ML20033A393

Recommends That Commission Approve Transmittal of Encl Ltr to PG&E Requesting Seismic Info

ML20033A393
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/06/1981
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
Shared Package
ML16340C103	List: ML16340C102 ML20033A389 ML20033A393
References
REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-81-636, NUDOCS 8111250316
Download: ML20033A393 (12)

Text

-m..

6e u

-.m.

_...y g.g. -

a m

s..9f

a. 7.m.

e

• - ~ -

..m u,,,

.. w.,a.n. s.. n.

..u ua,a....

m.a.,_

g

~

_e

?.

e

/..

.;,...m.z.:u.

..-..,u...

" -~..........................::: n::... _..,..... -

....... : ::.......... -, m?w: ::: :r :cm:a c:mm.a.n.u e rm awQm _

n

--D--

..u.is.;.au,;+;w mu;aamw.au... ~.......

u w.t wam.w a.:auu s uu. m.sumsawa.uun m v -

- - - m um.snum o

.....,.-u-... ;;a,.:; a _m,_.w...,....,....... ~.....;

.au.

m,*u,, man _s....un nmr*:u.,i,n:n nr.a.nums=.~...

m

.......m...r..+

. p;.wa. a a m ;.a a.;: un;.;,

z.n uu.u.u.ww.Q.emne.w.w.wi.w :&.~Mres........

..... n..w :nt~ en

.........::=:....................

..............w-n..-

..-.........x......

.......;r...

. ~.

~w uataumm:uanuaw=am;:a.;.we wa.;w;m. r amae -

v.: :::.. :m:.,.............g2 m:rm

.wauua auuusmw

.aaw.

.w.:u az

....a..=..=...~=.?r:.

-..,_.,, ' w:...aua.:aa.w-w

...............y u

w.,. ;.wn.uua,ny_

.mc..

.........................wmau.a.a.-:.z.

~

.............. -.........k..........'...-..

.j =.

UNITED STATES

...........~.....................,............M.."."..".."..""*

.................m-a.;a.;@. nut,e9ter.';;se.L4. ;;a.; man,,,.huwa.ag? e

. ~,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

numuuu.am eu -.- - m._.......

T

.e.mm

.u...

w.

m.c

.-a g ~g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

.=aw,

.ir.................

. ~....

zw a.

f 9

un umaman n.waum

.u m...................................................

.1 5,****/

..m........,..._.....

.]

~...........

.....:-e....,.........

" " " " ' ". " ' - **"^ '""........

...y OFFICE OF THE 9'N'.h" n: r...WEF""E.:n!!!I

".=~=-

SECRETARY

..: un

.".w;.,;s F- :.. ::

==

.='

n.....

p.....

--........ ~.

.....,,.u.u.=- :: -.:. :,

r:----

t*::=::

....u.w....

n.au;.

.a..

* *'."a,.,.. ~ "..**:

g

...........' n ;;.mnau.m '

m: ""* ",.;'. M.1,

..Y..

.n..

m_' _

Attached are copies of the backup g

__.mam. a.

.;r r-

• T*n::::M. :.=. ::"***W............d.g*.*.7:

M 1 :!,:,.

,. t,a.a.,g.a fgg.,m

=

g, -

f..

,.3.,.;4

.y;_-

viewgraphs used at this morning s L..

nn tmema~.. 4...

s

...-r

=..

=ww.mmwwww w..

meeting on Diablo Canyon.

.:wwwu-

.M&WTm1;;us:". =

.m......,

...;g

.4..

.....,..,..yp

..m.1..

na:auch-.....

- - - - ~

,,,4

' " * +.

.W*=..*.*.

_,....y;..;. ;

t

...f'n *

' :a a

. 2.6..'.a:

...........~.;..,..

_' - -. ' - ' ;2::..::?.

".... ~.

-.J t;...nn..a;n._;,

.ag;..

==; :=" -

.: :::=:=

... ~.

"3

.MA

...,.2.

man i %a;::.i..;.DG:.

• • 2 * :

..n'..

"A'

"~...*..: ;;.;.;.;_

".^."".k."

..,..e.m.

A..

• ~M** =l '" *

• 7. 7.'*.**:: **N:

~~...

... wa

?'.T ::".Y'

,.u..a 1

. :::;;.;;L ;.-.... '. "...

