ML20027C135

Responds to 820727 Request for Status Rept on Design Verification Program & Briefing on Proposed Phase II of Program.Info Discussing Background & Current Status Encl

ML20027C135
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/24/1982
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8210130056
Download: ML20027C135 (28)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. -{ hM 0 DISTRIBUTION Central Files ( HSchierling SEP 2 4 ISB?- JKerrigan TNovak DEisenhut W Di rc ks._, ') g HEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino HDenton Commissioner Gilinsky JRoe '?> Commissioner Ahearne ECase / p Commissioner Roberts RVo11mer 39 ,J L Commissioner Asselstine RMattson SHanauer FROM: William J. Dircks HThompson Executive Director for Operations ED0 r/f ED0 #12155

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM This memorandum is in response to the Commission's request (COMJA-82-6, memorandum of July 27, 1982 from S. J. Chilk to W. J. Dircks) for a status report on the Diablo Canyon design verification program and for a briefing on the proposed Phase II of the program. Over the past weeks. the technical staff and management has focused its attention on Phase II of the Diablo Canyon seismic review and has made considerable progress in resolving questions concerning Phase II and its relationship to Phase I. The Enclosure provides background and current status of the program. A number of sfgnificant developments have occurred over the past months which have impacted the overall program direction. They are summarized in Attach-l ment 9 of the Enclosure. l The staff is continuing to evaluate these developments with respect to the overall design verification program and in particular with respect to Phase II of the pt ogram. In light of these ongoing considerations, the staff will be prepared to send the Comission its views within a couple of weeks. i@emed) T. A. Rehm [WilliamJ.Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated cc: 04C OPE OPA OCA NRR 8210130056 820924 IE f ADocK 05000275 REG V~ CONCURRENCES 0N NEXT PAGE orne,y E.......... E... . D.9)........ !!.6..d.... ,...h.... Ep.o.... ........c .HSchier '.Ng..: dn JXe r T ...D..E.i s.....u..t..... .E..C.a.s ..H......i.t.o..n....... W..D..i..r..c..k..s......... sunse S ..L............. ... 4.. 3../Eg......... .....g. ....g............ 9 9/ 1 82 9../...... 82 9..... S.. 2........... 9../.. / 8 2.......e our> unc ronu sie pow sncu ore OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usano:mm.

&NCLOSURE DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM t BACKGROUND AND STATUS

Background:

On November 19, 1981, the Commission issued an Order (CLI 81-30) that suspended the license for fuel loading and low power test operation (LP license) of Diablo Canyon Unit 1. The basis for the Commission's i Order and the requirements of the Order are s0mmarized in Attachment 1. The activities contained therein have become known as Phase I of the Diablo Canyon Independant Design Verification Program (IDVP). On the same date, the staff issued a letter to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) that set forth requirements that must be completed prior to the staff recommending operation at a power level above 5%. The items required are also sanmarized in Attachment 1. Those activities have become known as Pnase II. i Both the Phase 1 Order and the Phase II letter acknowledged that results from these efforts may necessitate the expansion of either or both efforts. In itarch 1982, the NRC approved the PG&E's independent contractor (Teledyne Engineering Services (TES)) for the Phase 1 IDVP and in April 1982, the Phase I Program Plan was approved. Since that time work has progressed on the Phase I activities. The staff has provided the Commission with copies of all relevant infor-mation in the form of Board Notifications, a listing of which is provided as Attachment 2. Phase I Status: Teledyne has.been IDVP manager since March 25, 1982 and has retained, as sub-contractors, R. L. Cloud Associates (seismic design) and R. F. Reedy, Inc. (QA). A large amount of information is being submitted for staff review consisting of semi-monthly reports, program plans and other documents. The staff has discussed with Teledyne that the information provided in these reports is not sufficient to allow an evaluation of the issues and in some instances, a clear understanding of the issues.- 1/ 2/ As a result of these discussions and for other reasons Teledyne decided to issue Interim Technical Reports (ITRs) which represent a complet d portion of work of the IDVP. 3/ To date, we have received six ITRs. A summary of these is providecf in Attachment 3. 1/ Memorandum to F. Miraglia from H. Schierling dated June 9,1982 (forwarded by BN No. 82-61) ~ 2f Transcript of June 10, 1982 Meeting, at page 16 (forwarded by BN No. 82-61) 3] Transcript of June 10, 1982 Heeting, pages 35 thru 55 (forwarded by BN No. 82-61) 4

' l l In the Teledyne Semi-Monthly Status Reports, a number of errors and open ~ i lists the definitions of errors items have been identified. To date, the IDVP has identified 11 errors for which, as used by the IDVP. [ in the opinion of the IDVP, design criteria or operating limits of safety-related equipment are exceeded and physical modifications, changes in i operating procedures, more realistic calculations or retesting are required. In addition, 33 open items These 11 errors are listed in Attachment 5. i have been identified by PG&E in its Internal Technical Program which has A list been conducted since October 1981 and is separate from the IDVP. 15, 1982 of these open items were provided by PG&E by letter dated September and are contained in Attachment 6. PG&E has initiated plant modifications based or. its Technical Program. NRC Independent Analysis: In October 1981, the NRC staff requested Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) to perform an independent analysis of the containment annulus structure of The BHL study is a detailed analysis of certain Diablo Canyon Unit 1. aspects of the seismic response of the containment annulus steel structure The staff's and a sample of attached piping at Diablo Canyon Unit 1. initial review of the BNL report indicates that there are several areas that require further exploration and assessment as to their generic implica-The BNL report along with the staff initial conclusions were forwarded tions. In our forwarding letter, we requested that Teledyne to Teledyne (BN-82-67). consider the Brookhaven report as an input in their decision making process for Phase I of the IDVP. We requested Teledyne to inform us of the manner On July 27, 1982, in which the BNL report would be considered in the program. a meeting was held at BNL at which Teledyne obtained additional information. and clarification regarding the BHL report. Role of Bechtel: On March 22, 1982, PG&E announced that it had contracted with Bechtel Power Corporation to act as project completion manager for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. In a meeting on April 30, 1982, PG&E and Bechtel described the newly formed Diablo Canyon Project Organization. Attachment 7 provides an organi-zation based on information provided at the meeting. The objective of the organization is to fulfill all requirements for reinstating the low power license for Unit 1 and for meeting all full power lic nse requirements for e A team of senior PG&E and Bechtel managers is dedicated full both units. time to the project with a Bechtel manager responsible for the overall Bechtel professional staff augments the PG&E staff to form a direction. single, totally integrated PG&E organization for the Diablo Canyon Project. In meetings in early September, the PGE/Bechtel Project. Team indicated that over 500 technical professionals were now working on the ITP. On June 18, 1982, PG&E submitted a revised Quality Assurance Program for the Diablo Canyon Project.that describes the manner in which the integrated l l project team of PG&E and Bechtel would fulfill the Quality Assurance functions. The staff reviewed and approved the program on August 2,1982, contingent l upon additional information to be included which was provided in a submittal dated August 13, 1982. s m. ~.- s

