuring was not present. In regard to the Inconel
weldment, the studies indicated chemical constituents that were foreign to
the weld materials. Further studies are being made.
Procedures for repairs
'
of all coolant pump suction welds are being developed.
This matter will be
reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
,
4.
File of Nuclear Energy Property Insurance Association Reports
The inspector reviewed five letters containing recommendations relative to
,
fire protection matters which were on file at the site.
The letters were
dated February 24, 1971, July 20, 1971, February 14, 1972, February 13, 1973,
and April 25, 1974. An updating, contained in each subsequent report (following
[ the initial report) indicated that recommendations were being followed.
-
5.
Reactor Vessel
.
a.
Review of Quality Control System
.
The B&W QC system, for the ractor vessel receipt, handling, storage, and
installation, was determined to be acceptable relative to:
(1) instal-
g'~'
lation specifications and procedures, (2) use of experienced personnel
in the installation, and (3) installation inspection. Acceptability was
(V
,
established by selective examination of the following:
(1) B&W Specifications
'
(a) No. FS111-la-14, Receipt, Off-Loading, Handling, Storage and
Installation of the Reactor Vessel, Revision 1, dated April 25,
1973.
(b) No. FSill-la, Attachment No. 2, dated July 1,1971 (Aligning
and Leveling Requirements and Preparation of Foundations).
.
(c) No. FS-111-la, Attachment No. 3, dated November 1,1969 (Water
'
Type Leveling).
(2) Field Construction Procedures
(a) No. 03, Unloading Reactor Vessel, Revision 3, dated December 1,
1972.
.
(b) No. 04, Unloading of Reactor Vessel Head, Revision 1, dated
November 9, 1972.
p
-9-
(v)
~~
- -.
__
.-
.
._
_
-_
.
. . - . . _ _ _
_
.m
.
.
,
.
-
.
-
)
(c) No. 06, Unloading of Reactor Vessel for Storage, Revision 1,
dated December 18, 1972.
-
(d) No. 08, Reload, Upend, and Prepare to Set Reactor, Revision 2,
dated August 13, 1973.
(e) No. 10, Final Setting of Recetor Vessel, Revision 1, dated
,
August 13, 1973.
4
.
(f) No. 11, Set Reactor Vessel MK-191, Revision 1, dated August 13,
1973.
(g) N . 12, Attach Support Places MK-193.to Reactor, Revision 2,
o
,
dated August 13, 1973.
(h) No.16, Move Closure Head to Containment Building Revision 2,
df
dated October 8, 1973.
-
(i) No. 47, Set Head Storage Stand, Revision 2, dated December 17,
1973.
-
1
(j) No. 48, Move Closure Head to 603' Level, Revision 0, dated
December 12, 1973.
.
Ok) No. 56, Install Closure Head on Storage Stand, Revision 0,
dated January 31, 1974.
b.
Records Review
An ev==4 nation of the QC records for the reactor vessel established that
the vessel had been satisfactorily received, handled, stored, and installed.
Records relative to each of the field construction procedures, enumerated
above, were included in the review.
c.
' Observation of Work
'
Observatica of the reactor vessel, as it is stored in place, indicated
.
'
that the installation had been completed in a satisfactory manncr and that
appropriate protective measures were in effect.
6.
Reactor Vessel Internals
a.
Implementation of Quality Assurance Program
A review of the TECO, Bechtel, and B&W organizations and their functional
.
relationships indicated that applicable quality requirements were being
met relative to the reactor vessel internals receipt, handling and
installation.
- 10 -
s
.
-
- -.
. . - .
,
__
~
___
_
_
.
-;_ . - - - . . - .
. .k
.
'
,
.
\\
b.
Review of Quality Control System
-
The B&W QC system for the reactor vessel internals receipt, handling,
storage, and installation was determined to be acceptable including:
(1) Quarantine of nonconforming components.
,
(2) Installation specifications and procedures.
,
(3) The use of experienced personnel.
(4) Installation inspections.
,
Acceptability was established by selective examination of the following:
df
(1) B&W Specification No. FS-lll-lc, Receipt, Inspection, Handling,
-
Storage, and Installation of the Reactor Vessel Internals, dated
January 5, 1971.
(2) Field Construction Procedures
(a) No. 58, Unload and Store Reactor Vessel Internals, Revision 3,
.
dated May 2, 1974.
(b) No. 61, Remove Internals From Shipping Rig and Assemble,
'~
Revision 1, dated May 1, 1974.
(c) N . 64, Install Bolts MK-380 - Reactor Internals, Revision 0,
o
dated May 15, 1974.
(d) No. 65, Install Thermal Shield Upper Restraints - Internals,
Revision 0, dated May 15, 1974.
7.
Primary Piping - Welding
Record Review
-
t
The following quality records for primary piping weld No. WJ-4-4 were
a-==4ned by the inspector:
a.
QA inspector's records.
b.
Welders' qualification records and list of current qualified welders.
.
The records were found to be in order and signed by designated personnel.
Ninety-eight percent of the primary piping has been installed, and review
of radiographs by B&W is in progress.
,
,
l
,
.
l
.
-n,_
_ ~
-
_m
-
_
- -
_ _ .
.
- _
- -
_
--
_ . - -
. -
-. _ --
- .
_ _ _ .
. ..-.
am.
_ , , _
'
-
.
.
a
-
.
>
!
l
8.
Main Steam Piping
Installation of main steam piping has started.
Piping is in the process
of fitup and being tack welded. Further review of this item is planned for
,
subsequent inspections.
1
l
i
-
,
l
!
$
'
_
/
.
~
,
!
i
- .
!
.
4
.
!:
I
I
>
l
- 12 -
.
8
-,.ya,,
-
. - , , - - - - - - -
--~w---
Y
A-,
-
,,,w,
,-,w-----w.n--+
-N
-A
=-ow--,a
_ _ _ _
_ __
-
_ _ . _ . . -
.
.
ptGT ca .,
"
8
UNITED STATES
.'{
$'.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.
,
Q
y
OIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
REGION Ill
- p
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
TELEPHoNC
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 6ol37
(312) ess-2660
A.
RO Inspection Report No.
050-346/74-04
June 25, 1974
Transmittal Date
'
Distribution:
Distribution:
RO Chief, FS&EB
RO Chief, FS&EB
RO:HQ (5)
RO:HQ (4)
[
DR Central Files
L:D/D for Fuels & Materials
i
~
Regulatory Standards (3)
DR Central Files
Licensing (13)
RO Files
RO Files
-
.
B.
RO Inquiry Report No.
Tranamittal Date
i
s_/
Distribution:
Distribution:
RO Chief, FS&EB
RO Chief, FS&EB
RO:HQ (5)
RO:HQ
DR Central Files
DR Central Files
Regulatory Standards (3)
R0 Files
Licensing (13)
RO Files
C.
Incident Notification From:
(Licensee & Docke,t No. (or License No.)
,
Transmittal Date
Distribution:
Distribution:
RO Chief, FS&EB
RO Chief, FS&EB
RO:HQ (4)
RO:HQ (4)
Licensing (4)
L:D/D for Fuels & Materials
DR Central Files
DR Central Files
.
RO Files
RO Files
I
- '
---
v
19
l
%
- 2
R
,
~
.
R
.>
7
>
. . .
. . _ . . - .
-
O
,
, e