ML16340C371
| ML16340C371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1982 |
| From: | Schierling H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C370 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203090282 | |
| Download: ML16340C371 (36) | |
Text
Docket No: 50-275 FEB l 9 1982 APPLICANT:
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company FACILITY:
Diablo Canyon, Unit 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING ON FEBRUARY 3, 1982 WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE SEISMIC VERIFICATION PROGRAM (PHASE 1)
FOR DIABLO CANYON A meeting was held on February 3, 1982 at the NRC offices in Bethesda, Maryland.
This meeting had been previously scheduled for Janaury 19, 1982.
Enclosure 1 is a list of attendees and Enclousre 2 is the meeting agenda.
The NRC staff discussed with representatives of the Pacific Gas
& Electric Company (PG&E),
R. L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
(RLCA), R.
F.
- Reedy, Inc.
(subcontractor o RLCA), and Teledyne issues regarding the proposed PG&E plan for the seismic verification program-phase l. is a list--
ing of items that were discussed at the meeting (previously attached to the meeting notice dated January 8. 1982).
Enclosure 4 is an NRC letter dated January 28, 1982 to PG&E which contains five additional items discussed at the meeting.
A verbatim record of the meeting was kept and is attached as Enclosure 5.
This material is relevant to the Diablo Canyon Safety issue on seismic design adequency which is currently before the Commission for consideration.
Enclosures:
As stated
'c w/enclosures:
See next page Signgg ~.
Hans E. Schierling Reverification Program Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing See attached sheet for distribution OFFICE tI SURI4AMEP OATEN DL:LB83 HSchier 1 g:
2/ l.I
/82 DL'h glia 2/ j
/82
~ ~ ~ ~
(
aaoS090aSa BaOa>9 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
~ 0
~ (I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NRC FORM 3IB IIO/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9 USGPO;1980-329.824
O.
I
1 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company P.O.
Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 DIABLO CANYON CC: +Philip A. Crane, Jr.,
Esq.
Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company, P.O.
Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120
~Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102
%1r: Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa'Barbara, California 93105
%s. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Rlr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
Seymour
& Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108
%r.
Ri chard Hubb ard MHB Technical Associates
'uite K
1723 Hamil ton Avenue San
- Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P.
0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406
+Without Enclosure 3.
~
~
Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush 2
cc:
Resident Inspector/Diablo Canyon NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Covrnission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424
+Ms.
Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road
'hell Beach, California 93440 Joel
- Reynolds, Esq.
John R. Phillips, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Waul C. Valentine, Esq.
321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Mr. Byron S. Georgiov Legal Affairs Secretary Governor' Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Hill, Christopher
& Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
+Mr.- Richard E. Blanke'nburg, Co-Publisher Mr. Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter South County Publishing Company P.
0.
Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 81r.
James
- 0. Schuyler Vice President
- Nuclear Generation Department Pacific Gas
& Electric Company P.O.
Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Bruce Norton, Esq.
Suite 202 3216 North 3rd Street
- Phoenix, Arizona 85012
+Without, Enclosure g.;
i Mr.'al colm H.* Furbush 0
3 W
~Mr.
W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Oavid F. Fleischaker, Esq.
P. 0.
Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101
+ Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& Wilmer 3100 Yalley Center
- Phoenix, Arizona 85073 I,
(
S
+Without'nclosure 3.
~
NCLOSURE 1
Diablo Can on Feb.
3, 1982 tleetin Attendance List t<ame Hans Schierling Dick Vollmer Dick DeYoung Harold Denton D. Eisenhut B. Jones F. Miraglia Jesse L. Crews Philip J. Morrill Bob Bosnak Franz Schauer Goutam Bagchi Ken Her ring P. T.
Kuo J.
P. Knight J.
H. Sniezek A. Giambusso R. L. Tedesco Stephen S. Skjei A. H. Dromerick F.
C.
Cherny
'lv'alter P.
Haass J.
R. Fair E. J. Sullivan D. Fleischaker H. Brown P.
Hubbard Bob Senseney B.
D. Liaw'f fi 1 iati on NRR NRR ISE NRR NRR ELD NRR Region V
Region V
NRR/DE/tlEB NRR/DE/SEB NRR/DE/EQB NRR/DL, NRR/DE/SEB NRR/DE ISE Stone 5 llebster NRR NRR/DE/ET IGE/Eng.
E/Tech.
Supp.
ERR/DE/NEB NRR/QAB IE:HQ NRR/DE Joint Intervenors State of California i~lHS/State of California NRC/International Programs NRC/OCtl
Name.
.Affiliation W.
C. Gangloff Il. N. Tramp John I. Riesland Jane H. Bergler William A. Bourassa William G. Wendiand R. Sanacore M. J. Holley, Jr.
