ML20154D452

Insp Rept 50-275/71-02 on 710723-25 & 30.No Enforcement Action Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Unresolved Items, Unusual Occurrences,Design Changes,Status of Const, Procedures & Records & Review of QC Sys for Components

ML20154D452
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date:	07/22/1971
From:	Spencer G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154C370	List: ML20154C367 ML20154D294 ML20154D425 ML20154D452 ML20154D528 ML20154D575 ML20154D594 ML20154D647 ML20154D736 ML20154D846 ML20154D855 ML20154D869 ML20154E066 ML20154E143 ML20154E188 ML20154E240 ML20154E258 ML20154E356 ML20154E392 ML20154E431 ML20154E484 ML20154E507 ML20154E577 ML20154E597 ML20154E600 ML20154E634 ML20154E666 ML20154E684 ML20154E762 ML20154E785 ML20154E809 ML20154E821 ML20154E871 ML20154E878 ML20154E908 ML20154E958 ML20154E967 ML20154E977 ML20154F001 ML20154F024 ML20154F073 ML20154F094 ML20154F104 ML20154F116 ML20154F123 ML20154F135 ML20154F145 ML20154F153 ML20154F156 ML20154F390
References
FOIA-88-156 50-275-71-02, 50-275-71-2, NUDOCS 8805190201
Download: ML20154D452 (7)

Text

. .

L / .

(

i U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE REGION V INSPECTION REPORT CO Report No: 71-002

Subject:

Pacific Cas and Elcetric Co. Docket No. 050-0275

! Diablo Canyon Unit No. 1 License No. CPPR-39 e?

Location: _ San Luis Obispo County Category A i

California Dates of Inspection: June 23-25. nnd 30, 1971 Dates of Previous Inspection: April 12. 13 nd 14, 1971 ,

Type of Licensee Ptm*3250 Mwe

Type of Inspection

Routine. Announced _

Princstpal Inspectort I i 6- .. - _7 ~

- / ,

A. D. Job son, Reactor Inspector ' Dite  !

7 m

= r ,

4 4 Other Accompanying Personnelt None ,

Reviewed By:

• N" Y / i G. S. Spence 6 Senior Reaccot Inspector Date F

] Proprietary Information: None

, i i

t i

8805190201 800510 PDR FOIA  !

MCMILL ANBO-156 PDR

4 SECTION T ,

Enforcement Action None 1.ieensee Action on Previousiv Identified 7eforcenent Matters

, None required Unresolved Items

A. Documentation was unavailable to shev that wall thickness of primary system valve castings satisfy design requirements. (Para. 6)

L Status of Previousiv Reported Unresoved Teens i A

None reported 1

Unusual Occurrences None .

l DesinnChe,pnes',,,[

None

]

1 Persons Contacted i

The following personnel were contacted during the inspection. '

PG&E e ,p. s ,v=-

H. R. Hersey -

Project Superintendent ,

)l G. V. Richards -

Director Quality Engineering .

L. J. Carvin - QA Engineer i l

W. W. Wood -

QA Engineer .

i V. E. S teen -

QA Engineer - San Francisco D. Landes -

QC Engineer, Civil Corporate Manacement Interview - San Trancisco J. D. Vorthington -

Senior Vice President

• F. T. Faut -

Vice Presidenc, Engineering l M. H. Chandler -

Manager, Section Construction l j

l R. S. Bain -

Construction Superintendent W. J. Lindblad -

Project Mechanical Engineer V. E. Steen -

QA Engineer I M. R. Tresler -

Mechanical Enaineer j A. A. Craig -

' Engineer, Safety Analysis Report Group i

l I

s )

./ .

(

Monstement Intervicus Separate management interviews were held by A. D. Johnson with project management at the site on June 24, 1971, and at PG&E's request with corporate management in PG&E's of fices in San Francisco on June 30, 1971. The items discussed in both intervicvs were the sa:..c. PG&E's stated positions represent those of the corporate management which ucro consistent with those of the onsite project managerent. The followin; items specifically related to the inspection activities of Unic No.1.

