ML20210B125
| ML20210B125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1982 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C148 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8609170455 | |
| Download: ML20210B125 (1) | |
Text
.'i ^
c uam
\\
h UNITED STATES 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
.p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 1, 1982.
N 4./
M A
Y b
g MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director g
Division of Licensing FROM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering M.f
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORTS Your memorandum of June 16 requests that we review the first Diablo Canyon Interim Technical Report (ITR) for its content and adequacy and comment on it and the general ITR concept. ~I will address the latter request first. We reviewed the ITR concept at a recent meeting with Teledyne and other parties to the proceeding and concur in the value'of these reports to both expedite the Independent' Design Verification Program (IDVP)processandenhancethestaff'sunderstandingofthe bases for resolution of the errors and open items.
With respect to the first ITR, we find that it lacks some of the in-formation needed to complete and justify the conclusions drawn.
It's unfortunate that the first ITR subject was that of additional verifica-tion and additional sampling which is a difficult subject at best. Our judgment on ITRs in general will be better served when we are dealing with a specific or more narrowly focused technical subject.
The first ITR ITR recommends expansion of the' verification and sampling program, which we feel to be appropriate, but does not give us a good basis for the reconrnended additions. Therefore, our final analysis of this particular ITR will wait until some of the technical program areas are complete in themselves.
J Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering cc:
H. Denton E. Case R. Tedesco F. Miraglia J. Knight W. Johnston sme-8609170455 860908 PDR FOIA HOLl1E586-151 PDR 6
[
UNITED STATES e#
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j. '[2 ' $
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 y%gg,4j/
s j
S)L o 11982 Docket No.: 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3, Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
Kenneth S. Herring Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing, NRR
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM INSPECTIONS -
MAY 26-28, 1982 As part of Region V's ongoing inspection activities regarding the Diablo Canyon seismic design verification program, I conducted an unannounced inspec-tion of the ongoing PG&E efforts on May 26 through 28, 1982. The purposes of this inspection were to:
- 1) review available results of the PG8E initiated Blume Independent Internal Reivew (BIR) of past Blume structural analyses related to Diablo Canyon; 2) review the PG&E Document Control Manual (DCM) developed to control response spectra and to assure the use of appro-priate up to date response spectra for ongoing design and evaluation of structures, systems and components; and 3) verify that the newly formed Diablo Canyon project organization was functioning in a mannet to alleviate weaknesses in the previous organization relative to selsmic analysis and design in the civil / structural areas. Observations and conclusions are discussed below.
BlumeIndependentInternalReviewjBIR) l The BIR was conducted by Blume at the direction of PG&E. The purpose of the BIR was to have a group of internal Blume personnel who had not worked on Diablo Canyon in the past conduct a review of all Hosgri structural analyses previously performed by Blume to determine their adequacy to predict the behavior of the as-built DicSlo Canyon safety-related structures. In this effort, Blume engineers reviewed the previous Hosgri structural analyses performed by Blume and generated comments regarding their adequacy. These comments were reviewed by a Blume supervisor and passed to the BIR Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Blume, for review. When all parties in this process were satisfied, the comments and evaluations were forwarded to PG&E. Enclosure j
1 is the procedure by which these comments arejandled by PG8E to provide for l
their resolution. PG&E is responsible for f}(al resolution of items requirino l
further evaluation, unless such items are a subject of the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) managed by Teledynl.
l Nf
F. J. Miraglia 6 At the time of the inspection, the above program had not been completed.
The BIR report was still under preparation, and additional evaluations with regard to the BIR were still being conducted. PG&E indicated that a' total of 150 comments had resulted from the BIR. PG8E was able to provide 147 of the comment packages in various stages of resolution for my review. The three additional BIR comments were still under prepara-tion..
Given the preliminary and incomplete nature of these comments and associated resolutions, I conducted a cursory inspection of the 147 comments to gain an insight into the nature and depth of the BIR and associated PG&E program for comment resolution. The comments ranged in content from relatively minor discrepancies to those which required substantial additional effort to determine their significance. Based upon my review and discussions with -
PG8E, it appeared that these comments were about equally distributed in three major significance categories, namely,1) those insignificant by inspection,
- 2) those found to be insignificant or expected to be found insignificant after i
additional analysis and/or evaluation, and 3) those which were significant and required additional analysis and evaluations to determine their impacts.
From my cursory inspection of the 147 BIR comments, it appears that Blume generally performed a thorough review of its prev.fous Diablo Canyon Hosgri structural analyses. PG8E has implemented an organized program for BIR comment resolution which provides a necessary formal process for PG&E to supply Blume additional information and comments to allow for accuracy in
+
the BIR determinations. The adequacy of this entire effort can only be ascertained after review of the final BIR report, and PG8E's and/or Teledyne's final evaluation of the individual findings. PG8E indicated that they do not plan to submit the BIR final report to the NRC. Details will be submitted for only those items which become part of the Verification Program via entry into the PG&E tracking system. Therefore, if not submitted, an NRC review of this report and associated PG8E comment dispositions.should be conducted at the PG8E offices.
Only two potential concerns were noted in my review of the 147 comments and any associated resolutions, and these were discussed with PG8E. The first concern was that information associated with BIR comments AB 018 and TB 006
-indicated that figures in Blume reports were inaccurately labelled. The BIR comments were dismissed essentially because the inaccuracies did not mater-ially affect any analyses.
I cautioned that future ramifications of such j
inaccuracies must be carefully considered. The second concern was that the i
resolutions associated with BIR comments CE 022 and IS 007 did not document the resolution of all the reviewers comments.
I indicated that they should ensure that resolution of all reviewer comments are clearly documented in all final packages.
l L
F. J. Miraglia.
Response Spectra Document Control Manual (DCM) l I reviewed PG8E DCM No. 17, Revision 0, dated 04/19/82. This contained all the Hosgri response spectra to be used for design and evaluation of safety-i related structures, systems and components. As a controlled document, re-visions to spectra are circulated.to the appropriate PG&E supervisory personnel responsible for the analysis of the various structures, systems and components, and requires their signature to indicate that they have noted the revisions.
In addition to containing the spectra, this DCM summarizes the way in which they are to be used. If spectra are not available at the point of attachment of a particular structure, system or component being designed or evaluated, the DCM requires that the Civil Engineering group specify the spectra, consid-ering intermediate member or structure fl:xibility, as appropriate.
This DCM should avoid future problems with keeping track of the up to date response spectra and alleviate previous problems in this area. However,
.I indicated that neither this DCM nor the associated Engineering Manual Procedure No. 3.2 clearly indicated a requirement that the appropriate supervisory personnel insure that the impact of spectra changes is assessed 4
for existing safety-related structures, systems and components. PG&E indicated that functionally this was performed by the appropriate supervisors in the fashion they felt was required. Given 1) the large number of response spectra,
- 2) the large number of items which would be potentially impacted by changes in spectra, and 3) the potential for changes' in these spectra as a result of the current reverification effort, I indicated that it would be prudent to have a clear requirement in the procedures to assess the effects of spectra changes.
In addition, I indicated that it may be prudent to have a formal procedure for each supervisor to follow. PG&E indicated that they felt that the former concern would most appropriately be addressed by a revision to Engineering Manual Procedure No. 3.2.
Also, they indicated that they would carefully consider the need for implementation of my latter commment in light of already established procedures and practices.
Impacts of the New Diablo Canyon Project Organization As indicated in the previous discussions, the newly formed project organization of PG&E and Bechtel personnel has taken positive steps to correct deficiencies in previous practices, especially in the area of controlling discipline inter-In addition, PG&E indicated that the design and drafting personnel which faces.
are responsbile for much of the civil / structural related design and evaluation are now reporting directly to the Assistant Project Engineer ( APE) for Seismic Analysis and his associated supervisors. This was done to eliminate a potential for communication errors resulting from these personnel being in a separate internal organization, as was the case previously. PG&E also indicated that procedures were still being established and revised as appropriate to provide for design control.
c F. J. Miraglia Informal. discussions regarding the above were conducted among.the individuals listed in Enclosure 2.
After discussions with Region V, a formal exit inter-
. view was conducted among the individuals listed in Enclosure 3.
Kenneth S. Herring Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page i
DI ABLO C ANYON Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas & Electric Canpany P.O. Box 7442
. San Francisco, California 94120 cc:
Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Pacific. Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 350 ft Allister Street San Francisco, California 94102 fir. Frederick Eissler', President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More flesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
Seymour & Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Fran:isco, California S4108 Mr. Richard Habbard 11HB Technical Associates Suite K 1723 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John !brrs, l'anaging Editor San Luis Obispo Coun.ty Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 b
e r
Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush '
cc:
Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS c/o U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 P.attie Road Shell beach, California 93440 Joel f.eynolds, Esq.
John R. Phillips, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Ir.terest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Thiro floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
321 Lyttun Avenue Palo Alto,- California 94302 Mr. byron 5. Georgiov Legal Af f airs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.
1900 h Street, N.W.
- !ashington, D.C.
20036 nr. Dick Blankenburg, Editor & Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. O. box 460 Arroyo Grance, Cali fornia 93420 fir. James 0. Schuyler Vice Fresident - Nuclear Geqeration Department Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. box 7442 San Francis'co, California 94120 i
bruce Norton, Esq.
Suite 20e 3216 North 3rd Street Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush,
s Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electri.c Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073' Mr. Owen H. Davis, Director Federal Agency Relations l
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 105017th Street, N.W.
Suite 1180 Washington, D.c.
20036 t
ON l
l
-e g-e
- -+---
. - - - ~,,
-,.-------.m e,
v.mn
-+----,--*=w.-,y-,
Proc.: CE-DC-1-(BIREC)
Rev. 0: 3-31-82 ENCLOSURE 1 1: 4-2-82 2: 4-9-82
/
. I
' it PROCEDURE FOR PG&E EVALUATION OF
/
de i/ '1 l['$.~'
(,
REVIEW COMHENTS RECEIVED FROM THE
/
BLUME INDEPENDENT INTERNAL REVIEW
,i' -
t y-INTRODUCTION:
The Blume Independent Internal Review Project (BIR) has identified issues that could conceivably have an impact on the design of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The BIR " review comments" recommend work to be done to determine the significance of these issues.
PGandE has formed a committee to evaluate these recommendations, and to provide additional information to resolve these issues or to identify proposed further action by PG&E. This additional information and proposed a
further action will be reviewed with the BIR Advisory Committee of,
URS/Blume, to obtain their concurrence. PGandE is responsible for the j
disposition of the review comments.
The resolution of discrepancies that may be identified is not part of this procedure, but is part of the PGandE corrective action procedure.
l PROCEDURE:
j A PGandE BIR Evaluation Committee (BIREC) will evaluate " review-comments" received from the BIR to determine what further action is required, and to identify those issues that represent non-conformances or discrepancies.
BIREC will discuss the BIR review comments within one week after the PGandE BIR Interface Engineer has signed the review comments acknowledging receipt. During the first meeting in which review comments are discussed BIREC will initiate an IFR or 01 (DCVP Procedure No. 3 or 4) or an NCR or DR for all review comments considered except those not requiring any action. All decisions will be documented. These reports may cover several related review comments.
The Committee will consist of Messrs. V. J. Ghio, Chairman, R. S. Orr, Staff Consultant A. B. Schuurman, PGandE'BIR Interface Engineer, M. V. Williamson, F. u. Brady, and D.- A. Lang, Assistant Project Manager of the URS/Blume Design Verification work for the D. C. project, and a representative of Bechtel. The chairman may, at his discretion, request a member of the URS/Blume BIR Task Force and the appropriate PGandE Responsible Engineers to attend certain meetings..Mr. Lang will arrange for participation of appropriate URS/Blume Design Verification engineers as l
necessary.
