ML20210E562
| ML20210E562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1982 |
| From: | Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209C222 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 CLI-81-30, NUDOCS 8609250044 | |
| Download: ML20210E562 (4) | |
Text
.
- m.,
y
~**%
f a
=
2g c,
Ul4ITED S*ATZE l }w.
4j TJCLEAR RECULATCJPY COMM!ESIGN y
,,,,,, y g
.e.
rr. ion v
['
..- [e,
(
. 2.
Ea 345L b. ARIA Ls.NE SUITE 210 W hhuf cF EEK.0ALIFORNI A 94596 g T. & o August 20. 1782
- n. M k
- h. Hu hwca. O F. H:"S k
- 3. Fa,r
'ii.M3h/N)t.:.v. -I?... D. G. Eist nnut, Director. D' vision of licersing, NRR FROM P.. H. Engelken. Regional Administrator, Region V 3t:BJ:CT D.ABL'i CANYON DESI51 VERIFICAT'ON PR03F.AM - SCOPE OF PnASE II fl.is is in es >cnse t3.yo.ir w.n'orard.2:a of August 11, 1982. tequesting
,n r :, ira nts a ;ti reconnenhtions regar ding the acceptaMlit.) of the Diablo
- ar.yi r Tidgendent Des:co Ver:ficatian Preg tm 'IDVP) Phase 11 plan proposed
.; T lef.r.e.
3cnerrl co u nts are provided below and su. pie r.ent ny July 33.
.!.E2 r.emora can reycrding the scope of Phase I.
1 cdc.ticr., specific re correquat.cns regrd:ng tha 1elecyne Dhase Il plan are previded in the xiosure.
r It e 3eparatien t f a P.ase !.7eogr;m and a Pntse 11 program was initially
-: t W1isl sI to IS'.:lle' tli crTa'*atiar previt cd ty the Cc T'ission Order
..;c. (.LIr21 3) ani' H. R. Le.1.c n's lettei of Ncvemuer 19, 1931. This Aca ttien r o e'de. Ti ed.n:e 2 canvenien way of set.sentie.o their work es tivities, and shet i.' r ot be zbandone d. t.y 'eiec'yne, at t,is late date.
.ve;c r,! as c i n a ; id r at.r ;enoran-twn of July.'J,1931, we recome7d
- ! e e.sdra io, cf th.$ loN P3hEr license 3nd issuln;.e Of a full pcwer
. cent e l>e..a:s upon.4ssara.1re of adequate sa fety fcr each phase of i e'..t i:::, cgardlers of.vhic:1 P%sc of Tcledync's prog ar. provides tnat
~
n.su e n:e.
Ic:c rj r gi;<, and :tnrnarizing ny memo of July 3::,1981, it i t.
o.;r etcorrenre c.cn -ba'. tv following ections be relt.irec prior to e s ent tit.n f ft.el 'osd and lov power testing:
(1) verificatien that
- t ism: h pe..tra ha et been properly develo:ed and applisc; (1) 'erification Fat seit ric nac^elir g.:rd design assumptions are consisten with the as-built
.tnd.tt.rs of d e ilant; erd (-) 1.ke resoluuon of all findings (Licensee,
- i".'P. 6 i.ot"Ever-) W ich involve stru
- tures, systems, and ccTpor'ents imucrtant to t:e iaf e :3 W f al. cad or low power operatice.
Sir.ilarily, for full
.twc oa ri io, T0;c c/re's Ph.is e II activities snouic Je c01.pleted and all fin: r b of the IDVP resoised.
8609250044 e60'716 ME
-151 PDR
m a
D. G. Eisenr.ut August 20, 1982 i.e vou'd be p'. eased te d's:uss our recomraendaticns with you further (contact
~. W. Bishtp. FTS 46.3-3751).
,rAO-R. H. Engelken Regional Adrainistrator En:lo:ure:
As stated cc:
R. C Cafoung H. R Dar. ton R. H. V-ill.ner E. Cese L Ltt.;cn
. Chandler
.R.
Jonas J. Knight J. ;iea::
I. Bishop
A i
9 ENCL 0SURE RV Cmments on Teladyne Phase II Plan 1.
Sco,e
(
Reference:
Phase II I'rogram Management Plen Section 2.3)
The cefined scope of the Ihase II plan does not address assessment of construction quality.
Cor.si ten: with my memorenda to H.
F.. Denton of Paech 29, 1981, and *o D. G. Eisenhut of July 30, 1982, it is recom,endea that Phase II inclede an essessment of the QA programs of at least two principal onsite ccnstruction contractors.
Fhase II Schphase Da,t,es (Referenc.2:
Phase II Program Management Plan, fection 2.1.3) i ine c; toff date of Teledyre's (TESI Phase II-B (after July 27, 1970) nay be appropriate for evaluating quality assuran:e (QA) commitments mai!E by PC&E, but ShnLid not be tsed to truncate the examination Cf e:i!;intering idequacy.
Specifichily, TES shculd address the adequacy of FG',E interr;al cesign actisit'es throughoLt the design process.
5:r:ikrily TES shoald deterrrine i# the PG&E QA program (s).Tet the 19Len; of 13 CFR 50 (Appendix B) and, if net, what are thE implications alc a.so:ta:ed actions necessary at tnis time.
TM.utait di.te of November 30,1981, for the IDVP, may nct be entirely s ur.rri.te.
W.re tha ID.t hao 'cund deficies s ie:> vr requirea oscitant :
- . col ng. tne wark performed after.',osember 33, 1981 vill recuire ecalte-tica, cc.Ess the I]VF veri *ies that the root causes cf the ceficien:ivi n:re correc.ed orior t? that date.
The PG&E engineering organizatien nas r dargone a substa.t ial change in the past ten months, hcsever, rn e engi'e eric; 6:orn has bee n ordartaken (for example:
pipa sai. ports in ti,e irnulus) using the sane procedures, organization, and personne.
ii. place sehen tne original ar.nulus errors were mace.
In snort, the
)ngoirs engireering effort by PGSE siculd not be co.nple ely exclu:ed.
3.
Pypors it i lit iet. for ReviawlCenflict c_f, Interest)
(
Reference:
P iaso 11 Program Fa.agement Plan. Section 2.2, 6r.d t oceda e SCNF. -ID'.4-PP-Car, Sect:on E.0) r Sr i or tr the 11rener. dant Desigr. /critication Program, F.. L. Ch ud and
..ss.wia es IRO%) t erformec stne stress analysis work for PGSE as well
.is it.e i42f arity of the ssismic interuction study. The IDVP progrem plar.
should scenti f,- this vork and precluce P.LCA from performing verifica icns of their owr war K isinilar to TE5 and IE Balletin 79-02).
l
,------~.-w
--++--w-
.-n
,--,.------g4
-n~.-
--m,
.m
,---s
,--,.w.e m
m.,
-,e__.,
..~.-
)
4 Er.cla;ure (Curt'. )
2-4.
. clection )f Sanoles ar.d Ar.alysis A0proach
- Reference -
Phase 11 Fragram Management Plan Section ~,.3.4, and 3.3.5)
- n the s. election of sanples and the conduct of analyses. Teledyne sh>uld place their enphas s or " passive" (ur. tested) ccr.ponents anc 3,y 1pm<.
inive ccmponent n (s.sah as nuLus s, wit.cnes, vai ves, etc.1 ini ac.ive as.oects of design (sach as ficw rate, heat exchanger performan:e, voltage : rop, etc.) are tested daring preoperational testing and tnroughost plant lift via operations and surveillance testing.
.t wt,uld appear mach more beneficial to examine that dt: sign
>34 ivhica is not cirectly testec' or observaole such as the thermai st ess analyses, pipe bre ak outside containment, environmental c;uali f*: cation, etc.
Caet,rnenta-ion cf Desien Chains a.
(3 f.1nce:
Phast II P. ogr.rrr: Mcr:alement Plan, Section 3.2.1) i i..e :,. c i ; r p'a n c'3 st. nit specifically state that the design ca.eins
,' i :.c fci rn i. l f co;ene..t n.1, i.e., in a 9 apnic ar tabule.r forr.at.
It is recen:ner ded that ti e c.hains be for:nally do;trented and p'esente!
i. a tec arnical report.
e.
i..cr eDartinc
' 4 f.: en..r :
Thit e.! progettr. liansgement Flan, Saction 6.C)
'.)n: s h 'iuld c i c.r i x t.? ineir ' cutire rEn:rts to tne pa-ties in
. a.fi : Ccny ar. :n ccN dir gs as agreed upon in the Augint 6,1982
. t r. r 9 Sini1.iril', Telene should an1 ounce sign;ficant ree.ings
..tct-ied in th r.r sogram, and snould include t*.c repr t en.ative t,
' t s State of Calif a-ria and the joint interverices on the distritt.1on
/ s:.Cr. L.nnouncefr.97ts.
l f
l
o IJNITED STATES g
'y g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
REGION V 0,
,p 1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 210
%, * * " *,d WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 MAR 2 ti 1987.
MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
R. H. Engelken, Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM This is in response to recent telephone discussions between you and me and members of our staffs regarding the above subject. We have examined the recent reports by R. F. Reedy, Inc. regarding the assessment of the Quality Assurance (QA) programs of PG&E and its design seismic consultants.
The findings of these reports are generally consistent with the findings of Region V's inspection which was undertaken following initial discovery and reporting of seismic design errors and reveal potentially serious and wide ranging inadequacies in QA programs for design of the Diablo Canyon plant.
The report identifies no significant adverse findings specific to the QA programs of PG&E and its contractors for on-site construction activities.
However, the nature of the adverse findings regarding PG&E's own QA program and particularly the lack of PG&E management periodic assessment of the effectiveness of QA program implementation, raises (implicitly at least) questions regarding the adequacy of these programs.
In consideration of the above, we offer the following recommendations regarding the current scope of the design verification program.
1.
The results of an assessment of the QA programs of selected non-seismic safety related design consultants, similar to the Reedy assessments recently completed for seismic design consultants, should be provided to the staff prior to NRC granting authorization for the resumption of fuel loading and low power testing under the operating license.
2.
Interim findings of the verification program for Phase II, sufficient to make a preliminary judgement as to the overall adequacy of design effort, should be provided to the staff for those non-seismic design consultants where significant adverse QA program findings result from 1., above, prior to NRC granting authorization for the resumption of fuel loading and low power testing under the operating license.
3.
Expand the scope of Phase II of the current verification program to include an assessment, similar to the Reedy assessments for design consultants, of the QA programs for at least two principal on-site construction contractors, such as the prime civil /structt.ral construction l
contractor and the reactor coolant system erection and welding contractor.
We would be pleased to discuss these recommendations with you further should you wish.
9.( C.._
R. H. Engelken Regional Administrator cc:
H. E. Schierling, NRR v d,! 7 3 ]3 c,!
g 3
m-
_. _..