ML20126M628
| ML20126M628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1985 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Devine T, Dixon C GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-741 NUDOCS 8506200406 | |
| Download: ML20126M628 (2) | |
Text
.
4 UNITED STATES 8
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
MAR 111985 Mr. Thomas Devine Ms. Crystal Dixon Government Accountability Project IN RESPONSE REFER 1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 202 TO FOIA-84-741 Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Devine and Ms. Dixon:
This is in further response to your letter date'd September 13, 1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, all documents associated with the August 20, 1984, Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206 in response to petitions filed on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.
The documents listed on the enclosed appendix are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room. They will be filed in the PDR folder FOIA-84-741 under your name.
The NRC has not completed its review of the remaining documents subject to your request. We will respond as soon as that review is completed.
Sincerely, j
4 J.
Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated A
l 8506200406 850311 PDR FOIA DEVINES4-741 PDR L
m Appendix
.POIA-84-741
~
1.
11/29/83 Memo to Comissioners from W.J. Dircks; Plans for Dealing with Allegations Relating to Diablo Canyon. (10 pages) 2.
undated NRC Table of Status Allegations Submitted by GAP on 2/2/84 and the Joint Intervenors on 2/22/84.
(32 pages)
I J
i i
l y
'r 1
n i
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-0382 September 13, 1984 Director FREEDOM OFIN 1
Office of Administration gg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 ~f M 7 L/f Washington, D.C.
20555 To Whom It May Concern:
W 9"/7 '[ h Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 8552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) requests copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, draf ts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, files, graphs, engineering analyses, charts, maps, photographs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, telephone messages, computations, voice recordings, any other data compila-tions, interim and/or final reports, status reports, and any other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the August 20, 1984 directors', decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 in response to various petitions filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.2015 by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) on behalf of the San Louis Obispo, Mothers for Peace. We request that each responsive document be identified by the allegation number (s) to which it may relate.
If any of the materials covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed, please provide all surrounding documentation, including but not limited to a description of the action (s) taken, relevant date(s), and justification (s) for the action (s).
GAP requests that fees be waived, because " findings information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. 9552(a)(4)(A). CAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and i
open government. Through legal representation, advice, national conferences, films, publications and public outreach, the project promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability. We are requesting the above information as part of an on-going monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear power plants.
For any documents or portions that you deny due to the specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed justification of your l
grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant
- j to the document or portion of the document withheld.
This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen(I), 484 F.2d. 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
]
We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.
b Thomas Devine Cr tal Dixon Legal Director Legal Intern l-
$NM f
9~
l T.,
,,"D Distribution November 2!I, 1983 EDO R/F TRehm JRoe WJDircks MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky' Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PLANS FOR DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO DIABLO CANYON
^
Enclosed for your informatfon is my guidance for dealing with the approximately 72 Diablo Canyon allegations and the staff work plan developed to implement that guidance.
Action plans which assign s.taff and outline the approach to resolution have been developed for each allegation.
These detailed worksheets are available should any Comissioner desire to review them. The initial on-site work will be conducted this week with approximately.17 staff assigne~d;' Other related work has begun or will begin promptly.
F
- The interim report will be "provided' to me by December 19 - a date selected so as to be approximately 10 days prior to the current estimate of the licensees. criticality readiness.
I will provide it to you promptly after receipt.
(5:pt:D Eliis.J.Frb.
William J. Dircks
' Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated
'cc:
OPE
.1 P
^
\\./
bec: V.Stello..GQA J.Roefg),
1
~s ?
i d:N,9 w@
v
- A0/EDO
- EDO
- EDO. py
- --:------ p --: :.----------:------------:------------:------------:------------:-----------
\\
- JRoe
- WJDircks I
[E :TARehm;py--:------------:----------,..:------------:------------:------------:------------:-----------
IE :11/'
/83
- 11/
/83
- 11/ M /83
m E-November 17, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
John B. Ma'rtin, Regional Administrator, Region V Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR Richard C. DeYoung, Director, IE FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for.0perations
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS OUTSTANDING ON DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT At the Comission meeting of October 28, 1983, the staff was directed to pursue all outstanding allegations to resolution.
In addition, the Comission directed the staff to provide a status report "... addressing these matters..," prior to _the authorization of criticality and low power testing.
I have designated Jack Martin, Region V, as having line responsibility for this activity.
T. Bishop has been further designated by Jack Martin to dire.ct this effort.
He is charged with the responsibil.ity to:
identify in ' coordination with NRR, IE and 01 all outstanding allegations; develop a work plan and schedule in concert with NRR and 'IE which will direct the effort of offices involved to pursue all allegations to conclusion;
. provide a coordinated status report to EDO approximately 10 days prior i
' to Comission consideration of criticality and low power testing by
'Diablo Canyon; and produce a final, report which will provide final conclusions on all cutstanding allegations.
j In the way of general guidance, I would point out that it is'necessary to begin development of a work plan on a high priority basis.
This plan should reflect a scoping and prioritization of allegations so that the required l
status report will be able to provide to the maximum extent feasible, reasonable information to the Comission on which they can make a determination on Diablo Canyon in regard to criticality and low power licensing.
Completion of the evaluation of all allegations must be acccmplistfed, but it is more important that they be reviewed correctly than that a particular completion time be met.
&pd>ns by
~
\\
^
r 2
I expect all Offices involved to give full support to Mr. Bishop in this effort. The OEDO should be contacted if problems develop or assitance is needed.
(Sipe:DWilliam J.Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
'cc:
B. Hayes G. Cunningham V. Stello R. Minogue T. Bishop, RV DISTRIBUTION
(
EDO R/F
- TRehm R/F
- JRoe
- WJDirdks ECase MTaylor i
l
~.
l-r-
l DEDROGR l
V5tellis) 11/17/83 EDO-A, I.. :../ t.00 h..... ::
- A0 7....,;d..::............::............:............:............:..........
/
h:TARehm;pv
- WJDircks :
E :ll/l? /83
- 11/I'7/83 e
ll E _'.
r.
-' : y p,
b DIABLO CANYON ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NOVEM3ER 23,1083 Approval:
// [:_3 [?J
/
~
R. DeYoung irec IE Date f
N/.21//5 e>~-
H.- R. Denton, Director, NRR
/Datd
,4
- kk Y
Y 5
- 7. B. Martin, Acministrator, Date Region V e
e n, e, w 2 a s h w h 9 9 h?-
s e
0
F s,. !.
.l*
Diablo Canyon Allegation Management Progrm Contents Paoe I
Purpose............................
1 II Scope.............................
1 III Methodology / Approach.......................
1 IV Schedule 2
V Protection of Individuals...................
3 VI Development' and Retention of Supporting Data..........
4 VII S'pecial NRC Staff Actions...................
4 VIII Manpower Accounting................,,,.....
4 ATTACHMENTS 1.
Diablo Canyon Allegation Managenient Staff 2.
Format For Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Allegation and/or Investigations Sumary 3 ~.
Fomat for Allegation Action Plan 1
I e
e
v 7,
.j.
DIABLO CANYON ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM I.
Purpose The purpose of the Diablo Canyon Allegation Management Program is to:
Provide for a systimatic examination and analysis of allegations and expressions of concern pertaining to design, construction, operation and management of. safety-related structures, systems, and components at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant; and to Provide for an assessment of those allegations and concerns that question Diablo Canyon criticality readiness, prior to a Comission consideration of restoration of the lice ~nse for reactor criticality and low power (less than 5%) testing; and to Provide for an a'ssessment of those al' legations and concerns that question plant readiness for power ascension testing and full power operations, prior to a Comission consideration of this issue.
II.
Scope The Diablo Canyon Allegation Management Program is intended to encompass all allegation, or expressions of concern.which may te construed as allegation, whi,ch pertain to design, construction, operation, and manage-ment of safety-related structures, systems, and components, at Diablo 5
' Canyon.
In.this rega'rd, the ' Allegation Management"Programwi rise -
address certrin concerns raised by Intervenors and members of Congress (e.g. implications of a 1977 audit by Nuclear Services Corporation of a Diablo Canyon Contractor).
The program requires that all NRC Offices receiving niw Diablo Canyon allegations forward those allegations to the Allegation Management Staff in a timely manner.
III. Methodoloov/Acoroach The Diablo Canyon Allegation Management Program requires the combined
~
efforts of NRC offices to identify all allegations upon receipt and coordinate resolution of the allegations with'the Diablo Canyon A11egatinn Management Staff.
The Diablo Canyon Allegation Management Staff is a coordination group made up'of representatives of Region V, NRR, IE and ELD, as identified in Attachment I.
The Allegation Management Program requires development, updating and maintenance of a comprehensive listing of allegations' related to Diablo Canyon and provides for a coordinated assessment and resolution. The management program is not intended to circumvent any other established NRC management program (e.g. the Allegation Tracking System) or relieve 1
4 l
l
~
P
c any NRC office of its normal organizational and technical responsibili-ties.
To the contrary, the A11egat' ion Management Program is intended to complement and coordinate the activities of the NRC Offices as they relate to Diablo Canyon, allegations.
The A11egatica Management Program includes the following elements:
(1) Development of a comprehensive listing of Diablo Canyon allegations.
The format for the listing is provided in Attachment 2.
The distri-bution of the actual list is controlled and limited.
(2) Useofp$cedurestomaintainanonymity'andconfidentialityof allegers wtien requested.
(3) Confirmationwiththealleger(wherelossibleandappropriate) that the NRC has an accurate understanding of the concern.
(4) Definition of an action plan for each allegation which provides an approach to resolution.
The action plan shall include such i.tems as:
technical approalh to resolution; identification of lead / support responsibilities, resource requirements, schedule for completion; and includes an initial assessment of the potential-significance of the allegation. The format for an allegation action plan is provided in (5) Responsible Lead Office management review and agreement on the action plan for each allegation.
(6)
Implem'entation of the action plan.
(7) Status. reporting and preliminary assessments of allegations significance and programatic implications in time to support l
Comis ion consideration of Diablo Canyon licensing actions.
(
(8)
Feedback to the alleger, where possible, for further assurance tfiat evalut.tions accurately address concerns.
IV.
Schedule l'
Actions related to Diablo Canyon allegations shall be accomplished in accordance with the following general schedule:
Approval of Allegation Management Program and Individual 11/23/83 Action Plans i
'.. he.
i,.
On-site review / inspection effort
- 11/28 -
12/9/83 Individual item status / preliminary assessment reports 12/9/83 Pre-criticality project status assessment report 12/1g/83 Updated individual item status / assessment reports (later)
Pre-power ascension Project Assessment Report (later)
It is anticipated that during the course of this program additional allegations will be received and that findings resulting from the review
~
or inspection of current allegations may require expanded examinations'.
Accordingly, new individual allegation action plans will be developed and existing plans may be expanded.
The thoroughness of NRC evaluations shall not be influenced by the timing of licensing decisions by the Comission.
However, full effort shall be made to provide the Comission with as comprehensive, and accurate assessments of allecation sionificance as is possible.
V.
Protection of Individuals The identity of persons providing allegations to the NRC shall not be disclosed as a matter of prac'ti'ce.
In~ addition,-for thoserindividuds -
expressly reouesting cohfidentiality all efforts shall be made to protect the individuals identity. This will include:
limited and controlled distribution of allegation documentation and correspondence; minimal use of names, i~dentifying titles, or position descriptions in written ma.terial; enlarged sampling of activities so that it is not evident to personnel outside the NRC that the particular sample selection is related to the alleger; and other indirect approaches toward investigation /inspec-tion of allegations.
During the course of NRC reviews or inspections, similar efforts shall be made to protect the identity of licensee or contractor employees who provide infomation which may be construed a's~
being critical of licensee or contractor activities.
Receiving, clarifying, evaluating, and documenting allegations may involve direct NRC staff contact with allegers and will involve representation of the allecers concerns in NRC documentation and other comunications.
These criti and written comunications shall be professional and objective in nature and shall not reflect a pre-judgemental.or defensive posture on the part of the NRC staff.
Further, these co=nunications shall not infer criticism of the allegers' motives, or technical expertise.
- Technicg1 review, inspection, and investigation activities for many of the allegations have been in progress for some time. The 11/28-12/9/83 on-site review refers to the consolidated team effort to address the bulk of the known allegations.
r-
,rn VI.
Development and Retention of Supporting Data An individual record file shall be developed and maintained for each allegation by the lead 1.iRC office.
This file will contain or reference pertinent documentation associated with the allegation.
Resolution of each allegation shall be supported with a clearly auditable record trail.
Accordingly, the reccrd file shall contain or make reference to all significant records relied upon,to reach resolution.
Records of personnel interviews shall be developed and retained in those instances where interviews are relied upon by the NRC staff for decisions of technical adequacy.
Interview records shall, as a minimum contain:
the date, time, locetion of the interview; the name of the interviewer and interviewee; and..a summary of questions asked and relevant information obtained.
Upon issuance of reports which close out allegations, those records which are appropriately (referenced in the NRC reports and are traceable through some other means e.g. meeting transcripts, permanent licensee re. cords, etc.) may be removed from the allegation record file.
VII. Special NRC Actions As. addressed in certain allegation action plans, it may be appropriate to
' initiate actions which are not routinery reqvfred"for aTTegation follow up. These may include:
issuing requests for information to the licensee under 10 CFR 50.54 (f), Confirmation' of Action letters or orders; or requests to the Department of Justice to grant immunity.for certain individuals. Actions such as these, if required, shall be handled in accoroance with established NRC procedures.
VIII Kanpower Accounting Offices shall implement established manpower accounting systems to monitor resource expenditures related to this ability.
3 e
e s
i
91:
~
Diablo Canyon 'Allecation Manacement Staff
~
Oroanization Name Position Region V T. W. Bishop Staff Leader NRR G. k'. Knighton Member IE R. F. H.eishman Member ELD J. Liebennan Member e
e Q
6 3
O yeS 98*
b 1
6 l
%e L
6 6
6 4
o
u.
y
- - M.UG _.gud.m.-M-em -
uiD M -.- M-MM M eM.-. m amusu$- -- egg-W-emug.nu..myg g, E B
3,,8 - 8 er u
I E
m.
- u
-==_-e= = -. - --. man en-Z.m
., %; -.m.~- Z
- - se
. - = =
-==-4=.=..
3.
q-_q---
a i
S6 Q
l en em e
- - --.m=.am
-e--.===es.=-.mm an=
a-===m----
= = -- _ = === = = =. = =====me======-
==== %
4C m8 N
C S
S m
o Cn Cn
.- Cn er os e,
e n
A a
u N 40 N
- N
- N *
.es NN NN NN NN
-N N
- N
- N e
.NN NN N N.
WN e
-e ce
-..c.m.===.cn w
w en
- w Cm
-cn m-*
P - cm a
= = === = -. =
= = -- -. - -.== - -
= = -== = - -== = = = = = = = = -
B Un 2
a e
E
-me L.D
=
bed and
-.J A
p l
e as a
M so
==
ne n=#
e,s.s et W
C
=
g De O
3=
m
>=
L.J w
C E
Eb
- tad
-J
-e C3 had
.O 4#
G2 Z
Z.4
.O had
- C EC C
ns m
==
.J es O
O ti 3
M 2
==Z Z
Z 4/'t
>=
>=
e S
==
et M
.e 8C ee =
.e 2*
>=
Ln2 6
M S
e# m N== e
- C
=aJ w
so had Da haJ E
==
a se 46 NN 4J E
E.J 3"
J E
O 8""
e ter 4
Q et m
O J
>=
- )
=i 5
m as er n.
a m
u u
M d
to O tea e a e E
6
=="'3 C
w w
-J sc he.
had n.s O.
W M st) m f
44 m s.
be C
M N N g had an.
ch
==4.,e O
6 E
t=a O
aaJ w
w 3
e 3
C haJ C
LaJ D
C3 N== g haJ C6 M
2
.J, m.
af N N==
eC M
- C M
R
- Z 2"
ha.J v
>=
w haa C
- ~
Q
.s and g,a i
ct
.,J O
- 2 w
m
>=
>=
g M
c5 q
a u
O z
e c
ha has aC M
Z Z
Q O
cm m
-e b
>=
Q
- C W
.C O
had 3
y
"."E K.
O ha=8 G
C N
>=
bas a
i.
aC h-C eo 3
had 8"'l
==
DC E
Z te g
O E
N
- =
.C C
CD C
had et g
6ad had 4**
N d
8'""
=J a2
=
- ""J" p
aC p.
as e,
s.:
y u
C
=
O
>=
M sg aC 6
La,
.M.
et.
ha w
w h
w c
}
sie h
=
lal O
em E
N M
64.
m.
h y
had
>=
==
.J e-=
2 Z
es A
+
a--
O O
O haJ
>=
==
O 3
O E
tad M
- =
nas E
l3 Z
w tad og o
v w
A.e E
i b
3 O
- C CE h3 E
had na se J
cr z
M o
a w
a
'* g
')
be h*J O
- '3 Q
> = = _ =
O cc to O E Q
di.&
had E
E kJ W
n.
e.
>=
M
>=
v
.r. et eA e
-g O
LaJ D"
E h=J CM Ef at!
Q QQ 3
>= O
=
h.
i e
4 7
had W
==
-J J
I S
g
- E EE Z
O O.4 C.6 8
o 2
i e
er
.c is., c-g.a 6
64
(
.e
'*3 C
had ee M
z a
v th Q
- = hsJ U
>=
m E
I
>=
. = = =
EK w
M had m
a.C. erCCCC U
U e
D te t w
a NQ e4 est at 3A O
. m
- J JE M U
U C
Cr J
>=
O O af=
Z
>- es.
g h.J h
se.e 3 U.a 94 Z
L t.J L,.
m.
3.e M
had g
.e g
M h
8""l Ch. M
==.
EQ b-p.
EE M.J 3
g te ch. 6 N
h p.
o N
en ma y
y y
ga e E
N
= = *
- N E
M
==
6.J M g4 t, g e.
OE W"
M
==
u
==
O Cc.s ec C4 G c
g as W *C O
had W
O zC'* O 2
.m.
==
n.
to cL et M
a=
cr Ow O
.D. 9 g
-.= =. = =. -. - = = = = - _. -
-.--. - -= = -. -.
had M 4.J
-J had
- M Z.
mm e-.
E*
.---=e U.Z, W e b 4 eA em6 G.E LA M
to M
M M
M M
en a 6.s g#
M M
g/':
Q and t=d 6.J had 64 6.J 6.J naa g
e 6ha e,J e as 3 M
h M
M M
V W
M M
Ja; x
aus C
O C
O O
O O
O O
C+
C 4,, g as
.a
>=
e--
>=
>=
- =
p r
i g me og M
M M
M M
M 4A M
M gp me a
m.m.==- - - -. - - _ -. -. - -
_---as.----
.m.-
1/.;
- M I h k 4
e 4e Is'* g
,e n.
l e
3 h
- 9 e i.e. =.=
N e
=
m b
g -======.mo.mm==um==.-
- m-e-an amm e. -=====-.=--a==-m
-.= = - ===<==m-.m====M e6 6
.e
, y*4 i
8s es
% e=
/
l en ene *3 e
.e o en
=i.
i g
se C m
(
3 ha' = = = = " " " * " " "" ' " * * " " "" ' = ' = = * = =*8'"==***""***""'"=*8'"**" " * * * * * - " " * " "* * - -
==
ae b w4 l
>==
e (2
A.te
.,z es. A.
0
- a U
S%
Q N eC
==.
- 0. e M %W m e 6a e
m
.m-.
.mm
.m= a== ammuamm.mm momens amo esp==a==
====== mosee em aus em amo e-6 of A g 3
=,p.
me am en.-use===
>=
e Q
b en 3 pe %
1 I
}
{
v es = =
me ee aC f N **
gn
>=
C Cn O
=*
N M
- * *
- W U l M '")
e.r s.c3 me
==
=
N N
N N
N O e#
m s,!%
be, e, er to e.N
, esa--
-me. --== emaum==
.==.am -- amea-ee am-= = = = = =
A
.at aC.e
-==
-s-eso mus.=== q to 4*
ee 4 N N N
~
.n.
