ML20073B752
| ML20073B752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1983 |
| From: | Norton B NORTON, BURKE, BERRY & FRENCH, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304120533 | |
| Download: ML20073B752 (55) | |
Text
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. ._. _ _ _ __ .
O
/P:? f7 *,.0:55 UNITED STATES OF MERICA NUCLEAR RIKIDIATGtY CIBMISSION BEICRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIGNSING APPEAL BOUtD 1
I
)
4-In the Matter of )
)
{' PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CDMPANY ) Docket Nos 50-275 j ) 50-323 j (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 )
)
i PACIFIC GAS AND ELECIRIC (I)MPANY'S RESPONSE TO MARCH 29, 1983 j AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD B. HUBBARD 1
} On March 29, 1983, two weeks before the oral argunent scheduled before the 4
l Appeal Board in this preceeding, Richard B. Hubbard submitted the 1
j ' Supplemental Affidavit of Richard B. Hubbard Concerning Breakdowns in the Diablo Canyon Quality Assurance Program."1 W ere are no provisions in the j Consnission's Rules of Practice,10 C.F.R. Part 2, for this unusual filing, nor f has the Appeal Board established procedures for or invited submissions of last 1
j minute pleadings or affidavits. For this reason and others, not the least of
! which is that the subject matter of the affidavit has never been placed before the Appeal Board, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE) feels conpelled to l
j sutsnit this last minute response.
1 i
! 1. n is affidavit, submitted on behalf of Governor Deuknejian, purports to be a supplement to an earlier affidavit submitted by the other intervening party, Joint Intervenors, on June 8, 1982.
8304120533 830408 PDR ADOCK 05000275
!' O PM
L
\
I. PARrIAL STIPUIATION
{
During the first week of April, the counsels for PGandE, the Governor of i California and the NRC Staff attempted to arrive at certain stipulations regarding the proceedings pending before this Board. In the final analysis i
i those parties were only able to agree on three items: reopening the record; i
j scheduling; and forum. While the three parties agree that the record may be i
, reopened, they could not agree on the wording of a contention. It is the position of PGandE that the contention should read as follows:
l W e record in this proceeding may be reopened for
} the purpose of determining whether the i verification program is an adequate remedy for j the QVQC deficiencies detected in design activities at Diablo Canyon.
The apparent stumbling block to reaching agreement on the contention is that PGandE does not believe a basis exists for reopening the record on construction QVQC while counsel for the Governor believes they have the right i
- to litigate the adequacy of construction QA/QC at Diablo Canyon.
t It was agreed, however, that should hearings be held, the following j schedule would be adhered to assuming the IINP Phase II Final Report is issued i
' by June 15, 1983:
Coupletion of Discovery July 1, 1983 Motions for Sunimary Disposition July 8, 1983 l Response to Hotions for Sunmary July 18, 1983 Disposition Testimony in hand July 25, 1983 1
]
Start of Hearings August 2, 1983
! Close of Hearings August 13, 1983 h e parties also agreed that this Board should retain jurisdiction of
- these proceedings for purposes of conducting any such hearings.
I j-i d
. l i
II. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR REOPENING 'IEE RE03tD ON 00NS2RUCTION WQC i
PGan:E believes that the standards for I;eopening the record have been met as respects the alleged detected deficiencies in design W QC and that the contention set forth supra may be a4nitted. S e question is not, as set forth I
in the motions to reopen presently pending before the Board, whether the
- record should be reopened to take evidence on PGandE's W QC program during the past 13 years. Such a hearing would serve no purpose. S e NRC in noting certain deficiencies in design QVQC program for Diablo Canyon required a verification program. n e question then is whether the verification programs instituted post September 1981 are an adequate remedy for those deficiencies.
S e intervenors in these proceedings are also arguing that the record l
should be reopened to determine the adequacy of construction W QC. PGancE vehemently opposes the motion in that respect. Here is no basis for reopening the record on construction QVQC under either the regulations or ,
case law. W e latest Hubbard affidavit adds nothing in this regard. Se primary thrust of the Hubbard affidavit is to criticize the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) established for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
! Plant and to argue for a substantive determination that the IDVP should be l expanded.2 Quite apart from the inherent unfairness of submitting a long
! 2. We IDVP was established in response to the Commission's November 19, 1981 " Order suspending License," CLI-81-30, NRC , and a letter of l the same date from Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Phase I of the IDVP relates solely to the seismic design of the plant and reflects the requirements of the Connission Order. Phase II involves mostly non-seismic design issues and is responsive to Mr.
Denton's letter. S e original design error that precipitated the low l power license suspension was seismic, and the Commission's emphasis in its verification requirements has been on seismic design. While.both the Phase I and Phase II activities have been expanded beyond those originally required by the Consission's Order and Mr. Denton's letter, the Phase I activities are the more comprehensive. S e primary purpose of the Hubbard affidavit appears to be an argument that the Phase II l review should be similarly expanded.
l
__ _ ___ _ . __ _ _ . -._ _ _ ._ ___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ J
and detailed factual affidavit at the eleventh hour, leaving PGane inadequate time to prepare a point-by-point rebuttal, the affidavit simply does not go to the question now before the Appeal Board as raised by Mr. Bubbard's clients.
S us, a detailed response by PGandE or the other parties to the allegations put forth in the affidavit would necessarily be directed to the merits of substantive issues which are si g ly not before the Board at this juncture.
In September 1982 PGandE requested Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) to engage Stone & Webster Engineering Services (SWEC) to perform evaluations and verifications of construction quality related activities at Diablo Onnyon. Se contractors reviewed were Wismer & Becker (WEB), who performed installation of NSSS piping, and G. F. Atkinson (GFA), who performed civil / structural work in the containment building at Diablo Canyon Unit No.
- 1. h at verification was requested to further establish the adequacy of construction QVQC at the site.3 SWEC not only looked at the two major contractors set forth above, but additional subcontractors. S e f hal results of those verification efforts are set forth in I m $36, Rev. O and I m $38, Rev. 1, dated February 25, 1983 and March 16, 1983, respectively. hose final reports are attached to this response as exhibits A and B. The verification effort concluded that: (1) PGandE adequately controlled construction contractors to assure the quality of construction; (2) the as-constructed physical installation conformed to the requirements of design drawings and specifications; (3) the required inspections were performed and appropriately documented; and (4) no additional verification was recoamended.4 His conclusion was confirmed by TES in its March 25, 1983 semimonthly report, the pertinent part of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
- 3. See affidavits attached to Response to PGandE to Motion to Reopen dated July 2, 1982.
