IR 05000275/1979017
| ML16340A644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1979 |
| From: | Dodds R, Kirsh D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340A639 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-79-17, 50-323-79-09, 50-323-79-9, NUDOCS 7911090253 | |
| Download: ML16340A644 (24) | |
Text
50-275/79-17 Report No.
Docket No.
U S ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
License No.
CPPR-39, CPPR-69 Safeguards Group Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Facility Name:
Diablo Can on Units 1 and
Inspection at:
Diablo Can on Site, San Luis Obis o Count
, California Inspection conducted:
" Jul 23-26'979 Inspectors:
D.
F. Kirsch, Reactor Inspector p'~gC ate igned Date Signed Approved By:
'ummary:
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Reactor Engineering Support Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Date Signed D te S gned Ins ection durin eriod of Jul 23-26, 1979 Re ort Nos.
50-275 79-17 and 50-323/79-09 A~d:
II i, d i p
ti by gi l
b d
inspector of construction activities including:
licensee action on previous inspection findings; licensee action on 50.55(e)
items; repairs to class 1 piping and tanks per ASNE Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI; pipe supports and restraints; and nonconformance reporting system.
The inspection involved 27 inspector hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of four areas inspected, no"items of noncompliance were identified.
One apparent item of noncompliance was identified in the area of rupture restraint weldments (Paragraph 6.b.(2)).
RV Form 219 (2)
V911090 W ',
h
~ A
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Pacific Gas and Electri c Com an PG &E b.
c ~
- R. D. Etzler, Project Superintendent
- D. A. Rockwell, Resident Electrical Engineer
- F. M. Russell, Civil/Hydro Representative
- V. L. Killpack, Resident Mechanical Engineer
~M. Leppke, Q.A. Supervisor
- T. G. DeUriante, Senior Q.A. Engineer
- J. Arnold, Coordinating. Q.C. Engineer
'S. J.
Foat, Q.C. Engineer J.
R. Bratten, Q.C. Engineer C. Braff, Pipe Support Supervisor
,
K. Rhodes, Instrumentation Supervisor R. Whited, Electrical Field Engineer R.
D. Adamson, Engineer and Level II NDE Examiner J.
Hanna, Mechanical Inspector I. MacDonald, Scheduler R.
D. Kerr, Welding Engineer S.
Piepenburg, Technical Subforeman Pullman-Kello Kello D. Geske, Q.A. Manager D. Hubbert, Welder L. F. Myrick, Welding Supervisor J.
R. Borrlby, Restraint Inspector Lead Ran Peabod Testin Services Peabod F. Brander, Level II iHDE Examine R. Ridenour, Level II NDE Examiner
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Plant Tour Shortly after arrival onsite, the inspector visited various parts of the plant to observe work activities in progress-and completed work.
Additional plant tour inspections were also conducted at other periods during the inspection.
The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements and interviewed various craft personnel, supervision and quality inspection personnel.
In particular, the inspector examined in-process work on the repair of Unit 1 pipeway rupture restraint
~
welds, crushable bumper welds on restraints 2/3 RR and 2/4 RR in Unit 1 containment and the installation of the Unit 1 reactor coolant hot leg crossover supports.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie L
,
G.
General Discussions with licensee personnel indicated that the licensee had
'completed checking all mechanical and hydraulic snubbers in Unit
f'r operability.
This check included examinations of oil levels, freedom of movement and detrimental corrosion.
This check completes the licensee's commitment to perform snubber inspections at least 30 days before fuel load.'he licensee's site procedure No.
GCR-1 (Assuring Completion of General Construction Work) was examined and appeared to provide adequate guidance to site personnel for assuring the identification and completion of General Construction work activities prior to fuel loading.
4.
Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Enforcement Items a.
0 en 275 79-06-02 and 323/79-04-02 Infraction:
Failure to translate racewa su ort desi n bases into instructions, rocedures The licensee's electrical engineering department performed a
100% walkdown of all areas of the plant to identify instances where non-class 1 raceways crossed over class 1 equipment.
