ML16341G600
| ML16341G600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1992 |
| From: | Gody A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341G598 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-323-92-14, NUDOCS 9206230186 | |
| Download: ML16341G600 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000323/1992014
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION
V
Report Number:
Docket Number:
License
Number:
Licensee:
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Inspection
Conducted:
Inspector:
50-323/92-14
50-323
Pacific
Gas
and Electric Company
77 Beale Street,
Room
1451
San Francisco,
California 94106
Diablo Canyon Unit 2
Diablo Canyon Site,
San Luis Obispo County,- California . -
.
April 13 through
May 13,
1992
C. Myers, Reactor
Inspector
Approved by:
o y
r.,
>n
ie
Engine ring Section
te
igne
~Summar:
Ins ection
on
A ril 13 throu
h
Ma
13
'1991
Re ort No. 50-323 92-14
Areas
Ins ected:
The areas
inspected
in this routine engineering
inspection of the installation
of the
new emergency diesel
generator
in Unit 2 included the air start system,
the fuel oil system
and the ventilation system.
Inspection
Modules 37700,
49063,
50073,
50100,
and
55050 were
used for guidance.
Results:
General
Conclusions
and
S ecific Findin s:
In general,
the inspector
concluded that the
new emergency
diesel
generato}
mechanical
systems
were being installed in accordance
with engineering
requirements.
Craft personnel
had knowledge concerning installation criteria.
There
was adequate
quality assurance
overview of this project in the areas
examined.
9206230186
920605
ADOCK 05000323
8
Si nificant Safet
Matters:
None
Summar
of Violations:
One violation involving a failure to have written
instructions
was identified in Paragraph 2.f.
A non-cited violation involving
a failure to follow procedures
was identified in Paragraph
2.e.
0 en
Items
Summar
None
Persons
Contacted
DETAILS
Pacific
Gas
and Electric
Com
an
- H. Angus,
Technical
Services
Manager
- M. DeWitt, guality Assurance
Engineer
- C. Dougherty,
Senior guality Assurance
Supervisor
- U. Farradj,
Mechanical
Group Leader,
Nuclear Engineering
and
Construction
Services
(NECS)
- B. Goelzer,
Diesel
Generator
System Engineer
- T. Grebel,
Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
J. Griffin, Senior Compliance
Engineer
S. Hamilton, Design
Change Coordinator
J. Kelley, Engineer,
NECS
- C. Kan, Regulatory Compliance
- D. Miklush, Operation Services
Manager
C. Pendleton,
System Engineer
- B. Savard,
Special
Project Coordinator,
NECS
- P. Sarafian,
Senior Engineer,
Onsite Safety
Review Group
- S. Szuch, guality Assurance
- H. Tresler,
Project Engineer,
NECS
W. Young, Construction
Engineer,
NECS
Nuclear
Re ulator
Commission
- P. Horrill, Senior Resident
Inspector
- Denotes those attending
the exit meeting
on April 23,
1992
The inspector
also held discussions
with other licensee
personnel
during
the course of the inspection.
Desi
n Chan
es
New Emer enc
Diesel
Generator
37700
The inspector
reviewed the progress
being
made
on the
new (sixth)
emergency
diesel
generator
(EDG-2-3) under Design
Change
Package
(DCP) H-
44405.
The inspector walked
down the work areas
with licensee
personnel
and independently
witnessed
work in progress.
The inspector
observed
portions of the following Work Orders
(WO):
.WO C93482
Diesel fuel oil priming tank installation
.WO C93682
Pipe support installation
.WO C93487
Priming Tank fabrication
The inspector
reviewed quality assurance
and quality control involvement
for this project
and found it to be adequate.
In general
the inspector
found that the sixth diesel
generator
was being
installed in accordance
with engineering
requirements.
The crafts
personnel
were qualified and knowledgeable
of the installation criteria.
a.
New
Room
The inspector monitored work taking place in the
new
EDG room.
The
EDG had
been leveled
and installed
on its foundation.
In process
work included piping support installation for the air start
and
turbocharger air systems,
ventilation ducting installation for the
diesel
room ventilation system
and i,nstallation of the diesel
exhaust
system.
The inspector
found the ongoing work to be well
coordinated.
Procedures
were in use at the work locations.
