ML20040C040
| ML20040C040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1978 |
| From: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Volgenau E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13319A635 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-81-313 NUDOCS 8201270196 | |
| Download: ML20040C040 (70) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. o!.;; t p :;T/. T L C NUCLE AR REGULA10HY CD.U.ilss!ON i WA SHi*;OTO*J. C, C. MM E r.... er c.. APo. 5 E78 = MEMORAfiDUM FOR: E. Volgenau, Director, Office of Inspection and Entorcement FROM: E. Case, Acting Director, Office of fluclear Reactor Regu,lation P
SUBJECT:
SAti ONOFRE UNI'T 1 STEAM GEf1ERATOR SUPPORT PLATE E CRACKING i: It has come to our attention.that some infonnation previously existed regarding potential steam generator support cracking of the San Onofre steam generators. The information apparently has been available to the licensee s.ince 1976 but was not provided to us until March 1978. For your information the following facts are provided: 1. On March 24, 1978, the NRR staff' met with the licensee representa-tives and their consultants from Westinghouse to discuss technical justification for the removal of certain license conditions. During the meeting, a set of photographs taken in October 1976 and another set taken in September 1977 was passed around the table. These photos show extensive tube support plate cracking at edges of flew slots in steam generators A and C. The photos were subsequently submitted to the staff on March 31, 1978. 2. The staff asked the licensee whetner or not these photos and facts were previously known to the staff. The licensee stated that the, photos were passed around the table during a meeting on January 18, 1977. Our recorris, meeting summary, and submitted documents do not support their statement.
- Ie have since checked with NRR staff members present in the January 18. 1977 meeting and no one can recall seeing those photos, nor does.myone recall having any knowledge of extensive support plate cracking at this plant.
[ 3. The. technical report dated January 30, 1977 submitted by.the licensee in support of amendments authorizing continued operation only casually ~ s mention the potential of support plate cracking. In the absence of .z knowledge of the existence of extensive tube suoport plate cracking, the staff concluded in our SER dated April 1,1977 that operation of San Onofre Unit 1 could be continued for a full year (later clarified = to mean one year of operation with primary coolant over 350 F (Amend-ment 32)). If the October 1976 photos had been made available, or if ,h. DEL {]e2-313 02 p96sto925 PDR ~ ~
?=i::. 2
- Y:-
- ...aege.n.
~" = s. .? the extent of support plate cracking had been made known to us, we probably would not have authorized continued operation for a full _ -.M::
===EE year without interim inspection but would probably have required shut-down for inspection after about six months of operation, similar to 5.5-a " = ~ = the actions taken on Surry and Turkey Point Unit 4.
== Therefore, we reouest an investigation into this matter to determine
- y;;;; "
Ef~~ whether er not safety information was with' held from the regulatory staff. Er Documents,in our possession related to this matter are attached. i =_..- \\m ,:=::
- ??:7 E G. Case, Acting Director
, - - = = =
- .K Office of Nuclear Reactor
- -if Regulation Attachment : As stated 7
==
- =.:.
=: i 3.7 i = ....i.f
- =::
'
- bb.
=::jjkf
- ..=
l ' 5_- - = ..= ;.: l
- ' ~
.. ~.... ' ~
= gr ..gc : ,., q,g % ;. .,.g. Fj
- ' '.T - _:
'1 e g,l. ;.'w y gt ' 4 1 ~ .. XN..?ffe} I -.m... F M. 2 cg s l N l ....,.. g._n j r ' 7*- . -"v4 M,.i -A _s=yt.,. a u ~ = easge~ '~ s n 1 . n.. E .. - = M ,,A t l 1 .an m i \\ - -- x-1 . A it ~ $T e ea,%
- l
~ l i ) 1 M Ei l -f G j I z 6, in
- &:qt ;
r----.-----.--
p p, =22 w;2-.. - -
-1= ,_-.1 7" - d m b#--~ _g3 --j {4 nrg-g _e.,,,. (
- m I
. 32 '
- W.
- . - ~ '. =..,... -) " 2. m s i R
~ x 'Yn:Mi:7.s_a2'8 3 . + w ~ --. ~ r r-~ = m. . =ww-~~ _mca i m a. N-. ___ ~ r --- w 1 Ly [ ~ ~ ~ %.. m m. M.... a m E y_ .. aw a, G. E J V a / n r.- / i 4. ~,,
- 4 T M' ' AMt Mi',. rj
., Ji m , ;,7 l Mg-T . A.. Cl -[- k aQ a ~c~w
.-l. d% i n_-_-_ i l l ..r.-- ) r -l - r -._,s. s l ?vv X w ~~-:=. w-r-x- ~ &, - -uu?- ? .% w.= a u: 4., ' N4~.4 h.*EdQN..M-,, ,,r _r eweegmq 4,ws,s.w.ewM j s w - n u ;-a:;;o p e._== . c.,; 34 _ ; 4 mi74 _ ,,.,m g w g_ s - -._.-a _ _.-- _ n; .+; = - ;-. - 3. .. n ~%Wm2y,%, f CR'&%%LtxV45 Z. '4L ^.M. ,ti W:'FW'U.a E i= w ~- w :
==.--/ _-:;'- - e._ a y y _ -- ~~-: __ -3 _ - - - t ,_ ; d- - '5m~- W,M eg;,4 4's Ogic hie
- 4. 4m 4
F w.e-r-.,.., ce e i rue 22.X } a I d G
- 8 M' N-hd4 > Ed1Nrigit M
W 5 ? 3 [! s T l P a l = l l s N m h_ gt l L-h l ,,ma ; -Wi8T'M. f T< w
'W g fM,Q.. f l, 'T v :-f w.. - \\ l m ;;. y n .\\ h -~ $m""= ' (;-'., =- h 6,% .,A r=n m i ~. P 'TC.2 D. WNum_. WH 0".Q * ,T ~' ~~ h F ~ 7' \\, [. .an - uw se 6 wh== 4 - 44 &w m h sh ee J ~ + l M s-n
- ta
,pM .g ' c-r;, Vc : 2!E '.Na v~ / ' ic /6 W 1 L M OM h = ab de m. 3 L 1 i
- = -
- .!o~,.J.1 @ [L,..,. _ i.7gL -.-- 5~..%
= ti;L }f.s.. -,. ?..,: ~ g,,- 3 M - 5 & : : :: e t - - ~ M."+ W M l? - n ac c kR w [u ] ~ ~" b O. rm w: : u . _= =, g w--> ~ ~n e s -*_ TywJ
- p4.
M. "' W ___25; 4 [ [i* -- ~ - ] [ D.' .. c yW+t*.,. + 5.e..h.M.. f.1J -- i _ = -- p4 .m... e hif.fP _t*..,. -j.yz;/:;,J..<.;;pi
- ,p g.]'
,. _,9,. "4 '8 '+ - M i 1 +_ L. I 6 u ~_ - cs_., h .9 < @[. m uswaemon 1
M t' f .g . J., :, a..s i ammy, . u. : .. a ".g,
- x...x.. -~a
- d..
.. g vf. 9 '-P. 3- '.. m a o. p .'.1 v- - j .p 8.-. . ;.{ j ' p ,.usseep
- g.. ~ 1y w
a. V oe-M.Hr* o + Q ~ ~ ~ .... ', ' J:,. }&
- [ _.
Af $ 's 7 A isp ~ ? ' % W mry.&. w s.,.s :....~y: 4 m - cr 3-w'
- Metyp,
. gp g.- MWs 6. e. - ' b - '. ..s ; -....,. - a-wo =** - e 3 ,, g.. r .a e6.. A. %. 4 a/w ,'.t.. y 's , 3. _.p.; .y. L..., ~ g ... i ;) ? .c. : y. .c .m ...c . o(,. ..(f[! . t y '.; s '. i...".a'*. E .," l y.." b ' M' ' -g W_, -.y y
- p. gg,,fv T
.fg,J.
y;'...h - '
. $, A bn J
s,
('.
.,.:.w
.s.g 7.,,
g.
.,e e,
4Mwir
,e...., l -l _.. - -
..' f ; '.. # j. ' p c.. '..
.. g.. W #
J
.aus... _
ed
. _. #...& se g;.
. g.,
useEmmeg.
, ; s..y
=,.
.-3
.ar,.
...3--
4
.., _.,....f.
g ga....ug'...
...,....yg.;g g f./$tkQ+. s.
v, 2
P_
.[_. F' '. g~, d' p -
-w.
.: ~
g y$rng>t 7 s$,sg!@
nmp _ (Rt,n9.7 y; pp.,
y;, w
. - ~.
n
+
...w 3.; :;s w. n n ~,a Mh.
....... s.1
[.. ;p..
M
...+ ~-~?:
n J d
a f.
4g*
wi (g,L:
x.
+
w u,. _..,--
V, '.',7 a
Y.
- 4
/
g-W b'
it'. ' ' 1 Si [
g 4' 4
h+t.
$GD}
E'c k d4 [,.'. '-.d
-t
, { *., -y V
4
. b;n.
.s
=
9..M t.,,
.g
. f & f.. ' r
- U *%k hA8l
$ k~ k ?; h k. l q,"i g.. -.T M4M" M.Q'p' Q )$. ~,7,z,k.y'W'Y., 6. :.$E84 P' fV.S ( 9.8 4 e ~~ W r f q', M. L.W..*ft ",.. */ ;. '. ,. ; ~r n.g ;'. *,. eg'.. 9r!. ^ ' la$ s . " s; r 7.3 I.' M [.N. A."I - - , y.3 4 4s i "r j..,. .- 3 +2E% I ' I '- h,, ^# V i'- ']5 f ? . = ? '. N.. -y " - W.w-0, 's:-p;. ;i.i '...': - yq.. < !j., d t. . t. . L",'i ' ./ - / r ' g
- g. t p f,
.4 7,, ..'.p. f. . i. dr..w-. .+.p.,.,- .n
- *%.k ;-
- 3 gg w. wy g . +. -k.r Ye$,1 -A.. , ff )e. .'
- E g '
.g ..*h,','... 1: l1 w m.'.].b -.. '* g A, '.,.J.. l .,.yqR te
- +
i -j, y 2 e
- r,.y g y.-
j 9
- Wan y
.e %_. * ::, e - ,4. . e t ly },e'., j.'% *..; 1: b .x. .... y .2 ' + ..,I,. ,c. g 2 _E r .? .s S %y M l4 Q. '...d t. , % '., g.. $. '. 'A{ h 'l. ' ; [.,. ..- 4 c. s..-..t .'~' 3 _., y, k
- ,.4
,y -. r y+ ,,r A_ ., i,, $ '., Rf ,".>j.*' (. ,Q v- ..A... jlg ' ' V f.Q.., r,.,;) i is }f 's , F," .p.y.,V : $-%' i y -
- - y.I E-k, '; y ~
g i g @ f a' 2 . k ,N ' w#, .% w. 3' :-.. w.W-Q.. .m s,
- y.,._ ',t,'3.,
-)oiv s-2 - 'c + . -i .,.h. 1s.
- . *i. #
4 3% ,ll -*N -E. ~ p '.( " #4.J. '.1 ~, Q-4 T f ;,-p ;.g..g J. 3,*"t** : ' ' * { _ y r.g _. }l' $( '{ 4 d.;. N $. , f j. ', ~ ~- g. ',,'.,[ ~ +%.;.h, * (*7*:S '.
- ((. k 9 &
. ~ 'y. 4 /<,..A..,.....
- 4..g,f,A A,J ig.n,.
.a s..T - - a ..e y.. u. -. l Y. ;h. ' ' Q., s ' * '$. f' Y.- V.h ' W,,.lY ?*:. . - l T k-x. f." '.. } 'I j f&. k O 2h.Ohki %QT?:.W@. @.s}T,. i. h Q}..T...,.,,: ~ g-i %.,., Y..
- d. A.. h 5
. ' N -l%. N' ' ?.. a.
- m. Q,. T ' ' '.
g [, 's -< f. ; .
- r,..) ; b pj {-[.. ~(h ?,..
-S -s g'" 4 '* x,g. { g ;-.. -l. ( ' : t, x, +g'c s. - x y-- . 4. ..,, y ?. ..y- .j. d .t , g M'g,, <.. ).., }, [".? <. = - a,vs - c., 1 - [ <, *., i' [ f-( -= ',[. '*"8 I k,d. ]. "ff$ I g Y.. v.$..' "' - ' A 0 b "' '. s - t t. _ 4. 9.,g:= Q... 4., '....a...?-'% /, -3..'.i '. ~ ;. ^ fr.. q r >.. =w,.N. : h., " l y, '.. N " ^ er
- .. l%
l ~" lit # gp -ll. ., 4 e '. *. --,. i e, p u. .,y ..a '_"_.1 ,. } g. ' ..;p. g. L. _~ C, -g; - pg ' l* K ap s > [y,;* p' ,, i, W ( < p..,;'h!k?.
- k&. i.f.4.f
-? hg-I 3y "t .3 Q .f-O.