'o Phase II. Status: On June 18, 1982, PG&E submitted their Phase II Program Plan, along with proposed contractors, to the NRC for approval. Since that time the staff has had a number of discussions and meetings with PG&E, Teledyne, and representatives of Governor Brown's Office and the Joint Intervenors. All comments have been sent to the parties to the Diablo Canyon proceeding. .We have summarized the major comments from the Intervenor's and Governor . Brown's Office in Attachment 8. The basis foF a number of the comments is the results to date from the Phase I program. During the course'of the staff's review of Phase I results, the staff similarily concluded that the Phase l' findings and other recent developments may influence the staff's recommendations with regard to the Phase.II Program Plan. Work on the Phase II effort is well underway and'in meetings in early September, the IDVP Contractors stated that the total IDVP program was expending over 70 man-months / month - with roughly half on Phase I and half on Phase II. The first set of findings from the Phase II program was recently received by the staff. The major developments being considered by the staff as having potential impact on modifying the Phase II Program Plan are discussed in Attachment 9. The staff recommendation with regard to the Phase II Program is expected to be finalized in the near future at which time it will be presented b~' to the Commission. Attachments: 1. NRC November 19, 1981 Requirements 2. List of Board Hotifications 3. Summary of Interim Technical Report Received to Date 4. IDVP Definitions 5. Diablo Canyon IDVP - List of Errors 6.- Status and Resolution of ITP Open Items 7. Diablo Canyon Project Organization 8. Summary of Principal Comments on Proposed IDVP Phase II from the Governor of the State of California and Joint Intervenors 9. Recent Developments and Considerations Regarding the Scope of Phase I , and Phase II of the Diablo Canyon Design Verification Program l g e , -....,... _... +..,. -,-, a

ATTACHMENT 1 NRC NOVEMBER 19, 1981 REQUIREMENTS PHASE I t COMMISSION ORDER (CLI-81-30) Suspended fuel loading and low power testing license, o o' Required: 1. The results of an Independent Design Verification -Program (IDVP) for all seismic service-related (SSR) contracts prior to 6/78. For (1) required: A technical report of the basic cause of the errors, their a. significance, and their impact on facility design, PGE's conclusion on effectiveness of IDVP, and b. A schedule for modifications; including a basis for any deferred c. beyond a fuel load decision. PHASE II STAFF LETTER Activities required prior to a decision regarding power levels above 5% o 2. IDVP for non-seismic service-related contracts (NSSR) prior to 6/78. 3. IDVP for PGE internal QA, and 4. IDVP for all service related contracts post 1/78, For 2, 3, and 4 required: A technical report of the basic cause of the errors, their a. significance, and their impact on facility design, b. PGE's conclusion on effectiveness of IDVP, and-A schedule for modifications; including a basis for any deferred c. beyond fuel load decision. ..........................................L........................................ NOTE: (i) Both Phase I and Phase II activities must be performed by a qualified, independent organization. 'lii) Both Phase I and Phase IT required that a Program Plan be submitted for our review and a'pproval, and (iii) Both Phase I and Phase II were necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, activities for the appropriate approvals. e a

O ATTACHMENT 2 Diablo Can~ yon Design Verification List of Board Notifications f 81.-27 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 29-81 h Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 (PG&E letter, l PG8E Press Release and Preliminary Notification PNO-V-81-50) 81-28 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 09-30-81 Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 (PG&E letter) 81-29 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 10-16-81 Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Transcript) 81-33 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 10-23-81 Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Meeting Summary) 81-35 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 11-02-81 Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 (PG&E letter, Preliminary Notification PNO-V-81-59) 81-36 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 11-04-81 i., Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 (Preliminary Notification PNO-V-81-54, two PG&E letters) 81-37 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 11-04-81~ Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 (Transcript) 81-38 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Certain 11-05-81 Piping Systems at Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 (Draft Report) l 81-47 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Equipment 12-11-81 l and Components in the Containment Annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (five mark-up drafts) 81-54 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Equipment 12-17-81 and Components in the Containment Annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Initiation of Investigation) 82-05 Potential Deficiency in the Se ~ aic Analysis of Equipment 01-21-82 and Components in the Containm:.t Annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Preliminary Notification PNO-V-82-03) O e e _m

?' 82-06 PG8E Submittal of Design Verification Program - Phase II 01-27-82 L for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 l 82-11 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Equipment 02-08-82 l and Components in the Containment Annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Trip Report) l l. 82-14 Potential Deficiency in the Seismic Analysis of Equipment 02-19-82 ~ and Components in the Containment Annulus of Diablo l Canyon Unit 1 (Meeting Summary w/ enclosures) 82-16 Infomation from R. L. Cloud Assoc. on Design Verification 02-23-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 82-19 Transcript of Meeting with Representatives of Governor of 03-02-82 California and Joint Intervenors 82-23 Trip Report (02/22-02/26) Regarding Seismic Design Verifi-03-10-82 cation 82-24 Submittal by Teledyne Engineering Services (03-08-82) 03-15-82 Regarding the Seismic Verification Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 ( f' 82-25 Submittals from R. L. Cloud Assoc. Regarding the Seismic 03-15-82 Verification Program - Phase I for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 82-26 Submittals by R. F. Reedy Regarding the Seismic Verifica 03-15-82 tion Program - Phase I for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 82-29 Submittals by R. F. Reedy (03-01-82) and R. L. Cloud 03-24-82 (03-15-82) Regarding the Design Verification Program Phase I for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 82-33 Information Items Regarding the Seismic Verification 04-02-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (H. R. Denton letter, R. L. Cloud letter) ~82-34 Information Item Regarding the Seismic Verification 04-02-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (03-25-82 Transcript) 82-36 Information Item Regarding the Seismic Verification 04-12-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (04-01-82 Transcript) 1 I e L..

3-82-42 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 04-26-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Semi-monthly status report 11 from Teledyne, Cloud and Reedy) 82-44 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 04-30-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Semi-monthly status report 12 from Teledyne, Cloud and Reedy) 82-51 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 05-24-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Semi-monthly status report 13 from Teledyne, Cloud and Reedy) 82-53 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 06-02-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Meeting Summary) 82-57 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 06-09-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Semi-monthly status report 14 from Teledyne, Cloud, Reedy and Teledyne letter of 05-28-82) 82-60 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 06-18-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Semi-monthly status report 15 from Teledyne, Cloud and Reedy) 82-61 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 06-18-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Interim Technical Report 1, Transcript, Trip Report) 82-62 Allegations Concerning the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 06-29-82 Plant 82-66 Inf6rmation Items Regarding the Design Verification 07-01-82 i Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (IDVP Phase II Plan, l PG&E QA Program) l l 82-67 Brookhaven Report on Its Incependent Evaluation of Diablo 07-01-82 i Canyon Design Verification 82-68 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 07-01-82 Program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Interim Technical Report 2) s

