IR 05000361/1979003
| ML13309A676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1979 |
| From: | Eckhardt J, Haynes R, Vorderbrueggen NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A674 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-03, 50-361-79-3, 50-362-79-03, 50-362-79-3, NUDOCS 7903190104 | |
| Download: ML13309A676 (6) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-361/79-03 Report N /79-03 50-361 CPPR-97 Docket N License N 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 Conduct d: January 23-26, 1979
Inspectors:
J H. Eckhardt, Reactor Inspector Date Signed E. Vorderbrueggen, Ra or Inspector
/atib Signed Approved By:
Date Signed R.. C. Hary-eftfDf, Projects Section, ReactorSigned Construction and Engineering Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on January 23-26, 1979 (Report Nos. 50-361/.79-03 and 50-362/79-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of construction activities including: containment post tensioning system, safety related components (refueling water and condensate storage tanks), an auxiliary intake cooling system. The inspection involved 50 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspector Results:
Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie o
.
IE:V Form 219 (2)
DETAILS 1. Individuals Contacted a. Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
- H. B. Ray, Manager, Quality Assurance
- L. D. Hamlin, Project Manager
- L. L. Seyler, Project QA Supervisor P. A. Croy, Site QA/QC Supervisor
- D. B. Schone, Lead Engineering Site Representative
- P. R. King, QA Engineer W. L. Rossfeld, QA Engineer M. Rodin, QA Engineer T. D. Garven, QA Engineer S. S. Dziewit, QA Engineer D. C. Pile, Associate Construction Engineer b. Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- J. E. Geiger, Project Field QA Supervisor
- C. A. Blum, QC Supervisor
- R. Caldwell, Project QA Supervisor
- R. W. Welcher, Project QA Engineer
- W. D. Nichols, Assistant Project Field Engineer c. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- R. J. Pate, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending exit intervie. Containment Post Tensioning Post tensioning of the Unit 2 containment was complete. Quality records associated with the following Unit 2 horizontal tendons were reviewed and compared to requirements of Quality Control Instruction No. 114, "Post Tensioning System Installation":
hori zontal tendon 2-1, 3; 2-3, 2; 18-3, 2; 55-2, 1; and 110-1, 3. The records included installation, tensioning, and greasing operation No deviations or items of noncompliance were identifie. Safet Related Components (Refueling Water and Condensate Storage Tanks)
The NRC -inspector examined Unit 2 tanks erected by Brown Minneapolis Tank Company (BMT) and compared the completed work to requirements
of Quality Control Instruction (WPP/QCI-217), Specification for Re fueling Water and Condensate Storage Tanks (Spec. No. S023-407-13),
and applicable drawings. The Seismic Class I tanks included a Con densate Storage Tank (ASME Class 3) and two Refueling Water Tanks (ASME Class 2).
In addition, the NRC inspector reviewed the following SCE reDorts related to BMT work:
a. Audit Report BPCS-52-78 (9/5, 22 and 10/10/78)
b. Field Surveillance Report M-102-78 (6/7/78)
c. Field Surveillance Report M-212-78 (10/27/78)
d. Field Surveillance Report M-217-78 (11/3/78)
e. Field Surveillance Report M-244-78 (12/5/78)
f. Field Surveillance Report M-251-78 (12/12/78)
Also, Nonconformance Reports M-261, 262, and 265 were reviewed and indicated that ASME Code welding requirements had been violated in certain cases. Although the resolution of the nonconformances was appropriate, the nature of the nonconformances was discussed with the licensee and the need for close attention regarding Unit 3 tank erection was emphasize Quality records associated with the Unit 2 tank work had been temporarily removed from the site by BMT in order to review an assemble the records prior to turnover to Bechte The problems associated with not maintaining the records onsite for review were discussed with the SCE Quality Assurance Manager. The re cords will be reviewed by the NRC inspector during a subsequent inspection after they are turned over to Bechtel. (50-361/79-03-01)
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified during the examination of BMT wor. Offshore Circulating Water System a. General A separate offshore intake and diffuser outfall system is provided for supplying cooling water to each unit. The four underwater conduits are made up of essentially identical rein
forced concrete segments 20-feet in length, 18-feet inside