- r
- =. ' i
- ,
p .. - e. -. f. - y) s :_ - '.A M,,.,. eQ M, LA';.k{ { ' ". [3 IL - - [. \\ [., *.,.sr T 5 5. '.d ". f 4 2 J -['.. - ff ~ "*b-~-
- , '. ~
g@d -@q:.,7 q .g e,k.&dw :=. ^ -.- W* /,..:_ + v ..c.. .. g...f":-. [J. .,e e .. >,. ry,,. _), , m. 2 t -1 =a.%.ab 4., h4 - - - - - - -- -..ii-..
b sk
- / ' S iill piH!!
i' f f 5 m- '\\ l
- D I
sip. s\\1 d k \\
l m;p wegy \\ N... _ ~ ' _l_ _~ 55Nk 7 .a s1 .... a. q ; m y g ; = p ;..;;:r; p z {t \\ A + Me!*=' - '==== =^ ___- '= ~ ~*
- 5 L.
-...a.:.;zi
- w~y7~_L^_ J t
.u.
- 'r ;
l W. W n....- =.n+_ ,a l 2 ~+ sa=en+g n z.;;-= x ..,~~~7 ~~E'- .,.__g__ j i;f -'..anLet s i s l T o, P \\ l hl \\ e i 1 be gm i s L, n r. 4f, \\
/ gi gg:ptgs a+ /! / a U 4 \\ r j /~ ha- % c==; 8 / \\ 8
- 59 l,@
'n IS 6 }% ~ $5 # \\ '= : / / U s s 5'# A.5l4 i! f,5l f=. ' ' S! lE = I \\ 2 \\' s /
? 4 W
- ?
- s u
u._..m. _. r_. - - s-j ggg }.3ii^s'.mN%,s M U
- j
~ 173'0,2 q - ~ 2 m, + m _ _-. - r _- e-e.,_ --~u y q g ' %;@:gY"-f ="fa v io '-3 e W /, \\ ,C'. % 3/ a'CI& ~* $ 5_ % / : E': 5% 3 /,g '
- dw?
h ' g-M / / = s fillEIE / / / \\=/ %:= e 'j y,= a [/l,,,== %g '= 'b \\ t '\\ \\ , 8 ~ s + i \\ M kk L s 4y \\ _ >/ \\ \\ ;f /,=,/ ,=,/ i-5 s 7: E',41 /'~;% C t 1 C 1 j / ~ 's / C / l S \\ \\ / \\ l l
l I ^' ^^ &'&~, & '** ? K $l 5,& - = f&,&
- r..,;,
'f' ~ ^^ -a.': n
- s =_x
_ _ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ^ ^ ^ -- $6 W *&' I ter s aw41) / g. 7; @.i '=- - $ ,, J. y_ .. __. u 1.. ; l a _mu_.,._, 4 e : a:_- =- na VCtiI D l F -0 vai :..e a.._MM qf f l f w. Q ,^ s. s-w - h gg ; 1M5' e3f w" -3e ^ 3 1 em = ****** .. ~ 9 nam Ig p mg= .g l HE[ e \\ / v._e.r. \\ + m m 4 / fJ ci i J 547 l j / / ^$14 \\ 4 ^" i!l \\, \\.. (, l / 1 g b t seg. C3 N l A". k a n l ? l l, b ,I l \\, \\ 1 1 _. _ _. ~. ~ _ _. _
1 V~ .y;,.,4'
- 4
_q _y-en Or AkT1 i ,4 _p,'im pg aRamn mannaardashhwa meAg J ,,4.gmm 4 le j -y e.,. 3 > + - ^^ [j _a f ~YS No l .$~ N A '_*u _g i -a e f go _- 7--<- g A q g wrurwm.urmrras vc t~ r - 4 ey a ,. _- _ - _ - - -- g 4 g eae.we A' i* > / ^v N c, /, p - a%W w-g.. 8% augitw er*:79t' 3 1 % ausra s \\s .Le< l & -M / a' ~ 't J S .w. /,5 "~ s / .) ~. M C
- .s W{
'1 \\ s . J, B,j 4 -# =-a gs y ,\\ '
- 28 4[
l A e, H .\\.i., i e y 4 Y g. F -14 s ~ {sdl 4* - 1 h- $ 51 ~, Op, 4' - 3 e% dl S g r s.- f ' ' '.\\ . \\ ( 1' \\ p.(, ~_. e/ k \\ n r Q t i I b t 9 fo i I l ,_h / r t _,.__.._.._--__-.mmm_.m.-m..- ---,-m.-
' ; i., a 6 =* w-.... 9.*.. m m.; s - /pl QM$g, ' (.,g.g ( g, ' ' ' e* s- [ ".-'M 4,j,,'5 y h, f;. + {g y -~ k ', ' : i^ ' 4,. .g, - ,y
- ' 'M,
24. y... .,3
- c. '
- maht gh4 s-a> W 4
WNn. .. n wn .;r. ,c e, w -3 y..w a.- j W ~. w -x.,. 4* ._'. : w m.,,yi.c; . wg. .,....,sg, ~.yy - -... y nyp. vyg hae.g gg,: ,t . y y.-.m.. .m, y y o..
- p. m..q;7.
.g...=.. 4,, -~ yE..a;*7E
- N..
Q q-.,y.7,_m w 7.,y3 g \\ - .,. m:N e U. w. 4 2 'y v.'eg _< s ' jp'E $, ""l: fd ^$f-T;5 $.h, f,.g;hk-y* .7LZ . ' y.y v:. e ~ m- .r u. I ~y ar. =ig y.., 4< % ".-,..g y Ag.:q A w ;b w..g.. a
- 9....
p - A t. s n,,
- g. p
.4 e r .y2.
- o. e.i,we. +
-...,.9%*, w.;s. p .4 m (. a. [' M YS;* W. .WWWWh% 9' M' g. ',,- G p% f l[.p,,;~ G, ;.Q g-g. g.; g , p. l ?
- ~ _, f E A~ _ g +. *w n ? -
T.
- ' -[
v s e. . 4:: : =.- m-4. ; ,&g 3 ',.; } _g; .+}...gL-" i M J, b.. E. 5., Jy..... _ p 'A D... .,.y 7 f s.., .., /M. 7.,.y 4 m g ';. N, t*fg 'f I. '. ;_ y ___ 5 ~ ^' '*' ,.1?. _ l 'v. a Y k,,. '-.. ~- * ' ' ~ at.* (,-.": l y j, y ,{ z. y f e } .j 3 m ( . v e(,. e p w.. 9 , ar., b user v = - r i ',f; i J-5 gg l' 4.y", g .. ;.e.- 4 s. ,ug s s e 9.s,. 3 [ .( :..g..., = r 1. q:, y.....,_ ae <;.m ) F ... w, r,'
- .tt s
~.t q. 2 Y ? 6 p. . M.,,%,.c..9,- ls \\ '4,j.y. mmL 3,, : 4 .c sy .x . i .o 1 ask ;. z. ;-_ 3. _ '_ __,,' ". ,,f'.,,', g* Ys_s*~ ~ Y ~y .a. :4.y.. + ' Y Y 2. P * 'yl ,,,5
- g.. -
3 .t; m. * - e 3 . A _'.t,. - i. - '- ; m. n q y n;y ,[ 5 c.,. -m= .a___3 c. _ j, - * >a 1 + a -lL ( +3 c +. _g g A i j. '- [ 1. fa-j.]- .p =f ,y g, p_ 7 Y ,,e l> ,y m -a: i,, ~ '
- S
.M V,J q? '*Q n y, _,y I. '^ ' ' ' ' .s. I [ y s,, c7" . ;.c.,','l.y y*M 4 s - p, s.1 p . j .h ,i f - v 4 l $K,.. . -, Mf.-{ y W,... _- A ,m 4 -y 93.7 .g ~'. - A .E ,..M g _f l. ?.~~ ~ Q* ' ^. * ' in. ?' R .rg -: -f:%l e : ..- r _ _ g :s y, y ry 3, .a._a g
- 2. k '
.Q,,..~.,,. .t t ..: 7 : I,_.c ? Q' L.- l' ' 6' 'i c v+ - ',d q_ .3 y y . /.. C' =*E + r -
- e v
. _,. Q,.np.;- -, s. .l- }. n ? }* ,, A..p. p.' _,,.. 4, ?_. { [ . p [. e '*h 7." } ly 4 t,.3...r 3z 7;. - ?. ^ f --r; .. a 4 + s y.,. -.. 4 - .. - 7 .. c T- .i ' ^' ' b [ e f, 3 - ';.a. L ' + - g A a.
- e.
t . S t. d' .,4 e( E '., ' 1
- 2. 3
".g,,,'I*. ,); *, - .~4 .,-.y '} L
- er 4
.h g' .y _+ i 4 + ;.. ,_., H ' r i.. ' ',- / y;. s < r r,= 3 s '*r s' _- T 5-
- h e.
~ _ / *.. ' .. i. w .t y. - + .) [ %p# ? dE 8 1, , 1 -. .e ,x 3 +.. '9 g k. 4. e, <.g. f' M-f* 4 s 4 5",,, ' f , >-;h ..i g ,.n ? g, . +. ? n 9 ~.. g w.. _.._f M' pr ). s. y [ ~.% >p ,.g, g .+ e > %~ - Vw ~. ')..
' (b.;i.- f.5I.: i=:. i'.^.~. h.kk 1.*.J .153 5.i 5 5 _=;..::.. ..'i.~i15 3:#
- =r O nb..a
- 2.. ';r.
~ ~ ~ l ' ; :- i= Interviews * .==Ei; + =. - " *$!d
- .2:;-
seu .,:= e+
- All interviewees were advised of the nature of the inquiry and
==i-[ voluntarily supplied the information contained in the following interviews. It is noted that the W personnel requested-the presence t::- of-(W Licensing Manager); Mr. S. EErenpreis, Mr. D. Marcucci [4:' during the initial interviews and Mr. W. White during the supple-
- E mental interviews (W Legal Counsel).
Mr. J. Beoletto (SCE Legal ^ Counsel) was also present during the supplemental SCE interviews. SCE employees Krieger and Haynes requested that they be interviewed together. The investigators honored the above requests.
== j.=+1s l i ' '. g.~. -. ~...... -. -.. ~. - - - ... ~...
igi5
== ==: 1 List of Persons Interviewed NRC A. Burger, Project Manager, DOR, NRR B. D. Liaw, Section Leader, DOR, NRR .55L W. J. Collins, DOI, IE, HQ .=.r.=. 1 SCE ~ J. M. Curran, Nuclear Station Manager, San Onofre B. L. Curtis, Lead Supervisory Engineer, San Onofre
- =: -
V. G. Haynes, Chief Nuclear Engineer, Corporate .::6 l R. W. Kriager,. Licensing Engineer, Corporate H. L. Ottoson, f4 nager of Nuclear Generation, Corporate
== W. W. Strom, Plant Engineer, San Onofre D. E. Morgan, Site Nuclear Engineer MIS M. D. Fratt, Manager of Quality Contro! l ~ EDS' R. J. Stuart, Division Manager, Advanced Analysis Division W W. D. Fletcher, Project Manager, Corporate P. G. Smith, Manager of Structural Development, Tampa Division u.. D. C. Marburger, Manager, Mechanical and Fluid System Evaluation, F Corporate R. S. Grimm, Coordination Engineer, Corporate H. E. Houserman, Lead Engineer, Repair Services C. W. Bergmann, Senior Engineer, Plant Services Department 1 3 'Z'..' 1. y, i? ..Z.* g + ~. - -
~ @m E INTERVIEW WITH Al. FRED BURGER, NRR (NRC), PROJECT MANAGER APRIL 12, 1978 Mr. Burger was the NRR ? ojed Manager for the San Onofre facility at the time of the January 18, 1977 meeting with SCE, W and NRR repre-sentatives regarding SCE steam generator inspections. During the interviews, Mr. Burger reviewed his handwritten notes of the January 18 meeting to detennine if they referenced any discussion of flow slot cracks. Mr. Burger, upon questioning, stated that the written notes did not mention anything about the cracks. The notes stated that fiber optics were used to see cracks in the ligaments, similar to the i= cracks found at Turkey Point and Surry. "Hourglassing" of support plate l' flow slots were noted in steam generators "A and C" during the examina-tion ivith a boroscone. No hourglassing was ncted in steam generator "B." Also, Mr. Burger's notes stated that no "hourglassing" was present in the top plates. The investigators showed Mr. Burger the 1976 }l photographs in a W blue 8:~ colored folder and questioned Mr. Bu.ger about the photographs. Mr. Burger stated that he did not remember seeing the photographs in the folder and was not aware of the cracks in the flow slots-Mr. Burger also stated that the major emphasis of the meeting ',cas on the upper area of the steam generator tubes, in the "U" bend area, and that the only concern was the stressing of the tubes. Documents of other meetings, October 3, 1977 meeting notes; summary of March 24, 1978 meeting at San Onofre; and February 1, 1977 letter from SCE to NRR were reviewed and discussed with Mr. Burger. Mr. Burger advised that the major emphasis of the above meetings was on tube denting, eddy current tests, and metallurgical examination of the tubes.- Me noted that he did not see photographs showing flow slot cracking until the March 24, 1978 meeting. Mr. Burger was asked if Le thought that SCE would try to hide the pos-s.bility that cracks existcJ in the flow slots. His response was "no." He continued that if SCE ras trying to hide anything, they would not have supplied the photographs to NRP at the March 24, 1978 meeting. He stated that hc did not believe that SCE did anything flagrant or purposeful to conceal the cracks in the flow slots. Mr. Burger was asked, "Why dida't NRR question, the possibility of cracking at the flow slots when it was anticiphced that these flow slots would l cbse up and eventually crack." Mr. Burger stdtW that they (NRR) were l only thinking 'about the " tube denting problem"; therefore, they didn't 3 I think about cracks in the flow slots. Mr. Burger again stated that the major emphasis was on the upper "U" bend area and stressing of the tubes. Mr. Burger was asked if the project manager had seen the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) of March 18, 1977 which addressed among other things cracking between tube holes and water circulation holes and l [ l
=:. 2 hourglassing. He said "yes" and stated that the Technical Staff makes statements based on ir. coming information, and therefore they did not address lower support plate hourglassing and resultant cracks as the photographs in question had not been seen at that time.
