IR 05000275/1982017

Forwards IE Mgt Meeting Rept 50-275/82-17 on 820515.No Noncompliance Noted

ML16340C574
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	05/27/1982
From:	Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Crane P PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML16340C575	List: IR 05000275/1982017
References
NUDOCS 8206040138
Download: ML16340C574 (12)

Text

~>~AY 2 V 198'ocket No. 50-275 XE 7~ y}pp, Pacific Gas and Electric Company P. 0.

Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Attention:

t<r. Philip A. Crane, Jr.

Assistant General Council Gentlemen:

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Independent Design Verification Program Meeting on lfay 15, 1982 This refers to the meeting held on tray 15, 1982 regarding Diablo Canyon Independent Design Verification Program activities.

Subjects discussed during this meeting are described in the enclosed report.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"

Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Sincerely, Orsglnal signed by T.

W, Bishop T. tl. Bishop, Chief Reactor Construction Projects Branch Enclosure:

NRC Inspection Report No. 50-275/82-17 cc w/enclosure:

ll. A. Raymond, PG&E R.

C. Thornberry, Plant Manager, PG&E 20b040l38 820527 DR ADOCK 05000275

PDR bcc:

DNB/Document Control De~k (PIDS)

Distributed by RV:

Engelken (w/o encl)

Project Inspector Resident Inspector S. Silyer (r pt only)

State of CA (Johnson)

/Eo/

OFFICE/

SURNAME/

OARED

......P.......

..P.t SH.OP 5/gl/82 RV

. HO.RRL44(ltlO..

5/yg/82

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~o/

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

NRC FORM 3I8 II0/80I NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• USGFO: 1980-929 824

k t

) ~

U.S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V

Report No.

50-275 82-17 Docket No.

50-275 License No.

CPPR-39 Safeguards Group Licensee:

Pacific Gas and Electric Com an P.

0.

Box 7442 San Francisco Calffornia 94120 Facility Name:

Meeting Location:

Diablo Can on Nuclear Power Plant Pacific Gas and Electric Com any Corpogale.Office, San Francisco, California Heeting Conducted:

Hay 15, 1982 per t by:

I. b P.

J. Horri l, Reactor Inspector s/zs/sz Date Signed Approved by:

I vv.

I T.

W. Bishop, Chief, Reactor Construction Projects Branch s zn/az.

Date Signed

~Sumsar:

A meeting was held with representatives of pacific Gas and Electric Company, Teledyne Engineering Services, R.

L. Cloud and Associates, Consultants for the Governor of California, the Joint Intervenors, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Hay 15, 1982.

The meeting was requested by Teledyne for the purpose of deyeloping a schedule, for the Yerification Program managed by Teledyne Engineering Services.

The schedule was to be included in a proposed Teledyne Engineering Services Interim Technical Repor t.

f

w II II

, I i x.i k

't 1g

DETAILS l.

Meetin Attendees a.

Teled ne En ineerin Services (TES W.

E.

Cooper, Verification Project Manager b.

Pacific Gas and Electric Com an PGSE J.

B. Hoch, Project ganager R.

F.

Locke, Council R.

R. Fray, Velification Coordinator B.

S.

Lew, Project Li'censing Engineer c.

Bechtel H.

B. Friend, Prpject Completion Manager R.

C. anderson, Engineering Manager J.

g.

Leachy, Project Cost and Scheduling Engineer R.

L. Cloud and Associates RLCA)

R.

L. Cloud, President E.

Dension, Verification Project Manager e.

MHB Associates R.

B. Hubbard, Consultant to Governor of California Center for Law in the Public Interest reynolds, representative for Joint Intervenors g.

Nuclear Re ulator Commission ('NRC)

P.

J. Norrill, Reactor Inspector

2.

Meetin Objectives I'he purpose of the meeting was to establish a schedule for completion of the yerification.program to be included i.n a TES interim technical report.

3.

Back r'ound and Introduction On May 8, 1,982, TES sent-a letter to PGSE proposing a joint meeting between PGSE, TES, and RLCA to obtain an indication of the PGSE schedule for the verifi'cation program.

The TES letter also stated that some discussion of the additional sampling and verification of

D I

~

,I

~

I P

J1

$

>I ~Ills)

a

I a

e'

~

<>

'i i"

~

'a

".

~

i

~ li".l'I II lli'

the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) would be necessary to improve the clarity of presentation and refine the draft schedule, but would not substantially change the engineering plan.

Since TES representatives would be in San Francisco on Hay 13, 14, and 15, 1982, the meeting was set up to occur on the morning of Hay 15, 1982.

