ie insp repts 50-275/82-10 & 50-323/82-06 on 820308-12
TRANSCRIPT
* *. .
*.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
= .
REGION V
50-275/82-10Report No. 50-323/82-06
Docket ?!o. 50-275. 50-323 License No. CPPR-39. CPPR-69 Safeguards Group
Licensee: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
P. O. Box 7442
San Francisco. California 94120
Facility Name: Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2
Inspection at: Diablo Canyon Site. San Luis Obisoo County. California
Inspection conducted: March 8-12 and March 29 - Aoril 2. 1982
Inspectors: . o/ Y4!8/-JpF.Burdoin,ReactorInspector Date Signed
Date Signed
Approved by: [ f//4 /85f
. Eckhardt, Acting Chief ' Date Signedactor Projects Section 1
Summary:Inspection during period of March 8-12 and 29 thru April 2, 1982 (ReportNos. 50-275/82-10 and 50-323/82-06).
Areas Inspected: Announced inspections by regional based inspector to inspectmodifications to piping and electrical raceway supports and to other modificationsresulting from the revised annulus spectra, to investigate an allegationof release of Class 1 materials for construction prior to satisfying establishedmaterial receiving and acceptance procedures, and plant tour. The inspectioninvolved 74 inspection hours on-site by one inspector.
,
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
RV Form 219 (2)8205040479 820420 &
PDR ADOCK 05000275G PDR
., .- . - . _ _ . - . .
_
_ __ .-
'. .
.
DETAILS|
1. Individuals Contacted
a. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
+*R. D. Etzler, Project Superintendent+*G. L. Johnstor, Acting Resident Civil Engineer+*D. A. Rockwell, Resident Electrical Engineer+*J. A. Ammon, Resident Mechanical Engineer
C. L. Braff, Piping Hanger Group SupervisorW. V. Gragg, Structural Steel Group Supervisor
*K. A. Nilson, Mechanical Field EngineerR. A. Toomira, Mechanical Field Engineer
+*J. R. Bratton, Lead QC EngineerJ. J. Nystrom, QC InspectorD. A. Stei. son, QC InspectorT. E. Pierce, QC Inspector
*R. W. Taylor, QA Engineer*S. J. Foat, QC EngineerC. H. Issel, Electrical Inspector
*C. A. Hough, Mechanical InspectorM. J. Mello, Mechanical InspectorA. W. Novak, Mechanical InspectorR. Torstrom, Mechanical Inspector
Various other engineering and QC personnel.
b. H. P. Foley Company (Foley)
A. E. Moses, Project ManagerV. H. Tennyson, QC ManagerJ. L. Thompson, QA Engineering Group SupervisorL. C. Fryckman, QC Inspector
c. Pullman Power Products Corporation
J. W. Ryan, Resident Project ManagerR. J. King, Chief Field Engineer -J. C. Schultz, Drafting SupervisorH. W. Karner, QA/QC Manager-D'. L. McGrew, Supervisor Pipe Hanger DepartmentK. 1. Niles, QA ControllerC. D. Agueda, QA ControllerT. Hanley, QC Inspector
* *
-2-,
* Denotes attendees at exit meeting on March 12, 1982.+ Denotes attendees at exit meeting on April 2, 1982.
NRC Resident Inspectors Messrs. J. D. Carlson and M. M. Mendonca attendedthe exit meeting of April 2, 1982. Mr. M. M. Mendonca attended the i
March 12, 1982 exit meeting. ,
2. Plant Tour
A tour of the Unit 2 plant was made during th inspection week ofMarch 29. The rupture restraint work in progress in the turbine buildingwas observed; and the pre-service test equipment presently being modifiedin preparation for testing of the Unit 2 reactor vessel was examined.
The licensee's preservice inspection procedure 3525, " Nuclear Ultrasonic !
Examination of Reactor Vessel Butt Welds and Adjacent Base Metal"as described during September 29, 1981 meeting b tween the inspectorand representatives of the licensee's department of engineering research ;
appears to be acceptable. Tentative schedule calls for performinga preservice inspection on Unit 2 reactor vessel during the late springand early summer of 1982. .