Design Change DC-1-E-E-382 was issued by electrical engineering on July 9, 1979 to correct discrepancies identified by the walkdown inspection.
The inspector examined the criteria utilized by the electrical engineers in their walkdown.
These criteria had been approved by responsible engineering depart-ment personnel and appeared satisfactory.
The mechanical engineering department was in the process of performing walkdowns to identify any instances which may compromise class 1 equipment and safe shutdown capability.
The mechanical engineering walkdown had identified seven discrepancies for which design changes were in process of formation.
Licensee representatives noted that all areas of the plant would be examined to identify and evaluate mechan-ical related crossovers of class 1 equipment.
Licensee representatives stated that similar programs would be performed on Unit 2 at a future date.
The licensee was conducting a training session for selected H. P. Foley and PGEE personnel on raceway hanger/support installation requirements and tolerances.
The class was scheduled to be a minimum of 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> duration.
Foley g.C. procedures had been revised to require inspection of non-class 1 raceway supports for raceways which crossed above class 1 raceways.
This item will be examined during a future inspectio "I
'I
Closed 323 79-05-03 Infraction:
Unistrut welded to su ort 49-12V.
In response to the item of noncompliance, the licensee submitted a letter, dated July 6, 1979, detailing their corrective.
actions and actions to prevent recurrence.
The licensee had conducted a
lOOX walkdown inspection of all Unit
and 2 class 1 pipe supports which had attachments.
The licensee identified 56 Unit 1 supports and 18 Unit 2 supports which had attachments.
Of these, 12 attachments in Unit 1 and 7 attachments in Unit 2 exceeded the 25 pound total weight criteria.
The discrepant supports and attachments had been reanalyzed, found acceptable and documented on as-built drawings.
The licensee noted that tne 25 pound weight limit was based on supports using 2"
X 2" X 1/4" steel beams.
The smallest steel utilized in support construction was 2" X 2" X 3/8" with the preponderance of supports utilizing steel which greatly exceeds 2"
X 2" X 3/8".
The inspector examined selected support calculation sheets.
The licensee was conducting a formal training program, of approximately 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> duration, for Foley engineers, in-spectors and selected licensee inspectors.
Foley (}.C. procedures had been revised to include requirements to be utilized for attachments to class I supports.
Drawing 049237 requirements had been incorporated into Drawing 049238 by means of a design change.
This item is closed.
0 en 275/79-12-02 Infraction:
Im ro er se aration and su ort of nonclass
racewa s.
The licensee submitted a response to the item of noncompliance by letter dated July 6, 1979.
The specified corrective actions were examined by the inspector and appeared to be satisfactorily implemented.
The Engineering Department was in the process of designing a
special support for conduits K9424, 9430 and 9652 to comply with Drawing 050030, note 3, requirements.
Supports for conduits KHT52 and 53 had been corrected to comply with Drawing 050029, note 60, requirements.
The licensee's program for examination and audit, of additional hanger installations was examined and appeared satisfactory.
The licensee had examined 1384 installed Unit 1 supports, representing a cross section of all installed support details, for compliance with detail requirements.
Discrepancies noted were to be evaluated for compliance with design bases and repaired or accepted based on the analysi I
-4-The licensee had revised the Foley gCP-9 (Installation of Raceways, Junction and Terminal Boxes for >lire Pull) to require gC inspection of raceway supports for non-class 1 raceways which cross above class 1 raceways; This item will be examined further during a future inspection.
5.
Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Followu Items Closed 275 and 323 78-15-09
Re lacement of Unit 2 motor controller solenoid s rin s.
The licensee developed a go/no-go gauge to measure the diameter of solenoid springs installed in 480 volt NENA size
and 2 motor controllers.
A 100/ inspection of Unit
480 volt size 1 and
controllers was performed and no controllers had the smaller spring installed.
