ML20209D450
| ML20209D450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1984 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bernero R, Grace J, Grace N, Speis T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083B484 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8410240369 | |
| Download: ML20209D450 (8) | |
Text
r S**
W FfCo
+
o UNITED STATES
[})g
^),
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- .g
- c. ;
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%;...../
OCT 3 1984 Docket No.:
50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of Systems Integration Nelson J. Grace, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards and Inspection Prograns Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology Hugh L. Thompson, Director Division of Human Factors Safety Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering FROM:
Darrell Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 REVIEW As a result of the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 meeting with PG&E on September 13, 1984, the following matters need to be included in one or more SER supplements to be issued prior to a Commission meeting regarding the OL for Unit 2:
(1) Application and Implementation of Unit 1 IDVP and ITP to Unit 2 (2) Allegations (3) Piping and Supports (4) Programmatic Aspects (5) Unit 1 Items and Routine OL Items In Enclosure 1, we have described briefly the scope of the review and evaluation and have recommended individuals, based on their earlier involvement, who shculd participate.
Because of the tight schedule, as shown in Enclosure 2, our evaluation will be based on audits and inspections of the PG&E activities as well as on submittals from PG&E. Regarding the audits and inspections, surunaries should be prepared which identify the material that was audited.
It is requested that the Project Manager be informed of all planned audits and inspections, as well as telephone discussions (i.e. each subject, not necessarily each call).
I ihnmyy gn
'Byp
ENCLOSURE 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SSER Subjects
'd to 3
sure 1*
ght Application and Implementation of Unit 1 IDVP and ITP to Unit 2 11ng*
Rev'iew to include NRC concerns and their resolution as presented in SSERs 18, 19, 20 and 24 and consideration of PG&E IRP program details (Letter of July 31, 1984) as discussed in meeting; audit / inspection of selected review packages a't PG&E offices or site; evaluation of PG&E final submittal on activity. The following fcur separate review activities will be included:
(a) civil / structural area, e.g. containment annulus steel structure; P.T. Kuo, H. Polk, consultants (BNL)
(b) piping and mechanical equipment, e.g. jet impingement analysis; M. Hartzman (c) mechanical and electrical systems, e.g. CCW; J. Wermiel (d) equipment qualification; H. Walker 2.-
_ Allegations All allegations, regardless of unit, will be considered for Unit 2 (there are in excess of 1400 allegations total).
Piping and Support allegations will be considered under item (3).
If the previous resolution.f_or Unit 1 applies equally to Unit 2 we must provide the basis for the finding (e.g. allegation unfounded for Unit 1; allegation was not Unit i specific and resolution is equally applicable to Unit 2; allegation and resolution were programmatic).
If the allegation and
i d
,. t solution is Unit i specific we must also evaluate the allegation with aspect to Unit 2 (e.g. allegation on a system for Unit 1 must be
- valuated for same system in Unit 2).
If an allegation was made specifically
?d to for Unit 2, the allegation must be evaluated. Whatever the determination /
1 resolution is, it must be documented. The PM will issue a list of isure 1*
ght allegations in NRR scope. Previous allegation SSERs 21, 22, and 26
- ling, should be considered.
PG&E stated at the meeting that they also are reviewing allegations with respect to Unit 2.
If possible, their effort should be' audited while ongoing.
We have requested PG&E to submit results of their effort. We recomend that the evaluation be performed by the same staff that performed the effort on Unit 1.
Any request for outside assistance should be identified.
3.
Piping and Supports Review should consider same elements as for recently completed effort on Unit 1 (SSER 25) and include:
allegations as listed in Section 5.6 of SSER 26, concerns raised by NRC staff, PG&E effort regarding 7 license conditions on Unit 1 (note: we do not expect at this time to issue them also for Unit 2 but instead resolve the concerns during the review process prior to OL issuance). We have requested PG&E to submit a description of how they perform the piping and support effort and final results.
Hot walkdowns by the licensee of piping systems are scheduled for October,._ Our overall Unit 2 effort is not expected to be as detailed as for Unit 1, but must be comprehensive enought to permit conclusion to be drawn.
Our evaluation should be based on audits and inspections of ongoining PG&E effort as well as review of submittals by PG&E.
1
t 4.
Programmatic Aspects f
e The programmatic aspects of onsite training, control of procedures, corrective actions and design responsibility and authority will be evaluated. During the staff review of piping and support concerns were raised by the staff and allegations were made regarding these matters for Unit 1 (NRC letter to PG&E of June 20, 1984).
The engineering activities for both units are~
performed under essentially the same programs which were recently audited by the NRC. The implementation of the programs, in particular any revisions to the programs, should be audited for Unit 2.
5.
Unit 1 Items and Routine OL Items Issues raised during the low power and full power licensing of Unit 1 (other than in items (1) through (3)) must be considered for Unit 2.
Routine OL items must be addressed.
The PM will contact individual reviewers. The effort will include:
(a) SSER items:
SSERs will be reviewed for Unit 2 open item, specifically SSER 27 (DL)
(b) THI Items: must develop list of items requiring resolution prior to OL (DL)
(c) Unit 1,_L,icense Conditions: must review Unit 1 license and all amendments (including No. 10 which was not issued) to determine status for Unit 2 draft license (DL) l
~
l 1
t
-i
.g 4
(d) Masonry Walls: evaluation to be done by SGE Branch, including site inspection (N. Chokshi)
(e) Fire Protection:
status on Unit 2 (D. Kubicki)
(f) Systems Interaction:
status on Unit 2, also covered under allegations (D. Lasher, F. Coffman)
~
(g) Tech. Specs.:
PG&E has " submitted on 9/25/84 a request for a complete update of Tech. Specs. for Unit 2, i.e. not only those currently proposed for Unit 1 full power update, but complete update as had been intended earlier for Unit 1 (F. Anderson).
It is further recommended that a review of the Tech Specs with respect to the FSAR, SER and the as-built conditions be performed (note:
PG&E submitted a complete FSAR update on September 22, 1984).
This effort would be performed under the direction of Region V as have been performed at other NT0L plants since Grand Gulf.
(h) Shift Advisors, Reactor Operators evaluate qualifiecation and traning for Unit 2 (DHFS)
(i) Others
[
i
-1 ENCLOSURE 2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Review Schedule 1.
Request PG&E to (a) describe efforts for items 09/26/84 (C)
(2) and (3) in memo; (b) provide results (or status) for items (1), (2) and (3).
2.
NRC review of all matters start 09/26/84 complete 11/14/84 3.
Start NRC A*/dits and Inspections 10/01/84 on (1), (2) and (3) 4.
PG&E response to item (l.a) above 10/08/84 5.
PG&E response to item (1.b) above 10/23/84 6.
All SSER input to Licensing, including 10/26/84 identification of open items 7.
PG&E final response to (1.b) above 11/05/84 8.
Draft SSER complete by Licensing 11/09/84 for review by Divisions 9.
Resolution of Open Items Complete 11/14/84 10.
SSER issued 11/19/84 11.
Commission Meeting and OL decision 11/23/84 12.
Issue OL 11/26/84 a
_.m._
f AGt 4 is s.
e,n a e I..
th/12'G4 D!sWt U L Ati's 04 t il L f te il i e IJ, AttEG ATS #
5 EWitRASE REtP f >t iPL CHARS eC I LH !lo T I UN SOUREF A T T ACHt fLN1 ELSE G4Li~
Lt e r..I' OLi OF LTR k 1451 RVO4AO91 RLDUllAL NRif
'IHF ALLE0EH DIG 66f.FEG Willi PG5E* G 741/04 GAP AITIDAVIT fiEST'ONnE TO H1S EARLIER ALLEGATION THAT PAGE 1-S EXCESSIVE CARDUN ON SIAINLESS STEEL MM CAUSE INTERGRANULAR STRESS CORh0GION CRACl:INO 4
l 1452 RVa4Ao91 REl>U T T AL NRR THE AtLEGER DISAGREES WITH PGEE'S 7/31/04 GAP AFFIDAVIT REGPONSE TO HIS CARLIER ALLEGATION THAT PAGES 6-8 l
WELDING HAS DEEN APPROPRIATELY CONTROLLED FOR ifEAT INPUT AND INTERPASS q
TEMPERATURES (IGSCC) 1453 RVU4Ao91 RI-DU T T AL NRR THE ALLEGER DISAGREES WITH PG&E'S 7/31/04 GAP AFFIDAVIT RESF ONSE THAT lHERE WERE ONLY A FEW PA3E O CASES OF STAINLLUS STEEL PIPE DREAFAGEG AT SAN ONOFRE (IGSCC) 1454 RV84A091 REDUTTAL NRR PG&E'S RESPONSE APPLIES ONLY TO RCS IT 7/31/04 GAP (FFIDAVIT DOES NOT~ ADDRESS THE ALLEGER'S CONCERN PAGE 9 ADOUT THE SECONDARY LINES (IGSCC) 1461 RVO4A091 REDUTTAL NRR THE ALLEGER DISAGREES WITH PG&E'S 7/31/04 GAP AFFIDAVIT RESPONSE THAT SUPPORTS GENERALLY ARE NOT PAGE 10 HIGHLY RESTRAINED 1466 RVO4A091 DUICK FIX NRR DUICK FIXES WERE USED TO ACCEPT DLATENT 7/31/04 GAP AFFIDAVIT WORisMANSHIP DEFICIFNCIES ON OLD AND IN PROCESS WORK. NRC*S INVESTIGATION IS STILL NOT COMPLETED 1469 RVU4A091 DUICK FIX NRR ANYTHING ANYDODY CAN WRITE ON THE DUICK 7/31/04 GAP S/22 FIX DECOMES A DESIGN DRAWING IF THEY CAN TRANSCRIPT DET SOMEBODY'S SIGNATURE ON IT PG 6 1472 f(VO4AO9e> SEIGNIC DESIGN NRR CONCERN REGARDING HELD CALCULATIONS FOR ADF REVIEW DCNPP. ALLEGER REFUTES FINDINGS OF 9/12/04 ALLEGATION NUMBER 222 AND 223 W"
=
6 1
+
-..