ML20050K331
| ML20050K331 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1982 |
| From: | Burdoin J, Eckhardt J, Hernandez G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050K109 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-82-07, 50-275-82-7, NUDOCS 8204140217 | |
| Download: ML20050K331 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1982007
Text
_
_
_
- '
,
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No.
50-275/82-07
,
Docket No. 50-275 (C0N)
License No. CPPR-39
Safeguards Group
Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
P. O. Box 7442
San Francisco, California 94120
Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Unit 1
Inspection at:
Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County, California
Inspection conducted: February 8-12, and 22-26, 1982
e!
.7
!
Inspectors:
J
F. Burdoin, Reactor Inspector
'Date Signed
dkm
addu
'
yHernandez,ReactorInspector
Date Signed
Approved by:W.
[
S/p4 /82
f J/ H. Eckhardt, Acting Chief
Cate 6igned
feactorProjectsSection1
Summary:
Inspection during period of February 8-12 and 22-26, 1982 (Report No. 50-275/82-07).
Areas Inspected: Announced inspections by regional based inspectors of modifications
to piping and electrical raceway supports and of other modifications resulting from
the revised annulus' spectra. The inspection involved 106 inspector hours by two
NRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the three areas examined, one item of noncompliance was identified
in the area of safety related pipe support and restraint systems (failure to
-
accomplish work in accordance with approved ouality assurance instructions, see
paragraph 2).
I
i
l
9204140217 820329
PDR ADOOK 05000275
G
_
. _ _ ,
__
. _ _ _ _
.
.
_
_
_
. . . . . - -
-
.._
.
-
. __ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ .
____. _
_
__
..
.--
.-
_ _
-
j
-
.
.
.
.
i,
i
DETAILS
j
1.
Individuals Contacted
a.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
l
,
i
+*R. D. Etzler, Project Superintendent
+*D. A. Rockwell, Resident Electrical Engineer
i
+*J. A. Aninon, Resident Mechanical Engineer
+ C. L. Braff, Piping Hanger Group Supervisor
l
!
+ 0. R. Bell, QC Engineer
J. J. Nystrom, QC Engineer
+ T. E. Pierce, QC Engineer
C. H. Issel, Electrical Inspector
!
V. A. Smart, Electrical Inspector
,
l
+ M. J. Lecours, QA Engineer
!
- M. Dobrzensky, QA Engineer
4
+ S. J. Foat, QC Engineer
i
M. J._Mello, Mechanical Inspector
t
Various other engineering and QC personnel.
b.
H. P. Foley Company (Foley)
!
V. H. Tennyson, QC Manager
J. L. Thompson, 0A Engineering Group Supervisor
J. W. Strait, QC Supervisor
i
c.
Pullman Power Products Corp.
I
H. W. Karner, QA/QC Manager
'
D. L. McGrew, Supervisor Pipe Hanager Department
i
P,. T. Niles, QA Controller
!
C. D. Agueda, QA Controller
i
R. M. Llewellyn, QA Controller
l
R. Marks, QC Supervisor
l
T. Hanley, QC Inspector
- Denotes attendees at exit meetina on February 12, 1982.
1
+ Denotes attendees at exit meeting o,n February 26, 1982.
NRC Resident Inspectors J. D. Carlson and M. M. Mendonca attended both
exit meetings.
Other NRC personnel who attended the February 26, 1982
exit meeting are:
T. W. Bishop, P. J. Morrill, J. R. Fair, and K. S. Herring.
4
s
-
--.-e.,,.-
,
.-
,-
w -, ,
,---------,,n,
--
--
- - -
-
-- --- -- ,
' '
.
.
.
.
-2-
2.
Safety Related Pipe Support and Restraint Systems
The seismic verification has resulted in ninety-two large bore piping
hangers requiring modifications. As of this inspection, eighty-two
hanger modification packages have been received onsite and changes to
forty-five hangers have been completed. Verification of these completed
hangers with as-built drawings has not yet been completed.
Approximately sixty-six small bore (2" diameter and smaller) piping
hangers require modifications.
Forty-four of these modifications are
to provide two-way vertical restraint of the pipe. To date, modifications
to fifty-one small bore hangers have been completed.
The inspectors examined modifications to large and small bore pipe
supports in Unit I containment to ascertain by visual examination
whether the pipe supports met the requirements specified by licensee's
drawings, procedures and specifications.
a.
The following pipe supports were examined in the containment and
~
found acceptable:
Large Bore Pipe Support Number
Small Bore Pipe Support Number
(1)40-26V
(1)
2151-67
(2) 41-8R
(2)
2151-71
(3)42-32R
(3)
2151-72
(4)42-80R
(4)
2151-157
(5) 43-2R
(5)
2155-34
(6)
(6)
2155-36
(7) 176-123V
(7)
2155-38
(8)
176-138R
(8)
2155-141
(9)
12-39SL
(9)
2155-223
(10)12-84SL
(10) 2155-233
(11)22-337SL
(11) 2155-236
(12)22-341SL
(12) 2155-237
(13)22-344SL
(13)
2155-241
(14)22-345SL
(15) 176-ll3G
(16)176-114G
(17) 176-ll6G
All of the supports had been examined and accepted by Pullman's
quality control and all of the supports appeared to meet the applicable
requirements.
.
.
.
.
-3-
b.
The following pipe supports were examined and found unacceptable:
(1)
Pipe Support flumber 57-ll7R:
Undercut was found in one area of the T-shoe welds that was
approximately 5/8" long by 1/16" deep, and adjacent to the
undercut was a slag pocket that made it impossible to determine
visually if the undercut was deeper or longer.
