ML20154D736

Forwards Insp Rept 50-275/70-04 on 700915-16.No Nonconformance Noted

ML20154D736
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date:	10/16/1970
From:	Andrea Johnson US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Spencer G PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
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 NUDOCS 8805190323
Download: ML20154D736 (1)

Text

s

,t ,s f'

7[ . .. g UNITED STATES I

.I

'.Q. I ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION OlVislON OF COMPl. LANCE g%

• y [, REGION V

1. 'dit s till BANCROFT WAY BERKELEY, CALIFORNI A 94704 Ta' aran ==> edt atat Kav. es t October 16, 1970 G. S. Spencer, Senior Reactor Inspector Region V, Division of Compliance PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY - DIABLO CANYON UNIT N0.1 DOCKET NO. 50-275 The attached report contains the details of our recent inspection of construction activities at the site el the subject facility. The inspection was conducted by Mr. W. Kelley and myself on September 15 and 16,1970 pursuant to PI 3800/2 in accordance with the master inspection schedule for the project. Mr. Kelley accompanied me to specifically review nondestructive testing procedures and techniques utilized, capabilities of NDT Inspectors, and evaluate the velding of the containment liner and the liquid holdup tanks as an independent check on activities previously reviewed by myself and Mr, Crews.

In view of the licensees' response to the issues raised during our previous inspection, I am confident that the onsite QA group will thoroughly investigate and evaluate the circumstances surrounding Kelley's observation of the dye i penetrate test considered improper. Since I have been assured that the licen-see's evaluation will be directed toward the adverse implications on the QA-QC program and since the test is not a PSAR requirement. I propose no '

further action concerning the item at this time. However, I plan to review  ;

the licensee's investigation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kelley's  ;

observation to determine its scope and depth. If the licensee's investigation is found to be superficial or scant, the item along with PG&E followup action would then be an appropriate subject to inform FG6E via a CDN that the QA-QC program may not be functioning effectively.

Mr. Kelley's report has been attached to the report as Appendix A.

You will note as discussed in the management interview that the licensee believes the concrete sampling and test procedures are proper and does not intend to change them unless directed by us to do otherwise. Therefore, since the location of testing is not consistent with CO:HQ policies, if we desire saepling to be done at point of placement rather than at the batch plant, it l will require DRL correspondence with the licensee because the code (ASTM-C172),

is permissive in this respect.

f1 A. D. Joh son 000510

+