BIREC will place the BIR Advisory Committee's evaluation comments in one of two categories:
(1) Acceptable as they are. BIREC concurs with the Advisory i
Committee's evaluation; any recommended action will be taken.
The BIREC Chairman will sign them for concurrence and the BIR Interface Enginect will return a copy to URS/Blume.
4 Y
j 1
{
- + -..
i
.. _ _ _.. _.. ~. _, _ -. _. _.
~
(2) Require additional BIR Advisory Committee review. When review-comments require further discussion BIREC will list its comments on a " Disposition-Form" (attached), attach it to the review-comment form, and the Interface Engineer will return both to the BIR Advisory Committee'at URS/Blume.
URS/Blume's BIR Advisory Committee will either concur, provide additional comments, or disagree with BIREC's comments. If the BIR Advisory Committee response is acceptable to.the BIREC, the BIREC Chairman will complete the disposition form. BIR will recrive a copy for their records.
4 e
If URS/Blume's BIR response indicates remaining differences in:
opinion, the BIREC chairman will request the BIR Interface Engineer to arrange for a meeting between representatives from
. BIREC.and the BIR Advisory Committee to resolve the-differences.
When agreement is reached, the chairman of BIREC will complete the disposition form and BIR will receive a copy for their i'
records. If agreement cannot be reached, the matter will be
' brought before the PGandE Chief Civil Engineer.
Documents generated in BIREC will be collected and stored in the j
PGandE BIR file, and entered into the Record Management System.
O'
- ^;=^
Date:
Prepared:
A. B. Schuurman l
Approved:lhsf' Date:
~.'V.
Bettinger R
i Chief Civil Engineer 4
M//7((/
Approved: _
4t
- As Date:
/
~. H g.
G ore DiabM Canyon Project Engineer i
i a
e en -
-e
.- ~.
4
..*+=se e..
g.
y e..
,.e**.e-ee+
w=*...
e
- -e-
+
+ +-
re a
-c.
.--,---,.,-.-,n-,-,.~~---_.n
-..-_,n.-
,,_.-.-.,.,.w..,-.--,n.,w-
--r
R v. 0: 3-31-82 1: 4-2-82
~
2: 4-9-82 BIREC " Disposition-Form" of BIR Review Coments.
BIR Review Coment i Structure / Component PG&E Coments:
J e
l-4 PGandE BIREC Chairman:
Date:
BIR Response:
i a
i BIR Advisory Comittee Chairman:
Date:
Disposition:
a PGandE BIREC Chairman:
Date:
-= = - - ~.
c--
.,.,_-____.r._,,_,._
.__._._,y.._
ENCI.05URE 2 Participants In The 05/27/82 Discussions of NRC 05/26-05/28/82 PG&E Inspections _
Name Organization W. White Assistant Project Engineer Seismic - PG&E.
- J. Mc Call Civil Group Supervisor.- PG&E B. Lew Licensing - PG&E J. Hoke Project Manager - PG&E G. Morre Assistant Project Manager - PG&E R. Anderson Project Enginee,r - PG&E K. Herring NRC Headquarters 4
4 4
h
.f 1
-r-,s, s.
- -r---.
-.y-
-m,--v,.
,,-r,-
-p,-e--w-- - -
w.w.
---..,-w y
,y--,
,we,-my->w----.7-w,,c wi,,,
ENCLOSURE 3 05/28/82 NRC Exit Interview Participants 05/26 - 05/28/82 PG&E Inspections Name' Organization -
E. Kahler Quality Engineering - PG&E B. Lew Licensing - PG&E i
W. White' Assistant Project Engineer Seismic - PG&E J. K. Mc Call Civil Group Supervisor - PG&E-P. J. Morrill NRC RV K. S. Herring NRC HQ
4 MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Document Control (50-275)
LPDR PDR.
NSIC TERA LB#3 Files IJLee
""-- "_-/KHerring PM Attorney, OELD I&E RegionalAdministrator, Region 1 NRC Participants cc: Service List
_ ----_-_ ___