4 4' - 82-69 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification 07-02-82 Program Phase I for Diablo Canyon Unit 1. (Semi-monthly status 16 by Teledyne and Cloud). 82-76 Information Items Regarding'the Design Verification 07-22-82 Program Phase I for Diablo Canyon Unit 1. (Semi-monthly i status report 16 by Reedy, report 17 by Teledyne, Cloud l and Reedy; IDVP Phase I Rev.1 by Teledyne and Interim Technical Report 2 on QA). 08-02-82 Information Items Regarding(the Design Verif' ation Program 82-80 for Diablo Canyon Unit 1. Interim TechnicC. Report 3 on Tanks) 08-12-82 82-85 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification Program Phase I for Diablo Canyon Unit 1. (NRC Trip Report, Teledyne Semi-Fbnthly Report 18, Interim Technical Report 4 on Shake Table Testing, and Meeting Transcript). 82-89 Information Item Regarding the Design Verification 08-25-82 Program - Phase I for Diablo Canyon Unit 1. (Transcript of NRC meeting with PG&E and Teledyne, August 6,1982) U.~ 82-91 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification Program 09-03-82 Phase I and Phase II for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (4 semi-Monthly Reports and Interim Technical Report 5 - Design Chain) 82-95 Information Items Regarding the Design Verification ~ 09-14-82 Program Phase I and Phase II for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 (Teledyne Semi-Monthly Report 20 and Transcript of NRC Meeting on September 1,1982) 82-97 Information Itens; R.egarding ' thel Design :Vertf tcation ' 09-17-82 Program Phase I:and Phase II for Diab.lo Canyon Unit.1 Interim Technical Report' g on Septem5er'9.,1982 and-(Transcript of NRC meeti'n6 - Auxiliary Buildi. ngl 82-R.F. Reedy Inc.' Phast 1.1-QA' Audits'- Dtgblo Canyon in process Independent Des.ign Verific'ation Progra.m 82-Information Items R.egarding tha' Des:ign Verification. in process Program Phase I~ and Phase I.I for Dia.b.lo Canyon Unit.1 (Semi-Monthly Reports.from Teledyne/R CU Cloud AsAcc., R.F. Reedy..Inc. ' and Stone & Webster' Corp.; Teledyne Revisions to IDVP procedurest-Interim Technical R,eport. 7 - Electrical Raceway Supports)- 4 9 e --,rw.-- ---w-. 1

[

i ATTACHMENT 3 j

l

SUMMARY

OF INTERIM ll l' TECHNICAL REPORTS RECEIVED TO DATE ~1. Additional Verification and Sampling (June 9) 2) s f This first ITR discussed work conducted by R. L. Cloud Associates, as reviewed and approved by Teledyne, and recommended additional verifica- 'Eih tion and/or sampling in a number of areas including: [y Response spectra for as-built safety-related buildings j Piping (large and small bore) l Piping supports Electrical equipment Seismic qualification of equipment qualified by test Conduit supports Verification of applicability of all Hosgri spectra 1 2. QA Audits Pre-1978 (June 24) This second ITR discussed Teledyne's review and evaluation of R. F. Reedy's QA audits of pre-1978 seismic-related service contracts. Teledyne accepted and approved R. F. Reedy's work and concluded that the additional sampling and verification beyond that recommended in the first ITR is not warranted. 3. Tanks (July 16) This third ITR summarized the independent analysis and verification of the initial sample of tanks. Teledyne concluded that no additional sampling or verification of additional tank designs is needed. 4. Shake Table Testing (July 23) This fourth ITR summarized the independent review of the seismic shake table testing of the Class IE electrical equipment and instrumentation. As a result of the review, the IDVP made several reccanendations which will require implementation prior to development of conclusions on the adequacy of all shake table testing.

5. - Design Chain ( August 19)

This fifth ITR presented Phase I Design Chains, the purpose of which are to show internal and external. PG&E interfaces, describe information passing ~ between interfaces, and list the responsibilities of the PG&E and contractor design groups. 6. Auxiliary Building (September 10) This sixth ITR summarized the independent review of the auxiliary building, which was chosen as the initial structure sample. The review resulted in a number of open items which were combined with two error reports. O O ^' .n.,,--. . - - ~ +. - -. ...,----.,v-

f l l ATTACHMENT 4 IDVP Definitions 1. An Open Item is a concern that has not been verified, fully under-stood and its significance assessed. The forms of program resolution of an Open Item are recategorization as an Error, as a Deviation, or as a Closed Item. 2. An Error is a form of program resolution of an Open Item indicating an incorrect result that has been verified as such. It may be due to mathematical mistake, use of wrong analytical method, omission of data, or use of inapplicable data, Each Error shall be classified as one of the following: Class A - An Error is considered Class A if des.ign criteria or, operating limits of safety related equipment are exceeded f as a result, andphysical modifications or changes in operating procedures are required. Any PG&E corrective action is subject } to verification by the IDVP. Class B - An Err'or is considered Class B if design criteria or operating limits of safety related equipment are exceeded. but are resolvable by means of more realistic calculations or (J retesting. Any PG&E corrective action is subject to verifica-tion by the IDVP. Class C - An Error is considered Class C if incorrect engineer-ing or installation of safety related equipment is found, but no design criteria or operating limits are exceeded. No physical modifications are required, but if any are applied. they are subject to verification by the IDVP. j Class D - An Error is considered Class D if safety-related equipment is not affected. No physical modifications are re-quired, but if any are applied they are subject to verifica-tion by the IDVP. 3. A Deviation is a form of program resolution of an Open Item indicating a departure.from standard procedure which is not a ~ mistake in analysis, design or construction. No physical modifica-tions are required, but if any are applied they are subject to verification by the IDVP.. A Closed -Item is a form of program resolution of an Open Item which 4. indicates that the reported aspect is neither an Error nor a Devia-tion. No further IDVP action is required. 4

I', ATTACHMENT 5 ~l t y I; DIABLO CANYON IDVP - LIST OF ERRORS E07 INITIAL FILE NO. DATE DESCRIPTION OF ERROR 932 01-04-82 Incorrect analysis of support (S85-23R) of containment spray system piping 949 01-20-82 Use of incorrect stiffness in ana'/ sis of main annunicator cabinet 963 01-29-82 Analysis of support S85-23R of containment spray system piping did not consider 1/4" l gap in both directions of restraint j l 983 02-08-82 Use of incorrect spectra in analysis of raceway supports (9 of 20) 1002 02-08-82 Use of incorrect spectra in analysis of HVAC I supply fans (S67, S68, and S 69) 1013 02-09-82 Response spectra for shake test of electrical equipment did not envelope Hosgri response spectra 1026 02-20-82 Us'e of Hosgrt sepctfa-for sup7 ort.of~. ~ Class I electrical equipment in turbine building 1069 03-15-82 Auxiliary feedwater pipe overstress due to { unsupported valves (LCV 113 and LCV 115) l 1092 06-11-82 Discrepancy among PG&E drawings and field conditions of fuel handling building requiring seismic reanalysis and phys'ical modifications 1097 07-09-82 Auxiliary building seismic reevaluation 1096 07-09-82 Calculated stress of ventilation fan is above allowable t I

