ML20136B349
| ML20136B349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1981 |
| From: | Maneatis G PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136B092 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8601020558 | |
| Download: ML20136B349 (23) | |
Text
__
ATTACHMENT 1 O
/
1 STATEMENT Q
2 by
.)
3 George A. Maneatis 4
Senior'Vice President - Facil'ities Development 5
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 6
before the 7
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 8
Committee on Interior and-Insular Affairs 9
U.S. House of, Representatives 10 November 19, 1981 11 12 13 Good morning.
My name is George A. Maneatis and I am the 14 Senior Vice President - Facilities Development for Pacific Gas
( )
15 and Electric Company.
I am here today to discuss our Quality 16 Assur'ance Program in the context of the recently identified 17 errors in the seismic design for our Diablo Canyon Nuclear 18 Power Plant and to give our views on~the implications of
~
19 these errors relative to quality assurance for reactors 20 under construction.
~ ~ ' ~ " ";-
2-
21 22 First, let me state that PGandE is committed to construct.and 23 operate the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in a manner that 24 will assure the public health and safety.
Paramcunt to this 25
. commitment is the development and implementation of a ' Quality 26 Assurance Program.
The purpose of PGandE's Quality Assurance
{
Program is to provide policies, procedures, controls, and 27 8601020558 851125 PDR FOIA 1
.LEIGHTOO4-293 PDR
r's r'
I mechanisms to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
)
2
" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nur, lear Power Plants and Fuel 3
Reprocessing Plants."
Such a pragram in addition to other
}
4 practices provides confidence that the designed and constructed 5
Diablo Canyon Nuclear. Power Plant will operate safely and 6
perform satisfactorily.
Quality Assurance is a management
~
7 and administrative tool which prescribes controls to detect 8
and correct errors in the design, construction.and operation
^~
9 of nuclear facilities and, hen,ce, should' minimize the proba-10 bility of undetected errors.
However, Quality Assurance Il cannot, in all cases, prevent errors from.being made~nor 'can
~
12 it guarantee that all errors will be detected.
It should be 13 emphasized that Quality Assurance is only one of many factors 14 which contribute t'o the overall safety.of a nuclear power plant.'
15 Conservative design and the redundancy and diversity of equip-16
-ment and systems important to safety are other factors which 17 contribute to safety.
18 19 20 PGandE QUALITY ASSURANCE 21 To put Quality Assurance at PGandE in historical perspective,'
22 23 a construction permit for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Unit I was 24 issued by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on April 23,.1968.
25 During the initial design and construct. ion stages of the plant, t
Quality Assurance criteria were being formulated by the AEC 26
}
27 and were formally adopted and issued as Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 2
i
O a
~
1 in June 1970.
Thes,e Quality Assurance criteria became 2
requirements for both Diablo Canyon units.
3
.4 In anticipation of these requirements, PGandE organized a 5
Quality Engineering.Section (now called Quality Assurance 5
Department) in November 1969 and assigned it responsibilities -
7 for. assuring that the design and construction of nuclear power
~
8 plants complied with applicable policies and procedures.
In g
January 1970, PGandE developed ar.d issued a Quality Assurance 10 Manual to gov.ern audits of construction and engineering 11 activities.- S.ince that time, PGandE has continually reviewed 12 and modified, as necessary, its Quality Assurance Program 13 and organizational structure.in order to be, responsive to 14 evolving regulatory guidance and industry standards'.
)
15 16 When the Quality Engineering Section was first established 17 it consisted of three engineers.
Currently we have a total 18 of 47 Quality Assurance / Quality Control engineers to assure 19 implementation of the Qual"ity Assurance Program.
At the pea 20 of construction activity at the Diab 1W Canyor Power: P.lant,'-
21 the Quality Assurance / Quality Control personnel involved on 22 the project (including ~ contractor personnel) numbered 298'or-23 about one Quality Assurance / Quality Control person for every 24 ten craftsmen.
25 26
?7 \\'
27 O
3
a o
~
1 A furtner step in the evolution and improvement oof PGandE's
,q 2
Quality Assurance Program was the consolidation and updating 3
of the Engineering Department procedures into an Engineering 4
Manual.
5 b'
Since 1969, over 1400 internal Quality Assurance audits have
~
7 hann condqcted of which about 230 were of Engineering Department
~
3 activities.