Dick Davin.
Frank Sestak, Jr.
Carlo Richardson, Jr.
Craig Grochmal Edward Denison Robert Cloud Roger F.;
Reedy William E.'Cooper James Rocca John B. Hoch Bruce Norton D. A. Brand Jim McCracken Roy P,.
Fray Gary H. Moore Bp rcl ay S.
Lew Ri chard 'F.
Locke Warren A.
Raymond William J.
Olmstead Westinghouse NUTECH HNC PG&E SNUPPS/Rockville, Hd.
- Hansen, Holley & Biggs, Inc.
PG&E Stone
& Webster Stone 8 Webster Stone
& Webster Robert L. Cloud Associates Robert L. Cloud Associates R.
F.
Reedy, Inc.
Teledyne Engineering Services PG&E PG&E Norton, Burke, Berry
& French, P.C.
PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E NRC/OELD
Agenda Meeting with PGEE February 3, 1982 Seismic Reverification'rogram ENCLOSURE 2 0900 - 0910 0915 - 0930 Opening Comments and Introduction -
NRC Opening Comments and Introduction -
PGEE 0930 - 1045 1045 - 1100 1100 - 1230 1230 -
1 30 1:30 -
2 15 2:15 - 3:15 3:15 -':30 3'30 - 4'30 4:30 -
5 '0 I.
Scope and Technical Aspects of Plan Items 1, 2, 3
5 5 of Jan.
28 ltr.
D.
G. Eisenhut to H. Furbush Items I.l-18 appended to Htg. Notice Agenda Break II.
Sample Criteria Item 4 of Jan.
28 ltr. D.
G. Eisenhut to H.
Furbush Items II.1-6 appended to t'itg. Notice Agenda Lunch III.
Benchmarking of Results Item III.l appended to Htg. Notice Agenda IV.
QA Audit Methods Items IV.1-4 appended to Htg. Notice, Agenda Break V.
Size and Technical Qualifications of Review Team Items Y.1-4 appended to Htg. Notice Agenda VI.
Contractual and Financial Qualifications of Review Team Items VI.1-5 appended to l/tg. Notice Agenda
ENCLOSURE 3
.Attachment Agenda
] tems l'meeting with PGhE
'anuary 19, l982 Seismic Reverification Program Scope and Technical Aspects of Plan 11.
Sample Cri.teria 111.
8enchmarking of Results IY.
gA Audit l1ethods Y.
Size and Technical qualifications of Revie~ Team YI.
Contractual and Financial qualifications of Revi ew Team
I.
'Scope.dnd Technical As sects of Pl an
~ '
Basis for selection of building(s) and structure(s) for seismic requalification 2.
3.
hodels'or piping problems, including isometric drawings based on "as built" conoitions J
Verification of input and seismic loads for piping and support analysis Verification of design specifications, design reports and design documents ~ith respect to "as built" conditions 5.
Acceptance and rejection criteria for piping and supports 6.
'7.
Supports for large components (tanks, heat exchanger,
- pumps, vessels)
Application of Reg.
Gui'de 1.100
( Seismic qualification of Electric Equipment for )nuclear Po"er Plants) to conduit and cable tray supports, and euuipm nt.
8.
9.
Adequacy of se'ismic input for equipment qualification, interpretation of vertical ground motion, effects of torsion and building response characteristics Equipment procurement and qualification process (contractual oblioations, modifications to account for Hosgri earthquake, commitments made during licensing activities) 10.
Procedure and basis for determining errors in seismic qualifications Independent development of dynamic model for auxiliary building 12.
13.
Criteria for acceptance of fundamental'ode frequency, mode shapes and selective floor response spectra Seismic reverification of buried tank ana.
outdoor ~ater storage tank 14; Independent field verification prior to requalifica-tion; consideration of 1E Bulletin 79-14 in independent field verification
~ 4 15.
Seismic service contract activities within pf og1am scope
- 16. Details for analysis..of PGEE internal interfaces 17.
Definitions for (a) significant deficiency or error and {b) insignificant de'ficiency or error 18.
Guidelines f'r determining appropriateness of design m thods considering change in "state of the art" technology 11.
Sample Criteria 1;
Criteria for selection of sample calculation and for expansion of sample size if needed 2.
Statistical basis for sample size and proceoure'n case of failure 3.
Equipment sample from safe shutdown and cooldown systems 4.
Adequacy of design process and quality assur'ance; reporting on basis of sample cases 5.
Criteria for sample checks and independent calculations 6.
Application of current evaluation techniques to independent sample calculations in analysis of structures and components, 111 'enchmarki ng of Results 1.