"l ATTACllMENT 6 \\ l l l e I TABLE le STATUS AND RESOLUTION OF INTERNAL TECNNICAL PROCRAM OPEN TTf7f5 REITREleCE TO hm MM ERROR CLASS {g} ANALYSlf IODIFICATIONS UWICLUSIVE STATEMENT ITP PNASE I ITDINo. DESCRIPTION or aNoCERN DESCRIPTICW OF RESOLUTION OF REs0LUTION FINAL REPORT PElt IDVP UMPl.ETE COMPLETE OPEII SECTION 2.2.1 A 1004 (2) 1 DODELING OF ALL ANNULUS ARIA THE INIfl AL G)MCERM ADDRESS'.E 2.2.1.3.3.2(2) VALVES WAS REVIEWED. SIE INAPPROPRIATE MODELING OF 2.2.2 VALVES WERE FOUND TO BE MDDELED VALVE ECCENTRIC MASSES AT THE 2.2.2.3.1.2 PIPE CENTER LINE AND ALL IMODRRECTLT. ANALTSES WERE REVIEWED TO IDCATE MnDELING ERRORS OF TNis TYPE. THE MODELS NAVE BEEN CORRECTED AND ANALYSES RERUN. THE INTERNAL TECMMICAL PROGRAM INCLUDES REVIEW AND REANALYSIS, AS NTCESSART, IVR FINER VALVE MODELING ISSUES SUCH AS EXTENDED STRUCTURE STIFF 18ESS, VALVE WEICNTS AND IACAT10N OF THE EXTENDED MASS CENTER OF CRAVITY. ALL PIrtNG ANALTSES WERE REANALYSES IS SECTION 2.1.2 A 100% 100% 2 THE DIC1712AT10H OF THE EAST-WEST TRANSIAfl0NAL IIDSCRI REVIEWED 10 (DENTIFT onMPIETE, AND SPECTRA POR THE 160' ELEVATION AFfTCTED FIPINC. ONE SUPPORT REDESIGN ANALYSIS WAS TOUND TO NELD AND QUALIFICATION IN THE AUXILIARY SUIIDING MAS DEEN FOUND 10 ODNTAIN AN ERROR. REANALYSIS. 13315 PIPING ARE COMPLETE. ANALYSIS WAS RERtm. SECTION 2.4 A OR B 50% 0% 3 THE PETN00 USED TO cal 4UIATE A Rt. VIEW OF ALL SAFETT-CIASS RACEWAT SUPPORTS IS REING RACEWAY WElQtTS RESULTED IN AN UNDERESTIMATION OF THE CONDUCTED. TME SUPPORTS WEICHIS OF SUPE CUNDUITS. EITIfER WILL RE IJUALIFIED RT ANALTSIS OR WILL RE MDDIFIED. e Rev 1 09/15/82 T1745J-Dl3 ~ .~:_z-.

e ,I i I n t$ $h k O $e, 3 I l v$c E R I 3'N g 1 5 3 3 t 7-hk 5 l2 i = g m J 8E i i3,- uw2 ~ o E88 5 Bii WEa u!. E. E.id E h. .s. g n$g=,= a Wts' W gME5k.-E EE "2 -o JS ". E -l N WEc 'g l' a ~. R E. i g h j e. n c n-.s 3 e fai=re=G s 5 ~ E E aS dE* -!

• s u En g

-8v'x. g reaE;E 8- '8 casWE k g5 d"Aa 3ld. EByW,E M -U 'E 25 M yNg,,2 r e- ,D 2b 8 "8 df:s"gg#<El g,c.e9mE-B gn 58 5 g -3 segeg e - e e. 4 <<8.w.EEE e da 2 a e a 5 dB Eg gg g-g gevue a[bl l"IEss 8 - - u,-. 1E. h da ut EI: a. -R *Eng3 5.8g s n-hk h! I 5 E' E lg

W 6 O 5 e5 gI g s e 1.= sa. ~ g y -O 5 0 S I = ,i . N. 4 E-l di 1 ~~ 97 ana gu 8 5a" E7 aa gg g7"*7 g j

g. "" *.

~ S.a n t M. E a.. .RES E onC h hNh 8 E ri E "e = r- [e=l m s a .Efa h U E ~ E = a sa3.;g=ge;. a,3,sg.naenelgagse g= s e j s s. s g,= = x es y; E E ,8... e g te ,M:s N asm n3Ig.- =.geg zw w t ge a x..ng; s5-s-3ssgeo.gr,- in-s, a 33 3 gos .gutgerl"3.,svy g-t sa y Xc a as ng. n gm. a e a;=t- -e. r s d EIEE an!. = e W W 3e ~ " e UI E

Da a e.e.3.e EE.gus,.erM o.

-d.sssm.et.al es 8"lU s e e ,,, e t-e 3 : 4 -r e-. z.. s b $3 5 g Bu .51 z es g

• li E"Eg lel

,El i a a a ?a

Eel, E

d8a Run. 8 i g9s 9, . a =. =. 6IEE E95a a :e rust i g k j h i i I 1

D f M* E 15 l$3 s 5 . ral a v l E l E1 = e S U ~ ri ag et W e-1 e l s l;r.< 4$ 2 4"a a

• E 44 da 4J*

Ew fla 84.44

sii,

" 5 ww 1n 51 e E 5 g,x E wa 5 t. -y W C, g W 5 g g2 dat E:!g 9=. er. v$5#5.g ngg .e g s ed <!EsE 8:a *ih eIg.E 5 Ee sr N,

c. um-

@ =r g y, v e=la su s= w w ru -m =I<g I E. rg eE: levEd8llge3 8 85. g55"E l!sia!g...=in ,s m!B 1 siti!st= Erit sis .v_e-s lalsE,E_nEg t 8: 1e EE l[gg -E!!vani"l 3 c .Ea n a g 6 h Nt e8E r = W eEj 2l'l'S33"! s hk ! geg <rg. g EEs'k E 55 ~ 851s.!Xi! 9 Es e 8 Ea li Eini! s =a } 3 i a e g lg 1 O t e

C l l. i-l \\ ~ TABl2 1 (IXMIT'D) PERCENT PEaCENT RErERENCE 10 g3 CONCLUStVE STATEMENT ITF RNASE I ERROR class ANALYSIS NoDirl ONSg3) IToe MD. DESCRlrfl0N or cDNCERN DEsCRlrfica or REsnLurloN or RESotvTion rlNAL REroRT Pta IDVP caerLETE COMPLETE ortN 10 SEVEN FIP!lIG ANALYSES WERE