The NRC was invited on Hay 13, 1982, and subsequently invited r'epresentatives of the Governor of Californi'a and the Joint Inter-venors.

The NRC was represented by an inspector from Region V.

Bechtel personnel were present at the meeting in their capacity as part of the PG&E joint Project Organization which was discussed at a previous meeting with the NRC on April 30, 1982.

(Meeting minutes dated Hay 18, 1982.)

TES Presentation TES r epresentatiyes explained the purpose and scope of the meeting.

Dr.'ooper outlined isolated portions of the TES draft Interim Technical Repor.t currently being wor ked on by TES and RCLA (see TES 13th Status Report}.

Dr. Cooper expected the interim r eport to be issued in early June 1982.'ES requires some help from PG&E on schedule development for completeness in the r eport and scheduling their own work.

After examining the i'tems identified to date, TES had grouped each of them in one of nine groups.

TES suggested that completion of the IDVP,will run into August 1982 with current manning levels.

This general schedule i,s a] so based on a one week turn around time for information from PG&E.

The ni'ne groups and additional wor k required by the IDVP are outlined below:

Buildin s -

TES i s concerned with Design Control of Changes

~

~

~

l'ncluding fi,eld changes).

~Pi in

-

TES feels that piping tsnmetnic dnauings must be updated and that the weight and orientation of valves must be checked.

Fiye additional piping analyses will be independently Verified.

Pi in Su orts - TES is checking the two pipi'ng codes used Adelpipe and Pipisd).

They may compute support loads dif-ferentl y.

Small Bore. Pi in

- Five additional samples of axial pipe runs and lug desi'gn will be reviewed to assess lug stress.

The spacing criteria for supports do not appear to be all i'nclusive.

Five samples of small pi'pe will be rigorously analyzed to verify engineering judgement used in the field.

E ui ment - Frequency calculations for electrical equipment in

~

~

t e main control board will be reviewed.

An additional sample of tanks will be. analyzed for buckling of the skirt and sloshing loads on the roof.

Two additional pump qualifications will be examined.

Two additional samples of HVAC equipment Wi,ll be examine (

(

ii H

f II'

-3-

Shake Tested E ui ment - Confirm assumptions (location, test procedure, mounting, spectra, etc.) for all equipment seismically qualified by shake table testing excluding NSSS.

Conduit Su orts -

RLCA will verify PG&E corrective actions aftel PG&E has completed field changes.

TES will also check seismic inputs (PG&E Task. 7100) after PG&E is finished.

PG&E i's to respond to criteria deficiencies (RLCA File 930).

~HNCO I-IH ddll I

dll

~ll*I'll I d

I

<<1 115 and controlled.

Spectra must be developed for certain areas.

Where prel iminary or compromised spectra were used for equip-ment qualification, the spectra and qual ifi'cation must be evaluated.

PG&E must confirm that the correct spectra were used for all Hosgri quali'ftcation.

TES will selectively verify new spectra.

5. ~hh Bechtel personnel stated that the proposed finishing date for this work (August 31, 1982) did not look good to'them.

After a brief discussion of the additional sampltng required by TES, the parties took a break.'pon return, the discussion started again dealing with scheduling.

It was finally agreed that TES should issue the Interim Report without the inclusi'on of a schedule or without dates on the schedule.

After a review and an opportunity for discussion, t4e PG&E/Bechtel personnel felt they could better derive a meaning-ful schedule.

6.

NRC The NgC representative asked how the licensee expected to improve the schedule.

The licensee's representative stated that thi's could be accomplished by adding more resources (people) to the various organizations.

The NRC representative stated that the notification time for this meeting had been very short and that, for future meetings, a week would be much more appropriate to allow notifica-tion and travel time.

7.

HHB Associates The Goyernor's consultant stated that the notification for the meeting had been too short and stated that it was taki:ng too long to get copi,es of reports and letters from the NRC in Bethesda.

I'

the ensuing discussion, PG&E states that they would serve all the parties for documents generated, by PG&E, but TES was not under such a requirement and should not be, since it would divert them from their primary task.

The Governor'

representative stated that they would probably bri'ng this problem to NRR's (Harold Denton) attention since they Wet e not satisfi'e l 0 l

l le

~ ~

Center for Law in the Public Interest The intervenor's representative generally supported the Governor'

consultant and also requested a prompter distribution of documents generated by the IPVP.

The'eeting adjoured with the understanding that TES would issue an I'nterim Technical Report in the near future without a schedule.

PGEE/Bechtel would then be, able to discuss the findings with TES and RLCA to establish a schedule.

• I h