- 4. I m 636, p. 9 and I R 638, p. 7-1.
t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
1 In conclusion, the Hubbard supplemental affidavit presents, absolutely no }
evidence upon which this Board can reopen the record on constr$ction OVQC - <
under either 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) or applicable cases such as In the Matter of ;
Kansas Gas and Electric Cb. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 337-339 (1978). j Respectfully submitted, MhLCOIJt H. FURBU!El PHILIP A. GANE, JR. l RIGIARD F. IOOCE :
Pacific Gas and Electric Campany l P.O. Box 7442 i San Francisco, California 94120 ,
(415) 781-4211 t ARIHUR C. GEBR {
Snell & Wilmer !
3100 Valley Center !
Phoenix, Arizona 85073 i (602) 257-7288 l BRUCE NOR10N Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C. i 2002 East Osborn P.O. Box 10569 l Phoenix, Arizona 85064 !
(602) 955-2446 :
Attorneys for ,
Pacific Gas and Electric Canpany ;
' i A 3
(
, By i\ l
,f ,
Bruce Norton !
i DATED: April 8, 1983 1
1
(
(,
- _, , . ~ . - . , . .
]_ . _ . _ . _ , . . . _ _ . . , . , , , , , , . , _ . , , . . . _ _ , _ _ , , , , _ _ , , , , , . . , , , , , , . , _ .
t 9 i , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y
CUCLEAR REGULATORY C000tISSION l In the Matter [of C *
)
l t r )
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-275 i ) Docket No. 50-323 i Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )
l Units 1 and 2 s )
2 )
1
).
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric ~ Company
- has (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United
- States mail, properly stamped and addressed
t i Judge John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A. Silver i
Chairman 1760 Alisal Street i
^
i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401
!' US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ., !
i Washington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver l 1760 Alisal Street l Judge Glenn O. Bright ,'
San Luis,0bispo CA 93401 l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
- US Nuclear Regulatory Commission f. John Phillips, Esq.
l Washington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
1 Center for Law in the Public Interest i Judge Jerry'R. Kline 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles CA 90064 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington DC 20555 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
1 P. O. Box 1178 l
Mrs. Eliza'eth b Apfelberg Oklahoma City OK 73101 t c/o Betsy Umhoffer
{ 1493 Southwood Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
! San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer
- 3100 Valley Bank Center
! Janice E. Kerr, Esq. Phoenix AZ 85073 l j Public Utilities Commission
) State of California Bruce Norton, Esq.
I 5246 State Building Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
4 350 McAllister Street P. O. Box le569 l San Francisco CA 94102 Phoenix AZ 85064 Mrs. Raye Fleming Chairman i 1920 Mattie Road Atomic Safety and Licensing ;
! Shell Beach CA 93449 Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Mr. Frederiwk Eissler Washington DC 10555 Scenic Shoreline Preservation i Conference, Inc. !
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara CA 93105
< u
o 4
o Chairman ** Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board
, WChington, D.C. 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1
SCcretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ** Judge W. Reed Johnson Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Attn: Docketing and Servicing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section :lashington, D.C. 20555
- Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq. *
- Judge John H. Buck Jcck R. Goldberg, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Office of Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission W2chington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Commissioner Nunzio J. Palladino MHB Technical Associates Chairman 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sin Jose, CA 95125 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Carl Neiberger Talegram Tribune Commissioner John R. Ahearne P. O. Box 112 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sen Luis Obispo, CA 93402 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Victor Gilinsky 1717 H Street NW US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C. 20555 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael J. Strumwasser Counsel to the Attorney General Commissioner James K. Asselstine 3580 Blvd. Suite 800' US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90010 1717 H Street MW Washington, D.C. 20555
_ h_
Date: April 8, 1983
- Indicates these were sent via Federal Express.
b- ,
( l i
I l
+ PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM FINAL REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION OF GUY F. ATKINSON COMPANY PERFORMED BY STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-275 LICENSE NO. DPR-76 PROJECT MANAGER ' -r --
A I/. DATE 2 - M' N 6
F. Sestak, Jr.
EXHIBIT A w_ - - - -.
PROGRAM MANAGER'S PREFACE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT f
FINAL REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION OF GUY F. ATKINSON CO.
This is the thirty-sixth of a series of Interim Technical Reports prepared by the DCNPP-IDVP for the purpose of providing a conclusion of the program.
This report provides the recomendations and conclusions of the IDVP with respect to the initial sample.
As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services, (TES), has '
approved this ITR including the concidsions and recommendations. The methodology followed by TES in performing this review and evaluation is described by Appendix B to this report.
, ITR Reviewed and Approved IDVP Program Manager '
Teledyne agineprin Services ,
a l
^l D.C. Stratouly Assistant Project Manager l
!. i l
l l
[L
.I e
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION . TITLE PAGE Program Manager's Preface ......................... 1.
'T
'1 l.0 Introduction ...................................... 2.
2.0 Construction QA Evaluation ....................... 4.
2.1 De finition o f It ems Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.
2.2 Description of Review ............................. 4.
2.3 Summary of Review Results ........................ 6.
2.4 E01 Re po r t s I s s u ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.
2.5 Evaluation of Review Results ..................... 8.
2.6 Conclusion ....................................... 9.
Appendix "A" EDI File s ( Tab le ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.
Appendix "B" Program Manager's Assessment ..................... 11.
h I
J.O. 14296'.10 f
7 FINAL REPORT
(
8
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) was engaged by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) to perform evaluations and verifications of the quality related activities of Wismer & Becker (W6B) who performed installation of NSSS piping, and G. F. Atkinson (GFA) who performed civil / structural work in the containment building at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) Unit #1.
SWEC has performed the evaluation and verification in accordance with the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP), Program Plan, Rev 1 Adjunct Program for Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance, dated October 1, 1982 issued by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) as IDVP Program Manager.
This report concentrates on that portion of the civil / structural work performed by GFA and their major subcontractors on the Unit #1 containment only. GFA erected the on-site central mix batchplant, batched , mixed , delivered and placed the concrete. A separate report will be issued with respect to W-B.
Pacific Cas & Electric (PG&E) performed the inspections and tests associated with concrete and operated an on-site materials testing
- laboratory.
Major subcontractors to GFA and their primary functions included:
Pacific States Steel -
supplying and erecting reinforcing steel i
- 2. j
. i
~
.. l Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory -
reinforcing steel testing and inspection Pittsburgh Des Moines - liner erection Bostrom-Bergen - supplying embedded metal Subcontractors functioned under their own PG&E approved quality assurance programs; GFA performed periodic audits of their per-formance.
Concrete work for the containment structure was initiated in September of 1969, and was essentially completed in 1973.
l The review was conducted at the site from September 28, 1982, :
through November 5, 1982, according to the objectives of the evaluation defined in Section 2.0, Paragraph 2.1 of the IDVP Plan.