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3. Safety Related Pipe Support and Restraint Systems
The seismic, verification of pipe supports to date has resulted in109 large bore piping hangers requiring modifications. As of thisinspection, modifications to sixty-seven hangers have been completed.
1
Approximately sixty-six small bore (2" diameter and smaller) piping'
hangers require modifications. Forty-four of these modificationsare to provide two-way vertical restraint of the pipe. To date, modificationsto sixty-two small bore hangers have been completed.
The inspector examined modifications to large and small bore pipesupports in Unit 1 containment and auxiliary building to ascertainby visual examination whether the pipe supports met the requirementsspecified by licensee's drawings, procedures and specifications.The following pipe supports which had been inspected and accepted |
by the contractor's Quality Control were examined, and appeared tosatisfy the applicable requirements of ESD-223, " Installation andInspection of Class 1 Pipe Supports."
Large Bore Pipe Supports Small Bore Pipe SupportsI
(1) 10-44SL (1) 42-2 .
(2) 10-675L (2) 47-11(3) 10-88SL (3) 55-44(4) 11-65SL (4) 65-36
'
(5) 12-124SL (5) 65-37(6) 13-25SL (6) 66-4(7) 13-32SL
. (( 7)66-36
8) 98-80(8) 22-335SL(9) 22-336SL .(9) 2151-52'(10) 22-342SL ,(10) 2151-54 -
(11) 22-343SL ('11) 2151-69.
(12) 22-346SL (12) 2151-110
. .
4
-3-
Large Bore Pipe Supports Small Bore Pipe Supports
(13)41-29R (13)2151-121(14)41-31R (14) 2151-152(15)41-34R (15) 2151-179(16)42-15R (16)2153-12(17) 42-16R (17) 2153-17(18) 42-52R (18)2155-23(19) 42-75R (19) 2155-66(20) 56N-62R (20)2155-139(21) 57N-22R (21) 2155-172(22) 57N-72R (22 2155-253(23) 57N-79R -(23 2156-65(24) 57N-128R (24 2156-144(25) 57N-146R (25).2161-06
'.
(26)57N-149R (26)~2169-43(27) 58N-3R (27) 2180-03(28) 58N-4R (28) 2180-28
(29)2182-113 "
.(30),2183-16' -
(31) FPS-861(32) FPS-862
Discrepancies found during the' examination of three pipe supports,10-67SL, 57N-128R and 2155-253, were determined to be marginally acceptablein accordance with the requirements of ESD 223. These discrepancieswere documented on a Deficiency Condition Notice (DCN) in the caseof Hanger 10-67SL and Rework and Reinspect Orders (RRO) for Hangers57N-128R and 2155-253 to be corrected and reinspected. These hangerswere reworked and were reinspected by the licentee. During the inspectionweek of March 29, 1982 these hangers were reexamined and found tobe acceptable.
4. Modifications to Electrical Raceway Supports, Detail S-221.
Thirty-nine electrical raceway supports detail S-221 (listed below)located in the annulus area of the containment were examined to determineconformance with the applicable design requirements of Design ChangeOrder (DCO), G-E-2593; and found to be acceptable.
E-2005 E-2021 E-2038E-2006 E-2022 E-2040E-2009 E-2023 E-2041E-2010 E-2024 E-2042E-2011 E-2025 E-2043E-2012 E-2026 E-2044E-2013 E-2027 E-2045E-2014 E-2028 E-2046 s
E-2015 E-2029 E-2047E-2016 E-2030 E-2048E-2018 E-2031 E-2049E-2019 E-2034 E-2050E-2020 E-2035 E-2052
. .
, .- .
-4-
Two supports (E-2016 and E-2050) were welded in accordance with thespecification identified on detail S-221 in the above identified DCO.The remaining thirty-seven supports were secured to the beams withbeam clamps as specified in note 5 of detail S-221, which requiredtorquing the nuts to 10 ft/lbs minimum, and tack welding the nutsto the bolts.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5. Allegation of Improper Quality Assurance Practices by the Licensee'sElectrical Contractor (Howard P. Foley Company).
