ML20209B211
| ML20209B211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1981 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B155 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8201190331 | |
| Download: ML20209B211 (16) | |
Text
a.
e~...,...,,,,,...a..
...s-.
[
'(i.
/S,;-
v.,
'h, ' %[:28138! Q
/p Jf[
., a n.:...
u
.. d:%'y'.X1.'
v.
n.. r...
'a a.
N T..
~
WIE Nt ' Shrtid R. h., M>,t
^
3.,
. FW:. &'..a, a c'rw c.: x:
. e L;n.e>x.;.W.r.ww.'.w/Itsechst ",, f.i ' c- %' 7' '
[.eterve114 1
<,.e.s,w &
jl..'7MITIM Ifl1NME WEADtB DIRO CMTON PROPOSED DESIGN VERIFICATIO i%n.i;@:!:.h[gg?.%ydh!,i Werest Remick~and C. Ong of CPE to rec y.:
n G y.
W,..
.~ s.
k%
r%.?...
%W}y::z h.195.te getwltt s
.:lt k.#
t en Sa' 30461e Ceepon'pasign Vertfication Program.
pl ic l:
. us see
- dine.,
ther.
slanrepresenteda f::,,gl.
~
s
. They providad the following
- qr,,.,.
-. 5
.. pe..epene.s'1 % m.'d program plan:
M y.th.
+
jwg L
O...
'attenlations?~ Is it a
.E'Is.N.u.
.I ce18$en ty;Cleed or just a check of J tr' tesMeetten.of both.
{ ^g6h%:r',s".W.p:.W:=< '(,. :
J-G-
tw i
& Y.p.y. 4tt%
~
". ~is acceptable? Why?
..," o._n. 4 w.t;c Set.ft'Etest
[
g;pg..u.7.gg.,y:.<:.~ :.:
J, m:;~..
L
' v Met asesptance.srttertaM11 h used? -tasis?
(C tg ? e.y M & W S W M 9 G rf h e v.-
qlhet MasW1'hedesed? stasis? Statistical considerations?
i[i.
. )f =.G.;.,*R. f$
- -#Mt.s.Wt.x; %3 iffth seesset.
1.membgesmet plan submitted by PG&E, they offered
- yf'fa$KQ.tVC a.. M.'.
tgby +
E
.;t4e fielly;ytag jff
. A^; L ? >
'; Q~ L,_ Crite$1oud, not in charge?
- .; ~
6 sl? ', % 7 ef'54 ~,n,V f;q Q,:.
V L; 161 senflict-of-interest in view of ui N tetts'wtth'PG8E -($1.2M)?'.
E ". :.h,~4 w
.p.\\
dpm e w u
['
'; IQ.Ujdan f;tedspeeldsme's'and lategrity in view of J
{ %.;. &. L f....r. p... +.,, 1,. %(el...u n;.,..q~..;,.:y ;
y
..n.. -
a c.yv3. g.
. ,+n. w. A3 r.
. '3te me thelleveder 18 Cloud Report and the earlier s
la 0..y3eteter. Z1.pm'.c,n.de. net appear to be substantiated by the
. s.ste..
.w.
. w '..._:
. w m
- ,~p[.
..y
- .-Y.D."h,h.)."
l
_ i :,..
. c..g. ~ v n.... '._. h., j.;. ** %...
[
t wu. y.
,..= ':
y:n. x;V 5 :
g:e..gr$N+If.gMy,y.un u.
g:.s. arren a. Eisennut ngiigg y.. :-
s
. u,
.g.$.___m,, s.e. %c a w. q.g m.
\\g
's e
.. c
, h,..Q,, Q :.Wi m., g.lQ;g..
..... ~........
$ R.o t ITo 3. 3.L.
L "., -
- =
~
.w.-.-
--~..
., ~. f.h ~~ ~~. ~ * ~
~~~~~~
., 3 1 g,('. gA,.p.