• THE SEVEN ANALYSES Will BE THE SEVEN FIPINC SECTlop 2.2.1 A

(2) (2) RERIAI USING APPROPRIATE ANALYSES IIAVE SEEN 2.2.1.3.2.2 IDENTIFIES FOR WNICH THE SPECTRA SETS USED WERE NOT SPECTRA SETS AND All REMAIN-RERING. 2.2.2 8 2.2.2.3.2.1 ENVEIAPED SY THE APPRcPRIATE INC Ftrl100 ANALYSES Will BC 2.2.2.3.3 REVIEWED TO ASSURE USE OF All REVISE 3 REORIENITD SPECTRA. APPROPRIATE SPECTRA. WHERE REqutRED, ANALYSES Will SE RERUN. MODIFICATlote Will SE PERF0lDIED AS REQUIRED. } THE PIANT VENT DESice WAS A DYNAMIC ANALYS15 0F NOME 5 10D% N/A 11 DTlWWitC PROPERTIES USED IN TNE REVIEWED. AN APPROPRIATE THE plant WENT MAS DEEN SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF THE PLANT EINAUST VENT Will RE M0prL WAS DEVEIDPED, A COMPLETED. TifE VENT DYNAMIC ANALYSIS WAS AND ITS SUPPORTS NAVE PEVIEWED. MEN KTERMINED TO PERFDIIMED.. E ET CRITERIA. A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE PIPileC ANALYSES WERE SECT 10ll 2.1.1 5 100% N/A 1 12 SC E MASSES W RE REPRESENTED IDUND TO BE IINAFfECTED IIIGNutECTLT IN THE FollMULAfl0N VERTICAL DYNAMIC NODEL HAS BEEN MADE 10 DETERMINE ST THE SPECTRA CNAIICES, OF TE VERTICAL DTNAMIC MODEL OF THE 030ffAINDENT INTERinit .THE SICNIFICANCE FDR THE QUALIFYINC SPECTRA ARE CONTAINMENT INTEltIUR FOUND to ENVEIAPE THE STRUCTUltE. STRtCTUltE. REVISED F1 DOR NEW SPECTRA. RESPOIESE SPECTRA MAVE BEEft CENERATED Folt THREE FRAMEst o FRAME 2 AND 3 AT EIEVATitifI 103, AND FRAff. 5 AT ElEVA-TIfMI 160 0F Tite NDDEL. ALL EqtstPMENT Will SE REFIEWED FOR 1NE EFFECT OF Tl8ESE SPECTRA CnAssCES AND WNERE ItEgillRF.D, REANALYSIS Will SE PERFORMED. an I o*/ts/s2 723653-D15 a

e p s e 4 - TABLE 1 (CONT'D) PERCDfr PERCENT MFERENCE 10 CONCLUSIVE STAfDWrt ITF PNASE I ERROR CLASS ANALYSl$ IRIDIFICAYl0NS OF RESot.tfFION FINAL REPORT PER IDVP COMPIKTE COMPT 2TE OPDB , DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION BESCRIPTION OF CDNCElus ITDI ND, SECT 10sf 2.2.1 A (2) (2) 13 BIZA NAS IDDftlFIED INDEREOUS AUDITS, DRAWINC REVIS10NS 4 2.2.1.3.2.1 DISCREPANCIES SE1WEDI THE AMD, AS NECESSART, PLANT 2.2.2 AS-BUILT PlPIIIC O)NFIGURATIONS MODIFICAft0NS Will RC PER= 2.2.2.3.2.1 MD THE P! PING 150DETRIC DRAWINCS. FORPED. FIELD AS-SUILT 2.2.2.3.3 CIECKS Will SE CONDUCTED TO VERIFT DESIGN INfDRMATION. 14 A DEFICIDICT IN TIE SMALL BORE THE IIISTRUCTlost WAS SMati 30RE FIPING SECTION 2.2.2 C 10D4 is/A SEISMIC ANOIOR MovDENT DESIGN CORRECTED. SMAll 30RE ATTACHED 10 DYNAMI-CRITERIA DOCISENT WAS POUND P!PIl0C WAS REVIEWED AND CALLY AftALT2ED LARCE REAMALTZED USIIIG C0futECT BORE PIPING MAS BEEN DUltlNG REVIEW AND REquALIFICATION REVIEWED AND ANALYZED. OF SMALL BORE PIPING FOR ATTACMED PROJECTED SPAN LDICTMS. NO MDDIFICATIoleS WERE IARGE BORE FIPIIIC REVISED DIS-FOUND 10 SE REQUIRED. PIACDElffS. TME INSTRUCT 1001 FOR PROJECTIOII 0F SEDIED LiesES INTO EFTECTIVE I21sGTNS FOR THE APPRO-PRIATT. PLAfuES REstR.TED IN CREATER SPAN 1211CTNS TMAft TIE TRUE PRO-JECTED LEIICDt. SECTION 2.2.4 A OR 5 10% (2) THE STANDARD SUPPORT DETAILS 15 DOClperTAftop 0F THE QUALIFICA-2.2.4.3.1.1 Witi SE QUALIFIED AND TIONS OF CERTAIN SMAll enRE MnDIFICAffoses PERF010ED, Pirlisc SUPPORT STANDARD DETAILS IF REQUIRED. TifE EFFECTS OF FUR BIDIRECTIONAL LOADiffC SPECTRA REVISIONS AND INSULA-CAlueet SE IDCATED. TION WEf 0lff Witt BE IIICLUDED IN THE REVIEW. SECTION 2.2.4 A OR 5 (2) (2) THE Fil2 u HORIZOffTAL Afl0 16 THE EXISTIIIC Fitz u HOSCRI 2.2.4.3.1.1 VERTICAL SEISMIC CDEFFICIDirS HDal20NTAL SEISMIC CDEFFICIDif F.7.4.3.2.2 ARE REIMf! VERIFIED FDR 0000-FOR THE AUXILIARY SUILDING AT EI2VATION 163' IS 5. IT SainULD SISTDsCT WITN CURRENT SPECTRA. CMAseCES Will pE SC 4.5. REVIEWED FOR EFFECT 000 DESI018 AND MODIFIFATIONS PF.RFURMED, IF REqu! RED. Se,I

