IR 05000275/1980002
| ML17083A322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1980 |
| From: | Haynes R, Kirsch D, Morrill P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083A321 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-80-02, 50-275-80-2, 50-323-80-01, 50-323-80-1, NUDOCS 8004280022 | |
| Download: ML17083A322 (14) | |
Text
50-275/80-02 Report No.
50-323/80-01 U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Docket No.
50-275, 50-323 License No.
CPPR-39, CPPR-69Sageguards Group Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Faci1 ity Na e
Dlabl 0 Canyon Unlts 1 and
ect fon at Diabl o Canyon Site, San Luis Obi spo County, Cal iforni a and Corporate Office Ins pec tors:
D.
F P. J.
orrill, Reac or Inspector Inspection conducted.
February 11-14 and 20, 1980 I
irsch, Reacto Inspector Date Signed-Se Date Signed
~
~
~
~
~
~
proved By:
R.
C.
Hay es, Chief, rojects Section Reactor Construction 8nd Engineering Support Branch Summary:
'
Date Signed ate Signed Ins ection durin eriod of Februa'r 11-14 and 20, 1980 Re ort Hos. 50-275/
-0 an 5 -3
/8 -01 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors o
construction and modification activities including: licensee actions on previous inspection findings, 50.55(e} items and IE Bulletins and Circulars; control room pressurization system installation instructions, work obser-vation and quality record r'eview; modification of pressurizer water level/
pressure safety injection actuation; and review of minor variation reports.
The inspection involved 48 inspector-hours on-site by two NRC inspectors and one supervisor.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
RV Form 219 (2)
soogs80
DETAILS l.
Individuals Contacted a.
Pacific Gas and Electric Com an PG8E)
J.
B. Hoch, Project Engineer
- R. D. Etzler, Project Superintendent D. A. Rockwell, Resident Electrical Engineer
%.
E. Leppke, Resident Mechanical Engineer
- F. M. Russell, Resident Civil Engineer S.
E. Traisman, Mechanical Engineer M. R. Tressler, Project Control Engineer F. Germano, Civil Engineer R. A. Kelmenson, Engineer A. llalther, Lead Piping Engineer
- J. Arnold, Coordinating gA Engineer
- C. M. Seward, gA Engineer b.
H. P.
Foie Co.
Foie
)
C.
d.
V. Tenneyson, gA Manager'.
Stephan, gC Inspector Pullman Power Products Kello
)
D. Geske, gA Manager Others T. Young, NRC Resident Inspector
~Attended exit interview on February 14, 1980.
2.
Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Enforcement Items
'a ~
(Closed 323 78-12-01 Infraction: Failure to se arate mutuall re undant circuits in contro room ane s in a manner re uired
~hA The licensee was in the process of completing the necessary cir-cuit separation and inspection activities on Unit 2.
The inspector visually examined the Unit 2 main control boards (nos.
2VB1, 2, 3 and 4) and examined the licensee's inspection documentation.
Redundant circuit separations had been accomplished as required by engineering directives.
The inspector had no fur-ther question b.
(Closed (275 79-06-02 and 323 79-04-02 Infraction:
Failure to trans ate racewa su ort. desi n bases into instructions, roce-dures and drawin s.
See also IE Ins ection Re orts 50-2 5 79-13, 9-1 an 9-2 The inspector visually examined approximately 210 raceway supports installed in various areas of Units 1 and 2 for compliance with procedures and support details and examined selected documenta-tion of the Unit 2 raceway inspection program.
The documentation appeared to adequately reflect installed conditions and the li-censee's program appeared adequate to assure proper raceway support installation.
The inspector observed safety related conduit of differing vital-ities penetrating concrete block walls, at elevation 104 in the, Unit 1 and 2 turbine building areas, which had been installed to effect five protection modifications.
Discussions with respon-sible engineering personnel at the corporate office established that the walls had been designed and installed to meet necessary seismic requirements and examination of electrical drawings deter-mined that the licensee had established that none of the penetra-ting conduits observed were required for safe shutdown of the plants.
The inspector had no further questions.
~
~
~
~
~
~
3.
Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Followu Items (Closed)(79-19-02 Fol.lowu Item:
Pressurizer level and ressure sen-sin ine heat shie in The licensee had recently issued design change order no.
DCO-E-N-504 to accomplish the rerouting and insulation of one of the three chann-els of pressurizer level/pressure (LT-459) sensing lines through the crane wall.
The modification utilizes the heat shielding provided by the pressurizer which is placed between the reactor coolant pump fire source and the crane wall penetration.
The modification specified would protect one of the three protection channels to assure ability to monitor level in the event of a lube oil fire around the reactor coolant pump in proximity to the pressurizer.
The licensee stated that drain pans were installed around the pump to drain oil leakage to a drain tank outside of the crane wall; a smoke detector was installed in the vicinity which alarms in the control room and a sprinkler sys-tem was provided in the vicinity.
The inspector had no further question.
Licensee Action on 50.55(e Items (0 en (79-13-01 Crackin in heav ru ture restraint weldments See a so IE Ins ection Re orts
-
-13, 9-1 9-an The inspector examined a sample of process sheets documenting the activ-ities of nondestructive examination, grinding and/or thermal cutting and repair of Unit 1 rupture restraint weldments and visually examined in process and completed repairs in the Unit 1 GE/GH area.
The accept-ance criteria utilized included licensee procedures and AHS Dl.l (Struc-tural Helding Code).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The licensee noted that the final report required by 10CFR 50.55(e)
was in preparation and was tentatively scheduled for completion about April, 1980.