The licensee was about 33K complete with the inspection of Unit 2 controllers.
The inspector examined documentation of the inspections performed on Unit 1 buses F,
G and H and on Unit 2 bus F.
The inspector also verified that the licensee's list of affected Unit
bus F controllers was complete by checking that list against the single line meter and relay diagram, Drawing No. 437916.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Action on 50.55 e
Items a ~
Out-of-Tolerance Barton transmitters in steam enerator.
ran e level control s stem.
On June 13, 1979, the licensee submitted a verbal report of a construction deficiency they deemed reportable on
CFR 50.55(e),
regarding Barton 764 differential pressure trans-mitters delivered to Diablo Canyon for use in the steam generator narrow range 'level function which may exhibit a positive inaccuracy exceeding the Westinghouse specification.
This verbal report was followed by a written repor t dated June 26, 1979.
The licensee made this report as a result of the Westinghouse deficiency report made to the NRC under the rules of 10 CFR 21.
The licensee had returned the affected transmitters (10 from Unit
and 7 from Unit 2) to the manufacturer for resolution of the identified problem.
Licensee personnel indicated that on return, the transmitters would be bench checked, the operability verified on reinstallation and the LOCA seals installed when the transmitters are remounted.
This item is open and will be examined during a future in-spectio 'iIA
r*
b..
0 en 275/79-13-01 55.55 e
Item:
Cracks in ru ture restraint weldments.
Examination of Pro ram and Procedures (2)
The licensee conducted an investigation program to determine those types of materials and joints affected by identified deficiency and determined'hat the problem was associated with A-441 and A-572 grade 50 steel (high strength, low alloy steels).
The program was recently expanded to include shop welds as well as field welds.
An examination of A36 steel welding (about 300 welds)
had been conducted and, at most, only two indications had been found by the magnetic particle (J<T) process (exam-ination by MT was in excess of AMS D 1.1-79 requirements).
These indications were repaired by a minimal amount of grinding.
The inspector examined the following Kellogg and licensee procedures for compliance with g.A. program and AWS D 1.1-79 requirements.
(a)
PG8E Department of Engineering Research Procedure Ho. 3212: Magnetic Particle Examination of Welds in Pipe Rupture Restraints (b}
Kellogg Procedure No.
ESD-243:
Pipe Rupture Restraints (c)
Kellogg Procedure Ho.
ESD-273:
g.A. Final )Jalkdown and Documentation Review - Rupture Restraints (d)
Kellogg g.A. Instruction No. 142:
AWS Melding Preheat and Interpass Temperatures (e)
Kellogg g.A. Instruction No. 143:
HDE Requirements-Structural Welding No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Observations of Work and lJork Activities The inspector examined the following work activities for compliance with AMS D 1.1-79 and procedural requirements.
(a)
Twenty field repair welds on Unit 1 restraint bent 4B.
(b)
Ten field repair welds on Unit 1 restraint bent 6B.
(c)
Three field repair welds on Unit 1 restraint 1000-12.-6-(d)
Preheat operations and conditions on one field weld of restraint bent 68 and one field weld of restraint bent 9.
(e)
Nagnetic particle testing on one field weld of restraint bent 4B.
(f)
Three portable rod ovens for content correspondence to rod issue slips and temperature requirements.
The licensee's specification No. 8833XR-1 (Diablo Canyon Rupture Restraint General Repair Procedure)
requires that repairs conform to AWS D 1.1-79 (Structural Welding Code).
Pullman Kellogg Procedure ESD-243 and AWS D l.l require that "Arc strikes outside the area of permanent welds should be avoided on any base metal.
Cracks or blemishes resulting from arc strikes shall be ground to a smooth contour and checked to insure soundness."
Contrary to the above requirements, the following conditions were observed on July 24, 1979:
(a)
Six single spot arc strikes and one arc strike about 3/4-inch long existed on base metal below FW-63 of the upper box on restraint bent 4B.