-3 diameter, 1-foot wall thickness, and 131 tons overall weigh Each conduit is placed in a separate trench in t.e ocean floor and covered with a 4-foot minimum rock backfill blanket to. a level slightly below the originally undisturbDed ocean floor. Each main intake is located approxirmiately 3,350 feet from the plant sea-wall and each discharge conduit extends approximately 8,450 feet from the sea-wal The /E for the system is the licensee, and Guy F. Atkinson C (GFA is the constructor. The conduit segments are fabricate by Ameron, Inc. at the site laydown area, and a specially built trans port vehicle is used to transport them to the seafront installation trestle. GFA has engaged Ocean SystemTs C for diving service to control underwater placement of the segments and the backfill operation. The licensee has con tracted Parker Diving Service Co. to perform their under water QA/QC surveillance; all other work surveillance is performed by the license b. Current Status The intake for Unit 2 was completed in July 197 This includes the auxiliary intake structure that is mounted on the main intake conduit approximately 100 feet shreward from the main intake structure. As of January 26, 1979, the status of the other conduits was as follows:
Unit 2 discharge complete out to 6,740 feet from sea-wal Unit 3 discharge complete out to 1,110 feet from sea-wall Unit 3 intake complete out to 423 feet fr--m sea-wa c. QA Program The ultimate heat sink for each unit is based upon a minimum flow of 4% through the intake conduit to.the auxiliary salt water pumps which supply the component cooling water heat ex changers. For this purpose, each intake conduit is provided with an auxiliary intake structure. This auxiliary feature was incorporated pursuant to licensee discussions with NRR subsequent to the submittal of the FSAR, and was described in FSAR Amendment 12, dated November 1978. Consequently, the license upgraded from Quality Class 3 to Class 2 that portion of each in take system out to and including the auxiliary intake structur This upgrading required the development of a GA program for all remaining work on that portion of each intake syster The QA program is entitled Integrated Manufacturing an' Quality Plan (IMQP) and was issued for use on 4/18/78. Additionally, the
-4 licensee attempted to backfit the program to the maximum extent possible in regard to collecting relevant quality records an procedures pertinent to work already completed on Unit 2 intak The inspector reviewed the licensee's IMQP. It is directed principally to the fabrication of the auxiliary intake structure conduit segment, the riser sections and velocity cap which make up the structure, and the installation of those components, con necting conduit segments and backfill materials. It provides for material and special process control, inspection hold and witness point requirements, and test control The inspector concluded that the IMQP was adequat Observation of Work At the time of the inspection, the only installation work in progress was on the Unit 3 discharge condui Since the pro cedures and technical requirements are identical for both conduits, the inspector observed a portion of the installation of a discharge conduit segment. This included the placement and lubrication of the continuous 0-ring sealing gasket, handl ing and trestle transport of the segment, low,ering of the segment into position in the ocean trench, and monitoring the conversation between the diver and crane operator as the seg ment was being aligned with and joined to its mating segmen The inspector also examined the conduit segment that was to carry the Unit 3 auxiliary intake riser structure. It had been placed in storage on the waterfront awaiting assemnbly of the buttress supports on the bottom and the riser block on to The segment contained no concrete spalls, cracks or exposed reinforcing and displayed good workmanship. All work appeared to conform to the requirement e. Quality Records Review The inspector examined representative records pertaining to the fabrication and installation of the Unit 2 auxiliary in take structure. Included were the following documents:
-
Auxiliary Intake Structure Technical Specification
-
Procedure for Underwater Repair of Concrete Surface Spalling
-
Procedure for Underwater Repair of Concrete Cracks of Surface Width
>10-Mils
-
Procedure for Preheat and Bending of ASTM 615 Grade 40 Reinforcing Rod
-
Procedure and Qualification Record for Butt Welding ASTM 615 Reinforcing Rod
-
Procedure and Qualification Record for Cross Member Tack Welding Design Review of 4,000 psi - 28 Day Concrete Mix Design
-
Test Laboratory Records of Mix Design Cylinder Tests
-
Design Review of Buttress Rebar Details
-
Design Review of Buttress Rigging Scheme
-
Design Review of Buttress Forming Scheme
-
Parker Diving Service Inspection Reports (approximately 25)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified by the inspecto The inspector also reviewed the licensee's report of Audit No. SCES-06-78 conducted in early December 1978 on the activities and records associated with the auxiliary intake structures. A formal plan was developed and used for the audit, and the audit report was timely and comprehensiv. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 26, 1979, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as stated in this report.