On December 14, 1981, the NRC Resident Inspector was contacted by anindividual who alleged that Class 1 materials received by the HowardP. Foley Company were released to construction for installation priorto receipt of proper documentation of certification of material .This is Part Two of the allegation against Foley identified in InspectionReport 50-275/82-01.
Findings: The allegation was partially substantiated.
Class 1 fabricated steel items for Unit 2 were~ purchased by theH. P. Foley Company under Purchase Order 03999. Class 1 materials werereceived under this Purchase Order on January 22, 1982 without supportdocumentation. The materials were not processed in accordance with FoleyQuality Control Procedure (QCP) 4, Rec'eiving", Handling and Storage, Sections4.2 which states that: ... Materials having QA requirements... verify materials"
to the specifications.. .by receipt of _ appropriate support documentation(e.g., Letters of Compliance, Certifications'of Material, etc.) asspecified on the Purchase Orderi" and_Section 4.2.5 which states that, " Materialrequiring QA which does not meet the above requirement will be redtagged and placed in non-conformance hold area until it is broughtinto conformance or shipped off site." In Foley's.QCP-3, " Processingand Control of Deviations and Nonconformances" Section 1 states that,
"This procedure establishes the system for reporting, documenting,and processing of materials, parts, components, or services whichdo not conform to specification, drawing or procedure requirements.In cluded in this system are deviations and nonconformances. A nonconformanceis a deficiency in existing conditions, documentation, or procedureswhich renders the quality of an item unacceptable or indeterminate."
These same Class I materials supposedly in a status of nonconformancewere released to construction for installation in the plant contraryto QA procedures. The Foley Company's QA procedures do not providefor releasing for installation those nonconformance items where thenonconformance can be resolved during the period of installation.
.
pr-
. .
, . - .
-5-
It has been determined that the steel fabrications purchased underP.O. 03999 were installed in the condensate polishing system whichis a Class II system. This polishing system is located in a ClassII area of the Turbine Building at ground elevation (85').
This item is considered unresolved pending further investigation todetermine whether Class I materiale delivered under other purchaseorders and processes as above were installed in Class I systems (50-323/82-06/01).
6. Management Interview
Meetings were held with the licensee representatives (identified inSection 1) on March 12 and April 2, 1982. The scope of the inspectionsand summaries of the findings, as noted in this report, were discussed.
.
I
_ -
4 .
i
, - - .. ..-- - -- ... -
; . d') L /b. '
. .
s-. dJfb*
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fEISSION% =
REGION V
50-275/82-10Report No. 50-323/82-06
Docket flo. 50-275. 50-323 License No. CPPR-39. CPPR-69 Safeguards Group
Licensee: Pacific Gas and Electric ComDany
P. O. Rox 7442
San Francisco. California 94120
Facility Name: Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2
Inspection at: Diablo Canvon Site. San Luis Obisoo Countv. California
Inspection conducted: March 8-12 and March 29 - Aoril 2. 198?
/4 l-Inspectors: o
dpF.Burdoin,ReactorInspector Date Signed
Date Signed
Approved by: [ f/g/gzJ. . Eckhardt, Acting Chief ' Date Signed
actor Projects Sectioi. 1
Summary:.
! Inspection during period of March 8-12 and 29 thru April 2, 1982 (ReportNos. 50-275/82-10 and 50-323/82-06).
Areas Inspected: Announced inspections by regional based inspector to inspectmodifications to piping and electrical raceway supports and to other modificationsresulting from the revised annulus spectra, to investigate an allegationof release of Class 1 materials for construction prior to satisfying establishedmaterial receiving and acceptance procedures, and plant tour. The inspection!
involved 74 inspection hours on-site by one inspector.*
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.,
t
(+
I. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
.
,,
.