5.
Licensee Action on IE Bulletins and Circulars a.
(0 en Bulletin 79-14 See also IE Ins ection Re ort 50-275 79-23):
The licensee submitted a response to Item 1 of the subject Bulletin by letter dated October 17, 1979 and coranitted to a response to Items 2 and 3 for Unit 1.
The licensee was preparing the required response.
Discussions with responsible licensee engineering personnel in-dicated that design isometric drawings used in analysis for large bore and computer.analyzed small bore piping had been compared with field prepared "as-built" isometric drawings.
Deficiencies identified were being resolved by reinspection and/or reanalysis.
The inspector examined the licensee's system for the resolution of discrepancies identified by the above comparisons and observed that the system appeared adequate to both identify and resolve discrepancies.
The licensee anticipated that engineering work and field work necessary would be completed about May, 1980.
Actions required by the Bulletin for Unit 2 had not begun and will be addressed in future licensee submittal b.
C.
d.
e.
(Closed)Bulletin 79-07 The licensee submitted a response to the subject Bulletin by letter dated June 12, 1979.
This letter documents that the seismic analy-sis methodologies of concern were not utilized by the licensee and that the seismic analysis computer codes have been verified against benchmark problems.
(Closed Bulletin 79-11 The licensee submitted a response to the subject Bulletin by letter dated July 18, 1979 which concluded that the subject circuit break-ers are not used or planned for use in safety related class IE systems at Diablo Canyon.
(Closed Bulletin 79-21 The licensee's response dated January 22, 1980 presents the mater-ial required by the Bulletin regarding level measurement errors due to environmental temperature effects.
Licensee personnel stated that emergency procedures would be updated by April 1980 to reflect these possible errors.
(Closed for Unit No.
Bulletin 79-23 The licensee's response dated November 8, 1979 responds to the Bulletin's request for information for Unit No. 1.
The inspec-tor discussed the material in the licensee's response with engineer-ing personnel and,.examined the diesel generator regulator schematics.
No items of non-compliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Control Room Pressurization S stem The licensee was engaged in the installation of a seismically quali-fied, quality class 1 system to assure the maintenance of a positive control room pressure.
'a ~
Review of ualit Im lementin Instructions The inspector examined the following documents, which specified the design and installation of the control room pressurization system, for compliance with the gA program and implementing pro-cedures.
~
~
~
1)
Design Change Order DCO-EE-446 2)
Field Change Orders Nos.
371, 398 and 401 (3)
Drawing Nos. 433130-1; DC-663278-474 through 480 (ductwork isometrics and electrical single line diagram)
(4)
Support drawings 663278-459 through 462 and support fabri-cation work request no. M226.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ~
.
Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector observed the following in-process or completed work activities for compliance with drawing requirements and Foley quality control and installation procedures, the ASME code and AHS Dl.l requirements, as applicable.
(1)
In-process welding on one schedule 10 pipe butt weld.
2)
Completed welds on 10 schedule 10 pipe butt welds.
3)
Completed welds on 4 schedule 10 pipe to flange welds.
Completed welds and support installation for 4 duct pipe suppor ts.
(5)
In-process anchor bolt installation for one duct pipe support.
(6)
Electrical conduit installation for conduits K6842 and KA110.
(7)
Electrical conduit support installation for about 20 supports, including loading criteria compliance.
(8)
Fan and motor storage conditions.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Review of ualit Related Documents The following quality related documentation was examined for com-pliance with Foley quality control procedures, the ASME code and AWS Dl.l, as applicable.
(1)
Support inspection reports for 8 randomly selected conduit supports.
(2)
Welding inspection documentation for the 14 completed -pipe and pipe to flange welds identified above.
(3)
Support installation and welding inspection documentation for four duct supports.
(4)
Welding procedure specifications C5A-10R.2 and M002S-1 and the required Procedure qualification Records.
(5)
Welder qualification documentation for five welders.
(6)
Manager's Release for fan installation.
(7 Certificate of Compliance for ductwork galvanizing.
(8)
Ductwork receipt inspection documentation.
Field Change Request No. 371 requires that the ductwork materials manufacturer furnish a certificate of conformance with typical chemical and physical certifications.
The inspector observed that the required certification either was not on-site or furnished by the manufacturer.
The licensee immediately wrote a minor var-iation report identifying the observation to assure adequate correct-ive action.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Removal of Coincident Pressurizer Low Water Level and Low Pressure Instsatson o
Safet In ection The licensee had recently completed modifications to remove the safety injection coincidence requirements for pressurizer low water level and low pressure in Units 1 and 2.
The following documents detailing and approving the modifications spec-ified by Westinghouse were examined:
PGSE Design Change Orders DCO-E-E-439 and E-M-381; Westinghouse Engineering Change Notices 10668, 10686, 10687 and licensee circuit drawings.
The inspector sampled the above specified modifications and examined the Units 1 and 2 con-trol boards and protection sets for accomplishment of those specified modifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Hinor Variation Re ort Review The inspector sampled and examined about 10 minor variation reports from each of the mechanical and electrical discipline files.
The discrepancies appeared to have been adequately identified and resolved as required by quality assurance procedures.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with on-site licensee representatives on February 14, 1980 and summarized the inspection scope and findings.
That por-tion of the inspection,:conducted at the corporate office was sunmar-ized on February 20, 1980 with t1r.
R. E.'Kelmenson.