ML031810369
| ML031810369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/2003 |
| From: | Tom Gurdziel - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Grobe J Division of Reactor Safety III |
| References | |
| Download: ML031810369 (4) | |
Text
9 Twin Orchard Drive Oswego, NY 13126 June 13,2003 Mr. John A. Grobe, Director Division of Reactor Safety US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351
Dear Mr. John A. Grobe:
Bolting I am not comfortable with my current impressions of Davis-Besse bolting practice. I think that the maintenance staf has, in the past, indiscriminately tightened bolts on leaking equipment. Specifically, I think that this was the case on that valve that had two or three of four bolts corroded by boric acid (pressurizer spray, I think), and especially, the bolts (or nuts on studs) at the cover to casing joint of the reactor coolant pumps.
However, my basic information is sketchy on the reactor coolant pumps. I believe that I mentioned these to you or Christine as having 0 ring type gaskets, but the 7 page memo I read, (ADAMS number ML03 153018 I), mentioned Flexitallic style gaskets.
I find the following bolting questions interesting:
Is any bolting controlled at Davis-Besse now or in the past?
Have any bolts or studs been replaced because of a change in original characteristics due to age, radiation, or overtightening? (An example might be the reactor head studs.)
Are there any currently calibrated torque wrenches at Davis-Besse?
Is there a currently approved procedure for the use of torque wrenches?
When is the last time QNQC has documented an inspection of bolting?
Is any bolting considered a skill of the trade?
Have any bolt failures typical of over tightened bolts been identified at Davis-Besse?
What is the arrangement of gaskets for the reactor coolant cover to casing gasket@)?
What type of gaskets are used?
Are the original design requirements of the gaskets in use being met?
If0 ring gaskets are used, do they have pressure equalizing holes in them that are not Are the (cover and casing) sudaces on both sides of the gaskets plane within specified tolerances?
clogged?
Are any recesses or groves for the gaskets filled with boron so that they do not provide adequate clearances?
What is the vendor specified life of the gaskets currently installed?
If1 can buy a Briggs and Stratton engine from a local hardware store in Oswego, read the operating instructions, and not find a requirement to tighten the head bolts after 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> of service (or any other time), why would I expect to see a vendor suggestion at a nuclear site to retighten bolts aRer a few thermal cycles? (ML031530181) After all, they dont do that to the reactor head bolts, do they?
Primary reactor coolant leakage I was disappointed to read, in either the March or April public meeting transcript that a leak through the first gasket of the reactor coolant pumps is not a primary coolant leak. I dont accept this line of thinking at all.
Criminal Investigations What is taking so long? Ifthe total loss of all structural steel in the reactor upper head does not reflect criminal behavior on the part ofthe plant operator, maybe it does someplace else.
This is letter twenty two. It needs no reply.
Tom Gurdziel Copy: D. Lochbaum
9 Twin Orchard Drive Oswego, NY 13126 May 29,2003 Mr. John A. Grobe, Director Division of Reactor Safety US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351
Dear Mr. John A. Grobe:
I have reread the Safety Culture Evaluation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, dated April 14,2003. I have these comments:
Comment 1 people could or wouid not take one hour for an interview. I imagine the hour was not unpaid. Did you note the departments they were to come fiom?
(page 7) In a time when people are working 7 - 10s or 6-12s, 8% of the Comment 2 an important paper and pencil survey.
(page 8) About 20% of the permanent station employees did not complete Comment 3 Quality Assessment Group perceives, to a greater extent than other groups, that making work for others is valued within the organization. I consider this a strength, as I understand this usage. And, I might add, I have been familiar with QNQC fiom the summer of 1972 when I hired on to help build my first nuclear plant. (I was the United Engineers & Constructors area engineer for the Unit 2 Containment at 3 Mile Island.
(This was the containment that later passed its unscheduled operating pressure test.))
(page 10) Listed under Areas for Improvement is the following:..the More precisely, the workers who do the job wrong, (and get paid for their work), make more work for themselves and get paid again. Similar comments apply to their supervisor(s), and the managers above. The QA people simply do their job when they identi@ deficient work.
Comment 4 high score on the Perfectionistic Scale..
(page 9) I am intrigued by the idea that Davis-Besse people have a very Would perfectionists put in only 5 of 12 bolts on a polar crane electric panel and expect not to get caught?
Would perfectionists accept totally eroded away ductwork for containment air cooling?
Would perfectionists refhe to accept indications fkom their reactor leakage detection instrument ation?
Would perfectionists remove an experienced boron leakage surveillance lead engineer and send him to service water?
Would perfectionists train the newly assigned lead system engineer looking for reactor leakage AFTER he did the inspection?
Would perfectionists remove reactor head washing equipment before the reactor head was perfectly clear of borodresidue?
Would perfectionists announce at a public meeting that they added one ring of packing on a leaking valve (instead of replacing all the existing packing) with the plant already down for an outage?
Would perfectionists refbse to follow vendor recommendations to repair all reactor coolant pumps with reactor primary coolant 0 ring leakage, not just the easiest two?
Would perfectionists originally propose pressurizing the reactor vessel and NOT also looking for leaks then?
Would perfectionists fbil to wear prescribed equipment inside a steam generator, or even safety glasses inside the Containment Building?
Would a perfectionist organization refuse to shut down its reactor to answer questions about its safety?
Would a perfectionist crane crew fail to lift machinery above the nozzle before moving it, thus providing better reactor nozzle surveillance than everyone in the QA & review organizations at that time?
This is letter twenty one. It needs no reply.
Copy: D. Lochbaum