ML16341F464
| ML16341F464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1989 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341F465 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912280110 | |
| Download: ML16341F464 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1989027
Text
gia
~4
se
~
f
"+,
AEGII+
~o
p ds
fs
,p
- ~4
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtSSlON
REGION V
14SO MARIALANE,SUITE 210
WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94596
1 2
1S89
Docket Nos.
50-275
and 50-323
Pac1fic
Gas
and Electric Company
77 Beale Street,
Room 1451
San Francisco,
94106
Attention:
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President
Nuclear
Power, Generation
Dear Sir ot
Madam:
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION OF DIABLO CANYON'UNITS 1
AND 2
This refers to the special
inspection
conducted
by Mr e
W. J.
Wagner, of this
office, and Mr. S.
M. Matthews
and Mr. R. L. Pettis, Jr., of the Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
on October 23-26,
and November 6-9,
1989.
This
inspection
examined your. activities
as authorized
by NRC License
Nos.
and DPR-82.
We discussed -our findings with members of your staff at the
conclusion of the inspection.
Areas
examined during this inspection
are described
in the enclosed
inspection
report.
Within these
areas
the inspection consisted
o'f s'elective
examinations
of procedures
and representative
records, interviews'ith personnel
and
observations
by the inspectors.
This inspection is
a followup of the 'inspectuion 'document'ed
in NRC inspection
report 50-275/89-22,
dated
November,;17,, 1989; Ttps 'inspection
involved a
.
review of the specific actions
imp1'emended'by lltlKE'o AdofVe'deficiencies
1denti fied during
a
PGSE investigation of recent quality assurance
program
breakdowns
which affected the procutelIleritaf-safety;related'dqurfpIIIent.
The previous inspection concluded that
PG5E management
had failed to properly
control or monitor the,perfopnance,,of
quatftg assurance
program audits of
safety-re1ated
'equipmeq).Iusujp1iekj 'au'd live 'tp'pedeVaf'Fegnuilnt1uns
As.
noted in inspection .report, number,"50-,'275'9-'22;
epnfor'chhIh'nt,'"a'etio'n in th1s.
regard will be the subject ofseparate
c rriesm'onde'nce. "nTlfe'-previous
inspection also noted that as
a i'esulk oV'thdIFGIE'i'nvestfgatfon, eighteen
safety-related
equfpmen) suyp1fers were<reaudfted
y. PGSE, determfned'to,'have
inadequate
qua Tity prvipraeais"en).'-Itegpfejkduedr
IIII.bd'di,IIddIifiddS'p,luIers
List (gSL).
The NRC,'1ns jqetforl,;report,.expNk'CddTE'0'nE'Briinn&'atWG8IE'-had '.,""'"
returned all but one,l'of,'f)ek'ep ppf f'ers "togthh-'-)SC~Hh's'e8~6ri'h".-qIII1'f tati ve
review of generic perfbirmaHce'h)'starry'data
bases
(such,asNPRDS,,lO
CFR,gl,
~
repor
s
a
tI po
Pfl-odga1I1III1 rout'n9 Edge for PG8,f.'Punch~
The primary purpose'Of th1s )nsphNfon
was t4~r'evfew the specific 'details of
the
PGSE evaluation-process,
which reinstated
these
seventeen
suppliers.":dThe
enclosed report addresses
our,evaluation of-your actibns 't'aken fn this=regard.
While this approach'may
serve
as a'su1table
short, term basis.,fo'r'continued.;","-.
plant operation, it does not constitute adequate. dedication to
.;-
.
-"'..','.'".-".','<-,,;~"",.-'>4
89'12280ii0 89i2i2
ADOCK 05000275
9
I
A
m .comers
~
'
-2-
DEc i 0
1s89
assure
that equipment
wi 11 perform under all design requirements.
In
particular, your engineering
evaluations failed to.address
the specific
deficiencies
noted in the audit reports associated
with those
vendors
and also
failed to evaluate
the impact of the deficiencies
on the hardware installed zn
the plant.
The use of performance history alone
does not constitute
an
adequate
dedication for safety-related
equipment.
Because
PG&E was
aware that the prior audits
were inadequate,
the specific
deficiencies identified during the reaudits
should
have
been
addressed
and
resolved.