O a
=
-p---'e-,
w' e
- ' = " * * ~ - ' ' ' ' - - ~ ' ' ' " ' - ' " * - " " ' ' " - ~ ' * * " -
"~~'
0 4
11CPJED FOR J STIFICATION I
I = The allegation is/is not a specific safety or quality 5. sue or a generalized concern.
4 = The alleRation is/is not a stRnificent safet. or' 2 = The sta'i has/has not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The iss w has I>een previously dealt with or is new beins dealt with by PG&E.
22 = SSER 22 21 = SSER 2I IR = laspection Report 1
A111 CATION SOURCE DOCUMENT jALLEGER CHARACTERIZATION j
OLD MEW l
12/2/ s412/3. 4413/ 2/ a413/ 2/ s 413/ 23/ s 41 If 0Limi l
I I
l CAP I JI I CAP i JI l CAP 1 l
l UP 1 CLOSED l PC&; I PCE I NRC l i
I i
i i
l ~
l l
l I
I I
IRV(2)I I
1 1 300 1 1
IAN0 w IPC&E MANACEMENT VERBAL 1983 POLICY WAS THAT FIELD ENGINEERS SitOULD l
1 l
l lhns !
1 I
I I_
l mm IIGNORE ALL PROBLEMS WITH OVIDs l
l l
_1 Ipp n }
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
INRR l i
I l 301 l ll IlWNY-IPLANT DESICN DOES NOT REALISTICALLY ACCOt'NT FOR THE FULL EFFECT FRCH l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
l-Inous ITEMPERATURE VARIATIONS 1.
l l
1 I
{
j i
i i
i 1
l i
l(22)68 I
I I
I l
l I
l l.I litrDSon l TEE INSPECTOR ERAMINED THE 90 DAY WE1DERS LOC AND Fot!ND THAT NO VOID l
l l
l
_j I
I I
J ExtSTED BE1VEEN 8/72 AND 12/72 l
lIR 83-37 l
l l
l t
i I
l 1
l 1
l l(22)57 I
I I
I I
I I
I I2 Int:DSoM l Putt. MAN AND PcsP CONTEND THAT " NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION" (NDE) PER-l lgg g3 37 I
l 1
l I
1
_j I
I I
ISONNEL HAVE BEEN QUAllUtl.11LCE AT LMIL1974 I
I I
I I
j i
I I
i I
l lPC&E AND PVLIM CLAIM TRAT ADEQUATE BACRUP DATA EXISTS TO DEMONSTRATE l l
l l
l 1
l l
l l
l3 l HUDSON lTHK NDS PERSONNEL ARE QUALIFIED BASED ON TRAINING AND l
,l(22)57 I
IR 83-37 i
i l
i I
i l
IExPERIENCE l_
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l INDE EXAMINER PEP. FORMED MTE WELD TESTS, 314 IN FOUR DAYS l
l 1.
1 l
l l
t 1
I i6 inuDSON I l
l l,
I44)g,I I
not I
l
' I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
1 I
l 1
l i
i l
log g4 ) l l
1 l
l l3 IHUDSON lNDE TECHNICIANS CERTIFIED LEVEL II WITh0UT PROPER QUALIFICATIONS I
I I
l l
i i
l I
I i
I I
l i
I I
Iis not' 1
I i
1 I
I I
I I
I I
hr (4)I I
I I
I I6 IneDSON LA SLANK WFLD PROCESS SHFET WAS SIGNED AND THEN DUPLICATED FOR USE l
l l
l l isnot I
I i
1 I
I i
i i
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
i i
f 132 l
I I
l j
i I
I i
I7 FLEVETT lPC&E DEFENDED PUI.IllAN'S PRACTICE Ol' WELDING ON WATER FILIED PIPES I
l(22) l
.l l
l l
l I
I l-1 I
I I
I I
i 1
1 i
l.
I i
1 1
I l
137 8
8 8
I I
l l
l8 IT,f5fETT lPC&E HAS OVERMOKED THE FACT THAT CRACKS DCCUR WAEN WELDING WATER fit. LED l l(22) l l
I I
i i
l i
_]
I I
I IPIPts 1
[
t i
I I
l l13 !
l
'pTOKES p(EFFICIENT DEStr.it DRAWItr.S CAUSED ENGIEFRS TO USE DIFFERENT ASS l
l tl l
I I
I I
I i
1 1.5T vs 2T vs 3T)
I 1
I I
1 i
)
3 1
i9 l
l e
i I
s IJ.CEND FOR J STIFICATION I = The all natten is/is not a sycific safety es quality issue er a generalsrc<1 concern.
4 = The allegation is/is not a significant safet.or' 2 = The sts f hasthan not pre =leusly addressed this issue.
rentern.
I 3 = The iss e has been pseviously dealt with or is now being dealt with by PCe?.
22 = SSER 22 21 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report L
I AktICA !ON SOURCE DOCLMENT ALIICERI EMARACTERIZATION OLD j
NEW l
i 12/2/84}2/22/8483/2/8413/2/8483/23/84 i
FDLimi i
i i
I l
} CAP l JI
l UP l. CLOSED l FC&F. I PCE I WRC_1 I
l 1
l l
1 l
1 I
I I
INRR(2) i 1
i g 289 I I
IStoKES I ENGINEERS WERE rNST UCTED TO INDICATE TRAT SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW l
l l
I lhas l l
}
I
,_1_ _ _ _ 1 1
I l CALCetaticNS woutD NOT AFFECT THE FSAR I
I l
l Inod I
I i
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
lerRR(2)
I I
i 1.
I I
I ArrROVAL OF THE ORICINATOR l
l l
l lhas 1 l
l l
l 299 1 1
ISTORES I CAirJLATIONS TliAT CALLED FOR FIELD MODIFICATIONS WERE ALTFRED WITHOUT l
I I
l Ina Q
^
l i
I i
1 i
1 I
I I
I IN9R(2]
i 1
1 293 f I.
IStoRES I MuLT! rte ENGINEERS INDEPMDENTLY FRODUCED PRELIMINART CALCt!IATIONS ON l l
l 1
lhas l 1
I
_1 I
I I
I THE SAME HANGERS. ALLOWIFC MANI,GEMENT TO PICK AND CHOOSE I
l l
l lmd I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I lot (21 l
i I 292 1 1
IStortS I MANACEMENT POLICY WAS THAT ENGINEERS IN SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW WFRP. NOT l I
l l
lhas l I
1
_1 1
I I
I To AssVER CUESTIONS RAISEDJL!LRC l_
l I
l Innt l
)
i I
I I
I I
I I
I i
i bt (21 l
I I 293 !
I ISToxES I MANAcEMENT INT mtDATION OF AL MtS HELFED TO ENFORCE QUESTIONABLE CESICMl l
1 I
Ihas I
)
}
I I
I
)
I I rRACTICES l
1 l
l Int.__}
1 1
1 i
l i
i l
i 1.
I lot (2)
{
l i
I 294 1 1
lino 3y_ 1 FRE-INSFECTION F.NCINEERS DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO FIND AND CORRECTl l
l' I
lhas I i
1 1
l I
tes I rgangtq_gttwsCns I
I l
innt 1 I
i 1
1 I
I I
i l
I I
i IRv (2) i I
i 1 295 I I
- xnony_
- UNTIL FEBRUART 15. 1934 PRE-INSFECTION ENCINEERS DID NOT HAVE AUTIK)RITi i
I i
lhas l I
I I
I I
Ins l Toj.mtwg AtarguCggggA_ItgCapgss_pE.JEUCmLCIES I
I I
I Innt i I
I i
i i
I I
l l
l l
lav (2]l I
I I 296 I I
I ANoNT-1 BECitTEL MANAGEMENT DISFIATED DISRECARD FOR PROFESSIONAL CODES I
l l
l hus 1 I
I l
I I
l Mcvs I i
I I
i Inot._[
l i
I i
l 1
i i
l i
i IRV (2)l I
I I 297 I I
I ANcNY-l BECHTEL MANACFUENT PRACTICE COMPROMISES THE LICENSEE'S RECORD ON l
1 l
l Las I l
I I
I I
Inous I A ALITT AS$VRAUCE l
l l
I Inot i a
I I
l.
1 I
I i
i 1
i i
kv (2)l i
I I 29s 1 I
l ANoNT-1 INAcCIRATE CRWINCS MEAN THAT OPERATORS MAY RELt ON INFORMATION THAT l
l l
1 has 1 l
I
. _]
1 1
IMoes l CONrtlCIS__W[TN THE APPROVED DESIGN l
l l
l Ind i
i l
I I
i 1
1 i
i I
i kv (2M I
I I 299 I l
I AWY-l DRAW 1NCS THAT WIll RE RELIED ON BY OPERATORS ARE INCOHrt RTE I
I I
l has i I
I I
I I
lums I I
I I
I bot i I
?
i 1
l 1
g.
Y
6 s
LECEND FC3.I SilFICATION I = The all gation is/de siat a specific safety or quality issue or a generalized concern.
4 = The allegation ie/le not a sigalficant safety or*
2 m The sta f has/has not previously addressed this issue.
rencern.
3 a The iss e has been prev;eusly dealt with or is now being dealt with by PC&E.
22 a SSER 22 21 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report l
ALl1CA !O'l SOURCE DOCLEWT ALLEGER l CHARACTERIZATION OLD l
NLV l
l2/2/84l2/22 84l3/2/84'3/2/8413/23/84 l
D l CAP l JI l CAP Jij CAP l l
l l
l l
l lWHEN ASSUMPTIONS OR LOADS WERE CHANCED FUlt PRELIMINART CALCULATIONS l
l l
l bRR(d l
l l 278 l l
l STOKES l0N PIPE SUPPORTS THAT PREV 10USLT HAD FAILED, NO ONE RECEIVED OR CMECKED l l
l l
lhes l l
l l
l
[
l ITitE ENTIRE CALCUIATION I
l I
le' I
g l
g g
l
{
l l
l l
l lNRR(2) l l
1 279 l l
l STOKES l A 3ECiffEL OFFICI AL APPact/ED THE SE!SMIC REVIEW CALCUIATIONS EN MASSE l
l l
l lhas l g
l j
l
~l
._0VER SEVERAL DAYS WITHOUT STUDYING AND PROLEltLY REVIEWING TllE bot l
l l
I Inot I g
g l
l l
l l
l l
1 I
lNRR (2 j l
l l 280 l l.
l STOKES l MANAGEMENT DID NOT HAVE NECESSARY DOCI'MENTS FROM VENDORS TO CUIDE CAtro-l l
l I
lhes l l
l l
l l
l trAT1cns REQUIRED OF VENDOR PURCHASES FOR STRUCTultat.STvrr. SUPPckts l
l I
l Ino d l
l
~]
l l
l 1
l l
l 1
INRR(2j l
l l 281 l l
lStvKES IMANAGEMENT DID NOT SEND DRAWINC DETAILS AND SUPPORT CONDITIONS TO VALVE I l
l l
lhes (
I I
-I' l
l i
IMANUPACTrsrRS AND OTHER VEWDORS FOR APPROVA' l
l l
l let [
g l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I INRR(2j l
l l 282 l l
HTOKES (MANAGEMEr(T'S PRODUCTION SCHEDULE FOR SEISMIC DESICN REVIEW WAS TOO I
'l l
l lhes l l
l l
l l
l lRICOROUS I
l l
l Inot [
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 1.
I INRR(2j l
l l 283 l l
l STOKES lENGINEERS APPROVED HANCERS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF CONCLUSIONS IN FII_g l
l l'
I hae l l
l
~~l l
l l
l049243 TOR SIMILAR PIPE SUPPORTS l
l 1
l Inot l l
l l
l 1
,1 l
1 1
I I
l'iRR (2 j l
l l 284
')
l
'l STOKES lBECAUSE SITE ENCINEERS HAD TO WAIT UP TO A WEEK TO OBTAIN INFDRMATIONl l
l l
l1.a s l l
l
~l l
l l
- FROM S.F. OFFICE, DECISIONS WERE MADF. WITHOUT NECE11A. RY INFORMATION l
l l
1 bOf !
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
]NRR (2)I l
l l 285 l l
l STOKES lTitERE WAS NO SYSTEM USED TO VERIPT ACCURACY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FRON l l I
l bas l l
l l
l l
l l SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE ON TELEPHONE l
l l
l lnot
[
t i
I l
1 1
l l RV 5% l l
l l
l r
l l
l 286 l l
FTOKES lAT TIME OF STORES DEPARTURE, CPERATORS DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO CE'! TRAL I(23) l l
l l
l I
I I
l l
l IDOC. CENTER WITH INFO. NECESSART TO ' RESPOND TO PLANT CONDITIONS
( 14 I
I l
l
(
~.
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l RGR(J A I
l l 282 l l
tfreFES l STOKES REPORTED ERRORS IN TER M-9 COMPITTER ANALT$IS, WHICH INCORRECTLT l l
l l
has l l
[
l j
i l
llNSTRUCTED ENCINr.ERS IN MAKINC cal.CUIATIONS
{
l l
l ho t,,,,__ {
l l-l l
l l
1 1
1 1
I P:RH(21 l
l l2e i I
ttToKES In!E CATIDIATIONS USED TO OVERRULE THOSE REJECTINC PIPE SUPPORTS WERE l
l l
l b38 l
l l
l
_)
I i
it.ESS SorniSTICATED titan 'TIIE ORIClflAL CAlftII.ATIONS l
l l
l
[d __.]
P
6 LECEND FOR J 3TIFICATION I = The all sation is/is not a specific safety os equality issue er a generallred concern.
A = The alleRation is/is not a siRasticent safety or' 2 = The sta f has/ hse not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The iss e has been previously dealt with or is now being dealt with by FC&E.
22 = SSER 22 i
21 = SSER 28 IR = Inspection Report i
i ALLECA 'lON SOURCE IU Rf)ff ALI.ECER CHARACTERIZATION CLD NEW l
12/2/8412/22 85I5[2/84k2 %l3/23/g4 50LLOWI l
l 1
j CAP l JI _j CAP _l JI l CAP l 1
l_ UI' i CIDSED I FC&E l PCE l NRC I l
1 1
I I
I 1
I i
i INRR(21 267 I
I I
I l
l SToEES IQUESTIONABLE CONSERVATIVE BASIS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW (DOCIEENTl l
l 1
lhas l J
l 1
I I
I IMnm l-l 1
I lut_1 l
l l
l l
l 1
1 1
1 1
INRR(2j i
l l 26s I I
I ST0xES l ANALTSIS ME-101 FOR SEISMIC DESICN REVIEW DOES NOT REPRESENT CONSERVA. l 1
l l
lhas l I
I l
l l
1 I n VE ENCfMFFRIMC SIAFnARDC "IN MANY ( M Ft" l
l l
l Iflot. I I
l i
I I
I IMANAGEMENT DID NOT FREELY DISTRIBUTE PROFESSIONAL CODES THAT SUPPOSEDLY l l
1 l
lNRR(2j i
i i 269A I l,
i STOKES l PARALLELED COMPUTER ANALTSFS RELIED ON BY ENGINEERS IN THE SEISMIC l
l 1
l lhes I 1
1 1
I I
I lprsics arvirW l
l i
I Iqqt_1 l
l l
l t
I I
i l
i i
INRR(2) l l
l 2698 l l
[ 570KES IM-9 COMPUTER ANALYSIS FOR ANCLES OMITTED AISC PROVISION FOR ALLOWABLE I
I I
I lhas I I
l
,_1 1
1 IBENDING STRESS. CONTRARY 1D I,1CEJN JEQ__CQtt!LIttEEIS I
I l
I triol._)
I i
I i
l IMANAGEMENT CrFICIALS OVERRULED ENGINEERS WHO ATTEMPTED TO cal 4UIATE l
l
'l l
SNRR(2)l l
l l 27 1
I l ANONY-lErFECTS AND STRESSES OF TORSIONAL IDADS CREATED ON PIPE SUPPORTS DURINC l
'I I
I Ihas 1 J
l l
l l
lMouS IINSTALIATION l
[
l l
Int __l i
I I
i 1
i i
I i
l-I NRR(2)l l
l l 272 I l
l SToxES IMANAGEMENT IMPOSED INCONSISTENT STANDARDS FOR WDIFICATIONS IN THE I
l l*
l lham l
}
1 I
I l
l l SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW l_
l l
l htd I
i i
i i
l i
l 1
1 I
kiRR(2]l l
l l 273 l l
l STOKES lRECitTEL ISSUED DUT-OF-DATE COMPUTER STRUDI. MANUALS TO ENGINF.ERS IN THE I l
i I
lhas l J
l
_1 I
I I
ISEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW l
j_
l l
b1__]
l 1
1 I
l l
l 1
1 I
I IIRR(2)l i
I l2M l l
l STOKES lENGINEERS IN Tile STRESS CROUP RELIED ON OUTDATED SEISMIC DATA TilAT WAS l l
l l
has i I
I I
I l
l lNECESSARY FOR TilEIR CRLCUIATIONS I
._ [
l l,
bot l I
I I
i 1
1 I
l I
I i
DRR(2)I I
I I 275 I I
I STOKES IBECHTEL'S COMPUTER PROCPNI DID NOT' HAVE AN ADEQUATE "HEMORY" FOR ENGIN-l l
l l
Iias l
l l
l l
1 l
lEFRS TO CONDUCT rULL ANALYSES OF C0HPl.ER_HANCERS l
l l
l pot j i
i 1.
1 I
i l
l l
l 1
tiRR (2)I I
I I 276 1 1
ItTOKES ITHERE WAS NO CONSISTENT PROCEDRUE OR CRITERION T6 CUIDE ENGINEERS 5110 l
i I
I Ii49 l
1 1
_1 1
I I
l CHECKED CA!,CULATIONS IN THE SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW I
j i
i liot
[
l l-1 I
l l
l MANAGEMENT DIRECTED A PURGB 0F FILES TO REmVE ANY EVIDENCE OF FREVIDif5-1 l
l l
JIRR(2)l l
l 1 277 l l
l STOKES lLY DES'Ilt0 FED OR CENSORED b'ORK FROH ENCINEERS WHO FAILED HANCERS Rirr I
i l
I lims 1
I l
j i
f l_
IWERE LATER OVERRULED l
_L i
l bg[
/
P
I
'l I
IEGEMD TOR Jt'STIFICATION 4 = The allegation is/is not a significant safety oc' all.gation Is/is not a specific safety or qua!!ty issue or a genesalized concern.
1 = The concern.
2 = The sta f hes/hss not previously addressed this issue.
22 m SSER 22 3 = The las e has been previously dealt with or is now being destt with by PG&E.
21 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report ALLEGA' ION SOURCE DOCUMENT lALLEGER CllARACTERIZATION l
OLD 1
NEW l
livLind) l l
l l
e i
2/2/8412/22*8413/2/84l3/2/8483/23/841 I UP l CIDSED I IC&E l FCE I NRC I l CAP l JI l CAP l _ JI l CAP l 1
1 1(22) l I
I i
I I
i i
i l
l t 256 l l
l STOKES loUALITr Or REVIEW rROCESS quESTIONAB1.E BECAUSE ASSUMPTION SilEETS NCTI l
155 et al.
I 1
l l
1
_l i
I I
IINCLUDED IN FINAL, CA1.CUIAfl0NS IN SEISHIC DESIGN REVIEW l
l l
l l
1 1(22) i I
I l
i l
i I
l I
l l
1.257 l l
l STORES lFC&E RESPONSE TO NRC ON SHAll. BORE FIFING ANALYSIS DOES NOT CONTAIN l
l$5 et al.
l l
l l
l l
_I I
I I
lENOUCH IgTORMATION TO SUFFORT A CONCIESION l
l l
l l
l l
l(22)
I 1
1 I
l 1
i i
i i
l l
g l 258 l g..