Benchmarking to HRC problems, of computer code for'iping analysis 1Y ~'}AAudit Nethods 1.
Reporting procedure for R. F.
Reedy to R. L. Cloud and PUKE
- 2..
Scope of gA revi ew (procurement documentation control; instructi ons, procedures and drawings; document control; auditing) 3.
Review of operational
()A program (p'ost 1978) with respect to inplementation of corrective actions 4.
Consideratio'n of applicable gA" criteria (10 CFR 50 App.. B)
Y.
Size and Technical qualifications of Peview Team 1.
Identification and qualifications of ',ndividuals performing gA review Expertise of individuals in civil-structural design and analysis 3.
Expertise in seismic analysis of structures 4.
Assignment of individuals with appropriate expertise to specific tasks YI.
Contractual and Financial qualifications of Revie~
Tears 1.
Previous i nvolvenent of. conpani es and individuals in Diablo Canyon activities now under thei r independent revi ew scope.
2.
Previous involvement of companies or indiviouals in Diablo Canyon Seismic design worl; 3.
Previous employment by PGBE of individuals now parti'cipating in independent review 4.
Ownership or control of PGEE stock'y individuals participating in independent review 5.
Employment by PGKE of relatives or members of prepent household of individuals participating in review,'nd position if appropriate.
'I
UNITED STATES LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO WASHINGTON, D. C:205SS JAa 28 882 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Yice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company P. 0.
Box 7442 San Francisco.,
California 94120 Dear lhr. Furbush i
As a'result of our ongoing inspection of the activities currently being implemented by you and your contractors in accordance with your. proposed Reverification Program Plan described in your submittal of December 4, 1981, we have determined that additional information is necessary for us to'etermine the acceptability of the program plan.
These additional concerns are de'scribed in the Enclosure and relate to.your procedures for conducting your proposed Reverificatiori Program.
The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of those concerns which we believe v",arrant your immediate attention.
We will arrange a meeting with you in the near future to discuss these
- concerns, in addition to our questions and concerns, which were provided to you in the form of meeting agenda items on January 8, 1982.
As you know the Commission Order requires the review and approval by I he VRC of the Reveri ficati on Program Pl an and of your contractors participating in the program.
Accordingly, you should understand that all work undertaken prior to such approvals 'are being done at your own risk and may be required to be revised in accordance with the
!JRC approved Reverification Progam Plan and contractors.
In addition to these concerns,,you should be, prepared to 'discuss at this meeting, procedural guidelines regarding the transmittal of information between you and your contractors that you would propose to follow to help assure the independence of the reverification efforts.
~
We will inform you in the near future of the time, date and place of the meeting to di'scuss these and other questions and concerns about your proposed Re-verification Program Plan.
I
- incerely, arrel ssenhu rec or Division o Licensirig Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page.
ENCLOSURE Staff Concerns Re Procedures for Conducting the Reverification Program l.
Notwithstanding your letter of January 8, 1982 stating that you do not require a reply from the NRC regarding your November 18, 1981 submittal of the Preliminary Report, the report did identify items requiring further follow-up and resolution by PGKE.
All of these items do not appear to be included in your Reverification program Plan.
Examples are (1) the Vesting-house application of the correct seismic response spectra (Preliminary
- Report, page 20) and (2) the adequacy of control room equipnient qualification (Preliminary Report, page 33).
Please identify all items that were included in the Preliminary Report as requiring further action, explain the actions being ta'ken including a schedule for resolution and,describe how the items are included in the Reverification Program Plan.
/
2.
The scope of your proposed Reverification Program Plan does not fully a'ddress the requirements of the Commission Order of November 19, 1981.
For example
( 1) your design review does not appear to examine PGKE internal interfaces
( Item 1.(a)(3) of the Commission Order) that rely on URS/Blum input for st'ructural element evaluation,
.and (2) the exclusion of Westinghouse and General Electric from further design review on the basis that you consider the contracts with these companies as not "seismic service-related"
( Item 1.(a) of Comnission Order) is not adequate.
Please identify how these and all other items in the Commission Order are being addressed in the proposed Reverification Progl am ~
~
/
~
~
7
- 3. It appears that your procedures and thresho1d for identifying and reporting errors and open items identified during the proposed Reverification'Program need improvement.
For. example, (1) the t(RC was not promptly'otified of the difference in the auxiliary building seismic responses (Hosgri vs URS/
Blume 1979 report) which was identified within PGKE in mid-lJovember
- 1981, and (7) a similar problem exists with the intake structure seismic responses which was not reported to the NRC-until inspectors discussed this with
, your engineering staff.