This field weld was inspected and accepted by Kellogg on July 17, 1979.
(b)
One arc strike about 3/4-inch long existed on base metal near FW-65 of the lower box of restraint bent 4B.
This field weld was inspected and accepted by Kellogg on July 16, 1979.
(c)
One arc strike about 3/4-inch long existed on base metal of a steel member above FW-78 of restraint bent 6B.
This field weld was inspected and accepted by Kellogg on July 4, 1979.
(d)
Two arc strikes existed in base metal above FW-84 on the lower box of restraint bent 6B.
This field weld was inspected and accepted by Kellogg on July 9, 1979.
This is an item of noncompliance (275/79-17-01).
(3)
Review of ualit Records The following quality records were examined by the inspector for compliance with AWS D 1.1-79 and procedural requirements:
(a)
Numerous field process sheets associated with repair welds on restraint bents 4B and 6 (b)
1Jelder qualification documentation for three Kellogg wel ders.
(c)
Certification of magnetic particle examination qualification to SNT-TC-lA requirements for two Peabody Testing Laboratory level II examiners.
(d)
Receipt inspection documentation, mill test reports and charpy test reports for two heats of steel and for Unit 1 hot leg crossover supports.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Re airs to Reactor Coolant S stem Pi in and Volume Control Tanks The licensee, during preservice examination, observed what appeared to be a casting inclusion on loop 1-3 cold leg elbow and what appeared to be a small indication on. weld MIB-RC-2-1 of loop 1-2 hot leg.
The inspector examined the licensee's program for the conduct of these repairs for compliance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI.
The final liquid penetrant examination of the repaired surface of loop 1-3 cold leg was ex-amined for compliance with applicable Kellogg NDE procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The licensee was in the process of repairing weld and fitup defi-ciencies in the Chemical and Volume Control system volume control tanks.
This item will be examined during a future inspection as the repair effort progresses.
(275/79-17-02)
8.
Restraint Crushable Bum er t'1odifications The modifications to the crushable bumpers of restraint numbers 2/3 and 2/4 RR inside the Unit 1 containment were examined for compliance with procedures, Drawing'DC685577-491-2, and Drawing 447249-2 sketches 2-'3-MA and 2-4-RR-MA, respectively.
The welding was examined for compliance with code and procedure specified criteria.
The field process sheet documentation of welding/inspection was examined for procedural compliance.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Nonconformance Re orts The licensee's nonconformance reporting system was examined for compliance with g.A. program requirements by selective examination of civil, mechanical and electrical NCR's.
The resolution and closeout appeared to conform to g.A. program requirement ~
'
A I
f
~
-8-.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives.
(denoted in Para-graph 1) on duly 26, 1979 at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the inspection purpose, scope and findings.
The licensee's representatives acknowledged and agreed to examine the items dis-cussed in Paragraph s J s
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
1990 N. CALIFORNIABOULEVARD SUITE 202, WALNUTCREEK PLAZA WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94595 Ii; Q)i" iii
'I "'i (iIi Oocket No. 50-275 AUt'
>s>9 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Attention:
Mr. Philip A. Crane, Jr.
Assistant General Counsel Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter dated July 26, 1979 informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the item which we brought to your attention in our letter dated July 6, 1979.
Your corrective actions will be verified during a future inspection.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, p(7~A eactor Oper ations and Nuclear Support 8ranch
~l
'i>
l J
P'A C'IP XC Q-A.B A.ND ELECTRIC C OMPA-NT M~K ~
77 DEALE STREET, 31ST FLOOR
~
SAN FRANCISCOI CALIFORNIA 94106
~
(415) 7S1 4211 JOHN C. MORRISGKY VICE PRESIDENT AND OENERAL COVNEEL MAI COLM H. 5EU ROUGH A$54CIEIE OERECAL COVN5EL CHARLSS T, VAN OSUSSN PHILIP A. CRANS, JR
~
H4 NRY J ~ LDPI.ANTS RICHARO A. CLARI54
~IOHN S 0 ISSON A RT HLIR L, HILLMAN,J R.