A. Documentation at Site - Lindblad stated that the Westinghouse Quality Control Release (QCR) system and PG&2':., Engineering Release system will be reviewed to assure that desian chanacs nado by Westinghouse or PC&E are appropriately incorporated in the as-built description of the plant and included in the FS AR. (Paragraph 4)

3. Wall Tnicknesses of Valves - Lindblad stated that a review of available QA documents, including those at vend:rs, would be made to determina whether or not documented results of vail chicknesses on major primary system valves are availabic. In the event they are not, Lindblad said that a prcgram would be developed and impicmented to assure that the .

valves to be installed in the Diablo plants satisfy the pertinent desiCn requirements concerning wall thicknesc. He added that the wall thick- .

nesses of several valves supplied by Darling to Westinghouse are scheduled i

to be checked during the first week of July. (Paragraph S)

! C. Site Construction Records - Chandler stated that a survey will be i'

conducted to determine what records are maintained by the several contractors on site and which of the records are available to PG&E and AEC for audit purposes. (Paragraph 6) l In addition to the above items, the inspector reviewed for the benefit of l management the concerns raised by the inspector during the past year and the responses by the responsible PC&E personnel. The inspector indicated that .

all previous items brought to PG&E's accention appear to have been reviewed and resolved by the appropriate PC&E personnel.

SOC"ICN II Additional Subieets Inspected. Not Identified in Section I tihere No -

Deficiencies or Unresolved Itces t!cre Fone.

1. Status of Cnnstruction

{

i i

Project construction was estimated to bc 23.37, completed as of June 24, I 1971. Fercent completion of individual structures were estimated to bc as follows:  ;

l

. '. l

( (

I 3

f Auxiliary Building $ 3. 97.

Fuel Handling Building 32.2%

Containment Building 47.1% r Turbine Building 39.87. f The hot functional tests are scheduled to comnence during the fall of 1973 with initial fuel loading to occur late 1973 or early 1974

1. Procedures and Records -

a. Control Rod Drive Mechanisms (1) Westinghouse QCR's (2) Purchase order l (3) General specifications '

(4) Drawings which include detailed specifications

($) Equipment history .

I

b. Steam Generators  ;

(1) QCR's - Showed four variances from design specifications, i These were currently being cvaluated by design enginecring.

The variances concerned i

(a) Dimensions l

(b) Heat treatment l (c) Undersized ligaments (d) Contour data on eliptical heads (2) Previously reviewed handling and receiving inspection procedure and results.

(3) Equipment history,

c. Pressuriser '

i (1), Equipment history record ,

l (2)' Record of routine surveillanco  !

(0.5 psig nitrogen atmospherc) j (3) Previously reviewed receiving inspection resulte ,

d. Safety In tection Pumps .

l (1) Equipment history record (2) Routine surveillance records (Pump rotated monthly and temperature control)

(3) PG6E approved installation procedure

e. Reneter Coolant Pu-ns (1) Equipment history (2) Receiving inspection results (3) Routine surveillance resoror, FG&E's Receiving, Inspection, Hand 11r.3 and Storage Procedures for materials and equipment.

PG&E's QA procedure PRE-14 Enginceriaa Release. This proceduro provides a mechanism for the PG&E responsibic ca;incer to rolesse equipment for installation by indicating that item: ic: 01 ass I components have been fabricated satisfactorily.

3, Review of OC System for Other Class i C mponents Cor.ponents selected for review included:

a. Control rod drive mechanisms (s:ored at Pismo Beach)

b. Reactor coolant pumps (stored at Pismo Beach)

c. Steam Generators (stored on site)

d. Pressurizer (stored at hsmo 2c:.ch)

e. Safety Injection Pumps (stored in Auxiliary Building)

f. Pressurizer Safety Valves (not received)

g. Main Steam Isolation Valves (not received)

h. Absolute Filters for Containment Ventilation System (not received)

The inspector confirmed that for other Class I materials and components received at the project for installation in the plant PG&E approved procedures have provided for: (1) receipt inspection and hendling, (2) special handling and storage precautions (3) quarantine of noncon-forming components (4) installation specification and procedure and (5) installation inspections. .