• 6 OVlis/82 72745J-D15

. ~,. m

e e TABLE 1 (CONT'D) REFERENCE 10 g' PERCENT PEllCENT CDMCLUSIVE STATEMENT ITP PHASE I ERROR CIASS ANAL.TSIS HDDITICAfl0NS g _0wtEIT 0 ITEM ND. DESC9tPT10il 0F GNICERN DESCRIPT10N OF RESOLUTInit OF RESOLirTION FINAL REPoltf PER IDVP COMF12TE OFDI SECTION 2.2.1 A OR S (1) (2) 17 SEISMIC ANOe0R MOVEN.NT (SAMI ALL LARGE BORE FIPINC 2.2.1.3.1.1 EFFECTS WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN WILI, DE ANALTZED ST DAfUTER PIPilIC AllALYSES FOR lARM DORE AND TIIE EFFECT OF SAM WILL SE PC&E IIESIGN CLASS I LINES TMAT CONSIDERED. WERE INSTALLID DT SPAN CRITERIA AND ATTACHED TO IINTUTER ANALYZED LINES. SECTION 2.2.1 A OR 5 85% 04 IS CLASS 1 EQUIPMNr FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSES FOR CLASS I 2.2.1.2.2.2 AURILIARY SALTWATER SYSTDI EQUIPMENT AW PIPINC 2.3 IN THE INTARE STRUCTURE WERE FOR THE AUK;LIART SAL 1WATTR l 2.4 quALIFIID TO TE leOSCRI CROUND SYSTEM ARE SEINC 9EVIEWED 2.5 RESFUsI5E SPECTRA INSTEAD OF THE TO ASSURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT FIAUR RESPONSE SPECTRA. SEISMIC QUALIFICATION 15 MAINTAlpED. SECTION 10 BE A OR S 50% 04 19 THE IIR" 00NSIDERS TMAT THE 3D Tite PotAR CRANE IS BEING ADDED IATTA ANALYSIS OF THE CONTAllegENT REANALTZED 10 ASSURE THAT POLAR CRAME $ NOWS THAT litt DESICN 00MPLIES WITM SEISMIC RESULT 5 0F THE 2D IION-LiisEAR CRITEAIA. YllE 3D ANALYSIS AffLT515 IleCLUDED IN THE 1515 0 1 BEING PERFollMED MAS IDENTI-REFORT ARE VIICONSERVATIVE. FIED SOME AREAS TilAT MAY RFQUIRE STA alCTHEMlleC. SECTION To at A on 5 5% 04 20 THE SEISMIC AllALYSIS OF THE THE DOME SERVICE CIANE WILL AtoFD lATER G1NTAINENT DOE SERVICE CRAfsE RE REAMALYZED. SINCE INPUT UTILIZED SO N RESULTS OF THE FRfM TIIE FotAR CRANE IS 3D fe0NLINEAR POLAR CRANE IIEEDED FOR THESE ANALYSES, AleALYSIS. THESE ANALYSES NAVE filESE ANALYSES WIf,L SC Mf7F TET BEEN SUOMITTED FOR MRC 01MrLETED WMFJe THE PotAR CRANE ANAL.TSIS IS CDMPLETE. REVIEW. Re' 1 e

• 7*

09/15/82 T2765J-Dl5

h TAstz 1 (EONT'D) PERCENT PERCENT REFEREIECE 10 ) CDMCLUSIVE STATDENT ITP PMASE I ERROR CIASS APALTS18 ICDIFICATIONS OP RESouTTION FINAL V PrNrf PER IDvP CIDePIETE CXNFLETE OPEN DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION DESCRIPTION OP IDNCERN ITDsWD. CAICulAfl0MS MAIE ST EDS FOR 14" FIDOR stESPONSE SPECTRA AT RESULTS OF THE REANALT-SECTION 2.5.3 A OR S 95% m/A ELEVATION 16)' IN THE $15 THUS FAR INDICATE 21 NVAC DUCT SUPPORT IDADINGS U$tu INCORRECT SEISMIC RESPONSE TURSINE SUllAINC MAVE DEEN THAT qtlALIFICAT10NS 8 SPECTRA IN SOPE CASES. TNIS MAY DEVEIAPED BT PC&E. THE OF THE HVAC DUCT WilJ. NVAC DUCT AND ITS SUPkVRTS BE MAINTAINED AND NO MATE RESULTED BECAUSE THE SPECTRA MODIFICATIONS ARE PROVIDED ST PCM ISHOWN IN APPENDIE RAVE SEEN REAMAR.TZED FOR A 0F TIE EDS CALCURATION FIII) THESE APPROPRIATE SPECTRA. NECT.TSART. THE TURalNE BUILDING MAS INADVER2tWTLY ptITTED DESIGNATING SEEN QECRED FOR TIE NEW THE El2?ATION 16)* SPECTRA AS PERTAINIleC 10 TME AUXILI ART SUILD-SUPPORT IAADS RESULTileC ING ONLT. APPARENTLY, EDS PER* FRCet THE REANALTZED NVAC SONNEL AS$tfED THAT THOSE SPECTRA DUCT SUPPORTS. 00UID BE USED FOR SEISHIC IDADileC AT ELEVAtl0N 16)' IN 11tE TURBIPE SultalMC. SECTION 2.2.1 A (2) (2) REVIEW OF lite PRESSURIZER 2.2.1.3.3.2(4) 22 Tut REACIOR CDOLANT SYST121 PRES $ Ult!!ER SUrr0RIS AND THE SUPPORT DETERMINED TgE STIFF. 2.2.2 COMPOWENT C00LifeC WATER NEAT NESS TO SE 2.04 a 10 L5/IN, 2.2.2.3.2.1 lef!CN IS (DNSISTDrf WITH THE ERCHANE R WERE MODELED IN DIABID CANTON CRI!ZRIA FOR 00MPANT 5(DPE PIPING ANALYSES N0DELING AS RICIO. THE ANALT-AS RfCID. SIS OF PIPING IflTH THE ACTUAL CONPONENT COOLING WATER lEAT EXOtANCER STIFFIIESS RES14.TED IN SUPPORT IDAD lleCREASES Riff ACCEPTAtti FIPE STRFSS. ACTIONS ARE IN FROCRESS 10 IDFNTlfT ALL EqulPMENT THAT DOES 1807 quALIFT F1Nt RICID petELINC AND REAMALTS13 VfLI. DE PERFORMED. Rey 1 O +8-es/Isisk T2765J-DIS

w. a 6 e e 8 9 I - s a ,e R$ 4 g AE = gl s l t l = EE w e4 Tu g at 8 5 e I 5 e$ i E ..E SW 4 Wen g5 g WEs -g u E. $.8 5 E h i E. et, r e ce r C 2 8 M -Nk EE ~ E B s ss.- =s a s ~En $0 Wh~]Ezeg5:=$ E W. g su-g8 .it]"we!E E I M ~3# 5 =8 = s 22 ..sR. E g4 - o g$. 0 ' c - !' Ee . usg ! EEEEw!:=$$$$g Ei!I i E g'8 8 3iE =E 5 Et 3 g.s!s a =Em n sa u -alies a g25B"8 $$ldBf $55vg[=aHg83fga -.g{. 4= t iE,NEva tg g Elv.* = E!ruDEDB'IcyHIEs-steEN eg E 2E n=lnes:!!ggggest = EE i$i E EBaiXIE e a 3 R hh.E ~ e G

e e o TASIA 1 (CONT'D) PEaCENE PERCENT REftRENCE 70 g CONCLUSIVE STATDENT ITP PHASE I ERROR CLASS ANALYSIS ImplFICATIONSg OF RESOLUTION FINAL REPORT PER IDVP COMPLETE CopFLETE OPEN DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION l DESCRIPTlop 0F CONCERN

