ML20212N777

Div of Compliance Insp Rept 50-323/70-02 on 700930,1001 & 13.Major Areas Inspected:Design of Steam Generator Supports. QA Procedures Officially Approved & in Use by Design Groups

ML20212N777
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/12/1970
From:	Andrea Johnson, Spencer G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212N718	List: IA-86-585, Summarizes Areas to Be Inspected Per Hosgni Mods.List Tentative & Will Be Modified as Necessary Pending Completion of Licensee Sys Reviews.W/One Oversize Figure ML20212N714 ML20212N719 ML20212N735 ML20212N746 ML20212N755 ML20212N757 ML20212N760 ML20212N763 ML20212N767 ML20212N773 ML20212N777 ML20212N778 ML20212N782
References
FOIA-86-585 50-323-70-02, 50-323-70-2, NUDOCS 8608290149
Download: ML20212N777 (6)

Text

• y I

( ( *

' U. S. ATOMIC ~ ENERGY CO)DIISSION D g-DIVISION OF C011PLIANCE '

REGION V Report of Inspecrion CO Report No. 50-323/70-2 .

-m -

Licensee:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-323

. Category A

[ Dace of Inspection: September 30 and October 1 and 13, 1970 Date of Previous Inspection: -

May 7, 1970

'.- Inspected by: *

// 6 xt'/- g/ #

(' 4 '/

A. D. Jottson ' Reacto Inspector , Reviewed by: -

                                                                                                  -             . P N W L.

G. S. Spep'cer Senior Reactor Inspector

MI'fh$

Proprietary Information: None I f

                     .               I. Summary Activities associated with the design of the Steam Generator Supports were reviewed to determine the degree of implementation of PG&E's QA procedures relating to design efforts. The pertinent QA procedures were found to have been officially approved and vere in use by the design groups.

4 e l PDR FOIA SHOLLYB6-585 PDR

                                                                                                                                              )f

                       ~

C C C . II. General 1*. l A. Background and Purpose PG&E has been formulating and implementing a formal QA program for the design and construction of Unit No. 1, presently under construction at the Company's Diablo Canyon site. Unit No. 2 of the same design is to be constructed at the same site.

      , . . , .                                                            During March 1970 the status of development of the QA program was
     ~StNtM                                                                determined. Generally, the QA program had been implemented as it concerned procurement and on-site construction activities. Although
                                                                          .most of the formal procedures to govern design activities had been drafted many of them had not been officially approved. The draft procedures were being implemented on a trial basis. At that time, however, the inspectors were unable to confirm that the procedures had been implemented to govern the routine design activities.
                                                                                                                                               ~

The purpose of the current inspection was to determine the degree of implementation of the developed QA procedures as they relate to the design activities conducted within the PG&E Engineering Department. B. PG&E Personnel Contacted During Inspection ( ei':h.}

• 1"^ ;

J. D. Worthington - Vice President - Engineering Department C. H. Sedam . Vice President - General Construction

         < - , .{.i                                                                                                         Department D. V. Kelley                 -

Project Engineer M. H. Chandler - Manager Station Construction C. V. Richards - Director Quality Engineering J. O. Schuyler - Supervising Mechanical Engineer i T #J W. J. Lindblad - Design Engineer, Mechanical l R. V. Bettinger - Supervising Civil Engineer

       ~

S. Hanusiak - Design Engineer, Civil S. Peters - Design Engineer, Civil F. Forbes - Supervising Inspection Engineer A. Walenta - Materials Inspector i . III. Significant Findings The following information concerning implementation of the applicant's

            ' ~

QA procedures was obtained by the inspector through a review of the available - documentation associated with the effort related to the design of the Steam Generator Supports for Units 1 and 2, and from discussions with the personnel t responsible for the design. s '

         . v.s

R c c A. Criterion II. OA Program I

1. Previous Finding During the previous review of the PG&E QA program it .was determined that procedures had been drafted to implement the program. However most of the procedures related to design activities had not been made official and were being implemented on a trial basis, be4S$$ 2. Discussion .

The draft QA procedures concerning design activities, which

                                          ,                 were reviewed during the previous inspection, were found to be approved. The procedures had been distributed to the various engineering personnel for official implementation.

The procedures included instructions to govern: (1) Project Engineer's function, (2) design development, (3) design reviews, (4) safety analysis report changes, (5) classification of structures, systems and components, (6) construction drawing index, (7) specification preparation, review and release.

              .f,3                           3.          Zinding
                                            ~ ~~~~~       Te h' pertinent proiedures have been officially implemented to
         -[ g                     ,

assure design activities are performed in a consistent ' manner as required by the QA program. o B. Criterion III - Design Revieu

          ..A                                1.          Previous Finding
       '?^ .5$h                                          Implementation of the developed procedures to guide design review should satisfy the PSAR QA requirements.