= , 3-
- =:
a INTERVIEW WITH B. D. LIAW, TECHNICAL SUPPORT, NRR (NRC), APRIL 12, 1978 Mr. Liaw was questioned concerning flow slot cracks at other W plants. Mr. Liaw stated that Indiar. Point 2 had cracks similar to the San Onofre photographs but only on a single flow slot. He also stated that Turkey
== Point had cracks in flow slots and that he thought Surry 1 and 2 also - :.=- had some flow slot cracks. Mr. Liaw was asked if W had analyzed these '~ cracks and he answered, "Yes, b[ had analyzed cracks for Turkey Point and Surry and they said the awplitude was very low, therefore the cracks were not important." Mr. Liaw also pointed out that the Turkey Point =- and Surry steam generators had six or seven horizontal support plates whereas the San Onofre steam generators have only four horizontal support plates. He stated that a failure of two out of six or two out of seven would not be as critical as a failure of two out of four at San Onofre. Mr. Liaw noted that NRR anticipated that the flow slots would crack; however, they did not think they would crack in less than 12 months and by that time NRR would require SCE to take corrective action. He also noted that if NRR had known that the cracks existed prior to the resump-tien of operations they would have required a vigorous analysis on the effects of vibration and the consequences of the loss of both support members. Mr. Llaw was asked if he thought SCE would withhold information to get a 12 month operating license. He speculated that SCE might have done so. Mr. Liaw was then asked, "Why didn't NRR ask SCE if cracking would occur at San Onofre which was similar to that which had occurred at Turkey Point and Surry?" Mr. Liaw replied that NRR was not informed of Turkey Point or Surry cracks before the meeting with SCE on January 18, 1977. Mr. Liaw stated that he questioned SCE and W about the cracks in the flow slots during the March 31, 1978 meeting and the licensee stated that they had previously 3hown NRR photographs identifying flow slot cracks. Mr. Liaw stated that he had not seen the photographs prior to the March 31, 1978 meeting. db .}.:. :"; = 72.-{ .5 4 f
- -t
[. ".i i
INTERVIEW WITH W. J. COLLINS, SENIOR METALLURGICAL ENGINEER, IE (NRC), MAY 16, 1978 The investigators interviewed Mr. Collins to determine if he remembered 5 seeing the W photographs, taken in 1976, at the January 18, 1977 meeting at NRR. Mr. Collins was also asked to discuss what he remembered about the meetings and problems associated with the San Onofre steam generators. Mr. Collins stated that he remembers W and SCE showing flip charts at the January 18, 1977 meeting, but did not remember seeing the 1976 W photographs. Mr. Collins then reviewed his notes taken during the meetings and his notes did not mention cracks in the flow slots; however, the term " flow slot closing" was mentioned. Mr. Collins also stated that W and SCE talked about flow slot closing but not of specific flow slot cracks. He stated that W discussed support plata cracking of the Surry and Turkey Point steam generators. The investigators again asked Mr. Collins if he remembered seeing the ~ photographs at the January 18, 1977 meeting. Mr. Collins stated that he had not seen the photographs of the cracks prior to the last meetirg in March 1978. The investigators asked if he would have had concerns if he knew that the flow slots were cracked. He stated'that he would have had no concern with the safety consequences of the cracks since the analysis on Turkey Point and Surry had been extensively done. Mr. Collins advised that his concern if any would have been the possibility of a loose fragment flying and damaging the steam generator tubes. Mr. Collins was then asked, "What in his opinion would have been the motivation for SCE to not show the photographs of the flow slot cracks during the January 18, 1977 meeting." He stated "no motivation" and that he would have been satisfied with the Turkey Point and Surry analyses as they would relate to San Onofre. s Mr. Collins was asked, "Who would have been the logical person during the presertatien for SCE or NRR to ask about results of flow slot cracking?" He stated, "Dr. Conway of W, Tampa, as his group had been performing all of the analysis." The investigators checked the list of attendees at the January 18, 1977 meeting and Dr. Conway was not listed.* Mr. Collins then told the investigators how the interface between SCE, NRR and W is accomplished and he stated that, "NRR questions are sent to the Manager, SCE Licensing Group. SCE Power Production then contracts with W to do the inspection. W performs the inspection and gives results to SCE, who in turn contract with W, Tampa, Heat Transfer Group to perform the analysis." He stated that if SCE Power Production did not ~ give the photographs to W, Tampa, then W, Tampa, would not evaluate the cracks.
- The investigators later confirmed that Dr. Conway was not at this meeting, but had presented information on Turkey Point and Surry steam generators during other meetings.
i? t.,
~ u;.., 2 [. '= Mr. Collins was again asked if he could recall seeing the photographs, and he stated that. "W and SCE did not show these photographs, although
- .x they did show six pictures and had them on the table for the attendees
'...= to look at." He again said that he did not recall anyone discussing the g.((.' flow slot cracks or raising a question about flow slot cracks. He "r~ remembered and his notes confirmed that some denting at the lower tubes had occurred even without "hourglassing" of the flow slots. Mr. Collins stated that the January 18, 1977 presentation at NRR was one of the best '~"...x he had heard and that he did not believe that, "There was any intent to hide anything." He also said that, "SCE is very responsive and open and j will show you anything you want to see." ~._.,. 1
- .'.6 4
4 l .1
INTERVIEW WITH MR. J. M. CURRAN, SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR STATION ~ MAf1AGER (SCE), APRIL 26, 1978 i" Mr. Curran was interviewed to determine if.he had any knowledge of the flow slot cracking in the San Onofre steam generator support plates ,_= prior to the March 1978 meeting at NRR. Mr. Curran gave a chronological story of steam generator tube problems ~ including the support plate ligament cracking encountered at Turkey Point, Surry, and San Onofre. Mr. Curran was asked when he first became aware that there were cracks in the San Onofre steam generator flow slots. Mr. Curran stated that in September 1976 San Onofre shut down for modification and performed eddy current testing and inspected the tube "O" bends as they were cencerned with tube denting and the previously installed antivibration bars. During this inspection, SCE took photographs of the steam generator internals to determine if the top two support plates had experienced "hourglassing" similar to that found at Turkey Point and Surry. He noted that the inspection revealed that "hourglassing" had not occurred in the top support plates, but was present in th.e lower two support plates in steam generators "A" and "C". Mr. Curran also stated that he knew that the flow slots were cracked; however, the thrust of the inspection was to demonstrate that "hourglassing" had not occurred in the top two support plates. He stated that SCE's position was that the top two support plates were not cracked. Mr. Curran was asked to define the term " ligament cracking" and he stated that ligament cracks were any cracks in the support plate, including the cracks in the flow slots. Mr. Curran then showed photo-graphs of flow slot cracking and again stated tnat this is what he calls ligament cracks. He was then asked why these cracks were not pointed out to NRR. He answered that, "The problem was to show NRR that the top two support plates had not cracked; therefore, SCE was not particularly concerned with the lower two support p'iates." Mr. Curran also stated that he did not think that there was any question on the definition of ligament cracks; therefore, he and other SCE personnel thought that NRR knew that the ligament cracks also extended into the flow slots. When questioned about the W photographs showing the flow slot cracks, Mr. Curran said that " pictures were shown and passed around at the first meeting with NRR, but I can't confirm that these were the actual pic-tures shown." Mr. Curran said that SCE did not have a copy of these F: photographs at the site. Pe reviewed the set of photographs that the investigators supplied. Mr. Curran stated that Mr. P. Smith (W, Tampa) s =i made a presentation at the January 18, 1977 meeting and that his lecture 4N covered the ligament cracking. Mr. Curran was shown the portion of the
== January 18, 1977 meeting agenda which mentioned " ligament cracking" and
~ l
- ..~ ~ L
== = =, r 2 the portion of the lecture handout which stated that-75 percent of the ligaments were broken at Turkey Point. He was then asked if what Smith = was talking about were cracks between holes and not flow slot cracks. =f - He was also shown the portion of the January 18, 1977 meeting handout 155~. which only mentioned hourglassing. In response to these documents and ~~ questions, Mr. Curran stated that Mr. R. Stuart,-NRR, was at the January = 1977 meeting and that Mr. Stuart should have known about the flew slot cracks. When asked again if these were the photographs shown to NRR at the January 1977 meeting, Mr. Curran could not remember if these were the actual photographs shown, but said he was sure that photographs were passed around for all personnel to see. =
- G.'
- f. k 3
0 .6 I 6 e ,h .h*'.", h
- .,=. "
a a em 4 l. r ,-a. .-r --,-n e-
[ INTERVIEW *'ITH MR. J. M. CURRAN, SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR STATION MANAGER (SCE), MARCH 14, 1979 Mr. Curran was reinterviewed to determine why SCE submitted the particular 18 photographs included in the Steam Generator Inspection e Report dated January 30, 1977 instead of the W photographs which showeds the lower support plate flow slot cracks. Mr. Curran stated that in September 1976 San Onofre shut down for 2 inspection and modifications of its steam generators During this shut down, W representatives were onsite and without his-knowledge had taken some photographs of the lower support plates. On October 10, 1976, Mr. G. Mills (SCE) called Mr. Curran at his home and said that W had some photographs which showed problems in the steam generators.- Mr. Curran requested that the photographs be brought to his home as his wife was in the hospital having a baby. W personnel brought color photographs which they had taken with a 35mm camera placed through the lower handhole. Mr. Curran said that he asked W why they took the photographs and their answer was, "we wanted to compare the San Onofre steam generators with the Surry and Turkey Point steam generators and this was an opportunity to get some photographs." Mr. Curran said that he was not aware of the "Surry Syndrome"--cracking and hourglassing of support plate flow slot at that time. Mr. Curran said he thought, "Well if we have a problem, we have four months to fix it." Mr. Curran advised that when he looked at the W photographs he noted that they did not show the upper support plates or small bend radius tubes, but they did show cracks in the lower support plates. As SCE was committed to NRR to demonstrate that these upper support plates had not hourglassed and that the small bend radius tubes were not damaged, SCE contacted MIS, who were or. site under contract to SCE, and inquired if they could possibly get any g'ood photographs of the upper support plates and the small bend radius tubes. Mr. M. Fratt (MIS) said he would try, but could not guarantee that he could get good photographs. Mr. Curran stated that he told Mr. Fratt to try anyway and that Mr. Fratt " rigged up" a mirror and lights inside_ the steam generator and shot the photographs from outside the steam generator through the handhole. Mr. Curran reviewed these photographs and decided in December ~- 1976 that these did not show clear details of the short radius tube bends, so a hole was cut in the top of the "C" steam generator in December 1976 and more photographs were taken by MIS. When he looked at the photographs,'he did not see any problems with the top support plates; however, to ensure himself, he physically looked at the upper flow slots i through the hole. Mr. Curran stated that the photographs submitted in the January 30, 1977 SCE report were to show NRR that no problems existed in the upper support plates und that'the tubes were not pinched. He also stated that he prepared Section 2 of the January 30, 1977 report and that these photographs were included to backup Section 2 and to show = that the top support plates were not hourglassed. When asked why and how the particular photographs included in the January 30, 1977 report b g
- =;
j= n. were selected, Mr. Curran advised that he told Mr. B. Strom (SCE) to get him some photographs that showed the top support plates. Mr. Strom reviewed all (approximately 150) of the MIS photographs to select ones which showed the top support plates and short bend radius tubes. From the 50-60 photographs selected by Mr. Strom, Mr. Curran selected'the 18-submitted in the January 30, 1977 report. Mr. Curran stated that he knew cracks were present in the lower plates, and it was common knowledge and the reason they were not put into the report was that the main interest of NRR was in the top support plates, ohich Section 2 of the report discussed. When asked if these photo-graphs had been blown up, shaded or cropped, Mr. Curran advised that the photographs were enlarged from a 35mm negative and that the photographer did edit and shade the photographs in order to show good shots of the top support plates, but not to conceal or hide anything. Mr. Curran also s.ated again that a book of photographs was taken to the January 18, 1977 NRR meeting and were shown to NRR; however, he could not remember what photographs they were. Mr., Curran stated that he believed one of the photographs submitted in ~ the January 30, 1977 report did show a crack in a lower support plate, but it was not mentioned in Section 2 of the report as he was only discussing the NRR concerns associated with the top support plates and the short radius tube bends. 4 ( i i .:.=.
