ML20212N778
| ML20212N778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1970 |
| From: | Andrea Johnson, Spencer G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212N718 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-585 50-275-70-05, 50-275-70-5, NUDOCS 8608290151 | |
| Download: ML20212N778 (17) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.. ..
- i lt f
t .
+ .
(- (- t
'i
. i .. , -
g C
~ -
.-- , 'y N p
,p '
q j-i
; U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMICSSION .
i l, DIVISION OF COMPLIANC3 q.- i
, . .L. . .
. REGION V '!
i s t ' . . n! J.. . i' .;. ' [F .. . , './
- ]j t ' ' ,,l ,
Report of Inspection
.'; , ', i e' .' p c. .'.,t .<',... -
. .. 7.'
...'c
~ , . . .,
\l .',,
t , n n. -
~
. C0 *
- Report No. 50-275/70-5 '
' . . J. i. -( *
I 8
, . . t '
tOlf ! ' Licensee: ,'
^
,I t.
Pacific Gas & Electric. Company
. j Diablo Canyon Unit No. 1
' , l4 '
Construetion Permit No. CPPR-39
+
l Category A ' 3 . Date of Inspection: $, December 1, 2 and'3, 1970-Date of Previous. Inspection:
' , t Septraber 15 and 16,1070
(! '
*, .... :l, . .
,,r
'. .'l
..s. -
.. e - . ..
- c. , , ,
O . Inspecte'd y h'. 4CMCA
'"'.': l}
.]t hb ~A. D. Johnkon 4 :Date '
. ;. 9.. ' l L'q; 1-}
,j
~.'.#'.
, l p'-l,T l.
}..U, j, 'f lj ;"jl Reactor
- j. Inspector t .
i i ! '
. '
- t
. i Q g i
Reviewed by:
- i'
. k ' . MSI'l*C#" I L/7#
t .
! G. S. Spon'cer Date- .
, Senior Reactor Inspector .
ggg .
.~. ' *
- Proprietary Information: None .
. .g , , .. .
I
.- ' S COPE Tvoe of Focility '
Pressurized Water Reactor
- Power Level: 3250 Mwt Location Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County.
e California .
- -1
, , Tvoe of Inspeetion: Routine - Announced
*,. Acco nonnvine Personnel -
R. W. Smith, Director and G. S. Spencer 8608290151 860026 Senior Reactor Inspector accompanied (' . the inspector on a tour of the sito and
%ah[585 PDR related facilities on December 3, 1970.
, Scone of Inspection: Review (1) status of previously identific items of concern, (2) discrepancy reporet j (3) QA audit activities.
{
. i. .
}
- c. , . ,. i C. .
,.a. --. .<,;,.." .. N',M .; c. ..
.: .. . -- . . r ! ;
-l , , 2 ., ,
I
- E
.1, l . , .
p p * .* e . . . i ,.- i .
, f. . g gggy ' .
- l '. . *. .
1 . < .. . .. i l .; ..
- ' . , Safety Teems - None .
i 1.. i ' a :. l .
' Nonconformance Tecms - None 0 :
Status of Previousiv Reported Tecms - No safety or nonconformance items were
- i . .1. ' , reported in the previous inspection report. -
.,'Thq. - .
- s. Other Sinnificant Teems - ,,
,' ' 1., g Overall completion of construction activities was-estimated to be 18.77,on DecembeF 1, 1970 (Section B.) -
~ 2., Ultrasonic inspection of primary piping spool pieces in storage w:,'j- '
i indicated that one identification stamping had breached the
'j minimum design wall thickness. Also random checks of the wall l
3 I thickness identified a small section of wall area on one spool More i
' ; : f i.'. . piece . teststhat are was lessco'be thanperformed the minimum design thickness.
, ,, planned by Westinghouse and PG&E to ' . !! - .}. '
( q ,,{ m
.y",]ir ;' . ' ' ' -Q'i ,
determine the accuracy of the UT_ test resu.lcs. . (Section *' C. An evaluati'on of the constructed mockup section of the area
. M'.
2 3.! between the wide beam flanges and the containment liner indicated
- . that concrete can be placed in accordance with the planned procedures
- ! ','C .
; .,without detrimental effects to the quality of the end product.
,' (Section C.2.)
[ 6 t v l . 4." . Plans are to have a procedure which will delineate the specific 9y3;i l- .
..: responsibilities (within PG&E) for verifying thatt all certification documents are valid and proper, approved and implemented in the l ,-
immediate future (within 60 days). (Section C.3.) -
- .e.- ,
- , 5. ,
A review of QA discrepancy reports indicated that disposition of , ~:P . . items continued to be acconplished pursuant to the PG&E QA standard
,j,qj procedure. (Section D.)
a q. , 6 Anchor bolts installed in the containment base mat for the steam
~
generator supports were found by PG&E to be in nonconformance j with the specified ASTM standard. Since the design of the supports
, had not been completed the designer changed the design to accomodate use of the installed. bolts. Other bolts not conforming to the
' specifications were rejected. (Section E.)
{ ., , , , 7.- Sea water leaked into three of the steam generators during
't ,
transporattion from Tampa, Florida to the site. The generocors have been cleaned and resealed for storage at the site. (Section F.) j . i
. _ . - -,-.,,,.,.-_._....._,r .r_ _ --m,. .,-- ...,..__ - __-y .._.,-_,._--n___ ----___--__-,_ ,_- y-. -._ - -,m_, , - - - , _ . _ . - - , _ ~
.n. .
I, . . . . . .., . .
