IR 05000275/1984008
| ML17083B419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1984 |
| From: | Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341A165 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8408020131 | |
| Download: ML17083B419 (22) | |
Text
'
Ii gall AEO(((OJ
+
4t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
7$ $ ROOSCVCLT ROAO OLCN CLLVNo ILLINOIS COI ST Attachment to GAP ImI314.81.14 Reference:
U.S.
NRC, Region V, Report No. 050-275/
84-08 Date:
July 23, 1984 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering, Nuclear Reactor Regul at'ion FROM:
SUBJECT:
I. T. Yin, Senioi Mechanical Engineer, Division of Reactor Safety, Region III DIABLO CANYON 1 REPORT Please find attached Region V Reoort No. 050-275/84-08,
"Oiabl.o Canyon
Investigation/Inspection Report", dated July 23, 1984.
This concludes my assignment under the NRR directory.
I. T. Yin Senior Mechanical Eng-sneer
.
Division of Reacto" Safety Region III cc w/att:
James G. Keppler J.
B. Martin
Attachment to GAP ¹314.01.14 Reference:
U.S.
NRC, Region V, Report No.
050-275/84-08 Dated:
July 23, 1984
"Piping Analysis", dated April 8, 1983.
Page 2 of 3
"Pipe Support Verification Task", d'ated October 4,
. 1983.
"Piping Analysis", dated November 25, 1983.
The inspector concluded that the audits and associated reviews conducted by Imprell were adequate and acceptable.
b.
~Cqna (1)
gA program type audits included:
Audit No. 83-1, "Report of Audit of the San Francisco Office", conducted by Cygna, Boston office gA on January 17-21, 1983.
Paragraph V
contains areas related to OCNPP.
Inspection/Surveillance Reports No.
1 to No. 17, conducted between September 21, 1982 and November 23, 1984.
(2)
Internal technical program audits have not been performed by Cygna.
Cygna management stated:
(1) contractually, the technical audits are to be performed by Bechtel, 114
Attachment to GAP 0'314.01.14 Reference:
U.S.
NRC, Region V, Report Ho.
050-275/84-08 Dated:
July 23, 1984
.
Page 3 of 3 (2) there had been a total of 142 informal "Design Verification Reports" prepared for various types of supports, and (3) piping stress computer runs were checked against the printout configuration plots.
The isometric drawings that were plotted were discarded after use.
The inspector concluded that the Cygna gA program type audits were acceptable, but the adequacy of technical review for design analysis calculation was questionable.
(2)
gA program type audits included:
Audit Report IA-83-03, "Design Control-Structural and Equipment Engineering",
dated August 5, 1983.
The audit areas involving OCNPP were contained in Paragraph 4. 0 which indicated a review of as-built piping analysis packages of Safety Injection System (SIS)
and Pressurizer Surge System (PSS)
had been per-formed.
The report found that there was a lack of a formal interface system.
The audit concluded that the matter was insignificant because the NSSS contract had been completed.
115
GAP'llegation 831 4.01.15 It is alleged that:
Ouality assurance auditing activities at off-site consultant(s)
were inadequate, because they failed to check for the full extent of prior errors that could be represented by specific findings.
(2/6/85 Anon. Aff. at 5.)
The area of quality assurance auditing activities applicable to Impell and Cygna was previously reviewed in depth by the NRC Staff and was found to be acceptable (Reference:
"U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V, Report No. 050-275/84-08, Diablo Canyon 1 - Investigation/Inspection Report," at pages 112-115, attached).
The review included audits performed by 8echtel, Cygna, and Impell that were applicable to Diablo Canyon.
0308S/0034K
Imprell Imprell
, Attachment Reference:
Oated:
1-112 1-116 SI-1-2 MS4 to GAP 8314.01.15 U.S.
NRC, Region V, Report No.
050-275/84-08 July 23, 1984 Page 1 of 4 10/13/82 11/10/82 See Note See Note Note:
IOM to File No. 146.10, dated 9/30/83, documenting OCP review of 12 piping analyses performed by W.
Some findings were identified by OCP.
The nature of the findings was not readily available for review.
b.
Oesign procedures and instructions utilized by Imprell, Cygna, and W had not been reviewed and approved by the PG8E and Bechtel engineering and gA departments.
c.
The PG8E gA program audit of W, No. 20506,
"Seismic Re-Verification", conducted on May 25-28, 1982, included a
review of piping analysis and pipe support calculation to ensure implementation of procedural requirements.
d.
PG5E did not perform gA program type audits of W in 1983, when most of the CAP analytical work was carried out.
e.
The inspector review the following Bechtel gA program type audits of Imprell and Cygna, and considered them to be adequat Attachment to GAP f314.01.15 Reference:
U.S.
NRC, Region V, Report No.
050-275/84-08 Dated:
July 23, 1984 Page 2 of 4 Bechtel gA Audit OE-332, audit of Impress's implementation of the gA program for OCNPP, conducted on June 20-21, 1983.