Deficiencies identified during these audits were 5
reported to senior management and corrective actions were 10 specified.- These-actions have either been or will'be imple-11 mented and verified in accordance with' Quality Assurance
~
12 reqairements.
Additionally, throughout plant design and 13 construction, the NRC has continually made reviews of the 14 audits conducted by' our Quality Assurance Department and 15 performed independent i nspections of various design, 16 construction, and operating activities.
17 18 As an example of the NRC review proces's, the NRC and PGandE determined in June 1977 th[t the existing design control 19 20 activities needed stronger controls.
'At th a t-14merPGandE 21 agreed to complete comprehensive design reviews on licensee-22 designed Class I components, structures, and systems to veriff 23 correctness of design.
At this same time, the NRC. reviewed 24 PGandE 's Procedure PRE-6, " Comprehensive Design Reviews,"
25 and found that it provided adequate guidance for the conduct 26 and approval of, comprehensive design reviews (NRC Report
._y 27 50-275/77-12).
Subsequent NRC inspections and PGandE Quality 4
i
.-v-w
.---a
.w,-m--n-,
,e--.,-m~m r
-,,,-o,
=.
O
,r%
r+
1 Assurance audits of these comprehensive design reviews confirmed
)
2 that-the reviews were completed in accordance with the require-3 ments of this pro:edure.
The NRC affirmed the overall adequacy 4.
of the PGandE program in testimony before the ASLB in October 5
1977.
6' 7
8 IDENTIFICATION AND REPORT OF ERROR 9
10 On September 27, 1981, we determined that an error had occurred 11 which potentially affected the plant's s'ei mic design.
'As 12 a result, we immediately suspended scheduled fuel loading 13 operations and informed the NRC.
14 t-)
a> 15 We-immediately assembled a team of engineers to analyze the 16 matter thoroughly and hired an indepencent consultant to conduct 17 a separate and independent review and analysis.
The Quality i
18-Assurance Department also immediately initiated an investigati,on 19 of the error to determine its cause and extent and cooperated
- ~ '
20' fully in the NRC's independent investigition.
We= presented cur 2
21 findings to the NRC-Staff in feinO pubiic briefings he'1d on
'22 October 9, 1981 and November 3, 1981.
Additionally we met with j
t 23 the staff and intervenors in lengthy public work sessions during 24 the week of October 12, 1981.
The staff has proposed, and 25 PGandE has agreed in principle, to a f ar-ranging reverification 261 program'to review and confirm the adequacy and accuracy of work
{
-i
) 27 performed for PGandE by its service-related contractors.
I 5
e o,..,
,,e e
s+
-a
-.s,
--,m,,y, aw
-e,-,-
.-,--m,,-m.nmy, e,
,my
,m----w
.m
+-ys---
w,y--
q 1
Our findings.indicats that although PGandE's Quality Assurance
'~}
2 Program has been in overall compliance with NRC requirements, 3
a deficiency in its implementation occurred in 1977 which 4
involved the informal exchange of design information between 5
PGandE and one of our seismic consultants during the seismic 6'
reanalysis for the Hosgri event.
In this particular case, 7
inaccurate weights for equipment and piping i,n a limited area
'8
. of the containment structure were prepared and furnished the 9
consultant on an incorrectly or,iented diagram.
This informal 10
.information exchange did not conform to Company practices 11' and Quality Assurance procedures which required the checking 12 of design calculations.
Had these procedures been followed, 13 we believe that th,e errors would have been detected at that
~
14 time.
~
15 16 As it turned out, the error was not identified until a piping 17 design engineer in PGandE's Department of Mechanical and Nuclear 18 Engineering who was reviewing Unit 2 piping systems raised 19 questions about the correctness of the diagram.
20-21 During our investigation we also identified a failure of 22 Company personnel to use revised 1977 seismic data for check -
23 ing the adequacy of the design of conduit and cable tray 24 supports.
25 26 l
-27
. v) 1-
~ l n
1 This error involved a failure to follow established Quality 2
Assurance proce'dures which require formal distribution of 3
design data.
Again, had these procedures been followed, 4
we believe that this error would also have been detected
~~
5 at that time.
6' 7
To avoid such errors in the future and to assure that past 8
. errors have not affected plant design margin;it_the_ Company -is 9
embarking on a two-phase progra,m.
