IR 05000275/1982001
| ML20049J937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1982 |
| From: | Bishop T, Burdoin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049J929 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-82-01, 50-275-82-1, 50-323-82-01, 50-323-82-1, NUDOCS 8203290235 | |
| Download: ML20049J937 (8) | |
Text
____-_ -_-___ - - _ _ _____ _ -
.
.
e e
o
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
50-275/82-01 Report No.
50-323/82-01 Docket No. 50-275, 50-323 License No.
CPPR-39, CPPR-69, Safeguards Group Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County, California & Corp. Offices i
Inspection conducted:
January 4-8, and 13, 1982
!
'
2.-//,-72-Inspector:
e F F. Bifrdoin, Reactor Inspector Date Signed r
i a tfO 2[9 /8'l Approved by:
1. %
T. W. Bishop, Chief, Projects Section 1 Date Signed Reactor Construction Projects Branch Summary:
Inspection during the period of January 4-8, and 13,1982 (Report Nos.
50-275/82-01 and 50-323/82-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by regional based inspector of construction and modification activities including:
a site tour, licensee actions on a 50.55(e) item, and investigation of allegations: (1) improper use and handling of " Class 1" steel plate and (2) no impartiality / audit in re-verification of electrical raceway supports.
The inspection involved 36 inspection hours by one inspector.
Results: One item of noncompliance was identified. The licensee failed to provide quality engineering coverage during the electrical raceway support verification program (paragraph 4.b).
gg%h
k O
"
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _
_
___J
-
-
.
.,
Appendix A-2-MAR I 1332
.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Paci#ic Gas and Electric Company is hereby required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further itens of noncompliance:
and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may
'
be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
f.1Ah 1 1932
.
b> i f
bI N dated J. F. Bundoin, Reictor Inspector Reactor tonstruction Projects Section 1
-
- .
r
\\
N
_ - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
.
..
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
,
a.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
J. B. Hoch, Nuclear Projects Engineer
- R. D. Etzler, Project Superintendent D. A. Rockwell, Resident Electrical Engineer
- J. A. Ammon, Resident Mechanical Engineer C. L. Braff, Piping Hanger Group Supervisor
- J. J. Nystrom, QC Engineer
- V. A. Smart, Electrical Inspector
- I. L. MacDonald, Electrical Group Supervisor R. V. Bettinger, Chief Civil Engineer G. C. Lenfestey, Supervising Civil Engineer I. Sokoloff, Senior Civil Engineer E. R. Kahler, Senior Quality Engineer Various other engineering and QC personnel, b.
H. P. Foley' Company (Foley)
A. E. Moses, Project Manager V. H. Tennyson, QC Manager J. L. Thompson, QA Engineering Group Supervisor B. J. Anderson, QC Engineer J. W. Strait, QC Supervisor L. C. Fryckman, QC Inspector J. L. Nighswanger, QC Inspector D. C. High, QC Inspector R. A. Simas, QC Inspector c.
Pullman Power Products Corporation H. W. Karner, QA/QC Manager
- Denotes attendees at exit meeting on January 8,1982.
NRC Resident Inspectors Messrs. J. D. Carlson and M. M. Mendonca attended exit meeting.
2.
Plant Tour A site tour of Unit 2 auxiliary building was made.
In the charging pump area at elevation 73, two pipe hangers were inspected:
(1) hanger
.
u.-
.
..
'
.
.
-2-23-73R in System 8, the suction piping to the positive displacement (charging) pump 2-3, is a re::ently completed hanger, having been accepted by QC on September 4, 1981; and (2) hanger 23-80R in system 8 (piping associated with charging pump 2-2) is' incomplete.
,
The installation packages for these two hangers when examined in the Pullman Power Products offices for accuracy and completeness, reflected the correct status of the hangers.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified. ~
3.
Licensee Action on 50.55(e) Items a.
(Closed) Modifications to Unit 1 Containment Spray Pioing Hangers The three incomplete hangers identified in inspection report 50-275/81-26 dated November 16, 1981 have been completed.
