ML20154D594: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _
(
c
        ,/,~,,'4                                UNITED STATES
        . g.: .      f. l              ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION g                      oivislON OF COMPUANCE g+,        s                                  REGION V
          # nts e i
till BANCROFT WAY BERKEl.KY, CAUFORNIA 94704                            Tsune.a. e4i sitt Eart. Olt December 29, 1970 G. S. Spencer, Senior Reactor Inspector Region V, Division of Compliance FACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY - DIABLO CANYON UNIT NO.1 DOCKET No. 50-275 The attached report contains the details of my recent inspection of construction activities at the site of the subject facility. No items of nonconformance were identified. The announced inspection was conducted on December 1, 2 and 3, 1970 pursuant to PI 3800/2 and in accordance with the master inspee* ion schedule for the project.
The PG&E QA investigation concerning our previous observation of possible inadequate technique in performing liquid penetrant testing of a root pass of a weld in a liquid holdup tank appeared to be timely and compre-hensive.
The results of the investigation failed to show a general deficiency in the PDM QC program. Based on my review of the investigation effort, I considered PG&E's followup action concerning the issue to be adequate.
PG&E's UT test findings concerning the wall thickness of the spools of primary piping in storage indicates possibly that the Westinghouse and Vendor QC inspection efferts may not be sufficiently comprehensive in scope.
I concur with PG&E in that more extensive examinations of the piping need be performed before valid conclusions can be reached. I intend to pursue the subject and will report fully on PG&E's additional test efforts and conclusions after the next scheduled inspection (March 1971).
Generally, I found adequate documentation concerning construction discre-pancies and QA audits. In particular the documentation of the occurrences
* involving the steam generators and the reactor vessel showed the complete history of relevant facts, circumstances, evcluations and actions.
You will note the removal of the sea water from the generators was ef f ective and that an article quoted in the report indicates that the exposure to sea water under such conditions does not create chloride stress corrosion problems. The inspection of the reactor vessel penetration tubes after being struck by the wooden panel was considered comprehensive and should have detected any damage.        I also included in the report the data obtained frem PG&E's independent tests to demonstrate the detrimental effect of are burns on reinforcing steel since it may be of interest              to other inspectors.
8805190255 000510 PDR FOIA                                                                                    I-MCMILL ANBO-156 PDR
 
I o
(:                                                                    (                              j 2-                                                                    i The events associated with the discrepant anchor bolts appeared to have                                                      i accentuated the need for the implementation of a formal procedure clearly                                                    l delegating specific responsibilities to appropriate personnel to confirm                                                      l that the information shown on certifications is consistent with what the                                                      '
certification inplies. The PG&E on-site QC personnel began this practice after our June inspection.
44%
pfT,A.D.                Johnson Reactor Inspectot                        l l
l l
l i
                      .__      . , _ _ - , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _    . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . . . , . .        ... _ _ . , . _ _ . - _  ,-}}

Revision as of 02:33, 4 November 2020

Forwards Insp Rept Conducted on 701201-03.No Nonconformance Noted.Qa Investigation Re Previous Observation of Possible Inadequate Technique in Performing Liquid Holdup Tank Timely & Comprehensive.W/O Encl
ML20154D594
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 12/29/1970
From: Andrea Johnson
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Spencer G
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20154C370 List:
References
FOIA-88-156 NUDOCS 8805190255
Download: ML20154D594 (2)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _

(

c

,/,~,,'4 UNITED STATES

. g.: . f. l ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION g oivislON OF COMPUANCE g+, s REGION V

  1. nts e i

till BANCROFT WAY BERKEl.KY, CAUFORNIA 94704 Tsune.a. e4i sitt Eart. Olt December 29, 1970 G. S. Spencer, Senior Reactor Inspector Region V, Division of Compliance FACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY - DIABLO CANYON UNIT NO.1 DOCKET No. 50-275 The attached report contains the details of my recent inspection of construction activities at the site of the subject facility. No items of nonconformance were identified. The announced inspection was conducted on December 1, 2 and 3, 1970 pursuant to PI 3800/2 and in accordance with the master inspee* ion schedule for the project.

The PG&E QA investigation concerning our previous observation of possible inadequate technique in performing liquid penetrant testing of a root pass of a weld in a liquid holdup tank appeared to be timely and compre-hensive.

The results of the investigation failed to show a general deficiency in the PDM QC program. Based on my review of the investigation effort, I considered PG&E's followup action concerning the issue to be adequate.

PG&E's UT test findings concerning the wall thickness of the spools of primary piping in storage indicates possibly that the Westinghouse and Vendor QC inspection efferts may not be sufficiently comprehensive in scope.

I concur with PG&E in that more extensive examinations of the piping need be performed before valid conclusions can be reached. I intend to pursue the subject and will report fully on PG&E's additional test efforts and conclusions after the next scheduled inspection (March 1971).

Generally, I found adequate documentation concerning construction discre-pancies and QA audits. In particular the documentation of the occurrences

  • involving the steam generators and the reactor vessel showed the complete history of relevant facts, circumstances, evcluations and actions.

You will note the removal of the sea water from the generators was ef f ective and that an article quoted in the report indicates that the exposure to sea water under such conditions does not create chloride stress corrosion problems. The inspection of the reactor vessel penetration tubes after being struck by the wooden panel was considered comprehensive and should have detected any damage. I also included in the report the data obtained frem PG&E's independent tests to demonstrate the detrimental effect of are burns on reinforcing steel since it may be of interest to other inspectors.

8805190255 000510 PDR FOIA I-MCMILL ANBO-156 PDR

I o

(: ( j 2- i The events associated with the discrepant anchor bolts appeared to have i accentuated the need for the implementation of a formal procedure clearly l delegating specific responsibilities to appropriate personnel to confirm l that the information shown on certifications is consistent with what the '

certification inplies. The PG&E on-site QC personnel began this practice after our June inspection.

44%

pfT,A.D. Johnson Reactor Inspectot l l

l l

l i

.__ . , _ _ - , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . . . , . . ... _ _ . , . _ _ . - _ ,-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20154D594&oldid=2978231"