Please inform the HRC promptly of any error identified by your staff or your contractors during the course of the Reverification Program in conjunction with the biweekly progress reports.
In no case should the notification of the HRC be delayed more than two weeks past discovery, whether or not the significance of the error has been
'I evaluated.
In addition to the two items discussed in the preceeding paragraph, it appears that URS/Blu'me performed a structural analysis of the polar crane subsequent to that conducted in the Hosgri reevaluation.
This matter was noted in the Preliminary Report by Dr. Cloud.
Based on a.
preliminary review of this later Blume analysis, it appears that the Hosgri reevaluation of the polar crane may not be conservative.
These three items lead to a general coricern regarding the thoroughness of the technical review conducted by PGKE of URS/Blume'eismic inputs in the
. Hosgri reevaluation; particularly with respect to the review of the final design reports submitted to PG&E by URS/Blume to determine whether the Hosgri reevaluations should be updated or modified.
,r ~,
~ P 4.
The level of reverification, the criteria for determining additional
- sampling, and the applicable acceptance criteria are not adequately identified, described and updated.
Specific examples are as follows:
(I)
The independent reverification of the auxiliary building structure is simply a check
( hand calculations) of building masses and stiffnesses without necessarily any verification by accepted computer codes or an examination of the URS/Blume input and output data files.
(2 )
An error in the seismic model of a fan cooler discovered by R. L. Cloud was determined to be conservative
('in this case) and therefore no additional sampling appear's to be scheduled.
(3 )
The internal R. L. Cloud document "Criteria and methodology for Independent Calculations.and Criteria for Independent Evaluation", dated January 4, 1982, has not been incorporated into the Reverification Program.
Thus, your program as described in the Reverification Program Plan does not provide the bases for initial sampling, the acceptance/rejection criteria and the criteria for expansion of the initial sample.
5, Your biweekly status
- reports, including the R. L. Cloud progress
- reports, have not alvays concisely identified "all deviations and errors that were found in.the documentation,
- design, or as-built configuration of systems and structures.
The initiation of the "Error and Open Items (EOI)"
report by R. L. Cloud, included in your status report of January 8, 1982,
is expected to improVe the situation.
However, while the Cloud progress report identified differences in the floor response spectra between the Hosgri report and the URS/Blume 1979 report, this iteii was not included in the EOI report.
We therefore request that you develop a
tracking system that identifies all deviations and errors discovered by you or your contractors since the initial notification of seismic design errors in September 1981 and. during the R'everification Program.
The system should indicate when the problem was identified, on what basis it was determined to be a problem, and provide the status of resolution, including any modifications that will be or have been implemented.
The system should be updated regularly.and be incl'uded in your biweekly status reports.
BOARD ROTI F ICATION OISTRiFUTIM O'Docket:Fi-1 e-50=~75/323 LPDR ACRS (16)
PDR NSIC TERA LB-..'3 Files DEisenhut RPurple SVarga DVassallo RCI ark JStolz R.Tedesco BJYoungblood ASchwencer Fbi rag 1 i a JNiller EAdensam DCrutchfield WRussell TIppol ito RVollmer HThompson Rtlattson SHanauer BSnyder RHartfield, t<PA OELD JScin o (2)
EChristenbury (1)
HDenton
.-ECase PPAS YMi1 1 i ams HSchierling pq JLee bcc:
WJDircks VS ello HShapar
R p'
DISTRIBUTION OF BOARD NOTIFICATION (Transci pt -of Febr vary 3, 1982 meeting)
Di abl o Ca on ACRS Members Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service'ection Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Richard E. Blankenburg Mr. Gl enn 0. Bri ght
~Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Dr. John H. Buck Philip A. Crane, Jr.,
Esq.
Mr. Frederick Eissler Davi d S.
Fl ei schaker, Esq.
Mrs.
Raye Fleming Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Bryon S.
Georgiou Nark Gottlieb Nr. Richard B. Hubbard Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Dr. Jerry Kline Nr. John Marrs Thomas S.
Moore Bruce Norton, Esq.
Joel R. Reynolds, Esq.
Mr. James
- 0. Schuyler Mr. Gordon Silver Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
Harry M. Willis John.F.
Wol f, Esq.
Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Mr. Myer Bender Dr. Max W. Carbon Nr. Jesse C. Ebersole Mr. Harold Etherington Dr. William Kerr Dr. Harold W. Lewis Dr. J.
Carson Mark Mr. William M. Mathis Dr.
Dade W. Moeller Dr. David Okrent Dr. Milton S. Plesset Mr. Jeremiah J.
Ray Dr.
Paul G.
Shewmon Dr. Chester P. Siess Nr. David A. Ward
I*