.a s.%

t** ?* ".n."*: ~~ ~ ".*.*: ::." ' :*.:*: :'

a.=

.;.a;.

c?*;

"" ga*:.* :'" '

~

L*:!**:::"..".

=-

n=ua:=nue:

3

~ ~':=.;:: '

^~~"'[-

L4

~

U"..~....

.4.%.~""*.C

!==:*'

..........e

+..- -'.

.; a. s

.;a;.::

Li w vtl.

an:n am. :.

.. ' * * * =

• 2 **T'

.=5?.?..

..... ;:. i

~.....

..-s...

a. 2 umu

'..c=

• • • T.*:

."T::.

..k'.

Ma~.~..

a^a..

..... ;

• u:.

\\ :'..?C.*:.

.~.mr is

.umu

?

I.

=...,":.:.

-wa.... c y..

s u.uu...

t.......m-

....:== :: :==:.

c_

Yv.

==:n-

-v. ::.

u....; ~*

== ;u t.

g_.~

- ~ ~ -

t

~:; ::::

w.

n.

., =

r -". :e=..=:: =..:~-2 -=..u=.a

..... ~ =..

t=

......."w~.m.

=..n=um.. =.

C.....

.acu :;.;;;;;-

ma " " " ^ --

- - ~ -

i.h=. ;:.;.~.::a.'.;.=. h "ET. ;.

,a;,;,, mn..--

~

c.

=..: :::=. =;....... ;..

3perr......

__;_;; ;g;g.;.

;;;g g

,.a..,_... - 2 " T.

"I'-

l[U[.

01"=

7 [..1.....

!*'."U.....

~ ten

... ~.-

.a

;;n

.u;.;;.

.w

....a....

a. m..

..y;.;;.,

q m.

.:.....,;g....

.-".-".v.2'

. 77,

jgg.

u. a.,

.: * *a. m............

.. a.

n g. _...

_.w.

... ~..

.........,s.:

...4.-

g..

_..g_,,

..~...n..aa

,+

w;sm.

...n.""..

-C*C., "":n;.;.,

........ -...... -... ~.

.....;;;;;,;,.y,,

.......'*'I.~........

..$ *... J

........;;;;;,.;.......-.,....4

a.,

.y; 3,; ;;;w,

a,aa;= u.,u.a.m.a;~

'3...

n;m ;;.......~;m;;~

+.......

";a.......

1 ;;;.

• ."*""2:?...*.*.*,':.."."..****.

.., a. '"m'.:.

"'ls~:*:,*.

• * *"* :::::: :** "'.*a""".'"

m *

,.. ~.. ~.

T".......

.- ::." "::::::.......C..'.:.:=:'":

lm;.".:.:~:

~:::'*::

• *:m" M.*.'..'.;.". :"a:

.......C"............

J'!*..

.......~...............;...........

.:=.ms.;.w.u:.:~:a u:-:" '.......

._.an"......

..... ~... ~ -. -" " ;4=2 ;;:ns.u-~ ~

~ ;;zzag:*

- ~

-:Jw.w

'wms.:n-tmun.w.t.sua":a:"v.rs:=*a.sensw '

= = =

""'.=

=""

8111250316 811109

""""" ~ " - " " ' " - " * ". "

" " * ". ^.

2"*:'**:..~...

~ ~........ -.

c =a":: "= PDR 10CFR

- ~. - " ~ ~ ~ = = ~ = = = = = -

2%*

..Mm

..:--.=..

.... =......

PT9.7 P DR. =u=u"""

= = :=;.

nmm.==

w=

~w p.

Y 4-b 6

g g

b g

g

)

I D

7_

~ ~ ~

492-724;6 FRANK M RAGLIA~

11/09/81 o

ERRORS DETECTED DURING RE-ANALYSIS EFFORT SINGLE ANALYSIS TO MODEL-TWO PARALLEL LINES FOUND APPLICABLE TO ONE ONLY TWO SMALL BORE PIPING SNUBBERS REQUIRED BY ANALYSIS BUT NOT DESIGNED TWO SUPPORTS DESIGNED WITH INSUFFICIENT GAPS FOR THERMAL MOVEMEl.T ONE SUPPORT NOT RIGID IN RESTRAINED DIRECTION

~ ~ ~

ONE NON-SAFETY RELATED PIPE SUPPORT NOT QUALIFIED AS REQUIRED BY SYSTEM INTERACTION STUDY 0

9

. a.