- ^{'
1 9 s
'J- = 224 .C. INTERVIEW WITH MR. B. L. CURTIS, LEAD SUPERVISOR ENGINEER (SCE), APRIL 26, 1978 Mr. Curtis was interviewed to determine if he had any knowledge regarding the San Onofre steam generator flow slot cracking issue. =F Mr. Curtis stated that the inspection of the San Onofre steam generators .7= was performed as a result of the findings at Turkey Point and Surry. ~ The results and the evaluation of the inspection were transmitted to NRR by SCE in a letter dated February 1, 1977. He advised that SCE's main concern was the tube denting and "hourglassing" of the top support plates as the "hourglassing" in the bottom plates would not have a =5i detrimental effect on the tube "U" bends. Mr. 'Curtis stated that W did ~ ~ ~ ' ~ an analysis of the two bottom support plates.which was presented to NRR "-~ during the March 24, 1978 meeting. This meeting was an extention of the January 18, 1977 meeting on the antivibration bars and "hourglassing" of ?.' the top plates. However, the "hourglassing" of the bottom plates was ~ = = - included in the agenda for the January 18, 1977 meeting, and he assumed "= that it was discussed, although he was'not present. When asked about the March 24, 1978 meeting with NRR in which the 1976 and 1977 steam generator photographs were presented, Mr. Curtis stated that he was surprised at that meeting to hear that NRR had not seen the photographs and that NRR did not know that cracks existed in the flow slots. Mr. Curtis continued and advised that he jumped up from his chair and stated, "You never knew about the lower support plate cracks? We thought that you (NRR) knewi that flow slot cracks existed in the lower pl a tes. " Mr. Curtis reemphasized that he was shocked when NRR said they had never seen the cracks before. Mr. Curtis said that since he was not present at the January 18, 1977 meeting he did not know whether the W steam generator photographs were shown. He concluded by stating that SCE agreed during the March 1978 meeting to send NRR a set of the .= photographs along with other information for their review. ..g:
- =
s .. T 1
- ~:.:
- rr
~ ^ l!E =: r' t
INTERVIEW WITH MR. B. L. CURTIS, SUPERVISORY ENGINEER-(SCE), MARCH 14, 1979 Mr. Curtis was _ initially interviewed on April 26, 1978. The purpose of this interview was to determine his input to the January 30, 1977 report to NRR and his involvement concerning the photographing of Unit 1 steam generators. Mr. Curtis stated that he had nothing to do with the SCE report dated = January 30, 1977; however, he was involved in the steam generator inspections during the 1977 outage. Mr. Curtis advised that when he arrived on site, (transferred from the Corporate Office) the outage was in progress and inspections were being performed on the steam generators to confirm that tube denting and hourglassing of the upper support plates had rot occurred since the 1976 outage and that the condition of. = the steam generators had not deteriorated since the 1976 inspection. Mr. Curtis stated that he was responsible for the preparation of the SCE report submitted to NRR on February 23, 1978. The report also included some input from W and the report for the most part addressed tube denting and support plate expansion. Mr. Curtis stated that he did not see the W photographs until after the February 23, 1978 report was issued. In response to the NRR review of the February 23 report, which notified SCE that the report did not contain sufficient information, a meeting was held on March 23, 1978 to allow SCE and W to provide more infor-mation. During the March 23, 1978 meeting, IT showed photographs to = compare the condition of the steam generators found during the 1976 and 1977 inspections. NRR then stated that they had not previously seen these photographs. Based on NRR's request, SCE subsequently sent a set m of the.W photographs to,NRR. + ..Q. A f
== INTERVIEW WITH MESSERS. R. W. KRIEGER AND V.-G.
- HAYNES, ENGINEERS, SEE CORPORATE OFFICE, APRIL 26, 1978 Mr. Haynes and Mr. Krieger requested that they be interviewed jointly.
l= When asked about the h[ photographs showing the flow slot cracks, Mr. Krieger =f5 stated that he was amazed that NRR was surprised when they saw the W >r' photographs during the March 1978 meeting. _Mr. Krieger said that he ha'd
== reviewed the reports and handouts presented at the previous NRR meetings and was sure that the flow slot cracks were discussed. Mr. Krieger then discussed the January 18, 1977 meeting with NRR and recalled the major concerns were with the "hourglassing" and stresses in the "U" bends at Surry. He advised that he was certain NRR had photographs, but was not certain if the photographs showed the flow slot cracks. He stated that SCE and NRR discussed support plate cracking; loss of a guide for alignment of tubes in Unit 1 steam generator; use of guides on Units 2 and 3; and loose parts in the steam generators (fragments and effects of steam line break). Mr. Krieger said that the meeting was also used to discuss Turkey Point . _."~ and Surry cracking problems and to compare these steam generator cracking problems with San Onofre problems. Krieger advised the the only cracks that SCE was talking about were the cracks in the flow slots as the hole-to-hole cracks could not be seen. Krieger said that SCE did not make any distinction between flow slot cracks and hole-to-hole cracks. According to Krieger, the emphasis of NRR was on tube denting and NRR did not appear to have an interest in lower plate flow slot cracking as the concern was whether the upper support plates were "hourglassing" in this higher stress area. He further stated that the " loose fragment issue" was discussed and NRR was = informed that a break in the interior of the support plate would be held in place by compressive forces and would not become a fragment; therefore, a loose fragment could only be a piece of the flow slot which is not restrained by compressive forces. Messers. Krieger and Haynes advised, concerning the submittal of the inspection results, to NRR, that "SCE asked h[ for an analysis, h[ performed the analysis, W submitted the results to SCE, SCE assembled the package, and SCE returned it to h[ for review prior to submittal to NRR by SCE." When asked, Messers. Krieger and Haynes stated that the inspection data were not at SCE, but were probably at h[. Mr. Haynes stated that the Commission ataff had already heard about the' "hourglassing" at Turkey Point and Surry; therefore, NRR was concerned if San Onofre had the same problem. Mr. Krieger then stated that =: cracking had already been identified at other plants and he was k. l e
L 2 surprised when NRR mentioned that they were concerned about flow slot cracking at San Onofre. Mr. Haynes added that at Surry the concern was with the stress and strai'n at the upper tube area as the Surry analysis = showed that the stresses in the farthest rows of tubes would be relieved if the flow slots "hourglassed" or cracked. The two interviewees again' stated that discussions with NRR led them to believe that~ the staff was interested in the upper support plate failures as this would cause excessive bending of the inner row of tubes; therefore, finding no upper support plate failures, the staff may not have been too interested in the lower support plate failures. When asked why the 1976-1977 steam generator photographs were presented at the March 1978 meeting at NRR, they answered that SCE used the photographs taken September 18, 1977 to show NRR that the problems with San Onofre steam generators had not gotton worse since the 1976 photo-graphs were taken; therefore justifying why NRR should delay the shutdown 2 1/2 more months. The September 1977 inspection obtained data on eddy .lT current testing, evaluation of testing, probing and examination of the antivibration bars. When asked if they recalled any conversations concerning cracking during the January 1977 meeting, the interviewees said, "yes" and that most discussions were regarding cracks in Unit 1. They stated that SCE wanted to be sure that all questionable items on the steam. generators were answered. Mr. Krieger advised that NRR personnel had been at San Onofre the past week and had examined the latest steam generator inspection results. Krieger stated that the results, of the NRR review were satisfactory and permission to return to power had been granted. The interviewees were asked again if the h[ photographs taken in 1976 and 1977 were shown to NRR during the January 18, 1977 meeting. They advised they were not sure what photographs were shown as Mr. Smith, W, Tampa, discussed that part of the presentation. 1 i l
22:2 .C'."
- 2 2 INTERVIEW WITH MR. V. G. HAYNES, CHIEF 0F NUCLEAR
_ ENGINEERING (SCE), MARCH 14, 1979 Mr. Haynes was reit.rervuwd to determine if he had any input to the SCE report to NRR dated January 30, 1977 and to reewfirm his recollection of the January 18, 1977 meeting at NRR. Mr. Haynes advised the investigators that he did not prepare any input to the January 30, 1977 report; however, he did review the report as some of the input was prepared by his organization. He stated that the main thrust of the report was to address the antivibration bar problem, hourglassing of the upper support plates and condition of the tube "U" bends. The report also addressed cracks in the support plates and the effect on support of the tubes. He pointed out that NRR had not asked for this information, but SCE included it because they thought it should be addressed. Mr. Haynes also stated that by the time the January 30, 1977 report was issued, the steam generator problems had been discussed many times between SCE, W and NRR and that the report was only a summary ~ of items previously discussed. He was sure that SCE had made NRR aware of the cracks in the lower support plates during the January 18, 1977 meeting. ~ When asked about the W and MIS. photographs, Mr. Haynes stated that he had seen most of the photographs taken by MIS and some by W, but could not distinguish W photographs from MIS photographs. He stated that he did not recall seeing any MIS photographs that showed any cracks in the lower support plates. Mr. Haynes stated that he gave the " Introduction" during the January 18, 1977 meeting at NRR and was prepared to present the summary; however, it was zero degrees outside,, approaching lunch time and NRR had heard all of the discussions and they were not interested in a summary. When asked if he remembered telling NRR about the lower support plate cracks, Mr. Haynes stated that he didn't remember exactly, but was sure they discussed the lower support plates and that the discussion was similar to that presented in Section 3 of the January 30, 1977 report. Mr. Haynes again stated that the emphasis was on the upper support plates not the lower support plates as this problem had already been "put to bed" at other plants. Also, by the time the analysis had been j performed on San Onofre steam generators, other presentations had been made to NRR by other utilities and SCE/NRR's concern was with the upper plates and their effect on the short radius "U" bend tubes. j Mr. Haynes recalled that there were 5 to 10 NRR people at the January 17,
- = =
1977 meeting and the meeting was conducted by R. Stuart, NRR. 1 i
INTERVIEW WITH MR. R. W. KRIEGER, LICENSING ENGINEER (SCE), MARCH 14, 1979 Mr. Krieger was initially interviewed on April '26,1978. The purpose of this interview was to determine his overall responsibilities and input to the January 30, 1977 SCE report to NRR. = When asked to present a summary of his involvement with the h[ and MIS -== photographs of the San Onofre Unit 1 steam generators, Mr. Krieger advised the investigators that: (1) He had seen the h[ photographs on several occasions and has seen all photographs taken of the steam generators since 1976. (2) The reason that he has seen all the photographs is that it is one of his responsibilities as SCE Licensing Coordinator. (3) He observed the 1976 h[ photographs at the site with Mr. Curran and Mr. Ottoson (SCE) during the latter part of 1976. He noted at that time that the 1976 W photographs showed cracks in the lower support plates, but was advised by b[ and Mr. Curran that this was not a safety concern as h[ had already performed an analysis of the cracked lower support plates on the Turkey Point and Surry steam generators. (4) During discussion with F. Burger, NRR (NRC), SCE agreed to obtain photographs of the upper tube bundles and upper support plates and to perform eddy current tests. (5) Based on the above, a meeting was held at NRR on, January 18, 1977 to expedite approval prior to returning to power and to present advance information prior to submittal of the January 30, 1977 report. The meeting addressed three aspects of the steam generators; (a) antivibration bars, (b) small "U" bends and upper support plate investigation and (c) condition of the lower support plates. (6) Mr. P. Smith, h[ Tampa, presented a talk at the NRR meeting on the work he had performed on other steam generators (Turkey Point and Surry) and what information obtained from Turkey Point and Surry was applicable to San Onofre Unit 1. He wasn't sure if anyone had i supplied photographs to Mr. Smith. Mr. Krieger also stated that NRR wanted to see contour maps showing the stresses in the support plates, but did not know why NRR was interested in these stress maps. (7) Mr. Krieger had reviewd Mr. Smith's (W) input to the January 30, 1977 report to NRR and stated that Mr. Smith's input (Section 3) 1 answered all of NRR's questions and was even more than what NRR i l
_Y =::.