. .. -: ~
3- '
- . . O " ; . ". 8 . During transfer activities associated with the reactor vessel a
', ..., i . ,' wooden panel collided with several of the instrument penetration, e f. ; ' r. 4. tubes. No damage resulted. (Section G.)
x
,'.. r.
.,. . ,,9 . .
~
The on-site QA engineers have been implementing an active audic program. (Section H.) *
,j .
, . .10. PG&E's QA section has determined that liquid penetrant tests are
, N T? ,
. [, ; being performed pursuant to the appropriate procedures. (S ection '
C.4.) - 11.' . Tests performed by PG&E demonstrated that are burns on reinforcing steel may be detrimental to the. physical characteristics. (S ection D.3.)
< Management Interview '
The otherinspector met with on-site Mesar.staff. Hersey, Friedrichs, Hickman,of the Richards
. members of PG&E's The scope and findings
. l, inspection.were reviewed. ~>
., ., .i s.. .
i n. C ,g5, 7 Mr. Hicknan stated that.in view of their findings concerning the wall s ,', a r thickness of the piping spool p.ieces in storage, additional tests will be . performed on all of the primary piping in storage to assure design and code - requiremen,cs.arg s.atisfied. . ,, ,,,.,c.,, , ,
.r. .. s.. : . , <r. : .
2 .
~
Mr. Friedrichs stated. .,..that'their evaluation of the concrete mockup section
- has assured PG&E that the quality of concrete placed between the wide beam o '
flanges and the containment liner is adequate. ,
,d M"'
' Mr. Hersey stated that from QA audit results and their experience associated . with the anchor bolts, all contractors and PG&E construction staff have been
,s.. .
made aware of the importance of promptly submitting to PG&E a formal report of all discrepancies identified. He also said PG&E QC personnel are to check appropriate certification documents of materials used by contractors ,,
, at the site to assure the materi,a1 conforms to the specified standards.
l The inspector commented thst the QA followup investigation concerning the previously observed questionable liquid penetrant testing appeared to be comprehensive and satisfactory to indicate that the contractor is following the prescribed procedures. - .
.,3 . 4 . ,
. , . . ..,' DETATLS ,
A, Persons Contacted - H. R. Hersey - Project Superintendent . Resident Civil Engineer R. R. Friedrichs -
- A. W. Hickman Resident Mechanical Engineer
. _ . . - - . - - _ _ = - . . - _ - - . . _ . . . .-.
(
- (
i l ,. 4 .-
, \
. ,r
)
., . f, g.-
s l . . .
! * . c. ., . ,
~ ' ll ' .i
'."lf,'G. V. Richards ,- Director, Quality Engineering - San Francisco
' F. W. Brady -
.QA Engineer ,
' .'. . . *' P. L. Bussolini J l
- QC Coordinacor .
l
., R. W. Wood -
QA Engineer ' ! q LB. Good - QA Engineer - San Francisco ' QC Engineer
, ,. l L. J. Garvin. -
San Francisco gid4,1 ' 5 B. Construction Status
'#J
- l Overall completion of constru'ction of the Diablo No. I project was .
estimated by PG&E's Construction Department to be approximately 18.77. on' ! !- December 1,.1970 Specifically,' the containment building was shown to bc
- } 397. complete with 347. of the liner installed. Construction of the auxiliary q-building was considered to be approximately 48 percent complete. Unofficial
, ,. projections indicate hot functional tests will not commence until sometime saf ter January 1973 and probably not until March 1973 or later.
4
'l '. . ,.
Resolution of Previous Issues ll-C. - F. - . y i-
... .- During the previous visits several' items had been brought to the N licensee's attention for evaluation and possible action. The following. 5*
.,information summarizes the disposition or status of the items. - '
Y *
, 1.
L Indentation Stampinn of Cinns T Pipinn ** b '~." PG&E's inspection finding showed that identification markings on the primary loop piping in storage at the Pismo Beach facilities
~
5 were not in compliance with the Westinghouse specifications.
' Additional tests have been performed to determine whether the
".g ' gg, o ,
impression depths found to be outside of the Westinghouse speci-
-3 ". fications infringed cu the miniinum cesign wall thickness of the sV pipe. During November 1970, ultrasonic test equipment was used to measure the wall thickness of the pipe. The test results showed that eight indentations associated with one identification marking had infringed on the minimum design wall thickness. A test of the section of the piping free from stamping was also checked. The results showed that an ares of about ten square inches was slightly less than the minimum design wall thickness.
As a result of PG&E's test data, Westinghouse personnel were i scheduled to arrive on site during the week of December 7, 1970 4 with special optical measuring equipment. This equipment was stated to supposedly be able to measure the wall thicknesses within an accuracy of one mil. Mr. Hickman stated that as a result of their findings they intend to do more testing of the other spools of pipe to assure themselves that the other sections
'. seet the minimum design requirements. Hickman showed the inspector j .
i .
,,,,,-,..,,..,....-,,,,w ,.-,,--,aw, ,y,- - - - - - . -..-w.--,- - , ,-- ,, , , , . - - - _ , . e_,_, -
. . , . , . - , - , . - -.r- , . ,,-n n -
r
. i- , .
3 . i5 -
..I mm
- i
* *^
.?. . . . . -
=
7
, 1:
i ( *.
, ,(,.,.
8
,1 ,
resultsofmeasurementsmadebyWestinghouseoEthewallthickness prior to shipping the spool pieces to the site. Each spool piece
' . , ' was measured at locations of approximately one inch and two. feet
; i from the ends of each pipe. These measurements indicated that all
. v.