A.;g.~
J
~ ~ ~ ~ -
lg Q 1:.. p,.L.s. w. g.
,i
'm
, 7.p r
i c.. ~ ~ ~.
\\
O
,o v
SU:'. MARY OF ERRORS FOUND TO DATE l
l l
l I
i
- b.. AL 4
i 1
ifniu
-a
Errors Identified to Date Based on our review of all submittals submitted to date by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Robert L. Cloud Associate's, Inc., and meetings held on October 9,1981, October 14, 1981, November 3,1981, January 25, 1982, and February 3, 1982.
Enclosed is a' list of the errors found to date. In some instances the errors are grouped under one heading. For example, item 5 on the list includes the following five errors:
(1) parallel lines which were qualified in design from a ' single analysis now require two analyses to properly model both configurations; (2) in two cases a small bore piping snubber required by analysis was not designed; (3) two supports containing gaps insufficient for thermal movement; (4) one support was not rigid in the restrained direction; and (5) one support on a non-safety relate.d pip ( had not been qualified to the Hosgri loads as required to prevent interaciton with a safety related pipe.
At the February 3,1982 meeting, we requested that the Pacific Gas &
Electric Company develop a system that would identify and track all errors and open items (E01s) that have been identified. We expect the next Pacific Gas & Electric Company's semi-monthly report to contain a computer printout of all E0Is found to date.
In summary, in excess of one hundred discrepancies have been found to date.
'No.
Description of Error Source 1.
Diagran Error - Fan Coolers PG&E ltr. 9/30/81 m
2.
Misapplication of Vertical Response Spectra Within Containment Annulus Area. Affected areas included piping, and electrical and cable tray supports.
PG&E ltr. 9/30/81 3.
Use of superceded spectra for design of cable trays and electrical conduit supports. A total of 15 modifications such as increase size of snubbers, replace angle iron support, and base-plate modifications were identified at this steeting.
10/9/81 Mtg.
4.
Use of incorrect weights in' analysis within contain-ment annulus 11/3/81 Mtg.
5.
Piping design errors not associated with diagram error (improper model of configuration, insufficient gap for thermal movement) 11/3/81 Mtg.
6.
Use of filtered response ' spectra in design of regenerative heat exchanger supports 11/3/81 Mtg.
7.
Misapplication of response spectra for electrical raceways 11/3/81 Mtg.
~
8.
Use of incorrect and unconservative seismic input to HVAC fans Nos. S-67, 68, and 69.
In addition, the forced draft shutter damper qualification showed incorrect seismic definition because gravity was not added to the vertical acceleration.
. Cloud ltr. 11/11/81 to PG&E 9.
Differences between the as-built ano design conduit support configuration Cloud ltr. 11/11/81 to PG&E 10.
Question concerning proper auxiliary / fuel building floor weights PG&E ltr. 11/18/81 1 1 '. Use of superceded response spectra - control room 11/18/81 floor Pd&Eltr.
12.
Misapplicatidn of response spectra to electrical conduits located in main buildings.
PG&E ltr. 11/18/81 13.
Use of filtered response spectra for accumulator supports PG&E ltr. 11/25/81 14.
Question concerning use of correct methodology for qualifying electrical raceway supports PG&E ltr.1/8/82 15.
Question concerning proper installation posit'ioning of three valves PG&E ltr.1/8/82
r Source
'No.
Description of Error
- 16. Differences between containment spray isometric PG8E ltr.1/8/82-dra'ings and field layout w
- 17. Three raceway supports were found to be at variance with installation instructions PG8E ltr.1/8/82
- 18. Support is shown as a rigid vertical support, field information indicates dead load support only PG8E ltr.1/8/82
Modifications to two tubing supports PG8E ltr.1/25/82 21. Modifications to small and large bore piping PG&E ltr.1/25/82 supports
- 22. Conduit support was attached to' opposite side of wall-installation acceptable since structural response is identical on both sides of wall. Program being developed to determine if similar situations exist.