ITDsse, SECTION 2.1.1 OPDI ITDI 85%

0% THE BLUPE INIERNAL REVIEW IRAS URS/St. M 13 REVIEWING EACH i 25 IDENTIFIED QUESTIONS RELATTD TO AREA 0F ONICERN TO DETERMINE THE SEISMIC ANALYS15 0F THE ITS RESOLUTION. PC&E IS CONTAINPENT INTERIOR. TESE QMfTINUING TO MONITOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE SIR. IN QUESTIONS ARE INSUTFICIENTLY ADDITION, PC&E IS PERFORM!NC ADDRESSED IN TNE FJIISTING DOCIMENTATICII 0F THE ANALYSES, PARAMETRIC STUDIES IN ITS EFFORT AND RE! ATE TO THE MASS, SHEAR 10 IONITOR ANY REANALYSIS AND VAlhES, SilPFNESS, AND TO THE MODIFICAfl0MS CONSIDERED I CENTERS OF MASS AND RICIDITY OF NECESSARY 10 ASSURE THAT THE MODEL, AS WELL AS TO THE QUALIFICATION l$ MAINTAINED. ] INTERPRETATION OF SOE OF THE RESULTS. l THE BLUDEt INTERNAL REVIEW MAS THE AUtiLIARE BUIIDING REPORT, DIE REPORT MAS DEEN SECTICII 2.1.2 C 1004 g/A DIABLO CANTON NUCLEAR POWER REVISED to REFT 1CT 16 REqLT.STED URS/BLUte to REVISE TME AUXILIARY SUILDING REPORT PLANT, AUXILIART SUILDING Tilt ACTUAI. TIME-MISTORY DYNAMIC SEISMIC ANALYS15 FOR USED. CALCULATIONS 10 REFLECT TNE ACTUAL TIPE MISTORY USED IN 118E ANALYSIS THE 7.5M lt05CRI EATHQUAKE", HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN (20 RATHER THAN 24 SEGNEDS IANC) MAS TO BE REVISED 10 REFLECT RETISION 1 0F Tile THE ACTUAL TIME HISTURT USED CALCULATIOst Fil25 WHICH AND 10 SUPPLDENT THE CAIEURA-IN THE ANALYSIS PERFORE D ST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TIONS TO DDEDNST1 TATE THE APPRO-UR$/8LtME (20 RATHER THAN TRUNCATED TIME-HISTORT PRIATENESS OF VtE TRUNCATED 26 SECONDS LONGI. CALCULA-PRopuCES AN IDFNTICAL - TIE-MISTURT. TIONS TO DETERMINE THE APPRO* RESPt*SE SPECTRIM TO PRI ATENF.SS OF Tile TRUNCATED THAT OF THE ORICINAL TIME-MISTORT WERE PERDORMED. TIME-NISTORY. THE ANALYSIS WAS RERUN USING THE 26.FF.GMD TIME NISTiNty. THE RF.5ULTS Et1 WEEN THE 24 AND THE 20 StuMcD TIME MISTORIES WF.RE COMPARFD AND WERE Fot4ID TO SC IDFNTICAL. Rev 1

• 10 -

09/85/82 T2765J-DIS

t 1 E N I

1 c

l$5 I 8 E 15 d 8 1 til a [ gE'l g glg9 ~ Ee. ! 8 s i< I~ l 1

== 1 em a u A eA s [ s__4_4 i ut A c. mEE E E d 'i'i ',$11 lEd EE os 6llE 35 E! t = a n =WlE"ge"Ei 29 un,--a ,=s =e

• les!.I ve E

s sr arr s-E eEs e E r g v

• s t e. 9 ;

E sis E.gtsI3 s ~ca teo s= v g R g,ru i EE 9m [ Egg lg-lE988E!:d El5 !"!E E5 8.. E!Es!!!:I5 g E and s n "Ea Ei g .[!vlE 8 vgc Egs s Es se-v sgegeEs ggs- $, na _= c= E g6g-v,,rsl g u ugeang,g ug e a i esXiN,rEisill! iBEE IBEl!IEns x EB i I.E-E s * ! 'E e. c E s e afe t e s g-E6sni s f f c ~. 9 .g n Ec 8" 2 5 2 5 EGE~! *Eb!""E I aglEl: nEs-us a l r_ d.BE! ~ji"I@l. veEgEt g E E-sugliEn E RE" E Wi e j [.E t s EE". 8 s l-Ej!ulv v agagg .t"f!gr isg!E-e 8 e-E;re Ej -95EE : BRn;gsgllE5 Ba~ 8Eili [!iEx!jl~I[;a[la E e 5gg"E.g 9 a 2 r E.Eg[ gens._EE .ssa rat s r =tstg n u c fcHamm. E I E l 2 e 6 y

e e e e \\ e TASLC 1 (CONT'D) REFERENCE TO PERCENT PERCENT * ' OPFJi CONCLUSIVE $!ATEMNT ITP PNASE I ERROR CIASS ANALYSIS LN!FICAT10NSg33 COMPI_Et{g33 _CDMPtFTE 9tSCRIPT10N OF CONCE46 DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION or,REscLUTION FINAL REPORT PER ID F 11DI sc._ o MONE OPEN ITDI FM On 30 DURipC THE ADDITION IN 1979 OF TWD TESTS NAVE BEEN PER. THE CDNTROL ROOM PRESSURIZATION FOIGED. THESE TESTS I PROVIDED PERFDItMANCE DATA SYSTEM, TM VITAL ELECTRICAL PUWLR SUPPLY TO THE EDUNDANT THAT PRESSUkIIATION, AIR \\ f DISTR 19UT10N AND TEMPERATURE IINffROL R0tWI MEATINC, VENTilA CONTROL CAN BE MAINTAINED s TION, AND AIR (RielT10NING (NVAC) SYSTDI FCX EACM UNIT WAt SAfliFACTORILY WITN ONE OF CMANCED. THIS CRANCE DEff.ATED FOUR VENTILAfl0M TRAINS. THE ABILITT OF TNE UNIT I Cr;NTROL ELECTRICAL POWER MODIFICA-200M MVAC SYSTDI TO PEET INE TIONS SMALL BE MADE TO BE SillCLE FAILURE CRITERIA IP IRelf 2 COMPATISLE WITN PROVIDING REDUNDANT AIR C0ho!TIONINC, WERE NOT OPERATINC. i VENTILATION AND PRESSURIZA-2 fl0N TO THE UNif I AND C IT 2 CONTROL ROOM, AND \\f 10 COMPLY WIT 11 SINGLE {i? Fall 4RE CRITERIA. SECTION 2.2.3 A CR S 2% .' 04 ) MA4 ALT 315 0F THE MAIN STTAM / 31 TNE Bl.18E INTERNAL REV1EW Rles J T,2,3,3,1 .a"D TEEDWATER FIPING ANQ OR IDENTIrlED CERTAIN ITTMS WNICM P,lPE ATTACIMFJfTS AND WEIES REQUIRE FURTNER INVESTICAIl0N. Wil.L BE PERfTNUED. THE PIPE TO DECK Tile ACCEFIAlfLITT OF WEIDED PIPE ATTA04tE*fTS AT THE ATTAO99ENTS AND WELDS M4?N STEAM AND FEEDWATER FIFING DESICMS WILL SE REVIEWED T$ ANOIOR. THE ANCMOR IS IDCATED DETERNINE 01MPLIANCE TO SEISMIC CRITERIA, MnDIFICA- . lt COLIPSI LIFE G. TIONS WILL en PEnftNtMED, IF PLCESSAAT. .~ .l. t 4' N / -e Rev 1