The first phase involves 10 establishment of a_ retraining program for engineering personnel 11 which emphasizes the adherence to quallity procedures.
The 12 second phase involves the retention of a consultant to carry 13 out a reverification of the existing design and to report
]'..
14 any deficiencies without restriction.
15 16 Notwithstanding the occurrences of these errors, as well as 17 several.other minor errors found during the investigation, we 18 continue to believ-that because of the original conservative 19 design and *he rather large margins of safety associated 20 with-the affected-systems,'th'ere would hav be'en no safety 21 consequences even if the errors had not been detected and 22 the plant had gone into operation.
1 23 24 25 26 4
SI x _;i 7
l
.,e o
m 1
IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
~3 i
2 l
3 The errors which have been identified at Diablo Canyon resulted 4
from a. failure to follow the requirements of our Quality 5
Assurance Program.- However, a review of the numerous PGandE 6'
Quality-Assurance and NRC audits shows that while deficiencies 7
occur, they are generally detected and resolved in a timely 8
manner.
~
This incident vividly illustrates that no matter how 9
embarrassing or costly an error,may be, it will be reported and
~
10 promptly corrected.
We believe.that existing NRC 'and industry 11 quality assurance requirements when pro'perl,y implemented are 12 adequate to safeguard the public health and safety.
- Also, 13 the industry record of identifying, reporting, and correcting 14 problems. exemplifies a strong commitment to adhere to Quality 15 Assurance requirements.
16 17 We are confident that the errors identified at Diablo Canyon 18 do not represent a generic weakness in'the Quality Assurance 19 regulations or in industry's responsibility to design plants 20' that will operate safely.
We believe the present program 21 of inspections by. industry and.the NRC is adequate to assure 22 a high degree of reliability in the detection and correction 23 of deficiencies.
24 25 26 b
I 8
,0 O,
3 oe 1
CLOSING REMARKS 3
In closing let me empharize that:
4 PGandE voluntarily suspended fuel loading when 5
6-we discovered the error and we immediately took 7
steps to notify the NRC and to correct the 8
error.
9 10 PGandE is firmly committed to design, 11 construct, and operate Diablo Canyon in'a sife 12 manner.
In carrying out this commitment, we 13 have:
14 Assignid competent, experienced, and
'U 15 dedicated people to perform these 16 functions; 17 Used and continue to use extreme con-18 servatism in the design and construction 19 of Diablo Canyon; 20 Contracted with o'ne of ths most quslifie~d;'~f2'--
' ~ f; 21 consultants in the country to carry out an 22 independent reverification of the existing 23 design and 'to report any d'eficiencies 24 without restrictions.
25 Agreed to make any further changes-that 26 are identified as a result of the 6 l 27 reverification program; and 9
- +
T 9
+ ' - - ~
Y
~ ' ' " - - ~ - ~
- ' ' ' - - - * ~
'~=*'*"'"'*m
- ^ ~~* " * ^ "
n; Conducte,d ourselves and reported the 1
/92 results professionally and forthrightly 3
even though it has been embarrassing 4
to the Company, to our engineers, and l
5 to the nuclear industry.
6-7 I represent the highest level of PGandE 8
management in assuring this Committee, the NRC, t
9 and the public that we a,re totally' committed 10 to the continued implementation of a sound and 11 effective Quality Assurance Program.and to l
12 building nuclear power plants that are safe in 13
- every respect.
i 14
(
r 15 v
16 17 r
18 19 20
~
21 23 24 25 I
26 h,, 27 10
+-.
,.n
m m
ATTACHMEhT 2
,-]
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES e
DATE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS COMMENTS NOVEMBER 1966 NSSS CONTRACT AWARDED I'
JANUARY 1967 UNIT' 1 PSAR SUBMnTED JULY 1967 PROPOSED GENERAL DE IGN CRITERIA ISSUED (10CFR50 APPENDIX A)
APRIL 1968 UNIT 1 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AUGUST 1968 STARTED SITE PREP-l JUNE 1968 UNIT 2 PSAR SUBMITTED l
G 2:hAPRIL1969 i
PROPOSED QA CRITERIA ISSUED FOR COMMENT (18 CRITERIA)
JUNE 1969 START CONSTRUCTION MAJOR SEISMIC DESIGN FOR BUILDINGS I
BUILDINGS COMPLETE JULY 1969 UNIT 2 PSAR APPENDIX G ADDED QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
PROGRAM WILL BE AN EXTENSION DESCRIBED USING PROPOSED 10CFR50 0F THE QAP DEVELOPED FOR APPENDIX B UNIT 1..."
