IR 05000261/1978014
| ML13309A583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre, Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1978 |
| From: | Spencer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Johari Moore SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A584 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811270044 | |
| Download: ML13309A583 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
SUITE 202, WALNUT CREEK PLAZA 1990 N. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 OCT 16 178 Docket Nos. 50-36 50-36 Southern California Edison Company P. 0. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Attention:
Mr. J. B. Moore Vice President Gentlemen:
Subject:
NRC Inspection -
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 This refers to the inspections conducted by Mr. R. J. Pate of this office during the period September 11-15 and 25-29, 1978 of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR 97 and 98, and to the discussion of our findings held by Mr. Pate with Mr. H. B. Ray and other members of your staff on September.15 and 29, 197 Areas examined during these inspections are described in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspections consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, inter views with personnel, and observations by the inspecto No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified within the scope of these inspection In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The applica tion must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure I0
Southern California Edison Company-2 to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Roo Should you have any questions concerning these inspections, we will be glad to discuss them with yo
Sincerely, G. S. S Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-361/78-14 50-362/78-11
REGION V==
50-361/78-14 Report No. 50-362/78-11 Docket No. 50-361, 50-362 License No. CPPR-97, CPPR-98 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company P. 0. Box 800
- 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:
San.Onofre Units 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Construction Site, San Diego County, California Inspection conducted:
September 11-15 and 25-29, 1978 Inspectors:
-,,9" 13/ /979 R. J. Pate, Resident eactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
/K. 1978 R. C. Haynes ief, Projects Section, Reactor Date Signed Construction and Engineering Support Branch Summary:
Inspections on September 11-15 and 25-29, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-361/78-14 and 50-362/78-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspections by the resident inspector of construction activities including: piping installation, concrete placement, followup on 10 CFR 50.55(e) items and general work in progress. The inspection involved 44 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie RV Form 219 (2)
DETAILS 1. Individuals Contacted a. Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
- H. B. Ray, Manager, Quality Assurance
- R. R. Hart, Construction Superintendent
- D. B. Schone, Lead Engineering Site Representative
- P. A. Croy, Site QA/QC Supervisor J. J. Pantaleo, QA Engineer W. F. Rossfeld, QA Engineer M. Rodin, QA Engineer R. Frick, QA Engineer b. Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- R. H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer
- J. E. Geiger, Project Field QA Supervisor J. Hosmer, Assistant Project Engineer R. Ellis, Mechanical Stress Group Leader In addition, construction craftsmen, engineers and foremen were contacted during the inspection *Denotes attendees at management meetings on 9/15/78 and 9/29/7.
Construction Status The licensee reported that site construction work is 59% complete as of September 29, 1978. The licensee's project managemen personnel estimate that the construction effort is split 60%/40%
between Units 2 and. Piping Installation a. Temporary Pipe Supports The inspector noted that several permanent pipe supports and hangers had not been received and temporary supports were used to support plant piping. Two pipes were supported from other pipes. The inspector questioned the controls provided to avoid overstressing of piping under these conditions. In response to this concern, the constructor, Bechtel, performed
-2 an analysis which indicated that for typical spans (approxi mately 10 feet in length) four-inch and six-inch diameter schedule 40 pipe can support 50-feet lengths of 30-inch diameter pipe. The design of the containment restricts the length of large (24 and 30-inch diameter) pipe spools to approximately 20 feet. However, the analysis did not apply to schedule 10 pipe even though such pipe is used in the plan SCE management personnel said they pould provide information on why schedule 10 pipe was not included in the analysi Common design for temporary pipe supports include 2-5 foot long sections of 1-1/2 inch or 2 inch angle iron used as simple beans supported on both ends by 3/8" to 5/8" threaded rods. The inspector observed that one support of this design was supporting two large pipes (approximately 10" dia.) and the angle iron was noticeably deflected. The inspector ques tioned the application of temporary supports since improper loading of the supports (and pipe) appears to be possibl SCE management personnel stated that they believed the current usage of temporary hangers is acceptable since no temporary hangers had failed and no pipe had been damaged. The inspector stated that this would be a continuing item of review during subsequent inspection This item is considered to be open pending review of the information concerning schedule 10 pipe and further reviews by the inspector of the applications of temporary support Pipe Welding The Corrective Action Report (CAR) F-540 for the rough surface on the welds for the safety injection system piping in Unit 3 near penetration 50 was reviewed. The corrective action taken was consistent with requirements of the applicable codes and the licensee's quality assurance procedure No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Concrete Preplacement Inspection The inspector audited the preplacement status for the Unit 2 north walls of the condensate storage, refueling water tank building; placement nos. 23-1036-B and 23-1037-B. The reinforcing bar spacing and clearance was measured by the inspector in several locations and found to meet the specification requirements. No nonconforming conditions were observe No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Followup on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Items The Unit 3 fuel pool liner plate was damaged when compressed air was used to remove rain water from the leak chase channels. To prevent recurrence, the construction procedure WPP/QCI 112 was revised (Rev. 7) to prohibit use of compressed air for cleaning without engineering approva The responsible field supervision attended a training session to discuss Rev. 7 to WPP/QCI-112. The revised procedure and training records were reviewed by the in spector. The inspector found that the corrective action implemented by the licensee was appropriate and complete.. This item is close. Plant Tour The inspector toured both Units 2 and 3 extensively during this report period. These tours provided the inspector an opportunity to become more familiar with the activities in progress on specific plant equipment. Particular attention was directed to observing work in progress and availability of supervision and quality con trol inspectors at the work areas, housekeeping and preservation of equi pmen No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Management Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on September 15 and 29, 1978. The scope of the in spections and inspector's findings as noted in this report were discussed. The licensee representatives had no additional comments.