== 2 required as Mr. Smith wanted to enter into.the record that an analysis of the lower support plates had been performed and that Unit 1 steam generators were acceptable. (8) Mr. Krieger wrote part of the summary, assisted in the preparation of Sections 2, 4 and 5 and put the report together. He also sent ' L: the report to the site and to W for review prior to submittal to NRR on January 30, 1977. Two sets of photographs were delivered to Mr. Krieger by Mr. Strom (SCE). One original set was included in the Report to NRR and the other set retained by Mr. Krieger. (9) Mr. Krieger stated that the h[ 1976 photographs were not included in the January 30, 1977 report as they only showed the lower support-plate problem which "had been analyzed to death and therefore, there was no need to rehash the issue." 10). San Onofre (SCE) was the first-licensee that had experienced problems with the antivibration bars and this was thoroughly analyzed and submitted to NRR and was one of the two main issues SCE addressed, 11). Upper support plates were identified as a generic problem due to problems (hourglassing and tube denting) found at Turkey Point and Surry; therefore, photographs of San Onofre steam generator upper support plates were taken and were submitted to NRR to confirm that similar problems did not exist in the upper support plates or in the tube "U" bends. - 12). Mr. Krieger was not absolutely certain that NRR personnel reviewed the photographs at the January 18, 1977 meeting, but was quite certain that the h[ and MIS photographs were at the meeting. He. stated that the atmosphere at this meeting was " low key" as NRR had heard the same thing three or four times at previous meetings from W and other licensees. 13). Mr. Krieger stated that the 1977 W photographs were shown at the March 1978 NRR meeting only to confirm that no changes had taken.- place in the upper support plates or tube "U" bend area since the =- 1976 outage. l i 7E 1 l l m
J P = INTERVIEW WITH MR. H. L. OTTOSON, MANAGER OF NUCLEAR GENERATION (SCE), MARCH 14, 1979 Mr. Ottoson was interviewed to determine his responsibilities concerning the San Onofre Unit 1 steam generator inspections and the SCE report ~~ submitted to NRR on January 30, 1977. Mr. Ottoson stated that the report was prepared under his cognizance; he reviewed sections prepared by the site staff and probably reviewed the entire report at some time. He was aware that W was taking photographs during the 1976 shutdown and that Mr. Curran had called him about the b[ photographs which showed cracks in the lower support plates. Mr. Ottoson stated that he saw the b[ photographs in November or December 1976 and x that after reviewing the photographs and discussing them with other SCE personnel, it was decided to have W analyze and to include a section of the analysis in the January 30,1977 report. He was not certain who initiated the requirement for the analysis, but knew that it should be submitted in the report. When asked what caused SCE to contract MIS to photograph the upper support plates, Mr. Ottoson replied that NRR had requested that photo-graphs be taken of the upper support plates, and.SCE had to get photo-graphs to satisfy the NRR requirement. Mr. Fratt (MIS) was on site, so SCE contacted him about taking photographs through the steam generator handhole. He stated that the first photographs weren't worth a..., but after experimenting, Mr. Fratt came up with some good photographs taken through the handhole and through a hole cut in the top of the steam generators. He also stated that it took a great deal of evaluation to determine what photographs presented the best information on the upper support plates. He also advised that SCE took actual measurements of the upper support plate flow slots to confirm that hourglassing was not present. When asked if any NRC inspector had seen the photographs, he was not certain, but stated that it was " inconceivable that an NRC inspector was not there and seen the photographs"; however, even if they hadn't seen the photographs, he was sure that NRC inspectors had icoked through the handholes but didn't remember who or when. Mr. Ottoson stated again that when h[was contacted about performing an analysis on the 1cwer support plates, W stated that they had already analyzed similar lower support plate problems at other plants, but they would prepare a section for the report to be submitted to NRR on January 30, 1977. Mr. Ottoson said that he knew of the condition of the lower plates at Turkey Point and Surry and had reviewed the stress and hard spot diagrams; therefore, he wanted to see if the San Onofre problem had any effect on tube denting. 4 e =
t.
==' =m: g-INTERVIEW WITH MR. W. W. STROM, SAN ON0FRE PLANT ENGINEER (SCE), MARCH 14, 1979 In 1976, Mr. Strom advised he was the Assistant Plant Engineer and his duties were to help Mr. Morgan during the 1976 plant outage. During the e= 1976 outage, he was the. coordinator on the back shift and his duties were to supply b[ and other contractors with equipment and personnel to support their work efforts. When asked if he was aware that photographs were being taken of the steam generators, he advised that he knew that photographs were being taken. He added that Mr. Curran asked him to go through the photographs and select the ones which showed the upper support plates as they were needed for the report to NRR. Mr. Strom obtained approximately 60
== photographs from Mr. Morgan and culled out the ones which did not show the top support plates as clearly. He stated that he did not include any photographs which showed'the lower support plates as they were not interested in this area. He stated that he reviewed the photographs on Friday and gave 15 or 20 photographs to Mr. Curran on Saturday and that Mr. Curran then picked out the best of the 15 or 20 supplied by him. When asked what part he played in the preparation of. the January 30, 1977 report to NRR, he advised that he supplied' input on the eddy current testing and portions of Section 2 on the chronology of events. His input was given to Mr. Krieger (SCE Licensing Engineer) who was just starting to put the report together. When asked if he discussed the photographs with Mr. Krieger, he replied that they did not discuss them. .. 1 ~*
- 5: f
5W INTERVIEW WITH MR. D. E. MORGAN, SITE NUCLEAR ENGINEER (SCE), MARCH 14, 1979-Mr. Morgan was interviewed to determine how he became involved with the inspection of the San Onofre stean generators in 1976 and what his role =. was concerning the photographs taken of the steam generators.- Mr. Morgan stated that during the 1976 outage, he was assigned as Steam Generator Project Engineer to oversee and coordinate work associated with sludge lancing of the steam generator tube sheets and eddy current tests of the tubes. He played no part in W taking photographs of the steam generators, but saw the pictures after W had given them to Mr. Curran. He stated that it was "no moment to remember" as he was working the seven to seven (morning shift) and had already heard about the photographs. Mr. Morgan was requested by Mr. Curran to see if MIS could obtain some good photographs of the top support plates as the W photographs did not show the upper support plates or the short radius tube bends. W had = suggested to cut a hole in the top of the steam generators in order to obtain good photographs of the upper support plates, however, SCE did .^ not want to cut the hole if they could obtain enough information by taking photographs through the lower handhole. 1 Mr. Morgan approached Mr. Fratt (MIS) who was performing other work at the site, and asked if he could take photographs to see if "hourglassing" was present in the upper support plates and to show the condition of the tube "U" bends. Mr. Fratt said he thought he could get some photographs, but could not guarantee that he could get clear photographs. On November 6,1976, Mr. Fratt submitted his first set of photographs which were reviewed by Mr; Morgan. Mr. Morgan said that he reviewed these photographs and that they looked satisfactory. Mr. Fratt was then requested on November 13, 1976 to take more pictures of generators "A" and "B" through the bottom handhole prior to drilling the hole in the top. Photographs of generator "C" were not taken as "C" was full of water. Mr. Morgan stated that he then took the photographs to Mr. Curran (SCE), and they reviewed the photographs to see how they represented the top support plates. Mr. Morgan advised that he was aware that the report to NRR was being put together, but that he did not select the photographs for the report as Mr. Strom (SCE) and Mr. Curran-(SCE) were preparing the site portion of the report. Mr. Morgan, again stated that his major assignment was to coordinate the work with the photographer (MIS) and obtain good photographs of the top support plates and the "U" bend region of the tubes. When asked if he saw the photographs depicting cracks in the lower support plates, he advised that he saw the cracks, but did not worry about them as W had already analyzed the lower support plates and found these were of no safety significance. =
INTERVIEW WITH MR. M. D. FRATT, MANAGER OF OC AND NDE (MIS), MARCH 14, 1979 Mr. M. D. Fratt of MIS was interviewed to determine his role associated with the photographs taken of the San Onofre steam generators which were s. submitted to NRR on January 30, 1977 (see Document 7, 18 photographs attached). Mr. Fratt was asked to give the investigators a chronological review of how he became involved, what he did, why he did it and the part he played in taking photographs, selecting photographs, preparing photo-graphs and submitting them to SCE. Mr. Fratt advised that he was on the San Onofre site performing work in the auxiliary building and was asked by Mr. D. Morgan (SCE) in late October 1976 if he could ohotograph the upper two support plates of the steam generators. He was told by Mr. Morgan that W had taken some photographs, but their pnotographs.did not show the upper support plates or the small radius tube bends and that SCE needed -photographs of these areas. Mr. Fratt stated that he told Mr. Morgan that he would try, but could not guarantee that he could get good photographs as it was so dark inside of the generators and that he did not want to subject his expensive camera to the high radiation levels. He said he would try to devise a method to get some photographs. Mr. Fratt said he placed a mirror and a light inside the lower hand hole, remotely manipulated the mirror and lights and took numerous shots through the handhole. He stated that he would take a roll of photographs, reset the F stops on the camera, take another roll of photographs and repeated this process until he obtained some good photographs of the top support plates and short radius tube bends. He developed the p,rints and picked out the best in each roll. When asked why he obtained photographs of the lower plates when he was = supposed to be taking photographs of the top support plates, he stated that a professional photographer will take many photographs and then bracket them (take a roll and pick out the best) to obtain the best photographs. He stated that he took 195 shots and from these 195 shots j there we:e 66 photographs which showed the upper support plates the best. He had these photographs enlarged to several sizes (3 x 5, 5 x 7, 8 x 10) and gave them to Mr. Morgan (SCE). When asked why some of the photographs were out of focus, he stated that with the light, mirror and distance from the bottom of the steam generator to the upper plates (40 feet), some portions of the photographs will be in focus and some portions will be out of focus. Mr. Fratt also stated that he used professional photography techniques (shading, etc.) to enhance the photographs in the areas of concern. [E Mr. Fratt stated that he was requested in January 1977 to take some photographs through a hole cut into the top of the steam generators. r These photographs were to show the condition of the upper support b-p.
S' 2 plates and the short radius tube bends. These photographs were taken and given to SCE. Mr. Fratt advised the investigators that he was in total control of the method used to photograph the steam generators and which photographs represented the best shots of the upper support plates and the short radius tube bends. "9 I l j. l Ii-L
I y'. \\ c j d ~ 6 i 1 INTERVIEW WITH MR. P. G. SMITH, MANaSER OF STRUCTURAL I CEVELCPMENT, W, TAMPA DIVISION, MAf 11, 1975 The investigators explained the purpose of the interview and presented l the W pnotographs taken in 1976 and 1977 for Mr. Smith's examination. l When asked if he remembered these photographs being shown at the January 18, 1977 meeting with NRR, Mr. Smith stated that he could not recall photo-graphs shcwing the flow slot cracks; however, some photographs were shown at the meeting. I Mr. Smith recapped his presentation to NRR held on January 18, 1977. Smith advised he discussed cracking in the lower support plates (but not specifically ficw slot cracking), denting of tubes and the corrosion of the support plates. Mr. Smith stated that he prepared and discussed Secticn III and Section IVC. of the report and that he used the word l " potential cracks" because he did not specifically know that cracks were present but knew that cracks would occur. He stated that the term [ ligament crack normally means the space between circular holes, but specifically could mean the space between any type of holes. Mr. Smith said that his supervisor (L. Conway) presented the viewgraphs at the January 1977 neeting and discussed tube integrity and the suppcrt plate cracking problem.* Mr. Smith could not remember' NRR asking i' flow slot I cracks existed in the San Onofre steam generator support plates; b wever, he thought that NRR knew that cracking would occur as denting was artsent at the lower support plates and if denting was present then cracking was imminent, i.e., cracks will follow, but are of no safety concern. Mr. Smith also advised that the area of primary importance was the top support plates; however, NRR had been previously advised of the lower l support plate cracking conditions at Surry and Turkey Point. Mr. Smith stated that the analysis of a loose fragment showed that the fragment would not damage the tubes, but would drop to the bottom of the generator. The investigators asked Mr. Smith when he first became aware of any cracks at San Onofre and he said, "This year was the first time I confirmed that cracks were present at San Onofre." The inspectors then asked how he performed an analysis if he did not know that cracks were present. He answered that he assumed that cracks were present and that if he knew the cracks were present he would not Fave used the term " potential cracks" in the report. The investigators then asked if he actuall> simulated a flow slot crack during his analysis. He answered, "No, I assumed the magnetite would continue to grow and eventually cause the flew slots to close." Mr. Smith also recalled the 1976 meetings held with NRR concerning the Turkey Point and Surry steam generators. He stated that during these meetings that cracks and "hourglassing" were addressed, but did not remember flow siot cracking being discussed. Mr. Smith remembered seeing flow slot cracks in the spring of 1976 at Surry.