PG8E ltr.1/25/82 23.
Use of 1977 instead of 1979 response spectra in North-South direction of Auxiliary Building PG8E ltr.1/25/82 24.
Only partial vertical restraint in combination with correct horizontal restraint used in piping support
'PG8E ltr.1/25/82 25.
Improper modeling of six valves in annulus area PG&E ltr.' 1/25/82 26.
Error in digitization of east-west translational hosgri spectra for 140' elevation in the auxiliary PG&E ltr.1/25/82 building
- 27. Method used to csiculate raceway weights may result in underestimation of weights of some conduits.
PG8E ltr.1/25/8
- 28. Modification of all unit i single rod supports required to provide restraints in both vertical PG&E ltr.1/25/82 directions 29.
Differences between length of pipe run shown on isometric drawings and as-built length. Three of these kinds of discrepancies were noted in PG&E ltr.1/25/82 1/25/82 letter.
30.
Differences between location and/or omission of certain items such as tees, flanges, supports as shown on isometric drawings and the as-built configuration. Five of these kinds of discrepan-
.cies were noted in the 1/25/82 letter and ten more in Cloud letter dated 2/11/82 PG&E ltr.1/25/32 J
n.-
.v.n.
-,-w-n.,..
.--_-,.---n..
-n.-. -.. ~
r-4 No.
Description of Error Source
- 31. Main Annunciator cabinet analysis incorrectly assumed that cabinet was rigid in longitudinal directio.n..
Associated anchor bolts exceed allowable pullo'ut load PG&E ltr. 1/25/82
- 32. Concern raised about proper application of the soil spring considerations with regard.to certain of the N-S floor response spectra for the Auxiliary Building NRC Mtg. Sum. dtd. 2/3/82
- 33. Use of inappropriate spectra for intake structure roof NRC Mtg. Sum, dtd. 2/3/82 34.
Concern over overstressing of' containment-polar crane NRC Mtg. Summ. dtd. 2/3/82 35.
Plates shown on DCO-G-M-876 as 1/2 inch thick.
Field inspection showed them to be 3/8 inch thick Cloud ltr. 2/11/82 36.
Support shown on isometric drawing to be active in the x, y directions.
Field inspection showed the support to be active in the x, y, z directions.
Cloud.ltr. 2/11/82
- 37. Two lines shown as insulated' on isometric drawing.
Field inspection showed them to be uninsulated
. Cloud ltr. 2/11/82 38.
Support was shown to be active in the vertical direction on isometric drawing. Field ins ~pec-
~
tion showed two skewed snubbers 20 and 25 degrees respectively from vertical.
- Cloud ltr. 2/11/82 39.
Spectra have not been provided or scaling criteria defined for support locations above elevaton 140' for the containment interior Cloud ltr. 2/11/82 40.
Spectra have not been 1provided or scaling criteria defined for support locations above elevation 140' for the turbine building Cloud ltr. 2/11/82 41.
Test' response spectra used to qualify the group IV electrical equipment did not envelope the required Hosgri response spectra.
Cloud ltr. 2/11/82 42.
Spectra have not been provided or scaling criteria defined for the piperack attached to the containment exterior Cloud ltr. 2/11/82
- 43. Diesel generator oil priming tank qualification analysis used 4% damping. Regulatory Guide.l.61 specifies 3% damping.
Also, less than half the.
actual weight of sight-glass level indicator was used in PG&E analysis.
Cloud ltr. 2/11/82
-n
,n
r
~
No.
Description of Error Source
- 44. The anchor allowables on PG&E drawing 054162 Rev. 3 j
do not agree with those on DCM-M9, Appendix C, j
Rev. 7
,]
, Cloud ltr. 2/11/82
- 45. One support is shown on isometric drawing to be active in the EW direction. Field inspection showed it to be active in both EW and NS directions. Similar directional type discrepancies,,,
noted on certain other supports including incorrect location of supports Cloud ltr. 2/11/82 46.
