ML17083B496
| ML17083B496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1985 |
| From: | Bosnack R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341A470 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8502040370 | |
| Download: ML17083B496 (12) | |
Text
~f1 1lEcy (4
+4 PO 0
D $
gO
++*or+
UNITEDSTATES LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO WASHINGTON,D. C. 20555 JAN 3S >985
~-
FROM:
Certain members of the DC2 RG as noted on Attachment 81 visited the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 site on January 17, 1985 to'a) close out those items still open from the November 13-16, 1984 Piping and Support Configuration Team (PSCT) site audit, and b) to compare additional selected piping and support as-built configur~tions with the completed Phase III drawings from the San Francisco office.
In an exit meeting held with members of the PG&E/Bechtel Diablo Canyon
'Project, (Attachment 0 2 lists attendees)
PG&E was given a list of 9 "completion-type" items requiring their immediate attention and response to
.permit the timely completion of our SER.
This list is included in Attachment 0 3.
Following a discussion of the above 9 itmes, I advised PG&E that the Review Group has concluded its detailed audit of approximately 30 selected piping problems and 70 supports.
Our review was distributed among the 3
PG&E analysis groups approximately as follows:
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James P. Knight, Acting Director Division of Engineering Robert J.
- Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 AUDIT AT PGE/BECHTEL OFFICES SAN FRANCISCO, CA. JANUARY 14-18, 1985 The NRC Diablo Canyon 2 Review Group (DC 2 RG) personnel and consultants shown on Attachment fl visited the PGE/Bechtel offices on January 14-18, 1985 to continue the audit of the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 pipe and pipe support design commenced during the weeks of October 22-26, 1984 (refer to memo dated 10/29/84),
November 26-30, 1984 (refer to memo dated 12/4/84).
Bechtel San Francisco (BSFO)
Bechtel Gaithersburg (BEPO)
Westinghouse Piping Problems 15 1) 3 Supports 32 16 21'otals 29 69 Note: (At the start of this week's audit, PG&E reported the Phase III completion level at approximately 90~).'he DC 2 RG believes that the satisfactory completion of the above piping and support analyses represents a level of detailed review sufficient for the Review Group to reach a conclusion on Unit 8 2.
Our review revealed some
+5 @2.Itl74 >7
James P. Knight calculational discrepancies (dimensional, modellirig, SIFs) however, they were
.of the type that might be expected to be found on any typical project and were
'ot of the type that would impact satisfying the licensing criteeia.
The Review Group has also concluded that PGKE's Internal. Review. Program (IRP) and Allegation Review Program (ARP) are adequate'o do what they were established for, i.e
, track the host of items from Unit ¹1 affecting Unit ¹2,"
.and tracking the allegations made on both units.'n closing the meeting, we commented on the spirit of cooperation and frank discussion the Review Group members experienced, without exception, in the design offices and at the site.
SER writing assignments for DC2 RG appear in Attachment ¹4.
Final products due to B. Saffel, ASAP, or following review of PGIEE submission required by Attachment ¹ 3.
Attachments 1.
Review Group (Mechanical)
- 2. Meeting Attendees.
3~ List of 9 Completion Items 4.
SER Assignments cc:
D. Eisenhut, NRR H. Thompson, DL'.
- Kuo, DE L. Manoly, R I E. Sullivan, DE E. Rodabaugh, ECRA B. Saffell, BCL T. Burr, INEL K. Morton, INEL M. Russell,
$NEL G. Miller, IOEL H. Fleck, ETEC H. Brammer, ETEC J. Prevost, ETEC P. Bezler, BNL M. Johnston, DE J.
- Crews, R
V Robert J.
Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineerng Branch Division of Engineering
~ y ~
'Attachment 81 IRP/ARP (IRPT)
R. Bosnak NRC*
M. Hartzman NRC K. Manoly NRC K. Morton INEL B. Saffell BCL Diablo Canyon 2 Review Group (Mechanical)
Meeting,'anuary 14-18, 1985 San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, CA r
Bechtel San Francisco,'SFOT B. Saffell BCL*1/
K. Morton INEL -1/
M. Russell INEL-J.
Brammer ETEC Bechtel EPD Gaithersbur (BEPDT)
W (WT)
K. Manoly NRC1/
T. Burr INEL-G. Miller INEL 1/
Pi in and Su ort Confi uration (PSCT)
E.
Rodabaugh ECR*
H. Fleck ETEC J.
Brammer ETEC-P. Bezler BNL M. Hartzman, NRC*
H. Fleck ETEC J; Prevost ETEC P. Bezler BNL
- Team Leader 1/
Attended site meeting on January 17, 1985
~ Attachment 52 Roster of Participants in the Audit and Inspection of Diablo Canyon Unit 2 1/14 - 18/85 Name B. F. Saffell M. J.
Russell D. K. Morton.
G.
K. Miller J.
M. Brammer K. A. Manoly R. J.
Bosnak T. Burr G. Grim
, P.
B. Hornbeck G.
K.