The subsequent evaluation was structured to assess whether the construction of the DCNPP was performed in accordance with quality requirements appropriate for the time of plant construction.
The Quality Assurance Program Evaluation was performed by a team of engineers and inspectors experienced in various aspects of nuclear power plant constructior quality assurance and inspection and was led by a Senior Field Quality Control Representative.
The Quality Assurance Program Evaluation was performed by indi-viduals certified as Auditors by SWEC in accordance with approved procedures and ANSI-N45.2.23. The construction verification was performed by individuals certified as Inspectors in the appropriate discipline by SWEC in accordance with approved procedures and ANSI-N45.2.6.
The review began with an evaluation to determine if the construc-tion documentation provided evidence that the construction work l correctly incorporated essential design features. To ascertain 3.
=,. - - - _. - - -
1 this, random sampling of actual construction was performed to verify that the facilities were correctly constructed, and that other construction requirements, as applicable, were met.
f 1
-. 2.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION An appropriate sample for evaluation was selected from the work of this contractor to provide evidence of his quality practices in each area of activity.
2.1 DEFINITIONS OF ITEMS REVIEWED 2.1.1 Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance Program Task A: Review contractor's quality programs to determine if adequate controls and practices were evident to assure the quality of construction and the incorporation of essential design features into the completed plant, and if controls were consistent with applicable reg-ulatory requirements at the time the work was per-formed.
2.1.2 Verification of Physical Installation Task B: To evaluate if physical installation of selected components of safety systems and structures conformed to the requirements of design drawings and specifica-tions and that required inspections were performed.
2.2 DESCRIPTION
OF REVIEW 2.2.1 Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance Program ,
i
. 1 Checklist attributes were developed based on require-ments of PG&E Specification 8831R " Construction of Buildings and Related Structures", and applicable 1
4.
~
contractor and subcontractor Quality Assurance pro-grams in effect at the time of construction. The
, - checklist items were separated into different major work categories such as Reinforcing Steel, Concrete Work, Embedded Metal, Containment Liner, and Quality Assurance in the same manner as these categories-appeared in Specification 8831R.
Documentation was randomly selected based upon PG&E l documentation indexes and consisted of material cer--
tifications, test and inspection reports, drawings, material and procedure approvals, concrete placement cards, batch plant tapes, receiving reports, equip-ment calibration records, nonconformance reports (NCRs), corrective action reports, audit records and general correspondence.
1 1
i
- 2.2.2 Verification of Physical Installation j
Checklist attributes were developed based on require-ments of PG&E Specification 8831R, PG&E and contractor f
drawings, and applicable contractor and subcontractor i
j QA programs. GFA " Concrete Lift Drawings", C-Series I, for containment, and I-Series for interior contain-ment concrete, were very detailed and provided much of
]
the criteria used in developing the physical verifi-
~
i cation checklist.
Visual inspection of the accessible completed work was I then performed to verify that work was done in accordance with the approved design drawings and specifications. Items examined included concrete surfaces, construction joint locations, weld size and location, liner erection and embedment locations.
m D
be b
5.
{ .
6 2.3 SUMARY OF REVIEW RESULTS 2.3.1 Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance Program Based on the checklist, 1880 documents were reviewed against the appropriate attributes. Unless otherwise noted on the checklist, the documents were legible and sufficiently detailed to justify that the work was performed as required. PG&E was involved in the quality program as evidenced by their approval of contractor and subcontractor Quality Assurance pro-grams, approvals of NCRs, audits of subcontractors and corrective action follow-up.
The review revealed the existence of deficiencies at the very start of concrete production when leveling mats were being placed and later.with " fill" concrete for the " soldier beams" in the containment. It also identified two (2) isolated instances . where small amounts of aluminium powder where used in grout within f' the containment.
2.3.2 Verification of Physical Installation Based on the checklist attributes, 323 items were visually inspected. .All GFA " C'.' and "I" Series concrete lift drawings used in the verification showed j evidence of PG&E approval.
The review revealed two areas (i.e., the exterior of 1
" the containment and the inside surface of blockouts on
" interior walls), where the surface finish did. not j
- o. appear to meet specification requirements. l m
?
6.
i'
u-
' 2.4 EDI Reports Issued '
i Four (4) E01 Files have - been opened for. the Construction
~
l Quality Assurance evaluation of the work performed by Guy F.
' Atkinson and this major subcontractors on the Containment i Building at the DCNPP Unit fl. The status of these files is j, suumarized- in Appendix A.
i E0I 9008 was issued because PG&E Specification 8831R details i~
requirements on the exposed concrete surface that the Field 1
4 Auditors considered were not met. This file was revised and-analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E.
j The Findings Review Comunittee has recommended and the IDVP has concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C
- (observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications are required. An IDVP Completion j
Report has been issued. ;
E01 9015 was issued because PG&E Specification 8831R details requirements on the compressive strength of concrete, that the Field Auditors considered were not met on some specified early l~ placements as given by the accompanying Field Reports. This file was revised and analyzed with the additional information l
l- provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee has recom-f mended and the IDVP has concluded that the file is resolved as -
1 j ,
an Error Class C (observation) in accer. lance with the program plan. No physical modifications are required. An IDVP f
Completion Report has been issued.
s E019016 was issued because PG&E Specification 8831R prohibits
) "
the use of aluminum grout in the Containment Structure and the
- Field Auditors pointed to field records that show otherwise.
- This file was revised and analyzed with the additional
- information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee w has recommended and the IDVP has concluded that the file is I resolved as an Error Class C (observation) in accordance with 1
?.
7.
. . . _ _ , _ . , . _ . _ _ ______-__,_,m __.._,___..-._,y,,_ . , , , , _ _ - , . . . _ - , , , . . ,
I
,i the program plan. No physical modifications are required. An j IDVP Completion ~ Report has been issued..
! E01 File 902] was issued because PG&E Specification 8831R details requirements on the Reactor Containment Interior Walls that the Field Auditors considered were not met. The file was ~
revised and analyzed with the -additional information provided l i
by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee has recommended and l
i the IDVP has concluded that the file is resolved as an Error. l 4 Class C (observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications are required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
4 1
2.5 EVALUATION OF REVIEW RESULTS 2.5.1 Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance Program a
The documentation reviewed provides evidence that an effective quality control program existed and was enforced to assure work was performed in accordance with the PG&E specifications, GFA's Quality Assurance program, and the Quality Assurance programs of GFA's .
subcontractors. Records were logically filed, easily' retrievable, and particularly detailed in their cov-erage. Deficiencies identified by the contractor during the program of work were documented on NCR's and corrective actions were effectively.. implemented.
PG6E played an active role in the resolution of nonconformances and performed periodic audits of major subcontractors to assure program adherence.