DETAILS
,
1. Individuals Contacted
a. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
+*R. D. Etzler, Project Superintendent+*G. L. Johnstor, Acting Resident Civil Engineer+*D. A. Rockwell, Resident Electrical Engineer+*J. A. Ammon, Resident Mechanical Engineer
C. L. Braff, Piping Hanger Group SupervisorW. V. Gragg, Structural Steel Group Supervisor
*K. A. Nilson, Mechanical Field EngineerR. A. Toomira, Mechanical Field Engineer *
l+*J. R. Bratton, Lead QC EngineerJ. J. Nystrom, QC InspectorD. A. Stetson, QC InspectorT. E. Pierce, QC Inspector i
*R. W. Taylor, QA Engineer*S. J. Foat, QC EngineerC. H. Issel, Electrical Inspector
i
*C. A. Hough, Mechanical InspectorM. J. Mello, Mechanical InspectorA. W. Novak, Mechanical InspectorR. Torstrom, Mechanical Inspector
Various other engineering and QC personnel.
b. H. P. Folev Company (Foley)i
A. E. Moses, Project Manageri
V. H. Tennyson, QC ManagerJ. L. Thompson, QA Engineering Group SupervisorL. C. Fryckman, QC Inspector
c. Pullman Power Products Corporation !
J. W. Ryan, Resident Project Manager 5
R. J. King, Chief Field EngineerJ. C. Schultz, Drafting SupervisorH. W. Karner, QA/QC ManagerD. L. McGrew, Supervisor Pipe Hanger DepartmentK. T. Niles, QA ControllerC. D. Agueda, QA ControllerT. Hanley, QC Inspector
',
__ _ _ . __ _ - . _
F--2-*
**
*.
r
* Denotes attendees at exit meeting on March 12, 1982.+ Denotes attendees at exit meeting on April 2, 1982.
NRC Resident Inspectors Messrs. J. D. Carlson and M. M. Mendonca attendedthe exit meeting of April 2, 1982. Mr. M. M. Mendonca attended theMarch 12, 1982 exit meeting.
2. Plant Tour
A tour of the Unit 2 plant was made during the inspection week ofMarch 29. The rupture restraint work in progress in the turbine buildingwas observed; and the pre-service test equipment presently being modifiedin preparation for testing of the Unit 2 reactor vessel was examined.
The licensee's preservice inspection procedure 3525, " Nuclear UltrasonicExamination of Reactor Vessel Butt Welds and Adjacent Base Metal"as described during September 29, 1981 meeting between the inspectorand representatives of the licensee's department of engineering researchappears to be acceptable. Tentative schedule calls for performinga preservice inspection on Unit 2 reactor vessel during the late springand early summer of 1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3. Safety Related Pipe Support and Restraint Systems
The seismic verification of pipe supports to date has resulted in109 large bore piping hangers requiring modifications. As of thisinspection, modifications to sixty-seven hangers have been completed.
Approximately sixty-six small bore (2" diameter and smaller) pipinghangers require modifications. Forty-four of these modificationsare to provide two-way vertical restraint of the pipe. To date, modificationsto sixty-two small bore hangers have been completed.
The inspector examined modifications to large and small bore pipesupports in Unit 1 containment and auxiliary building to ascertainby visual examination whether the pipe supports met the requirementsspecified by licensee's drawings, procedures and specifications.The following pipe supports which had been inspected and acceptedby the contractor's Quality Control were examined, and appeared tosatisfy the applicable requirements of ESD-223, " Installation andInspection of Class 1 Pipe Supports."
Large Bore Pipe Supports Small Bore Pipe Supports
(1) 10-44SL (1) 42-2(2) 10-675L (2) 47-11(3) 10-88SL (3) 55-44(4) 11-65SL (4) 65-36(5) 12-124SL (5) 65-37(6) 13-25SL (6) 66-4(7) 13-32SL (7) 66-36(8) 22-335SL (8) 98-80(9) 22-336SL (9) 2151-52(10) 22-342SL (10) 2151-54(11)22-343SL (11) 2151-69/12)22-346SL (12) 2151-110
.- . _ _-- _ -._. - _ __ ._ - . _ . . _ -
t*
.