ISTORES JCONCLUSIONS OF FC&E IS JANUARY 27. 1984 RESPONSE TO NRC ON EIFANSION l
l$$,g 3,
l l
l j
l 1
1 I
i 1
1 ANCHORS ARE BASED ON INCOMPLETE, INCONSISTENT DATA l
l
~l l
l g
lTHE RELIABILITY OF THE SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW IS tlAMPERED B1 ITS l
l -
l l
l Nag l i
l l
l l
l l
l l 259 l l
J ANONY-l RELIANCE ON DEFICIENT DATA FROM AFFARENTLY UNQUALIFIED PERSONNEL DURINC l l
- [
[
[
[
l l
l g
l g
l I
__ l 1
i HOUS 181/82 WALEDOWN OF Fl. ANT 1
1(22) i I
I l
i i
l l
I l
l l
1 260 l I
l ANONY-IESSENTIAL INFORMATION T0R REVIEW CALCUIATIONS FOR DESIGN VERIFICATION l
'l55 et al.
l l
l l
l j
i l
l IHOUS IWERE REH0VED FROH DRAWINGS l
l l
l l
j 1
1 1.
l lNRR l l
i i
l I
I i
l l
l 261 l l
g ANONY-INO ROOH FUR HOVEMENT WITH ATTACitfENTS AND BASEFLATES OBSERVED AS A l
l l'
l l(2) i I
I I
i i
IMOUS lC M RIC PROBt.FM j
_]
1 l
lhss 1 l
i 1
I I
lNRR l l
i I
I l
I l
l l
l 262 l l
l ANONY-l SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW TAILED TO ACCOUtrT FOR EXTRA RESIDUAL STRESS FROM l l
l l
g y g,,l l
g l
l ggg l
l l
l l
IH005 10VER WELDING i
1(22) i 1
l l
i I
l l
I I
l l
l J
j 263 I I
I ANONY-I SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW HAT HAVE FAILED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EFFECTS OF l 192-93,126 l l
l i
I I
I I
I I muS linE WELD STMBOL BREARDOWN
[
g l
~l l
[
l l
1 1
INRR(2A I
i
(
l I
i i
l J
l l
i 264 I l
l STOKES l ENGINEERS IN THE SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW DID NOT 11 AVE WRITTEN PROCET)URES I l
l l
lhas i 1
1 I
i 1
l l
ITO cUIDE THIER USE OF STRUDI. COMPUTER FROGRAM l
l l
l Inot }
l l
J l
INRR(21 i
I I
l'.
I l
I I
I l 265 l l
sTogES l ENcINEERS IN THE STRESS CROUP WERE TRANSFERRED AFTER CHAI.LENGING SUSPECTl l
l l
lhms l l
l 1
_1 1
I I
ICHANCES IN THE WDELS FOR REVIEW CALCULATI3d5 I
l j
j jnot 1 l
l l
l INRR(2j I
l*
1 1
1 1
l l
I I 266 l l
l STOKES l INADEQUATR RECORDS OF RANCER CALCUIATIONS REQUIRE EXPANDED SAMPLING BY l l
l l
4, g
l
,1 l
l l
l l
lsElsMIC DESIGN REVIEW l
l l
I bot I 1
s' f
LEGEND FOR JfrSTIFIEATION 1 = The all gation is/is not a specific safety or <3uality leave er a generalized concern.
4 = The allegitica is/in not a significant safety or' j
2 = The sta f bas /has not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issne has been previously dealt with or is now being' dealt with by PG&E.
22 o SSLR 22 21 = SSER 28 IR = Inspection Repost OLD j
NEW l
ALLEGA -lON SOURCE DOCUMENT ALLEGER CitARACTERIZATION
2/2/8412/22 8413/2/8413/2/5413/23/84 iFOLIEWI l
1 i
I i CAP I JI I CAP l JI l CAP l l
l UP 1 CIASED j FC&E I PCE I NRC 1 l
i 1
i i
l 1
1 1(22) l I
l I
l l
l 245 l 1
l ANONY-l1983 PC&E REFORM COMMITMENTS Oft WELD SYMBOLS WERE INACCURATE IN FACT, & 1 192-93, 124 I I
I l
I i
l I
.I IMOUS IDEMONSTRATED A LACK OF 15DJJtiMt3D1HG_NLollI_IHE PROBI.EM l
I
__l l
l l
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
f(22) 1 I
I I
i i
1246 I l
l ANONY-lPC&E'S REFORM CottilTMENTS IIAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED TO THE FIELD THROUC11 1
192-93, 324 l l
l l
1 I
1 I
ImUS l AN OH-SITE UMNIEQ_U2GMM FOR THE FRGMJES l
l l
l l
l l
1 1
I i
l 1
i f(22) 1 I
l l
1 l
! 247 1 11 lANONY-IPC&E DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN PREHEATING WAS REQUIRED FOR WFLDINC l
!!26 l
I I
I I
I
_J l
I IMOUS I
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
1 i
i l
ITHE QUICK FIX PROGRAM WAS USED TO THWART QC INSPECTORS WHO RAISED l
l l
l lNp R(2)l l
l t 248 I l
l ANONY-IFROBLEMS WIT 11 WELD SYMBOLS WHEN THEY REFUSED TO SIGN FOR WELDS THEY I
l l
l l as !
h I
I I
I I
nous ics to n0T ngAD SYMBOLS roR I
I l
l IntJ l
i I
I I
i l
l(21) 1 1
1 1
I I
I 249 I I
ANONY-jlN 1983 PC&E MANAGEMENT CORRECTED EXAMPLES OF A CENERIC DEFICIEf3CY BUT l 1826 l
l l
1 1
I I
I I
ImuS lutunD TO PEGQGMIE THE MT_QR.T 06 TW!jl!_CEff t.EM l
l l
I l
l i
l i
l i
l i
i 1
1 l
l l
l l
l 250 l l
lANONY-IrC&E MANAGEMENT'S RATIONALIZATION TO THE NRC STAFF, THAT DEFECTIVE WEIDS l l(2) has l*
l l
l 1
I I
I I
InouS lAu_ mucus.AL_MS tmTENELE CENEMCETMCAUMS l
l l
_l l
l l
1 1
1 I
l l
1 1
1 I
l l
1 l
l 251 I l
lANONY-lCERTAIN " UNNECESSARY" WELDS ARE VITAL TO Tile SAFETY OF PLANT EQUIP!1ENT l l(2) has i
I l
i I
l
__I I
I ItatS I
l 1 _ _ _
l l
I 1
1 I
I I
I I
IA CURRENT ENGINEER AT DIABLO CANYON CHARACTERIZED PC6E'S FEBRUARY F 1
l(22) l l
l 1
I I
I 252 l l
!ANONY-l RESPONSE (DCL-80-040) TO A JANUARY 19 NRC AUDIT EXIT INTERIVEW AS BEING l 192-93, 126 l l
1 1
I I
I 1
1 IMOUS ITALSE l_
_ l l
l l
[
l I
l i
I i
i l
l(22) i i
i I
l l
l 1 253 1 1
(ANONY-IIN ITS FEBRUARY 7 RESPONSE TO TIIK NRC STAFF, PC&E MAY HAVE SUBMITIED 1
19 2 - 9 ), 12h l I
I l
I I
1 i
i ImuS legEINpLLF_A1 SE STATEMFES ON WELD $YMBOLS I
I l
_1 l
[
2 1
1 1.
l l
l ION FEBRUARY 21, FIELD F.NCINEERS RECEIVED A PG&E MANAGEMENT MEHORAN00M, I
f(22) l I
l l
l l
1 254 l l
lANONY-lTFAT PREINSPECTORS C001D CitANCE WELD SYMBOLS 10 ASSURE COMPLI ANCE WITH l 192-93, 120 l l
l 1
l_
I I
I IMouS fAws A 2.4 I
I I
[
l
{
l l-1 1
1 l
l l
1(22) i I
I I
I l
1 255 l l
ISToRES lEFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION TO VERIFY THE SIZE OF SKEWED FILLET AND 1
112-93, 12( l i
I i
I I
I I
I I
IcRoovE WELDS _HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMEfrFED l
, I I
I I
1 l
9 l'
O LEGEND FO].P15TIFICATION I
- The all estion Is/is set a specifie safety or eguality issue er a generallred centeen.
A = The ellegation la/is not a siRntifrant aslety or
- 2 = The sta f han/ hse met previously addressed this tesue, concern.
3 = The iss e has lecen previously dealt with or is now being' dealt witla by PC&E.
22 = SSER 22 21 = SSER 21 1R = Inspection Report j
ALI.ECA'80N SOURCE DOCUMENT ALLEGER CHARACTERIZATION l
OLD IIEW l
12/2/81l2/22'84l3/2/85}3/2[ill3/23/84 lFOLLO5fl l
l l
l CAP 1 JI ~~{ CAP l JI l_ CAP l j
j Ur _ l CIDSED 1 PG&E I PCE ) WRC l
}
l l
l l
l jQC INSFt.UUli5 COULD NOTTLEAD'5YTUDLS AND IN5fRUCTIONS ON THF DESIGN l
1p2) l l
l l
l l
l 234 l l
lSTOKF.S l DRAWINGS SECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CONSISTENTLY QUALIFIED 10 THE AWS CODE l l92, 93, l2(,l l
l l
l g
]
l l
l l AND NOT ISSUED THC SYMBGts CODE g
g j
l l
l l
l 1(22)
I i
i 1
l 1
l l
l lANONY gUNTII. FEBRUARY, 1984, NEITHER THE DESIC?l ENGINEERS, CONSTRUCTION NOR l
l 92_93,126 l l
l 1
l l
l 235 l 1
l lHOUS lTHE CONTRACTOR USED A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF WELD SYMBOLS j
g(22) g l
l g
j l
l l _
1 i
i l
I i
1 1
1 i
1 i
l l
l l 236 1 l.
lANONY
,1N SOME CASES. TH1'.RE WAS NO DESIGN CUIDANCE FOR WEl.DINC IN THE FIFLD l
l 92-93, 126l l
l l
g l
_g l
l lMOUS _gDUE TO THE LACR OF SYMBOLS FOR WF.I. DING REQUIRED BY THE tRAWINGS l
g l
l l
g 1
i l
K2) I 1
i i
1 1
i l ANONY-lF!Elb ENGINEERING PERSONNEL ARE CONSISTEN11.Y UNTRAINED AND ARE NOT CO l
l l
g,,,
l l
l l
l 237 I I
l l
g_ j l
l lHOUS l$1STENTLY RNOWLEDCEABLE ABOUT WELD SYH30LS l
g l
j l
l 1
l I
i l
i l
I f(22) 1 I
I I
I 1
l 238 l l
lANONY INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF WEl.D SYMBOLS IN PART WAS DUE TO RELIANCE l l 92 93, 126l l
l 1
l l
g l
l gNOUS joNANORALTRADifl0N,INSTEADOFDOCUMENTEDINSTRUCTIONS l
g l
l g
g
]
l l
l l
j lTmn;TArmmrmTRAn0N ON-stTE wArTrrAswim TuAT 5ATITFRinuD 1
101) e6,87 1 I
I l
l l
l 239 l l
lANONY-l WELDING WAS DONE PROPERLY, EVEN VHEN SYMr.01.S DID NOT PROVIDE CORRECT l
l(22) 92-9),l l
1 l
[
[ _._,)
l l
lHOUS jlNSTRUCTION g_
_ [3 2(,
j
_g l
l l
1 1
l I
l i
1 i
l f(2) l i
1 I
i 2r.O I I
IANONT- ;THE WORD "TYFICAl/* HAS BEEN UTILIZED TOO EXTENSIVELY IN VARIOUS INTFR-l l
l ha, l
l l
1
._l l
l lHDUS
[PRETATIONS l
l l
l g
l 1
1 I
i i
l I
i 1 U2) 126, I i
l t
l l
l 24g g l
lANONY-lTHE WELD SYMBOL BREAKDOWN RESUI.TED IN OVERSIZED WELDS THAT CAN Al.50 l
l 121,129 l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
gM005 COMPROMISE SAFETY
[Ai.uinta tr a tta ur wELp 5THNOL~5REAKTEfrKRIORAUINCUTTIATilAKr.
g g({)))
g l
l l
l l
l l
l g
l g
g g
l l
l l
l 242 1 1
1ANONY-lIMPOSSIBl.E CIAIMS ABOUT WELDS, MEANING AS-8UILT CONDITION IS l
l 126 l
l l
l
)
l_
_l l
l
[Mous llNDETERMINATE g
g l
_i l
I l
g g
i i
l*
l t
i irC&E MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE TO FIELD FNGINEERS INITIATIVES TO CORRECT l
l(22) i l
l l
l 243 l l
lANONY-l WELD SYMBOL DEFICIENCIES INCL.tfDED DEMOTIONI TRAN$FERS; AND ORDERS To l
l126 l
l l
1 l
l l
[
l l
1
. _1 1
1 MouS 13 Tor I
[T22)
I l
l l
1 l
l l-1 i
I l
l 1
I I 244 I I
HANnNY-IIN 1983. MANAcEMr.NT FAllID TO PROCESS IN WRITING N!NOR VARIATION RTPORTS l l 126 l
l j
i l
i l
I i
IMoos 11HVR) ON WElglNG I
l
[
_[
l
}
I.
{
e l'
r
I e
LEGEND FOR JUSTIFICATION 4 = The allegation is/is not a slani(Econt safety or-t l = The allegation is/is not a specific safety or quality issue or a generallred concern.
concern.
= The staff han/ hse not previously addressed this issue.
22 = SSER 22 2
= The iss ie has been previously dealt with or is now being' dealt with by PG&E.
21 = SSER 21 3
IR = Inspection Report Olb NEW
_l CHARACTERIZATION ALLEGA" ION SOURCE DOCUMENT ALIICEP.
FOLIDNl l
l l
2/2/8412722'8413/2/84l3/2/8413/23/84i l UP l CLOSED _ [ PCG l PCE l_ItRC l l CAP l JI I CAP l JI l CAP l l
I I
I I
ku(21 I
I l
l l
l lhes l l
l l
1 I
gStoRES l THE QUICK Plx rroCRAM sunSTIruTED INr0RMAL REPAIRS FOR CONTROLLED l
l l
j lg l
l l 223 l l
l CORRECTIVE ACTION T1tROUCH THE FORMAL NONCONFORMANCE STSTEM l MANAGENFM OFFICTKITKHTTHYlLY Linluu Tus score OF nas gutcK a u l
l l
l pg,g l
l l
l l
l l STORES l PROGRAM WHEN FREINSPECTION "ENCLNEERS TRIED To USE IT AS A SOLUTION TO I l
l l
lhes l l
l l
l l
l l
l j
j lgg l
l g,224 l l
IQUALITT DEFICIENCIES" l
l (22) l l
l l
1 1
I I
i 1
lilICKU5N~1iETICIENI DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR WELDING. IHE VARIOU5 DEF5fLT-I l 92-93.1261 I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l STOKES lMENTS HADE DRASTICALLY INCONSISTENT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WEIR IP ENETRATION
{
l g
l l
l l
l l 225 l l.
l 1(22) l 4
l l
lASSUMritoNS USED BY THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE TO DESICM BEVEL AND ITKEI 1
- I
~_1 I
I I
l h 126 I
I l
l l
l 1
l i
1 l STOKES l BEVEL WELDS FOR TUBE STEEL WERE INACCURATE AND COMPROMISE CIAlHS THAT l
l l
l
{
l l
l 226 l l
, l l
l l
lTHE DESIGN IS CONSERVATIVE j
l I
(20 1
~l I
i i
l l
'l 126 l
l l
l l
1 1
1 I
l STOKES l WELD PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES FAILED 10 COMPCNSATE FOR IMACCURATB l
l l
l l
[
g l
l l 227 l l
l l
l l
l l
l DESIGN DRAWINGS i
I (22) 1 1
1 1
i i
l l3g l
l l
l i
l I
i l
l STOKES lESD-223 DID NOT REQUIRE JOINTS FOR BEVEL AND FLARE BEVEL WELDS 70 RE i_
j i_
_i i
i 1
I I 278 l l
I L__ J l
I I
IrtuSu 1
I (22) i I
l 1
l 1
l 92-91. 12f,l l
l l
l I
I l
l l STOKES lMR. STOKES AND OTHER WITNESSES HAVE OBSERVFD BEVEL AND FLARE BEVit. WE l
_j j
j l
l l
l l 229 l l
l l
l l
l l
lTHAT WERE NOT FLUSit 1
1(22) i I
I I
SPEC!FIED IN PUL12 TAN VElb FROCEDURES AND TECl{NIQUES Din NOT l l 92_93,126 L l
l I
l l
i I
I I
i l
_g j
l l
l l STORES lTHE ANCLES I
l l 230 l l
l MATCH THE RELEVANT CODE REQUIREMENTS IN DESIGN COMMITMENTS 1
I (22)
]
l 1
1 l
l 1
l l
l l
1 g
l 92 93, 126l l
l l
l 1
I l
l l STOKES lQC TNSrECTORS Dt3 NOT RECEIVE CALIBRATED TOOLS TO MEASURE THE VISIBLE l
j l
l l
[
l l
l 231 l l
l RAD 11 OF BEVLL & FIARE BEVEL WELDS ON AN AS-BUILT BASIS 1 1 (22) l I
I l
1 l
_t l
l 1
l l 92_93, 325l l
l l
lpTOKES lTHE CURRENT QC CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM FOR WELD. DESIGN DEFICIENCIES l
I in i
I lDOES NOT COMPENSATE FOR PAST MISTAKES j
j l
l l
g I
l l 232 g l
g l (223 l
l l
l l
l
,j l
l l
l As oF Ha. sTt*E's ouoat:a o. waJ utraniune, connoui svt. ^LTion wm.
l g 92 93.126 l l
l l
l l
l-l l
l l STOKES l1NADEQUATE FOR INACCURATE DESIGN DRAWINGS ON BEVEL AND FLARE BEVEL l
l l
l l
[
l l
l 233 l l
1 1
I I
I I
IWELDS i
1
I 1.EGEND TOR JUSTIFICATION 4 = The alleRation in/is not a significant safett or'
= The allegation is/to not a specific safety or quality issue or a Reneralized concern.
f I
concern.
= The staff han/hes not previously addressed this issue.
22 = SSER 22 2
m The issue has been previously dealt with or is now being dealt with by PC&E.
21 = SSER 24 3
IR = Inspection Report CitARACTERIZATION l
OLD l
NEW l
}
ALLEGA'80N SOURCE DOCUff.NT ALIICER IFOLLOWI l
l l
1 l2/2/84l2/22 ' %! 3/2/84l 3/2/84! 3/23/84 l t!r 1 CIDSED I FCLE I PCE l NRC l j CAP l JI l CAP.I JI 1 CAP l l
1 I
I i
1 01 i I
i l
l l
l Igg) {
1 I
I I
l ANONT-lMR. KARNER TORE UP A DCN TitAT A QC INSPECTOR HAD WRITTIDI TO PROTEST
[
l l
l lIs not )
l i
l 212 8 212 l l
l l
l l
MOUS litARASSMINT BT SUPERINTENCENT RICH EABINEAU 1
1 1
1 1 01 I ANONT-lWHEN SOME QC HISPECTORS WERE TESTED 10 BE CERTIFIED TOR WELD INSPECTIONS l l
l l
l(4) l l
l I
I I
l 1
I J
l I
IHOUS ITuE ANSWERS TO THE TESTS WERE 1. TING ON THE TABLE l
l l
l lie notl i
l 1 213 1 213 I I
i i
i i
1 01 I i
l l
l l
l l(6) l I
i l
i l
I ANONY-lrC&E HAS ATTEMPTED TO HINIMIZE ACCOUNTABILITY BT ESTABLISHING A POLICT J
l 1
l_
i IM0uS lOr DeCUMENT DESTRcCTION AND CREATION OF SANITIZED RECCRDSl
[
__l_
l lla tiot[
l i
I 214 1 214 l.
1 I
I I (2) l l
l l
l I 215 l l
l ANONY,TiiE FLANT IS BEINC DESICNED AND BUILT THROUCH MEMORANDA RATilER Ti!AN l
l l
l hao l l
l l
I I
I l
l l __ l l
l j
l l
l l
lMOUS
[UNDER CONTROLLED FROCEDURES (SEE (8) l lMANAGEMENI INSTRUCTED A DESIGN ENGINEER TO AFFROVI, PIPE SUITORT l
l l
l lNRR/ l I
I I 216 I I
UNKNOW'I IREVISIONS MARKED ON AS-BUILT DRAWINGS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AN l
'l l
l l01 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1.