. wall thicknesses were within the minimune design limits. Hickman indicated to the inspector that ho believed the ultrasonic test technique used b'y PG&E had an accuracy value of within at least
.fg 10 mils and was probably accurate to within 2 or 3 mils. It appeared
' from the (PG&E) UT test data that the maximum -infringement on the minimum design thickness was approximately .050 inches. .
2.s. Placement of Special Concreto in Area Between Wide Boom Flonnes - 4 To assure that the concrete placed between the wide beam flanges
>~.'
and the containment liner at the base of the containment wall would be of proper quality, a mockup section was poured and was later inspected by the PG&E Construction Engineers. (Sco CO Report
., No. 50-275/70-4) _ After the normal curing period, the forms were
. stripped from the mockup. The concrete was thoroughly examined N,,;%;andnovoids.orotherimperfectionswerefound. The inspector;,
, , y ,.., ; .
3 g 'y. @. < pt. . examitted the inockup section"and concurrod with the PG&E findings. .' ( ,.T)
, . su m s: 1 :.a n.c <.,r n .. . . .
,Ans?.cr.gl.actVerificatio'n
'3 of Ouality Control Information on Certification ,
Documents ..
$ .. Mr;'Richa'rds~ indicated that a procedure to assign specific - i , , .responsibilitics pertaining to the verification of quality control in~ formation oh~certi'fication documents would be formalized and l 1 approved within 60 days. Mr. Bussolini, QC coordinator, said
- +)$ ,
that the General Construction Department personnel at the site had been reviewing all material certifications relating to materials
' used in the civil structures. Richards indicated that formulation of the proposed procedure had been delayed because of differing f
views concerning who exactly should be responsible for review of
.the various certifications. According to Richards, this especially
/ .-
applies for the items independently purchased by PG&E from outside
- l' ' i
- vendors. ,
4, Adequacy of Dve pencerant Tests During the previous inspection, Mr. William Kelley, Construction . Inspector, Region II, observed a pittsburgh-DesMoines Steel Co. inspector performing a dye penetrant examination on one of the l .
, liquid holdup tanks. Kc11cy felt that the inspector did not
., , remove enough dye penetrant during the cleaning phase of the test 1
i
, and as a result there was a pinkish cast of the developer after it was applied. He also noticed that the developer was applied -
. . u l
J I i e
. .-,,,--,-,,.-n,-- - . - - - - . - - - - - - , _ _ .
(' ( (
. ~
.; e , i.
d.
-l- -
. . . . g . .- - ..
, i 3-9.
] ', j :, , ,, ,
~
l
-j 3 1: from an perosal"can 'in high winds and the inspector was shielding
;,: q ', i'i .' the work with his body in such a way that he could not see how
, 'q much developer was app, lied.
[0'
'Mr. Bradyirsite quality Assurance Engineer, investigated the facts Y Brady's and- circumstances surrounding the criticisms voiced by Mr. Kelley.
report of his investigation stated that it was difficult r g' -
.to assess the criticism of PDM's procedures. According to Brady, "-
. both L. J. Garvin and W. Wood, who ucre with Kelley when he vecched
, .;y, the test, agree that the developer appeared pink in spots. Mr.
Garvin, who is qualified as AShr Level II for dye penetrant examinations, felt that.the test was adequate for detecting defects. r-that would be rejected under AS:c, Sution VII or A312, Section III, Class C. The criteria for dyc penetrant removal is by its nature,
,I not'very specific., ASFE, Sectien VIU, which is the governing code
' *cl!.. . ' , , ;for this test, says . . ."any penet Snt remaining on the surface shall
.i be removed. Insufficient removal will leave a background which .
, i, will interfere with subsequent indication of defcces. Care must N-
- i . L - .!l be exercised that penetrant in any defects is'not removed.."' This
- 9, 3 ,
seems to leave room'for judgement as to when just enough paaetrant y .3 .
- is 'removeds Similarfly, there are no hard, fast rules for applying il C;;$
i the developer.
' Ef,- .
, , ,,,: The test in question was performed on a particular completed wcld
. :;.0f.d - ' .
i seam after grinding.- The liquid holdup tanks involved are fabrica-I
- ted from t-inch ro 3/16-inch stainless steel. The scams are welded from'two sides, typically with two or three passes on one side, followed by grinding the exposed side of the root pass, and then completed with two or three. passes. The dye penetrant test is N./5 ,
performed after grinding the root pass in order to locate any defects before the weld is completed., This allows correction with l 2 a minimum amount of repair work. - , l -
' PDM has been advised, by letter, of the concern over their procedures.-
' In answering, they observe that the cleaning phase is difficult because th'e work is- ein the weld ' groove. - However, they reinstructed
*
- their inspectors to exercise a'dditional care in obtaining complete excess penetrant removal.
..J,
Mr. Brad [indicatedthathehadpersonallywatchedthreePDMdye penetrant examinations since the previous inspection. Two of these l
?.; - were in a weld groove. The procedures were noted to be 1cteor c;9 -
perfect. In'cIl of the tests, the inspector removed the penocrant
~
r by first rubbing with dry cloth and then rubbing with a cloth slightly dempened with cleaning solvent. The developer was sprayed on in one coat and any thin spots were sprayed with a second coat. l . e ,
- 9
( [ . . .' ' .
. ,,7,, ,
' )i -
p*
- j! '
l 3 ,- ~ During the test in a weld groove Mr. Brady noticed a light pink color where the grinding marks were close together. However,,he
' .l .
1 ' I: l- stated that he thought this was inherent in< testing a ground
- li -
surface rather than a result of imperfect cachnique, f.