.J---

FRAN MIRAGLIA 492 243 11/U/81 o

ERRORS DETECTED DDRING REVERIFICATION EFFORT DISCREPANCY IN SPECTRA USED IN REGENERATIVE HEAT EXCHANGER BUILDING MASSES FOR AUXILIARY: BUILDING CONTROL ROOM DESIGN TWO MODELS USED CONDUIT SUPPORTS MISAPPLICATION'0F SPECTRA HVAC EQUIPMENT MISAPPLICATION OF SPECTRA O

l l

t l

f i

1' o$5"c%,

l Noverr.oer 6,1981 i

a SECY-81-636

{.

-l N.... /

POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)

FOR:

The Comissioners FROM:

William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

RE-EVALUATION OF SEISMIC DESIGN OF CONTAINMENT ANNULUS EQUIPMENT OF DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 AND RELATED DESIGN REVERIFICATION PROGRAM PURPOSE:

To obtain Comission approval for transmittal of the attached 10 CFR 50.44(f) letter to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company DISCUSSION:

In late September 1981 errors in the seismic design of contaiment annulus equipment of Diablo Canyon Unit 1

~~

and were detected by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG8E) and reported to the NRC. As a result PG&E has initiated a reanalysis effort of the seismic design of containment annulus equipment. Meetings on this matter were held with PG&E in Bethesda, Maryland, on October 9 and tovember 3, 1981.

A preliminary audit of PG&E's reanalysis efforts g

were conducted by the staff in San Francisco on October 14 through 16, 1981.

In addition, recent inspections were conducted by NRC Region V at PG&E and its seismic consultant URS/Blume. As a result of these activities,

Contact:

Frank J. Miraglia, NRR X27243

/

% the staff has developed a proposed design reverification program to be conducted by PG&E.' The principal elenents of this program were discussed with PG&E at the November.

3,1981 meeting.

The attached letter provides PG&E with details of the proposed design reverification program and formally requests PG'.E to provide the information resulting from the conduct of this program.

It should also be noted that as a result of these recent activities the Governor of California has provided the Commission his views on the matter in a letter to the Chairman dated October 30, 1981.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Commission approve the transmittal of J-the attached letter to PG&E.

h Wil'iam J.'Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Enclosure

~

cc:

SECY OPE OGC OCA Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Monday, November 23, 1981.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT November 16, 1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.

If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the, Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations Exec Legal Director ACRS ASLBP Secretariat 3

r

--.,-.y_--

4

.m--.n

,.,-.m..n.,-,,,..,e

_,,y--

-...~-

O 4

e e

.f a

I

.<-.m J

ENCLOSURE

-%-ew,r ww,

.,..n

9 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94106

Dear Pr. Furbush:

Subj ect:

10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Statements Concerning the Re-evaluation of Seismic Design of Contairnent Annulus Equipment of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Related Design Reverification Program In late September 1981 errors in the seismic design of equipment in the containment annulus in the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 were detected by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and reported to the NRC. As a result PG&E has initiated a reanalysis effort of the seismic design of this equipment.

To date the following errors have been detected:

Inappropriate application of a containment annulus " diagram" o

o Incorrect distribution within PG&E of correct seismic

. ?

I response spectra o

Incorrect weight and weight distribution of various equipment, ccuponents and piping at different elevations in containment I

annulus area.

I At the October 9,1981 meeting between PG&E and the NRC in Bethesda,

(

Maryland, on this subject, PG&E was requested to provide the NRC the following reports:

(1)

A technical report that discusses tne re-analysis of the seismic design of the structures, systens and components in the containment annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

This technical l

report would provide the basis for concluding that the proposed modifications to the design of affected equipment and components in the containment annulus would assure that the original acceptance criteria for the facility have been met.

t

. (2 )

A reverification of the seismic design of all safety-related seismic design activities performed under the PG&E-URS/Blume contract as they relate to the Hosgri reanalysis.

(3)

A reverification of the seismic design of all safety-related structuras, systems and components.

A program plan for this reverification effort was to be provided for NRC staff review at an early date.