NOVEMBER -1969 PG&E FORMED QUALITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JANUARY 1970 PG&E ISSUED RED QA MANUAL FOR
~
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION JUNE 1970 10CFR50, APPENDIX B ISSUED i
NOV2.MBER ' 1970 START ERECTION OF MMOR PIPING DESIGN ALMOST HALF COMPLETE 4
,.g. DECEMBER 1970 UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
)
ISSUED
) -
I
A.
DATE N
, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS COMMENTS
-O FEBRUARY 1971
<G.,
10CFR50 APPENDIX A ISSUED OCTOBER 1971 N45.3.11 SUBCOMMITTEE ESTABLISHED (LATER RENAMED N45.2.11)
MARCH 1972 PG&E FORMED QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT JUNE 1972 SAFETY GUIDE 23 ISSUED (QAP DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION)
ENDORSES ANSI N45.2-1971 SEPTEMBER 1972 START INSTALLATION NSSS NOVEMBER 1972 SAFETY GUIDE 33 ISSUED (OPERATING QAP)
ENDORSES ANSI N45.2-1971 JUNE 1973 GRAY BOOK ISSUED MAY 1974 GREEN BOOK ISSUED JUNE 1974 N45.2.11 ISSUED (QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
("
DESIGN OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS)
~
FEBRUARY 1975 R.G. 1.64 ENDORSES ANSI N45.2.11-1974 AUGUST 1975 CONTAINMENT LEAK TEST SEPTEMBER 1975 SER #3 APPROVES FSAR NOVEMBER 1975 HOT FUNCTIONAL TEST DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE Folt. FUEL LOADING DECEMBER 1975 NRC ISSUES LICENSE TO RECEIVE AND STORE FUEL' FEBRUARY 1976 N45.2.13 ISSUED (QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR C0hTROL OF PROCUREMENT.
.)
JULY 1977 R.G. 1.123 ENDORSES ANSI N45.2.13-1976
% NOTE:
SINCE. DECEMBER 1975, DIABLO CANYON WORK HAS BEEN' CONCERNED WITH HOSGRI
{p INVESTIGATIONS, HOSGRI REDESIGN, TMI BACKFIT, AND REVERIFICATION OF DESIGN.
n U.N i 'i =1 s
ATTACHMENT 3 a i
j g,j )
~
pi November 25, 1969 q
12chanical Syste: Design Responsibilities
'For Class I Systens and Equipment Units 1 & 2 - Diablo Canven Site FEMORANDUM TO FILI:
The purpose of this memorandum is' to confirm, update and clarify the mechanical system design responsibilities.
Ecch Engineer (System' Engineer) who has been assigned a system is responsible for the total system design including establishment of design criteria, overall design, piping size and instrumentation.
~?
The Lead Engineer is responsible to see that the Engineer (s) assigned to the system carries out the foregoing function.
G2nerally, either the Lead Engiceer or the Engineer is responsible for equipment procurement for this assigned system. Where the System Engineer does' not procure the equipment, the equipment procurement responsibility is shown below. The System Engineer, however, is still responsible for the equipment design criteria.
In addition to system responsibility as given above, Mr. G. A. Abbott is responsi-ble for the design of the instrument systems based on the ' performance criteria ostablished by the System Engin'eer.
Mr. Abbott is also responsible for all con-p7g qq)trolvalves..
In addition to system responsibility as given above, Mr. A. G. Walther is responsi-
~
ble for the design of the piping for the various systems (except drainage piping) including hanging, valves and insulation.
.The System Engineer is also responsible for furnishing the Mechanical Design Drafting Section, Electrical Design Section and Civil Design Section the necessa,ry cri,teria for the design of items done by the foregoing sections.
T ~^
Organization With Prime:...s.