- lt has been established that Mr. Conway was not at this meeting, but had discussed and shnwn viewgraphs at Surry and Turkey Point meetings.
l I m T' w-
y !I I, ni <l t e i INTERVIEW WITH MR. P. G. SMITH, MANAGER OF STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT, W, TAMP A ;IVISION, MAY 11, 1978 i The investigators explained the purpose of the interview and presented the W photographs taken in 1976 and 1977 for Mr. Smith's examination. When asked if he remembered these photographs being shown at the January 18,
- 4.,
1977 meeting with NRR, Mr. Smith stated that he could not recall photo- ] graph, showing the flow slot cracks; however, some photographs were y shown at the meeting. Mr. Smith recapped his presentation to NRR held on January 18, 1977. l Smith advised he discussed cracking in the lower support plates (but not i specifically flow slot cracking), denting of tubes and the corrosion of the support plates. Mr. Smith stated that he prepared and discussed Section III and Section IVC. of the report and that he used the word " potential cracks" because he did not specifically know that cracks were present but knew that cracks would occur. He stated that the term ligament crack normally means the space Detween circular holes, but specifically could mean the space between any type of holes. M-Smith said that his supervisor (L. Conway) presented the viewgraphs at the t January 1977 meeting and discussed tube integrity and the support plate cracking problem.* Mr. Smith cculd not remember NRR asking if flow slot cracks existed in the San Onofre steam generator support plates; howear, he thought that NRR knew that cracking would occur as denting was present at the lower support plates and if denting was present then cracking was imminent, i.e., cracks will follow, but are of no safety concern. Mr. Smith also advised tlat the area of primary importance was the top support plates; however. NRR had been previously advised of the lower support plate cracking conditions at Surry and Turkey Point. Mr. Smith stated that the analysis' of a loose fragment showed that the fragment would not damage the tubes, but would drop to the bottom of the generator. The investigators asked Mr. Smith when he first became aware of any cracks at San Onofre and he said, "This year was the first time I confimed that cracks were present at San Onofre." The inspectors then asked how he perfomed an analysis i,f he did not know that cracks were present. He answered that he assumed that cracks were present and that if he knew the cracks were present he would not have used the term " potential cracks" in the report. The investigators then asked if he actually simulated a flow slot crack during his analysis. He answered, "No, I assumed the magnetite would continue to grow and eventually cause the flow slots to close." Mr. Smith also recalled the 1976 meetings held with NRR concerning the Turkey Point and Surry steam generators. He stated that during these meetings that cracks and "hourglassing" were addressed, but did not remember flow slot cracking being discussed. Mr. Smith remembered seeing flow slot cracks in the spring of 1976 at Surry. 1
- It has been established that Mr. Conway was not at this meeting, but had discussed and shown viewgraphs at Surry and Turkey Point meetings.
i l^ l
[' 1 i 2 slot cracking at the NRR meeting. When questioned about the terms i " ligament cracking" and "hourglassing" used in the SCE report, l Mr. Marburger said that h:: considered any crack in the support plat? to j be a ligament crack (not restricted to tube hole to water hole, tube a hole to tube hole or water hole to water holei. He also stated that W did not need to see photographs to perform an' analysis of cracking as' i l l they assumed that cracks were there. He recalled seeing the 1976 photographs of San Onofre steam generators which showed the flow slot I, cracks; therefore, when he saw the 1977 pictures, it went through his / mind, " Hey, there's flow slot cracking again." Mr. Marburger advised he I discussed the cracks with Mr. Fletcher (W) as they were curious that i i I they had flow slot cracking and no denting and also that some cracks appeared prior to the dev?lopment of a large amount of "hourglassing." Maraurger said W did not carry the SCE flow slot cracking any farther { (to tha W Safety Review Comittee) as it did not constitute an unreviewed l safety 6 sue because W had looked at flow slot cracking before and it I was nothing new. When asked if he remembered mentioning the flow slot cracks to SC2, Mr. Marburger said he didn't remember, but that it was " inherent" that SCE knew about the cracks as SCE had sent the photographs and other data to W for evaluation. Mr. Marburger added that W did not call SCE and say, *Did you notice the flow slot cracks?" Mr. Rarburger i did not remember SCE bringing up the flow slot cracks in the January 18, 1 1977 meeting; however, he remembered that a report from VEPC0 and NRR dated November 15, 1976 answered questions from NRR about the fracture of the flow slots (see Enclosure 1). Mr. Marburger also remembered a I letter from FP&L to NRR in December 1976 which explicitly talked about l flow slot cracks in the Turkey Point Unit 3, steam generators (see ). Mr. Marburger again stated that he thought that NRR knew that flow slot cracks had occurred and that this phenomenon was not new. i i l i i 4 i T* -0
? i i l i t e t l l g INTERVIEW WiTH MR. d. C. MARBURGER, MANAGER OF MECHANICAL AND + FLUID SYTTEM EVALUATION CROUP, NUCLEAR SAFETV DEPARTMENT, PRESSURIZED WATER DIVISION, W. MAY 11, lg P Mr. Marburger was asked to describe problems associated with W steam generators, narticutarly the inspection and evaluation of San Onofre steam generators and to discuss the meetings held with SCE and NRR. Mr. Marburger stated that in the latter part of 1976 (September-October) SCE shut down San Onofre for refueling and inspection. SCE performed an inspection on the steam generators per the W program. The W program centered around the cutting of a hole in the steam generators to provide entry for inspection of the top support plates, tube "U" bends, and the antivibration bars. He noted that the incorporation of the antivi-bration bars was specific to the San Onofre steam generators as no other i part had e e rienced the " fretting" problem. As results of the inspec-tion became available, it was given to SCE and was subsequently discus-sed with NRR during the January 18, 1977 reeting. The discussion with NRR on Joauary 18, 1977 centered around support plate cracking, anti-vi bra t 'er bars, tube integrity of the tube bundle, effects on tube j cracking, loose pieces, and tube denting. He stated that the phenomenon of " denting" was not as bad as that previously found at Terkey Point and Surry. Mr. Marburger was asked if the W inspection program included photographing the top and bottom support plates. Mr. Marburger replied, " Photographs were taken to detemine if hourglassing was present in the flow slots, but the major concern was the condition of the top support plates as these top plates had more detrimental effects on the tube "U" bends. The findings of cracks in the lower support plates at San Onofre did not trigger any concerns by W as we had observed flow slot cracks on the top plates st Surry 2; thereTore, the cracks in the lower support plate flow slots at San Onofre were just interesting and presented no safety pr:blem." When he was shown the photographs, Mr. Marburger stated that he could not recall seeing the photographs at the January 18, 1977 meeting with NRR. Mr. Marburger recalled that the only open items at SCE (San Onofre) were the antivibration bars and the upper support plates as W and SCE assumed that NR'l already knew about the flow slot cracking. 'n' hen he was questioned about the flow of information between W, SCE, and NRR, Mr. Marburger stated that W performed the inspection as agreed upon by W, SCE, and NRR and that the program stated what they were going to do. Mr. Marburger added. "As everyone knew, SCE had problems with the top flow plates; therefore, the main concerns were tube inside diameter restrictions, tube denting and 'hourglassing' which would indicate the general condition of the plates." Mr. Marburger said that W reviewed the pertinent data and documents prior to submittal by SCE and felt satisfied that everything significant had been submitted to NRR. Mr. Marburger said that he thought that Mr. P. Smith, W, mentioned flow l i 1 l l f '~~
I l i .7, P i V: a c:- a L :_ n en : t 2 - r i m i. " c o 2,2 m m e n x o...rsi, ence n_.. Scv ember 15, 1976 y..... _ _ _ _, <.s...ca,_;.. a ; C)6 - 277 Mr. Senard C. Rusche Serial Nc. 2603/C92276, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PC&M/JI5:civ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co::ission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dceket Nos. 50-280 50-281 Attn: Mr. Robert W. Reid, Chief License Sos. DPR-32 DPR-37 Operating Reactors Branch 4
Dear Mr. Rusche:
In cur letter of October 19, 1976 Serial No. 260/092276, we forwarded a concerning the tube leak in steam generator "A" tich occurred on report September 15, 1976 on Unit No. 2 at our Surry Power Station. In the eforenen-the inf or=ation concerning the f ailure available at the tire of tiened repcrt sub=ittal was reported to you, as well as our proposed corrective action based on this inf or:ation. Meetings were held with ce=bers of the Regulatory Staff on October 20, 26 and Nove=ber 12, 1976 to discuss the steas generator concerns, as well as the inspection programs which would be conducted in cooperation with Our letter several other utilities and the Westinghouse Electric Ccrporation. of October 25, 1976, Serial No. 260A/092276, describes the inspection program in detail. As discussed with cembers of the Regulatory Staf f af ter the October 26, 1976 the November 12 mee:ing, additional tests and inspections eeeting and subsequently at perf ormed on the tubes which were removed f rom steam generator "A", Unic No. 2 of available for inclusion the Surry Power Station provided infor=ation which was not 19, 1976 letter. The inf or:ation contained in our October 19, in our October 1976 letter was based on radiographic examinations of the removed tubes (Row 1 The results of the radiographic examinations had shown tubes RICS Colu=ns L-9). Tubes RICI through RIC9 to have axially oriented cracks in the U-bend area. chrough RIC4 appeared to be free of def ect indications by radiographic examination. Subsequent metallographic examination of cross sections taken from the apex of the bend showed tubes RIC1, RIC2 and RIC3 to be free of defects. however, metallogr'aphic
- examination of tube RIC4 indicated the presence of one " tight" crack at the apex of Wall penetration was the bend, initiated on the inside diameter of the extrados.
Sections of U-bends of tubes RICI through KlC3 were approximately 40 percent. on the neutral axis to permit examir.ation of the inside diameter surface. split Examination with a stereo microscope at magnifications up to 60X showed no evidence of def ects. ENCLOSURE 1 T' t
I l i l l l t i C;;LCSLII TO VI? CO/:s1 LIT ~I?. III.'.... ::~ - 2::3.C9227: I SUPPLEGNTAL LN70TOMTION TO TEPCO LETTER TO hAC DATED OCTOBER 19, 1976, SIRIAL No. 260/09:276 I NOVCSER 15, 1976 e e O. P [ Vepco I= li vir:1nt. E1.cetic na re-er coceany F m .m- -=m 5. b &
p- --- I I I r. I + i. f i-1 i j i c?"M t: - ' h supper: :12:e. and
- n.
Wac: 12:11 ::::: wi'. the f rc::urc cf :he .icen:n; cf tne frac:ure. a: :he flow Ile: r.ree en :n recss;n; : s hour;1 ass::; 3 a. Will the support plate cracking at the 7th tube shift the strain in the support plate to the region of the 3rd and 4th tube? b. Will the support plate cracking in the 1st row of tubes relieve the strain in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th revs? RESPOSSE: A type B fracture (see Figure 1-1) would allow the release of elastic strain energy locally with a corresponding increase in flow slot closure. This increase will be stall because the flow slot boundary ledge has negligible strength even 1 when intact. A f racture of this type should have no ef fect on the rate of hour-glassing. a. A type B fracture will most probably increase slightly the ~ 1 local def ormations of the 3rd and 4th tubes. I b. A type C+E fracture is expected to increase the inward move-ment of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rows near the flow slot corner. An increase in potential for local tube deformation is expected for these tube rows. The flow slot closure rate for con-tinued deformation is expected to re=ain unchanged, however. Figure 1-1 schenatically indicates potential types of fractures of the 7th support plate and the probable consaquences associated therewith. I i u m E: E-E_ l_ M E T * -s
. _. = ~ - - - - = - - - l { e I t \\ i l 1 l . = 1 i l i i 1 7:0Z... e i STEll: CE:;I?J.! 7. !"E: S"??CE-l .._.!: T;! ::T.f.. 7~ ;;T C.El e /.:Q ?T.OIAILE CO::5E:UE' CEE 5 l l 's 'D E I E. / O7Q (1) g .O r D I 9 + l r-FractureTypel Consequences A Negligible Effect B 1. Icenediate small incr ease in closure. i 2. I.icreased local defor=ation of tubes 3 and 4. I 3. Continued closurc rate unchanged. C Negligible Effect - Type E expected to follou. C+E 1. Ic=ediate invard movece:.: of row 1. 2. Local defor ations of corner tubes in rows 2-4 expected to in:reast. 3. Continued closure race unchanged. C+D 1. Ic: mediate inward cuveteent of e f f ected rows. 2 1.ocal defor:stions of corner tubes relieved socievha t. 3. Continued closure rate unchanged. i
- ot e :
The orobabil' t e cf tyser E at d C cec::ie:in; is rer:tt. i e - em l l l 7 n
7 I I i l l l 1 i l e ~. g
- i. ' ? '. ~ -..
!.11 L Cl 4 0 ". 7 ** " -' :. 0 0 7 ~ 7 ..tf1 i 4.U;;7.ti';.. : .2. .~n C T r ^ '.:. Or. L T.1 -. C; erating Mcc:. crc L::nch ( 2 i [ Divisic:s of Cnerati.ng Reactort ( ( U. S. Nuclcar Regulatory Comission }'. Washington, D. C. 20555 Diar t'r. Lear: I F.2 : Turkey Point Unit 3 .C l' D0chet l'o. 50-250 9 Stes-, Generater Instection P.esults N l q,' In our letter L-76-369 of October 26, 1970, we described cur n .participatica in a jcint inspection pre,gra.m that was designed r to invc=t$ gate the cr:ching of :.all bend radius seccc Sencrutor tubes at VEFCO's Surry Unit 2. We arc rscw providing with significant results obtained frer. the Terhe Poin' / } yo ' Unit 3 'pertion ci the program. .,j,' 4 .g 4 .The Attac!m,ent - to thisletter describec the corrective action j planned in-prcperstion for returning Tur'.c.y Pci.nt Unit 3 to. r j servics, 'hnd ined.; des the basis for tLs propared corrective 4 } actionJ the unit 'is presently scheduled to return to power - j operation? on 4:anuary.7,1977 Hevever, as stated in PPL Ictters L-76-309,l ve will. not-return the unit 'to pcver opor:.tica until. [ a t lwe recdiva URO concurrence with cur corrective action. Therefore i," . iri~acedance hith our Ictter L-76-36'2 ' alid an MRC. letter of - i i-j Cctobei: 23, 1976,' We Icqucst written NBC concurrence *.rith our. M i,- ..correctiv-setien as.soen as possible in ordernthat: vo may startu Turkey (< Point Uniti 3 cn ; schet.11e. ,~ i l. * 'm. ' ".. e! y li .a - iw . g.. i r.$. '. s 'I b. .VerV trnly yoursi j " 5... 1'.-< 1.. r. m C. ',' ~.i,':S(*,.. n - 4, x,. }. g i.. = A {$ -h
- .2
.i ; .p' . t. ;.. a., 3 ,y - M,'Iii?'j'c.M W.-' * !;,,G.!. 4 4 f% f-s. ' ?durt{ U.'.tlh:1F h4 '.. ,4. -.- t ,,..k. r [... C. //SE ..5IY-f j.- F / (Y J:Vice Pre.sident..! ,, j, 3 r ~ ,f i.. 6:.:
- r p ~, e.
y r; E...;; *,' 9;.. 'l. !!.h, 1,. u. V , o :. ' 9 REU/W.S/.c.pc..i; ^t.' I
- ,.' w m,'
i
- r..
r .i~ ..-: 1,,,) 1 ..*u
- o
- 99.,..,. '
\\.. i.*~
- p-.
