ML20210E652
Text
'
AM i
-(Cr
~
57
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
v.
)
v PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-275 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1 )
AFFIDAVIT OF ALLEN D. JOHNSON STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
)
SS I, Allen D. Johnson, being duly sworn do depose and say:
1.
I an employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Region V Office, as Enforcement Officer. A statement of my professional qualifications ^ are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
2.
I personally conducted inspections of the Diablo Canyon facility during the period of 1968 to aid 1972. During that period, I was assigned as the principle reactor inspector responsible for conducting the agency's inspection program at the Diablo Canyon construction project.
3.
I have read the document entitled " Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reopen the Record on the Issue of Construction Quality Assurance," dated May 10, 1983, as well as the affidavit of Richard B. Hubbard entitled
" Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reopen the Record," dated June 7, 1982, and " Supplemental Affidavit of Richard B. Hubbard Concerning Breakdowns in the Diablo Canyon Quality Assurance Program," dated March 29, 1983.
4.
The purpose of this affidavit is to address the matter raised in the above noted Joint Intervenors' Motion and Mr. Hubbard's supplemental affidavit, insofar as they relate to the concerns expressed about QA/QC activities during the early periods of construction.
5.
The actual construction of major civil structures commence'd in the summer of 1969. At that time, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 had been published for comment and was made effective later in July 1970.
During my inspection activities, I used the proposed and later the final criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B as my standards to evaluate programs and procedures used by the licensee and its contractors for the construction of safety related structures, systems and components at Dieblo Canyon.
In general, I verified during the time when I was responsible for inspection activities at Diablo Canyon that safety related construction activities affecting quality were being performed in accordance with specifications, instru.ctions, procedures; and drawings appropriate to the circumstances and that those documents included appropris.te acceptance criteria to determine that O
B603200067 B60123 A
PDR 7,
PDR FDIA DEVINE84-744
4 0
2-
~
N aportant activities had been satisfactorily accomplished and documented as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorperated herein by reference is an inspection history and short summary of. inspection, findings that was ' compiled 2
from the inspection reports issued during the period of March 23, 1968 through. January 18, 1974. This summary covers the first five calendar years of construction activities at the project and provides AEC/NRC finding concerning over M % of construction of the-project.
As indicated in Exhibit B attached hereto, a construction 1-QA/QC program has been in existence since the start of construction at the project. The progras essentially met the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and covered the licensee, its vendors,.and its construction contractors. For additional details concerning the evaluation of QA/QC for a site contractor (H. P. Foley Company),
refer to Exhibit B of John D. Carlson's Affidavit.
I have also i
examined the history of enforcement action. taken against the licensee for noncompliance with AEC/NRC requirements from 1969 to date of this affidavit.
Based on my examination of the items of noncompliance relating-to construction QA/QC I have concluded:
I 1.
During the major construction period of 1969 thru and including 1980 the AEC/NRC issued notices of violations containing a total of thirty-three (33) items of noncompliance related to construction QA/QC. During the period of January 1, 1981 to date an additional nine (9) items of noncompliance relating to construction QA/QC were identified in Notices of Violations issued to the licensee. All of the foregoing items were handled by routine notices of violations.
2.
None of the items of noncompliance, or groups of items during a particular period of time, represented a condition that constituted a major breakdown of the construction QA/QC programs of the licensee and its contractors.
I attest that the foregoing affidavit is true and correct to the
(
best of my knowledge and belief.
/
f 1
=
M D. Johnso"n Subscribed and sworn to before me
/
- this 9 l day of May,1983 l
t' crucs crtctenod nean.wina.nin.nnun....uno Notary Public omc,u seu
- g. 4.- s CAROL MCDONALD g
=Ov4=, pueue. CAu,Onu.A My Commission expires:,6.g. M CONTRA COST A COUNTT wy comm. tip.,e 11.1984 anunanunnuunnuu.a.u.s u.,
uu,unn l
l 1
r-
}'.
EXHIBIT B D
- I 50-275 DIABLO CANYON 1, INSPECTION HISTORY A Short Summary of Inspection Findings Report
~~Date Item Description
~
68-01
._3/23/68 Initial meeting with PG&E discussing the role of the Division of Compliance 69-01 3/3/69 1)
Project Administration a)
List PG&E's organization concerned,with construction b)
List of vendors 2)
Status of Construction, site preparation 3)
Quality Assurance - Quality Control (QA-QC) a)
QA-QC program to be formulated prior to 5/1/69. Tentative meeting to review PG&E's program in first part of May.
b)
Quality Assurance Organization Chart 69-02 3/21/69 1)
Status of Construction
[
2)
Containment Construction Schedule
\\' ' '
3)
Meteorological Data, six on-site meteorological data collection system 69-03 4/14/69 1)
Evaluation of ESCO's QA-QC program relative to primary coolant systems 69-04 5/13/69 1)
QA-QC a)
No formalized QA-QC program per se.
Function being fulfilled by Eng.
Department but explained in report, b)
More formalized program is currently being prepared.
Planned program currently is undergoing an upgrading process so that it will conform to the Commission's proposed amendment to Part 50, providing guidance for an adequate program.
2)
Changes to Containment Design
~
4 1-
EXHIBIT B Report Date Item Descrirtion
/
70-01 4/3/70 Nonconfomance item, PSAR required test of liner plate material to be normalized, but plate material to be normalized, but plate material was not normalized, and ASTO allows use of not normalized.
I I
1)
Overall construction 4.5% complete 2)
QA program as it relates to constructf on '
activities appeared to be comprehensive and effective in detecting construction variations from prescribed requirements.
a)
System of documenting corrective action was found to lack ready retrieving capability.
b)
No system to assure audits of activities are performed on a timely basis.
c)
Both a. & b. were remedied 3)
Reinforcing Steel Quality 4)
Validity of Physical Test Results - Containment Building Liner x
5)
Weld Rod Control 6)
Cadweld Operator Re-Qualification 7)
Documentation of Followop Action on QA Audit Deficiencies 8)
Scheduling of Periodic QA Audits 9)
Atkinson QA-QC Program reviewed
- 10) Containment Building Liner Material 70-02 7/16/70 1)
Item of Nonconfomance - Thickness of the reinforcement on several containment building liner plate welds was observed to be greater l
than that permitted.
2)'
Status of Previously Reported a)
Containment Building Liner Material Certification b)
Weld Rod Control 3)
Construction Status 13.7%
[
4)
Verification of Quality Control Information on V
Certification Documents 3-
~
O
^
-T EXHIBIT B Report Date Item Description 69-05 5/12/69 1)
Cameron Iron Works, review of QC records I
.2)
Southwest Fabricating and Welding Company a)
Reviewed QA program 7,
y b)
Weld records..
~
c)
Other related records 69-06 7/11/69 1)
Contract for construction of major civil structures awarded to Guy F. Atkinson Company.
2)
Batch Plant constructed
' 3)
Hanufacture and Transportation 4)
Quality Assurance program has been formulated and currently implemented.
a)
Training 12 employees to be assigned responsibility for concrete inspection, completed a one week training 5)
Site Evaluation, R. H. Johns, Geologist Consultant examined "as found" geological conditions.
6)
Tour of Meteorological Data Collecting Stations 7)
Breakwater, plans for installing 69-07 10/10/69 1)
Concrete a)
Implementation of QA b)
Review of Quality Control System c)
Inspector Qualifications, review of requirements i.) Job experience ii.) Certify suitability for responsibilities l
iii.) Requirements for selecting inspectors 2)
Reinforcing Steel a) EQC procedures reviewed 3)
Containment Building Steel Liner a)
Review of field quality control procedures
[
,/N l(
)
\\. f l -
.7~h f
EXHIBIT B Report Date Item Description
/
5)
Discrepancy Control E-7/16/70 1)
Operations, preparation for _ operation 70-03 activities and startup
.. /16/70 1)
Construction status 15% complete 70-04 10 2)
Resolutions of:
a)
Inadequacy of Radiographic Ex. of Containment Velds b)
Indentation Stamping of Class 1 Piping c)
Protection of Stainless Steel from Salt Air d)
Effect of Structural Steel Channels on Operation of Containment Spray e)
Placement of Special Concrete in Area Between Wide Beam Flanges and Containment Liner f)
Verification of Quality Control Information on Certification Documents.
3)
QA Construction Deviation Reports disposition of identified discrepancies in construction activities have been processed in accordance with QA procedures 4)
Steam Generator Supports QA-QC Program reviewed for Murphy-Pacific.
70-05 12/29/70 1)
Construction status 18.7%
2)
Resolution of Previous Issues a)
Indentation Stamping of Class I Piping b)
Placement of Special Concrete in Area Between Wide Beam Flanges I
c)
Verification of Quality Control l
Information on Certification Documents d)
Adequacy of Dye Fenetrant Tests 3)
Construction Discrepancies l
i a)
Deviation reports were being processed in I
accordance with QA discrepancy procedure.
l b)
Reviewed the minor variation log.