ROC 4 RT OHI.SACH C HARL4 8 TN. YHISSSL L AIHII AVE CP \\TEL CDUVIEL July 26 o 1979 JOSNVA OAA LEV RD ~ ~ At L 00*DON Lt Or ~
CASSIDY 01 A ~ D OENTDH OAAT P CNOINAO OOI ALD C1ICKSON DAVID 0 DILOEAT ANNETTE OATEN RDSCAt L HA~ AI'1 KEANW R Kusltt TNEDDOAC L I INDOE1D J ~
RICrAAD r, LOCKC ROSEIT 0, HCLENHAN RICHAIDH HOSS RDSE1 J PETEA ~
IID~ EAT R, RICKtTT CNIALEVA OANDEA~ ON JACK W ONUC'I ONI~Lt' A WDD ATtDANCV~
J PCTtA DAUNOAAtNEA OTCVCH P OUAEC P*HELACHAIrtLLC WILLIAHH COWAASS JDstr>> 0 Cl 0LE ~ T JA JDNH H YAVC
~ATAICA0 OOLOEH PttEA W HANSC IEN JUAN H JAYD P
RONALDLAurrtlut~
HEAEK C LIAOON HA11V W LONS J ~
RICHASD L, HOSS ODUOIAS A ODLtSOV J, HICNAEL RHD ~
OACN IYDS C OA I~ ON OUC Al H LtVIH CCHIYY DAVIDJ, WILLIANSON OAUCC II WOATNU OTOH OIL~ EAT L, HA11ICIK CDWA10 Jl HCOANNCV DUE N>> WEST, JA DANIEL C OI ~ SON OAN EI SAY~ DN LUSODCK JOS CAN I, KELLY JACK P, CALLIN J1 HDwAADV, ODLU~
OtANAAOJ OtLLAOANTA JANE~ C LODSDDN
~ CHION CDUrSEL Mr. J. L. Crews, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Office of Xnspection and Enforcement Region V U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1990 N. California Boulevard Walnut Creek Plaza, Suite 202 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Re:
Doc'ket No. 50-275-OL Diablo Canyon Unit. 1 AI 'I II
+<.I'~l f 5'~.'ear Mx. Crews:
Your letter dated July 6, 1979 and the accompanying Not:ice of Violation identified an apparent deficiency in the area of training records for our Diablo Canyon plant personnel.
Training records are a part of our Operational Quality Assurance Program which we are com-mitted to have fully implemented 90 days before fuel loading.
Ne have investigated this matter with the conclusion that our various training programs are being conducted in accordance with our commitments and that, we are maintaining adequate training records.
Xn our opinion, there are no aspects of this program that are at vari-ance with Appendix B to 10 CPR 50.
As indicated in your Notice of Violation, Sect:ion 13.2.1 of the PSAR states that:
"The Training Coordinator and his assistant are responsible for coordinating the various programs and for maintenance of adequate training records."
As we understand your position, this language implies a re-quirement that the Training Coordinator have in his physical possession all training records.
This was not. our intent:.
ln pract:ice, training records are 'kept by the various Plant Department Heads responsible for specific job classifications in our plant organization.
The Training Coordinator coordinat:es (but does not conduct) all of the plant, training programs.
In addition, he assures that adequate training records are maintained within the plant by the responsible department:
heads so that they are available for inspect:ion.
)i
1'
Mr. J. L.'rews
/
. /
July 26, 1979 Xn order to resolve this question of interpretation, we will revise the last sentence on page 13.2-5 of the PS'n our next amendment to read as follows:
1979.
"The Training Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the various training programs and for/ assuring that adequate training records are maintained at, the plant."
This amendment will be submitted on or before September 1,
Very truly yours,
/*m
<<~<<*
n
~
~
~
g<<
~ ~ ~
e