Accordingly, within 30 days,
PG&E is requested
to advise the
NRC
of PG&E's actions to:
a)
Address
each of the specific deficiencies identified during the
reaudits of the seventeen
suppliers
which were reinstated
on the
(}SL
and define the basis for PG&E's decision that performance history
evaluation
has resolved the observed deficiencies.
b)
Provide
a safety evaluation addressing
the basis for continued plant
operation for installed equipment supplied
by any vendor for which
the evaluation described
in paragraph
(a) above concludes that the
vendor should not have
been reinstated
on the OSL.
c)
Define an appropriately prioritized and timely program for
reauditing all suppliers identified as having been
inadequately
audited
by PG&E.
In accordance
with '10 CFR 2.790(a),,a. copy of this letter and the enclosure
will be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
I
Should you have
any questions
concerning this inspection
we will be pleased
to
discuss
them with you.
Sincer ly; .-
.:.
I ~
~
I
r.- "-~
1
s,
wa.. )~,;r
.n~
.Cee<<KC
qSL a.<';
.-~ '.
".: " tf.Q. 8..Ãarkin
Regional Administrator
~ '
'
~'
"'7 <<Ew!!t'n(
1 ~a efl<ee"'5
7uas "
P 4<"reF'f-"
Enclosure-.7"
'"'"'
4 '.a'e". >>
c~n-';
i.
~73I'7-. '"- ::.-
Inspection
Report w'o.'i 50-275/89'97r dbd40e92Ã89'<7neo,
gkpy id'anti fied'y
rt r 7'e ~>>g q(fd'itjOppl ddsrl7'Cefipn'} "Warp'7 f.'die s~ ~r~t)
~
- '
cc w/enc]bsur'e':
"
'..'< ! ( i dc".CC '.7'.th es.ab
ished f'" c<+
. 'e
f
Pr'C.;.'.7,
b.
S.
M. Skidmore
'PG&E
.:
~ M en. t,'ed 'I<eceiok og p'Iaiycj.~;s. aK:)CtI,prgviqe:.
J. 0. Town's'e'n'dl" pGRd reqiiireaie its for at>> repfnceni'0! jprfs'kndi'dr sist~I ja)
R. F. Locke""PG&E
T lis "nc, Udes ths sdenhl(>c~ah)60
Q) ~f flcital)$ gf5llN"Ial
D. Taggar't,-PG&E ~qs'e
7t
"1'acemer t in ih~ segregated.
"o
~Z 47;ea.
f"of,n"of>ir-
T. L. Grebel,
PG&E '
. >. i; .
~~"~ es
toe
a".
". ~arts
State of California
C
<
s
I
f%%% 'l+
", 4sn~ 0 e
h
ll
5 77
bcc w/enclosure:
Project Inspector
Resident Inspector
docket file
B. Faulkenberry
J. Martin
R. Nease,
NRR-
G.
Cook
bcc w/o enclosure:
J. Zollicoffer
M. Smith
N. Western
REGIJP V/got
SMMRthe4'L ettis
12/q /89
12/7 /89
J agner
12/ y/89
-3-
DEc
1 2
1989
FRHuey
DFKir ch
12/7 /89
12/g /89
EST
C
PY
E
/
NO
P
S /
NO
PY
S
NO
YES /
NO
"
YES
NO
RZimmerman
12/ 8 /89 ~
gP~
JMar
1
9
0
DR
YES /
NO
C
PY
RE
U ST
C PYj
E
/
NO
YES /
NO
0 7m
At
t.: c~ ></4(SR
r
r
tt
Le 4- u.~cn,
1Z/~/jj "Valy .~
r
l r ~ 't
rglt
rp
AA-6~
~~~-e;
~~ g t.;a'lpga:,ion qf, S~p
l.:.eg;,~j1th
Pyot;>pmq ~r.q>,.wvB . <~,
,e.Pl~.=r~o..'
~
r
=. Cr,gjt'P
i
5oji
t-,
efi~;NBF
splay p le~eel tceete.n~tPa
~tv Teat en,
t t,
.
92,
o
t~"~'tie
.
c'>'1 j ces fo>'ocuremen~.,
......Ze
~ O3 ~16/88
e
e
I
a
r r t
I
a