2.5.2 Verification of Physical Installation 4
The physical verification indicated that GFA and their subcontractors performed work as specified and in '
accordance with their quality programs. Other than t
8.
.. . . . _ . - _ . ,,,. _ , . . _ m ,.. . . . _ . . . . - . . , , . . . , , . , . , , , , . . .. , . . , , . - . ,.r..,, .. ,,,,..y. . . ,..-.y , ,
the items identified in the Open Item Reports (E0Is) discussed in 2.4, all work observed was performed in accordance with the approved drawings and PG&E Speci-fication 8831R.
2.6 CONCLUSION
It is the conclusion of the Review Team that in the areas reviewed (the containment), the civil / structural work per-formed in constructing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 is satisfactory. The Review Team found that adequate controls and practices were in place to assure the quality of construction. Further, to the extent reviewed, the as-constructed physical installation conforms to the require-ments of design drawings and specifications, and the required inspections were performed and appropriately documented.
4 Oe e
b
+
b h
lp 9.
[- .
APPENDIX A
" DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT
! REV. O LATEST REV.
a FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE E STATUS SUBJECT 9008 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Concrete Surfaces, Reactor Containment Exterior 9008 821102 1 830112 SWEC. PER/C Concrete Surfaces, Reactor
' Containment Exterior ,
Concrete Surfaces, Reactor 9008 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C {
j_ Containment Exterior l d
9008 821102 3 830117 TES CR Concrete Surfaces, Reactor Containment Exterior
! 9015 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR ' Spec Requirements - Concrete Placements l Spec Requirements - Concrete d
9015 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C i" _
Placements j 9015 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Spec Requirements - Concrete 2
Placements l 9015 821102 3 830117 TES CR Spec Requirements '- Conc rete
9016 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C Aluminium Used in Grout g
Containment 9016 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Aluminium Used in Grout-1- Containment 9016 821102 3 830117 TES CR Aluminium Used in Grout
! Containment
!' 9021 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Concrete Surface Conditions Reactor Containment
! 9021 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C Concrete Surface Conditions Reactor Containment-9021- 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Concrete Surface Conditions l Reactor Containment I 9021 821102 3 830117 TES CR Concrete Surface Conditions
! Reactor Containment
,a l
i, 10.
4
__._.,.,-,<a ,-.n -,- . , , ,, ,, _ -- - , - - , , . - .w
i
,=
APPENDIX B Program Manager's Assessment _
> f Independent review by TES of the tasks considered to evaluate the
,_ Construction Quality Assurance of the work performed by Guy F. Atkinson, r Co. and his major subcontractors on the Containment Building at Diablo j Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Unit #1, was done in accordance with IDVP Program Plan, Revision 1, Adjunct Program for Evaluation of Construction s
Quality Assurance dated October 1, 1982.
The review involved a visit to the site to comment on the procedures and ,
~
checklists drafted by SWEC's engineers and an analysis of the recom- .
- mendations by the Findings Review Conunittee.
The files issued by SWEC were reviewed thoroughly and specific recom-mendations were made to the IDVP Program Manager delineating appropriate resolution.
t As a result of the verification of the selected samples, and the
~
assessment of the impact of SWEC's findings, TES, as Program Manager, is of the opinion that no additional verification is required.
i h
k r
m*
l.
1
- 11.
% d PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
~
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM h -
INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT No. 38
'~
REVISION I FINAL REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION OF WISMER & BECKER PERFORMED BY STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-275 LICENSE NO. DPR-76 PROJECT MANAGER: [
F.'Sestak, Jr. '
. DATE 8-/4- 6 j
l ! ,
iI EXHIBIT B L
. d "e
PROGRAM MANAGER'S PREFACE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT I l
INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT f~
FINAL REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY' ASSURANCE EVALUATION OF j WISMER & BECKER i This is the thirty-eighth of a series of Interim Technical Reports prepared by the DCNPP-IDVP for the purpose of providing a status report of the program, a
This reports the recommendations and conclusions of the IDVP with respect to the initial sample.
i
, As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services, (TES), has approved this ITR including the conclusions and recommendations presented.
The methodology followed by TES in performing this review and evaluation is i described by Appendix B to this report.
l ITR Reviewed and Approved i IDVP Program Manager Te edyne En ineering Services 7
D. C. tratouly Assistant Project Manager 5
I I
.w b-1
e TABLE OF CONTENTS l
1 Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION............................................... 1-1 l
6 2 DEFINITION OF ITEMS REVIEWED............................... 2-1 2.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 2-1 2.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION...................... 2-2 .
1 f
3 DESCRIPTION OF REVIEW...................................... 3-1 3.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 3-1 3.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION...................... 3-1 1
,- 4
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW RESULTS.................................. 4-1 4.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 4-1 4.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION...................... 4-3 5 E0I REPORTS ISSUED......................................... 5-1
?
6 EVALUATION OF REVIEW RESULTS............................... 6-1 6.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 6-1 6.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION...................... 6-1 l 2 7 C0N CI U S I ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 t
t e
i 6
&L
i .
a TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)
APPENDIXES
! A EDI FILES j B PROGRAM MANAGER'S ASSESSMENT.
I 1
s, i
1 0
h e
b i
h A
4 l
i s
,t ii w
m ?-
~. _ -
r.
a SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
~
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) was engaged by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) to perform evaluations and verifications of the quality related activities of Wismer & Becker (W&B) who performed installa- ,
tion of NSSS piping, and G.F. Atkinson (GFA) who performed civil / structural work in the containment building at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) - Unit 1.
SWEC has performed the evaluation and verification in accordance with the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP), Program Plan, Revision 1, Adj unct Program for Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance, dated October 1, 1982, issued by TES as IDVP Program Manager.
This report concentrates on the work performed by W&B which consisted pri-marily of (1) final setting of the major NSSS components (reactor vessel, ,
steam generators, etc), and (2) installation of the reactor coolant piping, pressurizer surge line piping, bottom mounted instrumentation (BMI) tubing, piping and tubing supports, and reactor vessel flange seal leak detection ;
tubing. A separate report has been issued with respect to GFA. ,
i The review was conducted at the site from September 28, 1982, through November 5, 1982, according to the objectives of the evaluation defined in Section 2.0, Paragraph 2.1 of the IDVP Plan. The subsequent evaluation was ,
i l
6 k 11 f
4
i' structured to assess whether the construction of'the DCNPP was performed in accordance with quality requirements appropriate for the time of plant con-struction.
- 1~
i
' The Quality Assurance Program. Evaluation was performed by a team of i..
- engineers experienced in various aspects of nuclear power plant construction quality assurance and inspection and was led by a Senior-Field Quality Con-j trol Representative.