I
~
4)
Steam Generator Supports 5)
Reactor Vessel l
,( K
.{
EXHIBIT B il
[
Report Date Item Description 7)
QA Audit Program reviewed.
a)
Reading of recent audit reports b)
QC inspections c)
Transporting, handling and storage of 7.
steam generators and reactor vessel.
d)
Receival and storage of electrical equipment e)
Installation of auxiliary salt water piping f)
Mechanical equipment - inspection, storage and placement.
g)
Fabrication of liquid holdup tanks.
b)
Containment structure 71-1 5/6/71 1)
Construction Status 21.1%
~
2)
Resolution of Previous Issues a)
Indentation Stamping of Primary Coolant Piping b)
Verification of Quality Control Information on Certification Documents c)
Concrete Sampling f
3)
Review of deviation and minor variation reports, proper progress.
4)
Reactor vessel transportation 5)
Instrumentation and Electrical a)
Implementation of QA Program, developed to meet the criteria of App. B to 10 CFR Part 50.
b)
Review of QC System l
l i.) Required QC actions are described by procedures contained in H.P. Foley's QA Manual and the PG&E's " Electrical and Instrumentation Instruction Book for QA."
71-02 7/22/71 1)
Stat.us of Construction 23.3% complete
~
2)
Review of Procedures and Records a)
Control Rod Drive Mechanisms b)
Pressurizer l
t s d)
Safety Injection Pumps e)
Reactor Coolant Pumps
, L
y O
EXHIBIT B i
Il Report Date Item Description
/
3)
Review of QC System for Other Class I Components 71-03 I11/10/71 1)
Construction Status 27% complete 2)
Records and procedures review 7
a)
QC program review relating to reactor -
vessel b)'
M. W. Kellogg' Company's QA-QC for Class I P Ping i
c)
Westinghouse design control procedures d)
Records relating to surveillance of reactor vessel internals e)
PDM logbook
~
f)
G. F. Atkinson logbooks g)
List of logbooks maintained h)
PG&E's Instructions for completing daily logs i)
PG&E's request to all contractors to provide procedures in their QA programs for control of all logs, personal diaries and similar records which may reflect quality of contract work performance j)
Schedule for steam generator work 72-01 2/7/72 1)
Status of Construction 31.7% complete 2)
Ironworker attempted to cover up defects in cadweld splices in the Unit No. I containment building.
72-0'2 5/12/72 Resolution of following items:
1)
Polar Crane repair 2)
Auxiliary Salt Water Piping, radiography deficiencies 3)
QA Program Manual reviewed and updated to reflect corporate management organization.
Other changes noted were found to be consistent with the AEC criteria in 10 CFR 50, App. B (changed manual was awaiting final typing).
4)
Cadw~ld Splicing Program changed to provide e
additional assurance of proper production and inspection 72-03 8/24/72 1)
Status of Construction 50%
2)
Inspected QA Manual covering installation of
. wire and cable by H. P. Foley.
-[
EXHIBIT B k
Regort Date Item Description 2
3)
Inspected weld procedure and welding operator i
qualification records.
__5; d
L' 4)
Written procedures or other instructions had not been established to control the segregation 2
of hand tools. Enforcement Action 5)
Different identification numbers on four wide
^
flange beams, steam generator. Enforcement Action 73-01 2/23/73 1)
Enforcement, rejected electrical cables were not being segregated and controlled in accordance with procedures.
2)
Minor electrical fire in warehouse, damage to 4 circuit breakers.
3)
Construction Status 62.5%
4)
Minor variation reports and logs for civil, mechanical and electrical departments were reviewed, including PG&E audit reports of same. Review indicated that PG&E has implemented adequate controls and disposition of nonconforming items.
5)
Review of audit reports indicated effective coverage of contractors and PG&E activities.
6)
Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program reviewed.
73-02 3/4/73 1)
Procedure review of raising the reactor vessel procedure 73-03 6/8/73 1)
Enforcement, a)
Stainless steel wel'ds which did.not l
conform to licensee's specification were l
not dispositioned in accordance with QA program requirements.
b)
Discrepant stainless steel pipe spools were not identified as such.
2)
Construction status 70% complete 3)
Initiation of wall thickness measurements for Class I valves.
O.
= -
z EXHIBIT B Report Date Item Description 4)
Reviewed features of primary coolant piping installation 73-04 9/17/73 1)
Construction Status 71.5% complete L-2)
QA Program, Foley
=
a)
Detailed ins'pection records or checklists were not being maintained to verify conformance to requirements related to:
1) cleaning of conduits 2) use of approved pulling compounds 3) adherence to maximum pulling tensions for wire & cable b)
Cable Tray Support Structures, discrepancies in main cable spreading room.
c)
Electrical wiring withing control panels.
3)
Reactor Coolant System Fabrication, Erection and Welding.
ll
- 4) 'Other Class 1 Piping Systems 73-05 10/25/73 1)
Report concerned with deficiencies pertaining to the Wismer & Becker Contracting Engineers welding of the reactor coolant piping.
~
73-06 11/8/73 1)
Construction Status 72.9% complete l
2)
Preoperational. Test Program Review 3)
Reactor Coolant System Piping 73-07 1/18/74 1)
Construction Status 76.9% complete -
2)
Preoperational Test Program 3)
ECCS tests 4)
React,or Coolant System Hydrostatic Test 5)
Pressurizer Relief Tank Test 6)
Installation of Electrical & Instrumentation S:- +. ems
~
m-4m e
'g 3
=
\\
Q
'9
^
4" ss 9
3 0
J h.A th Ms.
4 d'
NR
'r.
wya n
n
.x g
, m 6 c%
d k
a%
=(
wt e
o R.
4 4
b D h
~
C
% "a y
t tt (9
> d, 4 %.
wc
.s
.c.
k M.--> <1
.\\
t&
~t 9.i 3
ge s
i s.
b hE Y '
.. _tL-i qs 1.
s.
fs
\\ ***
4
,D s o 0 6 Y
- Q *1-3 4
0
-'2 6 y w
- -q v s U
@ q?;
3, d#
d e
s u
s a
e a xe
~$ $ f Q
h 4
d dgQ m c
s
~
y{
'p
-~
- ~ ~ ~
s-e S
'N N
1 It
,7 4v t* J g
?>3:
w gs
'y! \\
e is II
$ id.
n e.
e e
c.w.
g :,
efN U N
-> g+ kk%(\\4' *A'1 N
i w
s
'i A g
1
-i 4
9 i.
,.[. #
A1 t'.
d g'(j I
f 3
'} #'
9 U
q"
(
R
%b A@
1 t' A ;
A
~
- k A.
a q(
g
(
a L
j
{
y }, ',$.2 I k, s A.
st
. '/'
'I E
w
-4 c,
-3 b d af 10 shC 53
E' u t
C' f
$k
,\\
'\\
k g. g ' ( ' y R
d c
u u c q A sr-d g
'*N -3<
A g
T EM 9b 9
<g
_ P,p/ p Jg, 7, p ai. n s, r n.:,, :, my-M ph,97 FA - c,
c/o/7.r pn sco-0
(;et)
Q 4. J,Y a J:c. /..s --ds (b
~~G,y p, api-ru cv 2 s d ois < f, J
.t.
y i,;,,/n. La / f k Juu4n d du.
W ;.-.}. y d e a D,r
~
(d'_~Y p a s o,, u /
t-o,, k.<
p /,.sa.,na i
e 9,, >, r' r
y t& Q /?
e, e, o s
- 4 wo-k A.ss/),nA D
Try
.s.a.as u A, u Aw, d o c -,, A +
M, in...' n,, < J.
4.e PA-YF 7l74 MPF 1 og.g Ju o..,
Tro,,,~,.
Ps-se,,,, /
d dP-L (O) x.a.y
,;. J :c, <- v,s (d
'h-s,u d,9
.::c.<. css 'r>, r dw Lu alac ~ M. / +
isa=,
m e.', 4.. - /
w O
G
U
(>.)
di d. '-J.< & a..;,
Su <c e 2 >.<
Le.,.
& s'. L J (3)
%,,, cape ~
-f.,
i:, Jn m, y Sc.4 +
a o,. s w ~ s r,.. x.,,-.... s ~, ~
g Gua/ 2.j.eu &.* A A
&uwk As.), J j
[ b R y u '< n.* A l*'> -
d'a.e /. V7
.D 7 / p.s,-s e ni,/ /
\\
7'> np l.,,:,,
, J f.e,..< d W w
e i
l
--- D
4 Tyr,;, l.,, y Rsr.rson I
(.f(P- (s>
RI PP - 7,2
/?/77
- P !*
LJ.6
,;. J:c. 4 Le 1)
&c teny
/ap s wo ed b.s shp sn.'.,s.~.a J 6,
//77 Y n/77 As w-a J -
Qc
[pesv.s da va
< n. Js.e da c/
i,1 J:vi h,i < f eco,,
fv..:,,.~,)rssoas ai,W p n ses,s,s J
.s a e s
/-77 a d -d*d G a /3, Ei7a, esd,
v < t/ - asse.u Tf r n,w n,.
