ML16341C955
| ML16341C955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1979 |
| From: | Dodds R, Hutson T, Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341C954 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-79-12, 50-323-79-07, 50-323-79-7, NUDOCS 7908150233 | |
| Download: ML16341C955 (16) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1979012
Text
50-275/79-12
Report
No. 50-323/79-07
,Doc(get
No
50-275
q 50-323
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Licese
No
CPPR-39,
CPPR-69
Safeguards
Group
Pacific Gas
and Electric Company
77 Beale Street
San Francisco,
94106
Feei] ity Naze
Diabl o Canyon Units
1 and
2
In'spection at
"
Diablo Canyon Site,
San Luis Obispo
County,
Ca 1 ifornia
, Inspection
conducted:
April 30 - May 3,
1979
Inspectors:
D. F. Kirsch, Reactor Inspector
I a
T.
W. Hutson,.Reactor
Inspector
Date Signed
Date Signed
Approved
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Engineering Section,
Reactor
Construction
and Engineering
Support Branch
Date Signed
7
c'-'te
Signed
Sunmary:
Ins ection durin
eriod of A ril 30 - Ma
3,
1979
Re ort Nos.
50-275/79-12
and 50-323 79-07
~A<<d:
R i,
'di
p
Ci
ty
gi
11
d
inspectors
of constructi'on activities including:
licensee action
on
previous inspection findings; licensee action
on IE Bulletins and
Circulars; physical protection of safety-related
equipment; allegations
of improper raceway support installation; Unit 2 volume control tank
overpressure
corrective actions;
NDE examiner,
gC inspector,
and welder
performance qualifications; welding materia~l control; and steam generator
preservice
examination results.
The inspection involved 46 inspector-
hours
by two
NRC inspectors.
Results
Of the eight areas
inspected,
no items of noncompliance
or
deviations
were identified in six areas,
one item of noncompliance
was
identified in each of the areas of pipe supports
(infraction
tubing
support installed
on another support
exceeded
the maximum specified
weight limit - Paragraph
4.a)
and electrical
raceway supports (infraction-
failure to install conduit as required
by procedures
and drawings-
Paragraph
7.b.(4))
and one unresolved
item was identified in the arg,
pffo
p]9 (p)
electrical
raceway supports
(Paragraph 7.b.(3)).
'f96:as%
e
lt
DETAILS
1.
Persons
Contacted
'a
~
Pacific
Gas
and Electric
Com an
PGSE
f
M.
R. Tressler,
Assistant Superintendent
- General
Construction
R.
D. Etzler, Project Superintendent
- N. N.
Norem, Startup
Engineer
- D. A. Rockwell, Resident Electrical
Engineer
~V. L. Killpack, Resident
Mechanical
Engineer
- R.
K. Rhodes,
Instrumentation
Supervisor
- M. E. Leppke,
QA Supervisor
- S. J. Foat,
QC Engineer
J.
R. Bratton,
QC Engineer
H. Yianegold,
Hanger Engineer
C. Braff, Pipe Support Supervisor
F. J.
Cucco,
Instrumentation
Engineer
0.
G. Crass,
Tubing Installation
and Valve Maintenance
Coordinator
F.
M. Russell, Acting Resident Civil Engineer
V. Smart, Electrical Field Engineer
R. llhited, Electrical Field Engineer
G. Hegli,
QA Engineer
R. Johnson,
Civil Field Engineer
b.
Pullman-Kello
Kello
D. Geske,
QA/QC Manager
R. A. Richardson,
Receiving Inspector
K. ll. Melin, Rod
Room
QA Inspector
- Denotes
those attending
the exit interview.
2.
Gener al
The licensee anticipates
readiness
for operating license
issuance
and fuel load for Unit
1
on or about July 6; 1979.
3.
Punch List
The licensee's
punch list of incomplete work contained
235 items at
the time of inspection
and efforts were underway to complete the
work.
The licensee
stated that, to assure
readiness
for licensing
and
fuel load,
an instruction would be written detailing (a) individuals
responsible for document
reviews to assure
completion of and/or
identification of incomplete work, (b) documents
required to be
reviewed
and (c) appropriate
interface requirements
necessary
for
General
Construction,
Operations Division, and Engineering.
AI
-2-
4.
Licensee Action on Previousl
Identified Followu
Items
a.