}
The Quality Assurance Program Evaluation was performed by individuals certified as Auditors by SWEC in accordance with approved procedures and The construction verification was performed by individuals ANSI-N45.2.23.
certified as Inspectors in the appropriate discipline by SWEC in accordance
. with approved procedures and ANSI-N45.2.6.
The review started with an evaluation to determine if the construction docu-mentation provided evidence that the construction work correctly e
incorporated essential design features. To ascertain this, the areas of W&B's responsibilities were physically verified for compliance to PG&E
- Specification 8752, the W&B QA/QC Manual, and applicable drawings.
T b
i m
i 1-2 I
r SECTION 2 DEFINITION OF ITEMS REVIEWED An appropriate sample for evaluation was selected from the work of this I
contractor to provide evidence of his quality practices in each area of activity.
2.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM Task A Consisted of a review of contractor's quality assurance programs to determine if adequate controls ~and practices were evident to assure the quality of construction and the incorporation of essential design features into the completed plant and to determine if controls were consistent with applicable regulatory requirements at the time the work was performed.
2.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION w-Task B Consisted of an evaluation to determine if the physical installa-
!- tion of selected components of safety systems and structures conform to the requirements of design drawings and specifications and whether required inspections were performed.
4
+
)
l l' 2-1 a __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF REVIEW
~
3.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM i
The evaluation was conducted using a prepared checklist consisting of 82 attributes that were derived from requirements contained in the following documents:
- PG&E Specification 8752, " Installation of the Nuclear Steam Supply Systems for Units 1 and 2 - Diablo Canyon Site," May 3, 1972
- Wismer & Becker QA/QC Manual, June 6, 1973
- Applicable drawings.
Records obtained from the permanent plant file were reviewed, on a random basis, for objective evidence that requirements were met in a satisfactory manner. The type of records reviewed included ASME III Certificates of
- Authorization, Certified Material Test Reports (CMTRs), Code Data Reports, i
Operation Process Sheet Travelers (installation and inspection . documenta-tion), drawings, welding procedures, welder qualification records, weld data sheets, welding electrode control records, nondestructive examination (NDE) procedures, personnel qualifications and reports, hydrostatic test a procedures reports, audit reports, and nonconformance reports (NCRs).
1 i
l
[
r ! -
I 3-1 i ..
) _
3.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION 1 Checklists were prepared based on design drawings, specification require-ments, reported as-built conditions, and other appropriate design data (i.e., flow diagrams) for conducting the physical verification of construc-
?
tion practices of the following systems:
6 e
- Reactor coolant piping
- Pressurizer surge line piping
- Bottom mounted instrumentation tubing
- Reactor vessel leak detection line
- Pipe and tubing supports for the four items above Inspections were performed utilizing prepared checklists consisting of 53 pre-selected attributes extracted from specifications, drawings, and quality assurance / quality control procedures.
All accessible welds in systems described above were visually examined to verify that fabrication, examination and documentation were performed to approved procedures. All insulation was removed for the inspection.
Each piping system was examined by individual spool and welds. Welds were visually examined for evidence of undercut, slag, porosity, weld profile, weld identification, radiographic markers, and welder's symbol.
a 3
e i
i I
l f
3-2 u
l b
Piping was verified against PG&E drawings and W&B fabrication records. The W&B Quality Assurance Manual, PG&E drawings, Southwest Fabricating and Weld- ,
ing Company drawings, Westinghouse drawings, and ASME and ANSI codes and standards were referred to as necessary.
Welding was verified utilizing W&B weld procedures (approved by PG&E), W&B i.
fabrication records, welder qualification records and weld rod issue F
records. Radiograph interpretation sheets were examined, but no film was
. reviewed as part of the physical verification.
1 Reactor coolant piping weld records consisted of fabrication processes sheets broken down by loop, weld, and quadrant (4 loops, 8 welds per loop, 4 quadrants per weld) and included documentation of preheat, interpass temperatures, ferrite content, filler material, current and voltage used during welding, visual inspection results, NDE reports, and PG&E representa-
~
tive signoff at pre-selected hold points.
Weld maps included in the documentation packages indicated velders assigned to each weld or part of a weld, a record of are strike repairs and lug re-moval. NDE records were also part of the weld documentation package.
The records were reviewed to determine whether the results recorded were in accordance with program and procedure requirements.
a 3-3 L
1
An inspection of internal surfaces of reactor coolant piping was one attribute on the checklist. Due to clean conditions restrictions in the reactor cavity area and the vessel being partly flooded, it was only pos-sible to perform internal inspection of the hot and cold legs of loop 3.
Internal surfaces of pipe and welds on loop 3 were visually inspected for ;
cleanliness, surface condition, weld spatter, arc strikes, weld profile, I i .
undercut, correct reinforcement, correct grinding, porosity, slag, and [
c correct root preparation.
i BMI tubing records consisted of two packages which contained the !
documentation of all 350 welds. These records were examined for evidence of i I
correct documentation of:
- Correct weld identification !
- Assignment of qualified welder l 5
- Correct preheat ,
- Correct electrical characteristics .
- Visual inspections
- Repair data.
Since the Reactor Vessel was partly flooded and subject to restricted access due to cleanliness restrictions, the reactor vessel leak de.9ction system j l .2 could not be completely physically examined. The . accessible portion was f
- verified using PG&E drawings for orientation, identification, location, pip-ing configuration, and correct material. l 1
l l i
) 3-4 l
1 .
i .
m 1
- f. 4 l
Supports in each system were visually examined for weld quality, and that location, orientation, and installation conformed to specification and draw-ing requirements.
PG&E and Westinghouse drawings, W&B weld procedures, weld rod issue records and W&B fabrication process sheets were reviewed.
Welds on supports were examined for evidence of slag, porosity, undercut, c weld spatter, and correct weld profile.
All bolts were examined for correct material identification, location, orientation, bolt and nut seating, and thread engagement.
Support components were examined for evidence of correct identification, location, orientation, fabrication, installation and repair records.
Steam generator snubbers were examined to determine if location and orienta-tion agreed with PG&E drawings. Pin-to-pin measurements were recorded for all 16 snubbers, and any deviations from PG&E drawings were noted.
Visual inspections were performed using PG&E drawings to verify that compon-ents (i.e., reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizer, etc) were correctly identified and properly oriented.
.L I 9
l I It 9
3-5
ei
- In conjunction with the physical verification, supporting documentation (i.e. , welder qualification, weld procedure approvals, NDE qualifications, and other inspection reports) were' reviewed for compliance to specification and program requirements for the time of construction.