.- s
, ns J.
CL,
& -A.> a Pb-in 1/n ner s e p,: n s ~ y 4 g Ps,sa,,,,, /
OAnt L.< c /
A d,'l r 4.sa aJ
)
f A sce<vty y nA' x (fuaAY PJ>-sen s, < / h /<
a y
.F C
J e J.s,-,,..~ -
e ua <
%y g y u.r,an s.'4.'/.'/, y
/
Tr.a.,<.s /a J.esi, >4.,.
.z9 PuM s. J4 /
(
n 62 4 doe L-.,
. J. : w, c,,,( p,l. J D
coor Jah > L s c~-
y h /l Yo.' ~ <
//1.sm b s.s
&N O.y h &
r
^'sp a r Al' W $A l*~>JA-3 m---e
- ~,. -
4 M
w 7
^y ?
7
- PM-/3 7 so /r.s aPr x, Joe m,,
c.,s
+
de'P-4 Re r d c p - 4.4 R
c;tca 2,1
, ', J:c > /. J G) 7 wi1/,
/ac d,/
pc,a / 7 ia Jai
_,(,,,
7 4h doc um,L /
(.D
$c" d renC M
- i. >. &
d c P-4' A
$t)
GM W-% h e
%p r> ~ 5, y
?>rser.as ! + n d~- % +
% <ir.l.a d n c'. r. y l9 <' P-4 g f~ +
,_, n +
[N L loc f AM We; e J do c,./ /L*>-:.r e@ a - t
<w d'u a Av/ +
.1ce.
.e 4j,/>.
Cr) 7,s, s
,p.s.
cenn
. s. v.i
<.J s w
- d. v. cv.
&& l'- d 8 I
l 1-i l
l
hk I
- ~76-292 (Rev 12/78)
ACT1Y17Y AUDIT h
Pacific G a and Electric Company Quality Assurance Department I
Audit No.t 9/ 7/ 8/
Title /
Subject:
Or P 6 O c 7 von,s..ier
@ pro'/Q M
g Audited Organization /
S$ A StOU Dn t Ylh]C. O L2 - fl4 C l Cit A9 l Tacility:
N D e 84 N o (9 9 40 d Auditor (s): Ms Myund Date(s) Forformed:
4;.,y.fk -
5 4 7F I
N e
1.0 Scope o
TheS no B i h ;ti> M dortDue._/Fcl k
ueen W 4h24 o
CLsale O [cnIso(. Aub u*c di a r $ t ou OrySo n n el l
O
~
lie b c e $ vo n ta $10 u M
- 1~v o r n o n t as I
n VL vec 9tu'ne r4 hartnis net **_
vetui(9 d 1.0 cc P-L Lt th * *T"va n n e n =,
rrV ri red f'e' >
~7 k 4t (4;fleso; n e ele u e n l<
L o ve uPvelsesaIto u
- f. t'l a t t e *, Letd tw Qrcestluvat astv9d bc Pro duc lro u sovsonne c (R a.r.n J Tyai na nt Ove c vaan r2 c.
d)C. brioti n
- L. _ [@ a/. f th 7 % otnone det4.r M f n If d eL t% r.n HPF/OT4 *T.
2.0 conclusions M tev rul er lit e ahev o s le u f et lJ n o d s t r4 b i 4 h c2-I in eht* nf 4 4l 4bt N M f fi.,#
M e n s si e',t t-
/D tt 8. e u hi ei a #1 (6 M -
b\\.n if d ( b ' )
r"sw m ei et t L ru 44 h d)t P-bf.
(_ P- (,
tu,4 81 Aun e sivocj ck ire n e *4ho e co i t e.
et 3ke u d t.il.* 4 h t._.
w fM ee.ba wi A fifh4 6 % %
k b in r e n Z b n tstif f u #4 h
.s
- N _
i ia l
r# Vt Aro A./
A*.
ru f(0.
sbus etivod.
m erw n 3.0 Effectiveness of Elements Audited Ge (an ne lu tn am 1
- d bewT.
(over) l O
76-292 (Rev 12/78) f4 4.0 Details of Audit N
N bufft/fd I k n e n t,4 e e ecord i ne r177 1911 /19h9 1
^^=h Utre litb 4 \\10Lh C At L $to t1 AND
[.
At t e n n ! (,.
g a v at vecervi st y 4Poin en e -
_a et L i n e, dntwu en lad 2_ (sWod T.r9e 11) Added 4h r&lews n e
%ncu o
vten.n ve m 9 n &
- l. O h90ulo d tJ e e t l1 Avar no n s mer4ent t O
T f redet leu r, a lieu b ILpyson rt el.
at a f u_)
A cel,odule ec ororIv
- t. c.,,,,,, e n, o o L n a e u,, s he e. < t tev mtl ee lad al Jht ItM ce 41,9 An J.
A*w ho$rs on %e n n e ende.elo,nnlod e r?o ca,,13.pd, _
b coMi b s ee dt r es k 4h 44 new h e fters h aus bee n I n dee.l ei n a l, d w e,, pmer k;
4he essa ce Ev z.
l
~
5.0 References t, Zu 2) - G a n a e n e a he ton r'of.
Am et e L.,,e CX. P. l, [ ?.2 0 t
6.0 Sianature(s)
Date(s)
Y L mm D $ $l na(,a l5{
S 54!i9
-r-rj (f
I I
r-
-(<.<wJ
> - n- ? 9
~
f
,'t k'
^*
- 5 ' !',; ' b
[
a
%l /
+
1
.,n m.,. ;..
.- m.,.
x_.;,
--- -., -. - ~... -.-
yj, nyA['" %-
'~
FACIFIC CAS AIE ILECTRIC ColfAlff quALin ASSURANCE DIFARTME:ff AUDIT FIAN i
Audit No.:
il 7/
y Activity to be Audited:
OC. P-ds O C-Ty c4 i n, n * [folf tn Organisations to be Notified: SdA ba) b n s /rh_se_ /t ou-F b c_/.
N N
~
1 Scope of Audit: Ve a,N 4kaf OroNu clan J Aun (DuAl 1 N
( ^
f f " E O d " # C'-
d' "1
^#""*
+'O'"'"'
O or t e v 5 nce_
o. 6 L, o c P-6 * %,n,n s of O vron e < '.'
l O
in O
i O
Documente Researched:
- 1. DC P-b (C.-l\\
Tvaonuost e t'
) Pvt c n n El--
2.
l l
3.
4.
5._
6.
Tentative Audit Points:
L prcd ucJros.) @./..t '\\.
nu c e r eforr e s at<u,s
- 1. <' la s s e s ou
- 2. Tr c. e n e et, hre,e va n s d)t 9oycenne(. [a/.1.1) co e.
3.Tvannonc r u At e n $4 d C A./
G r#
BJ9S O T
- T 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
l l
(over) 1 1
dlMlMEmilasstMdan6 Fu4<EtMiiii&EiWJ2iiiiiHiWJJRELHEETaE;ElirZaiP
- j. ;
.- r -
i AUDIT PLAN
, et i
Documents to be Reviewed During Audits
- 1. ba re r tw 4 lsos c v 4.Se er v t A $
th
- 2. & vm MPClQTsT
[hia{tY n kD L HnD JOLJ mLuk u
D 3.
T ri e n e., e A4 e e de a e i
4.
'm 5.
b<
1 6.
N i
supplesentary Information (optional):
o O
O o
i i
E
=
=
l TENTATIVE SCHEDULE:
Notificatlon:
b./
m.m Audtt Performance:
Te IS M RaPort to Management:
Post Audit Conference Procedure or Check List Required for This Audit:
YES NO i
T* / V. 7 F PREPARED BY:N4tu $ r21/ (
2
, eu Audit Team faader '
Date E
Audit Team Members -
I r
es i
cc Audit Team
^
,.. n..;--
.,,. c r r, g.,
,g*.-,,.
,1. +
.,. _.. ; F r L..
e
'I~ q, (j,' # f.,n g k.. v,e,.., _ '
..* ),
?
e
- h
.'..',c 7 7[,4 t,, p w, - _ _Y$
1
-,, g ;.' %
st y'
. c.
j ~
p,
.g g.
7 e,p:~.
,t.-..,,.
.w.y.
[ 4 l.
i,4.J,'? 9.][. ?..;:.t. w.