~
g
;f-In conclusion Mr. Brady indicated rhat he could not draw any~ ,
,4 definite conclusions about the test that Mr. Kelley witnessed.
. . . If '
There seemed to be agreement that the developer had a light pink M*S.,$ , color. It could be that this was carcicss procedure. It could also be a reflection of the difficulty encountered in performing d stich a test in a vold groovo. Or it could be a combination of the g two. In any case, Mr. Brady concluded that the PDM and PG&E ' s a personnel were qualified for the jobs that they were doing, and j i- that the PDM dye penetrant procedures they were.now using were - j - ' ' acceptable. . 1 ln D. . Construction Discrenancies -
'E .
4 -; I 1.[' Deviations '
'. ~
The inspector reviewed eightoon deviation repcres which havo been l(
, .l..,' .
,y :- ,
'Q. prepared since the previous inspection. Alahough r.cworni of,tho'
'"- ' M items have .not becd fully reviewed and resolved, the, inspector j
J confirmed that the items were being precessed in accordance with the QA discrepancy procedure. The more significant items included: m.
~'
- e.
~
Sea water had leaked into the steam generator during transpor-L j ,, tation to the site. (Sce Section F. of this report for additiont
. detail. . )
.N N b. A wooden panel collided with the bottom instrumentation penetration tubes of the reactor vessel while unloading it
"' from the barge at Avila Beach. '.(See Section G of this report for additional detail.)
~
c . ,, Penetration alignment was inconsistant with contract specificacic Design Engineer approved change so that alignment would bc consistent with requirements of Section VIII of the ASEC Boiler
'and Pressure Vessel Code.
. d. A penetration arrived at the site with defective welds.
~
Field repairs were made and the vendor was directed to , improve inspection efforts to preclude the shipping of . defective materials.
, e. A penetration sleeve was found slightly out of-round. The ,
Design Engineer accepted the sleeve as was since the, alight out-of-roundness would not create future ficup problems. . S a, o
----,*,_-rv-.,-r ,._.-...--.m - - -
s
,\
, 3
'. . j! :
i f' j
. g. ,.
' '
- d **
j ,: ..
.7"~ *! f.- Several liner places were found to exceed the plumb specifi-l . .* ,
. ,' ., i .
cation in the contract. The Design Enginece accepted the 1 .
' ' ~ > ! .j; '. ,
work as completed since his findings indicated the'devintions
's- .y '. had no effect on the engineering requirements.
l -
- g. The refueling canal penetration was installed in an improper i:
orientation:. The p,enetration was removed and was then properly q-'! inscalled.
. .i i - .
j *
. h.. - During rail transportation, the pressurizer vessel evidently received a strong jolt. The recording of the accelerometer monitoring the vessel had on one occasion exceeded the scala
,. resding. Also a brace veld had partially ruptured. In
; n-
- addition, during the journey the rail car had a " hot box"
. o 4.' .. . which charred the wooden supports under the pressurizer.
4 . I 4 . ; c > ', Examination of the particular portion of the vessel adjacent *
- l. .
' f , 'i- to the wooden support showed no evidence of paint damage.
~
l '
. F '
The paint is an aluminium type and should show damage if it
.s .. . ?y: T" were exposed to excessivo heat ' Mr. Hickman believed that
, ; . . , . , ' #,. lS ; ' ., the vessel was undamaged by the shock since checks of thc;
) .' u.' a heaters in the, pressurizer showed no defective conditions.'[ ,
C ,lf [* At the time of the current inspection Westinghouse had not A .,. . '.i ;.. (. ,f' 0.1. j as yet determined the severity of the possibly shock shown , by the accelerometer since the calibration data concerning'. the monitor had not yet arrived at the site. *
'.(~ .f]d. .',.
t 1. Receival inspection of one of the safety injection pumps
indicated a metal to metal noise when the pump was rotated. **"
' Plans were to inspect, repair and use if possible.
shi;6{ - . j ,
- j. Receival inspection of the containment spray pump, serial
'j No. 221B175-2, disclosed a crack in the pump casing near the
- bearing at the drive end of the pump. Plans were to repair l .r ,
and use if possible.
- k. A 1007. review of the steam generator and other anchor bolts
- by PG&E disclosed that all of the bolts for one reason or another failed to meet the ASTM specifications. (See Section
. E of this report for details.) .
' .1 "
E. 2. Minor Variations
. . The inspector confirmed from a review of the minor variation los that the recorded items had been appropriately resolved at the
' field level. One interesting minor variation involved arc burns I
, - - - , - . ,-.-- ---,,,- ------,,.-,-, n-,- - . . - . , - ~ ~
. _ - - . . , . , . , - , --.--,-, - - - - - - ,,-------,---nr -- -,
, .- '.. , c (
( g. . . ll ..~- . . ;..,.:..-
.i gr.
.s 1 i
! .Y; on reinforcing steel...To determine the effect and consequences
' - ".I
!. ; of arc buins on the' integrity of the reinforcing steel, tensile
'il tests were performed on samples containing are burns. Significant
! , i I: '
l
', '!information from a report of the tests follows.
h
, ~ "Four. (4) test. .sampics.of reinforcing stoal, size 18, grade
!! i 60, were procured for testing. Sample #1 was the reference ,
i ,' standard to determine approximate values for yield strength,
.~
.~
tensile strength and elongation since the heat number was
- .. . unknown. Sample #2 had an are burn produced on it by dragging a weld rod across the robar. Sample #3 had art arc burn created
.d [ by touching the rebar with a weld rod and pulling it off.