Bechtel gA Audit OE-331, audit of Cygna's implementation of the QA program for DCNPP, conducted on June 7, 1983.
7.
Review of Contractor En ineerin Com an Internal Audits a.
~Im re11 (1)
gA program type audits included:
Audit No. A04-1030,
"OCPs" conducted on October 5-14, 1982.
Audit No. A-83WR-13, "DCPs", conduc ed on May 31 through July 5, 1983.
(2)
The technical audits included the following Engineering Division "Design Review Reports":
"Pipe Support Design Project Instructions and Design Drawings and Calculations",
dated October 15, 1982.
"Pipe Support Design and gualification," dated March 8, 1983
'13
.
e'
<
~
Attachment to GAP 8314.01.15 Reference:
U.S.
NRC, Region V, Report No.
050-275/84-08 Dated:
July 23, 1984 Page 3 of 4 l
"Piping Analysis", dated April 8, 1983.
"Pipe Support Verification Task", dated October 4,
.1983.
"Piping Analysis", dated November 25, 1983.
The inspector concluded that the audits and associated reviews conducted by Imprell were adequate and acceptable.
b.
~Cqna (1)
gA program type audits included:
Audit No. 83-1, "Report of Audit of the San Francisco Office", conducted by Cygna, Boston office gA on January 17-21, 1983.
Paragraph V
contains areas related to DCNPP.
Inspection/Surveillance Reports No.
1 to No. 17, conducted between September 21, 1982 and November 23, 1984.
(2)
Internal technical program audits have not been performed by Cygna.
Cygna management stated:
(1) contractually, the technical audits are to be performed by Bechtel,
0 ~
Attachment to GAP ¹314.01.15 Reference:
U.S.
NRC, Region V, Report No.
050-275/84-08 Dated:
July 23, 1984 Page 4 of 4 (2) there had been a total of 142 informal "Design Verification Reports" prepared for various types of supports, and (3) piping stress computer runs were checked against the printout configuration plots.
The isometric drawings that were plotted were discarded after use.
The inspector concluded that the Cygna QA program type audits were acceptable, but the adequacy of technical review for design analysis calculation was questionable.
lllh (2)
gA program type audits included:
Audit Report IA-83-03, "Design Control-Structural and Equipment Engineering",
dated August 5, 1983.
The audit areas involving OCNPP were contained in Paragraph 4.0 which indicated a review of as-built piping analysis packages of Safety Injection System (SIS)
and Pressurizer Surge System (PSS)
had been per-formed.
The report found that there was a lack of a formal interface system.
The audit.
concluded that the matter was insignificant because the NSSS contract had been completed.
115
GAP Allegation 8314.02.01 It is alleged that:
After breaking our confidentiality agreement, the NRC made this sacrifice all for nothing by accepting an irrelevant excuse by PGandE to remove me from the plant tour be ore
[sic] it started; at the time, I had not filed any written allegations.
(1/22/85 Haffey Aff. at 2.)
The NRC Staff was solely responsible for the selection of individuals who participated in the plant tour.
PGandE was neither informed nor aware of the individuals who were to, or in fact did, accompany the NRC on the tour.
0308S/0034K
'- 20-
GAP Allegation $314.02.02 It is alleged that:
If the NRC had permitted me to attend the plant tour, I could have pointed them to examples. of over sized bolt holes on safety-related systems, covered only by washers and not by fishplates as required by code.
(1/22/85 Haffey Aff. at 2.)
The general issues raised by the allegation were previously addressed in DCL-84-162 (April 27, 1984),
DCL-84-220 (June 8, 1984),
and DCL-84-243 (June 29, 1984).
Concerning the use of washers on pipe supports, DCL-84-220 at Enclosure, p.2 (attached)
stated:
Oversize holes in pipe support fabrication and installation oF pipe supine<>ri base plates have been observed during plant construction.
These situations were corrected by use oF washers where no shear load was present or, by install'ation of cover plates.
The use of washers was discontinued after 1975 and all installations were done using only fish plates.
The use of washers and cover plates restored the oversize conditions to the standards specified in the design documents.
Concerning the use of washers on rupture restraints, the enclosure to DCL-84-162 (attached)
stated:
The structural steel design specification called for in fSAR Section 3.8.1 and Diablo Canyon Specification 8833X in effect at the time of installation is the first printing of the 7th edition of the AISC manual of steel construction 0308S/0034K
- 21
adopted February 17, 1969.
The bolt specification included in the 7th edition was adopted by the committee in 1966 with no special requirements included for slotted holes.
When the high strength bolt specification was revised in 1973 and adopted into the later printing of the AISC 7th edition, special provisions were established for use of slotted holes.
Provisions for plate washers were then specified to be used in conjunction with hardened washers with long slotted holes.
While washers have been used on, both pipe supports and rupture restraints, their use did not constitute a violation of either code requirements or site procedures in effect at the time of their installation.
0308S/0034K 22