The licensee submitted a final 50.55(e) report, dated December 22, 1981, regarding the re-evaluation of the hangers for Unit I containment spray piping.
In all, fourteen har.gers required modificatinns.
All but three of these hangers were reported in inspection report 50-275/81-26. The inspection packages for the modifications to these three hangers (hanger 176-36A, elev. 256'; hanger 176-89A, elev. 256'; and hanger 176-113G, elev. 190') were examined for completeness and accuracy.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. This item is closed.
4.
A!1egations of Improper Quality Assurance Practices by the Licensee's General Construction and Civil Engineering Departments Two allegations filed in December 1981 were investigated during the January 4-8, 1982 inspection.
a.
Allegation:
Use of Class 1 Steel Plates as Temporary Covers for Road Evacuations On December 1, 1981, a local newspaper r. porter telephoned the Resident Inspector to report a concern ir./olving use of " Class 1" steel plate as temporary road construction covers. This situation was reviewed with licensee representatives where it was determined that the problem had been previously identified and adequate corrective measures were in progress.
On December 3, 1981, the newspaper reporter called again stating that the plates were to be moved to a certain contractor's storage area (Pullman area No.1) but that licensee representatives changed the location because storage area No.10 did not meet regulatory requirements (pipes uncapped, etc. ).
Findings: The allegations were substantiated in part.
Licensee's road crews who maintain the roads at the Diablo Site and who are not acquainted with the rigid requirements
.
_
--
.
.
..
-
.
-3-and controls for handling nuclear materials went into the H. P. Foley and Pullman Power Products Company's Class 1 storage areas and removed six steel plates to use them to bridge two excavations in the roadways. Upon learning of the situation, the licensee's contractors filed nonconfonnance/
discrepancy reports for the six steel plates and declassified
.
the plater.
Foley's nonconformance report 5422-59 describing l
the disposition of two plates and Pullman's discrepancy report 4436 describing the disposition of four plates were examined.
The plates were also inspected in the field.
Two of tht. plates had been removed from the road and store.i in the road crew's storage area.
In the declassification process, the identifications or, the plates have been obliterated from the plates with a grinding wheel. As declassified plates, these steel plates are no longer required to be stored in Class I storage areas.
To prevent recurrence of a similar event, the road crews have been reinstructed and restricted from entering the Class 1 material storage areas.
Two Foley and three Pullman Class 1 material storage areas were inspected and the licensee's, Foley's, and Pullman's applicable quality control procedures for storage of Class 1 materials were reviewed. The Pullman storage areas had recently been relocated to make way for a new storage building (spare turbine rotors). All the storage areas inspected satisfied the requirements of the quality control procedures.
This allegation is closed.
b.
Allegations:
Regarding Inadequate QC Audits During Verification of Electrical Raceway Supports On December 14, 1981, the NRC Resident Inspector was contacted by an individual who alleged there was a breakdown of Foley's quality control program in the verification of electrical raceway supports for Unit 1 and the handling of discrepancies identified during the process of taking field measurements.
'
It was further alleged that the licensee's electrical contractor (Foley) who was doing the work was not seriously interested in identifying discrepancies, but was more concerned with getting
'
the field measurements as expeditiously as possible. Another allegation filed by the same individual, which has not beer, fully investigated, will be reported in a subsequent report.
Findings:
The allegations were partially substantiated.
About November 9,1981, the licensee's Civil Engineering Department requested that general construction verify selected
.
_
_
-.
.
.
..
~
_
,
..
,
.
-4-Class 1 electrical raceways supports (hangers) by going into the field and taking measurements for maximum span, horizontal and vertical dimensions of struts for seismic bracing, and requires identification of the size / tyre of conduit (rigid pipe vs. EMT).
This information when forwarded to the Engineering Department will be used to update the drawings and records of the race day supports to become permanent "as built" records of these systems.
As of this date, there were some forty one packages (each package contains records on several types of supports) in various stages of completion, in preparation for transmittal to the Civil Engineering Department.
The following applicable documents, which establish the procedures for control and approval for the field verification of electrical raceway supports, were examined.
