IR 05000361/1981023
| ML20010J370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1981 |
| From: | Albert W, Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010J369 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-81-23, 50-362-81-06, 50-362-81-6, NUDOCS 8109300376 | |
| Download: ML20010J370 (3) | |
Text
~
- --
-
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUL/. TORY C0!HISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-361/81-23 R port ?!o. cn_w nq.ns Docket f!o. 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 Nuclear Generating Station 'Inits 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Construction Site, San Diego Countv, California Inspection conducted: September 8-10, 1981
_
Inspectors:
R kD y 9/4/6)
W. G. Albert,' Reactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Approved by:
lW D
T.W. Bishop,Chiief,ReactorProjectsSectionNo.1 Date Signed Surmiary:
Inspection September 8-10, 1981 (Report Nos. 50-361/81-23 and 50-362/81-06_)
Areas In_spected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a region based inspector of construction activities iiicluding site originated design and missile protection.
The inspection involved 19 inspection hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8109300376 810931
~
gDRADOCK 05000361
'
PDR RVForm219(2)
,
- -...
.. -.
._
.
..
..
...
.- -
_
_
.--
~.-~~
-
.
e
-
\\
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
- J. M. Curran, Manager Quality Assurance
- P. A. Croy, Project QA Supervisor
- N. M. Ferris, Quality Assurance Engineer
- T. O. Gray, Construction QA Supervisor D. B. Schone, Site Project Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
,
J. Hansen, QA Engineer L. W. Hurst, Project QA Manager J. Prucker, Assistant Engr. Group Supervisor E. Richardson, Nuclear Engr. Group Supervisor J. W. Sheppard, Project QA Supervisor P. Tannirat, Assistant Lead Discipline Field Engineer J. Wilzbach, Lead Discipline Field Engineer
- Individuals attending exit interview on September 10, 1981.
2.
On-Site Design Activities On-site design was examined by a determination of the scope and responsibility for such design, an examination of cuality assurance and management procedures, an examination of QA aucits performed by SCE, an examination of QA audits performed by Bechtel, a review of surveillance activity by Bechtel, an examination of representative records for small bore pipe hanger design including preparation, design review, change control, drawing control and interfaces with Bechtel home office.
In the area of small bore pipe hanger design, samples of calculattens and drawings were examined to determine confonnance to procedures, proper approvals, design review and control of changes.
Controls for errors noted in design review were examined by tracking of the resulting revisions and ascertaining concurrence of initial designer.
Ti;e inspection activity addressed site design during the period from f W eh 1980 to date.
During this time site design was limited to small bore pipe hanger design.
,
e
I
~
.
.. -
-.
-
.
....
,
. -
.
.
- -. -. _,, -
..
..
s.,
-2-The inspector found that records were satisfactorily controlled and that the records, interviews and observations of the inspector demonstrated adequate control of small bore pipe hanger des'ign in the field.
A minor record inconsistency was noted in correlating a hold file with a computer print out. This inconsistency was not considered significant.
3.
Missile Protection In response to a request from NRR, an examination was made of missile protection for openings in the fuel handling buildings.
In the building itself only three exterior penetrations were noted:
a shielding plug on the northeast correr of the roof (southeast for Unit 3); a normal air supply duct poetration at the 109' level; and an exhaust duct penetration at the 105' level. The supply and exhaust duct penetrations are on the west walls of the two buildings.
Missile protection for these duct penetrations is shown on Bechtel drawings no. 25?96 and 25299.
Protection is provided by fabricating the duct elbows at the point of building entry from 3/4" steel plate (ASTMA35). The heavy plate extends into the straight section of the duct outside the building for three feet in the case of the larger duct and for two feet in the case of the smaller duct.
No missile protection is provided for dampers or damper operators which isolate the building since the design is based on the assumption that an accident requiring isolation of the fuel handling building would not occur at the same time as the need for missile protection (e.g.atornado).
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on September 10, 1981. The scope of the inspection and of the inspector's finaings as noted in this report were discussed.
l l
l l
l