+
e
/
6
? %
C l
e
[
,- 3-6
+
e
l 1
SECTION 4
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW RESULTS
~
i 4.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM i
It was found that W&B was in compliance with requirements for 65 of 80 attributes that were evaluated (two attributes were determined to be not In accordance with speci-i applicable during the course of the evaluation).
i fication requirements, the contractor's Quality Assurance Program was sub-
!' mitted to and approved by PG&E. In addition, the contractor was a holder of t
the ASME,Section III, Certification of Authorization for installation of
- nuclear piping. The required Code Data Reports were properly signed and certified by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI). Travelers, specifica-a tions, drawings, and procedures were approved by PG&E prior to work being.
performed; the travelers, which included inspection and test requirements, were completed as work was performed including the signoff at designated hold points by the contractor's inspector and the ANI. Further examples of activities which were found to be in compliance with the source documents s
i and associated codes and standards are as follows:
, I
{
- Installation m n ions (setting, shimming, alignment, etc) of NSSS majo, r it> ~ :s t .
- Cleanliness and cleaning and flushing operations in accordance
' ' with procedures approved by PG&E s
r 4-I t N
't
IF
- Qualification of welding procedures and approval by PGE and the I
_ ANI
~
- Control of welding electrodes l .
i i f
!
- Control of interpass temperatures
- Repair of reported weld defects in accordance with procedures approved by PGE
- Performance of required NDE i7
- Performance of audits t -
- Control of reported nonconformances, including the approval of dispositions by PGE.
A total of 3,528 documents was reviewed. As a result of the review, 16 Open Item Reports were issued to document findings which required resolution.
'2 -> Most of these items can be characterized as omissions or as an inspection t
activity which had to be evaluated to determine its impact on the physical l~ installation.
I b 4-2 f'
u - _ - - - - - - . . .
'l 4.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION It was found that W&B was in compliance with program requirements for the majority of the attributes that were verified. The configuration, cleanli-ness, surface finish of welds, and overall workmanship were in compliance with drawings and specifications with some exceptions noted in the. report.
Of 2,298 items inspected, 9 Open Item Reports were issued. The items iden-d tified primarily demonstrate either a conflict between a drawing requirement and the installation or apparent field changes that may not have been pro-perly documented.
4 E
k i-
- l. -
! 4-3
- i. .
. r%
f r
a
~ _ _
l
.)
SECTION 5 6
E0I REPORTS ISSUED Twenty-five E01 files were opened for the Construction Quality Assurance evaluation of the work performed by W&B on NSSS piping at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Unit 1. The status of these files is summarized in
- Appendix A.
y e E0I 9001 was issued because the majority of welds on supports 9, 10, and 11
, (PG&E Drawing Nos. 443247 and 443248) exhibited incomplete fillet, short t
weld length, undercut weld, spatter, arc strikes, slag, and poor workman-t ship. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP e concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required.
An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9002 was issued because the geometry of the welds covering BMI system supports did not comply with the requirements as shown in PG&E Drawing No.
443248. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Conunittee recomunended and the IDVP
~
concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
s v
(
5-1
E0I 9003 was issued because the geometry of the welds covering BMI tubing l
. did not comply with the requirements of W&B Weld Procedure 3500-2. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that
~
the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP f
Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9004 was issued because Certified Material Test Reports did not comply with the requirements specified in Westinghouse Drawing No. 685J702, Revi-sion 4. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modificet. tons were required.
An IVDP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9005 was issued because review of welding procedures apparently did not comply with PG&E Specification 8752 requirements. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, Closed Item (Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
m m
5-2 1
m -
l
~
l E0I 9006 was issued because CMTRs did not comply with PG&E Specification 8752 requirements. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Cossnittee recommended and-
- the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observa-tion) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report he.s been issued.
E01 9007 was issued because the geometry of' the welds at BMI couplings did not comply with the requirements of Westinghouse Drawing No. W-685J702 or W&B Weld Procedure 3500-2. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E01 9009 was issued because documentation on one weld radiographic report did not comply with the requirements of Westinghouse Drawing No. 685J702.
This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as a Program Resolution ~ Report, Closed Item (Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E01 9010 was issued because records of weld procedures apparently did not
- ; show compliance with the requirements of PG&E Specification 8752. This file i
was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E.
The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the-i fi~ 5-3 l 1
I Li i _. _ .--
P file is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, Closed Item (Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required.
An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9011 was issued because the welding records did not show compliance with the requirements of PG&E Specification 8752. This file was reviewed and j
analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings l
l Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E01 9012 was issued because deficiencies were found in the welding proced-ures required by PG&E Specification 8752. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings j Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is i
resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9013 was issued because of various discrepancies between installation and drawing requirements. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee re-commended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class
. s C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
h 5-4
E0I 9014 was issued because of apparent lack of' documentation certifying the halogen content as required by PGE Specification 8752. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PGE. The
- Findings . Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the. file is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, Closed Item (Invalid) in
~
accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required.
An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
4 E01 9017 was issued because bolt material requirements as per Drawing No.
438271 were not met. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the addi-tional information provided by PGE. The Findings Review Committee recom-mended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with' the program plan. No physical modifica-tions were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9018 was issued because the manufacturer's record of welder performance t
$ 3 did not meet AS C IX requirements. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PGE. The Findings Review Committee m
recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error
,. Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical mod-i ifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
e E0I 9019 was issued because welding documentation did not comply with PGE Specification 8752 requirements. This file was reviewed and analyzed with.
s 2 the additional information provided by PGE. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error e
m 5-5 A
i
/
. l Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued. 1
- E0I 9020 was issued because records of radiographic inspection may be inac-curate. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information-provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were. required.
An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E01 9022 was issued because voltage / amperage requirements of Weld Procedure 3500-2 were not met. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the addi-tional information provided by PG&E. The' Findings Review Committee recom-
[ mended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C
- (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifica-tions were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9023 was issued because voltage / amperage requirements of Weld Procedure 6.
3500-1 were not met. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the addi-
. tional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical Class C, modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
e E01 9024 was issued because ferrite readings for welds were not recorded as 2
required. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional informa-tion provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the i ,
5-6
IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were re-quired. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9025 was issued because drilled holes on one tubing support did not appear on engineering drawings. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee i
recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP. Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9026 was issued because there are no records of nondestructive examina-t i, .
tion performed on the areas of removal of some temporary attachments to RCS piping. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee initially determined that I this file was an Error Class A (Finding). PG&E performed corrective action as documented in the Completion Report submitted regarding this item. TES issued an Open Item Report, and the Findings Review Committee performed verification of PG&E's corrective action. The Findings Review Committee determined that PG&E's corrective action is acceptable. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as
- . a Program Resolution Report, Closed Item, in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report l ,
l has been issued.
