IR 05000361/1979024
| ML13309A836 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1979 |
| From: | Dodds R, Elin J, Haist D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A835 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-24, 50-362-79-23, NUDOCS 8001160161 | |
| Download: ML13309A836 (13) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-361/79-24 Report N /79-23 Docket N & 50-362 License N 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 County, California Inspection condu ted:
October 1-5, 1979 Inspectors:
H. Eckh rdt, Reactor Inspector Daee S'igned D. P. H is Reactor Inspector
]Yate Signed oecto nspector i2,
_
___
___
.
R I
07/in nspector 4pproved B J-/
r',Ch e teactor Engineering Ddte/iged Support Section Surrmary:
Inspectionon October 1-5, 1979 (Report Nos. 50-361/79-24 and 50-362/79-23)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of construction activities including piping installation and welding, preservice inspection of reactor vessel,.containment post tensioning activities, and action on previous open or unresolved item The inspection involved 55 inspector hours onsite by four NRC inspectors. In addition, the inspectors investigated an allegation concerning splicing of electrical cable. This investigation is documented in report numbers 50-361/79-27 and 50-362/79-2 Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie RV Form 219 (2)
ao01160o/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
o 1990 N. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD SUITE 202, WALNUT CREEK PLAZA WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 DEC 11 1979 Docket Nos. 50-361 50-362 Southern California Edison Company P. 0. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Attention: Mr. A. Arenal Vice President Gentlemen:
Subject: NRC Inspection at San Onofre Units 2 and 3 This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. J. H. Eckhardt, R. Pate, J. 0. Elin, and D. P. Haist of this office on October 1-5, 1979, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-97 and 98, and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. D. E. Nunn and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspectio Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, inter views with personnel, and observations by the inspector No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this inspectio In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 30 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The applica tion must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in O the Public Document Roo Southern California Edison Company-2-DEC 11 1979 Should you have any questions"concerning this inspection, we will be glad to discuss them with yo
Sincerely, G. S. Spencer, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-361/79-24 50-362/79-23
REGION V==
Report N /79-23 Docket N & 50-362 License N CPPR-97, CPPR-98 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Comoany 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Construction Site, San Dieqo County, California Inspection condu ted:
October 1-5, 1979 Inspectors:
1Z/ 1717'1 H. Eckhrdt, Reactor Inspectorgned D. P. Hdish Reactor Inspector dat Signed
dJ.
i Rgct nsetorDae i
d H~ ~ecor
_____________________
R i
Inspector D
Approved By:
.f Ch'f e eactor Engineering Ddte/igded Support Section Summary:
Inspection, on October 1-5, 1979 (Report Nos. 50-361/79-24 and 50-362/79-23)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of construction activities inc uding piping installation and welding, preservice inspection of reactor vessel, containment post tensioning activities, and action on previous open or unresolved item The inspection involved 55 inspector hours onsite by four NRC inspectors. -In addition, the inspectors investigated an allegation concerning splicing of electrical cable. This investigation is documented in report numbers 50-361/79-27 and 50-362/79-2 Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie RV Form 219 (2)
DETAILS 1. Individuals Contacted a. Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
- D. E. Nunn, Manager, Quality Assurance
- H. B. Ray, Project Manager
- P. A..Croy, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
- D. A. Erdman, Project Construction Engineer
- R. J. Zwerling, Preservice Examination Program Coordinator
- J. A. Parent, Electrical Engineer R. P. Frick, QA Engineer J. Huey, QA Engineer C. 0. Hoppes, Senior Electrical Engineer S. Dziewit, QA Engineer J. J. Panteleo, QA Engineer b. Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- C. A. Blum, Quality Control Manager
- J. E. Geiger, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
- R. H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer
- L. W. Hurst, Project Field QA Supervisor
- W. D. Nichols, Assistant Project Field Engineer G. Bishop, QC Engineer c. VSL J. Bond, Supervisor C. A. Grosvenor, Field Inspector d. Combustion Engineering (CE)
D. Jones, Preservice Examination Project Engineer J.,Fox, Technical Consultant and Site Engineer e. Nuclear Energy Services (NES)
D. Murdock, Site Engineer J. Hobin, Senior Site Engineer
- Denotes those attending exit intervie. Plant Tour The inspector toured the unit 2 containment building including the
-2 reactor flange area. Combustion Engineering (CE) was making prepar ations to conduct inservice inspection of the reactor vesse The equipment brought into the containment to perform the vessel inser vice inspection included several tool boxes. Observation of some of items in the tool boxes disclosed containers marked with the following commercial trade names:
ENVY, Instant Cleaner by Johnson SAFETY SOLVENT by Loctite RAPID TAP, cutting fluid by Relton The containers for each of the above items listed a compound of chlor ide as one of the ingredients. The items were not being used when they were observed. The CE personnel present stated that none of the items had been used on plant equipment. The cleaners had been used on the automated inservice inspection electronic equipmen The items found were discussed with the SCE QA personnel and they stated that none of the items were approved for use in the contain ment. The containers, along with several other unauthorized contain ers found by SCE were removed from the containment the same da SCE initiated a Corrective Action Request (CAR) to obtain action to prevent reoccurence. Since the items were not used on plant equipment, this is not an item of nonconformance, but it is an area of concern that will be inspected again during a future inspection. 50-361/79-24/0. Status of Previous Inspection Findings a. (Open) Followup item (50-361/79-23/03): Physical separation of preferred powe The inspector reviewed with the licensee the questions he had concerning the prefer-red power system as embodied in the Unit 2 and 3 switchyard. The first two questions, which were noted in a previous inspection, involved adequate physical separation of the preferred power supplies of Units 2 and This area had been reviewed by the NRC staff and found accept able due to the ability to power either Unit 2 or Unit 3 from the other unit's reserve auxiliary transformers. This item is dis cussed in the "Safety Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Gen erating Station Units No. 2 and 3," paragraph 3.2.4.9. The li censee noted that both systems must be available prior to fueling of Unit The third question arising on the previous inspection was that of physical separation of the preferred power supplies of Unit 1, as required by criteria 17 of 10CFR 50, Appendix A. With the routing of Unit 1 power through the Unit 2 & 3 switchyard, which the licensee has scheduled for March, 1980, the Unit 1 preferred power sources will share a common support tower. The inspector questioned the acceptability of this arrangement. The NRC position as stated in the standard review plan, NUREG-75/087, was discussed with the licensee's representative. The licensee will address this subject by letter to the NRC prior to completion of this routin It was also noted in discussions with the licensee that FSAR figure 8.2-3 does not accurately depict the offsite power arrange ment. The licensee will review this figure and initiate any necessary change b. (Closed) Followup Item (50-361/79-13/02): Cold springing.of pip The pipe installation procedure has been changed to include specific limits for allowable deflection. Also, appropriate personnel have been trained on the use of these requirement. Physical Separation of Electrical Cables The inspector noted during a general plant tour that there was only a horizontal separation of approximately 20 inches between the instru ment cables for pressure transmitters 2PT-0101-1 and 2PT-0106-4 even though these transmitters were from different channels. The licensee did point out that each cable was enclosed in flexible condui FSAR paragraph 8.3.3.3.1 (A)
defines a minimum horizontal separation of 3 feet (36 inches) or installation of a fire barrier as a separ ation method. This section further states that isolation can be main tained by-"installing cables of all but one of the separation groups in metallic conduit, solid bottom or covered cable tray, or by installing suitable barriers between separation group The licensee was not prepared to state that "flexible conduit" consti tutes "metallic conduit" as far as separation criteria or fire barrier adequacy is concerned. Additionally, the licensee stated that a plan to review cable separation by area, and provide criteria for fire barriers is in development and will be available by the end of November. This will remain an open item for future inspection. (50-361/79-24/01)
-4 5. Protection of Electrical Cables During a general plant tour, the inspector noted in one cable storage location several cables in which the cut cable ends were not protecte The licensee's procedures call for tape application to exposed cable ends to prevent moisture accumulation. These items were corrected on the spot by the licensee. As this did not appear to be a general condition at the work site the inspector had no further questions in this are. Preservice Inspection a. Review of Program The inspector continued a review of the licensee's preservice inspection program plan for conformance to FSAR and ASME code requirement The Preservice Examination contractor's quality assurance program for site activities is set forth in procedure no. 9976-NLE-056, Program Controls Procedure for Inservice Inspection. The inspector was unable to find any formal procedure for the collection, storage, and maintenance of quality assurance records including examination data during the site activities. Original records are transported to the CE Windsor, Conn., office for future review and use in the final examination report. Procedure NLE-056, Paragraph 2. requires the Manager, Systems Integrity Services to provide a filing system for the retention of all records and correspondence pertaining to a contact. CE site representatives stated that this requirement applies to records in the CE Windsor office. Licensee representatives stated that they will review the adequacy of CE's quality assurance record control system and the need for formal control of quality assurance records on site. This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection (50-361/79-24/02).