I fNRR(2j 1
1 1
1 I
I IANALYSls i
1 l
i l
l l'
l Ihas !
l l
1 i
i l
l l 237 l l
l STOKES l MANAGEMENT KEPT PERSONNEL PARTICIFATING IN THE QUICK T11 FROGRAM l
l l
l jnot !
j l
l l
l l
lICNORANT OF THE CROUND RULES l
l l
1 INiiRUT l
l l 218 l l
l STOKES l A QUICK FIX MD10 DID NOT SUCCEED IN C1. EARING UP CONFUSION. BECAUSE IT l
l l
l lhan l l
l I
i i
l l
1 1
I I
I I
IMISSED MORE OF THE FROGRAM THAN IT COVERED l
l l
l lnot__j l
l l
l l
l llN JUNE, 1983 HEFU, MANAGFMI;NT DIREC1ED THAT FSDIC'S "ARE TO BE TRtAILD l l
l l
l4RR(2]
I I
I 2ig l l
l STOKES llN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORICINAL ' AFPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION' l
l l
l lhas l l
l l
l
[nnt j IDRAVINC" l
l 1
I I
I ~
l ALTiiOUGH QUICK FIXES WERE SUBJECT ID LATER REVIEW. HAHACUltNT l
l l
l lNRR(2)
I I
I 220 l l
l STOKr.S lREPRESENTATIVES TOLD MR. STOKES THAT TIIE FINDINGS WERE ACCEPTED AT A l
l l
l lhas l
(
l l
l l
l
{
}
l l
lnot _ l l
1
_l l
l l
198% RATE I
I l
l INI 4
I l-1 I
I I
l l
l l
[has l 1
1 I 221 1 I
l' STOKES lTHE UNCONTROLLED f)UICK FIX AUTHORITY WAS ABUSED l
l I
I not 1
i l
i l' N l
_j i
I I
I I
i l
l l
l
[has [
i l
l I
I STORESITliE Quick FIR PROGRAM IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTRD FOR Tile FORMAL DEStCN AND PS l
l l
lnot [
1 1 222 I I
ICONSTRUCTION QA REPORTING SYSTEM THROUCHOUT Tile PROGRAM FOR HANGl:
t I
l l
I I
i
'i LEGEND TOR JUSTIFICATION I = The allegation Is/is not a specific safety or <luality issue or a generallred concern.
4 = The allegation is/is not a siRnificant safety er-2 = The stalf han/hss not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 s The issue has been previously dealt with or is now t>eing. dealt with by PC&E.
22 = SSER 22 21 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report
[
ALLEGATION SOURCE DOCUMElrT
' ALLEGER CHARACTERIZATION I
OLD NEW l
12/2/8412/22/SM3/2/8413/2/8413/23/84.
Il0LLowl I
l l
j CAP l JE I CAP _ j JI l CAP l I
l UP l CIASED l PC&.- 1 PCE I NRC l l
l l
l l
6 I
I i
1 I
l I
I I
I I
I I
l l
I 201 l 20I I I
I HUMBER SKIPPED J
l I
I I
I I
I I
1 J
l i
I i
i i
I I
i i
l l(2) i I
I i
i l
3.202 0 202 I lANONY-1 Il0LDS DRILLED BY BOSTROM-BERCEN AND AMERICAN BRIDGE DID NOT HATCll THE I I
lhan I
I l
l l
l t
I IMOUS I DESICM DRAWING. PULIJtAN_9C, XSPJGT0LS J N_QERN_WAS_ W M D I
l l__
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
lNRR I
1 l
l l
1 I
I 203 1 203 I.
lANONY-l FAULTY QC FOR PAINT AND OTHER PROTECTIVE COVERING l(22) l l
l l
1 J
l
_I l__ _ l IHouS I
Ilog__l 1
.I J
l l
l l
l l
l l
lNRR l
l l
l l
l l
l 204 1 204 l l AMONT-1 ADDITIONAL ADVERSE IMPACT OF FAULTY QUALITY CoffrROLLED PAINT JOB (SEE l(22) I 1
i l
l l
l
_[
l l
lMOUS l ABOVE) h00_ _ l i
I I
I I
l l
l l
l l_
INRR l l
l l
1 i
l 1 20s i 205 l I ANONY-l PC&E MAD NO QC PROGRAM FOR PAINT JOB BEfDRE 12/83 l(22) l I
I l
I L
1
_1 I
I IMOUS I
1100 1
1 I
I I
i 1
l l
l l
1 INRR l
l l
l l
I I
I 206 1 206 I l ANONY-l Pl>NT SPEC USED BT PAINT FOREMAN DID NOT CONFORM 10 THAT OF THE RECORDSI(22) I I
l l
i I
I I
i 1
IMOUS l der 6RRfENT_
lJQ0_l l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
INRR l 1
l l
l 1
1 I 207 I 207 l IANONY-l CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR QC PAINT VIOLATIONS HAD BEEN PROSPECTIVE ONLY l(22) l i
1 l
l l
1
_I I
I IM0uS I
_Lipp _l i
I i
1 l
l t
i l
i i
innR I
i i
i I
1 I
I 208 l 208 I I ANONY-l QUALITY OF AN UNKNOWN PERCENTAGE OF PAltri AND OTHER PROTECTIVE COATINGS l(22) l l
l l
l l
l
_j l
l IHOUS 1 IS INDETERMINATE lj o0_ l l
_l l
l l
l
'l l
l l
l I NiiR I
I I
I I
I I
I 209 l 209 I l ANONY-l H0 EVIDENCE OF ANY EFFORTS ET PC&E TO ASSESS SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF THRI(22) l I
l l
l l
l
.I i
1 IHOUS 1 HON-EKISTF.NCE OF ANY QUALITY CONTROL FORJA1.NT l_LQQ_ l j
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
lump i
l i
l I
I l
1 210 1 210 l I ANONY-l PAINT INSPECTORS HAVE NOT BEEN INSTR 11CTED THAT THET CAN WRITE A NON-l(22) l l
l l
l l
i l
__ l.
I I
IN005 i CONr0RHANCE_REf0RI_iNCR) l l 00___j I
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l A QC INSPECTOR WAS TOLD HE C0tfLD NO IENGER BE ALLOL.'ED TG OCCASIONAf.I.Y l
l l
l I
I I
l 211 1 211 1 1 ANONY-l ACT AS A TEMPOR/RY LEADMAN, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SUFriCIDrrLY " PRODUCTION I I
I i
l(4 )011 1
I
_J _ _.
I I
lMOUS I OR_IENTED" I
l
,_J l
[ismatl
\\
1 g*
'I LF.GEND FOR JU.iTIFICATION 4
I = The allegation is/is not a sperific safety or quality lasue or a generalized concern.
4 = The allegation is/is not a significant safety or 2 = The staf f has/has not previous!v addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issue has been previously dealt with or is now being dealt with by PG&E.
22 = SSER 22 28 = SSF.R 21 IR e Inspection Report j
ALLEGATION SOURCE _00CIPfENT ALLEGER I
CllARACTFRI,ZATION j
OLD NEW I
12/2/84l2/22/8413/2/8413/2/84l3/23/84 lFOLIJ1WI l
l I
- 1. JI I CAP l_
l j UP l.. CLOSED M rEI I FCE I NRC l I
i l
i l
I i
1 i
l I
foi i l
l l190 l 190 l I ANONY-ITHE ABOVE INDIVIDUAL WAS TRANSFECRED TO A FABRICATION WP FROPt A WELDERI I
l l
II" ""I J
l l
I I
lHNS tro_SITr0H
[
l l
,j l0I J l
i I
I l
I l
I l
i 1 (4) i i
l I
i 191 1 191 1 I ANONY-ITHE ABOYE INDIVIDUAL VAS LAID OFF DESPITE HIS FOREMAN'S REQUEST TO RG" l l
l lis l l
l
_j l
1 1
_inwS IHIM j_
1_
l i not I l
i 1
1 1
1 I
I i
i 1
(4) l I
I i192 l 192 l 14NONT-l PC&E MAY ltAVE RECEIVED STAINLESS STEEL TRAT ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH l l
I l
lis l 1
l 1
j_
l IMUS J N LEVANT CODE DUE TO A 12))/8.3 fURCHASE ORDER FRROR l
I l
J I nod I
i i
l i
L l
l I
I I
k4) l I
I i193 1 193 I I ANONY-ITHE STEEL RECEIVED FROM THE ABOVE PURCHASE ORDER WILL CAUSE WFLDED I
I I
l l 1s l I
I
_j i
i IMOUS IJoINTS_ g._SUSCFPTIVE__TO CORpgSM N l
I j
l l nc.t _ l i
I I
I I
i I
I l
i i
f(4) l I
I l1% i 194 I I ANONY-l THE ABOVE PURCitASE ORDER ERROR HAS NOT YET BEEN CORRECTED FRIOR TOl l
l l
l 1e I 1
l i
I
-1 IMOUS 1004AIION l -_l I
l l_Ind i
I I
I I
i 1
l I(22) l I
I i
l i
i195 1 195 1 l ANONY-l PC&E BORROWED THREE CIASS ONE STEEL PLATES FROH PULLMAN TO COVER A l
IIR 82-01 l
l l
l l
l
.I I
I ImuS LIENat 1
j j
l I
I I
i l
i l
I i
l l(22) i I
I l
i 1
. I196 1 196 l l ANONY-l PULLMAN QC MANAGER CONVINCED INSPECTOR TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE PtATES l
lIR 82-01 l
.I I
l I
_l _.
I I
[HouS j_
_,_ l
[
l l
l l
1 I
I i
1 I
I I
I I
(4) i I
I I
i197 1 197 I I ANONT-l PULIJtAN QC MANAGER l'NSATISPACTORILY DISPOSITIONED A DCN OF UMMARKED 1
l l
l In, I l
l 1
_ _I 1
I jmuS lypots_y33n_petsygNg5L311tg; j
l l
htge I
[
l I
i i
l i
I I
_I I
I t o) isl i
I i198 l 198 l l ANONY-lI' ULLMAN CQ LEADMAN ORDERED THE INSPECTOR TO REMOVE If01.D TAC ON WORK DONEl l
l l
lnot l I
I
_1 l
l IHOUS 10tLSIMil4SLSTEEL_WITH_yNNARKED_IQQLS JSFE_ ASQVE)'S MENO ABOUT A E
l PULLMAN, NANAGER NEVER RESPONDED TO AN INSPECTOR _
_l l
l
._j l01 1 i
i I.
I I
i I
l(22) i l
i l
l l
l199 l 199 l l ANONY-l POTENTIAI.LT WIDESPREAD PROBLt21 WIT 11 RASEPLATES HOUNTED OVER CONCRETE I
i190 l
l l
l l -
j
_j l
i IMOUS lWITH VOIDS l
l __
l
}
[
j l
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1(22) 1
_ I I
i l
l l200 1 200 l l ANONY-l PUI.LMAN QC MANAGER CENSORED DR TO REMOVE AI,L RTFERENCES TO TWO OF THr, I
I109. ILO l I
l l
{
(_
_l l
l lMOUS _ lTilREE_ UNQUALIFIED MATERIAI.S USED L_
l l
l
,j_]
q 4'
l' 9*
I LFCEND f fMt 311TIFiLAT10N I = The alle'Ist ion is, is not a spc_Qtic a!ciy er quality issue nr a general 15.c4 concern.
4 = The alleRation infin nat a niRaificant safety or -
2 = The staf f hes/has not previc aaly addressed thin issue.
concern.
?
3 = The issue has been previously dealt with or is em 8:eing dealt with by PG6E.
22 = SSER 22 28 m SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report.
ALI1 GAT 10N SOURCE DOCtPfLNT ALLEGERI CHARACTERIZATION I
DLD j
RLW I
2 / 2/ 84 j 2 / 22/8413/2 / 84'l 3/ 2 / 84 l 3/23/ 84 l
f f 0LUNI l
l l
l l CAP j JI j CAP l JI l CAP l 1
l tlP l CLOSFD l FC%Lj PCE l NRC_i i
l l
l l
l l
l(22) 1 1
1 l
i l
l l 179 l 179 I l ANONY. IPULLMAN QA MANAGER FIRED Tile INSPECTOR M10 PURSUED Tile A.BOVE PROBLLH l 130 l l
1 l
l l
I
_j I
I IM0us l l01 l
l l
I I
i l
I i
i l
l i
l (2) l I
a I
I I 180 I 1e0 1 8uoNy-lRIVISED PULLMAN LSD223 ALISWS EXTRA VELDINGS NOT REQUIRED BY 11rE DESIGN, l I
I lhas !
l j
i l
I I
In00S lntUS CREATED UNACCOUNTED RESIDUAL STRESS I
i j
_j l
l l
I I
l l
l 1
1 I
l l(2) I l
i I
I181 1 181 1 I ANONY-lTHE ABOVE REVISION SUCCESTS QA STANDARDS IIAVE COLLAPSED 1
l I
lhan I I
J l
l j_
l lMOUS I
I I
I l(2) I l
l 1
1
_]
I l
l l
l l
l 8
I l
I i1s2 I 182 I l ANONY. 'PG&E ACCEPTED THE ABOVE REVISION OF PUI.lJtAN l
l l
lhas I I
l
]
I ~
I JMonS l
i 1
~ l J
l l
l t
i I
l l-I l
i l
l(2) I l
l I
lis) I les I l ANONY-lPC&E ACCEPTED WELDS TitAT FAILED Mr l
I l
l as I I
h I
J l
j_
l IM0uS I
l l
1 l
1 I
J l
l I
I I"
l I
i I
l(2) i i
l I
lis4 I 184 I I ANONY-lPC6E DIRECTED PULIJtAN TO ACCEPT L' ELDS TilAT WERE NOT TESTED PROPERLYl l
l lhas I l
l l
I I
I ltJAIL_L l
I I
I I
l-i l
_l l
l t
i I
I i
1(2) I i
1 1
1185 I ins l ISTOKES l WELD PROCEDURES ARE NOT APPLIED CONSISTENTLY I
l 1
lhas l l
l l
~~1 I
i 1
j l
I i
l I
l i
1 l
I i
l I
i l
l l(2) 1 I
l l
11 % 1 186 l l STOKES llCNORANCE Or INSThtLATION PROCEDURES DUE TO MANAGEMENT Pol.ICT l
l l
lhas I l
l l
I I
l L_
l I
I I
j i
l l
l I
I l
__-- l 1
1 i
f(4 ) i I
I I
lisi I isi i IANONY l PULLMAN QC MANAGER PR0llIBITED INSPECTORS CitECKING A-490 BOLTS CARDON I
l 1
II8 l
I
_j_ _j l
It100s_jCONTENT SPECIPICATION WIIICl[_li.NQLPAllLDLINSEECIOR'S.J01L_.
l I
I I"0L !
l l
l 1
1 1
1 1
I I
I l
3(4 ) 1 1
I lins I tes l IANONT-l PULLMAN QC MANACCR FIRED AN INSPECTOR M10 itAD PROTESTED THAT CERTAIN l
l l
l I8 1
l I
I In0yS pm.l.DS WERE NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARED FOR MACNETIC PARTICLE TESTING l
l~
l l
hoLQ11
[
l
-~l l
l l
IFIRii1VIlitTAE riiiVIOusLY FIRLD roR CoMrLAINING ABOUT IMPROPER NDE PRAC-I l
l u
l(4) 1 l
l I
I lin9 I 189 I IANONY- (TICE WAS IIARRASSED WifEN HE TRIED TO QUALIFY AS A WELDER IN THE ParLLMAN I 1
1 I
is nedl i
I ___ L i
i Imus_ JEST 800714 l
J
___l.
1 I R_ _l.
/
1 l'
'l IICEND IOR JUSTIFICATIOrt 1 = The alle gation is/in not a speelfic safety or quality issus or a generalize.1 concern.
4 = The allegation is/is not a significant safety or.
2 = The staff has/hes not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issue has been previously dealt with or is now t,cIng dealt with by PC&E.
22 = SSLR 22 28 = SSLR 21 IR = Inspection RcPert l
ALLECATIDM SOURCE DOCUMENT ALLEGER CHARACTERIZATION l
Otti NEW l
12/2/8412/22/1413/2/84II[i/84I3/i3/84, if0LLOW1 l
l l
l CAP 1 J1 1 GAP l__J1 _l _CA' 1
I
_I UP I CLOSED l PC&T {i _CE_I NR,C l P
I FT ul t
i l
i I
I I
I I
I l
l 168 i i
i i
ICOOPER IAFTER COOPER INFORMED MANAGEMENT IN 1981 UlAT RUR PUMP FAILURES IIAD I
l l
I lnot l l
1 1
I I
1 i
IMEN_QCQHRLNG_AT_QTRR_ PLANTS,jlE_WAS LENUWAY
[
l
[
]
I 01 _ }
I i
1 1
1 I
l l
l l(4) l l
l l 169 I I.
I I
LOOPER IPCLE CONTENTION TRAT DllS SYSTEM (RllR) 15 NOT SAFETY REi.ATED 15 INCOR-1 I
I lin notl l
l i
I I
I I
l l
l l
J
[ ___}
I J
l 1
I I
IECIJASEILDy run I
l m is not i i
i i
i I70 l i
I I-t00rER IrC&E OFFICIALS FAILED TO CORRECT A FALSE STATEMENT TO NRC THAT TliR 1
I l
i I
I I
I I
L l
l Ic0MPANY VAS IGNOPMI_pLJNAC,GURAgES_]p_JT'LfLA_NI_MA!!UAL FOR OPEPATOR}j i
l l
l l
1 1
I I
I I
l l
IU W D _. 931 l
l l
l 1
1 171 1 171 I kNONT-l PULLMAN DOES NOT COMPLY WIDI AWS SYMBOL CONVENTION FOR WELD CRINDING l
1126 I
I I
i 1
I I
I I
imS I
_t 1
J 1
l l
1 1
1 I
I I
i 1
I
.4 l
1(4) l i
l i 172 l 172 I hNONY-l PULLMAN MANACDfENT INSTRUCT INSPECTORS TO VIOLATE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONl 1
l l
Its notl i
1 1
_J l
I ins _1.B.Y_STAxriNc On vis WELD BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRolllBITED L
l_
i J
l l
l i
I i
i i
I i
1(21) 92. 93 l l
l l
l l
l 173 1 173 I hNN0Y-lPG&E ACCEPTED OuT-OF-CODE FRACTICF. OF A FILI.ET WELD l
l(22) 126 l
l l
l l
1
_1 I
I InUS I ~
i
[ill) 92. 9) i t
1 I
(
l I
I i
1 l
l l
l I
I I
I I
i 174 l 174 1 kNNOT-IPULt.HAN INSPECTOR CANNOT CORRECT WELD SYMBOL DEFICIF.NCIES ON PREVIOUSLY-l l(22) 92,93.1 l
l l
1 1
_I I
l
_InUS I ACCErHD3DRK._0tiLLEG&E_MS..TMU4THOMIY l
p 26
_l l
1 1
I i
1 I
l i
1 l
l(22) 103 l
l l
l l
I l 175 l 175 l lLNNOT-l FAILED TO IMPLEMENT AWS SYMBOLOGY RESULTED IN UNDERSI7.ED WELDS ON l
1104 105 l
l l
l J
l
_l l
l lHOUS l CONTAINMENT LINER STUD WELDING j
j i
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
I IUU l
l l
l l
I i 176 1 176 I l ANN 0Y-l COPPER CilILL BARS WERE USED INSTEAD OF BACKING STRIPS - A PRACTICE NOT I 1103-119 l
l l
l l
1
_l l
l lM0uS l ALLOWED BY WPS I
l l
l J
g I
I I
l i
l i
i 10 0 l
l l
l I
I i 177 l 177 i i ANNOY-l PULLMAN RX)K NO CORRECTIVE ACTION TO THE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED ABOVE I
1103-119 l
l l
l l -
L _ __1 L
I iMws 1.
1 I
__ _J l
i I
I l
i l
l l
l A T-_I I
I i
1 l
I i 178 1 178 I I ANN 0Y-I PUI.tJiAN QA MANAGER REPRIMANDED T1tE INSPECTOR WIIO PURSUED Tite AROVE ll H l
l l
1 1
I I
I I
I IM00s frRonLEM loi g
g g
l 3
to
's o
LEGEND lor JUSTIFICATION i
4 = The allegation is/is not a nignificant n=Icty or.
I = The allegation Is/is not a specilic safety er quality issue or a Renerallred concern.
c onc e r n.