The
inspector
found the licensee's
actions to be adequate.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
ualit
Assurance
Oversi ht of Work
The inspector
reviewed the quarterly reports
issued
by the quality
assurance
organization specifically for the
new
EDG project.
The
inspector toured the construction
areas with quality assurance
personnel.
guality assurance
personnel
had identified problems with
the procurement
specifications for the diesel silencer,
problems
with changes
in the concrete
used for safety walls,
and problems
with electrical
separation.
Based
on
a review of the quarterly report
and discussions
with
quality assurance
personnel
the inspector
concluded that the quality
assurance
organization
was providing an effective review of ongoing
and completed
work for the
new
EDG.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
Housekee
in
The inspector
observed
work activities in progress
involved with the
installation of fuel oil piping, air start
and turbocharger air
piping,
and diesel
room ventilation ducting.
The inspector
found the
cleanliness
of the general
work areas
to be well maintained.
Appropriate protection of unaffected
equipment
was observed.
The
inspector
observed
one uncovered
pipe opening
on the air relief
valve for the turbocharger air receiver tank which was promptly
corrected
when brought to the attention of the area
foreman.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
ir Com ressor
Unloader Line Check
Valve'he
inspector
observed that the air unloader line from the air
compressor
to the air receiver tank did not contain
a check valve as
did the other piping connections
to the tank.
The inspector
reviewed the system
PAID and found that
no check valve was
identified for the line.
The inspector questioned
whether the
exclusion of a check valve was consistent
with the design basis
capacity for the tank.
The licensee
provided the inspector with an
analysis
(Calculation H-108) which identified that the existing
configuration
was correct
and consistent
with the design basis
analysis.
The inspector
found that the licensee
documents
adequately
resolved his concern.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
Rela
Contact Seismic
uglification
The inspector
reviewed Action Request
(AR) A259385,
dated
February
25,
1992,
which identified that relay contact chattering
had
been
experienced
during seismic testing of the control panels for the
sixth diesel
generator.
The
AR identified the
need to review the
impact of the test results
on the existing five diesels
which use
the
same relays
and
any other applications of the relays in the
plant.
At the time of the inspection,
the inspector
found that the
generic review of the test results
had not been
addressed
in
response
to the AR.
The inspector
was concerned
that the relay
contact chattering
could affect the seismic qualification of the
five operable diesels.
In response
to the inspector's
concern,
the licensee identified that
relay contact chattering
had
been evaluated
by Nuclear Engineering
and Construction
Services
(NECS),
and that it had
been determined
not to affect the seismic qualification of the existing diesels.
The licensee initiated
an Action Evaluation
(AE) for the
AR to
document
the engineering
evaluation.
At the exit meeting,
the
licensee identified that the
AE had
been
issued.
Licensee
procedure
NPAP C-12/NPG-7. 1, "Identification and Resolution
of Problems
and Nonconformances,"; Paragraph
5.2.6.b required that
the shift foreman must
be informed of all
ARs that report
deficiencies that
may affect equipment operability as
soon
as the
condition is identified.
The procedure
included all ARs that:
. question or could reasonably
impact the operability of
equipment
governed
by the Technical Specifications,
or
. identify the failure (or potential failure) of a plant
component,
system or program to meet its design
basis or FSAR
commitment.
The inspector
found that the shift foremen
had not been
informed of
AR A259385259385which identified
a potential
inadequacy
in the seismic
qualification of the operable
diesel
generators.
This failure to inform the shift foreman
as required
by procedure
NPAP C-12 is
an apparent violation
(NCV 50-323/92-14-01).
The
violation is not being cited because
the criteria specified in
Section VII.B(l).ofthe
NRC Enforcement Policy were satisfied.
In addition, the inspector
reviewed licensee
procedure
NPAP C-
29/NPG-7. 10,
Rev.
0, "Operability Evaluation."
Paragraph
2.2.3
required that; for degraded
conditions
impacting equipment
operability, the timeliness of the evaluation for operability should
4
be commensurate
with the safety significance of the issue.
Further,
Paragraph
2.2.3.b required,
in part, that for deficiencies
in
qualification, the schedule for evaluation of operability should
be
established
within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after engineering
concurs that
operability is impacted.
The inspector
found that
AR A259385259385had
been initiated in February,
1992,
by engineering identifying the
potential for seismic test results
to impact the operability of the
five existing diesels.