0 en
Unresolved
Item - Unistrut hlelded to Su
ort 49-12V
323/79-, 05-03
During the inspection
conducted
on March 26-29,
1979,
the
inspector
noted that
a section of unistrut associated
with
instrument tubing support 2-FT-640 was welded to the bottom of
hanger
49-12V in Unit 2.
Paragraph
10 of Drawing 049237,
Revision
4 (Piping and Mechanical
Pipe
Hanger
and Snubber
Supplementary
Installation Instructions)
gives three criteria
for determining the acceptability of attaching
a tubing
support to a large bore hanger .
These criteria specify
a
maximum 25 pound attachment
weight.
Subsequent
to i'nstal'lation
and inspector identified concerns,
calculations
by
PGSE
showed that the weight of support 2-FT-640, attached
to 49-
12V, was
28 pounds.
The tubing support installation contractor,
H.
P. Foley. installs supports
in accordance
with Drawing
049238,
Change
5, Instrument Tubing Supports.
This drawing
did not contain the three acceptance
criteria in Paragraph
10
of Drawing 049237.
Drawing 049237
had not been
issued to
H.
P. Foley.
This appears
contrary to the requirements of
10 CFR 50,'Appendix B, Criterion V, which states
in part that,
"Activities affecting quality shall
be prescribed
by documented
~ instructions,
procedures,
or drawings, of a type appropriate
to the circumstances
and shall
be accomplished
in accordance
with these instructions,
procedures,
or drawings."
b.
This is an apparent
item of noncompliance.
0 en
Isolation of Mutuall
Redundant Circuits
275/79-07-02
In order to determine if non-safety related wiring crossed
protection set or vitality boundaries,
the inspector
examined
the licensee's circuit schedule
and
a number of mechanical
panels
housing class
1 instr~ments in the Unit
1 containment
and
made the following observations.
(1)
Common non-vital heater circuits cross
the following
circuits with less
than 5-ipch air separation.
(a)
1-3 level circuits in protection
se~
1
(PNL46) and protection set
3 (PNL54): Heater
circuit No.
PJ7116
(b)
1-4 steam flow circuits in protection
set
1
(PNL47) and protection set
2 (PNL51):
Heater
circuit No.
PJ7107
(c) 'team Generator
1-4 level circuits in protection set
2 (PNL51) and protection set
4 (PNL59):
Heater
circuit No.
PJ7107
(d)
Pressurizer
level circuits in protection set
1
(PNL22), protection set
3 (PNL20) and protection set
2 (PNL89):
Heater circuit No. PJ7104
(e)
Reactor Coolant System loop 1-2 flow circuits in
protection set'
(PNL22), protection set
3 (PNL20)
and protection set
2 (PNL89):
Heater circuit No.
PJ7104
(f)
1-2 level circuits in protection set
1
(PNL45) and protection set
3 (PNL53):
Heater
circuit No.
PN7114
(2)
In addition, wires at the heater
end in panel
57 had been
removed from the heater
element
and were hanging free.
The'ire
ends
had been
taped with electrician tape
and
were visible inside the tape.
This item is open pending evaluation of additional information
to be submitted
by the licensee.
5.
Licensee Action on Bulletins and Circulars
NAI'1CO Stem t1ounted Limit Switches
The inspector
examined
the Unit.l installation of five environ-
mentally qualified
NAMCO Snaplock switches,
EA 180 series,
model
No. EA-180-11302
on valves
8149A, 8149B, 8149C,
LCV 459 and
LCV 460.
At present
14 of 18 switches
in Unit
1
had
been replaced with the
exception of installation of the
LOCA seal
connections
to the limit
switches.
The
LOCA seals
had
been ordered
from the
Conax
Company,
Drawing No.
25K191S, Revision A, Part
No.
02 and certified as
meeting
the applicable
environmental qualifications.
The inspector
has
no further questions
on this item.
6.
Ph sical Protection of Safet -Related
E ui ment
During a tour of the Auxiliary Seawater
System
(ASM) pump and gate
operator area,
located in the intake structure, it was observed
that
a large screen
wash water line was suspended
above the Unit
1
and
2 ASM suction gate operating motors.
The line did not appear
to be supported
by seismically qualified supports.
In addition,
the redundant
gate operators for each unit had
no physical barriers
installed.
The licensee
noted that this problem
had
been previously identified
in Plant Design
Comment
No.
16.
The followup of this item has
been
remanded
to the cognizance of the Resident
Inspector,
who was
following the licensee's
resolution of plant design
comments.