2. Discussions i The records concerning the design of the steam gener'ator supports showed that:

a. Design criteria had first been of fered to PG&E and was the basis for the PSAR description and requirements.

b. Several reviews involving PG&E's civil and mechanical design personnel and Westinghouse design personnel resul'ted in expansion and more detailed criteria which was then used to develop the detailed design, construction drawings and specifications.

i l

• s

          ,s [ '

l 2 i

                       .            .                                                                     s

( ( 4( ~ .

                                .                                                                     c.       The record of design calculations was accompanied by a status sheet which showed who had performed the calculations..

and who had reviewed the work. According to Hanusiak, assigned responsible enginee'r, the checker not only assures that the design procedure is appropriate and followed but also does independent calculations to cross check the results. He added, that upon completion of the design and

 '                                                                                                             review, he also checks to assure all work was properly,
                            ,                                                                                 psrformed.

d. The detailed construction drawings were in the final stage whi. Red of development. The inspector noted that the current drawings had been reviewed and revised on ten occasions.

, , The current drawings also required additional revision ' to incorporate more detail.

                                                                                                                                              ~

a. The detailed design had been reviewed by Westinghouse personnel and, according to Hanusiak, the final drawings will be sent to Westinghouse for computor analysis in

• conjunction with the integrated system analysis. This analysis subjects the design to the maximum credible earthquake with a nain coolant lino rupture to determine i

points of maximum stress and the adequacy of design.

f. The design review of the supports conducted by the Mechanical Engineering Department (an interface) resulted in changes to provide for (1) inservice inspections, (2) additional room for insulation and (3) installation (welding considera-tion).

3. Finding i

The available documentation was sufficient to show that the l 40$N@. 6 - design procedures have been implemented. D. Criterion VIII - Control of Purchased Material Equipment and Services

1. Previous Finding A detailed QA procedure had been developed which required all PG&E vendor inspectors to conduct inspections pursuant to written inspection plans.

2. Discussion The design engineer has the responsibility to insure that

                  ,                                                                                components are manufactured pursuant to Quality Standards.

To discharge this responsibility, the design engineer s l e 3

4 s.

                                    .         .                                                 c                                                (-

requests the Engineering Service Department to perform .. l appropriate surveillance of the vendor activities pursuant to PG&E's QA procedures. In response to the inspector's query concerning the support snubbers, Mr. Forbes showed the inspector the inspection procedure used to evaluate the vendor's QA program. The

                      ~

procedure was in the form of a checklist and was 22 pages in

      , ,,, .                               .                                        length and appeared to be comprehensive. The vendor's QA ijfasq program had been' evaluated and the results forwarded to the
        "

• Nt Design Engineers. Mr. Walenta, the inspector, stated that the procedure was beneficial in that it made for ease of documenting his ' findings and assured him that all pertir.ent items had been checked and provided a sound basis for his conclusions.

3. Finding The QA procedure governing vendor inspection activities has been implemented.

E. $7iterion XVIII. Records ,

             .:f,e t*                                         1.                    Previous Finding                                   .
                                           \

A draft procedure had been formulated to generate and store l various records related to the QA activities.

2. Discussion The various documents related to the design effort of the steam generator supports were retrieved by the designer

, without delay. Mr. Richards stated that the current procedure

      ???.. 589                                                                     would probably be expanded to include a more complete index system to enable additional cross references so that in the
                   ..                                                                future after the plant is operational appropriate documents
                                         .                                          could be retrieved by identification of system or ccmponent.

He indicated the changes would be made soon and thereafter the procedure would be published in official form. I

3. Finding .

QA related documentation appears to be governed effectively by the procedure in use. 2 .- IV. Management Interview The inspector met with PG&E Vice Presidents Worthington and Sedam and Nessrs. Kelley, Chandler and Richards on October 13, 1970. The purpose of the

                                                               ,                             .'               ~5-
                . -                                                                                 e 4
        .-.n,-                -. , -                            ..,----,..,-----,,,,,--,n,                    , , - - - ~ , , , .        - - . =      ------..en-   , - - - , , - , .

                                                    \ -
                                                                                       ' (.                                                                                            (                                    .

( . ..., , .

             '.k" :,t              .                   t.neting was to discuss the findings,of the QA in'spection effort and to review in general the results of the past two site inspections. Both Messrs.                                                                                                               ;,
                          '!                      , Worthington and Sedam indie. ate.d that the company was fully committed to j                         implementing the developed QA program in the conttruction of Unit 1 as well as Unit 2 and will continue to require all related work to be performed in accordance with the program requirements. The inspector informed the group that past responses to the inspector's observations appeared to have been
                           -j                          complete and comprehensive.

1 i .

             ...t                                    ,                                                         .

s )Y;, e 4 O e d . =

                 *~                                                                                                                                        *
                 ~'

j".s .

           '                                                                                   *~
                        !)                   ,

p:

w.4 i

                -e ag                                                    g s

4 f e' 9 x y _, ., __c_ _-_._

                                                                                                                 - . _ __ , , . , . _ _ , _ . . -     ,-.,-,-c. _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . - , _ - _ . _ , _ _ , . , _ _ - - , . - _ . , _ _ _}}