:
| -3-'
.
Large Bore Pipe Supports Small Bore Pipe Supports;
(13) 41-29R- (13) 2151-121'
(14)41-31R (14) 2151-152i (15)41-34R (15) 2151-179
(16)42-15R (16) 2153-12 :: (17)42-16R 17) 2153-17 || (18) 42-52R 18)2155-23
(19) 42-75R 19) 2155-66(20) 56N-62R (20)2155-139 1
; (21) 57N-22R (21) 2155-172. (22) 57N-72R 22) 2155-253 j.
] (23) 57N-79R 23) 2156-65'
'
(24) 57N-128R 24) 2156-144 ,
(25) 57N-146R 25) 2161-06 <'
(26) 57N-149R (26) 2169-43(27) 58N-3R (27) 2180-034
(28) 58N-4R (28) 2180-28(29) 2182-113 )(30) 2183-16 ,
(31) FPS-861 !
'
(32) FPS-8624
Discrepancies found during the examination of three pipe supports,'
; 10-67SL, 57N-128R and 2155-253, were determined to be marginally acceptablein accordance with the requirements of ESD 223. These discrepancies 
:- *
.,
e
-4-
Two supports (E-2016 and E-2050) were welded in accordance with thespecification identified on detail S-221 in the above identified D'CO.The remaining thirty-seven supports were secured to the beams withbeam clamps as specified in note 5 of detail S-221, which requiredtorquing the nuts to 10 ft/lbs minimum, and tack welding the nutsto the bolts.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5. Allegation of Improper Quality Assurance Practices by the Licensee'sElectrical Contractor (Howard P. Foley Company).
On December 14, 1981, the NRC Resident Inspector was contacted by anindividual who alleged that Class 1 materials received by the HowardP. Foley Company were released to construction for installation priorto receipt of proper documentation of certification of material.This is Part Two of the allegation against Foley identified in InspectionReport 50-275/82-01.
Findings: The allegation was partially substantiated.
Class 1 fabricated steel items for Unit 2 were purchased by theH. P. Foley Company under Purchase Order 03999. Class 1 materials werereceived under this Purchase Order on January 22, 1982 without supportdocumentation. The materials were not processed in accordance with FoleyQuality Control Procedure (QCP) 4, Receiving, Handling and Storage, Sections4.2 which states that: ... Materials having QA requirements... verify materials"
to the specifications...by receipt of appropriate support documentation(e.g., Letters of Compliance, Certifications of Material, etc.) asspecified on the Purchase Order;" and Section 4.2.5 which states that, " Materia'requiring QA which does not meet the above requirement will be redtagged and placed in non-conformance hold area until it is broughtinto conformance or shipped off site." In Foley's QCP-3, " Processingand Control of Deviations and Nonconformances" Section 1 states that,"This procedure establishes the system for reporting, documenting,and processing of materials, parts, components, or services whichdo not conform to specification, drawing or procedure requirements.In cluded in this system are deviations and nonconformances. A nonconformanceis a deficiency in existing conditions, documentation, or procedureswhich renders the quality of an item unacceptable or indeterminate."
These same Class I materials supposedly in a status of nonconformancewere released to construction for installation in the plant contraryto QA procedures. The Foley Company's QA procedures do not providefor releasing for installation those nonconformance items where thenonconformance can be resolved during the period of installation.
-
.*
.. .,
.
-5-
It has been determined that the steel fabrications purchased underP.O. 03999 were installed in the condensate polishing system whichis a Class II system. This polishing system is located in a ClassII area of the Turbine Building at ground elevation (85').
This item is considered unresolved pending further investigation todetermine whether Class I materials delivered under other purchaseorders and processes as above were installed in Class I systems (50-323/82-06/01).
6. Management Interview
Meetings were held with the licensee representatives (identified inSection 1) on March 12 and April 2, 1982. The scope of the inspectionsand sumaries of the findings, as noted in this report, were discussed.
_