In addition, appropriate records of storage and routine inspections were found to be as required by the approved procedures.

1 Details of Subieets Discussed in Scetion I 4 Dneurentation at Site 1

Records were reviewed to determine uhether or not documentation availabic l st the site was in suf ficient detail co permit verification that the control rod drive mechanisms had beu, constructed as described in the PS AR . The pertinent documentation included the drawings which showed appropriate specifications and the Ucstinghouse quality control release forms which certify that the delivered rods e,et the specification requirements.

Wds/9dehi

(

! i i

During the review of the drawinr,s it was apparent that several design  !

revisions to the mcchonisms had bec.) made. 11oucver, the drawing identified the revisions pertinent to the mechanism delivered to Diablo.

The purchase order essentially provides only the number of rods to be f delivered. Westin:; house then deteruines uhat mcchonisms are to be used l under their USS supplier contracc ul a 1 G E. This arrangement thereby  !

permits Westinghouse latitude in addina desian improvements as appropriate.

llowever the arrangement raised the question as to whether appropriate .

} design changes are reficcted in the ;'3.,a if the as-built rods differ .

(rom the description provided in the N.'.a. For the materials and .

components obtained other than throu ,h Ucstinghouse the recently issued Engineering Release QA procedure provides a mcchonism to assure materials,  !

j components and systems are consistent with requirements. For Westinghouse  ?

supplied equipment, the responsibic engineer relics to a great extent

[ on the Westinghouse QCR's in approvin:; a given engineering releasc.

1 As noted in Section I of this report PG&E intends to determine the l mechanism in the Westinghouse QA pronraa uhich ast res that substantial

• design changes are reflected in the deceription supplied to pC&2 by i

Westinghouse for inclusion in the FCAR. Also a review of the engineering reicase procedure vill be made to asnurc that it fulfilo the desired s

J  !

purpose.

{

f

5. Wall Thicknesses of Valves Within tN Pressure Boundary of the  :

l* Privnary Coolant System i I

The inspector inquired as to whether documentation was available to l provide evidence that measurement had been made to verify that valve (

casting wall thickness conforms to the design requirements. According '

to Richards, such documentation was uaavailable at the present time, i

Richards stated that several valves supplied by Darling Co. through ,

Westinghouse were scheduled to be chect:cd during the first week of July.  !

i Richards also stated that the vendor inspection branch was in.the process  ;

) of determining whether or not such ceasurements are made and recorded I l

during the manufacturing process. Ile indicated that where records are ,

i unavailable, a program will be formulated to assure confirmation that i design requirements have been met. This would be limited to valves  !

) installed within the primary system pressure boundary and of such size >

l that gross failures would result in icokage greater than the capability i for a:akeup to the reactor coolant system, i

) 6. Site Construction Records  !

9 The contractors at the site maintain various logs and records in addition to records prescribed by the several QA programs. The inspector discussed I

with Richards the need to determine what records are maintained at the 1

4 4

I i

1

i i

A t

site which may contain information related to quality of materials. ,

components, equipment, or work performance and which records are available  ;

for PG&E and/or AEC audit. In vtcu of the number of contractors and subcontractors currently performin,,vork at the site and the po:sible i need for contractural interpretations Richards was of the opinion thct ,

PG&E would prefer to review the subject with the individual contractors  !

and make available the requested inforcation to the inspector during the ,

next routine inspection. The inspector concurred that this opproach .

was probably the most reasonabic of the alternate methods available. I i

i I

i f

l G

~

l I

e i

i j

l t

1