(1) Licensee's QA Procedure GCP-5.1 Rev. 0, Approval and Control of Field procedures (2) Licensee's Electrical Raceway Support Field Verification Instruction (3) Foley's Support Reverification program Inforniation Sheet The procedure and instructions were adequate and sufficiently thorough in detail to insure compliance with NRC requirements.
A data sheet, Attachment A to the licensee's instruction, is used to record the field measurements, list the date verification was made and signature of person making the verification.
A
" remarks" portion of the data sheet was provided to identify any unusual conditions with recard to the support. The contractor's "Information Sheet" directed the workers to
" indicate by writing or sketch any unusual conditions, i.e.,
(no tag number), S-6 brace missing, welded to plate, etc."
,
l The licensee's " Electrical Raceway Support Field Verification Instruction" identified the Engineering Quality Control
'
Department as the responsible organization for quality control for the program.
During the course of the investigation of this allegation, the NRC inspectors were made aware of a 1978 handwritten memorandum addressing the conduct of PGE ma' enance personnel when they deal with NRC inspectors. The men)orandum was written by the maintenance suparvisor to his staff and may not reflect a completely free policy of communication.
Discussions with the author of the memorandum indicated that the document was written following a situation in 1978 when a PG&E employee informed a passing NRC inspector of a problem but did not
.
d
+
f
,
-__
_ - - _ _.. - - - -. - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ _ - - - _
.
..
,
. -
I
~
-5-inform PG&E of the same problem.
Subsequent to the investigation, licensee representatives issued a memorandum to Plant Operating Personnel (dated February 5,1982), clarifying the policy of communications with NRC representatives.
This memorandum was
~
reviewed and appears to provide adequate guidance in this area.
During the investigation of these allegations during the week of January 4-8, 1982 at the Diablo plant and at the licensee's general offices on Wednesday January 13, 1982, it was detemined that the Engineering Quality Control Department was not aware of their responsibility for quality control of the field verification program until our phone call with them on Wednesday, January 6, 1982. The Civil Engineering Department failed to notify the Quality Control Department when the electrical raceway support verification program was initiated.
There does not appear to be a prescribed procedure to insure that quality control is notified whenever their services are required.
The failure to notify Engineering Quality. Control of their responsibility in the electrical raceway support verification program is an apparent item of noncompliance.
(275/82-01-01)
5.
Item of Concern On December 14, 1981, an employee at the Diablo site discussed a concern with the resident inspector.
!ie stated he was not filing an allegation, but wished to understand the difference between the two methods of attaching pipe supports to the containment liners in Unit I containment and Unit 2 containment.
Findings:
This concern grew out of the 50.55(e) item discussed in paragraph 3 of this report.
Originally, the containment spray pipe supports (hangers) in both units were welded directly to the steel liners of the containments.
Following the reanalysis of the supports, modifications to the pipe hangers were made to allow heavier loads to be transmitted to the concrete containment. The method to accomplish this was to drill through the containment steel liner and into the concrete containment and install a 3/4" shell type anchor.
A stud screwed into the anchor and back welded at the liner secures the pipe hanger to the containment. This method was used on only two hangers (73-39SL and 20-89R) in Unit 2 containment. Another method of securing the pipe hangers to the concrete containment was used in Unit 1 containment. This method entails locating the existing steel lirer concrete " Jay" bolt j
anchors by ultra-sonic techniques and welding the 3/4" pipe hanger I
t securing studs to the liner directly over the " Jay" bolt anchors.
This later method for securing containment spray pipe hangers to the containment was used in both Units 1 and 2.
This explains the above identified concern.
_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_-
_
._
. _ _ _.
_.
._
______ _______ _ - _______ _________ _
__
-.
_
...a
-
.
.
l-6-
I 6.
Management Interview A meeting was held with the licensee representatives (identified in Section 1) on January 8,1982.
The scope of the inspection and a summary of the findings, as noted in this report, were discussed.
The licensee acknowledged the apparent item of noncompliance discussed in paragraph 4.b above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _