ML20209E211

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Response to Remaining Five Listed Allegations Assigned to Branch.Response Completes Branch Submittal.Only Item Remaining Is Meeting W/Allegers.Branch Wishes to Be Informed of Plans for Meeting
ML20209E211
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 04/01/1985
From: Lear G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Knighton G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17083B484 List:
References
FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8504090360
Download: ML20209E211 (6)


Text

'

+ 'o UNITED STATES

[ Y , e. < [qg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3- ~ / f WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5

. APR 011955 -

MEMORANDUM FOR: hief Licensing Branch 3 Division of Licensing FROM: George Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATIONS ON DIABLO CANYON ASSIGNED TO SGEB Enclosed is the response to the remaining five allegations (1166, 1396, 1426, 1427, and 1647) assigned to this branch.

This completes the SGEB submittal and the only item remaining is the meeting with the allegers. Please keep us informed of the plans for the meeting.

Ay J

,- q. ~- ./

George Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated cc: R. Bosnak H. Schierling P. Kuo H. Polk J. Kane E. Sullivan ff6YOfO.2fgg))

&g.

~

~

r Task: Allegations or Concern #1166 ATS No.: BN No.:

Characterization False statement by PGAE V.P. regarding' adequacy of resolution of oversized bolt hole concerns in rupture restraints.

Implied Significance to Design, Construction. or Operation Inadequate resolution of oversized bolt holes would result in safety concerns about the design and construction.

Assessment of Safety Significance This allegation refutes PG&E statement, "To the best of of our knowledge, this established process of resolving each instance of an oversized bolt hole on a case-by-case basis has resulted in the resolution of all concerns involving oversized bolt holes, either by repair or by member replacement."

Information supplied by PG&E in Letter DCL-84-239 responding to the ,ioint intervenors addressed this allegation. The staff reviewed the material furnished and the NCR DC2-80-RM-002 for Unit 2 and NCR DC1-79-PM-003 for Unit 1. The statement quoted above refers to the Unit I resolution. The Unit 1 NCR.was closed after PG&E engineers reviewed the as-builts and implemented any necessary modifications. The Unit 2 NCR is still open and will be closed upon completion of resolution activities.

Staff Position l

The resolution of the bolting problems appears to be progressing to a satisfactory engineering solution. The particular cuote is construed by the staff to be in reference to the Unit I resolution and not to be taken as a blanket statement for both units. This allegation appears to be nade from a misunderstanding on the part of the alleger. The staff considers the allegation resolved.

Action Required None i

t_

~

Task: Allegations or Concern #1396 ATS No.: BN No.:

Characterization The alleger states that the ability of the supporting main structure should be evaluated for the support loads reacted by that structure.

Implied Significance to Design and Operation The main structural elements could be overloaded if the individual reactions from supports are not considered. The cumulative effect of the loads should be considered.

Assessment of Safety Significance The staff held discussions with the PG&E representatives for design about the methods employed to consider all the loads that could be supported by the main structural elements. Also, PG&E has submitted a formal respcose to the staff in letter DCL-85-089 which the staff has reviewed. The enclosure to PG&E letter DCL-85-089 lists several calculations that address the evaluation of structural elements for the Containment, Auxiliary Building, Turbine Building, and the Intake Structure. This submittal and additional discussions with PG8E representatives about the details of how

, the pipe hanger loads were addressed show that all loads have been adequately evaluated.

Staff Position Based on the submittal and discussions with PG&E the staff concludes that the individual pipe support loads on the main structure have been adeocately addressed and the allegation does not have valid basis. The staff considers the allegation resolved.

Action Required l None l

i i

l

Task: Allegations er Concern #1426 ATS No.: BN No.:

Characterization The alleger states that IDVP Contractors, Teledyne, and Westinghouse were not independent of PG&E control.

Implied bigr.ificance to Design, Construction or Operation The independence of the contractors in the Unit 1 IDVP was essential to the unbiased evaluation of the Unit 1 design. Failure to maintain independence would cast serious doubt on the findings.

Assessment of Safety Significance Westinghouse was not a contractor in the IDVP. The NRC Commission Order CLI-81-30 required the independence of the IDVP contractors (Teledyre and its subcontractors) and these requirements were incorporated into the IDVP Program Plan. The NRC staff reviewed and approved this plan. The sta#f attended technical interchange meetings, conducted audits of the work by Teledyne and its contractors and reviewed the IDVP documents that summarized the evaluations. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Branch (ASLAB) examined the subject of independence at the Design Quality Assurance hearings in November 1983 and determined that the IDVP was conducted in an independent manner.

Staff Position The NRC Commission, ASLAB and the NRC staff found the IDVP conducted its evaluation in an independent manner. The allegation does not have any evidence to invalidate the previous findings. The staff considers this allegation resolved.

l Action Reouired None l

~

Task: Allegations or Concern #1427 ATS No.: BN No.:

Characterization The alleger states that the NRC permitted the postponement for approximately a year PG&E's compliance with some 6000 licensing commitments.

Implied Significance to Design, Construction, or Operation G

Licensing commitments must be addressed in a timely manner ensure the safe operation of the plant.

Assessment of Safety Significance This allegation stems from a meeting on July 2, 1984, between the NRC. PG&E, and the alleger. A transcript of this meeting was made. If one reads this transcript it is clear that the alleger had a misunderstanding of what was said. The subject of discussion was a computerized management data base listing of quality commitments which allows PG&E to demonstrate conformance with NRC requirements during QA audits. This data base consisted of some 6000 commitments which were being tracked. PG&E stated that none of the items were open.

Staff Position The staff considers this allegation a misunderstanding on the part of the alleger which was clarified in the meeting. The 6000 items being tracked are PG&E commitments made during the course of the design and none of these commitments constitute an open item. The staff considers this allegation resolved.

Action Required None

~

Task: Allegations or Concern #1647 ATS No.: BN No. :

Characterization The alleger states that the civil structures to which pipe supports are attached may not be properly analyzed for torsional loads.

Implied-Significance to Design, Construction, or Operation The civil structures should be designed to account for all applied and induced secondary loads. Failure to do so could overstress the members and prevent them from performing their intended function.

Assessment of Safety Significance The staff has addressed the subject of torsion in structural menbars in the containment annulus structure in SSER 29 Sections 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 as a normal part of the structural audit process. The procedures used in evaluating the pipe support reaction loads was submitted to the staff by PG&E in letter DCL-85-017 and was reviewed by the staff.

Staff Position The staff finds that the subject of torsion in civil structures has been adequately addressed. The staff considers the allegation resolved.

Action Required ,

None

.. .% v AUG0 1985 ,

(

<a MEMORANDUM FOR: DCAF Filet p ,'

FROM: Allegation Review Board

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD MEETING Date of Meeting: August 6, 1985 Facilities: Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 An Allegation Review Board comprised of the below identified individuals was convened on August 6, 1985, to disposition several allegations.

OI memorandums of July 25, 1985, indicated'that the below identified inquiries and associated allegation numbers were being administrative 1y closed and resolved by OI.

01 CASE NO. ALLEGATION NOS. ATS NO.

QS-85-025 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194 RV-84-A-069

-QS-85-036 1588 RV-84-A-115 ALLECATION NOS. 1191, 1192, 1193 & 1194 The Board has reviewed again, the response to these allegations provided by PG&E letter DCL-84-239. The licensee again responded to these issues in PG&E letter DCL-85-212, which the Board reviewed. The Board considers that there is no technical reason to warrant reopening these allegations on a technical basis. The Board further considers that the responses provided by the licensee to these issues are acceptable from a technical nature.

The Office of Investigation has determined that the issues of harassment and bribery do not warrant expenditure of Office of Investigation resources due to the extreme age of issues involved (1971 and 1972 time frame) and other OI investigations ci harassment and intimidation are scheduled for investigation in the future.

l The Board also notes that on-going inspections of the Diablo Canyon facility

, of civil structural work, during the period in question, did not identify-any findings of sufficient import to result in any responsible questions regarding concrete and reinforcing steel installation adequacy in safety-related structures. Further, the Board does not consider that there is any reason

, to ask Office of Investigation to pursue these matters further. These allegations are closed.

eGeGGN>t9S 850809 \

PDR ADOCK 05000275 - 50 P PDR I

i t

",, ..N e- x.

ALLEGATION NO. 1588 Based on the alleger's inability to provide any specifics during the interviews with Office of Investigation, and the general nature of the allegation the Board concluded no further action is necessary. This action is closed.

ALLEGATION NO. 1712 & 1713 The Board considers this allegation is closed, based upon the staff's previous resolution of this issue documented in Inspection Report No. 50-275/84-42.

ALLEGATION NO. 1714 This is a duplicate of 1190 which was previously closed, based upon the Board's review of PG&2 letter DCL-84-239 and DCL-85-212. The issues are the same. The Board considers that this allegation is closed.

The board determined that the above allegations are closed.

D.5 .

D. F. Kirsch

[

R. A. Meeks 01 Advisor to the Board

~

O

/ C.! ~

f// h

/K Y. 'Sho71enberger' ~

a ~ l ot, .

D. B. Pereira Legal Advisor to the Board Q'3/

A. E. Chqffliie cc: DCS ATS No. RV-84-A-069 ATS No. RV-84-A-115 DCAF ABM File D. F. Kirsch ATS No. RV-85-A-999

.. ._ .- . - _ _ _