..;j * #..e.*. q .g!. 4+.e g; m. u,.
- d.e.
-S t.a.'s.p. T[;. Eb \\.)1]'!' 1: a e.g )'.. Ia ?' " "., ~.:. ' :.. r . y l
- '.(b IaCbO. tit
(* -1::TI g %,."p 9'T 8'.. ' 'l ! ".'.,f ; a <.s.- n m .y .'.'. g... R; n,. .11 .T*,1N ' ' ; '.'f i . S. '.l',',' cO : ?.Wr G NOITWin'(C. "l*C6Clhy l *y. Mert w<enste e.& n:.~,:q,4,.., p. ;.J d - u w >, i'~ W l:1'. ] ;'. d _..'"3 .t -. $.: _- : x i 3.6 .c l;::
- y 4,
- q. v 1
.%. c. s..w ;.... :n..s. -
- G.,;y ~ *. q,i )
_r, . p : . Q Mh'.,p. ',Ah'4 ;it., ",- 4.u. s... f
- 3 ef,.,7.
- i..,
4.. u, 9 4 o.-cu.q r 4 .wa [ y V,.).; t :' tg*' s,.*;:).'
- ' ' t ',..
- .1 - J.
.e '.f,: U i,' : s *] ;... 'il.::,,. h ; :u; d %. 9. -. .see "s[3, e 3 :. ay.p:.. :<.. < : 9'~ i t!. 4.v. t er
- .' *, e, p A % b, 4.h,',
- v..
,t.;;r : ? -.a: q.i.f.
- f.
.o.~. ' ;g m. <- -. i ;pc..'n.g.q;;p a r -+ u.,r .e.s.- - n. - tu
- ., u wn
- -.r
,,.,.. p . g g;7 t,.,. i 4 nutt..cunv y.
- .4. to i.
u ENCLOSURE 2 f k I
l ?c. ? ~. i i e e l 2 7.:_* " O-m i .m:"-^.m. : EZIU:n i . 1 In secordance with th*ti all inspectica progranw the following. $] inspections were j perte: in Decer.ber,15t7 6, at Turkey Point !] i Unit 2: -! j t[. j s1. Inspectit the f 6 tube. support plate 4 ttopsde y). e., - a 1 tube support 'platri ~ .fi ..c 2. Ins pec*.ii. the no. ]f. .Jhandhol' .pce tion). ,, i. t..', fl i 1 ..h testingoirevs1[throf,aa;5. gh . 3. ' Id4y ed v: a -1., Inspectien ci s g : ube Suosort Platesr 2. ' . : i., IV a L. ,u 1 c1. r'. 2 .g The ii:spectio' y.<cd that Unit'311ow. slots hoe experienced ( _-i u i lcs: hour 9 as! than has been cbserved om Unit 4. In. p 1 !;.9cneral, atca-terator " B*. has excerienced - the worst '. y f or ons flew ilot 02k in stca:n s ,,.,'.. hourglas s ir.7.. ept , /.s en er a to r
- 2.*
- h appeared to be slightly worse than j g3 hot need flev slet in etcas generator "E*.bThe y'.Ythe wc:st support.' plats '
stea:2 cenctators *A* ar:d ;"C" did not have. 4 ing in the flow slot areas. - steam l '.,
- G l, t}g' any.tisible (
4 generator *2p we.:d two sr.2.11 cracks at the edge of;the' ~ e jp'il flow r lo t4 ' e cracks.ran fecw tube' holes to the. edge i l .j -;f of t17erfiev r The ~ individual flov slot minimu=. gap ~. j i 3 disensions a) cvided in. Tabla 1 and. Table 2. h,s.. &a. .c)< :,)'- h. t .!. 4 7t 4 f e2.'.',p Instet-tien oh','. 41 !" ube sucocrt Pla*ie.g..]
- f,,
f n. g )~- s.: 21 ~ t.., C. 'h - a e. . ',3g Inspecticr.:'I,b w f15nt Itubi frupp' ort (plates were made d " ~Q* ~
- 3;f,t,Tia the
- au,'
.cr:ter ha.-M.cle=. T1,te inspections,sheved. ,g; ., H'j.N1csrc hourgle.l ; in' the Unit 3 steatrgenerat. ors than has. The :::ost. - -' g' tourglassirig oppsars. to. have occurred 'inl y'If tho' Uni.t; 4 "stean: genberators. i ..W; been observei 9k- ' t '.b,$..[ extensive Un. 4 4s team g enere -
- t".- ;r,cea cracking was observed et. alc'e '
1- @4 I st ein t generatorm and st: slot 'e 6 in stru:s ' ~.~ dJ. ;jf1 in all ty. { generators 4 no.
- B ".
Also, bourglassing Has observe:d ; , a:? s.;,k 1.,. s, ..v,..,*;..: '.*! ~a
- ,,7,;v v Trt ar u y.cd e 1 at Icq }ziQe.,.g b;
't "'&4p, o m j s i ais. q.o ma d"o j..-,e
- {Q.
p 4j x.
- ., y '
'm .y ,.,. h d va to '; M(D:@!.dbservatfod l hei '.12l tube.scpport plut
- .i. J., j ? jf M
h =c.cxtc-,t ' ! e.cssnpition;of the pecodd: support, p2a.ts: 6; y p, i I1 serppgre pq i '
- NentMily ad i ed Lo.:.be! clout,thb. cane 4a# the :cecrau. ors "" A* ::rf *C* s ilii.s I
t,' ' 'N!93!'plati,lin 3:q snint# appeared wors'e in'1,the. 4 2. supporti/, d. .N.' t !!. l) ? $ jf[,, lplatsthan.;l 72*Nthe tw - e l: .e d e 175uppar.t:. plape.' M ',L 2 T i." Q.'.&'F
- T]f j
- i
) ", :. c Eg ;
- k l;U+ $ $ 1 i'*
.. ),$ l: 4:1 Yu.! .<T4.s Pi # h.er R} - i,..!j % h. 's ' 'll ' - ? ,1 : t - 2 "i y !... b I o 4 :' { ' ;;w. 8? - ' s c.L'd +r w/g.
- j9
- ? *, .f '.w 4 nn a.
- 2. u y.m!* -
s .~.) a.f.t. .'e 5 7,u . m f..
- g. a.n e.4': -
- c. :%g :.,o,-
- t. y.,. n. " >m:'3,%
t m ;.b e t-t p.. . M - n [.ih....kdn.4:yyL.,.,,.k.
- f. U.h,..'.,.. ',E,'
- y. 5..y 1 t
N. s*.h.. .; } y;*.- a '1 ts< i u .j*. r r, r.jr 7 *. ? ~ -- t .n.'*. 'O. . E. J.' ;'h
- h j,.h.
.s r -e...,.
s. 4 I I e l l l INTERVIEW WITM MR. W. D. FLETCHER, PROJECT MAN AGER I W, MAY ll, 1978 I ( Upon being advised of the nature of the inquiry, Mr. Fletcher stated I that he was not present at the NRR meeting on January 18, 1977; however, he advised that he had been intimately involved in the h[ steam generator problems. I Mr. Fletcher advised that in late 1976, the steam generator inspection data from San Onofre were reviewed by W and the review showed that the San Onofre situation was no different than that found at Turkey Point or Surry. Mr. Fletcher further explained that SCE requested the San Onofre inspection based on information which NpR required and also for other information SCE desired. W performed the inspection for SCE and gave l the inspection results to FCE. SCE then requested that a W analysis I group evaluate the results using the San Onofre inspection data. Mr. Fletcher noted that several different groups of W were involved and sometimes had no formal interface with each other; therefore, the group performing the inspection for SCE may not have interfaced with the W j group that SCE hac contracted to perform the analysis, preparing reports, etc. Mr. Fletcher noted that it is like doing business with different companies. When asked why the W analysis or evaluation groups did not address the apparent cracks in the flow slots as shown in the 1976 and 1977 photographs, Mr. Fletcher replied that SCE did not ask for an evaluation and h[ did not ask SCE if they wanted an evaluation. He also stated that W did not contact SCE and say, " Hey, did you see the cracks in the flow slots?" He alse advised that W had observed the same thing (flow slot cracks) at Turkey Point and Surry and W knew that the flow slot cracking was an advanced state of denting; he therefore concluded nothing was differe.nt from that found at Turkey Point and Surry. Mr. Fletcher stated that Mr. Marburger (W) showed him the photographs and said, "This is the same thing you found at Turkey ?oint and Surry." When asked if he could recall when NRR first became aware of flow slot cracking, Mr. Fletcher stated that in his judgment the flow slot cracking was known to exist by NRR prior to the January 18, 1977 meeting as reflected in the questions presented by NRR on other sites (Turkey Point and Surry). He then added that this whole area was of concern to NRR and when he read the NRR summary of the March 24, 1978 meeting where NRR saio they did not know about flow slot cracks, he was very concerned and surprised. 4 7-,
i i I i l e INTERVIEW WITH l'P. W. D. FLETCHER, PROJECT MANAGER, NUCLEAR EQUIP.ENT ENGINEERING CEPARTMENT (W), MARCH 12, 1979 Mr. Fletcher was reinterviewed for the purpose of obtair.ing more de', ailed l information concerning his involvement in the San Onofre Unit 1 steam generator inspections. Mr. Fletcher stated that he maintains a library of infomation associated with steam generators. He receives and uses this infomation in a variety of ways. Information is used in trending analysis and formula-l tion of future inspection plans for steam generators. Mr. Fletcher recalled seeing the 1976 W photographs of San Onofre steam generators some'ime in October er November 1976. During review of these photographs, he saw hourglassing and cracks in the icwer support plate ligaments, which were similar to ones he had previously seen at Surry and Turkey Point. He further stated that these 1976 San Onofre photographs were shown to other W personnel, including safety people, managers and other technical personnel. Mr. Fletcher recalled that he did not send these photo-graphs to the W Safety Review Comittee as thU was the same condition' I previously seeii and analyzed at Turkey Point and.Surry. When asked if these photographs precipitated an analysis, he said, "yes," they evaluated the flow slot failures to detemine if the broken areas would cause failures in the steam generator tubes, reduction in water flow, loose fragments and vibration problems; however, the San Onofre analysis was not as extensive as the analysis for Turkey Point and Surry. Mr. Fletcher was certain that W Tampa Division saw the W 1976 photographs in November 1976, but was not sure how they obtained the photographs or whether Mr. P. Smith (W Tampa-analysis) received a copy. l i I: li E I 3 6 m l l = = 2 r---~..h..