In
addition, this question
was addressed
to the Project Engineer
who
stated
that this observation
would be examined
and that licensee
actions
deemed
necessary
or already
taken to assure
adequate
physical
protection of safety-related
equipment would be identified.
e
7.
Alle ations of Im ro er Racewa
Su
ort Installation
~
~a.
Alle ations
as understood
b
the
NRC
Allegations of improper Unit
1
raceway. support installations
were received
by the Resident
Inspector who, in turn, referred
them to the regional office for resolution.
Specifically, the
allegations
were:
Support
No. K-115-4-100
had
no side brace support to the
wall; FE/FM-2-249
had holes in unistrut welds;
and
- FE/Fkl-1-260 welds were not to detail.
(2)
(3)
(4)
Support
Nos. C-104-3-7
and 3-8 had
a unistrut
beam
on
piece S-6 which was not to detail.
Support
Nos.
K-100-7-115
and 116'ad concrete
anchor
bolts installed which were not separated
from adjacent
concrete
anchor bolts
by the required distance.
Conduit Nos.
K-9424,
9430 and
9652 in K-100 area,
run
above vital conduit and did not have class
1 supports
installed.
b.
NRC Construction
Branch Findin
s
(2)
(3)
The allegation
was substantiated,
however, support
Nos.
K-115-4-100,
FE/FM-2-249 and FE/FM-1-260 had
been pre-
viously identified by the licensee
as discrepant
and
entered
onto work package
G-93:E-84 for repair
by the
PG&E cleanup
crew.
The allegation
was substantiated;
however, examination
indicated, that support
Nos.
C-104-3-7
and 3-8 were con-
structed in a manner which exceeded
design detail require-
ments.
The design details called for- a P-3300 unistrut
beam attached
to piece
S6.
A P-1000
beam was attached
to
the
S6 members for both supports.
The P-1000
beam is
a
heavier,
more substantial
member than P-3300.
The allegation
was substantiated.
The inspector
examined
the concrete
anchor bolt installations for supports
K-
100-7-115,
116 and about
100 other supports
located in
various areas of Unit l.
In addition to the supports
identified by the alleger, it appeared
that supports
Nos.
K-100-7-100,
K-100-7-165
and K-100-7-118 (in K-85 area of
Unit 1) had anchor bolts which did not meet the specified
anchor bolt spacing
requirements
of Foley procedure
gCP-
9.
All of the identified supports
had
been inspected
and
accepted
by Foley in the conduct of the raceway support
inspection/inventory
program
and
none of the Support
Inspection
Mork Sheets,
for the above supports, identified
anchor bolt spacings
as
a discrepancy.
0'
Foley procedure
QCP-9,
Paragraph
4.4.1, requires that
"center-to-center
anchor spacing shall not be less
than
12 nominal diameters of the largest anchor bolt unless
directed
by PG&E design
documents."
The supports
noted
above utilized 1/2 inch diameter concrete
anchor bolts
which were spaced
between
2-1/2 and
3 inches
from adjacent
anchor bolts.
The licensee's
Resident Electrical
Engineer
believed that
Foley had
been provided with additional
PG&E direction,
based
upon an inspection of all anchor bolt installations
by Engineering
Department in 1975 and the results
of'
PG&E study performed to establish
anchor bolt installation
acceptance
criteria.
This is an unresolved
item pending
examination of the additional
PG&E directions supplied to
the contractor.
(275/79-12-01)
The allegation
was substantiated.
An examination of
numerous
raceway
and support installations
on May 1,
1979
in the K-100 area of Unit
1 identified the following
discrepancies:
(a)
Non-vital conduits
K-9424,
K-9430 and
K-9652 were
installed
above
and crossing vital conduits without
having
a class
1 support provided
on each side of
the intersection.
(b)
Non-vital conduits
KHT-52 and
53 were both suspended
from support
K-115-6-47 (a vital bus
F support)
and
an unnumbered vital bus
H support of detail
number
397, without having
an intermediate
class
1 support
provided.
Foley procedure
QCP-9 (Quality Control Procedure for
Installation of Raceways,
Junctions
and Terminal
Boxes
for Hire Pull), Paragraph
4.2.5 (implementing
PG&E Drawing
050029,
conduit note 60) states
that "Hhere non-class
1
conduit shares
supports withNore than one class
1 raceway,
vital or protection channel,
an intermediate
class
1
support shall
be provided."
Foley, procedure
QCP-9,
Paragraph
4.1.8 (implementing
Drawing 050030,
note 3) states
that where raceways,
other
than those identified as class
1, "cross
a class
1 raceway,
a class
1 support shall
be constructed
on, each side of
the intersection."
