ML20154E666

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Insp Rept 50-275/70-01 on 700302-05.Nonconformance Noted
ML20154E666
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 04/03/1970
From: Andrea Johnson
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Spencer G
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20154C370 List:
References
FOIA-88-156 NUDOCS 8805200282
Download: ML20154E666 (2)


Text

O

.w

..~,

UNITED STATES

[Q i .

g , g

. i ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIVisiold OF COMPl.l ANCE REGION V 4, #4rgg e / 2181 SANCROFT WAY BERKELEY. CALIFoRNI A 94704 7w . m.sini Enf. 441 G. S. Spencer, Senior Reactor Inspector Region V, Division of Compliance DIABLO CANYON UNIT NO. 1, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-275 The attached report contains the details of a recent inspection of activities at the site of the subject facility under construction.

The inspection was conducted by Mr. J. Crews and myself on March 2-5, 1970, and was performed pursuant to PI-3800/2, Attachment C-Containment. The management interview was held in l San Francisco, California, on March 12, 1970.

An item of nonconformance with PSAR requirements related to testing of the steel being used for the containment liner was identified during the inspection. A construction deficiency notice concerning the item will be sent to the licensee pending HQ review and concurrence. The testing discrepancy had been detected by the licensee's QA Section immediately prior to our inspection. The licensee's response related to the situation was direct and af firma-tive in that PG&E stated that they will insist that valid tests be performed pursuant to the specified ASTM Standard as prescribed in the PSAR.

As requested by CO:HQ memorandum dated 12/5/69, inquiry was made concerning construction of the 257. portion of the auxiliary building solely attributable to Unit No. 2 for which the licensee obtained an exemption from the provisions of 10CFR50, 50.10(b) to permit -

construction activity prior to issuance of the construction permit for Unit No. 2. We found that the same contractor (Guy F. Atkinson) was performing the work and that the quality assurance program in effect for the construction of Unit No. I was being applied to that portion of the auxiliary building under construction pursuant to j the granted exemption.

You will note, by information provided thoughout the report, that the licensee has in general developed and implemented what appears to be an effective QA-QC program to assure that construction work l

l h52 2 800510

  • P1CNILL ANDO-156 PDR ,h

/.

( (

2-has been performed in accordance with the prescribed requirements.

However, the wording of the licensee's Discrepancy Control proce-dure may need improvement to delineate more clearly the minor discrepancies that are handled by normal QC documentation rather than by the formal discrepancy report procedure. This subject will be discussed during the followup QA inspection (Diablo No. 2) scheduled for March 26 and 27,1970.

h M A.D.J son Reacto Inspector

. . _ _ _ . _