2 = The stell han/has not previously addressed this issue.
3 22 = SSER 22 3 m The issue has been previously dealt with or is now 1-eing dealt with by PG&E.
28 = SSER 21 l
IR = Inspection Report l
I
{
ALLEGAtl0N SOURCE DOCIHENT ALLEGER CHARACTERIZATION OLD NEW I
70LU1Wl l
l l
12/2/8412/22/1413/2/84N/2/8413/23/84, UP l CLOSED ET E NR CAP I J1 GAP
. JI l CAP l 1
I 168 I i
l l
IC00PER IAFTER COOPER INFDP.MED MANAGEMENT IN 1981 111AT RHR PUNP FAILURES HADl l
l l
! stot l l
l j
l j
[
1)EEN_pCQyp1NQ,ALQ1HflLTLANIS, IIE WAS $ENT AWAY l
l l
l l 01]
i l
I l(4) l I
l i
i l
I i
l i 169 I I.
I I
Ic00rER IPC&R CONTENTION DIAT THIS SYSTEM (RliR) IS NOT SAFETY RELATED 15 INCOR-l I
l lin notl l
i I
I
'l l
l I
j i
i I
I
_ IECIEASER_pti Tnn I
IIG) ta not I l
I I
l 1
1 I
I I
I i 170 1 1
I l.
Ic00rER Irc6E OFFICIALS FAILED TO CORRECT A FALSE STATEMENT TO NRC THAT Tile I
l l
l l
l I OMPA5LWASENQMNLOLINAQQVBAQJES_))Lil'SE#_UDGUAL FOR OPEPATORSj j
l l
l l
1 I
I I
I l
C i
10 71_ W - _31 1
I i
9 l
1 I
i i
l I
I 1126 l
l l
l l
I i 171 1 171 I hNONY-lFULLMAN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH AWS SYMBOL CONVENTION FOR WELD CRINDINGl l
}
l l
l J
I
__ l 1
I ims l
1 1
l l(4) I i
i i
l i
i i
i I
i i 172 l 172 I hNONY-lPUI,LMAN MANAGEMENT INSTRUCT INSPECTORS TO VIDIATE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONI l
l l
lie notl t
l L___J l
1 I
i m L LBY_STAMPINC ON 1HE WELD BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROHIBITED
(_ _l l
j j
}
l It21) 92. 93 l l
l l
1 I
I I
l I
l I
l(22) 126 l
l l
l I
I i 173 1 173 I kNN0Y-lPC&E ACCEPTED OUT-OF-CODE PRACTICF OF A FILI.ET VELD I
l
._1 I
I kJUS I
L I
1 l
I L
I 101) 92. 9) i I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
l i 174 1 114 I imwot-I rvtIRAN INSPECTOR CANNOT CORRECT WELD SYMBOI. DEFICIENCIES ON PREVIntist.Y-1 l(22) 92. 93.1 l
l 1
l I
_I I
l
_InUS l ACCErHD_.WDR _Orl,LI965_IIAS_JilAT_Au_THORitY
_ _l__ _ _l!?6
_l 1
1 I
l l(22) 103, I
l l
l I
I I
l i
l I
l l
I In i 175 I l ANN 0Y-l FAILED TO 11101.EMENT AWS SYMBOLOCY RESULTED IN UNDERSITED WELDS OH l
l104, 105 l
l l
l j
l l
l l( m l
}
l l
l l
lHOUS ICONTAINHENT LINER STUD WELDING I
l I
I i
I 1
I l
1 1
I i
1 I
I i 176 I 176 I l ANN 0Y-l COPPER CHil.1, PARS WERE USED INSTIfd) 0F BACKING STRIPS - A PRACTICr. NOT I 1103 189 1
I I
l l
l l
{
l l
1
_I I
I JHOUS l ALLOWED BT WPS,__
{
lU1) i 1
l I
i 1
l l
l l
1 1
I 1
I i 177 l 177 l l ANN 0Y-I Putt.HAN'TUOK NO CORRECTIVE ACTION TO 111E PROBLEM IDENTIFIED ABOVE I
1103-119 l
l l
l 1.
I I
I I
IMOUS l_
j(70 l
_j j
[
j l
l 1
l l
l I
I I
i i
l l
1 1 178 l 178 l l ANNOT-I PUI.IEAN f)A MANAGER REPRIHANDED T1TE INSPECTOR WilO PURSUPD THE AROVE l l 60 l
l l
l l
1 1
_ _L.
I I
In0US irR0ntr.n jo, y u,
I 3
ft l
g.
l e
I.ECEND FOR JuiflFICATION The allesation is/is not a stetific safety or quality issue or a Reneralized rencern.
4 = The allegation in/in not a significant safety er-I 2
2 = The stoft has/has not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issu e has been previously dealt with or is now being-dealt with by PC&E.
22 = SSER 22 2I = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report AlliCATION' SOURCE DOCUMENT _
AllICER CHARACTElt lZATION j
OLD NEW l
2/2/8412/22/1413/2/8413/2/8413/23/84 lFDLIEWI l
l l
l CAP l JI J CAP l JI l CAP l l
j UP l CIDSLD 1 PG&E l PCE I NRC i l
I i
i i
l I
i l(21) i i
i l
i 156 I I
l l
l COOPER lALLEGER REPRIMANDED FOR DISCLOSING THE POTENTIAL FOR RHR PUMP FAILURE l
142 I
i 1
l J
l I
l
--l-i 1
_l I
I I
I I
I l
l 1
l 1
1 1(21)
I l
1 i
i 157 1 1
COOPER PC&E FAILED TO NOTIFT NRC OF RMR DEKfCN DFFFET 143 l 158 1 COOPER PG&E REJECTED COOFER'S CHALLENGE OF RiiR DESIGN (Jt) 42 l
1 f(21)
H I 159 I I
I l.
IC00PER 1RHR CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS FOR OPERATORS 70 LP. AVE Tite CONTROL ROOM TO l
l37-65 l
l l
l l
1 1
I f
f itwtuALLY Orrnate. vALVltjREArERs Tafz0rrer nun rLwes 1
112 A 177 I
I I
I I
I l
l l
1 I
i 1(21) 1 1
1 I
i 160 I l
l I
ICo0PER IMANAGEMENT DID NOT SPECIFY AND FOLLOW-UP ACTION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE OFI
!44 l
l l
l j_
1 I
I i
i liuiR rROBLEM
_ _l 1
l l
l l
l l
8 I
I I
I I
i(22)
I l
I i
l 163 l l
l l
IC00PER INRC APPROVAL WAS NOT OBTAINED FOR RHR CORRECTIVE ACTION OF MANUAL 1
'l 177 l
l I
l l
J
_]
I I
i 10PERATOR RESPONSE
]
l l
l l
}
l l
l l
l l
l i
1(22) 1 I
I I
i 162 l l
l 1
ICOOPER INO CONTROL FROM ANNUNCIATOR TO ALERT THE OPERATOR WHEN Tite RHR PUMPS AREl I177 I
I i
l J
l l
1 i
j 1[N_ DANGER l
l 1
l l
l 1
I i
l i
l i
i l(21)
I I
I 1
1 163 l l
l 1
Ic00PER IC00PER DID NOT RECElVE ANY RESPONSE TO QA V101ATIONS HE REPORTED ON Mal )
l 44 l
l l
l l
I I
I I
l
[ SPURIOUS VALyr._C.LO_SuRE
_)
l l
j 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
1(22) i I
I i
I 164 l l
l l
Ic00PER lli 15 IMr0SSIBLE TO DETERM!NE TilAT REMOVINC THE SSPS OUTPUT filSES WILI.
l l177 l
l l
l
[
i l
J l
I ICAUSE VALVES 870L&EC1 TO AUM_ I,Q$E l
l
_l l
l l
l l
l I
I I
I I(21)
I i
i I
i 165 I i
i i
ic00PER lPG&E FAILED TO PMRC THE OFFICIAL DRAWINGS ACCURATE BY DISCI.OSING CIRCUIT l l Al l
I I
I I
l
.I i
__]
_]
ICONNECTIONS_ RESPONSIBLE FOR SPURJQUS_CLQS.lfiCL.
j 1,
I I
l l
I I
I l (4 ) i I
l l
l l
l l
1 i 166 l l
1 1
Ic00PER 1rC&E DOES NOT NOTIFT THE ORIGINATOR OF A DEPICIENCT REPORT THAT A
)
l l
Ils l
l I
1
.J l
l I
lufCJEON HALBE_EN_PEACED l
l l __j not l
[
i i
i i
i i
i l
1 1(21) 37. 391 1
I i
l I 167 I I
I I
l COOPER IPC&E AND nMC llAVE ERROMEOUSLT CLAIMED THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF SPURIOUS I l40. 45 (22)l l
l l
l l
l
_l l
I i
IVALVE CLOSURFS IS ONLY SIX IN TEN MILLION J_, (17 7_,,_ l l
_l
_{
j 9
'l LEGEND FOR JUITIFIEATION concern.
4 = The mIIcRation is/le not a siRnit is ant safety or I = The alle at inn is/is not a spetiRc safety er equality isswe or a gesieralizeri
? = The st af ' han/hes not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issu has teen previously dealt with or is now being dealt with by PGAE.
22 = SSER 22 21 = SSFR 21 IR = Inspection Rrrott
{
alt 1 CAT'ON SOURCE DOCUMENT ALLEGEHj CHARACTLRIZATION
_l __
Ot.D NEW l
12/2/84l2/22/l413/2/8413/2/84h/23/84' l
l FOLI.0WI l
l l
l l CAP f JI. _ l CAP l JI l CAP __{
l I f _.l C.LOSED I PCT.E I PCE NRC
!(22) l l
l l
l l
lDESICH DRAWING ERACERATED 11tE LOAD RATINGS OF U-BOLTS UP TO FOUR TIMES l8145 l l
l l
l STOKES IT1tEIR RATING I
! 85 I
I I
I j
i l
t_
i l
1 l_
l I
.1 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
l(22) l I
I l
l 9
1 nlar, I I
I I
ISTOKES lANGLE MFHRERS (FIPE SUPPORTS) VERE UP TO FOUR TIMES TOO LONC POR AI. LOW-I 1
l l
I lAEIJJIENDIRGlTRESR
--l N d
l 1
1 IB) 1 I
l l
l l
l l
l Inl47 I I
I I
I STORES IMANAGEMENT DID NOT SUPPLY BLAFTK DISCREPANCY REPORT FORNS I
l l
lie mod l
J j
~1 1
1 I
I I
I I
l l
I l
g g
l l
3 l
l 1
I i
1 1
Ial4s i I
I I
l STOKES INANAGEMENT RETALI ATED ' AGAINST TliOSE WO WROTE DISCREPAHCY REPORTS I
l l
l l 01 l I
d I
I l
1 1
I l ---
1 I
I l
l l
l l
l l
1 1
l 1 (4) I l
IR149 I I
l l
IC00rER trC4E TECl!NICIANS "WERE ROUTINFLT DENIED ACCESS TO NFCESSARY INFORMATION I!
!I" ""d I
i
~1 1
I I
- lTO PERFQRPLJHEllLJ05S" l
I I
I I
I i
1 l
l f
f I
l I
l l
101 3 lelso I l
l l
l C00rER lrC&E vERsALLT RErRIMANDED Tl10SE Wi!O REQUESTED INFORMATION TO 10 Tili.lR I
!I" i
l
}
I
_ l I
laOn3 l___L i
I l oott l
g l
l l
l g~~
l i
1 1 (4) I i
ing5g i l
l l
I C00PER ITECIINICIANS VERE DENIED CURRENT DRAWINGS AND OTilER REFFRENCE HATERIAl.S !
b8 ""
-l-l
-l l
l l
-~
l (4)
I I
I iI8.notl l
1 I
l COOrER IPC&E FOREMAN PURCED THE TECimlCIANS PILES OF UNCONTROI, LED DRAWINGS 1152 l
1 l
l l
l l
l--l -
--I h,1, >,..I l
1153 1 I
i l
l COOPER (RHR ll0T LEC SUCTION VALVES ARE FRONE TO CLOSURCS I
I45 (22)III I I
I I--
l l
l l
l
~
__. l _ _. _ I l-I I
l l
l l
l l
I l
l(2I) 11.41 l i
l i
1854 1
l i
I l C00rER IPC&E AND NRC RATIONAL,IZATION FOR Tile RilR VAI.VES Hl1REPRESEttIS TitC I
I I
I l
l IANT'S_ QJRGUURT.
.. _ _ l _.- l.
l
-l
}
l 1855 I
I I
I I COOPER IC&E AND HRC NISRFFRI'SENTS 11tE CIRCUITRY BY Cl.AININO RilR PRO'IECTION OE22) III I
l j
_l,
j j
l fil1ROUCil REl,IANCE ON CERTAIN ACitlATORS
- l. __.I ____. _ l.._ _ I 4
s 1
i
'i l
l4 LF.CEND TV)R JU.1TIFICATION lI 4 = The alleRation is/is not a significant safety or I = Tbc alle gation is/is not a specific safety or quality issue or a generalired concern.
2 = The stof' has/hes not previeusly addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issue has been previously dealt with or is now being Jealt with by PGT.E.
22 = SSFR 22 21 = SSER 21 1R = Inspectson Report l
l l
ALLEGAT'ON SOURCE DOCtRTENT ALIAGERI CHARACTERIZATION
[
OLD l
NEW l
r l
12/2/8412/22/1413/2/84l3/2/8413/23/84 l
I FCLIJ)WI I
l l
l l GAP l JI J GAP l JI l GAP l l
j UP 1 CLOSED l FC&E l PCE l NRC l l
l 8
I I
I i
i f(21)is 1 I
l l
l l
l A144I l
l l
l STOKES lENGINEERS DID NOT WORK WITH CONTROLLED DOCt'HENTS UNTIL AUGUST 1983 152 l
l 1
l l
I l
1 l
l l
I I
i
_1 l
l I
l 1
I I
I I
I 1
l I
I i
l l
l Alas i I
l l
l STOKES IHANAGEMENT IDENTIFIED ENGINEERS TilAT FAILED PIPE SUPPORTS AND TRANS-101 1
I l
l l
l J
l
_[
l l
l IFERRED Tile't FROM THE ASSIGNMENTS I
l l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
i i
f(21)s71 1
1 I
I 1 A3461 1
1 I
I STOKES locINEERINc CALCULATIONS TitAT FAILED FIFE SUPPORTS WERE DESTROYED 151 I
I i
l l
l I
I
_1 l
I
_1 1
I
_. I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
i 1(22) 1 I
I 1
l l
l AI47 I I
I I
I STOKES IMANAGEMENT STATED CALCULATIONS WERE BECHTEL PROPERTY AND BECHTEl. COUlD 187 l
l l
l l
I I
I I
I I
lDESn0I_D!Eli_1LIHEI_MIIra I
{
l
_f f
I
(
l i
l I
i l
l I(22) {
l l
I i
I Alas i I
l l
l Stores INEW ENCINEERS ASSICNED TO CONDUCT ROUTINE REVIEWS FOR ACCURACY OF FRE-188 l
l I
I l
I I
l l
l l
I I
I I
I I
I Iv1005 u0nx rERFORMED COMPLETE REANALYSIS OF FALLED SUPPORTS
~ l<22) i I
I I
l I
i i
i i
l I
l A149 I l
I l
l STOKES lilARDWARE WAS REDEFINED TIIFREaY ltCCI.AdstFTING A DESIGN FLAW AS AN 1 88 1
l l
l l
1 1
_1 l
I I
J ADDIT!*.*.I. FACIOR OF SAFETT I
I
.[
l l
i 1
1 I
I I
i l
l(22) i I
I I
I 1 Also i I
I I
l STOKES ltmDOCUMENTED PIPE SUPPORTS WERE CONSTRUCTED NEAR PREVIOUSLY FAILING 188 l
l l
1 l
l i
l 1
l l
l
[SUPrORTS..TO REDO THE CALCUIATIONS AND PASS THE SUPPORT l
J j
j i
{
l 1
l 1
1 1
I I
I i
l i
I NRR/ I I A151 l I
I I
I STO'ES IMANAGEMENT INSTRt'CTED ENGINEERS TO CERTIFT THE MODIFICATIONS DID NOT I
l l
l 1 01 l WIT 110UT VERIFYING Tile CONCLUSION I
l_.
1
[
l
[
l l
_I l
l l
JAFFECT THE FSARn t
i i
1 1
1 I
I 1(22) l I
i i
i sl42 I I
I I
l STOKES ITHF. DESIGN DRAWINGS INACCURATELT REPRESENTED THE NATURE OF FLARE BEVEL. I 192, 93, 1261 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
1_WE_ ras, WitICH His EAD 3A_ INSPECTORS I
1
[
l
[
l i
I I
I I
I I
i 1(22) l l
l l
l 1 5143 i i
l l
l STOKES I l
1826 l
l l
l l
1 I
I t
I l
j r1ADE BEVEL WELDS DID NOT ACHIEVE FULI. PENETRATION I
l
_]
l l
[
I i
l i
l i
I i
l(22) i I
I I
I nins i I
I I
I STOKES I I
196 l
l l
l l_
l l
l 1
,,,,_1
[rAttt*RE To VER1rv Tur. rR0ren ieCArt0N OF HILTI-BOLTS l _ _[ _
1_l l
l l
l I
1 I
l l
l i
LEGEND TOR JUtiTIFICATION
- 7 1 = The alle,gation is/is not a sperm safety or quality issue or a generallred concern.
4 = The allegation is/is not a significant safety or -
lla
= The staf* has/has not previously addressed this issue.
2 rentern.
3 = The issu has been previously dealt with nr is now being dealt with'by PC&E.
22 = SSER 22
(
28 = SSER 23 IR = Inspection Report l
ALLEGAT ON_ SOURCE DOCUMENT
. ALLEGER CHARACTERIZATION OLD l
NEW l
l 12/2/8412/22/.413/2/8413p2/8413/23/84 10LLOWI I
)
l l
l CAP I JI l CAP l JI I CAP l lFOI.LMAN TEMPORARILY MADE C00D OF THRIATS TO "GET RID OF" AN l UP l CIASED j PGAE I PCE j ~E Cj i
l I
i l
i I
I I
I I
g g
i 133 l 133 1 1
l lilUDSON IINSPECTOR. INSPECTOR WAS CALLED BACK APTER CONGRESSIONAL llEARINGS ON I
i l
l l 01 i I
l
_]
j l
l IRETALIATION l
l 1
)
l l
l 1
1 1
1 I
I I
i 1
6(22) l I
i 1 134 1 134 l l
ll IUNKNOWNIPULIJtAN INSPECTOR FIRED FOR PURSUINC A DLH OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF 1115 l
l 1120,13f1 l
l J
l i
I Il/12/84jtEADMAN I
l Igjhge l I
{
l i
I I
l i
I i
l(22) i I
I i 135 l 135 l l
l.