This is an apparent
item of noncompliance.
(275/79-12-
02)
Unit 2 Volume Control Tank
The hydrostatic test records,
visual examination
and liquid penetrant
test records for the Unit 2 Volume Control
Tank were reviewed
by
the inspector for compliance with the requirements
of ASttE Section
XI, through
Summer
1975 Addendum.
The visual
and liquid penetrant
examinations
disclosed
surface
defects
such
as slag left on welds
during fabrication,
excessive
weld reinforcement
and
a misalignment
of the shell to head which exceeded
allowable code limits.
Non-
conformance report DC2-79-gC-P0054
was written to document
the
deficiencies
noted
and all data
taken
had
been turned over to
engineering for evaluation
and disposition.
The
resolution of this item wi.ll be followed through the normal review
of NCR's.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
Nondestructive
Examiner
and
C Ins ector
uglification
The inspector
reviewed
one Level II NDE examiner's qualifications
and five Level II gC inspectors'ualifications
for conformance
to
the requirements
of SNT-TC1A, Kellogg Procedures
ESD-235
(Non'-
destructive
Examination
Personnel
gualification and Certification
Procedure)
and
ESD-237 (guality Assurance
Inspector Training
Program) .
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
Wel din
tlateri al Control
The filler material
withdrawal
and issue operations
and material
storage in the Kellogg rod room were examined for,compliance with
Procedure
ESD 202 ('eld Material Distribution and Control).
The
holding ovens
were properly marked with the contents
and the
temperature
had
been- calibrated.
All portable rod warmers
had
been
checked for operation
and temperature
at the required
frequency.
The rod room was clean
and neat with all cans of
moisture sensitive
weld rod undamaged
and hermetically sealed.
The
rod withdrawal slips for Hay 2,
1979 were randomly reviewed
and
appeared
to be properly completed.
The receiving inspection reports
and certified material test reports. fdr the following heats of weld
rod being issued
were reviewed.
Rod. T
e and Size
E7018-
E7018-
E7018-
E308-16
ER308-
ER308-
3/16"
5/32"
1/8"
1/8"
3/32"
II
07L150
422E-1681
29963
48116
482584
1/8
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were noted.
~
~
'
-7-
Wel'der Performance
ua1 ification
Ten welders performing welding on Hay 2,
1979 were checked for
proper qualifications using the welders qualification matrix issued
for the period tray
1 through Hay 31,
1979.
These ten welders
appeared
qualified by use of the matrix.
To verify the accuracy of
the matrix, the inspector
compared
two welders
performance qualifi-
cation records with the matrix.
The review showed, that the limit
of thickness
stated for a specific welding procedure
had
been
rounded
up to the nearest
quarter inch over the
2T (T-thickness of
test plate) limit required
by Section
IX of the
ASME code.
For
example,
a
2T limit of 0.636 inches
had been
rounded
up to 0.750
inches
in numerous
cases.
The inspector also found that
a procedure
qualification record for a welder,
symbol
BR, was missing from his
qualification folder.
This item is open
and will be examined
during
a future inspection.
(275/79-12-03)
12.
Preservice
Examination
In 'the course of liquid penetrant
preservice
examinations,
the
licensee
reported that indications of crazing were identified on
the outer diameter of Unit
1
1 and
2 cold leg ring
dams.
The indications
appeared
in the clad area at the edge of the
weld material
and not in the weld material.
1
had
an indication about 3/8 inches
long and Steam Generator
2 had
a
number of large indications.
The licensee
was still in the process
of investigation to determine
the exact nature
and depth of the
indications
2.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
the
HSSS supplier,
had initiated
a Field Discrepancy
Report and submitted this to their Tampa office
for resolution.
personnel
noted that all previous
studies
determined that the indications
had never gone into base
metal.
This item will be examined further during
a future in-
spection.
(275/79-12-04)
13.
Unresolved
Items
Unresolved
items are matters
about which more information is required
in order to ascertain
whether they are acceptable
items,
items of
noncompliance,
or deviations.
One unnesolved
item was identified
during this inspection
and is discussed
in Paragraph 7.b.(3).
14.
Exit Interview
The inspectors
met with licensee
representatives
(denoted in Para-
graph
1) on Hay 3,
1979 and summarized
the inspection
pur'pose,.
scope
and findings.
The licensee
was informed of those matters
considered
as items of noncompliance
and unresolved.
Ay
<v