3 S j]' , b; ,h oample ne spot#4 onhad the an robar are for burna created count of byfive holding (5),acreating weld rod ain
- i. ,r. . molten puddle three-eighths (3/8's) of an inch in diameter.
j ,
. i',1 .The results are tabulated in Table 1 ,
's -
ii , TABLE 1 . , f . Pf- , F
, ' SAMPLE:
YN.D. STRENGTH TEN. STRENGTH' ELONG..- FAILURE . lj C.h .d -i- .
- I i
l
.~. #1 - Ref. .
P 'N . cy n.ig,,9,",63,500 psi 102,500 psi 18% At Lower Jaw -
. f, #2 - Arc Drag
,63,500 psi 103,000 psi A*
15.1% Away fu n
-' #3 - Spot - Nd,25Upsi 103,750 pai 12.7% AhjyL$ofu u$n
.: . . v,: c -
#4 - 3/8" Puddle . c.l,u64,000 psi .
75,500 I.si 1.8%. Thru Arc Burn v )j .c.@ i . The failure of Sample #4 occurred,through the molten puddle i created by the arc burn. It can be determined from the results that the are burn did indeed cause brittleness. A stress point
-f- ,
was created,,in the crea of the are burn causing failure and
~
very little elongation or ductility. Sample #3 though satis- ! _ ,, factory, gave ev'idence of a slight crack in the spot created S
, j by the arc burn. e . . ..
- .. se; :
i 1 .
- This test is by no means a method of determining the degree
.j of arc burns that might be acceptable in the field. It was t performed solely to demonstrate the fact that arc burns on i., ,. reinforcing steel can be detrimental."
{ Richards: indicated that,sinco the problem was identified, about l
.~ ,eight defects have been repaired by installing a cadweld splice.
4 j q: He also said that contractor personnel are exercising more care' to preclude are burns.
% e q ,
.,.-,.,----,-.,,,w,,c---,~w,, , ---,,.-n_.--, , , - - - - - - - - - . , - , . , e- - - -
. f
. .. .u -
- ~
; g, . a ,
10 ,, _ .. 11 g-
;l ; .
h' E.* Other Class I Structures (Steam Generator Suncores) 1, j As a result of the inspection conducted during June 1970, the inspector j ' reported in CO Report 50-275/70-3 that the mill certifications for the anchor bolts installed in the containment base slab showed the bolts to bo l . of proper quality. This conclusion was based on a sample review of the f ASTM A-490 Bolt certifications. Also, this was the same timo that the
' q"d inspector raised the question as to whether PG&E QC personnel were revicwing Wl '
. all documented information for conformance to code requirements. Subsequent to the inspectors, departure, the on-site QA staff performed a completo :. ;.
review of all the bolt certifications. The audit findings were as shown .4 in Appendix A. The Deficiency Report submitted to PG&E by PDM stated that the REC
, , Corporation received material for the anchor bolts from Ryerson and Crucible Steel Companies along with mill test reports. Apparently the person that has the responsibility for checking the mill test reports was on vacation.
l A substitute who was not totally qualified approved the mill test reports
as conforming to the ASTM A490 specifications. The REC Corporation prococded
.. with the manufacture..of the anchor bolts.
(* 9 The mill test reports were submitted to Pittsburgh-Des Moines Sec'c1 Company's Purchasing Department which has an in-house Quality Assurance man assigned specifically to check mill. test reports and materials being received. The PDM Purchasing Department Quality Assuranco person noted the discrepancy l and notified the REC Corporation that the material was not in conformance with ASTM A490 The REC Corporation notified PDM's Purchasing that the bolts were in. specification and they would send proper mill test reports to
- show this. In the meantime, the correspondence involved took considerable l
*N.
time and the REC Corporation completed the manufacture of the anchor bolts and shipped them directly to the job site. - 4 On receiving the. corrected forms, a discrepancy was again found since they did not show the physical properties but had given hardness equivalent-readings. The Purchasing Department again went back to the REC Corporation l and notified them that this wa~s not adequate. PDM was told that the bolts were adequate and REC would take care of the. situation. Because of this ensuing difficulty and paper work, the bolts were installed in concrete prior to the correct paper work and mill test reports reaching the job site. As soon as it was discovered by the (PDM) Corporate Quality Assurance Department that the above had occurred, immediate steps were taken to find '
' out the full details of the problem and also to survey the REC Corporation -
in order to determine if they had the capability of producing the above
' . , , anchor bolts.
4 e j
1
.- . . 1 b - . .
s .
. j,.
t C , --
~ ,' , , ,, .
l -
- d**
; l 3
4
. ; .,g,_ . .. . '. . .. _
.. (... - , i ' '
l . 1.' PDM Quality Assurance conducted an audit of the REC Corporation
- j manafacturing procedures, quality assurance, and quality control l .C organiz'a tion on August 14, 1970 and found them to be satisfactory l to produce' materials for this contract. PDM felt the action they
'i had taken was satisfactory to see that this could not occur on jgffb ,.. ,' ,
future orders. 2 In addition to the above steps, PDM Quality Assurance will make certain that all materials and certifications are within the
! I contractual requirements of the specification prior to permitting i
shipment of any future ma.tcrials, from REC Corporation.
, In view of the above problems encountered with the anchor bolts PDM ~
, requested specification deviation approval that the anchor bolts, (32-11AR2l
- . 64-11AR4, and 32-11AR6) which are now embedded in the concrete be lef t in i
position, and that PG&E consider alternate designs as may be required to accommodate the slightly lower physical properties of the embedded anchor
. bolts. In addition to the above stated ASTM A490 anchor bolts, there were anchor bolts, (32-11AR1, .64-11AR3, 32-11ARS, and 34-11AR7), that are qbove the floor embedment line' r plates. These anchor' bolts will be reordered as
, soon as possible and will meet the ASTM A490 requirements, according to PDM.