• 12 -

D9/15/82 T2]A5J-DIS

\\ 4 N g O \\ ( g s g 3 g A ., ' ~ p il + + y g t' iJ + e t ' TAtlZ 1 (CONT'D) PERCE R PERCENT REFERENCE TO , gg CJMPIETE(3} NIMM(2} ANALTSIS @NCLUSIVE STATDGJrF. ITF PNASE I ERROR CIASS.. A 0]PFIDT OPEN _INAL REPORT PER IDVP F IToo sm). DESCRIPTION OP OMICERN DESCRIPTION OP RESollfTION OP RESOLbTION ' _ SECTION 2.1.3 A 15% 0% e 8 37 Frw1ELS AND AS$1DEPTIONS USED IN A STUDY 15 BEINC PERFORMED x 1ME ANALYSES MR THE SEISMIC TO DETERMINE WNAT MODIFICA- ) QUALIFICATION OF THE FUEL TIONS ARE MEEDED. REANALT$l$ HANDLING BUllalNC STEEL SUPER-0F tut STRUCTUkE 15 BEINC STRUCTURE MAT MAVE RESULTD IN PERFORED BT USING A FIntTE-DESICNS I4tlCN DO NOT TUTALLY ElREENT HODEL. EVALUATION SATISFY AIL OF TE APPLICASIZ 13 UNDERVAT 10 CHECE THE l ACCEPTABILITT OF 1ME E MBERS ~ ChlTERIA. AND IMEIR (X)MNECTIONi10 SEISMIC CRITERIA. 5% 04 SECTION 2.5.6 A OR S 33 A REVIEW OF TME HOSCRI QUALIFI-A REVIEW OP TWENTY CENERIC, CATION CAIIUULTIONS FOR CIAS$ I CLASS I NVAC DUCT SUPPORT NVAC DUCT SU/ FORTS IDENTIFIED DESICMS IS UNDERWAT TO A CENERIC SUFFORT 1TPE WHICN DETERMIME,THE SEISMIC APPARENTLY DOES NOT SATISFT THE ADEQUACT OF ALL CLASS il APPLICASIZ CRITERIA. NVAC DUCT SUPPORTS. i MODIFICATIONS Will BC PERFORMED latERE NECESSART. l l l l 8" 1

• I3
• 727A5J DIS 09/15/s2

.DIABLO CANYON PROJECT ORGAN 1R M NI ~ -i ,I PGSE Chairman l Chief Exec.0fficer ) ~ F. W. Mielke 1 ' PG&E Senior VP l Fac17. DeYelpt. G. A. Maneatis p ~ PG8E Diablo Canyon IDVP Manager Prof. Manager . QA Organiz. 1 Teledyne H. Friend (B) i I I nior Mgmt. ] R.F. Reedy R~.L. Cloud Stone & e Inc. Assoc. Webster (4 members) l Unit 1 Construc-Project tion Unit 2 Materials Project Coordin.; Project Direction, Operations Functional Support Licensing Coordin. Infonnation Flow-Schedules ATTACHMENT 7 & Cost

ATTACHMENT 8

SUMMARY

OF PRINCIPAL COMMENTS ON PROPOSED IDVP PHASE II FROM THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND JOINT INTERVENORS: Pursuant to the Cbmmission's Order and the staff's letter of November 19, 1981, the Governor of the State of California and Joint Intervenors were requested to comment on the Phase II Program. Comments from these parties have been received and reviewed by the staff. The parties met with the staff on September 9, 1982 to further discuss the Phase II program. The l principal comments received are summarized below: 1. The Phase I/ Phase II dichotomy is invalid and must be eliminated. The full audit process should be completed and all modifications made prior to consideration for reinstatement of the suspended license (i.e., differ-entiation between seismic and non-seismic source related contract I activities is invalid and June 1978 cutoff date for Phase I is not appropriate). 2. 3-D modeling and other state-of-the-art techniques must be employed to recalulate the seismic floor response spectra for the entire plant, both vertical and horizontal spectra. Structures, systems and components must be qualified to verified response spectra. 3. The QA audit should be expanded te include QA construction activities. 4. A physical inspection (i.e., plant walkdown) should be made after. completion of all modifications to determine whether the plant has been constructed in accordance with the design specifications. 5. The design audit should extend to all structures, systems and components important to safety, not only those that are safety related. 6. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) should be retained by the NRC to monitor modeling activities contemplated by PG&E and to participate in the design inspection program. 7. The IDVP resources and a schedule for the Phase II program should be included. 8. A sample of safety features designed by Westinghouse (NSSS vendor for Diablo Canyon) should be included in the program. 9. The statistical basis for the criteria for sample. selection should be included. I 9 e e e

~ o 9 ATT,ACHMENT 9. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE SCOPE OF PHASE I AND PHASE II 0F THE DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM ~ c 1. PG&E Corrective Action Program In parra11e1 to the IDVP conducted by Teledyne, PG&E has had underway its own Internal Technical Program (ITP).' On August 6,1982, PG&E presented to the staff details of a Corrective Action Program (CAP) which is in response to the findings of the IDVP conducteo at that time and in response to PG&E's own ITP. PG&E proposed,amo.ng other activities, a complete review of all major structures from a seismic standpoint which is above the original scope of the design verifica-tion program. If the structural response has changed the seismic review will also include systems and components. 2. PG&E-Blume Independent Review (BIR) PG&EhadrequestedURSBlume(seismicconsultant)toreviewandverify all seismic response spectra. The review has been completed and a number of differences between the original spectra and currently applicable spectra has been identified. A final report on their internal review is scheduled to be completed within the next few weeks and will be submitted to the staff. 3. PG&E-Internal QA Audit At a meeting on September 1, 1982, PG&E informed the staff that they had initisted an internal audit of QA programs, including their implemen-J tation, of service related contractors in November ~1981. The ' audit was completed in about April 1982. On September 2, 1982 the staff performed a brief audit of the working papers. At the staff's request, PG&E provided a summary of the results of their internal audit in a submittal dated September 15, 1982. 4 Audit of Construction QA At the Septembe'r 1,1982 meeting, PG&E stated that, as a result of concerns voiced by NRC Region V, an audit of construction QA activities for a sample of major construction contractors will be initiated. PG&E stated that there is no data to suggest any deficiency but proposed this activity to resolve any doubt. This activity is not required specifically by Phase 1 or Phase II of the program. o

• }}