Based upon recent NRC Region V inspections conducted at PG&E and (RS/Blume Offices in San Francisco, the NRC has identified the following Quality Assurance program weaknesses related to these errors and to the performance of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 facility design and the implementation by PG&E of applicable criteria of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.

I l

o the PG&E Quality Assurance Program did not appear to effectively excercise control over the review and approval. of infomation passed to and received from URS/Blume l

o the PG&E Quality Assurance Program did not appear adequately to control the distribution of design infomation within affected PG&E design groups o

the PG&E Quality Ass'urance Program did not appear to define and implement adequate Quality Assurance controls on other service i

related contracts.

As a result of the above and our discussions with you at our November 3,1981 meeting, on this subject, you are requested to submit written statements t

. signed under oath or affirmation, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the Commission's regulations, to enable the Commission to determine whether or not ytur license should be modified, suspended or revoked.

Specifically, you are requested to submit the following information to the NRC on the schedules indicated below:

(1)

At least 30 days prior to the date you plan to proceed with fuel loading and operations up to 5% power, provide the following information:

(a) The results of an independent and complete design review and verification program of all safety-related activities perfonned under the PG&E-URS/Blume contract as they relate to the Hosgri

^

reanalysis.

Thi-s infomation should address the development,

~

accuracy, transmittal, and use of infonnation both within PG&E and within URS/Blume, as well as the transmittal of infonnation between PG&E and tRS/Blume.

(b)

A technical report that fully assesses the basic cause of all errors identified and their impact upcn the final design of the facil ity.

( c) A schedule for completing any modifications to the facility that are required as a result of the design review described in (1)(a) above.

For modifications that will not be completed prior to fuel load, the bases for proceedir.g shall be provided.

(2)

At least 30 days prior to the date you plan to proceed with operations above 5% power, provide the following infonnation:

. ( a) The results of an independent and complete design review and verification program of all safety relatcd structures, systens, and components that received design input information or data developed by PG&E service-related. contractors prior to June 1,1978.

This review should address all activities involved in the development, accuracy, transnittal, and use of safety-related information, both within the PG&E organization and within each contractor's organization, as well as the transmittal of information between PG&E and each contractor.

Information to be provided as a result of this design review program should include the following:

I (1)

Your review of overall quality assurance procedures used for all safety-related service contractors (pre-1978), with particular emphasis on the applicable criteria of Appendix B. of 10 CFR Part 50. Areas where weaknesses exist should be identified.

Steps taken by PG&E to correct these weaknesses, if any, also should be identi fied.

(ii) The development.of a network for the design chain for the safety-related structures, systens, and components involved. This should include all interfaces you have identified where design information was tran.mitted between PG&E design groups and contractors.

w-n-

y a

p,-

s,--

g

-a e

5-(iii) Your review of the implementation of design verification procedures used by and for:

o PG&E internal design groups o contractors o

transmittal of information between PG&E and contractors o transmittal of information within PG&E design groups In addition the information should be sufficiently complete to enable a determination as to whe'.her or not the procedures conform to Appe' :ix B quality assurance requirenents and whether or not specific areas of weakness in the design proce:s have been identified.

(iv) The criteria for the selection of a sample of safety-related t

structures, systems and components for reverifying I

the design process.

The senpling criteria provided should be based on verifying the design in the areas of identified weaknesses from the procedure review discussed in (2)(a)(i) through (iii) above. Criteria for expanding the sample size when problems are identified should also be provided.

O e 7eg

-,-%r~ -. - -. - - -, -,,

w.- -

---.,-,,v,.-.--,e

,r%--

yy--

--w

(v)

The development of conclusions on the effectiveness of this design verification program, the significance of design errors found, and their impact on facility-design.

(vi) A schedule for completing any modifications to the facility that are required as a result of the design review program described in (2)(a) above.

For modifications that will not be canpleted prior to operation abo /e 5%

power, the easts for proceeding shall be provided.

(b) The results of an independent design sanpling review and verification program of PG&E internal design activities that have been performed on Diablo Canyon Unit I related

""~

I to the development of the design of safety related structures, system, and canponents.

The extent of the information provided related to this program should be that which is necessary to conf;rm that the PG&E quality assurance controls described i

.in their QA Manual and associated procedures since 1970, have been fully and effectively implemented.