ItmKNOWNIPULittAN INSPECTORS WERE DENIED RAISES FOR HOLDING UP PRODUCTION TOREMAN i l
ll20,13d l
l j
l
_j
[
l jt/12/84jAND NOT COOPERATINC WITN THE CRAFT l
)
Igjgn, I I
j i
l 1
1 I
i l
i I
I I
I l
l I 136 1 136 I I
I IHuDSoN lrVI.LMAN INSrECTORS ARE INTIMADATED KNOWING THEY CAN BE FIRED FOR IXIING I l
l l
101 l 1
1
_j i
i i
ITHEIR JOB TOO WEl.L
}
l
'[
t I
{
l I
i i
i l
i l
l l
l lI2) I i 137 1 137 I I
I IC00PER lPG&B CONSTRUCTION HAS RELIED ON INTIMIDATION AND RETALIATION TO AVO!D 1
l 1
I lhas I l
l l
l l
l lCORRECTINc RECUT.ATORY VIOLATIONS I
_j j
i 10 1
{
l i
I I
i i
l I
l(22) i I
I I
i 138 1 138 I I
I IUNKNOJNIPULLMAN QA MANACEMENT HAS A PHILOSOPHY OF SCHEDULING IS A HICHER l
IBishop l
l l
l l
l
_{
l l
lJfj2_841 PRIORITY THAN_QUALITT l
lAlfidav11._l l
l l
J 1
1 1
I l
l I
_i l
l 1(4) l I
i l)9 l 139 l l
l litDDSON IPULLMAN QA HAD TO HEET ITS ScitEDULE WITl! INADFQUATE RESOURCES I
I I
lis l
l l
1
__ I I
I I
i_
l I
I Inot [
t i
I i
I I
i i
l l(22) l I
I I
i 140 1 140 I
.I I
l HUDSON IPULLMAN DEMONSTRATED ANT 1-QA Pit!LOS0rilY BT CIRCUMVENTING PC&E QA l
1128 I
I 1
l l
l l
l l
l PARTICIPATION IN PULfJtAN_qA PROGRAM ISSUES L
l l
l l
[
l I
i l
i l
1 l
l(22) i I
I i
1 set I tot I I
I InUDSon i i
1103-119 I
I I
I I
i 1
)
I l_
I PCsE_QAgWAS NOT ANY BETTER TilAN PULI. MAN'S I
_ l214-217 I
J l
l I
I I
I i
i 1
4 l(21)a2 l l
l l
l 1 A142 I I
I I
I STOKES l ENGINEERS IN THE SEISMIC DESICN REVIEW PROGRAM ONLY RECEIVED MINI!!AL 151 l
l l
l l
l 1
l l
.I
_1 l
lTRAIXING 1
I I
i 1
l i
I
,[____l_
l l
l j
f(21)79 I I
i l
l i A143 I I
I I
ISTORES l MANAGEMENT FAILED TO ISSUE CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS FOR ENGINEERS TO USE 15T l
l l
l l
.I l
.I I
l l
IIN SAMPI.E CAICULATIONS I,
_j 1_,, J l
I
(
l i
l l
l'
I alGEND FOR JIMTIFICATION I = The allegation is/Is not a sperl B safety or quality issue or a Reneralized costern.
4 = The allegation is/is not a al nificant safety or R
?
2 = The statt han/has not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issue has been previcusly dealt with or is now being dealt with by PG&E.
22 = SSER 22 28 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report
{
AlliCAT ON SOURCE DOct2ENT All1GERj CHARACTERIZATION OLD NEW I
12/2/84I2/22/313/2/8413/2/84j3/23/84' l
IOLLOWI I
I
'I I
l CAP l JI j CAP l Ji_ 1 CAP 1 l
l UP l CLOSED lPC&ElPCElFRC l
l l
l l
l l
1 i(21)
I l
l l 122 1 122 I I
I ICoorER IPC&E CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEt, CAN NOT REPORT VIOLATIONS I
I44 I
I I
I I
i
'i l-1 1
1 I
I I
I I
I l
I l
l l
l l
1 I
I
- 16) l i
i 123 1 123 I I
I IC00rER ITECHNICIAM NPPR'S RPJQUIRED FORD %N APPROVAL l
1 l
l Is l l
J I
_]
I I
I I
I I
I Inl i
Ji I
I i
1 I
I I
i l
i
- 16) I l
1 124 1 124 I I
I-l COOPER IPC&E VOIDED NPPR'S WITil0UT EXPIANATION I
I I
l18 I
I J
l 1
1 I
I I
J l
I lmt -l i
I I
I i
i l
i i
1 1
- 16) 1 I
i 125 1 125 I I
I ICoorER ICONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL ORDERED NOT TO WRITE NPPR'S I
I l
lie l l
J l
i I
I I
J l
l l
Jmt 1 I
l l
l l
l l
1 1
I f(22) l i
l l
l 126 1 126 I I
I lt.0CKERTit.ocRERT COULD NOT RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS I
I II29 !
I l
1 1
_I i
1 i
L I
I I
I I
L 1
1 I
I I
l-1 I
l I
I I
I l !UDSON IPULIMAN QA MANACER ORDERED liUDSON NOT TO IDENTIFY ANYMORE PROBLl21S l
l l
l 1 OI l i 127 1 127 I I
I l
I I
I i
l I
i l
i l
l I
L I
I i
i i
l I
i I
I(22) I i
i LOCRERT LOCKERT DISMISSED FOR BEING OUT OF filS INSPECTION AREA i 01 1
1129 l l
l I
i 12s I tra l I
I I
1 1
_]
I I
I L
I l
l__.1 I
I I
l l
l l
1 1
I l(22) i 1
1 I
IUNKNOWNI NSPECTORS VICT1HlZED BY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS I
IIR 83-29 I
I I
I 1 129 1 129 !
l I
J I_
l
_I I
I l
1 i
L_
l_.I I
1 l
l l
l l
l l
6 I
l(22):!d i
1 lHUDSon I A MANAcEMENT ENFORCED ILI.ECAL POLICIES THROUCH T1 TREATS 1
l l(2) hv4 I
l 1 130 1 130 l I
l Q
I 1
__I I
I i
1 1
J J_ _ J l
1 l
l l
l l
l IrULLMAN fM MANACT.HENT TilREATENED AN INSPECTOR WIT 11 " LOSS OF HIS JOB" l
l l(22) l I
l l 131. I 13t 1 I
l ILoCKERTitr HE CONTINUED TU RESEARCH CODES AND STANDARDS AFTER REING TOLD NOT l
l
!I29 !
I I
I 1
I i
i tTo
___l L_
Llx. I I
L i
i i
i i
l I
i i
l(22) 1 I
l i 132 l 132 l l
I IUNKNOWNIQA INSPECTOR FIRED POR BEINC "Ot*T OF His ASSIQiFD WORK AREA" l
I Il29 l
1 L __.I 1
I I
I i18 218'I.
. _.l ___..l.
_ J_..- I l-I t
i/
l g*
i
.,I LEGEND FOR JUITIFICATION g
I = The alleantion is/is not a s ecific safety or quality issue or a generallred concern.
y 2
The staf f han/has not previously addressed this issue.
4 = The alleRation Is/is not a siRnificant safety or i
=
3 s The incua has been previously dealt with or is now l>cing. dealt concern.
with by PG&E.
22 = SSER 22 21 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report AlliGATION SOURCE DOCUMENT 2/2/8412/22/84l3/2/8413/2/8413/23/84.
AllICEP.
_dttARACTERIZATJON l
j CAP l JI J CAP l JI l CAP l j
OLD NEW l
l IfOLLowl I
l l
1 I
I I
l I
l l UP l CLOSED l PGAE [ PCE l NRC l l 111 I til l I
I IUstNOWlUNDOCWifRTED ADDITION OF f,HIMS UNDERMINES SEISMIC CALCULATIONS I
l(22)
I l
l l
1 I
I I
i 13/'6/8'l l
l l90
[
l l
{
1 I
I I
l l
I i
1 I
I i
1 l 112 l 112 l,
jUNKNOWNl PROCEDURES UNRELIABLE - COPPER AND STAINLESS TUBINC INSTALLATIONi l
l (2)(4)l 1
1 I
._I l-l 13/is/s'l l
l l
ha,fg,]
l I
I i
l I
i i
1 1
1
_ tat I 1
i 113 I 113 I l
l IUNKNOWl RESUBMITTED TEST PROCED'JRES QUESTIONABLE (TUBINC) l 1
1 12)(4)I l
1 I
.I l_
_I ll116/841 l
l l
$,,fg,]
l i
I i
1 I
i l
1 I
I loot _J l
1 114 I 114 I l
l i
l UNKNOWN l wet, DING AND NDP, rROCEI:JRES QUALIFIED AFTER THE FACT QUESTIONABLEi l
I (2)(4)1 I
I I
_f.
I
__ l IM31L841 l
l 1
fas/isl 1
I I
I i
1 I
l 1
I I
_ int i I
l las i IIS I l
l jUNKNOWNlQC TRAIN!NC INADEQUATE I
l(22) i l
i i
1 I
._ I I
i 1.1/_12/841 l
l 57, 393 l
l l
l
{
l i
I I
I I
I I
I 1._ _, J i
i i 116 l 116 l l
l IUNKNOWNIQC INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS INDETERMINATE l
l(22) i I
I I
I I
..l I
I I
I l
l57, 393 l
l l
l i
i l
I i
l i
i l
l l_
1 I
l 1 117 1 117 l l
l IUNKNOWN lQA HAHACEMENT ROUTl?JELY ClfAllCED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA l
l(22) 1 _ _. _1 I
i 1
1 1.
I I
I L.
I l
1102, 194 I
I I
l i
l l
I I
I I
I
_l L
l__
i
._.1 I
I las i 118 i
,I l
lLOCKERTlNO REJECTION CRITERIA (PIPE RUP11JRE RP.STRAINT BOLTS) l l
1 02 l
1 l
1 1
1 I
I I
I l
]
I I 23J5 l
l l
1 i
i i
l l
I i
1
- 1 1
l 119 I 119 l 1
ILOCKERT lQA INSPECTORS NOT MAOMPTLY NOTIFIED OF SPECIFICATION CHANCES I
i l
UHf I
l
_J _ _!__
l i
I l
l l
l191-115 l
I g
_1 1
I
. Jz)haei _
t i
I I
I I
I I
l 120. I 120 l i
I FINKNOW JPROMPT VIOLATION DISCLOSURE TO NRC IS NOT POSSIBLE I
I(22) 1 I
I I
l I
J_
l I
lt/s2/R4l l
l 74, 32n l
l l
l l
i 1
I I
I I
l
_,I(22; I
i l
l l
l
_g
[
[
l s21 1 121 l i
I guNKNOW IQC INSPECTORS NOT TRAINED TO REPORT VIOLATIONS
__i 1
1 I
I I
II/12/R4 :
l l gyg, 393, l l
l l
l l 37 L
l,_ _ [
[
9
.I LF.Cf ND FOR JUSTIFICATION l
t
- The allegat.len is/is not a s d fic safety or quality issue or a generallard concern.
4 = The allegation is/is not a significant safety or
- 2 = The staf f has/has not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
4 1 = The issu? has been previously dealt with or is now being dealt with by PC&E.
22 = SSER 22 1
23 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report l
ALI.EGATION SOURCE _DOCUrtLNT JALLECt.R CHARACTER 12ATION l
83LD 1
NEW
'l 12/2/8412/ 22/ 84 [5I2784[3/2/8483/ 23/ R41 if0LLOWI I
l l
l i
! CAT i 1
l UP l CIDSI D _j PG&E lN D 1 FCE j FRC l l
i l
' ~I l
l l
liULLMAN'S APPROVED VENDOR 3 LIST IS DF.FICIENT IN THAT "MICROSURFACE l
l l
lIf[I I 100 1 100 l l
l lWDSON lENGINEERING" DID NOT ltAVE ADEQUATE QA PER MR. fiUDSON'S OCTOBfit 1981 l
l l
l I
l g )I l
.1 l
l l
l IA@n I
l l
I I
I 22 i l
1 I
I i
1 1
1 i
i l
i I 101 1 108 1.
I l
lilUDSON l EFFECTS OF 1ACK OF "MICPOSIMFACE ENCINEERINC" QA UPON CALIBRATIONS.
I I
l 1821(2) l
+
hl *" l l
}
l I
l.-
1 I
lE01.SuMUIEASUEIEIISJCurmme l
l l
l l
1
(
l i
l 1
1(2) has i
l i
l i 102 l 102 I i
1 HUDSON / IFC&E liAS STIFLED PULLMAN INSPECTOR'S REPORTS OF FAULTT BOSTROM-BERCLN 1
I(3) l l
l l
1 I
._l__ _ l l
II4KERTI AND AMERICAN BRIDGE WELDS, BY DIRECTlHC THEM NOT 10 IESU.E_DR'R I
l l
j i
l i
i I
i i
l i
i 1(2) ha l
I i
i l 103 1 103 1 1
l lUNKNOWNIS110P WELDS AND nARDWARE OF BOSTRON-BERCE24 AND AMERICAN BRIDCE WAS I
l I
I I
l l
l
,, 1 l
l l
10avt0USLY DFFECTIVE l
J l
l 1
[
l I
I l
i l
i l
l(2) has 1
I I
I i 1c4 i 10s l I
I l WDSON/IIN 1982 PC&E.'MPROPERLY DIRECTED FULLMAN NOT TO INSPECT TilESE WLDS 1
1(3) l l
l l
l l
l l
l_L_OCKERTI DURING Tile WAI.kDOWN FROGRAM i
l_
1
_ _[
l l
i 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
i 1(22) i I
I 105 l 105 I I
I IUNKNOWI l
l l
1143(4)I I
I I
I I
II/16_L84l CONTRACTOR FOI.ET DID NOT USE RICHT PARTS (1.E. BEAM CIAMPS) l
.j l_ _l1s notl
[
l 1
l I
I I
I I
1 K22) i l
i 106 l 106 I I
l luNxNOWI i
l 1
lt 43(4)I I
g g
g gf ggWRONC SIZE BEAM CIJN'S USED BY FOLEY TECliNICALLY INADEQUATE i
i i
l i
I i
j g
y,,q g
g l
1 l(2i) #63 I
I I
I i 307 l 107 I I
l (UNKNOWI l
l(22) #63 & l l
l l
i j
i
_j l
l l1LI6J84lNo MATERIAL TRACEABILITY FOR IN-CORE TilERHO COUPLES (FDLEY) l
{g yg l
l l
[
I I
I I
I I
I I(21) #63 I
I I
i I
i 108 l 108 l l
t itHKNOWI 1
l(22) (63 & 1 i
1 1
I I
I i
1.
II/16/84llN-CORE 11tERHDCOUPLES MISCI. ASS 1FIED BY FOLEY j
g gy l
_)
l l
I i
i i
I i
l i
l I
i f(22) i 1
i f09 I 109 I I
I IUNKNOWN1 I
I I
i 1156 l 1
I I
[
J lif16/841 WORKER TitREATENED WITH JOB IDSS WEN REFORTINC 107 & 108
_)
.l g
l lgg g
i l
1 1
1 1
1 1
f(22)
I i
l i
i 380 1 180 I l
I luMxN0wl i
1i9n i
I I
I l_
l l
I I
II/16/a6] SHIMS TO LEVEL PIPE SUPPORT DASE PLATES UNDOCt!MFHTED l
l l
{
g i
te e*
- ~,
f e
I IJCLMil FOR JUSTIFICATION l
I = The alleRation in/is not a sperlfte safety or quality issue or a Renerallred concern.
% = 1he allegation in/&s not a alRnitirant safety or-concern.
2 m The staff han/has not Previevely addressed this issue.
3 = The issue has ticen previously dealt with or is now beinR dealt with by fuE.
22 = SSER 22 28 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report
}
ALif. CATION SOURCE DOCUMENT
[ ALLEGER CRARACTiERilATION liOLLOWI
~
NEW l
OLD l
j l
l 12/ 2/ 4412/ 22/ 8413/ 2 / 4@[2[UI3/23/ 841 l UP l ELOSED l PCf.E I PCE l NRC 1 jGAP_l JI I CAP l JI _l _ CAP 1 l
i l(22)
I l
i I
I i
l I
i i
l 89 1 89 I l
l l HUDSON IPROCEDURES ESD 246 & 247 QUALIFIED AFTER-THE-FACT WITil DIFFFRENT I
1822 PARA.Il l I
l I
I j
i i
l I
I I
I l _ _]
I I EQVLMENL71WI_ll3ALDRMINAL(LMED i
1(n) l I
l l
I I
I I
I l
l 1 90 1 90 I,
I l
IUUDSON lPULLHAN INTERNAL AUDIT f 101 WAS del.lBERATEl.Y LEFT OPEN FOR OVER ONE l
l324,322 I
I I
l l
jfARA_ t l _ __ _ _j 1
I 1
1
__l l
I l
lYEAULnlE_SIIILOA_fnNASER 1
1(22) i i
i i
I I
i l
l l
1 I 91 l 91 I
l l
IHUDSON I PULLHAN CORPORATE QA DIRECTOR REFUSED TO ADDRESS INTERNAL AUDIT 31 l
1124, 122 l l
l l
l l
_1 1
I I
I WillCILBAISED_IllL IS SU P._0 LEXCES S 1YE_Ulif._ID_RESOLYlLI A101
-_ l_
ILAPA. J l___ J l
I i
I 1(1)D)I i
1 I
I I
I I
l l
[
l 92 1 92 l I
l lHUDSON I IN JANUARY 1983 HR. HUDSON WAS REMOVED AS INTERNAL. AUDITOR FOR NOT l
l l le re i l
l l
l I
_1 1
_ _ _l l
l CLOSING ENOUCH AUDITS ALTHOUCH OTHERS VERF. THE CAUSE OF del.f.Y I
j
{_
J l
l I
1 1(l)( }l l
l 1
I i
1 1
I I
l 93 l 93 I I
I lfPJDSON IWHEN INFORMED OF NON6LIANCE WITH 10CPR50 APP. B, MR. KARNER STATED l l
l is no. I I
l l
l l
1 l
i 1THAT PULLMAN WAS NOT COMMITTED TO APPDIDIX 8 j
j l
Jl l
l I
I i
l(2)(4)I l
l 1
1 1
1 1
l 94 1 94 i i
l lilUDSON lHTDR0 STATIC TEST PROCEDURES FOR TESTS BEFORE JANUART 27, 1975 ARE I
1 l
l lha$si l
l l
l
_j i
i l
lMtSSINc DOCUMENTS, PAGES, AND REQUIREMENTS l
1 l
J inot l
i i
i 1(2)M i
I I
I i
l i
i 95 I 95 l l
l IHUDSON lilTDR0 STATIC TEST DOCUMENTATION AFTER 1975 ARE MISSING QA DOC 1'HDITS I
I l
l lhad t rl J
l
_l l
l l
__l(t.E. r78 RELrASS'-QC RELEASE) l J
l l
Ino t___l.
I I
i I
l(2)(4 A I
I l
i l
I l
I 95 l 96 I l
I liniDSON IHYDroSTATlc TEST Rtou!REMINTS FORMS DID HOT CONTAIN PLUID TTPE, I
l l
l lhnVirl l
l
_ l.
l l
l
[ PRESSURE, AND TDtPERATilRE (28 CASES) l l
l
[
jno L )
i l
I i
1(2)M M j
i l
i i
l I
i l
l 97 l 97 l l
l IHUDSON I IN 28 CASES PULlJtAN'S TEST DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT SATISFY PG&E RI: QUIRE-I l
I j
lhadirl i
f J
l l
Inot l gNENTS(EXAMPLEUSEOF24RSV52812PSIC) i i
l "J
l l
I l
l
~l l(2)M)l i rosi 19)filYDROSTATIFHYEKT5T>I5' t15T ALUKU 11 AVE A3517.flir1FQCI'IEII--l l
l I
i i
i I 98, l 98 I I
I lHUDSON I PIPE RELEASE, DESP11B OTHER RECORDS STATING QC VERIFICAfl0N l
l l
l lhaggy i
I
_.1 I
I I
I l
1 l______I Inat_I I
I I
i 1(2 x4 )I I
I I
I I
I I
I 99 l 99 I l
l IHUDSON I HR, ICJDSON WAS RARASSED BY MR. KARNER FOR SPEAKING TO 11IE NPC 100 LOtac l l
l l
14I
,_,__._.L l_ Lno t._{
l
.L._ _ _ i
_.L -
1 I
I IIN MAY 1982
_,,,__,1 i
1
]
r 8
j I.EGEED FOR JUiTIFICATION j
l = The aileRation Is/is not a specific safety or <suality issue or a Reneralized concern.
4 = The alleRation is/is not a stRaificant safety or.
1 2 = The staff han/haa not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
t 3 = The issue has been previously dealt with or is now beinR dealt with by PG&E.