I i
- b-l :
- l. t I-5-7 1 1
. i 6
r EOI 9027 was issued because there were no records of nondestructive examina-tion performed'on tube-to-seal table welds as required by PG&E Specification 8752. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in
~
accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required.
[ ,
An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E01 9028 was issued because weld documentation apparently did not identify-the welder to specific welds as required by PG&E Specification 8752. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, closed Item (Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were
- required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
E0I 9029 was issued because of several instances of are strikes, weld splatter, rusting, pitting, overgrinding, and paint splatter on RCS loops b.
and surge lines. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional
, information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observa-tion) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.
t l I
i
! - l 5-8
)
SECTION 6
, EVALUATION OF REVIEW RESULTS i
~
6.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM f.
The documentation reviewed indicates that the contractor performed his work in compliance with PG&E Specification 8752, the approved Quality Assurance Manual, and applicable drawings.
As a result of the documentation reviewed during this evaluation and based on the Quality Assurance Program for construction of the NSSS piping systems m
and supports which is judged to be adequate, it is concluded that the work performed met the applicable standards for the time of plant construction.
6.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION Results of the physical verification indicated that the contractor did comply with the design criteria of PG&E Specification 8752, applicable drawings and their Quality Assurance Manual and, to the extent verified, resulted in adequate installation of the Reactor Coolant System.
b i
4 w i
l -
6-1 1
r
"* SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS
- The Review Team considers that, in the areas reviewed, the controls and practices in place during construction were adequate to assure the quality of construction. Further, to the extent reviewed, the as-constructed j ,
physical installation conforms to the requirements of design drawings and l
e specifications, and the required inspections were performed and appropriate-ly documented.
Based on the results of the reviews conducted of both G. F. Atkinson and Wismer & Becker, it is considered that PG&E adequately controlled P
construction contractors selected as well as the actual construction activities performed at DCNPP-Unit 1. No additional verification is recommended.
Le 3
i 4
w*
b b
i L
i
- I 7-1 L.
.m . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _
}
r f
f
\
i o API'ENDIX A l
EDI FILES L.
I t
t t
6 4
1 '-
t 1 l ,
l r
l l
l . ,
1 L
1' l
k, l
l Gk
- .. I
u l ?
l l -
APPENDIX A
~
! DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT REV.0 LATEST REVISION ACTION FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE BY STATUS MODS SUBJECT i
'~
, supports 9001 821102 1 830211 ^SWEC PER/C Workmanship on welds on BMI supports 9001 821102 2 830222 TES ER/C Workmanship on welds on BMI supports 9001 821102 3 830222 TES CR NO Workmanship on welds en BMI supports i
r 9002 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Weld lengths on BMI supports 9002 821102 1 830204 SWEC PER/C Weld lengths on BMI' supports L
9002 821102 2 830209 TES ER/C Weld lengths on BMI supports 9002 821102 3 830209 TES CR NO Weld lengths on BMI supports 9003 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Bottom mounted instrument tubing i m 9003 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C Bottom mounted instrument tubing 9003 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Bottom mounted instrument tubing 9003 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Bottom mounted instrument tubing
,u 9004 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR UT inspection of BMI tubes 9004 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C UT inspection of BMI tubes e 9004 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C UT inspection of BMI tubes 9004 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO UT inspection of BMI tubes 9005 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Reactor coolant weld procedures 4
9005 821102 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Reactor coolant weld procedures 9005 821102 2 830I17 TES PRR/CI Reactor coolant weld procedures 9005 821102 3 832117 TES CR NO Reactor coolant weld procedures 9006 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Seal leak detection tubing 9006 821102 1 830211 SWEC PER/C Seal leak detection tubing l(.
L 9006 821102 2 830222 TES ER/C Seal leak detection tubing 9006 821102 3 830222 TES CR NO Seal leak detection tubing-9007 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR BMI couplings 9007 821102 1 830225 SWEC PER/C BMI couplings 9007 821102 2 830226 TES ER/C BMI couplings 9007 821102 3 830226 TES CR NO BMI couplings
. 9009 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Radiograph-reactor coolant sys.(Thimble Guide Tubes) 9009 821102 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Radiograph-reactor coolant sys.(Thimble Guide Tubes) 9009 821102 2 830117 TES PRR/CI Radiograph-reactor coolant sys.(Thimble Guide Tubes) 9009 821102 3 830117 TES- CR NO Radiograph-reactor coolant
,a sys.(Thimble Guide' Tabes
- 9010 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Welding procedures-reactor i
coolant system 9010 821102 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Welding procedures-reactor l
coolant system l A-1 i
- - , . . _ , . - - + , - n--rw g- ,9, ,, c,_ _a, y,. y. 9-. --_,, ,_g g .p,9
L.
APPENDIX A (CONT)
DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT REV.0 LATEST REVISION ACTION FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE BY STATUS MODS SUBJECT.
a 9010 821102 2 830117 TES PRR/CI Welding procedures-reactor
~
coolant system 9010 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Welding procedures-reactor coolant system 9011 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR NSSS-piping traveler review J 9011 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C NSSS-piping traveler review 9011 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C NSSS-piping traveler review 9011 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO NSSS piping traveler review g 9012 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR NSSS-weld procedures 9012 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C NSSS-weld procedures 9012 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C NSSS-weld procedures 9012 821102 3 830117- TES CR NO NSSS-weld procedures 9013 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Installation of BMI supports
, 9013 821102 1 830211 SWEC PER/C Installation of BMI supports 9013 821102 2 830222 TES ER/C Installation of BMI supports 9013 821102 3 830222 TES CR NO Installation of BMI supports 9014 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Halogen content-reactor cooling piping welding 9014 821102 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Halogen content-reactor cooling piping welding 9014 821102 2 830117 TES PRR/CI Halogen content-reactor cooling piping welding 9014 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Halogen content-reactor cooling piping welding 9017 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Bolt material-reactor coolant system 9017 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/CI Bolt material-reactor coolant system 9017 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Bolt material-reactor coolant system 9017 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Bolt material-reactor coolant system 9018 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Welder's qualification 9018 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C Welder's qualification 9018 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Welder's qualification 9018 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Welder's qualification 9019 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Operation description for welds 9019 821102 1 830218 SWEC PER/C Operation description for welds 9019 821102 2 830225 TES ER/C Operation description for
. welds 9019 821102 3 830225 TES CR NO Operation description for welds m
A-2
APPENDIX A (CONT)- ,
{ DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT REV.O LATEST REVISION ACTION i
FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE BY STATUS HODS SUBJECT ,
9020 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Radiographic inspection report information ;
9020 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C Radiographic inspection i report.information ,
9020 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Radiographic inspection ,
report information 9020 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Radiographic inspection report information ;
9022 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR Weld procedure-BMI tubing !