, Sinc'e 't'he' .dAtafled. des'ign of the suppo'rts h'ad 'not been completed, PG&Es
)de, sign Engineer' incor'p' orate'd the "as installed" bolts into the support design and PG&E accepted the,', instal 1.ed bolts, howev.er, the remaining bolts not '
' Embedded in ' conc'r'e'c'e Vere "re'Jected.
5s$74 F. Steam Generators
'.. Sea water entered three of the four steam generators via channel nozzles
.during their transfer'from Tamp Florida to Avila Beach, California where the generators were unloaded from the barge and transported overland to the site at Diablo Canyon. The Mondition was discovered during inspection on '
arrival at the site in July'1970. '
~ Cleaning-of the generators was completed during October 1970. Efforts t'o clean the generators were delayed during September due to, labor disputes.
', A report of a meeting between Westinghouse and PG&E personnel discussed
' ' the design of the shipping closure of the steam generator channel nozzlos
,,'and why they failed. ' (Appendix B shows a diagram of the probicm area.) The nozzle weld preparations were procceted by an angic iron ring scal-welded l ., to the end of the nozzle outside of the veld preparations. Another ring was tack welded to this ring, inside it and the weld preparations, for further e
k l .; . . '
~w,e ,- -,-w--- . - - . m., ..,m,, , ,,gge v. .w,,,_,,,n-.,,,-,,-_.,n,,wm --,---w,-. ~ n-.,,-----+--, ,,,,--,,-,,--g- , , , - - , . - . - - - , ,
- * :i
(
- ( ,
* *~
C 'q,
..m i
I g. l
; . protection during manufacture. ~ When the s. team generatorts were prepared for shipment, the tack welded inner rings were to have been removed and
.,, gasketed covers bolted to the seal welded rings. However, the innerc-rings were not removed, and the covers were prevented from seating as intended,
'l resulting in leakage paths past the cock welded joints. Plastic coatings were sprayed on. the outside of the bolted closures, but the coating failed.
. There was no procedure requiring removal of the temporary rings, although
,.gg . th,ere was a note calling for their removal on a drawing. The procedurc
. has now been revieed to call for this step. Westinghouse stated to PG&E
, that they had such confidence in the closure design that they conduccod no tests of the integrity of the shipping preparation.
Examination of the steam generators at the site showed the following:
#1. Water in nozzles on both inlet and outlet sides, estimated at l
3 to 5 gallons, no evidence of water on the tube sheet. . gg ,. ,
- #2. Water in nozzles and in head, estimated at 5 gallons. ..
I . -
..~'
,..(, ( ,,'
, ,; .#3. , Closure app, ear,ed.to ,be intact. -
! #4 Slight 1,inktion of water at ring of one nozzle. *f'
[ -
., i.
N In an effort to determine whether salt water entered any tubes, j distilled water has been flushed thru the lowest. tube of generni:or #2. Analysis.pf..this flushing water showed chlorides less than 1/10 ppm which l indicated ,little or no .ses,. water entered the tube. Westinghouse felt thero' is no need to flush other tubes in the generator. Discussion revealed that
; this procedure would have~ detected one cubic centimeter of sea water in 4 the tube but would not have detected one drop of sea water in the tube.
1 i According to the report there have been two other incidents of water entering steam generators during shipment. The Indian Point Unit 3 generators had "an order of-magnitude" more sea water enter than the Diablo generators. The Zion (Unit 17) generators had condensation resulting from air leakage, E but not sea water. These steam generators for the three projects were shipped p 7 ,];l - over a period of months. The failure of the closures was not detected until l af ter all three units' generators had been shipped. In all cases the temporary j shop prote:tive rings had not been removed from the nozzles. ' g Steam generator tubes are inconel. Tube sheets are forged carbon secel with inconel explosive cladding. Channel heads are cast carbon steel
- ! , . (SA216WCC) with stainicss steci (308L) wcld clad. Channel splitter plates d are inconel. The channel nozzle wcld preparations are weld built up of 308L over a transition pass of 309L. The head casting is stress relieved after '
cladding but before the splitter place is welded in. The head to tube sheeE 5 r _ . _ , . . _ _ _ _ . . . - _ ,. _ . . _ . . _ , . _ . . _ . _ _ . - . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , - _ _ _ . . _ _
l
. . i
( 1
.( ,
g 1.., 4 Ii w f . 1 .- weld i's stress' relieved'by local heating. The splitter piste welds are i , not stress relieved.
..... ~The nozzle welds are not sensitized as defined by ASTM 393 or ASTM 262.
, This.is the so-called Strauss test and was indicated to be acceptable by cho l AEC to determine sensitization.' The test was made on duplicato material, not
.... on material from the nozzles themselves.
'"@* I.-
; Inconel was considered to be immune to chloride ion stress corrosion
,,- ; , cracking, but will pit on long exposure to sea water, especially if stagnant, i .'
No pitting has been seen in the steam generatore .which have had a relatively i short exposure. t * . , The corrective action, proposed by Westinghouse was to wash the channels l
- with deionized water until a one ppm chloride level was reached in the wash water and then swab with alcohol to dry. They believed that this would prevent'any future damage from the sea water and was all that was required.
.! It was the same procedure proposed for the Indian Point generators which had .
1 4
.f
' S.g greater leakage. Mr. Baulig, Westinghouse, said that 1/10 ' ppm chlorido was relatively easy to achieve in the ficid, and it was his stated intention lco
-5
,.. wash to this level, not just to the 1 ppm level required by Tampa. .
'.A t '
PG&E accepted the investigation of'the incident and the proposed cicaning i S procedure. General Construction prepared a quality control deviation report j .- ', .,, on this incident.
~
. Westinghouse has changed the nozzle closure design from bolted to seal
) welded. Al Hickman PG&E Resident Mechanical Engineer stated a preference
, ". , , - ' for the original design, if correctly executed, because access for inspection
, in the field is-easier.
.4 *
.w. The report,of chloride analysis supplied by Finalysis Inc., Paso Robles.
California, indicated that all final rinses had chloride concentrations of 0.1 ppm or less with the exception of two samples which showed conccntrations of 0.6 and O'7 ppm. Of interest, Mr. Good supplied the inspector a copy of
; an article tiitled, Application of Secois for Des ti,ination P1nnt by Richard 3
- T. Jones published in August 1967 in Volume 7 No. 3. Metals Engineering Quarterly (ASM). The aricele primarily deals with corrosion of stainless, i ! -
steel exposed to salt water environmento. The test durations were up to two years. - c .. r. N
The article' indicated that to determine the effect of stress on the
'corrbaion Eesistance of the stainicas steels (type 304 & 316), Ericacn cups were formed by depressing a hardened steel ball into each stainless
!. i; steel sample. Conclusions from examination of the stress cups under low r magnification and metallographically, indicated the absence of evidence of l ..atress-corrosion cracking or any preferential pitting corrosion on the cups.
;l (A copy ,of the article is available in the Region V office.)
t
't ,, 8 l .
( (.
.pl..
C , . .
. , .2 -
l G. Reactor Vessel O.. 4 ' r . i The reactor vessel arrived at Avila Beach for unloading during September 1970. During un' loading operations Bigge, the equipment handling contractor, 1 4
'j . had previously removed.the wooden panci covering the 0-F.ing box on the barge fore-deck and relocated the 0-Ring box to a safe area. While removing the
]) ,
wooden panel (10' x 22') that had been under the 0-Ring box a 15 to 20 mph i ja wind caught the panel and whipped it into the starboard mid-section of the a fi -
' reactor vessel botton, dragging its edcc across several of the instrument bfy[l penetration tubes. After an initial inspection, a detailed inspection
. procedure formulated by Westinghouse and PG&E was implemented. Results of
,' . ..' the inspection were reported in the deviation report as follows.
t .
- 1. The area of impact was dotarmined by holes and abrasions in the protective cover. This or ca, in turn, was found on the reactor vessel bottom by bits of wood on two (2) of the penceration tube
,i i .
end expandable plug bolt threads. These two tubes had been marked li '
.., inicia11y because their plugs had been knocked loose and Icaked sj ,. ;
gas. A third tube had its plug end bolt bent, but wasn't leaking. l
'! The fabric cover was removed during this process.
' Ol '
6 Tubes, S/N 456-09-2 and 456-15-2, had wood chips on their'plugii I
} bolt threads and tube S/N 456-212-2 had a bent bolt.
^
ll 2 .~ 'Th'e burlap boots and polyethylene socks were removed from these j' ' three tubes and nine (9) other tubes adjacent to them. They were ' l all checked for straightness by laying a straight-edge on two (2) sides of each tube, 90 apart. No bent tubes were found. s l i i
..The socks and boots were reinstalled with new tuck-cape.
t 3 All instrument penceration tube end expandable rubber plugs were
#4,@li checked for internal gas Icakage with an " Ultra-Sonic Translator"
-' (leak detector). One (1) plug was found to be leaking and was re-seated'and.re-cightened. The leak was stopped.
l 4. Each tube end plug was physically checked for seat.ing, tightness. l (soundness) and possible damage to the tube. Loose burlap bootn were removed and replaced solidly with new cape. No damage was found. , 5. On completion of the inspection, the protective fabric weather
,j -
cover was replaced over the Reactor Vessel bottom. ' l . .. .
- , . The results of this inspection disclosed no physical damage to the bottom penetration tubes.
i . \ I a.
~
I e
, i
- a. .
[ .
. , . F. . - -
C L. -m-* 15-F' Mr. Brady indicated that the vessel would be transferred to the site from Avila Beach during the week of December 7, 1970. The inspector observed
. during a tour of the temporary storage area at Avila Beach that (1) the vessel was under surveillance by a guard (2) the vessel was covered with
' plastic and (3) the gas pressu.re was monitored by an installed gauge (0.5 to 1 psig of nitrogen is being maintair.ed on the vessel). -
.ug .H. 0A Audits -
- The on-site QA audit program was reviewed and discussed with Mr. Brady.
The review included a reading of recent audit reports, audit schedules and plans. Mr. Brady indicated that to perform an audit associated with a particular phase of contract work opproximately 15 man days are expended in preparing, conducting and documenting a particular QA audit. ' The. audit reports appeared to be comprehensive in describing the scope and findings of the audies. Copics of the audit reports had been distributed to all interested parties and written responses of adverso findings werc noted to be filed with the appropriate audit report. hk._Brady indicated
. that the need for timely filing of deviation reports had been highlighted,on , ,
several occasions. However, 'this probicm seem:: to have been remedied as' (.- contractors have become more aware of the urgency for prompt submittaliof formal notification whenever discrepancies are identified. Since July 1, 1970, 15 QA audits of construction activitics have bee
. -?
completed. Plans were to coraplete three more audits before the end -of the year pursuant to the approved schedule. Activities audited included: -
'Wch '
- 1. QC inspections.