.'r.i. 4..
3
.,,'j,,,,a.
s.4 m.2.s,. W W ; 3.u irt
%y %.144..
nx
[,
11 s. 4.6 w,.
o
- 4 ThQU,TW
,.CTIVITY AE.7 h
PscLtic Cas sr.d Electric e spany
,h:.lity Ass arn-e t Departa.:
,,.3
. ',. t N. y _,
7*'<-
- t-H_. F. TO!rY T2AI'AIN*, 6 InAPet
- vu Q1 A1, r1 Cf d -
l
.r t,.... t u s '
STATION CONSTRUCTION - H.P. F01IY
)
f a. !!ts :
i l
DIABIA CAT!L"8 PO6f*! R P t.A 'f"
,L I
A.ad tur(s):
MS DOBRZENSKY Date( s) Per forted:
2/17/S1 -.
l
~..-
\\
i e
T l
..l A
M 1.0 53 I
1 Thin audit was ennnnetad to verifv t-hat nroced _rc 0 7 -L_.
t l
m "Wa i n ina. of Dermannot" in he i, o i nni suma n t e d and inaut. t ;..
g are cualified in their aream of i n moect-ion.
t g
y
~
C
,b l
t
\\
2.0 Persons Contacted R
g D.
Rockwr11 PcanM V.
Tennvann 11 1,. J..
s f
S.
Font Pcsnar J. Thetars an IL L__i d. T s
F l
- Denotes those persons attending the azit interview.
t 3.0 conclusions t.
l
- 1. The H.P.
Polev co. is imniementino their trainin.1 cie.;g.; _
t OCP-E was beine revised at the time of this audit t' 1: _
t l
i l
ate findines of an earlier audit (OA 00507).
1
- 2. " Certification of O$1alification" forms were on file
^ fcr 1
i n s tee c to r s.
They indicate the areas cualified te 1 e j
l
'I the basin for certification.
1 2.,
,y j
s I-l-l ND OPEN I'"EM R PORTS WER.E ISSUED.
',t 1
(over) l l
l
--, s. ga, q -
4 m.e.e=m-_._.
^*
)
&S
'I
~
ir.
eamp
"' WF/3dME/AMMM4MidtidN4'L$N'l Z i
r
.........,,.,1, n.
.... ;. - r :
- * ? h' ' fj.D **&pd d ".'
eY..
e ei...)/n I.'
eM N s e,v'r V " is.,%(. t r a *dks' ".',
)
e sU.
'a
'4^e s
. o 5!.
- ss-
.e e c f f.le?* nt e av4tted
_ _,fa gr a,1 l l _ _*' 0.1a 1 4_4-i_*.h m
- F A" f* p UTCy"AN*
_i i
J u i r. c _, h u no t benn af f actively irgt mone 3 i r e h.g, pging _jpg,* rov e i throuch nev ?cvisin-M tm
- Sc*-
e
{
,_E-
.c t
rain *no crocedure.
l n
f e,
e n.. 31. or a..,* t e i
Feviewed forms HPF/OI & T,
" Quality Indoctrinatien a.d 9
Trainina Maecincr" for 1980.
All of the inspe -ter t.
h n' _,
attended at least one of the tr;;ninu sessier.o and sir _.'__
l the attendance sheet.
t l
O 6
(
1 C
C
]
le f.t'i W
Dra 6.0 References L
OOP-6 Rev.
- 3. "Traininc of Personnel" I ?.
e f
7.-
sic. stare (s)
Date(s)
M
- k.U
=
TW r
i h
. -q,+g&.
s J 7 2)
,dN
[taDD T.e4
' ' ' * ** % % T M W %
44,,w w p a _, g h. _.a<-,
<!.. ;.l.1
,.i. ,,, - )
[,
7
.. )....,,M..p. J. ;t,:_.r n me..==rr,=e* mv'r p%.(,;n...'; *
- y..,,n..
f yw?a.. :. c w -
r
t,... "
T,ga s w w
...u. e,.'.y(
. -e, $*-..
pg.
. t.
?
- r. s-A r.c.,uu rsT:
, w mt=
3.',,,.. l.,,
w a_,... s
.e w
y.-
2 q'
q.*s, 9 '.;t, ~
' pf;, L g tig g V '
N...i. W ANL adCTRIC COMFANT p 3. y g g 3 j U M ALITY ASSURANCE DEPAAaMENT 6
's. "
- 5. w i as -
J2 3 y
AUDIT PLAN
'I 3
Audit No.:
11412 i.
e Activitt to be Audited:
H.P. POLEY TRATTTNG & IN#PMR Elmi?IcA 13
?
I Organizations to be Notified: STATION CONSTRUCTION i.
- l l
DIABIf> CAN'f0N POWER P' ANT i
M Scope of Audit Verify that OCP-6. "Trainina of Personnel" is I
implemented and inspectors are crualified in their_arvar of inspection, p
.C i
?
Docum nts Researched' f.
m l
1.
H.P.-Polev OA Manual Procedures; o
2.
CAP-2, "Ouality Assurance Procran*
- [
3.
CAP-10, Inspection" 4
Audit 00507 & OIR 031-80 5.
[
i 6.
(
j Tentative Audit Points:
[
t 1.
Is there a tentative schedm&c.
{
2.
Are training sessions docureented on for= HPT/QI & T.
I k.
- 3. How are newly hired personnel ' advised' of Quality recuirep. era p
4 Arc inspector qualifications documented.
b.
{
.e 7
f
+
e.
I.
I J
(over)
...b.n,. _, ni,k,,, A w w.. w w......,=..u..,
~
- . "'., *
- yr j,@
l ' t l,., - ;;,
t
. :.e.!.? Ql7.i s l ?$hd S$*id Y'$? /n '.'
fs,'Q, m y i.
- \\
a N
$s.'MlDST'.6Tc
- 9' FFE 1tw k'
a
- w Lk emt ers e xt P;.i.
'.a C'.
Ifwn. :.t,
t-.
le sevteved Dur hg Audit:
Fij E cd a-as thvae resea.ched.
2.
E;.-:r. nrr/G1 1 T,
" Quality Incoctrinat. ion & Training sta.;tr.
I.
6 N.
b.
l.
t.
f S.ppleaentar,. Information (optional):
e
-~
7 O
s.
f I
s L
k V
L b
t, I,
l Tr.NTATIW SCHEDtn.F.:
s I
Notification:
Men Audit Performance:
2/1 7/81 t
(
' E Post Audit Jonference:
Report to Management:
i 1
Trucecure cr Checklist Required for This Audit:
j YES No i
f 7pi3h 7/17/81 PPEFAPI.D BY:
M n r m n n 2 r-*t":K Y
~
t.
audit Iwam i.eader unte e
i p'..
Aud i t Te se Men:be r s :
i r
.[
g a2..t Tea.
g
.. M... %.,nu m s a hT Md A(c1=.
OPEW IT'eu nerun i
- n o,
,u Anq Gy 1 IDENTIFICATION:
NUMBER l8 l C -l 0 l l2 l l t. l AUDIT NO. l 8 l 3 l 0 l 4{3lAl Year '
,. Sequence O N/A
-3 f
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING ON BACX OF THIS FORM
,g 2 $Nu'.',"*Eeatti ANSI N45.2.6 - 1978
- 81'a51"$'C'aSyon Power Plant
? he r'y Inspector Qualifications
""@"U*ft y"A*Es'"u'r'inc e (GC Audit Point)
TlSE0"I7pr[v'idesfolicw-uptoanauditpointthatcouldnot be answered before the p
R conculsion of the audit.
Cataract Engineering and Construction is obtaining records from
. O their home office to show the objective evidence used as the basis for qualifying five of
- B L
their ANST nualified Tnenectors.
The fiva increctors nra, samnia cMeen arrine the audit E gg;*, aaa>=t'aa M
5
/141AsOGA) $
17Avt(
- * *h h /2'1T f/5WJ TO BE COMPLETED BY RESPONSidLE DEPARTIAENT17tTkflN 15 WORKING DAYS OF ITEM 5 CATE la O NCR/ Problem Report Number !
db O Proolem has been resolved as described in item 7.
6: O !ssued to Track Supplier Audit Finding Reports.
6d k For Quality Assurance Department use only:
Asa.gnog to By Qate 9 ; -._
r 'l f = /". e
== -,.--.
.,m d
--.._7 t
7 U T
I 3Q Aeprovec D,
Qate Scrieautec corrwetwo Acuon gets N
- M' RETURN TO QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT V
^
.o.
,n.,,,,e... non,c//,[ h 9E
^ " * " * * ' '
J/
O rua
$ 7o7e'v'I7" M M 4 /-r 7
*?-//5/9' R
.,,,oenn v7 g l
Cataract supplied 'Investication Reports' (conducted hv-Tri-State inventication) f or the F
g five individuals;
,0 these investigations adequately confirm the basis of qualification and
.C A
validity of the information. See Audit No. 83137A for more details.
J =,,w;n:";":.::=" ~c"=" % w.gus,, y,
"k /nA:
u g '"*::.;"
ie. r r& *
- "a/n/r 1
CISTRIBUTION (Other Departments to receive information cop) whtn originat'ed - check below)
V. P..Nudear Power Generation O Chief. Enginesring Research O Engineering O Manager. Nudear Plant Operations O Manager. Materials Statior2eonstrue:I O Protect Manager O Plant Mgr. and/or Plant Supt.
D Contractor 8
(
Manager. Qu:!ity Assurance O Authorized Inspector (for ASME items)
O Other 1
g
/
th+
s w T er E r
3 y
t r's q
J March 17,1983 H. P. Foley Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 327 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Attention: Jim Thompson QA Manager
Subject:
Tri-State Reports Enclosed With Our Letter of 03/11/83
Dear Jim:
i Please consider this as confirming our telephone conversation of 03/15/83.
All i'nformation, except " Dates Given", on the Tri-State Investigation report is actual /cenfirmed information supplied by the employer or educational institution.
Furthermore, unless the infomation is denoted with " verbal", we maintain written back-up documentation for all information on the report.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
1 Sincerely, C ARACT ENGINr. NG & CONSTRUCTION'
\\,
6
\\
Roger ates Project Manager RGC:aw cc:
A. E. Moses, H. P. Foley Company /Avila Beach, CA 4
R. J. Messere, Cataract /Newtown, PA
.I),
i s.: -
n.re, taa. Neva,.. Fennhiva.a WdJ.. ' 'i,A&7-
. ;.g,
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST No. 004 ISSUED TO:
Howard P. Folev Company ISSUED BY: 3.
nnehntein. cA surerviser H.P. Foley Q.A. Personnel Title
~ ~
Rick Wilson Date Initialed Responsible. Production Manage =ent & Discipline Date Response Due REQUIREMENT:
(State Document. Section and Paragraph and Require =ent Violated)
OP 4472-6 P W.
O. Paracraoh 5.6..." Certification form, HPF/QC (Exhibit B) shall be ured to document the tvee of certification for each individual."
cp-6 PW.
- 4. Paracraoh 4.2.5.2 " Personnel certifications shall be documented..."
DE17 ' ZNCY:
(State Deficiency, Items Involved, etc.)
c'e tr=*v to the above recuirement, insoection personnel were not issued written
-e*tifications crior to cerforming inspection activities.
RECOMMENDED, CORRECTIVE ACTION:
Peview and evaluate personnel to determine if they were certifiable under the procedure in effect at the time.
.12WI o I,.lvi
) f utils
'l' /n Q.D. Appro'al for Issuance Date Representatives Acknowledge =ent Date v
~
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
(State cause of'de51ciency-and Corrective Action)
Peviar of eersonnel records indicated'that during this time frame of the newly imposed erecedure recuirements for written certifications, the written certifications apparently 1*-~ed bakind the actual time of aualification, (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)
Date Corrective Action to be Completed A//A M"'
(Approved)
Not Approved f x 1 $ $ D ', / b i h v 0 l v1l,'
ll/'fE4 esentative Responding
/ Date Q.D. Review Date IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION Satisfactory Unsatisfactory COMMENTS:
.N HPF/ CAR e
... -- - - y7 y
_ - - s*.s
- c. n..: 4- ' - ~ '
- r. - n s -
.. a.
. ~.
THE HO5"AFS P. FOLEY CCMPAlu O,.-:..
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST
'NO, r..m CCNTINuATION SuEET 004 DEFICIENCY c.
Q i
RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTICN Q
pAGE 9 OF 2 i
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE D
DATE IMPLEMENTATION OF CCRRECTIVE ACTICN g
),y MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1) and in some cases were never issued, however the ultimate responsil ility for keeping personnel inforrad of Quality Requirements rested with the supervision directly res-ponsible.for the individual.
Personnel newly hired were advised of all'the Quality Requirements pertinent to their intended area of activity prior to their beginning work.
Also, re-evaluation of personnel records revealed that the personnel 'were certifiable in accordance with the procedures in effect at that thne prior to per-forming inspection activities.
No Corrective Action is requir,e[d. Current procedures are being strictly adhered to" and documentation is in order.
b o
g O
g O**
O 0e i
4 1
i I
A'ITACllMENT TO IIPF/ CAR-004
_ INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS Paga 2 s
Inspector Education Experience D c J. Nighswanger 4-1-81 liigh School 5 12-79 Inspector, Civil No. Level to Continental-Can 6-2-81 1--22-82 Elect. No Level 11-6-81 S. Ryan 9-3-78 Iligh School 9 5-80 Q.C. Inspector, PT Level 1 5-21-81 to AAS, Welding II. P. F.
PT Level 11 11-3-81 present Tech.
5 Present Mechanical Civil No Level Inspector, 4-20-81 li. P. F.
Mech. No Level 4-21-81 R. Simas 4-6-81 liigh School 6 8-75 Welder, Mech. No Leve to AAS, Welding Caetana Co.
6 1
9-20-82 Tech.
4 9-79 Kschinery I
maintenance, United Lumber Co.
i D
C. Stephen 8-3-78 liigh School 2 7-77 Q.C. Inspector, e
to Cheatrol Corp.
j 7-11-80 10 7-78 Q.C. Inspector, j
.' Tech-Sil Corp.
A. Twiddy 4-28-81 liigh School 6 11-80 Maintenance Asst.
ch.
7-6-81 to Crstwood Manor 4
ivil 7-20-81 9-7-83 1 5-79 Laborer, Ross Co.
cch. Weld 7-7-82 4
~
./
6 9-78 Painter, PG&E O. Vo[,t 7-17-77
'lligh School 1.- 10-76 Q.C. Inspector,S&Q PT Level II 4-17-78
~
to 3 10-74 Q.C. Inspector, PDM 8-11-80 10-68-12-73 Q.C. Director, w
San Bernadino Materials Co.
~
7 10-68 Quality Eng.,
Aero Jet Co.
1958-1965 Q.C. Inspector,Aero
.Ter co.
ATTACllMNET TO IIPF/ CAR-004 INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS Pegs 1
. Inspector Education Experience y
jD e
' R. Boase 11-27-78 liigh School 1939-1972 Aircraf t Technician None to
& Testing - Assume 10% of time
,10-8-80 spent for testing & examination.
33-3.3 years related experience R. Churchman 5-12-80 High School 1975-1979 Residential remodeler Mechanical - No to plumbing and electrical.
Level 4-20-81 8-23-82 Civil - No vel 4 1 L. Clover 9-30-76 High School 8 2-78 Field Clerk, HPF Non to B.S. Degree 2 7-79 Q.C. Inspector,llPF 8-15-77 N
O 2-20-78 k*
to y
9-6-79 g.
E=:
H. Easton 9-24-80 High School 8 10-79 Asst. Field Eng.,
Mec o Level to B.S. Degree L.K. Comstock 4-20-81 5-28-81 8 8-78 5 Laborer, El No Level Howard Elect.Co.
4-21-81 6 12-75 Eng. Clerk, NPS Const. Co.
K. Moses 2-4-80 High School N/A Performed no to independent 5-6-80 inspection (Traince) um
- g @
y sivrance 76475 a OPEN ITEM REPORT I
sa.n or Rev.1/83 1 IDENTIFICATION:
NUMBER W 3
- 1 2
{
AUDIT NO. l 8 l 3 l 2 l 9 l 1 l A l Year Sequence
- O N/A INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING ON BACK OF THIS_ FORM 2
L'a"u'"**atts3 H. P. Fol ev Proc. 17 & ANSI N45.2.9
*'Diablo ' Canyon Power Plant nem o, 3 Adect y Maintenance of OA Records - Crit. VT & XVII H. P. Foley anoaa... o.o..im.ai Oescreoteca of Proclem p
Numerous closed out work recuest packages are stored in the H. P. Folev vault.
No R
duplicate storaec for these records is available.
Fire resistant cabinets are O
4 8 pr vided for storage of a large number of these packages; however, many records I.
are stored in pasteboard boxes temporarily until additional fire (continued)
E sana'a ana'u'ma
( * * "* * * ' 8 y
Provide fire resistant cabinets for storage of the af f ected records promptly.
saisinea or 5
suo eviory M. /
T%l/,
oc.8[9/[3 H. R. Booth
^**'*"'
TO BE COMPLETED BY RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OF ITEM 5 DATE
/
6a @ tee 6WProblem Report Number ! A VA E ~ 'l I' 77 6b O Problem has been resolved as described in item 7.
Sc 0 issued to Track Supplier Audit Finding Reports.
6d O For Quality Assurance Department use only:
ass.gaea to er one E
- tioa M 'a S
O 7h T
I g
8 jo.3.g y
"*"'"ly}'yg')*'*"*
l
/ /
RETURN TO QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT 9
yy)ar~c o uia 1"o'o*lo'N" q.y y-j- jf ""'g/ey /g 3 anuns of savni satsoafcommenu j
p g.
I 10 C
^~
A J =.. :n', =;;::::.,: ~ ~~ ~
~
~
/ /
s.o..... y 11 o o,..
jj N
^ "' "'
DISTRIBUTION (Other Departments to.eceive information copy when originated - check below)
O V. P. Nuclear Power Generation O Chief. Engineering Research O En ineering q
(,) O Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations O Manager. Materials Station Construction O Project Manager O Plant Mgr. and/or Plant Supt.
(Contractor anager. Quality Assurance O Authorized Inspector (for ASME items)
O Other t
i L
k OIR #83-128 ACTIVITY AUDIT NO: 83291A Page 2 of 2 4 - Problem, continued resistant cabinets are available.
It is understood that 10 additional cabinets are on order.
Personnel QA. record files are stored in J. Thompson's of fice (no duplicate storag.:) in non-fire resistant cabinets.
Current storage of the above described records does not meet requirements
' of H. P. Foley QA Proc'edure 17, paragraph 3.6.
O em
~
O p
5 4
t t
J qc-w
+-
swr-r
-ven e-w e emw=
s~e+--+
e vrw-+,--e- - - - -es..,sms---
,,---e.-,
e
,w ew---wme+-*wm,--
-w-
~
,ewa
To:
All Q.C. Inspectors From-L.R. Wilson
Subject:
Existing Work July 11, 1983 The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify The Howard P.-
Foley Company's responsibilities relative to the existihg facility.
Diablo Canyon has been under construction or modification since 1968. At that time 10CFR50 had not been enacted, the ANSI standards were not conceived and the commercial nuclear industry was in it's infancy. The facility has been constructed to various editions of the codes, all of which have different acceptance criteria than the codes in use today.
The early construction was conducted and intpected in accordance with an approved PSAR and Quality Asturance program which was designed to provide assurance that the work in place was accomplished in accordance with the design criteria. There is no evidence to indicate that the existing facility does not meet the design criteria that it was constructed to.
I
-The Howard P. Foley Company is currently performing modifications to the facility. Our contractual responsibility is obviously limited to the work which we are
,THE performing and does not extend to previous work which has HOWARD P. FOLEY been performed by others.
COMPANY We do not want to dilute our efforts at fulfilling our Contractual responsibilities to the Owner by reviewing history; however, there ma'y be cases where, in the i
inspection of The Howard P. Foley Company modifications, an item of concern is noted in the existing work.
The Owner has stated that they want us to. report conditions which are clearly deficient and would impair the ability of the Plant to function as designed.
In these cases we should report the concern to the Owner.
You are_ expected to utilize your professional judgement and experience when evaluating existing conditions and avoid reporting trivia that does not affect the safe and reliable operation of the plant.
, n I
.m K L % k w Rick Wilson Quality Director l
l
'\\
j f.A h'Ifi /yA f'
o s> c. n:
e
[1, OPEN ITE'.1 REPORT
- .. 2:.-m
.m s a Ryy.3'E!
?DENTIFICATION:
N u *.15 E A ! 1 l1 of l 1 l - lo._j l, i AUCl?*.C L,_j; nile il n:
.~
Secuence Year ZNA INST ~ UCTIONS FOR CO*.1PLET!NG ON BACK OF THIS FGRM 2
.....,,..,n,
...o-,,i,.
i
.s.,-.
,,,,.,,m..
,,,,,, u c.,,,,-.
rr nc po i
3 2 * '.T,',
oua1ity 3rocram T.t." f#'Y.Fo1 e y) o.......,........,
There is.no defail orocedure which describes how, or p
R recui rements to cualifv a: d certify quality persons.
O 4 8 L
E 5-m u'= a "='o*aa M
Pr vide a detailed procedure to certification of quality
- caaa*"
cersons.
Sucraes t follow ANSI N45.2.6 outline.
s ''''' 2. q. %.e.e/m/,
1?..'a?
.M:7-7 w-2/;
*8/;f/f2, TO BE COMPLETED BY RESPdNSIBLE DEPARTMENT WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS 6F ITEM S DATE Sa NonconformanceQgmental Protrem Report Nu l N[N [M 7 Y llisued.
6b] Additionalinformation indicates open item wa i,m rge i iden ified,and no co,rrectnu )ction is necessary.
QC For Quality Assurance Department use on'N. '
t'lH1 MI TIN. PrIOPY d
2 as
,a.. i.
er o.e.
R E
^***" T*k'n S
O 7 LU T
I 80 * *' *QQ
- 9l;/gg
""**y'y },""'
RETURN TO QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT V
9 E ! ' ",...*,*,",,',*..,,,,,,..,.2 /.// $
C eua P *','."07' " ff'.7 -ryg
4//g, //.,,
R o.
,c,,,,,,,, 2ev,tm d H9 5 drec. /id 44 doci tts, &r N / fktefu'T I
i
' N N' WO 10 A
6 l
T l7;.- n;";,. *;p:.',7;" ' ~cuaa *~my l'jg j(;5.jg l 11 f N'::,'.'.*
V f2 7~'7~ & --_
l~' M /2 /8 ? l l
l DISTRIBUTION (0:her Decartrrents to receive infctrna! on eco, een ur.<jmated - check ceio..i l I E
- V. ?..Nuc;23r Power Generation l
C C.".ief. Entneering Pescarcn
. C Ea neener; i
,N.
'.1ans er. Nuclear Plant 00 rst.ons 2 Manager Materises 2 S at nn Construct:or.
l N
3 pro'SC!.*.IJn:I;er
[ P' nt M y ga
. f P'
- t Cg A
C 'hr:7".~ ; 3. * / A :3ur..~.:s 2 AL:ncre in::>.ctc.f;r AS?.' E,:- s e
[ Ct u i
~
j
.i.ca MINOR VARIATION REPORT
-.a e
lLDCat to n Unit he t Ce hce'e'C fait nishle f 2 e.j g n No.
1 I
? o.
000*7 3
1
.s 9
.zation gLscr e ;ancy
- mma f' f' r i n t-* r 4 = 31 1Recor* tm *
- / *
!.
- v D
.o t
{
~) M.*.
,$d c Dy to Con. tractor kYa C feo f*'"'
M, D y) av r e 'y== y
/
DESCRIPTION OF DISOREPANCY
/
Certification and Oualifications of Parsnnnei Ensisnation There is no detailed crocedure wnich describe, how, or the raouira ents for cualifying and certifyina cualftv oersonnel.
(Ref. OIR 131-82).
A.
A e
2
/N/ YtcN/8 9/3/82 CisPostTioM The H. P. Foley Company shall write a detailed procedure for certification of quality personnel.
P aationesconc. - e. wenn 9 n
"=" / N/A son.or site R;
-.=tno gfg 4 [fp osie 9/3/82 his peot Reportaone.
O May be Reportaasse toer Title 10CFR Part 211 (11 gt The Manor Vertease Aspert.
E (2).
i V
Eis Not e Nonconformence i
Nc. bh4W 4
%Na W
Seneor Site Rs ntative Date g
g
~ ~OlsPOSITION ACCOMPt.tsPED Rimr.rzs H. P. Foley OC orocedure OCP-6A has been wr'itten and approved 12/7/82.
This procedure detafis the program for. certifying qualified personnel.
_,-,e c q t7 g r; g y-2; g 7 y.,
7 i'
. ;,y
- f y 9 3 Q we s u=
- tomen o,
=_
- .: x/-- v,,-
\\:.4,e
./ wasety Qnt*C' t
ge J 1_
\\g_
y.'
,/.. $
l;.te r-l, 7 _,., p 7 a
.w
'4j.tr:Csw.r:
I OIE I3N2-
/
d Rd THE HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPANY NUMBER:
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT Page 1 of 2 8802-824 Rev. 1 DESCRIPTION: QUALIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENTS DATE:
THE HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPANY / CATARACT ENGINEERING and CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PERSONNEL Yes v No 6-6-83 HOLD TAC 8 REMOVED
' <REF. HPF/IR NUMBER:
N/A BY DATE UNIT I Q UNIT II Q / LOCATION VARIOUS CLASS I X NON-CLASS I {
INSPECTION CRITERIA:
DRAWINC SPECIFICATION O PROCEDURE @
DOCUMENT TITLE AND NUMBER:
QCP-6A, Rev. O DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: (Including Cause)
H.P. Foley's procedure for. certification of Quality Control personnel (QCP-6A) was approved and has been in effect since Dec. 7, 1982. Contrary to this procedure, numerous Quality Control personnel have been perfoming and documenting Class I inspec-tions prior to the issuance of the required certification in their associated work areas.
(Contin ed on Page 2)
'2NITIATED BY b
O t
SAW.
.Q.C. SUPERVISOR REVIEW DATE DISPOSITION:
- 1) Contact previous employers of applicable inspectors to determine experience and levels of Certification. -
- 2) Evaluate previous experience and education to detemine appropriate level of certification for each inspector.
(Continued on Page 2) 3ML
+/.4, 2/n)L.
sw 2
4 s.ro,n DISPOSITION BY DATE QUALITY REVIEW DATE P.G.& E. CO.~
DATE g
DISPOSITION ACCOMPLISHED Close to File (date) 69 Ws k
//-t(-93
)$\\A n ]. !.93 A
VERIFIED BY 4M'IE Q.C. SUPERVISOR
'DATE 5
pL b
as
, m n I
hf 1'
G (fqg di, u wmu:
=
e
..,A_...
.j...=__:_.
5
. c..
N' THE HOWARD P..FOLEY COMPANY NO.
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT - CONTINUATION SHEET 8802-824 Rev 1 e
CONTINUATION OF: DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCEUU PA GE 2 OF 2 PROPOSED DISPOSITION O DISPOSITION ACCOMPLISHED C DATE 6-6-83 DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE:
(Including Cause) (Continued from Page 1)
Between 12-7-82 and 3-10-83, it was also noted that Level I inspection personrjel did not require a Level II co-signature (Ref. Memo Dated 3-9-83). This Nonconfomance encompasses both the H.P. Foley direct inspection personnel and the sub-contracted Cataract personnel (Ref. P.G.& E. Audit 83043A for previous ;eview of Cataract personnel). Due to the two distinctions (Foley/ Cataract) the disposition to this Nonconformance should be in two sub-catagories; one for H. P. Foley inspection personnel and the second for Cataract inspection personnel.
NOTE: Original NCR 8802-824'was inadvertantly misplaced.
DISPOSITION INCLUDING MEANS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE:
(Continued from Page 1)
- 3) Reinspect 10% of work of inspectors which cannot be certified to detemine acceptability and document results.
- 4) Through interviews with inspection supervision determine competence and perfomance level of inspectors whose certifiability,is questionable.
(See items 2 & 3 above)
- 5. It is not required that a Level I acceptance or rejection be cosigned by a Level II when no evaluation of results is required.
- 6) Future screening of potential inspectors will be perfomed by H. P. Foley's OA Department prior to employment to detemine the appropriate level of certification.
.050 to File dam).-.J -j t-t.S rd c,
(, e
_,c 9
.. ~..
0
,e*#
eg ar g
n t
( I [',
r m C'c 1 ',~,
x
$J 6 L'
g
. f. p, o.3 e
w i.e b.-
l6 94Se
<+p+
1
a e
(
SUMMARY
-OF REINSPECTION PER NCR 8802-82 4 d g
y g4, 20-8H
,,\\ N b In order to identify those inspectors (non-structural) that 57 required 10% reinspection per NCR 8802-824/1, payroll records were reviewed to determine who was assigned to the Foley Quality Department.
H.P.
Foley Quality Assurance conducted a
.< survey including personnel interviews with inspectors and supervisors of former inspectors. to determine which people performed inspections and in what area.
From this s u rv ey it was determised that many persons were no n-in s p e c t o r types, such as rad control, clerks, etc.
These individuals were climinated from the r e i n s p e'e t i o n, as vere those inspectors whose inspection activities were limited to structural steel weld inspections.
1he structural weld inspectors work was re-inspected per the disposition of the 8833XR-74 series NCR's.
After the list of inspectors was reduced to those that could_
h av e performed inspections, the records in the vault were rev icwe d to. locate inspections made by the suspect inspectors.
This inv o lv e d 22 inspectors from the Electrical and Mechanical groups.
See the attached list ~for specific inspectors and number of inspections.
e e
e w.,..-n y_,
,, ~.,.
.,,,n
-w
. ~ -,.
- * *
- d y,
~.
=. - -
p INSI'ECTORS REQUIRING 10'. REINSI'ECTION l'ER NCR MO2-824 (Norw St ruc t ur4 )
TOTAT.
k'EI.D I NG-0K}HKf T NMtE
_INSP.
10* _._ Af'trPT
. t r. ? t CI,-
K L
&"N NT R R..Little 15 2
2 o
n D. Hannah 63 7
6 n
1*
M. Alexis 14 2
2 0
0 C. House 5
1 0
0 1
C. Springer 8
l' 1
0
' 'O
~
~K. Mattina 4
1 1
0 0
M. Calloway 2
2 1
0
'1*
~
J. Nathaniel 41 6
4 0
2*
D. Larson 14 2
0 0
2 M. Campbell 157 "
16 15 0
1*
M. Dillwith 232 24 19 0
5*
'~
B. Calmenson 85 10 10 ~
0 0
^
~
S. Dougherty 167
'17 17 0
4*
J. Perry 81 8
8
-0 0
J. Webb 101 --
11 8
0 3*
~
l S. Grocott 71 9
1 0
8*
M. Stich 64 9
7 n
1*
J. Mc Quilliams 11 2
2 0
n R. Spencer
'86 10 7
1 n
i J. Stava 98 13 12 1
n B. Anderson 4
2 2
n n
B. Graft
_ 33
,100%
29 1
_,n R.
Horvath 588 13 03_ _ p 61 _-
_ _2 7 0
Note:
Reject weld items Ldentified and repaire d per NCR -9&2 7 17 3827:~I T I,anTBB27J45
~
The number accq t__e d_ m ay J.py,q1v e bo rh velditt g and yon-welding,attribut(- s
- Minc r discrepant item:
--repa ired-or~-identified-on IR 8802-1696. 1747.
Il-s t-tZ
t i
f i
TO:
FROM:
L. R. W:Ison. Quality 01 rector During the reinspection effort associated with NCR 8802-n2.
it was noted that eleven of the people sampled had a higher than acceptable level of rejectable work.
The ana*yses I
conducted during the reinspection process and conclusions drawn are as follows:
1.
In one case there was one reject.in seven reinspections.
A review of that reject determined it was invalid.
2.
In one case there were five re; acts in twanty-four reinspections. A review of those rejects ceterminec that one was invalid and :hree wer* <m wor:<. performed after the inittai inspection. Thus :he actusi. ate was one reject in twenty-four reinspections. This fi an r
acceptable error rate.
3.
In one case there was one rejec: in eight retnspee:1ons.
Research revealed tha: the rejec: was the fae: th:: the hanger was no longer installed. Th e-hangar was deleted after the initial inspection.
In ona case :here were eight rejects in nine g
reinspe::1ons.
In all eiph: ceaes the re;ec: tons wera due to an teproper s:ene:*. 4nd vera no; hsrdwara problems. They are not considered significant.
THE H;3VARD P. FOLEY 5.
In four cases :here was a to:a1 of saven rejec:s in COMPANY
- htrey reinspections. In all cases the re;ections ware not significant and were approveo by p. G.
& F.
6.
In one case there was one reject in two rein 9pec:1ons.
Further research revealed tha: there wss one over span condition in a raceway with more tb ifty supports.
This was not considered significaat.
7.
In two cases there were six re;ects in twenty-three reinspections. The rejections con =tsted of loose clampg and spring nu: alignments.
In no case were they significant enough to warrant complete reinspection of the individual's work.
RW:tt j
1/19/84 a
w
,f NRC
....m
a.
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL STEEL REINSPECTION F H B-I NRC inspections between 2-22-83 and 3 8 3 r e s u l t e'd in PG &E NCR DCO RC-N001 requiring H.P.
Foley to reinspect 10% of the welded connection in Fuel Handling Building I to determine if'a problem exists, and, if so, the scope of the problem.
The 10%
reinspection.of all single and multiple pass fillet velds were
-carried out on random connections on 4-2 3-83 (these connections were pickedEby placing all connections in a hat and 10% of the connections were' selected.)
On 4-26-83 HPF/NCR 8833XR-74 was written addressing the unaccept-able results of the 10% reinspection and.the disposition was to do 100% reinspection of all single and multiple pass fillet velds.
The NCR was. signed and the disposition was accepted on 4-2 7-8 3 and packages were let out for rework on swing shift 4-27-83.
Reinspection of= Fuel Handling Building I was performed on two s hif ts. sev en days a week through 5-14-83.
The last field werk was completed ' app roximat ely 5-18-83.
At this time there were.still NCR's and EDR's pending on'some connections; most of these problems were cleared up by 5-26-83.
The sequence for the reinspection and repair work was:
1)
Engineering assembled the necessary information and made a package.
