ML20209B433
Text
h. ;..
f,
- g UNITED STATES
'e
- o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
,I -
wAswimorow, p. c.20sss
%,...../
MAY 2 81982 E
o.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
D. G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS'CONCERNINGTHEDIABLOCANkONNUCLEARPOWER
~
PLANT The attached anonymous undated letter from a concerned engineer was received by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement on May 18, 1982.
The alleged concerns raise serious questions as to the integrity of the ongoing Indepen-dent Design Verification Program.
In view of the seriousness of these allegations, it is recommended that the attached memorandum be forwarded to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement for further review and other appropriate actions.
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director.
Division of Licensing pc(, iloyl V
ti'
NUMEAR REGUL
, y RY COMMISSION - y-hf.
- o....'
/
MAY1sgy; NOTE TO: Ed Case
{,bh FROM:
Jim Sniezek. IE
=
y v
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON - UNDATED LETTER FROM
!A gh
's A CONCERNED ENGINEER.
i !
o
\\.
On May 18, I received the enclosed letter from "a concern d e engineer" stating several concerns regarding the seismic reanalysis at Diab 1'o Canyon.
e It appears appropriate that the concerns raised in the letter be factored into NRC review of the reverificatio ort.
.s
, ' l.n..
/JmSniezek,IE
Enclosure:
(
Undated Letter Received On May 18,1982 cc:
R. H. Engelken, RV
(
E. L. Jordan. IE l
l E
s* * -
I
-l, pw97.5 IT y
' f:'
s-hil82-g u a.
i 7
+
NBC
' Vlashington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Richard D1 Young:
I am currently involved in the Diablo. Canyon Review -
effort now in progress., I must say that this is the worst nuclear power plant that I' have ever worked on.
and it is not SAFE.
I was hoping with the introduction of Sechtel that a, complete re-analysis of Unit 1 would be done.
Alas this is not to be.
The PGLE cana5ement/
engineers only correct the mistakes that are found accidentially or are forced down their throats.
If the error is an Seneric one, they will not review everything but just what caused the error and they will only correct that one mistake.
The lateat review is for hosgri only but the real danger.is that:
- 1) The thermal / deadweight analysis does not' match the. seimic or current field support confi uration.
5 9
Systems are failing when corrected.
- 2) The so-called-'As-Built" pipe support drawings are not as-built ~but instead are the accumulation
~
of all the changes to the support drawing over the past 13 years.
The support have not been walked down in the field to show thereilatest configuration or orientation'to the pipe. Also interferences with structure are not show on the drawin5s.
I only ask that you have R. L. Cloud & Asscciates review the thermal / Deadweight analysis as well as the Hosgri they are now doing.
This will confirm what I have said.
If action is not taken, I may be ' force to seek a publi'c hearing on this.
'I am pro-nuclear but invalid analysis andincompetence must not be igored. This palnt in my opinion is bad from the analysis to the supports.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely A Concered Engineer 1
Y 9
sm..-
-.e---
. m
-mm..,o-mee~.--ee
--w
-