PG&E Orranization System or Maior Ecuipment Responsibiliev ~' Lead Entineer "
Entineer-,_
Msin Steam and Feedvater PG&E JBGegan AGWalthe,r Steam Gen. Safety Valves RPFawcett Rsactor Coolant Westinghouse JPFinney J7Finney Chemical Volume & Control
~ " "
JPFinney HJCormly Liquid Holdup Tanks PG&E JPDuffy Safety Injection Westinghouse' JPFinney JPFinney
-e Residual Heat Ka= oval
. JPFinney NLZiemek j
g Cak Sampling Westinghouse GAAbbott
-GAAbbott
....,n.-w.-.., - -,..-.,.,
e--_n,-.,
,,,,,,.m.
q ATTACHMENT 3 b n,
2-
.-]
" Organization 4
With Prime PG&E Organization System or Maior Icutement Resconsibility Lead Engineer
- Engineer Containment Spray Westinghouse /
JPFinney/
s PG&E WJLindblad RWood Component Cooling PG&E JPFinney NLZiomek Auxiliary Salt Water JBGegan DOBrand Fire Protection WJLindblad RPFawcett Diesel Fuel Oil
/.
JPFinney NLZiomek Auxiliary Building Ventilation WJLindblad RWo o d***
E=ergency Air GAAbbott JJCarpenella Instrumentation & Control Westinghouse /
GAAbbott RWMiner PG&E n
JVRocca Control Boards.& Panels Containment Ventilation PG&E WJLindblad RWoo d***
Containment Isolation Valves WJLindblad Main Steam & Feedwater AGWalther Containment Piping Penetration.
WJLindblad JPDuffy
[
Diesel Generator Units (Mech.)
JPFinney NLZiomek W Auxiliary Feedwater JBGegan RPFawcett Makeup Water JBGegan HJGormly**
Radioactive Waste Disposal HJGormly HJGormly Reactor Coolant Drain Tank JPDuffy Equipment Drain Receiver Tanks JPDuffy r
.- Gas D'ecay Tanks JPDuffy Piping Systems
~ -- - - AGWalther ' -
JPDuffy-WCHact
- ;-f
.s y
4, l
J. O. SCEUT l
JOS: pac See attached distribution.
i A
).j ***** Civil Engineering responsible for detail design of tanks.
i Civil Engineering responsible for detail design of ventilation systems.
l
.O s
ATTACHMENT 3 e r
DISTRI3UTION Engineerine Services A. T. Lomas R. H. Spalding Elee. Distribution Engineerini
~~ ~
J. W. Colwell Civil Engineering
~
R. V. Bettinger E. J. Ross Mechanical Engineering D. V. Kelly G. A. Abbott D. O. Brand J. 'J. Carpenella J. P. Duffy O
R. P. Fawcett J. P. Finney.
,J. B. Gegan H
J. Gormly W. C. Ham W. J. Lindblad R. W. Miner J. V..Rocca A. G. Walther
~~
R. W. Wood N. L. Ziomek 9
.*e
....y
(
i
FAbit-IL ta Ab ANU ist t:.L i ttiL LUM t'AN Y e...a4 i
q COPY ATTACHMENT 3 d r]
HEC 1%UICAL & NUCLI2R ENGINEEFJUG 1.23 Drawing Questions Units 1 and 2-Diablo Canyon Site January 7,1975.
MESSRS.
D. NIELST2!
E. P. WOLU.K Please have Diablo Canyon ECO's or drawings requiring coordination sent to the following engineers:
- 1. Turbine Building John Sale
'b
- 2. Auxiliary Building Richard Bacher
- 3. Contain:sant Jesse Ante
- 4. Intake Structu e Panos Antioch'os They will be responsible for ou: r_ outing and returning them to you.
H. J. CORMLY JWSale/ja ec: JAAnte ICAntiochos REBacher /
DLPolley /
JBGegan RMLaverty WJStracke A
'AGWalther i
- 3
-D
4TTACHMENT 3 e von mina-cot.u wv unns e
RECElvil J?,H PR0iECT ENGINEER oiviuou ort f: ' " EPW DlAg(g CAN'lON S W' ocnntrecur ELECTRIC DISTRIbtrrION ENGINEERING
' ?"i No.
18.25
$.G Jail 151974 tcTven or y
ur svener Diablo Canyon Sito Units 1 and 2 DN Preparttion of Design Reviews eg For Class I Electr2.c Systems f, g s
~
January 11, 1974 N
we IEMORANDLII:
This memorandum defines the Class I c1cetrical systccs wh.ch' will have design review and also descyibes the general requirencnts fer thesa revicea. The specific design re.vicus covered are those that are-in the scope responsibility of the Electric, Distribution Departtent.