Wang Raj Parekii S.
A. Palm D. M. Sartoris W. S.
Lapay S.
Halupa G. Antaki G. V. Cranstoq D.
W. Ogden S. Bokhari G. Kotwansi R. L. Kelmenson P, Bezler H. Fleck J.
R. Prevost P.
G. Antiocho T. F.
Quan R. J.
Bosnak E.
C.
Rodabaugh T. P.
Lee M. Hartzman P. Dalai R. Sorensen R.
Dhawan C. J. Zeknik M. Z. Khlafallah C. Chem Howard Friend Larry E. Shipley Dick Anderson Nag Growvish B. S.
Lew
.F. Scapellato
~Cnm an
'Battel le EG&G Idaho EG&G Idaho EG&G Idaho ETEC NRC NRC'G&G Idaho
- Bechtel, SFHO Westinghouse Westinghouse Westinghouse Westinghouse Westinghouse Bechtel-DCP PG&E Lic.
NRC/BNL Rockwell Int.
(NRC)
Rockwell Int.
NRC)
PG&E Bechtel NRC NRC/Consultant Bechtel NRC Bechtel SFHO Bechtel SFHO Bechtel SFHO Bechtel SFHO Bechtel SFHO Bechtel SFHO Bechtel SFHO Bechtel SFHO Bethtel SFHO
.Bechtel SFHO TCP W
~oi ti NRC Consultant NRC Consultant NRC consultant NRC Consultant NRC Consultatn DE, Region I
- MEB, NRR NRC Consultant STRESS QA Project Engineer Plant Design Structural Analysis Structural Analysis Structural Mechanic Structural Analysis Piping Systems Engineer DCP/PE DCP'fD
'PD DCP BNL DCP DCP IVRR/MEB None DCP NRC/MEB Stress Staff, Plant Design Stress Staff Plant Design
- Stress, Plant Design
~
Proj. Qual. Engineer PD Staff PD Staff DCP PD Staff DCP DCP Licensing DCP Licensing DCP Licensing
~
~
1 2.
3.
Attachment ¹3 '
Completion Items Due From PGEE to DC2 RG
'Mechanical) for Completion of SER I
Confirmation by PGKE via spot checks and sample calculations that all Code pressure design and area replacement requirements have been complied with.
Branch connections were emphasized.
Final submission by PGRE on the status of Unit ¹ 2 meeting the Unit ¹ 1
Seven License Conditions, 2.C.(11).
Allegations - Additional information and clarification required by PGEE a) Seven allegations (1642 through 1648) identified in NRC letter 12/20/84 to PGLE..
PGRE letter 1/ll/85 requires revisions as discussed during audit meeting.
Major rewrite needed for allegation 1642.
')
Anonymous allegation (not in tracking system)
NRC letter 1/17/85 to PGSE.
Submission required to clearly cover both welds and members.
+ ~
n c) Allegations 1430, 1431 and 1432 - Submission by PGEE required.
(JI letter of 7/16/84)
While not directly concerned with the subject of the audit, the need to make the submission required by the Regulations 10 CFR 50.55a(g),
on inservice testing of pumps and valves for Unit ¹ 2 was stressed.
A copy of the NRC review summation for Unit ¹1 was presented to PGSE together with a listing of Unit ¹1 pressure isolation valves apparently omitted from the Unit ¹ 1 IST program (refer to MEB memo of ll/13/84).
PGKE was advised to review their Unit ¹2 program to incorporate all PIVs.
5.
Submission for Unit ¹2 on the subjects of jet impingement-and whip restraints (IRP 2-7002 and 2-6002, respectively).
We received a copy of an internal memorandum dated 1/17/85 indicating that Unit ¹2 was treated similarly to Unit ¹1.
For high energy jet evaluation, i.e.,
PGKE used 275 psi and 200'F rather than 275 psi or 200'F.
A reevaluation was conducted and st was reported that no physicaT modifications were required.
Formal subrHssion by PGEE is necessary.
r
6.
In its letter of 12/28/84 DCL 84-390 PGLE presented its TP TD-8402 for visual inspection of mechanical snubbers.
The submission neglected to supply requirements for the snubber "as-installed," including the connections to the supporting structure and the supported component.
Adjlitionally, the team wished to know whether the work has been completed.
Both items discussed above should be reported on by PGRE.
7.
From its review of PIPSAN, the DC2 RG W team became aware of a situation in which a U-bolt used on an angl.e member under certain conditions can result in unacceptably high stresses in the U-bolt.
This may occur with U-bolt gaps of less than 1/16".
PGLE is to present their analysis of the'ype of support in question and how they assure satisfactory performance.
The number of supports of this type is also part of the pertinent information desired.
8.
Where channel members are used, either singly or in pairs, PGKE to confirm that the minimum stiffener spacing requirements of the AISC Standard and Subsection NF of the ASME Code have been complied with.
9.
PGKE is to provide assurance that baseplates with a single row of bolts have been properly modelled and require no structural modification.
'V 1
1