One support is shown on isometric drawing to be active in both the vertical and EW direc-tion. Field inspection showed a 1/4 inch gap in both directions of restraint.
Cloud ltr. 2/1.1/82
- 47. - Fourteen additional piping analyses have been found to contain inaccurately modeled valves PG&E ltr. 2/12/.82
- 48. 0ne valve list in the Hosgri report was not updated as required PG&E ltr. 2/12/82 49.
Certain small bore piping spans exceed standard spacing criteria PG&E ltr. 2/12/82
- 50. Two piping thermal analyses used incorrect modeling of supports.
PG&E ltr. 2/12/82
- 51. Piping with supports attached to contain-ment internal structure above elevation 140' were dynamically analyzed using' elevation 140' spectra.
PG&E ltr. 2/12/82
- 52. Piping, electrical raceways, and supports attached to the containment exterior pipeway were dynamically analyzed using the containment exterior spectra.
PG&E ltr. 2/12/82
- 53. Review of piping in the annulus identified one case of pipe stress exceeding allowable limits due to a pipe support design with fewer pipe lugs than required by the design criteria PG&E ltr. 2/12/82 54.
Review of piping analyses for the revised reoriented containment annulus spectra identified seven analyses which used spectra sets not enveloped by all appropriate spectra PG&E ltr. 2/12/82
7-s No.
Description of Error Source
- 55. Question has1been raisdd concerning' dynamic properties used in the seismic qualification 1 of the plant exhaust vent.
PG&E ltr. 2/12/82 56.
In the formulation of the vertical dynamic model of the containment interior structure, some masses were represented incorrectly.
.,fG8E ltr. 2/12/82
- 57. Some of the intake structure maximum absolute accelerations contained in Table 4-53 of the Hosgri Report differ from those in the May 1979 Blume Report PG8E ltr. 2/12/82
- 58. Question has been raised conce'rning the use of the correct response spectra for qualification of PORVs and associated block valves.
PG&E phone call to Region V on 2/24/82 e
o S
e 9
g I
e
hq rc( y (19 /2 )
na
(% k M.'55} A h'4 /gg A
h _-
STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PG8E VERIFICATION PROGRAM e
\\3
~
,e-,%- -, - - - - -
7-w---
__-,.7 y-.
._,m
,.n,
=
g
e,..
c
.9 i
i ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED PG&E PROGRAM PLAN PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
SUMMARY
OF DISCREPANCIES
SUMMARY
OF VIEWS OF 60VERNOR BROWN OF CALIFORNIA AND JOINT INTERVENORS l
1 STAFF CONCLUSIONS L
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS l
l t
w
,--~-..
"~~-*
-m
---o rw
-w.--*--ew-,,-e, 4-ws---w
-.-,-v---w
"rDw-'grN'e-w' wy3-mv"'WF-W
- ---c'ew $'4e
~w*
- ww7-'*'"v'--w
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED PG&E PROGRAM PLAN i
EFFECTIVENESS OF DESIGN QA PER SELECTED PART 50 APPENDIX B CRITERIA
- REVIEW OF QA PROCEDURE AND CONTROL DOCUMENTS
- DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH APPROPRIATE APPENDIX B CRITERIA
- REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF QA CONTROLS WITHIN DESIGN GROUPS AND ACROSS INTERFACES
~
VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC DESIGN
- SELECTION OF STRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT SAMPLE I
- INDEPENDENT ANALYSES OF SAMPLE ITEMS
- COMPARISON OF INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS WITH DESIGN ANAiYSIS s
- ERROR AND OPEN ITEM REPORT
- ADDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS WHERE GENERIC IMPLICATIONS FOUND L
i 1
s
-1.