Syster.a and equip =ent by Westinghcuse'on the NSSS Contract are not.
includid, and neither are those in the responsibility of the !!cchanical, Civil and Architectural Departments. -
,x n
The ciosign revicus shall be pre?'tred as described in Qoc1;ty Assurance Proeglure FRE-6 for Diablo Canyon Site and also shc11 'ec1. ply
.with Part III,4' Design Control", of 30CFR50, Appendix L.
Procedure PRE-6 gc-ncrs11y is limited to systems in our case.
Desi n revious shc11-be made for the following:
t' 5
1,.
Each of these Class I electric power systemsi'
=a.
4160 volt, 60 hertz, Buscs F, G, and H.
s b.
480 volt, 60 hertz, Buses F, G, and H.
c.
115 volt, 60 hertz, instrument c.c. power system.
d.
125 volt d.c. electric power system.
c.-
125 vole d.c. emergency lighting system.
5 2
Class I cicetrical conductors for equipment inter-V connec?fcyns, including clectrical penatrations of the containment.
3,
3.
C1cas I cicetrical raceways.
y
/4 Class I heat tracing system.
~
S.
Class I ventilation control system.
4 6.
Settingn of electr'ical prote$tive devices.
\\'
_6 7.
Mic'e'c'17 aneous, as directed by the Supervising Engitwer.
Y a
1 1
o
,,(
\\
a-
b:%
ATTACIDfENT 3 f n-Mzmorandum January 11, 1974
/"')
The design criteria selected for the cicctrical systems shall include those given in the PSAR and FSAR, and the ACC " General Design Criteria" listed in Appendix A of 10CRF50 to the extent of our concittment in the PSAR and FSARs, also included are the Westinghouce gy.
criteria, and those industry standards and Company practices in effect as the design progressed.
Carc should be taken to not include those, criteria or standards which have appeared since the design was committed and were not adopted for the project.
Design review means the critical review of the design in order to provide further assurance that the actions leading to the design output such as drauings, calculations, analysis, and specifi-A
~
cations have been satisfacterily performed and the information included in the $csign output is correct. Established procedures-for design revieu shall be followed, results of the review docuacnted, and measures taken to ensure that the findings are impicmented.
Whether the review is c'onducted by one individual or an organization there are a number of basic questions that chould be addressed where applicable:
(1) Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into design?
(2)
If assumptions were necessary to perform the design 5-activity are the basis of the assumptions adequataly
'J dcscribcd and reasonabic?
_w (3) Are the correct quality requirements.cpecified?
s (4) HaveJthc applicable codes, standards and i
regulatory requirements been met?
'(5): Have the design interface requirements been satisfied?
v.
](6)
Was an appropriate design method used?
(7)
Is the out'put reasonable compared to inputs?
4 4
(8)' Are the specified parts, equipment, and' processes x
suitable for the required application?
y (9) Are the~ specified materials emapacibic with each
' %g other and the design environmental condition: to which the material uill be exposed?
}'
(10) lias adequate acesss'ibility been provided to perfonn needed maintenance and repair?
.c
~ -l*
\\.
s
.- g
- ~ _,
(i A
ATTACHMENT 3 g Memorandum
-3.-
January 11, 1974 e
-/
(11) llave adequate maintenance requirements been specified?
(12)
Have acceptance criteria been delineated in the design l
documents, such as drawings,' instructions or other supporting documents which are sufficient to assure that adequate standards are maintai'ned and that the activities prescribed by the design documents have been satisfactorily accomplished?
Titedesignreviewdocumentationshallbeorganizedand compIcted to meet the requirements of PRE-6.
.f The review shall contain the following:
1 1.
A description of the system covered.
'2.
A statement giving the objective and scope of the review.
3.
A summary giving the results and conclusions reached, and any design deficiencies formed not in accordance with the criteria.or standards.
4 Any exp'lanations, comments and recommendations.
~: l '.
V 5.
A list of the design criteria and the standards used in the revieu.
6.
The signature of the review and the Supervising Engineer and the date of completion.
7.
A set of attachments containing the material supporting the details developed by the results and cenclusions of '
the revieu. Material should include the analyses and data developed by the reviewer and copics of documents :
d pertinent to the review..