Pullman
Power Products Engineering Specification Diablo (ESD) flumber 223
in paragraph 6.8.2.4(b) states in part, that, "The final surface
of all welds shall be substantially free of sharp surface
irregularities, excess, surface slag, slag inclusions, and
shall have a good workmanship appearance." and in paragraph
6.8.2.4(c) that, " Undercut, extending the length of the weld
shall not exceed 1/32" in depth. Local undercut shall not
exceed 1/16" when the length of a local undercut area does not
exceed 1/2" in any 6" length of weld."
The inspectors also found one arc strike on the Class I pipe
for this support.
ESD 223 in paragraph 6.8.2.4(D) states in
part, that "No arc strikes on pipe shall be permitted."
This pipe support was examined and accepted by Quality Control
on Febru'ary 4, 1982.
(2)
Pipe Support flumber 41-60R:
A gouge was found on the supporting structural steel for this
support which measured 0.5 inches in length and 0.080 inches
in depth.
PG&E Structural Steel Specification Diablo Canyon
Number 8833XR states that the maximum allowable depth for
gouges and other similiar discontinuities shall be 0.062 inches.
This pipe support was examined and accepted by Ouality Control
on February 4, 1982.
(3) Pipe Support Number 2155-42:
This support was found to have one weld that was not as
detailed on the as-built drawing. The weld detail as specified
was later determined to be a drafting error, and the weld on
the support is as the Designer / Engineer intended. Also, on
l
one end of the support a number of weld discrepancies were
'
found " circled" with a soap stone marker indicating that work
on this support was incomplete.
However, in both cases the
Quality Control Inspector failed to notice the discrepancies
and turned the support in as examined and acceptable.
ESD 223
in paragraph 6.8.2.5(A) states in part, that, "The fillet weld
size shall be as specified on the drawing," and in paragraph
i
.
_- .
.
_
_
-
.
!
,
-
,
i
-4-
6.8.2.4(b) states in part, that, "The final surface of
all welds shall be substantially free of sharp surface
irregularities, excess surface slag, slag inclusions, and
shall have a good workmanship appearance."
i
This support was examined and accepted by Ouality Control on
January 27, 1982.
(4) Pipe Support Number 2180-18:
The inspector noted th'at two bolts on the T-shoe strap
'
for pipe support 2180-18 did not have full thread engagement.
ESD 223 in paragraph 6.4.3.3 states that, "The Field QC Inspector
shall verify that all lock nuts are in place and tight and that
,
there is full thread engagement at all connections, at least
flush".
This support was examined and accepted by Quality Control on
,
'
December 1,1980.
The failure to perform work in accordance with approved procedures
is considered an apparent item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings".
(50-275/82-07/01).
-
3.
Seismic Limiters-(Snubbers) and Spring Hangers
During examination of the pipe support modifications the inspectors
noted the following:
a.
Pipe Support Number 176-141SL was found to have two snubbers which
had the four bolts /capscrews on the transition tube flange which
did not have full thread engagement or locking devices. A PG&E
memo dated June 4, 1980 required that from that date all new PSA
snubber installations or rework on snubbers should have the bolts
safety wired. However, the licensee never verified that all the
snubbers installed prior to June 4,1980 had the flange bolts safety
wired. Also, the licensee presented the inspector with a letter
from Pacific Scientific (PSA) that appeared to imply that it was
innaterial whether or not the bolt /capscrews extended through the
snubber flange as along as the bolts used were supplied by PSA.
This matter is considered unresolved pending further investigation.
(50-275/82-07/02).
_
_ _.
- - _ - - __
_
-
_
.
._.
_
.
.
.
.
,
.
..
-5-
b.
Pipe Support Number 2180-18 was found to have the spring hanger
rod attachment supported on the threads of the beam attachment
bolt. Discussions with the licensee personnel indicated that the
beam attachment, and the bolt and nut were all vendor supplied items
(ITT-Grinnell). The inspector questioned whether the vendor had
considered the reduction in load rating when the threaded portion
of the bolt is used as the base.
Several other spring hangers
in the area were observed supported in a similar fashion.
This item is considered unresolved pending further investigation to
ascertain whether this condition is acceptable.
(50-275/82-07/03).
4.
Modifications to Electrical Raceway Support Details
Approximately 150 tieam type supports (detail S-221) are to be modified;
and to date, the following modified supports have been examined:
Hangers
location
E-2001 (F-ll7-3-667)
Annulus Area
E-2002 (F-117-3-543)
Annulus Area
E-2003 (F-117-3-544)
Annulus Area
E-2004 (F-ll7-1-559)
Annulus Area
E-2100 (F-117-3-545)
Annulus Area
E-2101 (F-ll7-3-661)
Annulus Area
E-2102 (F-ll7-3-546)
Annulus Area
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Approximately 13 supports (detail S-241) are to be modified.
The modifications to these electrical raceway supports have not
been started.
Consequently no field inspections of this work
were made.
5.
Other Modifications Reviewed
a.
Fan Cooler Weld
The weld modifications to Fan Cooler 1-3 support #18 were inspected
l
in the containment and the documentation records for the modifications
I
were examined and found acceptable.
i
b.
Instrument Tubing Supports
l
The modifications to instrument tubing PT-932 and FE-980 and 926
I
supports were inspected in the containment annulus area and the
documentation records for the modifications to the supports were
,
examined and found acceptable.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l
l
.
-
-.
_..
. --
_.
_-
, -
_.
'
-
-
. . .
.
-6-
6.
Management Interview
Meetings were held with the licensee representatives (identified in
paragraph 1) on February 12 and 26, 1982. The scope of the inspections
and summaries of the findings, as noted in this report, were discussed,
t
l
l
l
l
l
l
,
l
l
,