The inspector reviewed the.scope of the preservice inspection program for conformance to the requirements of ASME Section XI, 1974 through Summer 1975 addenda. The areas to be examined, examination categories, method of inspection and extent of exam ination are specified in accordance with the Cod No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie b. Review of Quality Assurance Implementing Procedures
-5 The inspector reviewed the following procedures for compliance with licensee and ASME Section XI requirements:
(1) Automated ultrasonic examination procedure for reactor vessel welds - No. NIP-73 (2) Procedure for operation of the inservice inspection position ing device for the inside surface examination of reactor pressure vessel - No. ESS-12 (3) Ultrasonic instrument linearity verification procedure N PS-00 (4) Automated ultrasonic examination procedures for reactor vessel to flange weld from flange mating surface No. NIP 73 (5) Remote ultrasonic examination procedure for reactor vessel shell welds - full vee techniques - No. NIP 73 (6) Ultrasonic examination procedures for reactor vessel flange ligament areas - No. NIP 73 (7) Automated ultrasonic examination procedures for reactor vessel to nozzle welds from nozzle bore - No. NIP 73 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie c. Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector was unable to observe reactor vessel scanning op erations because of equipment problems. The contractor was in the process of converting from a five transducer scanning sled with remote automatic control to a three transducer scanning sled remote manually controlled. The new arrangement requires observation by a level II examiner of activity on each of three channel The licensee and contractor briefed the inspector on the diffi culty of accurately reproducing recordable spot or point reflec tors detected during straight beam examination of the weld and required volume. No recordable indications have been detected during angle beam examinations. The spot reflectors appear to be laminar and range in area from 0.1-0.36 square inches with little or no back wall attenuation. The contractor has concluded
-6 that these are non-relevant indications resulting from manganese sulfide segregates that are broken into banded inclusions, five to ten mils in length, during the plate rolling operation. The con tractor feels that the ultrasonically measured size of these spot reflectors is the result of the beam profile of the transduce The contractor expressed confidence that any significant indication will be reproducible but did not quantify the reflector size require The contractor was reviewing the examination data taken to date for a significant indication on which to demonstrate reproduci bility. The reproducibility of relevant indications will be examined during a future inspection (50-361/79-24/03).
