ML20209B218

Forwards Comments on Util Proposal for QA Verification of Equipment Qualification

ML20209B218
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/22/1981
From:	Bagchi G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16340C148	List: ML16340C147 ML20209B134 ML20209B144 ML20209B172 ML20209B176 ML20209B206 ML20209B218 ML20209B249 ML20209B270 ML20209B277 ML20209B283 ML20209B298 ML20209B443 ML20209B450 ML20209B492 ML20209B597 ML20209B601 ML20209B605 ML20209B682 ML20209B777 ML20209C156 ML20209C239 ML20209C268 ML20209C274 ML20209C285 ML20209C293 ML20209C318 ML20209C326 ML20209C333 ML20209C442 ML20209C446 ML20209C477 ML20209C533 ML20209C551 ML20209C621 ML20210A699 ML20210A793 ML20210A831 ML20210A898 ML20210A977 ML20210B079 ML20210B125 ML20210B142 ML20210B176 ML20210B198 ML20210B218 ML20210B230 ML20210B246 ML20210B256 ML20210B260 ... further results
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8201190780
Download: ML20209B218 (3)

Text

-

SS Kf t M

y

},,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2'

o g

3 l

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

,5 g.C 2 2 IS Bi NOTE T0:

R. Vollmer FROM:

G. Bagchi

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1, QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS PG&E's proposed plan does not indicate much details about their approach to verification of equipment qualification.

I reviewed their proposal with an outlook for equipment qualification. My coments are attached.

G. Bagchi cc:

Z. Rosztoczy W. Johnston i

Y g g119&?F#

3 7

S,.

f

~

Comments on PG&E Proposal for Quality Assurance Verification Personnel:

Bill Cooper of Teledyne should have the overall responsibility to perform the review. Careful. attention should be given to the telection of people for specialized areas of work, for example, a person with primarily piping design experience should not be responsible for the review of concrete structures, or a person primarily experienced in structural design should not be charged with the responsiblity to review equipment qualification by test.

Equipment Qualification Review:

4-Seismic Input:.

Design for the Hosgri earthquake used an equivalent motion _ considering the effect

.of waves traveling through large foundations. The true nature of the vertical ground motion should be correctly interpreted. Effects of torsion and other building response characteristics should be examined. The adequacy of the seismic input for the equipment qualification program should be reviewed.

Equipment Qualification Process:

A network should be developed for the equipment procurement and qualification process. A thorough examination should be made of how the contractual obligations in the equipment procurement activity truly reflect the changes in seismic design requirements; how the equipment purchase specifications were set up and subsequently mcdified to account for the Hosgri earthquake. All comitments on equipment qualification standards and criteria including various changes during the process of licensing activity should be examined to judge the adequacy of the equipment as installed in the plant.

., _,. _, _ _, _. ~.,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _,.. _, _ _,,.. _..... _ _. _.. _ _,... _ _. _, _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _. _ _, _.. _ _.

o 2-Equipment Sampling:

Equipment should be sampled from the safe shutdown and cooldown system. For all equipment in the safe shutdown system, a table should be prepared to indicate; if the equipment is qualified by test, analysis, or a combination of test and analysis; qualification methods and criteria used; the purchase order and effective dates," adequacy of the seismic input; adequacy of the qualification according to the licensing comitments.

1 I

,m-

.--,,,,__.,..-,-,...cr,-,_..w,,,.,..,--

.a-..,-,,.,

,-,e.

,,,,. -,.