- l i
~
The complete review shall be assembled in a folder or set of folders, labelled with title of the review and then placed in the files 7
of the design coction.
The statu's of the design review at this time are as follows:
1.
The electric power systeur, are partially complete, with much of the system analyses completed.
The design revice of the Class I motors has been completed.
l l
l
y
.g=
~
'*?,*,
ATTAC10fENT 3 h
~
Memorandum January 11, 1974
)
2.
Design review of the electrical conductors for the contaittncnt fan coolers have been completed. The remainder has not been begun.
3.,
4., 5.
E1cetrical raceways, heat tracing, venti-lation control, and relay settings have not been design reviewed.
6.
A design review has been completed for the hydrogen releases in the battery rooms.
Persons assigned to perform and complete these design reviews will have access to any records that are av_ailabic, and are requested to make the review as independent as practical of the original design.
fthh/ b W
DONALD NIELSEN DN:YG e
g e
ip d
S 4
l O
- 0 e
P T
e e
e M
\\
. [.
A e
i'
e
. - g}$. ATTACHMENT 3i.
- ',.' y D
^
/.,. - iif,.
i July 2S, 1972 Deci;:n Changer to cnd Approvc1
,/ O of Piping Schem; tics File No. I'.6.10 ifb'OP.*!"r
- 7 0 '.i L tr yl.' C.Y m:* "ECKa?:TC.% r.::G12:r"RS :
As of neu, escontf r.11y' all piping schematics are issued "Approvc-d for Cons trr-tion. "
'thit., remorandua will revise the control over changes to piping schoa ticz and supbrsede the previous memo of July 29, 1972, on this subject.
~ Any rys tere,- respons. le, ins trument or piping enginacr may initia te a design ch:nge or revistor to piping schamstics. Changes shculd be limited to caly those absolutely necessary.
This will be done by an intra-company memoranden form with or uithout sketches.
The memorandum shall be addressed to I. F. Hall and shall be routed through:
~
1.
Res~ponsible Engineer 2.
Piping Engineer 3.
Instru=ent Engineer 4.
J. V. Rocca Each will initial s'nd date his approval of th proposed chans,e.
Copies will be kept as follows:
yellow - originator
~
pink - mechanical. file white - I. F. Hall Anyone wishing copies fo: their own file will use the Xerox.
Another area that requires a more formalized control is the "Line Designation Table" (LDT).
The LDT will be issued " Approved for Construction" ofter being reviewed and signed off by each system engineer. A f ter tha t, any,, ;,, ;
~
changes. in line number, flow, pressure or ' temperature must be processed thfough A. G. Walther/J. R. del Mazo on the attached format addressed to I. F. Hall.~
Again, this should be routed through:
1.
Responsible Engineer 2.
Piping Engineer 3.
A. G. Walther/J. R. del Ma o Each will initial and date his approval of the proposed change.
Copies will be the responsibility of each individual.
y
/'
.e-h. il N.
/ V
..J. Gormly H
JVP.oces/ja At tachrtent i
ec:. IFHa ll
3;... 7. -
O ATTACEENT 3 j O
tp a,se u va..ea. r.= p. rQ*s* ** e.T ato e s s
.m
^
\\
Line !:u.,
Date Changc Dcscr *ydon d
/
e s
a s
e 4
S igned by:
p System Engineer r.
. t Counterr.fr,ned by:
e.*W*
"9"#
y'* WO
~*D pp p
,9 3 any.
e# e-sg,^] y-a-g
m
.o q.
\\
I have read the foregoing 22 page document entitledReedy
" Comments on the R. F.
Report on Safety-Related Activities Performed by PGandE Prior To June 1978" including Attachments 1 through 3j.
d The contents of said document and attachments are true an correct to the best'of my knowledge, information and belief.
S e-s I
- M__,
June 24, 1982.
Warren A. Raymy,"ity Assurance Manager of Qud Pacific Gas d Electric Company Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of June, 1982.
j SEAL)-
{C,j Nancy J. Ifemaster, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
r My Commission expires April 14, 1986.
\\.._ s.
s s
\\
j.
N
. ":V;1,
Yk f;',a-4e.:m
\\
L.
?-
- x e
r :,,
n-a g
l
"=
J
~
~<
.