I ~: 4 I i i l 3 4 l INTERVIEW WITH MR. R. S. GRIMM, JR., COORDINATION ENGINEER, W, MAY 11, 1978 i The investigators interviewed Mr. Grimm to determine if he remembered anything about the meeting held with NRR on San Onofre and particularly if he recalled any photographs shown at the meetings. Mr. Grimm explained his job function to the investigators and stated that he was at the meetings as an observer. His basic job function was to coordinate meetings and ensure that each W participant has his material in order and was properly prepared. Mr. Grimm reviewed the agenda for the January 18, 1977 meeting at NRR and stated that the items on the agenda were discussed, but he could not i I remember the details. The investigators showed Mr. Grimm the photographs W had taken in 1976 and 1977 and asked if he remembered seeing these photographs at the January 18, 1977 meeting. Mr. Grimm stated that he remembered that a photograph book was looked at, but the photes shown to him by the investigators "do not ring a bell." He did state that he thought that the photos were of the flow slots. Mr. Grimm then stated that he attended the NRR meeting in March 1977 where the Turkey Point steam generators were discussed. Mr. Grimm said that this meeting was ( held basically to answer seven or eight NRR questions involving nondestruc-tive examination of steam generator tubes which included steam line break analysis, tube denting, general inspection results and the ongoing steam generator inspection program. He stated that during the presentation W recapped some of the inspection history of the Turkey Point plants and during this recapping he remembered that cracking was mentioned. The investigators asked if flow slot cracking was brought up during this discussion and Mr. Grimm stated that he never distinguished the differences in cracks; however, he did not remember anything being said about flow slot cracking. l l i l - _,,, = ~ I I
/. 1 i i l l i e h 4 INTERVIEW WITH MR. H. E. HOUSERMAN, PLANT SERVICES L CEPARTMENT, NUCLEAR SERVICE DtPARTMENT (k), MARCH 12. 1979 Mr. Houserman was interviewed to determine his responsibilities and l functions during the San Onofre Unit 1 steam generator inspections. Mr. Houserran stated that he was the onsite coordinator for the W effort during the eddy current testing, tube sheet cleaning and explosive tube plugging services. W was under contract with SCE to perform the above functions. Upon questioning about the W 1976 photographs taken during the 1976 outage, Mr. Houserman gave the following information: (1) W has a practice of taking photographs of every generator they went into in order to obtain information on steam generators. At San Ono're, W took photographs on their own (not under contract to SCE). (2) The W steam generator group wanted photographs taken; therefore, Mr. T. O'Hara W, under Mr. Houserman, took photographs. and gave a ccpy to SCE af ter completion to keep SCE abreast of information acquired. (3) Between October 3-17, 1976 W took photographs and delivered them to Mr. Curran (SCE) upon request of Mr. Ottoson. I I (4) The reason that W delivered photographs to Mr. Curran was that the photographs showed cracks in the lower support plate flow slots and W knew that Mr. Curran would want to be informed as this condition was abnormal to the_ San Onofre steam generators. (5) A set of these photographs were also sent to W Office in Pittsburgh for their use and evaluation. (6) Upon Mr. Houserman's return to Pittsburgh he brought the negatives back to Pittsburgh, documented the photographs and filed them in a photograph book. The investigators examined the book of color photographs along with Mr. Houserman and he confirmed that the photographs were the ones taken at San Onofre during the October 1976 outage. (7) Mr. Houserman again stated that taking photographs of all steam generators was normal W practice and that most photographs were given to Mr. Fletcher's group. (8) Mr. Houserman stated that he did not see the photographs taken by MIS, but understood that SCE was planning to contract with MIS to take photographs to satisfy NRR requests. l
I/. j i i i l f i 1 i j INTERVIEW WITH MR. C. W. BERT' ANN, SE'GN ENmEED. PLANT SERVICES DEPAHMENT, NUCLE AR SEWICES DIVISION tw f, MARCH 12, 1979 l Mr. Bergmann was interviewed to determine his involvement with the I San Onofre Unit i steam generator inspections during the 1976 and 1977 outages. Mr. Bergmann stated that he was not involved during the 1976 outage, but was involved in the 1977 outage. Prior to the 1977 outage, Mr. Bergmann had reviewed photographs taken by W during the 1976 outage plus photo-l graphs of cther plant steam generators. Based on future business oppor-tunities, W developed new techniques and started in the commercial I business of taking photegraphs of all steam genrators. W obtained a contract with SCE to photograph the San Onofre steam generators during the 1977 outagc. Mr. Bergmann's responsibilities were to take photographs of the steam generator support plate flow slots tube bend radiu and other areas I inside the steam generators. Photographs were also taken with a TV l camera through the lower ha9 dholes, top hole in "C" steam generator and cbserving conditf or.s by utilizing a borescope and fiber optics. When asked what was SCE's purpose for ordering these photographs, Mr. Bergmann advised that the basic reason was to see if any changes had 1 occurred in the steam generators since the 1976 inspection; however, the order from SCE specified that W was to take photographs of the steam generators. Based on this order, Mr. Bergmann took many photographs. The investigators asked Mr. Bergmann what he did with the video tapes, photographs, etc. taken.ir) 1977 as SCE did not have tMse pho*ographs for NRC review on April 26, 1978. He stated that he gave SCE two copies of the photographs and a copy of the video tape and this is included in his trip report. Mr. Bergmann also stated that he brought the negatives back to Pittsburgh. Photographs were developed and W compared these with the 1976 photographs taken by W. Results of the comparison was that "no changes had occurred in tfie steam generators since the 1976 v spection. When asked if W notified SCE of their results, Mr. Bergmann t stated that W Ntified 3CE by telephone. j Mr. Bergmann took the 1977 photographs, came horre and prepared the trip report. Mr. Bergmann recalled writing handwritten notes (a two-page l summary) of his trip and the summary stated "no change in steam generators I based on comparir.g photographs." Mr. Bergmann stated that he also sent j a copy of the photographs to Mr. D. Fletcher, W, for his information. l Mr. Bergmann was asked to review the photographs submitted to NRR in the January 30, 1977 report to determine if any of these were W photocraphs. Af ter his review, Mr. Bergmann said that all were MIS photographs j l l 1 l l i u
+ 7 e 9 i i l RESULTS OF DOCUMENTATION EXAMINATION l A
i I l l l l l 0 l 6 The following sumarizes the docurents which were reviewed to deter:*ine whether any reference was made of flow slot cracking associated with W steam generators in comunications between NRR, W. SCE, and other i utilities with W steam cenerators. DOCit'ENT 1. ( Record of telecan of May ll,1976 from C. Eicheldinger, Manager, Nuclear l Safety Department, W, to V. Stello, NRR (W Document No. NS-CE-1068) j concerning support plate cracks at Turkey Point and Surry. I Pesults: Ligament cracks were discussed and W stated that they would perfcrm a series of evaluations including postulated extrapolation of conditions. Cracking at the flow slots was not specifically discussed. DOCUMENT 2. I Pecord of su mary of f/NRR meeting of May 12, 1976 on Turkey Point and Surry steam generators dated May 18.1976 (W Document No. NS-CE-1801), l prepared by C. Elcheldinger, Manager, Nuclear Safety Department, W. Fesults: "Hourglassing," support plate cracks and support plate abnormalities [ were discussed; however, the sumary did not specifically mention cracks i in the flow slots. Included in this document was a "Sumary of Information Presented to NRC in November / December 1975." This sumary reported i "hourglassing" of support plate! at Turkey Point and Surry. DOCUMENT 3. Pecord of sumary of meeting held on Decemt er 2,1976 with SCE (prepared by R. Stuart, Secticn B Leader, Engineering Branch, DOR, NRR, dated December 14,1976). Pesults Nothing was mentinned about cracks; the meeting was arimarily concerned about antivibration bar breakage. DOCUMENT 4 Record of summary of San Onofre site visit on December 2,1976 (prepared by A. Burger, NRR, and dated December 15,1976). Results: Steam generator support plates were not discussed. Mee ti ng was concerned with seismic studies associated with equipment supports. DOCUMENT 5. Record of letter plus attachment from FP&L (letter No. L-76-431) dated December 22, 1976 to G. Lear, NRR. i l i l l l l l yr
- w r
l' k- ) l 4 i I 2 Results: The attachment to this letter discussed cracks in the flow slots of Turkey Point Unit 3, steam generators. Two paragraphs ex-plicitly described the flow slot cracks. (Based on the above, one would assume that NRR knew that cracks existed in the flow slots of Turkey Point steam generators and that cracks would probably occur in the flow slots of other steam generators of the same type.) DOCUM:NT 6. l l' Fecord of summary of :Os meeting of January 18, 1977 with W and SCE and enclosed meeting agenda (prepared by A. Burger, NRR, dated February 2, 1977.) i Results: The summary states that the inspection was performed to l determine if tube denting and subsequent flow slot "hourglassing" nad cecurred. Also, the sumrary states that a thorough examination was made I en all steam generator support plates and that the licensee pointed out the results of the inspections, particularly the examination of the l ccper support plates and that these examinations showed that the flow slots in the upper plates approximated the as-built conditions; therefore, l ( confirming the absence of "hourglassing" It is noted that the summary ( does not mention flow slot cracks. I The SCE agenda for the January s, 1977 meeting and technical support l data specifically presented two areas where the lower support plates l were to be discussed (Item III. and Item V.B.). Also Item 2. A in the introduction states that the safety aspects relative to lower support plate flow slot deformation *(hourglassing) was to be discussed. The discussion of the inspection results also mentioned " Photograph Book" I two times and specifies that a discussion of flow slot pictures was to te presented. It is also noted that during a review of the same docu-ment at SCE, their copy had the flow slot cracks identified. Location of *.he cracks had been " inked" in. The " Program for Corrective Actions" (page 46 of the presentation to NRR) states that, "Since there are no safety consequences with continued operation with condition of lower support plates, a program of corrective actions is not warranted." The i investigators did not find in this document where NRR questioned the condition of the lower support plates; however, they requested that photographs of the flow slots in the upper support plates be taken during the next inspection. l DOCUMENT 7. Record of SCE's report dated January 30, 1977 on Steam Generator Inspections. i 1 l i y 9-m m-m
\\ r l l I l = 4 3 Results Report does not mention flew slot cracking; however, ligament cracks aa; mentioned. During discussions with several SCE personnel, they stated that the term ligament cracks included flow slot cracks; therefore, they did not explicitly specify flow slot cracks in the report. DOCUMENT S. Record of letter dated February 1,1977 from SCE to A. Schwencer, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No.1. DOR, requesting provisional Operating License. Results: This letter does not mention flow slot cracking; however, the Tettir states that support plates of steam generator Nos. A and C were thoroughly investigated and evaluated. The letter also states that the evaluations indicate that there are no safety consequences with regard to support plate deformation and ligament cracking, j I DOCUMENT 9. Pecord of memorandum to K. Goller, NRR, from D. Eisenhut NRR, dated I March 18, 1977 titled, " Engineering Branch Review of SCE's Report of I January 30, 1977. " l Results! The memorandum mentions cracks in ligaments between the water l holes and the tube holes which result in "hourglassing" of the flow slot I walls. The memorandum does not specifically mention cracks in the flow slots. DOCUMENT 10. Record of the Safety Evaluation by NRR supporting Amendment 25 to POL No. DPR-13 dated Anril 1, 1977. R?sults: Page 2.4-15 of the Safety Evaluation states that minor tube suppor' plate deformation and flow slot "hourglassing" is confined to i the 30ttom two support plates in steam generators A and C. The evalua-I tion also states that measurements of the "hourglassed" flow S 9ts in the lower two support plates in steam generator Nos. A and C were not made. DOCUMENT 11. Record of summary of NRR meeting with SCE and W helo.::n Ocicbv 3, 1977 (prepared by A. Burger, V 1, hted November 21,19?i). Results: This summary only 'iscusied eddy current testing and metallurgi-cal examination of a dented tube and the visual inspection of the tube bundle. i i l .Y ~ --. =. :. :.:-=-
-O i-t i I i 4 4 DOCL' MENT 12. Pecord of summary of NRR's meeting with SCE and W on steam generators at San Onofre on March 24,1978 (prepared by A. Burger, NRR, dated April 4, 1978). Results: The above meeting was held to discuss the San Onofre steam generater tube denting, analysis of steam lira braak and radiation consequences associated with additional leakage from stean. generator tubes. The sunnary stated that during a discussion on suoptr* plate i distortion and flow slot geometry, W showed photographs of t. cam gen-erator support plates taken during T976 and 1977 for compa 1so. nurposes. During NRR's review of the photographs, the cracks in the flow s.0ts were noted, and NRR stated that they were not previously aware of these apparent flow slot cracks. Note: Based on the investigators' review of above documents, the term " flow slot cracking" was only found in the FP&L letter dated Cecember 22, 1976 (Document 5) and the summary of the March 24, 1978 meeting (Document 12). DOCUMENT 13. Record of License Amendment No.13 for San Onofre 1 issaed March 24, 1978. Results: Requires reinspection of steam generator to provide sufficient data for a reassessment of the consequence of support plate "hourglassing" in the top and bottom support plates. DOCUMENT 14. Record of memorandum from E. B. Blackwood, DORI, IE, to J. H. Sniezek, ADFC. DR0!, IE, dated April 18, 1978. Results: The investigatcrs concur with E. Blackwood's conclusions con-cerning the reportability of the cracks. If SCE and W knew that these flow slot cracks existed, they should have pointed this out and their evaluation should have addressed the flow slot cracks and that they were of no safety consequence. On the other hand, if NRR personnel were aware of flow slot cracks on other steam generators, NRR should have asked more detailed questions to ensure that no item of concern was left unanswered.
= _ _ - _ -. _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. ___. y a + l i l i l 1 1 5 DOCUMENT 15. Southern California Edison letter to K. R. Goller, 00R, dated October 26, 1976. l Pesults: This letter confirms a meeting held on October 20, 1976 between 5(E.-}G~ three other utilities and NRR staf f which discusses a general I program for steam generator inspections to ensure the integrity of the small radius steam generator tubes. The letter also states that SCE was currently finalizing the details of their specific participation in the ) general st-am generator inspection pregram. DOCUMENT 16. NRC letter to SCE dated October 29, 1976 (K. R. Goller, DOR, to SCE). Results: NRC letter accepts SCE inspection proposal as submitted in SCE October 26, 1976 letter to K. R. Goller, NRC (states NRC minimum requirements to assure that San Onofre does not operate with reduced integrity of the l reactor coolant pressure boundary). DOCUMENT 17. I SCE letter dated November 2,1976 to K. R. Coller, DOR, discussing Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13. Results: Enclosure 3 to the above SCE letter specified the detafis of 5Cf's proposed inspection of the San Onofre steam generators which included handhole inspections, upper bundle entry inspections and eddy current inspections to ascertain the condit4:n of the upper steam genera- ~ tor tube support plates. It is noted that the SCE letter included the entire general inspection program and schedule which was to be completed by three other utilities including W. The inspection schedule shows that Turkey Point No. 3. Turkey Point No. 4 and Surry No.1, inspections through the handhole were to be performed prior to the San Onofre handaole inspections. DOCUMENT 18. Memorandum from B. D. Liaw, NRR, through R. Stuart to L. Shao, NRR, dated December 14, 1976. Results: Pertinent portion of memorandum references "hourglassing" _ f lower support plate flow slots and states that this is "significant.' I l i l l l 1 i ._ -.., _ _.}}