R. Vollmer X27207
e 4
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION j
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT TELEDYNE 4
ENGINEERING SERVICES IND'EhENDENTREVIEW ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES,'INC.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT s
s I
R.F. REEDY, INC.
RLCA OTHERS QA ACTIVITIES DESIGN CHAIN &
AS REQ'JIRED INDEPENDENT.
CALCULATIONS
_2.
R. Vollmer X27207
r
--,-,.mw.-,.,-.w-
-c
,,_ww-3,
_---7_,,---___w-
--.,.__w,.-w,--
-.w--._.,.__-.,
2 1
i i
t
SUMMARY
OF DISCREPANCIES o
IDENTIFIED BY CLOUD 97 6 ERRORS-
~
91 OPEN o
IDENTIFIED BY PG8E 14 12 ERRORS 2 DPEN d
TOTAL 111 0
R. VOLLMER e--e
~--_, -
-,,..---y y-
-.mm---
.g-
-y-w gg
--w----------me--
v w-w--wir-
-,,wme----
SUMMARY
OF VIEWS OF f
GOVERNOR BROWN OF CALIFORNIA AND' JOINT INTERVENORS i
- PG8E SELECTED AUDITORS DO NOT ENSURE CREDIBILITY AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
- ALL PARTIES TO PROCEEDING SHOULD AGREE ON LIST OF AUDITORS i
j
- NRC SHOULD SELECT AUDITOR FROM LIST i
- PHASE I AND PHASE II ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE COMBINED INTO SINGLE EFFORT l
- PROGRAM SHOULD INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES'
- SAMPLING PLAN SHOULD BE EXPANDED 4
l
- ADDITIONAL QA CRITERIA SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN REVIEW PROCESS L
- l 3-R. Vollmer X27207
.,------,ww-y7
,. _,w,-ey-e---.
..,,.,.-,,_,,,-,.y,.
_,,----r.----
_,_.-y
s
-STAFF CONCLUSIONS O ADEQUATE SCOPE AND IECHNICAL APPROACH
- INCLUSION OF NSS VENDORS
- CONSIDERATION OF STATISTICS IN SAMPLING PL.AN
- INCLUSION OF SAMPLE OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 0
PROPOSED CONTRACTORS HAVE IECHNICAL SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE BUT NOT ROBUST
- CLOUD ORGANIZATION TRIPLED
- PART-TIME PROFESSIONALS 0
INDEPENDENCE OF REEDY AND IELEDYNE ACCEPTABLE O
CLOUD'S LEVEL OF BUSINESS WITH PG8E IS CONSIDERED PREJUDICIAL
- CLOUD REVENUE 48% PRIOR TO VERIFICATION PROGRAM
- REVENUE NoW 60-70%
i l
L 4-R. Vollmer X27207
-m-w-w-,,
-mn
-s,,
.-.,,-w
,,.,_r_-g,,
---,,.--,~,-,v,-,,,,-,,
,,-y,,,
STAPP.RECOMMENDATONS
-- COMPLETION OF PHASE I BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WITH i
EXTENSIVE RESOURCES, SUCH AS TELEDYNE
-- ADOPTION OF RESULTS TO DATE PENDING EVALUATION'0F RESPONSIVENESS TO COMMISSION ORDER
-- EXPANSION OF PROGRAM PLAN DEFINITION TO HIGHLIGHT:
I EVALUATION OF PREVIOUS WORK ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION BASED ON ABOYE EVALUATION EXAMINATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS VERIFICATICN OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REPORTING OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ADEQUACY OF YERIFICATION EFFORT, IMPLICATIONS OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, AND CONFORMANCE OF AS-BUILT DESIGN TO APPLICATION INDEPENDENT REPORTING AND AUDITABLE RECORDS l
s.
l
! l R. Vollmer X27207
^ ^ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~
- - _ - - -.,, - - -.. +.,...,, -.
,.--,__,m_
_