22 = SSF.R 22 i
21 = SSER 21 j
IR = Inspection Report 1
i
]'l ALLEGATION SOURCE DOCtt1ENT ALLEGER EllARACTERIZATION j
OLD NEW l
2/2/84l2[22/8413/2/8513/2/8413/23/84 lFOLIDW1 1
l i
I CAP l JI l CAP l JI l CAP j l
l_UP,_j_ CLOSED j _PJf.
l PCE l NRC i i
i l
I I
i l
i 1(22) i I
I I
i 78 i 7s l
l l
IHUDSON IVtERE WAS NO INVESTICATION THAT IDf7tTIFIES WilERE ESD 270 WAS USED l
ll22 PARA. Al I
l l
1
_I I
I I
I I
I I
l __ _. I I
I i
i i
i l
i l
I i
1(22) i I
I I
I 79 l 79 l
l l
IHUDSON l PULLMAN F.SD 241 FOR UT OF VALVE TOKE RODS WAS PERFORMED WITH0 tit A l
l122 PARA.
l l
l l
1 1
_l' I
I I
ITA_ LID M i
lB1 L. _ _ i i
1 l
l l
l l
l l
lESD 241 WAS USED FOR TESTS FRON DECEMBER 17-20. 1973 BEFORE Tile I
1(22) i l
l l
I 80 1 80 l
l l.
lRUDSON l PROCEDURE WAS ISSUED (DECEMBER 26. 1973) OR APPROVED BY PC&E l
1122 PARA.
l l
l l
j l
_l
[
l l
l(FEBRUARY 12 1974) l JB2 1
l l
l I
i i
l i
1 I
i 1(22) l I
I i
I st I si I
l l
InUDSON IrUt.LMAN ESD 241 WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH DRESSER (THE VENDORS) l 1822 PARA.
l l
l l
l l
, _l l
l l
I rNHRUCTIONS FOR NDE l
lB3 l
l l
l i
i l
1 I
I l
1 1(22) 1 I
I I
i l 82 1 82 l
l l
IHUDSON lPER PUf.IJtAN INTERNAL AUDIT 101 CONCLUDED THAT TEST DOCUMENTS FAII.ED TO l 1122 PARA.
l l
l l
j i
i I
I-IMEET EITHER ESD 241 OR (DRESSER) VEND R r.EQUIRENENTS j
l B.6
)
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 1
1 1(22) 1 I
I I
l 83 l a) l I
l l HUDSON lESD 241 AND UT TEST DOCUMEtTTS DID NOT DOCUMENT PG&E REQUIREMENTS FOR I
1122 FARA.
l l
I l
l J
_j i
i IBACKUP INSPECTION OF YORE ROD END CRACKING l
lB4
_[
j l
1 1
I I
I i
l 1
1(22) l l
l l
l 84 1 84 l
l l
IHUDSON l)fR. KARNER AND MR. CUYLER DISMISSED MR. I!UDSON'S DISCREPANCT REPORT ON I l122 PARA.
l l
l l
l l
l 1
l l
lTHE BASIS OF FOLIDVING PG&E _INSTRUCTLONS
_[
_jn8
)
l l
}
I I
i l
l 1
l l
l(22)
I i
i l
l Rs i es I
l l
IHuDSON INRC REPORTING AND CONTRACT SPECIFICATION VIOt.ATIONS OCCURRED SINCE ONI.Y I ll22 PARA.
I I
l l
l l
1 l
1
[
12 0F 7 DEFICIENT NDE PROCEDURES WERE IDENTIFIED TO PC&E I
JC l
l l
l l
l l
l l
t i
l I U2) l l
l l
l 86 I A6 I
I I
IHUDSON lMR. KARNER PREVENTED UIE INTERNAL AUDITOR FROM RESEARCHING T1lE USE OF l
1122 PARA.
l l
l l
l_ _l _ l l
l 1
IESD 246. ALTHot'Cil ESD 247 WAS UtACED TO CRACKED WELD _S l
.]D l
l l
l l R7 1 ni l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I i
l l
l l
l l
l l-l l
1 m i 2 I
I I
I l
__ __ __ l _ __ I I
.l 1
l I es 1. 88 I
I l
l l
1 e
I i
i l
IsKIrr-IsKirr-l l
1 I
I I
I l
l l
l l ED 1 2 _I I
L_
l
_I l_____I I
1 l
I e
to
s'
^l 0
1.ECEND FUR JU171FICAT10N significant safety or -
4 = The alleRation is/is not a
I e The allegation is/in not a sp jefic safety or quality issue or a generalic.ed concern.
concern.
= The staff hes/has not previously addressed this issue.
22 = SSER 22 2
= The issue has been prevleusly dealt with or is now being dealt with by PGAE.
21 = SSER 21 3
IR = Inspection Report CllARACTEH12ATION Ola 1
NEW
{
J ALLEGATION SOURCE i)OCUMENT lALLECER 10Lt.0Wl l
l l
12/2/R4l2/22/846/2[84l3/2/84l3/23/844 l UP _ [ CLOSEDj PCM l PCE l NRC_]
(
j CAP l JI l CAP l JI l CAP l l
l I(22) l I
I l
l l
l I
l l
l VALVE HEASUREMENTS FROH EQUIPMEtrl' THAT FAILED HINIMUM RELIABILITY I
Il23. 3 I
I I
l 67 l 67 l l
l l HUDSON I STANDARDS WERE IMPROPERLY USED TO ACCEPT VALVES AS SUFFICIENTLT i
i 1
l 1
I 1
I I
L i
1 LTucr l
l(22)
I l
I l
l l
ll23e 333 I
l l
3 i
l l
l l
l
( 68 l 68 l'
l l
I HUDSON l ALTHOUCH FORTY-TWO DATA REPORTS DISCLOSED THAT VALVES WERE BELOW lilN1-l_ l
}
I I
l I
I I
1._ l i
IfiUtLJ1(LGEN355._IltgLFRE HARM AM "AECFMFD W1IIIDUI_MELANAnnu 1
l(22) i 1
l l
l l
l l
1 i
i I
Il21. Bl3 I l
I I
l l 69 l 69 l l
l.
IHUDSON I IN 11 CASES,111E MFASUEEM:"::TS wtME INCOMPl.BTE. WITIl MISSING DATA POR i
I I
I i
1 l
I J
1_
l 1.
IrmaLMLEeutIllunys i
l(22) l I
l I
l t
l I121, 314 I
I I
l l
I I
I i 79 i io l i
I l HUDSON lUIA f 34 COULD NOT FIND EVIDENCE T!!AT ALL REQUIRED VALVES / WELDS WFRE l
l.02)
_l I
l I
[
l J
l 1
l lERAMINED AND/OR PEPAIRED l
1 i
I i
1 l
l121 PARA, Cl l
l l
l HUDSON lUIA #34 REPORTED THE IACK OF DOCUMENTATION INDICATING THAT WELD REPAIRS l l
l l
l l
g l_
L j
_)
l
[
71 l
g g
71 g
l l
l l
l l
goN THE VALVES WERE NOT CONTROLLED i
1021 I
i l
I g
t l
l 1
l l
t 1
(121 PARA. Dj l
l l
l l
l l
l
{
72 g g
gHUDSON l g 72 g
lNONE OF THE VALVES HEET AEC AND PC&E DESIGN REQUIREMENTS l
1(22)
I l
I i
g l
l l
)
l l
l l
l12I STAFF l l
l l
t l
l l
l l HUDSON lBECAUSE OF HANAGEMENT'S DECISION NOT TO DEVELOP CORRECTIVE ACTION. T l
l POSITION l
l l
[
73 l l
g g 73 g jQUALITY OF THE WELDS HAT BE AS INDETERMINATE NOW AS IN 1974 l l(22) l I
I l
l l
g l
l l
NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST PROCEDURES ALSO LACKED DOCUMENTATION OF PROCEDURE l
l122 PARA. Al
(
l l
l l
1 l
l l
1 l QUALIFICATION RECORDS OR TESTS
{
j l
l l
[
) 74 g 74 l g
g
) HUDSON J l
li22) l l
l l
j g
l l
g
_[
lTHE CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR PROCEDURE ESD 234 CONSISTED OF UNRLI.IAllt.I, l
1822 PARA. Al l
l l
l l
l
~l l
l lI1UDSON l"AFTFR THE FACT" PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION TESTS WHOSE USr. WAS NOT l
l6 B
_ l.
I l
l 75 l 75 l l
l l
l 1
l l
l
[~CONTROLt.ED i
1(22) 1 I
i l
1122 PARA. Bl l
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l HUDSON llA #101 DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT MANAGEMENT REVIEWED AND APPROVED l__l._
f I
l l
l 76 l 76 l
l l
jtHE r. OCEDURES FOR TilF. PQT l
1(22) 1 I
i 1
R l
l 2
l l
I l
l l
lI22 PARA. Al i
I l
l l.
l l
l l HUDSON IQA MANAGER,ilAROI.D KARNER DIRECTED THAT T11R PROCEDURF QUALIFICATION l
l 1
j_
l l
l RECORDS FOR ESD 210 Sil0VLD BE USED FOR ESD 270
__l_,l l
l I
I l 77 l 77 l
l l
s*
11CENil FOR JWTlilCATION 1
- The allegation is/is not a specific safety or vluality issue or a Renerallred comern.
4 = The alleRatlod is/is not a siRntficant safetf or 2 = The staff hes/ hse not pseviously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The issue has been prewfously dealt with or is now beinR. dealt with by PC&E.
22 s 7,SLN 22 21 = SSLR 21 IR = Inspection Iteport j
ALl10 Ail 0N SOURCE DOCUMENT
,ALL,EGER]
CHARAETERIZATION
_J __ l NLW l
OID 12/2/84l2/22/84I3/2/8483/2/84]3/23/84 I
Ilottow l
l l
l CAP l JI l CAP l JI_ l CAP I l
l_ UP
- l. Cl.0 SED l FCAL jf_CEg(llNRjC i
l l
l
_l l
l l
l l
l l
l I 56 1 56 l l
1 lilUDSON l RECORDS REFLECT QC-ACCEPTED WEl.DS WIIERE,NONE EXISTED REMOVAI,OF SAFETY-l l
l l
In notl l
I I
I
]
I l_R.F.IATEP FEtr03_FIIHOVI.DC_RICORDS_0LIllifJLDISAffEARANCP-l l
l'
_l j
l I
i 1
1 I
I i
l i
f(4) I I
,i 57 57 l
l g
l lLOCKERTgVE!.DS HAVC REEN REPAIRED WITHOUT REVISING THE RELEVANT DRAWINGS TO NOTE I I
l lie l
l
]
l I
I I
I ITHE DIMRENCES
__I I
L _._lna t lI L
l l
l l
l l
15ECittEl, & TC&E MANACD1RNT MANIPULATED Tile UT FROCEDURE TO l.0WER TflE l
l l(22) l l
l sn 1 58 l l
l IUNKNOWNINUMBFR OF REJECTED INDICATIONS IN UT EXAMINATIONS OF FUI.L PENETRATION l
1 ll2 h l94 l
l
[
l
_1 J
l J.
lWEl.DS IN 1982
_l
[
jlR9 i
j l
l l
l l
l l
IFULI. MAN'S INTERNAL AUDITOR COULD FIND NO EVIDTNCE THAT THP t'LTTtASOHIC I
l(22) l l
1 l
l 59 I 59 i l
i lifUDSON ITillCRNESS NEASURTHENT PROCEDURF. FOR REACT 0ft C00 LENT PRESSURE BOUNDART l
1121 Al, A2 I I
I i
l l
J l
l l
l VALVP.S WA_S_ quat.IFIED l
l
[
t i
I i
1 1
1 1
I l
1 1(22) 1 I
i i
l 60 1 60 1 I
l l HUDSON l PUI.I. MAN'S AUDITOR COULD FIND NO EVIDENCE OF ' PROCEDURE VERITICAtl0N l
1125 A3 l
l l
l 1
i
_lI I
i 1
lT.ESTS' r0R TH tT w m C m L._1.
1 J
l l
l l
l 1
1 I IN 1982 PULLMAN'S INTERNAL AUDITOR COULD FINN NO PVIDENCE TilAT I
l (.~4 -
l 1
l l
1 6l I r>l 1
I i
IllVDSON lHANACEMDIT CONDUCTED TiiE HEASUREMENTS WITH A QUAllrlCA! ION TEST, i
1921 l
l l
l l
J l
l I
I lpE7tT5_WARNINC_JN_195)
___ _ _l L_ _,,_, _,__ l l
[
l i
i l
i i
i IrUuJ1AN QA MANAGER HARDI.D KARNFR sFFSED TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION WilEN 1 l(22) l l
l l
1 62 1 62 l l
l IHUDSON lTHE AUDITOR DISCI.0 SED TIIE 1.ACK OF PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION RECORDS OR I
l121 l
l l
1 l
l I
J l
l
~ lJESTS_fmt JSP'S_2M_6Ji9 l
l l
l 1
1 i
l I
,I l
l
!WLIJtAN'S LINGUISTIC DISTINCTION INTkortki.Y EXCLUDES NONDESTRUCTIVE 1
l(22) l l
l l
I r)
I si i l
i I nUnSON IMrASURrHTNTS FFOM THE SCOPE OF IOCFR50, APPEND 1R B, CitlTER10N 11, l
ll21 1
1 1
1 1.
I
__ l l
l 1
I ESP.IIE_Il EIR_SENIDCANCE_IQ_MANT_W6TY l
l_
l 1
l l
P J
I I
I I
I I
I HR. HUDSON'S UNSCitFICI.ED INTE. RNAI. AUDIT (UI A) # 34 0F VAI VE WAI.I. Tit!CK-l l(22) l l
l l
I 64 I
(> 4 I
I l
IHUDSON l NESS DATA REPORTS DEMONSTRATl;D TilAT THF. DATA REPORTS ARE l
8121 l
l l
l l
1
_l I
l_
l lJNCUMN.EIg_AND_.NOT TRACEAst.E l
.I l
l l
I l
l l
.l l
1 1
1 1
1 IDATA REr0RTS OFFERED UNREI.IARI.R. INCONSISTENT INFORMATION WITil ORICINAl. l l(22) l 65 l 65 l i
I I Hudson I INFORMATION BEING wit!TED-0UT AND Al,TERED WITik)UT SICHA1VRE l
1121 R I
l 1
l l
L___.
I i
l l
_ l ouxrt.ANAt10N l __I _
1 1
l i
i l
I NECESSARY RI' CORDS WFRE NOT CONSISIENTI.T AVAlt.ABLE TO DLHONSTRATF.
1 l(22) _
l l
I l
l l
1 l
1 6r, I 66 l
l l
lin)DSON l cal.lBRATION OF THE MEASURING T.QUIPNENT CAUSING RESUI.TS SKFvCD.6% - 4r2 l 1828, B i
1 l
l l_.
l
. l. _ __. I I
L _ _J ovEur,CalaxIreutERROR.
______.___.l___.I_.____l___...I l
J i
ll' ge o
O'
i '
t t
I I1Il]lllllli1lIl[i l I.IlliIlil ll_
C RW OElIIIlIl\\ill1llillIIlill1ll1Ilil ll t
I E
f
- ll_
C t
P
)4" a
r I "
o IlIllIl)IllIllill4 I ll l lI l 1l ll I 1,l J
a (8
(l t
F)
)
)
e C29 29 2 9 f
P22
_2 2 22 4
t_I l lllll_
( 1 s
Ill1llllll '
1j1ll1llill1l llli 1
t 0
n l.
l.
1 a
D 1
A A
A c
il E
R R
M l'
S
)
1 i
A A
A 6
O' l
9 9
.)
)
)
O P
F F
f
)
)
)
n C
_2
_)
22
_2 l
_. 2 1 (1
( 1 (1
W1 _
2,
25 25 21 2]
3 lR
_22
.(9 (i
20 2 0 0
L l(1 ll1ll 9
e
] llllIllll illljl1ll[L_
lll 1l_l s
i a
i t
i iP
- i. H l
on i
lll1llll 1_I l l1 I ll Ilil1IIllIllIlIIlllq i
F s
J l
i D
E l
ET N
C C
l l G
/
1 O
L E
N s
D. E i
t t
S 1
V A
h T_
T O
l I
i l N r
R N
S A
l O t
o T
F.
YH F
N l
W E
D.
o AR n
p S
I F
H S
I K
I T
l T
l W
o e
N P
E
~
i R
O O
NS I
T i
V W
D E
t I.
t C
C O
S C
E R
f l
l T U.
C a
n I
N E,
H R
O D
N l il Ren.
n N
R E.
O 1'
T F
F R
Y 11 R
i E
Ol Al 5
D V
0 ME l e28 t H
I B RE N
I S
O r
C l e22 t W
I M!
TW TS I
C at e
TS E
OD N
I A
R R
r F
t n R R.
p S
SN NS NL r
I U
p r
r iO enF F s N
EO E
E u
Q E
A hN F J D Wu I
1 E
L.
E 5
h cS$ n O
uP T
6 T
SSI I
QS p
I F
/
I Y.
R R
O MT T
EE L. g DF O
t E
= s
C RR t
V 9
E R
S W
W7 E
Fy u
EQ C
H T
0
)
21R P
SS CQ Q
N TS
?
0]
T i
7 t
22I S
A F
AB A
N O
E]
A N
'R W At RQ M
i UI N
Oj T '
1 l
TO C
N9 H
E9 TyE I
O OL T
n.
N M
CH Pr OJ Fy S
t0T U
R N
A S
n R
E F. o CY Q
S nC S
I I S
iAN S
D (I r
i O
FE r K_
C E
SP E
iI A
IF e
T F
SC 1.B Sf L
WF
)N I
o 5
E INN AQ 0L t
I R
I f I
N RA W
US A
A RI WE A, S
R. C, E
D t D
i E
(l7 FR o
i F
l.
O B_
TR T
O i
T NA p.
L
!Or P
R C.
TT r
i Cl l
i U
QP E
OL LN T
HUE T0 F
iC i
T T
M TV Cl EJ r
RF J i r h) t l'
c E
C Ap RJ V
T 0
V O
F.
at l
C it T
C a
T.
E F
TR EW NU 0G l
F N_
R FS A
O D
ET Tp BE O I.
1 M l
Rl o i N EO F
l P
I N
EE AC r
ll. JEy
]
I E
T D.
TT Y
I T
i I a
N S S TP r
y C
S UO I S UY AP R [
AE UN A
T?
e t
R FH A. R_
R1 O
N CU D
O n
O F. W
.N QT T5 EC NP F.
M t
e h
T R
R I_
E J, FC EE TL H
S E0 t
fT J
LY R
t C
R M
N RT I
N EE A
Ot!.
P l
i E
SO p
IU 9_
. l E V T
D DI r L, DN O
f a
w F
RF D T_
[
ER R
F I
S E
E C J S2s Bci r
t N
GE R D C
S o
l I
AR F E S
MN iA PL E
T R7i A a
NU DW TN EI uC EE P
ID H_ O9iN i
e e
D AD R O AQ XG rI C R.
T1r I S
u d
L Mr O L.
H ]l EN t'
C N
C $.
C s
O C
l T
f 90 AG I r C
5 QF FNGH F.
e g
T AO R A.
i YL 7 5 N
PI L
n QR O
l 1 yec,i TD r
SC Tf LE RS OL 8A NS-S 1
e NE N
t h ES Af T.
EI F E 9l I S (,
F, D.
t ul T T AC Vl EN M0
.I E V s
1 Q El Z l.
l MC NN RE s
R R T. V NE SN CCRI i sw FE H I_
o t.
EB l
t S
0F uL t
I R EE
,P QO r N W a
P R
eio CJ t
e n
R y 4R
,NP Or E N.
RAC J
N JF N
Uu 1 '
A FCo
/
rqSWES T.
W t e NO n
D I
t e l a A
a S_
O F
LE H. O H E v E_
rhl Hs e
C1 CW sU NT L T zl C
EH OoI C
C
- t. N T R r, et L
QJ O
P O t O r
r CI i n 1
RA Cl B N J
CI Rr rR URNoT yd o QT rT AW rC rW Sr FW t e lllIiil1llitllfllIIlIjllPw Ar r W i i r.
l_ lI fl I ll l l_
eeh R
T T
T f st E
R R
R N
N N
N N
N N
N a ei C
R E
E 0
O O
O O
O O
O s r w J
K K
K 5
S S
S U
u u
u S
S S
s d
l.
c C
C D
D D
D D
D D
n cdt I
, e O
D u
t n
I
(
n u
n u
u U
t n
i I
i al A
t L
f a
liIlllllIIiIjll1iIliIlIll I 1 I l l I I l..
li i ye 4
cl d s
es
/P puy 1 A s ol 2C i e T
/
r avv i
f L_
ee ElIiIli1jll1lIllII1lllijIlllIliI1Il t rl Ni opv Oi n
e C/I t r OiJ s op D/
'OI i n
- 3
' / n lIIIIllI l lI I llI11l1illIlllIlill1l ft l I_
IT isse t4 a c ii A
ht U/P i
C n/
iia
'SV C I
onn F
i a a I
t hh
'NllII1ll lillI I I.lIl1lliil1llllllIll
~l i ll_
T a
Ol if e t
tt ef s i/
J l as 2I 5
6 7
R 9
0 I. 2 J U
4 4
4 4
4 5
i 2
i 4
5 l t e s
5 s
5 5
R esl O
EU i.