2 Transporting, handling and storage of steam generators and reactor vessel. 3.- Receival and storage'of electrical equipment. .
- 4. ' Installation of auxiliary salt war.er piping. ,
- 5. Mechanical equipment - inspection, storage and placement.
6 Fabrication of liquid holdup tanks.
- 7. Containment structure. ,
- a. Rebar
- b. Liner
- c. Wide Beam Flanges -
e, e e .
- - - - . . . . . , . - m.m_ - - - , ,.---.__-.._.___,_._-.,,_-r . .._,._-...--,_,.~,,% , -.,_.._ ,...-_._.. ,_ _..m .-.y_---_ . . ..--,c ,._. , , -
t c ( . . C . .. ,. . , . . .
- I
- ASTM A-490 - Specifications -
p*
" - 2 " diameter Minimum Maximum 150 k 180 k Tensile .
.- Yield -
130 k -
.- ~. Elongation in 2", cu- .. .
- 147.. ., , ,
Reduction in area. , 407. . Hardness - Brinell ,
, 3.02 3.52
,. 34-est . - ,. -
ANCHOR BOLTS Pumn Supports - 64 bolts - 2 "
' )' .
11AR1 & 11AR2 . ,.
~
Tensile-
,141,675 "
5.67. low
. - Yield .,~ . . , 124,815 j ., -
,4.07. Iow
. ' Elongation 19.37. - -
ok
' Red. in Area 60.6% ok Hardness . 2.86 ,
5.3% low c:- !; i ( .. cencrator Sunnores - 128 bolts - 2" ,- -
- 8. -
lr ' {L 'l
. ' 11AR3. & 11AR4- 5 .,I.,. +c.c, ce ,
'I r Tensile , 139,460 6.97. Iow-
, Yield i ,
I 121,798 6.27. Iow-
. Elongation .,, 28.7% ,- ok Red, in Area 64.57. ok Hardness , 2.69 10.97.
g4 ' I,ateral Truss - ~64 bolts - 2" 11AR5 & 11AR6- - Tensile . 158,750 , ok i
. . Yield 146,000 ok l
Elongation 8.07. 437. Red. in Area 37.67. ,6.07. low Hardness , 311/321 ok l Annulus Sapports - 34 bolts k" 11AR7
~ '
l Tensile 161,000 ok
, Yield -
150,000 ok , Elongation , 107. 28.67. Iow
. ., Red. in Area 36.07. 107. low Hardness 321/331 ok e
} APPENDIX - A ,
g L
/' v,m.-
w...
- s. -f .
C,':' '
- LI0U1D ENVELOPE i
.*. .s
\ -
' EAK AREA
( .. :- Wi^ K rSm ,, .
~ - . , . +
I TiTl s ~ r-i,) .- . < .$///////////////////////////i e V////A.s j l.
'. NOZZLE COVER .
-[- , h///AN//.8 ////Y Q
s l Y PROTECTIVE
- RING ASSY.
l gl TACK WELD ( 3 PLACES)
/b . /
/
/ j }./ i f TEMPORARY,1NNER RING / ' '
O
<?
SEAL WELC vgs,} p s -
.i 4 .
l .
/
i , l . , . . . GASKET v.
.: 4 -
), . . i g ,
I l , ,. ' NOZZC.E WELD PREP. . f ( l .
, s.
il - l , . . . . f.
.. , j... r, ni..r;, - . . .
M -
. , o. m .: $.q n,. ,., e: . . ! -
+ -{ o .
g,',q,,b'.fl':'.,...., y .
...(,..
c -
..;3
*.. W ., . . '. . m
" ,...g:
,. . , . q '. : , . .
. . 9
.s
,, ,, . t 'i .- " '
, , .; h " * . , ..,
- .' 3 ,
..i..it ,
, i, . ,.. '.k, ' b,l.:,! '
;- q.',. ,. .TH,E
!.; SALT WATER INTRUSION OCCURED BECAUSEI,,i,.: 1 ' . ,. ,,
- Vi'.4, -
, ,' : ,.i ,, ,l- THE SHOP FAILED TO REMOVE THE TEMPORARY INNER j
t RING PRIOR TO SHIPMENT OF STEAM GENERATOR S. J
, ,i.
~ ,
l .- f. l:' -N.'2- THE TACK-WELDS PROJECTED SUFFICIENTLY TO PREVENT ' i l .
', ,. : '..i.. '
' THE SHIPPING COVERS FROM SEATING ON THEIR GASKETS . 'l t
. ,1 4
'*l -
l . t
, .t ; ' 3 .THE "LIOUl0 ENVELOPE" FAILED DURING THE BARGE TRIP ' -
l '
.~ ALLOWING SEA WATER TO CONTACT THE METAL SURFACES.* .-
1 . ,
- l- -
i - "
, ', APPENDIX - B GMIG7027 ATTACHMENT "B" DVR No.35 i l_ A r* Prt O V E D U Y l } l l 6 ( (
, wn. - 6 i i i i . , 6 e i l , , , i i ,- ) # q i , - i 6 . . w i I c ~c. : narc i o,. c n nr.o., , sw e ny i c n. i r, - I" ' * ' ~ " POSGN ". . OlABLO C ANYON PROJECT UNIT ONE SUPtmecots
~~
os. a e, y STEAM GENERATOR REACTOR COOLANT ouncnuoco n, es. m ,i . 7,3 NOZZLE SHIPPING COVER DETAIL '"="~o. =~cF i n. *c. , , ,i GENCA At. CONSTRUCTION OCPARTMENT ',
**'* onaweno Nu unan 'Sa*=*
\}}