Tnis design review program should include the following:

(i)

Your review of overall cuality assurance procedures used i

in the area of design verification for safety-related structures, systems and canponents. Material provided related to your review should include areas where weaknesses may exist.

A network for the design f-chain for the safety-related structures, systems 1

. and components should be identified, including all interfaces where design infomation was transmitted between PG&E Gesign gmups.

You should provide infomation cor,cerning your review of the implementation of the design verification progrra within the various design groups, including the specific-procedures for verification and transmittal of design infomation internal to PG8E.

(ii) The criteria for the selection of a sample of safety-related structures, systems and components to verify the implementation of QA controls on the design process.

The statements to be provided concerning this f

sampling c.reria should be based on verifying the design in the areas of identified weaknesses from the procedure review discussed in (2)(b)(i) above.

Criteria for expanding sample size should also be established as discussed in (2)(a)(iv) above.

(iii) the development of conclusions on the effectiveness of the design verfication program, the significance of design errors found, and their impact on facility design.

(iv)

Statements to be provided should include your schedule for ccrapleting any modifications to the facility that are required as a result of the design review described in (2)(b) above.

For modifications not to be completed before operation above 5". powr, the bases for proceeding shall be provided.

8-(c) You also should submit information concerning the the results of an independent design sanpling review and verification of all PG&E service related contractor work that was completed subsequent, to January 1,1978 and that has been or will be used as input into the the design of safety related structures, systus, and components. The extent of this infonnation should be that which is necessary to confirm that the contractor and PG&E quality assurance controls and procedures that were in effect during this time period were fully and effectively implemented.

Statements concerning this design review program should address all interface activities associated with the work, both internal to the contractor and within PG&E.

The statements should also include the items discu.ssed in (2)(b)(1) through (iii) above, a'nd a schedule for completing any modifications to the facility that are required as a result of the design review program described in (2)(c) above.

For modifications that,will not be completed prior to operation above 5% pawer, the bases for proceeding shall be provided.

(3 )

At least 60 days prior to the date you plan to proceed with operations acove 5% powr provide:

i (a) information concerning a detailed program plan for conducting the design reverification review programs discussed in (2)(a) through (c) above. This plan should provide the bases for the service-related contracts and safety-related structures, systems and components selected for review, the selection of sampling plans to be used, l

and the criteria for modifying sample sizes.

--1

--r-

--.e.

y 3

-,4-w

-re

-+,- -,

--y

..,i v

nw-,

+y--

.-.-w,---

r 0 -

(b) A description of the qualifications of the personnel and contractors who are to perform the independent design reviews discussed in (2)(a) through (c) above.

(4 ) Starting on Friday November 13, 1981, a seni-monthly status report on the second and fourth Friday of each month, on the ongoing reanalysis and reverification efforts being conducted by PG&E.

In the interest of efficient evaluation of your submittals, we request that you submit, as soon as practicable, a response to the request for additional information that was enclosed in the Staff's Meeting Summary dated October 19,1981.

of the October 14-16, Meetings with PG&E.

~^

Si ncerely, I

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

f l

((l(((

l

(({

_l l ( f l {

ff(

l'( ( ( 'l l'( l l ( ( ( ( ( ( ( C ( T ( 'I

([

h o

PDL Dl Q

TRANSMITTAL TO:

-XV Document Control Desk, b

016 Phillips g

ADVANCED COPY TO:

O The Public Document Room

[

November 10, 1981 g

DATE:

B Attached are the PDR copies of a Commission meeting transcript /s/ and related meeting document /s/.

They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession P

List and placement in the Public Document Room.

No P

other distribution is requested or required.

Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual 3=

c documents wherever possible.

g P

1.

Transcript of:

Briefing on Recent Seismic Design g

Errors at Diablo Canyon Unit 1, November 9, 1981.

m a.

Vugraphs/back-up vugraphs presented at above meeting.

b b.

SECY-81-636, Policy Issue paper dated Nov.

6.

81, b

Subj:

Re-Evaluation of Seismic Design of Containment Annulus Equipment of Diablo Canyon Unit I and Related Design Reverification Program.

6 (1 copy) p=

'E

)

j brown Office of the Secretary g;m

.<=

p g-~ p%

4 2Y g e (c @4 d

i o

^@lg& il

?=.

v^

ji ffd a=

R.

k...