IR 05000361/1979022
| ML13309A800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1979 |
| From: | Dodds R, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A793 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-22, 50-362-79-21, NUDOCS 7912130723 | |
| Download: ML13309A800 (5) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-361/79-22 Report No. 50-362/79-21 Docket No. 50-361, 50-362 License No.CPPR-97, 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:
August 13-31, 1979 Inspectors:
R. J. 'Pate, Resident Reactor Inspector daVe Signed Date Signed Date igned Approved By:
)
.RX T. Dodds, Chief, Engineering Support Section, Date/Signed Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on August 13-31, 1979 (Report Nos. 50-361/79-22 and 50-362/79-21 Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by the resident in spector of construction activities including: piping storage and welding; ASME certification system; reactor pressure vessel and internals instal lation and protection; electrical cable installation; licensee corrective actions on previous inspection findings; and general work in progres The inspection involved 56 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results:
Of the five areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified in the area of electrical cable installation (Paragraph 7).
RV Form 719 (2)
7912180
DETAILS 1. Individuals Contacted a. Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
+=P. A. Croy, Site Quality Assurance/Quality Control Supervisor R. Frick, Quality Assurance Engineer
+*R. R. Hart, Construction Superintendent J. Huey, Quality Assurance Engineer
+=P. R. King, Quality Assurance Engineer
+=*D. E. Nunn, Manager, Quality Assurance J. J. Pantaleo, Quality Assurance Engineer
+=*H. B. Ray, Project Management M. Rodin, Quality Assurance Engineer
+*W. F. Rossfeld, Quality Assurance Engineer D. B. Schone, Lead Engineering Site Representative L. D. Tipton, Nuclear Engineering Site Representative 'Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
+C. A. Blum, Quality Control Manager
+=*R. H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer
+*J. E. Geiger, Project Quality AssuranceSupervisor
+=*W. D. Nichols, Assistant Project Field Engineer
+*L. W. Hurst, Project Field Quality Assurance Supervisor In addition, construction craftsmen,engineers and.foremen were contacted during the inspectio *.Denotes attendees at management meeting on August 17, 197 =Denotes attendees at management meeting on August 24, 197 +Denotes attendees at management meeting on August 31, 197. Construction Status The licensee reported that site construction work is 69% complete as of August 29, 197 The licensee's project management personnel estimated that the construction of Units 2 and 3 was 80% and 56%
complete, respectivel. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings The inspector examined the action taken by the licensee on the following outstanding item:
(Closed) Unresolved item (50-361/79-07/03):
The inspector observed terminations in progress being done per termination cards that had not been completed by the Field Engineer. The termination cards for cable scheme Nos. 2DRL0350A, B, C and D had not been signed by the Field Engineer verifying that the information on the card was correct and the quality class had not been assigned by the Field Engineer as required by Con struction Procedure WPP/QCI No. 605, Revision The inspector reviewed the completed Bechtel Corrective Action Request (CAR) No. F596. The Bechtel investigation found that the information on the termination card was correct and the terminations had been completed in accordance with the latest approved drawing. A review by Bechtel of 525 termination cards found no additional cards that had been issued without being completed by the Field Engineer. Spot checks of term ination in progress in the Unit 2 Control Building was made by the inspector on August 24, 1979. The termination cards being used by two electrical construction workers were found to be completed as required by the construction procedur The inspector reviewed the nonconformance reports (NCR's)
initiated by the startup electricians. Approximately 500 circuits had been tested and six NCR's had been issued. Only one of the NCR's was issued due to an error in terminatio Based on this data, the termination error rate for safety related circuits is less than 1% and these are found and corrected by the startup test procedures. The inspector had no additional question.
Reactor Vessel and Internals Installation and Storage Site activities for storage of the Unit 2 and 3 reactor pressure vessels and internals were observe Both vessels are installed and installation of Unit 2 internals is essentially complet Installation of Unit 3 internals is in progres The modification of Unit 2 internals to install the CEA shroud flow channel extentions was observed. The procedure for the modification (No. ICQP 1370-QC-41-09-001, Revision 0) was reviewed. The inspector observed that there was some undercut in the welds for the extention The inspection procedure No. 1370-01, Revision 0 allowed undercut not to exceed 1/32 inch. Due to the limited access it was difficult to measure the depth of the undercut. The licensee advised that a measuring device would be used to assure the maximum allowable undercut would not be exceeded. This area will be inspected during a future inspection. (50-361/79-22/01)
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 Storage Cont. Spray 2-CS-041-72 Storage Component Cooling Water 2-CC-375-1C, Sh. 1 Welding Chilled Water S2-1513-ML-270, Sh. 2 Weld SBF (c)
Welding Diesel Fuel Oil S2-FO-068-H-004 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
ASME Certification System The compliance with ASME certification system requirements was verified for those organizations performing code work on the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 site. The inspector verified that SCE, Bechtel, Brown-Minneapolis Tank Company and Combustion Engineering complied with the requirement of Article NA-3000 as defined in the applicable cod No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Observation of Cable Installation The inspector observed the installation of the cable for scheme cable Number 2AA0404P The following items were verified to be in accordance with. the construction specifications CS-EOl, Revision 3,
"Installation of Electrical Cables in Conduit and Duct Banks," CS E02, Revision 4, "Installation of Electrical Cables in Cable Trays,"
and the construction procedure WPP/QCI-604, Revision 6:
a. Pull cards complete Cable size, type and identification c. Pulling compound used d. Bending radius not exceeded Cable protected from damage Routing
The cable was pulled by a pulling grip installed on the end and a rope connected in midspan. The rope was connected to the cable by weaving the loose ends of the rope around the cable to form what was called a "mare's tail." The construction specifications made reference to a pulling grip or basket grip connection. The use of a "mare's tail" was not specifically allowed. One member of the construction 'forces said the "mare's tail" was a basket grip. The inspector requested the licensee to provide better definition of a basket grip. This area will be inspected again during a future inspection. (50-361/79-22/02)
The cable was pulled through a termination box attached to the motor for the auxiliary feed water pump. The box was not open at the top. The cable was pullqd over the end edge of the conduit at an angle of approximately 35.
The Field Engineer had assumed the box would be removed before the pull to allow the cable to be pulled straight. In this case there was no damage to the cable, but the minimum bend radius could have been violated or the cable jacket cut. Communications between the pulling crew and the Field Engineer is considered by the inspector to be an important phase of the pulling operation and will be reviewed again during a future inspection. (50-361/79-22/03)
The cable tension calculations for the cable pull (No. EP-151)'were reviewed. The calculations for the pull through the conduit and the pull through the duct bank were not added to determine the need for a tension limiting puller as required by CS-E01 when the pull is made in one continuous operation. This could have resulted in higher tension and sidewall forces than calculated. A calculation error of this type could have resulted in damaging the cable. This is an apparent item of noncompliance. (50-361/79-22/04)
8. Plant Tour The inspector toured both Units 2 and 3 several times each week during the inspection report period. Particular attention was directed to observing 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 August 17, 24, and 31, 197 The scope of the inspections and the inspector's findings as noted in this report were discussed. The licensee representatives had no additional comments.