The inspector observed instrument linearity checks on Nuclear Reflectoscope No. 17201-7 in accordance with NES procedure N PS-002. The instrument met the specifications for vertical, horizontal, and amplitude control linearity. The check was per formed by a certified Level III examine No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie d. Review of Quality Assurance Records The inspector reviewed certificates of conformance for the follow ing ultrasonic calibration standards:
Unit 2 Standard N Drawing N Use UT-1 C-245-461 11 inch thick-vessel UT-2 C-245-460 9 inch thick-vessel UT-3 C-245-459 7 inch thick-vessel UT-4 C-245-458 5 inch thick-vessel UT-5 C-245-457 3 inch thick-vessel UT-8 C-246-359 flange and ligament UT-9 C-246-542 inlet nozzle UT-10 C-246-543 outlet nozzle UT-12 C-246-502 pressurizer surge nozzle UT-13 C-246-501 pressurizer spray nozzle UT-14 C-246-500 pressurizer safety nozzle UT-19 C-246-467 spray nozzle to safe end UT-17 C-246-466 safety nozzle to safe end UT-20 D-246-515 stud UT-21 0-246-516 nut UT-22 D-246-575 instrument nozzle
-7 Unit 3 Standard N Drawing N Use UT-1 C-246-522 11 inch thick-vessel UT-2 C-246-523 9 inch thick-vessel UT-3 C-246-525 7 inch thick-vessel UT-4 C-246-524 5 inch thick-vessel The inspector examined the drawings for standards UT-1 and UT-2 for Unit 2. The drawing conformed to the requirements of ASME Section XI, Appendix I. The inspector reviewed the following trans ducer beam spread measurements as required by ASME Section XI Appendix I and CE procedure No. NIP 73 Transducer Angle Serial N Measured Angle Cal. Block Used 600 C-23843 600 9-inch block 450 C-23841 450 9-inch block 600 C-23840 580 9-inch block 450 C-23849 460 9-inch block 600 19041 610 (9-inch block)
450 19032 440 (9-inch block)
600 19037 580 (9-inch block)
600 19037 580 (11-inch block)
The inspector reviewed preliminary data packages 730-5 and 730-9 including weld scan Nos. 02-001-013-4 and 02-001-013-3 for con formance with procedure no. NIP-730 requirements. It appeared that initial, intermediate and final calibrations, recording of reflectors, and evaluation of reflectors were completed in accor dance with the procedure. The 00 scan No. 02-001-013-4 revealed 3'recordable indications and scan no. 02-001-013-3 revealed 10 recordable indications, all acceptable in accordance with ASME Section XI and all of the general size and type discussed in paragraph 6c. This data is not considered final until Level III review is performe No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Piping Installation and Welding Activities a. Welding Pipe welding activities for the safety injection, reactor coolant, gas radwaste, feedwater, and main steam systems were examined to ascertain compliance with appropriate ASME Section III requirement The following activities were examined:
Unit 2 Isometric Pipe Dia., i Weld N Weld Status S2-1305-ML-189
A Cover passes in progress S2-1301-ML-582
F Preparing for pre-service examinatio S2-1301-ML-309
A Complete - Ready for pre-service examinatio Unit 3 Isometric Pipe Dia., i Weld N Weld Status S3-1204-ML-061
A Preparing for pre service examinatio S3-1204-ML-061
E Root pass complet S3-1204-ML-061
F Root pass complet S3-1204-ML-062 B
Root pass complet S3-1204-ML-062 C
Root pass complet S3-1204-ML-045
BD Root pass complet S3-1204-ML-058 C
Root pass complet S3-1902-ML-064
Root pass complet S3-1201-ML-016
G Fitup, aligne In addition, filler metal withdrawal records and field welding checklists for these welds were reviewe b. Flange Connection The in process connection of pipe flange for Unit 2 pipe 2-CC-147 to component cooling pump P-025 was observed. The work was compared
to requirements of WPP/QCI-400 Appendix I Rev. 6, "Installation of ASME Section III Piping to Flange Connection to Pumps."
c. Liquid Penetrant Test A liquid penetrant test on Unit 2 component cooling system pipe support S2-CC-299-H-OOA was observed. The PT was performed on an area of the support where an attachment had been removed by grindin No items of noncompliance or deviations concerning piping activities were identifie. Containment Post Tensioning System Greasing of Unit 3 horizontal tendon 102 from buttress 2 to 3 was observed and compared with VSL greasing procedures. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection. The areas covered during the inspection and observations and conclusions of the inspectors were identified.