IR 05000361/1978014

IE Inspec Repts 50-361/78-14 & 50-362/78-11 on 780911-15 & 780925-29 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted. Major Areas Inspected Incl:Piping Installation,Concrete Placement,Followup on 10CFR50.55(e) Items & Gen Work in Prog

ML20148N247
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	10/16/1978
From:	Haynes R, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML13309A584	List: IR 05000361/1978014
References
50-361-78-14, 50-362-78-11, NUDOCS 7811270046
Download: ML20148N247 (4)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

'

Q' ,

'

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT  ?

REGION V

50-361/78-14 Report No. 50-362/78-11 Docket No. 50-361, 50-362 License No. CPPR-97, CPPR-98 Safeguards Group

Licensee: Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800 - 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name: San ~0nofre Units 2 and 3 Inspection at: Construction Site, San Diego County, California Inspection conducted: September 11-15 and 25-29,1978 Inspectors: N WM 6cI*b /3 /978 R.J.Pate,YsidentkeactorInspector D te Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By: b- ms 6Je b /l/978 R.5.Haynesdlief,ProjectsSection, Reactor Date Signed g

Construction and Engineering Support Branch Inspections on September 11-15 and 25-29,1978 (Report Hos. 50-361/78-14 and 50-362/78-11)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspections by the resident inspector of construction activities includin : piping installation, concrete placement, followup on 10 CFR 50.55(g) e items and general work in progress. The inspection involved 44 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or i

deviations were identified.

,

V

~' l Q 8y'""0 Y($ 6 RV Form 219 (2)

T pc w

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

P

',

DETAILS Individuals Contacted Southern California Edison Company (SCE)

• H. B. Ray, Manager, Quality Assurance

• R. R. Hart, Construction Superintendent

• D. B. Schone, Lead Engineering Site Representative

• P. A. Croy, Site QA/QC Supervisor J. J. Pantaleo, QA Engineer W. F. Rossfeld, QA Eng'ineer M. Rodin, QA Engineer R. Frick, QA Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)

• H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer

• J. E. Geiger, Project Field QA Supervisor J. Hosmer, Assistant Project Engineer R. Ellis, Mechanical Stress Group Leader e

'

In addition, construction craftsmen, engineers and foremen were contacted during the inspection * Denotes attendees at management meetings on 9/15/78 and 9/29/78.

l Construction Status The licensee reported that site construction work is 59% complete as of September 29, 197 The licensee's project management personnel estinate that the construction effort is split 60%/40%

between Units 2 and . Piping installation Tenporary Pipe Supports The inspector noted that several permanent pipe supports and hangers had not been received and temporary supports were used to support plant piping. Two pipes were supported from other pipes. The inspector questioned the controls provided to avoid overstressing of piping under these conditions. In response to this concern, the constructor, Bechtel, performed

. _ - _ _ _ _

-2-

'

,

,

an analysis which indicated that for typical spans (approxi-mately 10 feet in length) four-inch and six-inch diameter schedule 40 pipe can support 50-feet lengths of 30-inch diameter pipe. The design of the containment restricts the length of large (24 and 30-inch diameter) pipe spools to approximately 20 feet. However, the analysis did not apply to schedule 10 pipe even though such pipe is used in the plan SCE management personnel said they would provide information on why schedule 10 pipe was not included in the analysi Common design for temporary pipe supports include 2-5 foot long sections of 1-1/2 inch or 2 inch angle iron used as simple beans supported on both ends by 3/8" to 5/8" threaded rods. The inspector observed that one support of this design was supporting two large pipes (approximately 10" dia.) and the angle iron was noticeably deflected. The inspector ques-tioned the application of temporary supports since improper loading of the supports (and pipe) appears to be possibl SCE management personnel stated that they believed the current usage of temporary hangers is acceptable since no temporary hangers had failed and no pipe had been damaged. The inspector stated that this would be a continuing item of review during subsequent inspections.

, This item is considered to be open pending review of the information concerning schedule 10 pipe and further reviews by the inspector of the applications of temporary supports, Pipe Welding The Corrective Action Report (CAR) F-540 for the rough surface on the welds for the safety injection system piping in Unit 3 near penetration 50 was reviewed. The corrective action taken was consistent with requirements of the applicable codes and the licensee's quality assurance procedure ,

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Concrete Preplacement Inspection The inspector audited the preplacement status for the Unit 2 north walls of the condensate storage, refueling water tank building; placement nos. 23-1036-B and 23-1037-B. The reinforcing bar spacing end clearance was measured by the inspector in several locations and found to meet the specification requirements. No nonconforming conditions were observe No items af noncompliance or deviations were identifie . - . . -

-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

• '

,

-3-

. Followup on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Items The Unit 3 fuel pool liner plate was damaged when compressed air -

was used to remove rain water from the leak chase channels. To prevent recurrence, the construction procedure WPP/QCI 112 was revised (Rev. 7) to prohibit use of compressed air for cleaning without engineering approval. The responsible field supervision attended a training session to discuss Rev. 7 to WPP/QCI-112. The revised procedure and training records were reviewed by the in-spector. The inspector found that the corrective action implemented by the licensee was appropriate and complete. This item is close . Plant Tour The inspector toured both Units 2 and 3 extensively during this report period. These tours provided the inspector an opportunity to become more familiar with the activities in progress on specific plant equipment. Particular attention was directed to observing work in progress and availability of supervision and quality con-trol inspectors at the work areas, housekeeping and preservation of equipmen No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

! Management Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on September 15 and 29,1978. The scope of the in-spections and inspector's findings as noted in this report were discussed. The licensee representatives had no additional comments.

l l

s