- 9022 821110 1 830204 SWEC .PER/C Weld procedure-BMI. tubing I 9022 821110 2 830210 TES ER/C Weld procedure-BMI tubing -
9022 821110 3 830210 TES CR NO Weld procedure-BMI tubing i 9023 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR Weld procedure-reactor ;
coolant system j
, 9023 821110 1 830112 SWEC PER/C Weld procedure-reactor
! coolant system j 9023 821110 2 830117 TES ER/C Weld procedure-reactor coolant system 9023 821110 3 830117 TES CR NO Weld procedure-reactor ..
coolant' system t 9024 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR Ferrite readings-reactor
- c "
coolant system ,
~
9024 821110 1 830211 SWEC PER/C Ferrite readings-reactor coolant system
, 9024 821110 2 830222 TES ER/C Ferrite readings-reactor coolant system e 9024 821110 3 830222 TES CR NO Ferrite readings-reactor i coolant system l 9025 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR BMI tubing supports
~
9025 821110 1 830204 SWEC PER/C BMI tubing supports [
9025 821110 2 830211 TES ER/C BMI tubing supports i 9025 821110 3 830211 TES CR NO BMI tubing supports ~
9026 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR Attachments-reactor coolant- +
system piping i 9026 821110 1 830211 SWEC PER/A Attachments-reactor coolant :
system piping. :
9026 821110 2 830222 TES ER/A Attachments-reactor coolant !
system piping
- 9026 821110 3 830225 TES OIR Attachments-reactor coolant !
!" system piping ,
9026 821110 4 830308 SWEC PPRR/CI Attachments-reactor coolant 1 system piping i
l i
9 A-3
P APPENDIX A (CONT) l DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT w
REV.0 LATEST REVISION ACTION i
h FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE BY STATUS MODS SUBJECT l
9026 821110 5 830309 TES PRR/CI Attachments-reactor coolant system piping 9026 821110 6 830309 TES CR NO Attachments-reactor coolant
! system piping l.. 9027 821110 0 821110 SkTC OIR Welds-BMI tubing 9027 821110 1 830112 SWEC PER/C Welds-BMI tubing 9027 821110 2 830117 TES ER/C Welds-BMI tubing
[ 9027 821110 3 830117 TES CR NO Welds-BMI tubing 9028 821119 0 821119 SWEC OIR Weld documentation-BMI supports 9028 821119 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Weld documentation-BMI supports.
9028 821119 2 830117 TES PRR/CI Weld documentation-BMI supports 9028 821119 3 830117 TES CR NO . Weld documentation-BMI supports 9029 821119 0 821119 SkTC OIR Reactor coolant system-weld deficiencies 9029 821119 1 830218 SkTC PER/C Reactor coolant system '
weld deficiencies 9029 821119 2 830225 TES ER/C Keactor coolant system-
., weld deficiencies 9029 821119, 3 830225 TES CR NO Reactor coolant system-weld deficiencies I
(
r E
C
~
A-4 s
1
~
Pe 1
l O
4 IV APPENDIX B PROGRAM tlANAGER'S ASSESSHENT h.
l b
'w Iw I
t t
i ~
i
~. :
i o
r l i
l Appendix B PROGRAM MANAGER'S ASSESSMENT Independent review by TES of the tasks considered to evaluate the
>' Construction Quality Assurance of the work performed by Wismer & Becker on the Installation of NSSS Piping at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Unit I, was performed in accordance with IDVP Program Plan, Revision 1, Adjunct Program for Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance dated October 1, 1982.
'- The review involved a visit to the site to comment on the procedures
- and checklists draf ted by SWEC's engineers and an analysis of the recommendations by the Findings Review Connittee.
I The files issued by SWEC were reviewed thoroughly and specific '
recommendations were made to the IDVP Program Manager delineating
- appropriate resolution.
l As a result of the verification of the selected samples and the assessment of the impact of SWEC's findings, TES, as Program Manager, is of the opinion that no additional verification is required.
I i
w L~
o IDVP-SM-March 1983 9gg ENGINEERING SERVICES SECTION 4.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ,
4.1 SCHEDULED WORK FOR THIS REPORTING PERIOD 4.1.1 Construction QA Evaluation Team on Site A menber of the Findings Review Comittee and a SWEC engineer per'ormed i, verification of PG&E corrective action resulting from.EDI File 90?6.
4.1.2 Findings Review Comittee The Findings Review Comittee reviewed the response received fron PG&E on File No. 9007, and recomended classification of the associated Potential Finding Report as an observation for which a Potential Error Report (Class C) and an IDVP Completion Report were issued.
The comittee also reviewed the information submitted by PG&E regarding the corrective action taken in response to E019026 (ER/A). A member of the comittee we.'.t to the site to verify PG&E's corrective action. Based on the documentation submitted by PG&E and the results of the verification, the comittee determined that the corrective action was acceptable and the file was closed.
The comittee has now received and acted on responses from PG&E to all Open Item Reports issued.
4.2 INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORTS ITR-36, " Final Report on Construction Quality Assurance Evaluation of G. F. Atkinson," was issued.
ITR-38, " Final Report on Construction Quality Assurance Evaluation of Wismer and Becker," was issued.
4.3 STATUS OF SCHEDULE The defined scope of work for the Construction Quality Assurance Evaluation of the two selected vendors was completed with the issuance of these CQA Final Reports.
4.4 SITE VISITS l On March 3, 1983, SWEC's engineers visited the site to verify PG&E corrective action resulting from E01 File 9026.
l EXHIBIT C 4-1
[
h
m IUVP- M-Maren 1W 3 wr m 015938
. ENGINEERING SERVICES i i
l 4.5 MEETINGS On February 25, 1983, the Findings Review Comittee met to: ,
(
- 1. Discuss and review the response received from PG&E on E0I File 9007 and recommend classification of the associated Potential Finding Retort.
- 2. Review information regarding corrective action provided by PG&E in response to E01 File 9026.
On March 7,1983, the Findings Review Comittee met to discuss and review information obtained during a site visit on March 3,1983.
4.6 CONCLUSION
S The IDVP concludes that, in the areas reviewed, the controls and practices in place during construction were adequate to assure the quality of construction. Further, to the extent reviewed, the as-constructed physical installation conforms to the requirements of design drawings and specifications, and the required inspections were performed and appropriately documented.
Based on the results of the reviews conducted of both G. F. Atkinson and Wismer & Becker, it is considered that PG&E adequately controlled construction contractors as well as the actual construction activities performed at DCNPP-Unit 1. No additional verification is recomended.
The work is now conplete except for preparation of a summary for inclusion in the IDVP Final Report.
t
, 4-2