However,
an evaluation of operability for the
deficiency was not performed.
The inspector
noted that the
new
procedure
had only been
issued
in November,
1991.
The inspector
found that the
new operability evaluation
procedure
(C-29) was not
referenced
in the existing problem identification procedure
(C-12).
The licensee
acknowledged
the lack of coordination
between the
existing procedures
and stated that
a revision to the C-12 procedure
had
been initiated to correctly reference
the requirements
of the C-
29 procedure.
The inspector
found the licensee
action to be
adequate.
One non-cited violation was identified.
Ex ansion Joint Assembl
The inspector
observed that
a vendor supplied expansion joint
had
been installed atop the diesel
connecting
it to the exhaust piping.
The inspector
observed that the lower
connected
to the turbocharger,
contained
twenty bolt holes but only ten bolts were installed.
The identical
connected
to the exhaust
pipe,
had
twenty bolts installed.
The inspector
was concerned
that the proper
number of bolts
may not have
been installed in the lower flange of
the bellows.
The inspector
reviewed the diesel
assembly
drawing,
ALCO drawing 30-A-73343.
The inspector 'found that the drawing
identified ten bolt holes for the turbocharger
The inspector
discussed
his observation with the licensee
mechanical
foreman
who
explained that the assembly
had
been
compared to the other diesels
and found to be identical.
As
a result the inspector
concluded that
the correct
number of bolts
had
been installed.
However, the drawing did not specify any bolting or gasket
requirements
for the assembly.
The inspector reviewed
Work Order
(WO) C93408 which assembled
the bellows to the turbocharger
as part
of the vendor supplied
components.
The
WO did not specify any
bolting or gasket
requirements
for the assembly.
Through discussions
with licensee
construction
personnel,
the
inspector
found that the
10 bolts
and gasket for the lower flange of
the bellows
had
been installed under
WO C89564 which attached
the
exhaust
pipe to the upper flange of the bellows.
The inspector
reviewed the
WO and found no specific instructions pertaining to the
although
a bolt torque record did
include data for the lower flange assembly.
The inspector concluded
that lower flange assembly
work was outside the scope of
WO C89564.
The licensee
General
Construction
(GC) personnel
stated that,
lacking specific instructions,
they had interpreted
the drawings in
the field to extend the bolting and gasket specifications for the
upper bellows flange to the lower flange
and adjusted
the number of
bolts to match the turbocharger bolt hole 'pattern.
The inspector
found that the licensee's
actions
appeared
to result in an
appropriate
assembly of the components.
However, the inspector
was
concerned
that the construction
personnel
had not obtained specific
clarification of the assembly'equirements
from engineering
at the
time of the installation.
This failure to have appropriate written
instructions for performing work on safety related
equipment is
an
apparent violation
(ENF 50-323/92-14-02).
The inspector
noted that the sixth diesel
generator
had
been
procured
as
commercial
grade
equipment
and that the licensee
was in
the process
of performing
a seismic qualification and dedication for
use in the safety related application.
According to the licensee,
this method of qualification was unique to the sixth diesel
generator
compared
to that of the other five diesel
generators.
Due
to the in-house
seismic qualification
and dedication,
the inspector
was concerned
that the licensee's
failure to adequately
control
vendor component
assembly
may affect the seismic qualification of
the diesel.
The licensee
acknowledged
the inspector's
concern for
appropriate
engineering
involvement in the installation process.
One violation was identified.
The inspector
conducted
an exit meeting
on April 23,
1992, with members
of the licensee staff as indicated in Section
1.
During this meeting,
the inspector
summarized
the scope of the inspection activities
and
reviewed*the inspection findings
as described
in this report.
The
licensee
acknowledged
the concerns identified in the report.
The inspector
requested
that the licensee
inform the Region
V staff of
its intended
schedule for the tie-in of the new'iesel
generator
fuel oil
piping to the existing fuel oil transfer
system.
The licensee
acknowledged
the inspector's
request.
Subsequent
to the exit meeting,
additional discussions
with licensee
personnel
were held onsite
on April 24,
1992.
The inspector
reviewed
additional
documents
submitted
by the licensee
to the Region
V office on
Hay 13,
1992.
No additional
issues
resulted
from those reviews.
During this inspection,
the licensee
did not identify as proprietary
any
of the materials
provided to or reviewed
by the inspector.
0
0