IR 05000361/1979017
| ML13309A734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1979 |
| From: | Dodds R, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A733 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-17, 50-362-79-17, NUDOCS 7908170114 | |
| Download: ML13309A734 (5) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-361/79-17 Report N /79-17 50-361 CPPR-97 Docket N License N CPPR-98 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Construction Site, San Diego, California Inspection conducted:
May 1 to June 1, 1979 Inspectors:r (
R. J. Pate, Reside Reactor Inspector D te Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
_
___/_/
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Engineering Support Section, Date Signed Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on May 1.to June 1, 1979 (Report Nos. 50-361/79-17 and 50-362/79-17)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by the resident inspector of construction activities including:
piping storage, fit-up, welding, grinding and location; reactor pressure vessel and internals installation and protection; licensee corrective actions on previous inspection findings; and general work in progress. The inspection involved 79 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results:
Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Alhk, RV Form 219 (2)
DETAILS
.
Individuals Contacted a. Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
P. A. Croy, Site Quality Assurance/Quality Control Supervisor 1R. Frick, Quality Assurance Engineer L. D. Hamlin, Project Manager 1,293,4R. R. Hart, Construction Superintendent 4J. Huey, Quality Assurance Engineer 1P. R. King, Quality Assurance Engineer 1,
2-3 4H. S. Leasure, Chief, Contract Construction Management D. E. Nunn, Manager, Quality Assurance J. J. Pantaleo, Quality Assurance Engineer 1,3F. Pimentel, Quality Assurance Enginee,2H. B. Ray, Project Management L. L. Seyler, Project Quality-Assurance Supervisor 1M. Rodin, Quality Assurance Engineer W. F. Rossfeld, Quality Assurance Engineer 1D. B. Schone, Lead Engineering Site Representative L. D. Tipton, Nuclear Engineering Site Representative W. M. Schwab, Project Construction Engineer b. Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
1,3J E. Bashore, Division Quality Assurance Manager
.C A. Blum, Quality Control Manager 1,2J. R. Caldwell, Project Quality Assurance Superviso R H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer 1,2,4 E. Geiger, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor 1W D. Nichols, Assistant Project Field Engineer 3,4S. S Ortega, Project Quality Assurance Engineer 4L. W. Hurst, Project Field Quality Assurance Supervisor A. L. Erickson, Project Field Quality Control Engineer In addition, construction craftsmen, engineers and foremen were contacted during the inspectio Denotes attendees at management meeting on May 11, 197 Denotes attendees at management meeting on May 18, 197 Denotes attendees at management meeting on May 25, 197 Denotes attendees at management meeting on May 25, 197 Denotes attendees at management meetina on June 1. 19.7. Construction Status The licensee reported that site construction work is 66% complete as of May 31, 1979. The licensee's project management personnel reported that Unit 2 was 71% complete and-Unit 3 was 59% complet. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings The inspector examined the action taken by the licensee on the following outstanding items:
a. (Closed) Followup Item (50-361/78-18/02): As reported in Report No. 50-361/79-05, there were several documents required for the Unit 2 north diesel generator that were illegibl Legible documents were subsequently received. The document package for north diesel generator was reviewed and found to be consistent with the required document submittals as listed in the Quality Verification Documentation List (QVDL).
b. (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-361/79-11/01: A followup inspection of the 50.55(e) report on undersized fillet welds on pipe supports was conducted and reported in Report No. 50-361/79-11. The inspector could-A not verify that all the affected pipe support drawings had been changed to meet the NF Subsection of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pre sure Vessel Cod SCE QA subsequently conducted an audit of the affected drawings and concluded that all of the drawings had been revised. The NRC inspector verified that the latest drawings of assemblers S3-CC-074-H-013 and S3-FW-189-H-013 met the weld size criteria of subsection N. Reactor Vessel and Internals Installation and Storaqe Site-activities for storage of the Unit 2 and 3 reactor pressure vessels and internals were observed. Both vessels are installed and installation of Unit 2 internals is essentially complete. Installation of Unit 3 internals is in progres The inspector observed the following operations:
a. Core barrel being placed into reactor vesse Step 6.6 of installation sequence 4, Revision b. Optical measurements of the barrel flange to determine the flange plane location in preparation for installing the core shrou c. Trial alignment of upper guide structur d. Core structure to core barrel alignment for flexure wel The operations were being performed in accordance with the installation procedur The following records were reviewed:
a. Installation procedures for Unit 3 reactor internals, sequences 1, 2 and b. Polar crane maintenance record c. Quality Control Engineer qualification record The installation procedures were in accordance with the requirements of the Combustion Engineering Installation Manual and referenced drawing The records for the polar crane used to install the reactor internals were being maintained in accordance with the requirements of WPP/QCI-305, Pre ventive Maintenance -and Inspection of Permanently.Installed Overhead Cranes used for Construction. However, the QC Engineer was not verifying that the records were completed following each inspection. The preventive main tenance inspections were made weekly and the QCE verified that the records were complete on a monthly basis. Bechtel QC management stated that the QCE would in the future verify that the checks were performed weekl Bechtel examined the records of other maintenance areas and could find no other inspections that were not being verified on the required frequenc SCE QA has issued a Corrective Action Request (CAR F-824) to assure proper corrective action is take The contractor was controlling access to the equipment and maintaining protective covers as required by the construction procedure No items.of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary and Safety Related Piping The piping related activities listed below were observed to ascertain compliance with applicable construction specifications and procedure Activity System Identification N Pipe Handling Safety Injection 3-SI-6373 Pipe Storage Chilled Water 2-CH-477-1C, Sh. 1 Grinding Feedwater S2-1305-ML-190 Pipe Welding Chem. & Vol. Control S2-1208-ML-008, Sh. 5 Pipe Welding Safety Injection S2-1204-ML-040, Sh. 1 Pipe Location Component Cool. Water S3-1203-ML-006 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Weld Rod Control The work activities were observed in Rod Rooms No. 3 and 4. The issuance of weld rod appeared to be in accordance with the construction procedure WPP/QCI 200 and Appendix 1 to WPP/QCI 20 The Filler Metal Issue Log was reviewed and compared with the WR-6 "Filler Metal Withdrawal" forms for Rod Room Number 3. In two instances, the Log did not agree with the WR-6. In neither case was the wrong filler material issued, but the records had to be corrected..The rod room attendent was a new employee and this was his first day to work alone. The training of the attendent was discussed with the attendent's supervisor. The back ground and experience of the attendent appeared to be adequate. The train ing required for Rod Room Attendents was not well defined. The attendent had two weeks of on-the-job training plus two classes on the use of pro cedures WPP/QCI 200 and 200, Appendix 1. The supervisor had judged tha the attendent was ready to work alone, but due to these clerical errors, the attendent was reassigned to on-the-job training. The two attendents that work in Rod Room Number 4 were observed and the rod issue records were reviewed. The work was being done and the records kept in accordance with WPP/QCI 200 and 200 Appendix 1. The error.appeared to be isolated examples that will be remedied by additional training. The inspector had no additional question..Plant Tour The inspector toured both Units 2 and 3 several times each week during the inspection report period. Particular attention was directed to observ ing work in progress, availability of supervision and quality control inspectors at the work areas, housekeeping and preservation of equipmen No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Management Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on May 11, 18, 25 and June 1, 1979. The scope of the inspections and the inspectors findings as noted in this report were discussed. The licensee representatives had no additional comments.