F eee I1lI1li1li11l1llIil1 jI I I 1 llili1 11 hhh A4 D
TTT i
L N
7P E
*
iA 5
6 7
8 9
0 i
2 t
4 5
C.
lC 4
4 4
4 4
s s
5 s
5 5
F.
i 1
1 23 lilliilIl1llllljlIltIlIIll1II1l1lI
's il
a' n
LEGEND EUR JU:rIFICATION 1 = The elle gation as/is not a specific safety or quellty issue or a generallred concern.
4
- The allegation is/in not a significant safety or 2 = The stal-han/has not previously addressed this issue.
rencern.
3 = The issut has been previously dealt with or is now being. dealt with by PG&E.
22 = SSEM 22 21 = SSER 28 IR = Inspection Report i
ALLEGATION SOURCE DOCthENT ALLECLR CHARACTERIZATION OI.D l
NEW l
12/2/8412/22/8413/2/84l3/2/3413/23/84 f0Ll4WI l
l l
l JI l CAP l j
1 UP j CLOSED I PC&E.I PCE I NRCJ l CAP 1 JI l CAP l_
l 1
1 1
I I
I i
1(22) i i
i i
l 34 5 34 I
l 3
IIIUDSON IPC&E IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED CODE 92/93 FOR PIPE RUPTURE RESTRAINTS I
1214-217 l
l l
l i
1 !EJLEFOCKss_s1IrgTS_stECIUED_mKRLD._SE_pQNE._IQ_ CODE _HB__
l l
l l
l
[
i i
1 1
1 I
I 10 l
J l
J l
i ITut SWITCH rROM CODE 7/s TO CODE 92/93 WAS BASED ON PREMISE TitAT ROTil l
l(22) 1 I
l l
l 35 I 35 I
I l
lilUDSON IPROCEDURES WERE QUALIFIED TO UNLIMITED T1tlCKNESS AND TECllNICALLT I
1216 l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I l_ EQUIVALENT l
l l
l l
[
l 1
I I
i 1
1 1
l(22) l I
I I
I% I 36 I I
i 1RUDSON lPUI.LMAN WELDERS WORKINC UNDER WELDINC PROCEDURES THAT ARE NOT QUALIFIED I 1214-217 I
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I Ir0R THEIR ASSIGNMENTS I
l l
_j l
[
l l
l l
l l
l PULLMAN DID NOT REGULARLY CALIBRATE ITS WELDING MACHINES AND l
l l(22) l l
1 1 37 1 37 I
I I
ILOCKERTlFAILED TO ISSUE EQUIPMENT TilAT WOULD CONTROL THE AMPERACE FOR l
l ll29 l
l l
_I I
_)
l I
I IWgt,DS I
I l
l l
[
l l
I I
- l l
ISINCE 1977 PULLMAN llAS USED CTAW VELDINC MACHINES 111AT VIDIATE CONTRACT l 1
l(22) l l
l 1 38 I 38 I
I I
ItoCKERTISPECIFICATIONS DUE TO ABSENCE OF ELECTRICAL CURRENT CONTROLS AND AN I
{
1129 l
l l
I I
I I
I I
Jg3-pFy_ sW_LICll i
1.
I I
I i
1 I
I I
i 1
1 1
1 l(22) l l
l l 39 1 39 I I
I ILOCKERTlT11E EFFECT OF THE IMPROPER EQUIPMENT WAS TilAT WELDS CONSISTENTLY WERE l
l llI9 I
I l
L I
1 I
l I
I CONINl1NATG_WITILTUNOSIEN l
1 l
l l
[
l i
I I
I I
t rULLMAN QA MANAGER. IIAROLD KARNER. RERISED TO HONOR CONTRACT SPECIFICA-l l
l l
l OI l
I 40 1 40 I
I I
ILOCKERTITIONS, AFTER MR. LOCKERT EXPLAtHED Tile EFFECT ON Tile QUAL.ITY OF Tile l
l l
l l
l l
1 I
l i
l i
l
_j l
l l
l I ELDS._t%.LOCKMLWAS_IAUR_DLSMHSED l
l i
I I
I F
i 1
l(22) 1 I
I 1
I IInCKERTIMR. LOCKERT WAS TOLD NOT TO DISCUSS DEFICIENT CTAV MACllINES WIT}l PG&E'S l l
1129 l
1 l
I 41 1 41 1
N l
l
_-}
I l
l I FA_W%DRIC_D;CINEE8 1
1 1(22) i I
I I
I I
I I
I i
I i
i I
I I
I 42 1 42 l I
I ILOCKERTl FROM 19691D 1983. PULLMAN'S TROCEDURES FOR S10 RACE OF CERTAIN wet, DING l l
1129 j l
l l
l I
l l
_._]
IILECTit0DEDTRE_ DEFICIENT l
j l
l I
l l
l 1
1 1
1 I
I i
1(22) l I
I I 43 1 43 I I
I ILOCRERTIALTHOUCH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS PROMISED TO CORRECT WELD ROD STORACE l
l 1129 l
l l
L I
_l l
l l
ly1QLAT10Ns._CEEREQ UVE AC_ HON W6 U NEFH CTIVE
. _ _[
.]
j l
l
[
l I
I l
i i
)
I l
l(22) i 1
1 I 44 1 44 1
1 1
IHUDSON ITHE INTEGRITY OF WELD INSPECTIONS IS COMPROMISED RY PROSPECTIVE WEl. DING l l
1123 l
1 1
I l
l l
l I
LIMSEICIORS_ptEATING ON_.QVALIFICAllDJLTESTs
.l_ _ I I
L i
_1 g.
I e
o LECEND FOR JU;11FIEATION 1 = The alle. tion is/is not a specific safety or quality issue or a generalized concern.
4 = The allenatio.a in/is not a siRnificant safety or-2 = The stal han/has not previously addressed this issue.
concern.
3 = The less? mas been previously dealt with or is now being dealt with by PChE.
22 = SSER 22 21 = SSER 21 IR = Insgettien Report
~
j ALI.ECATION SOURCE DOCltG.NT ALLEGER-EHARAETERIZATION OLD l
NEW i
12/2/8412/22/4413/2/8413/2/dII/23/84 FOLLOWI l
1 l
l l CAP 1 JI I CAP l JI _ j CAP j l
l UP 1_ CLOSED j PG&E,j PCE I NRC j I
I i
l l
l IPULLMAN QA M4NV ER FAO ED TO RESPOND TO AN INSPECTOR'S WRITTEN I
l (22) l 1
l l
I 23 1 23 l l
l lLOCKERTINOTIFIr83 Rtl..t T C IMPROPER SUBSTITUTION OF A WELDING TECilNIQUE FOR l
l 106-108 l
l l
l l
l l
l l_
l jM: APPRQVED_rJpCfEDURE I
__ _ j l
1 1
I l
1 1
I I
IPULLMAN QA MANACER COERCED AN INSPECTOR TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS FOR l(22) l l
1 l
l l 24 1 24 l,
I l
lLOCKERTICOMPLIANCE BY OFFERING THE ALTERNATIVE OP "LOOKING FOR A NEW JOE" li20 l
l l
1 l
1 1
1 1
1 -.
I 1
ll30__l i
1%I I
I I
l l
l l
1 1
I I (22) 1 I
I I
I 25 1 25 l
l l
lLocKERTIEVEN IF WELD TECilNIQUE SPECIFICATION NO. AWS 1-1 WERE AN APPROVED I
l 106-108 l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I lti:Q2DVRE._IISEILWASJNMEQU6IE 1
lJDL-110___}
l I
I l
l l
l l
InUDSON l i
I(n)
I i
l i
l 26 1 26 i
l l
ILOCKERTIAWS l-l FAILED TO CORRECT THE IMPROPER USE OF CODE 7/8, TRIE To THE USE l I 10f.-108 I
l I
l l
I I
I I
_.J 0f_15ACCEEIMLE_ STEEL 1
j _
1 I
l i
l l
l
[
l i
l i
I l
I i
I (22)
I 27 1 27 I
I l
IHUD$nN 11HPROPEit Cc. OF INTERIOR STEEL WAS APPROVED BY AN OFFICIAL I
~l 106-108 l
l l
l l
J
_1 I
I J
_ l W1103EC0 ADS _S110WED_WA1_S itiVLIANEOUS_C0t(SIRUCnDtLA.QA_0fnCI Af _
l l
l l
l l
l 1
l l
l I
trC&E CONTRACT REQUIREMENT FOR CI!ARPY STRENGTil TESTS WAS IMPPOPERLY I
I (22) l l
l l
l 28 1 28 I
I I
IHUDSON l WAIVED POR CODE 7/8 AND OTHER WELDING PROCEDURES ON PIPE RUPTURE l
l 114 l
l l
l l
1 1
I I
I IRESTRAUTS I
1 l
I l
l l
l l
l 1
IUNKNOWNl l
l l(22) l l
l l 29 1 29 I
I I
II/16/84lrAIIJURE TO COMPLY WITTI WELD PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS LED 70 "TRULY l
l 1889 l
I I
1 1
1 I
I JAEnDalrAruEnc" mnucitniutrE2vrrviutaESrausrS__ _
1 1
I I
I I
I I
1 l
l 1
iPUI.IEAN IMPROPERLY GRANTED ITSELF A CENERIC EXEMPTION FROM AWS DESICN, I
l (22)
I l
l l
1 30 1 30 I
I l
lHUDSON IFABRICATION, AND ERECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL PIPE l
l 109 110 l l
I i
l I
l I
L J5UfrDRI_WELDINC l
l l
I I
I I
i i
i i
l i
I I (22) l I
I I
I 3I 1 31 l
l l
IHUDSON l CODE 88/89 IIAS REEN USED TO WELD STEEL SHAPES AND Pl.ATES IN IllE CURRENT I l 116 117 I I
I I
I I
_.1 l
I I
lpEsicN 2rJDIUCAT10NS I
l l
[
I l
I l
d I
i l
i l
1 (22) 1 I
I I
I 32. I 32 I i
1 IHUDSON l CODE 8R/89 HAS BEEN USED TO WrLD PLATES AND SHAPES TO RUPTURE RESTRAINTSI I 11H, 119 I I
I l
!__J
.I I
l i
J Wit!L2._WEl.D1No rRtrESSEs_ _SMAW s.cTAW
__ L_ __ L _.
I
_L._ I I
I I
I i
1 i
l 1
I (22) i I
I i
I 33 I n i l
l lHUDSpri IPC&R IMPORI'ERLT RESPONDED TO T11E MISUSE OF CODE RR/89 l
1 IIR, 119 l l
l 1
L _._I
__L J
l
.I I
. l_ _ _L __ _ ___L_ _ L I I
>s a
g.
r s
/
I LEGEND FOR JUitlFI'4 TION l
4 = The allegation in/is not a significant estety or-
= The alle;ation is/is not a specific safety or quality issue or a Renerallred concern.
l 1
concern.
2 = The staf' has/has not previously addressed this issue.
22 = SSER 22
.3 m The isse lies been previously dealt with or is now being dealt with by PGAE.
21 = SSER 21 IR = Inspection Report j
j_
ALif. CAT *0N SOURCE _ DOCUMENT lALLEGER CHARACTERIZATION
_l OLD NEW l
l Fol.IEW1 l
l l
12/2/8412/22/.413/2/8413/2/8413/23/841 l_FP_l CIBSF.D l FG&E I PCE j NRC l l CAP { JI J CAP JI I GAP l
_l_
1 1 (22)
I 1
1 I
1 l
1 i
i l
I l 103-105 I
I l
l I 12 l
12, 1
I IHUDSON l CODE 7/8 UAS USED TO WELD TUREADED STUDS TO CONTAINMENT LINER - QA I
I I
l 1
l 1
I
._l l
l 1
Ilia:lAGEIL"vmrn" THE REPORIING_IliSEECTOLER0tLIllElSSICEMENT l
l (22) l l
l l
l l
1 109-110 l
l 1
l l
l l
l l
l 13 3 13 I
l l
IHUDSON lWEl. DING OF TilREADED STUDS VIOLATED CODE 7/B, MilCll CAL 1,510R THE USF. OF 1 l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
1 l
l 1
1 l
l IrVLIJ1AN OVEREXTENDED CODE 7/8 BY WELDING COMMON HARDWARE BOLTS, IN51EAD l l (22) l l
l l
l I4 i 14 I
I l.
lHUDSON l0F vHRFADED SW DS.
CONSTRUCTION CREWS TURNED 111B BOLTS INTO STUDS EY l i 103-105 & I l
l 1
l_
l 13I l
l l
[
I I
_J l_
l I
Irv 7.jlEADS_OffF AND CHI $EL[NG__T0_A_[0 INT I
I (22) 1 I
I I
NEITHER HAVE CONTROLLED CIIEMICAL CONTENTS NOR l
l 131 l
l
[
t l
l I
I l
i i
1
__I I
I l
I L_
1 1
I 1
i 15 l is i
I I
IHUD i
I (22) i I
l l
I I
I i~
l
' ' ire SUPP0stT JOINT CONFIGURA-l l 103-105 l
l l
l In i 16 I
I I
l 1._
l i
I l
l 1
_1 I
I i
I I (22)
I i
l I
...uRE RESTRAINTS TO FIVE METALS I
l 105, 110 t i
i l
l i
i l
I I
i 17 l 17 I
l 1
IHUDSON lu l
l
)
l l
l I
l
_J l
l I
1pirr A
_. N TERIAL I
i (22) l I
I i
i l
i 1
i l
I 1 la l is 1
I I
InUDSON ICODE 7/8 WA5.rROPERLY USED To VELD "W"SHARES AND TUBE STFEL TO PirE I l 101-IDS 1
1 I
I
_ _ _ l ___.._ l i
I I
I J
l 1
I I
I IEEST W NIS I
I (22) l I
i i
I I
I l
l l
I l
l 104 I
l l
l 1 39 1 19 I
I I
IMUDSON l CODE 7/8 WAS IMIROPFRLY USED FOR 11 PIPE RUPTURE RESTRAINT JOINT
}
l I
I I
I If0NE10UltAT10NS i
L __
f f
I I (22) l l
l l
I i
1 l
1 1
1 l
1 *26 1
1 1
1 l 20 1 20 l l
I lilUDSON l PIPE RUPTURE RESTRAINT WELDING WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT ANY ESTABLISitED l
l l
__]
I l
1 l
I 1
1 10lLD2ra'nFJnroJ2pcEDuRE I
i (22) l I
I I
1 I
I I
i i
I I
l 106 l
l 1
l I 21 1 21 1
I I
ILOCRERTirUtlJ1AN SUBSTITUTED A WELD TECim1QUr. SPECIFICATION JAWS DI.1) AS l
3
_]
I
.l l
lc0RRECTIVE ACTION FOR_V?.E_ST_ AS!G J RQCED EES
.__ I _ ___.. l
_j
._l I
l l(22) l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
i l
1120, l 1
l l
l I 22 3 22 I
i f r.oCKFRTIQA *1ANAGEMENT DIRECTED INSPECTnRS 70 "WIKK" A1 VIOLATIONS ON GROUNDS L _._ _ I
__ I 1
L__ J l'8uaT orvr TS ucci.n nr. caucHr av OriirR nErARinENTS
_ _f. i 30 o r f
_l_J r
l g.
9#
\\-
i e
,l LEGEND P)R JUiTIFICAtl0N
= The ellegation is/is not a significant safety or 4
a spec M safety or quality lasue or a generalize.1 concern concern.
s The mIIe.ation is/is not I
has/has not previously addressed this issue.
22 = SSER 22 issu has been previously dealt with or is now beinR. dealt with by FC&E.
stal 2 = The 21 = SSER 21 3 = The 1R = Inspection Report DEti '}~
OLD
.J_
~
EHARACTERIZATION IFOLIJNI l
l 1
l UP J CLOSED j FC&E_ l PCE I 10tC i AllIGAT "JN SOURCE DOCtP1ENT lALI.ECER
[12/2/8tel2/22/ A13/2/8413/2/8413/23/84l l
i ITM i i
T i
i l
[
j 123 l l
l lCAF { JI l CAP _J JI I CAP l l
lLOCKERT ) FUttitAN WELDERS IIAVE BEEN QUALIFIED WITHOUT ANT QA COVERACR
[
l 1 129 _ l 1
l i
I i
1 i
I I
_ l f
i i
i i
I
( (2D l l
l l 1
) 1 I
l l
t I
i l
l l 128 l l
l lLOCKERTI MANACMENT DID NOT DFMNSTRATE ANY COMMITMENT TO WELDER Q l
l 1
I l 0 2)
Q21 ll 1
I l
l l
1 l
l l
WuEN NOTIFitD OF Tits vroLAT10N i
l 2 l 2 l
l l
l l 128 l
l l
l I
l j
_j __
I lt0CRERT1 rULLMAN ltEFUSED TO FROCESS A FORMAL QC REPORT ON Ti1E imCONTR l
I I
I I
l i
1 1
I I
I VELDING QUALIFICATION TESTS l
i 0" i i
i l 3 1 3 I
I l
I I
l
[
l l29 l l
l l_
I
_1 I
I I
lLOCKERT I A PRODUCTION OFFICIAL REFUSED TIIE OC TNS?!COR ACCi.sS TO INSfEC
{
l l
J
[
j.
l I
1 l
1 l
1
.J l
l i
I RECORDS I O2) i I
l l
l l 4 l 4 l
l l
I I
l l
l l
l IIECRERT I QC INSPECTOR TERMINATED IN RETALIATION FOR PURSINC WELDER QUALIFICATION il
__Il30 OI L _
l l
1 J
I I
I I
I 1
i I
J j
i TEST V101.AT10NS l (22) 1 I
I I
I l 5 15 l
l l
I i
ll 20, I
i 1
l l
ILOCRERTI PULLMAN QA MANAGER TOLD NRC THAT Tile QC INSPECTOR QUIT, WHEN Itt WAS (130 01l l
I_
l l
l l
I I
I J
l I
[
I l_
l ACTUALLT FIRED l
I 02) i I
i l
I 6 l 6 I
l l
I i 103-119 l
l l
l I
l l
l l
l l
I i
WELDER QUALIFICATIONS ARE INDETERMINATE I
__ l _, _
I I
I l
l l 7 l 7 l
l l
l HUDSON l FROM 1974-1979, i
l I
i i
i I
1 l(22)
I i
i i
l l
l 103-119 I
i l
l I rC&E CHANCED C0t41RACT SPECir1 CATIONS T11ROUCil NOTES WITHOUT CONTROL l
l
~j l
'[
I l
i
)
I l
l'U21 I REVIEW AND ArruovAL (AWAITING SPECIFICS FROM PCEE - SEE (215) l 1
l 1
l Ia 1 e i
I I
luUDSON
~
I l
l 103-f l9 & I I
I I
l t
1
('
l i
l WELDER QUAI.IFICATIONS CONNOT BE VERIFIED BY RECONSTRUCTING WELD ROD i
I i
I I
I l
I i
_j_
ll&E 1Rs)-3 D _ j I
I(22) i I
I I
!9 l 9 1
1 I
DIUDSON I
I 103-105 I
I l
l I
I
_j i
I i
I 1 IMPROPER WFLD FROCEDURE WAS USED TO WELD TUSE STEEL.10 PIPE SUTTORTS l _ __ l _
_1 I
I i
i I
i i
i i
l l
l 1
__J l
.I I
J I
i oz) l I
I I
i 10 I 10 I
i i
inUDSON I t0bl05 I
i l
I l
I _ l_
j i
L.,
l I ASME-BASED WELD FROCEtt!RE CODE 7/8 WAS IMPROPERI.V USED TO Wt:f D TH I
I l
1.
I l
l i
i 11 1 Il l
I l
(HUDSON l
l l
,,I 1
_i
)_ WELD SWDS ON CLASS I FIPE SUPPORTS i
l' l
,