The package consisted of weld reinspection sheets with weld numbers, connection numbers and other documents that
' pertained to the work.
2)
Q.C.. Inspectors added the required drawing and completer the reinspection.
3)
After the inspections were complete, the package was rev iew ed by Q.C. and those welds requiring repair were flagged out and a work package was transmitted to the field for rework.
4)
Upon completion of the rework or at required hold points, the Q.C.
Inspector was called and the necessary inspections were made and documented.
5)
Then the completed package was rev iewed to ensure the required repairs had been completed and documented.
CONTAINMENT I As a resu't of the number' of welds that required repair during the Fuel Handling Building reinspection, a 10% reinspection on the platform and annulus steel of Containment I was performed starting on 7 8 3..
Within a few days the 10% sample was complete and revealed a reject rate at thout the same as found in t he FHE-I reinspection.
NCR 883 3XR-7 4-1 and NCR 8833XR-74-2 were writ ten to document defects found on the platform and annulus steel of containme t.
PG & E directed that a 100% reinspection be made on all fillet welds made between 1 8 3 a n d 3 8 3.
Later these dates were extended by H.P.
Foley management to 5-1-83 to assure all potential problem welds were included in the reinspection.
s4 Summary of Structural Steel Reinspection Page 2
'n an effort.to av o id some of the coordination problems experienced in the reinspection and repair of F H B-l'. w e l d s,.
a joint' effort wcs planned and implemented for the Containment.
The sequence inv olv ed three steps:
1)
Packages were pre-planned by Engineering.
The. packages included the required drawings, supplementary information*(DCN's, EDR's, etc.), and an improved weld inspection sheet.
2)
Work station. were established in the building and a task force of inspectors, craft, and engineers were assigned fulltime to the effort.
Inspections were made, and repairs were made and. documented on the spot.
Minor repairs such as arc strike, splatter, etc. were corrected and noted as accepted on'the weld inspection _ sheet.
Repairs requiring filler metal were documented utilizing WIR's.
3)
Upon field completion, the work package was returned to
- engineering f or review and status.
Engineering turned them back to Q.C.
for final review and. filing.
The whole Containment was_ inspected and reworked in just ever a week, including Saturday and Sunday work.
HOT SHOP I/II and FUEL HANDLING II In an effort to assess the quanity and type of defects in the Hot Shop and FH B-I I, one bay of each was reinspected.
The
. result of the one bay reinspection resulted in HPF/NCR 8 8 3 3XR-7 4-3
'for Hot Shop, and HPF/NCR Bf 33XR-74-4 f o r FH B-II. These were written on 7-26-83 and work started immediately.
In an effort to close out priority 400 work, Hot Shop took priority.
Reinspection of Hot Shop was completed about 8-11-83.
Unit II reinspection was a lot slower due to the fact that it wasn't priority item 400.
The reinspection was done as the manpower was av ailable and the time was alotted.
The same one package system used in the Containment reinspection was used with the one page Reinspection Checklist.
. Reinspection of Unit II Fuel Handling Building was completed about 9-30-83.
e e
9
.n
SUMMARY
OF WELDS RE-INSPECTED AND REPAIRED AS A RESULT ON NCR-8802-824 1 1 -it I Fuel Handling Building per HPF/NCR8833XR-74
...a1 telds reinspected 3,744 Total Welds Requiring Filler 557
~ Unit I Centainment Platforms per HPF/NCR8833XR-74-1 Total Welds. reinspected 1,547 Total Welds requiring Filler 127
. Unit I Containment Annulus per HPF/NCR8833XR-74-2' Total Welds reinspected 1,127 Total Welds requiring Filler 83 Units I~and II Hot Shop per HPF/NCR8833XR-74-3 Total Welds reinspected 2,676 l
Total Welds requiring Filler 390 Unit II Fuel Handling Building per HPF/NCR8833XR-74-4' Total Welds reinspected 3,169 Total Welds requiring Filler 4S6 i
t e
e D
e
=
ATTACHMENT TO HPF/NCR 8802-824, REV. 1 Disposition Accomplished Summary as requested by the NRC 1.
Employment verification was performed and documented on all currently employed QC Inspectors. The following methods were used:
A) Record of telephone verification.
~
B) Verification by letter.
C) When verification was not feasible, personnel interviews were conducted to determine if the individual had the knowledge one I'
would expect him to have in the position they held.
D) When previous experience was not exclusively in Quality, a statement documenting a percentage of time spent performing Quality related activities was prepared.
E) Tri-State Investigative Services was employed by Cataract to perform background verification on their personnel.-
2.
previous experience and education was evaluated to determine the appropriate level of certification. ANSI N45.2.6-1978 was used as a guideline. Inspectors determined to be certifiable were issued new certifications by discipline. Inspectors determined to be un-certifiable were reinspected in accordance with Item 3.
3..
A 10% reinspection of work of Inspectors who could not be certified was conducted and documented. Inspectors who worked in the Civil /
Structural discipline were 100% reinspected under the NPF/NCR 8833XR-74 series NCR's.
4.
Interviews were conducted with inspection supervision to determine competence and performance level. The supervisors were asked to come on line stating they evaluated the inspectors'. performance icvel and that the inspectors were cognizant of the codes, standards and procedural requirements applicable to this project.
5.
H.P. Foley QCP-6A, REV. 1, Paragraph 4.3 has been revised to indicate capabilities of Level I and Le, vel II personnel.
6.
Screening of potential inspectors is performed by H.P. Foley QA prior
+3 in-hire, verification of education and previous experience is performed and documented prior.to certification and release to begin inspection activities.
~
luib to! Dri. a. M VUL S._.
}
" J /8 2 R
<b "* * ' ' t' Em -
/
"(gcJ big
@ on.uvou omce A
dha 57
- f 4*o# fed, u p&%7Gt(supec.4.
Ot imy. lis.
~
kv:
Nct 1701-224 tad be dt 33o43 A Q lu \\/83
'l llth9 - 9hillo eiu.'Iomp. awn.
hs %e Scly 04 twpam ;
ac 'et h he cul M b pcua%. - kr uca u.<a pu oc in+ ; S Jz/> >
IL/Y82 Qc 04 LT p4 pund.a - kt m c.u 6 } iw sf,o t cuAkt 4 specat b.k. j Gun <d oa, " ck Aca Imy O dd.
f+
bu f/83 Q C. smy, w ectsr. %ek pA f *1c ps> w1. emywa.. %
uu conitkmk % u 9 peyan -
UCA sty' - % N p:4 pe > +
12 h /J2.
g 7,, t to p pe Au
$30f3 A g....
u c
% Mcrt aA xp1A A wK.
/F a Nga I
4 l
--.m
l t
{* Fr re:rc g* U Q &er-DM
' I' h
Task:
Allegation or Concern No. 58 ATS No:
-RV-83-A BN No:
N/A e
Characterization:
Foley allows " Red Head" Anchors Studs Reported Improperly Installed.
Implied Sianificance to Plant Desian, Construction, or Operation See Task Allegation"or Concern No. 25 Assessment of Safety Sianificance See task Allegation or Concern No. 25 Staff Position See Task Allegation or Concern No. 25 Action Required See Task Allegation or Concern No. 25
_-_w.
p i's a / Cr? 4 M v'u2 5 l'
U.
r /19/8r Et4 +1 2c.fm l'sA.x,Lutw))
( O r?. M w ro c. r (4 0.
k& u4w 57 y
(6ftGd$.I, u-c: +..L
/ GE(nipc.ho Ik{ :
GE hny Inf
~
NCL 1101.- S'24 faci 96d A.edt 8$C43 A
'l /IZ/79. y /zf//c co.' I 3,,j,. a u4,
'ha it. ley 0.4 pur),u,.,.
Up ha l/g3 Ju au et & be C:d Id b
( >;.u k u, - k. Y w rs wssi pcr CClM
$ h/)I y
.}G IL/I82~Ce Gd xx'.,a p4 pu c,<h t<
bt m e s., bc *, iwf,u t ced'cl 6 specAt fr.d.j Ccneud cr.t, d tt si..'eA hisy Bastil.
j f or,.
6 W3 4 t mg oca 6 A yu..a.p,,, p.a., as ey m..
9
>u au cu>.%d kmy pts <f csn.
1-O L 11/ - c,.L
- " (,o ;w,
i2 h /J1 net )m,s. ic. y,
J fce A.u
$36431s, 4....
4 N /JC A
- n. i
>< p.d.. A 4.
IJrK.
f,)~
/a-
/
' f cf i o y., W
<j u, g p r
..F j
i Y
Mh A firs' M
e l
_/
~
)
. i/i $ 3.% E5r -> ~ ]:'l.0 fr,9
,d-W. 4 5'.l e.
or nty., c A
</',~
- j. d 0
,.,y hgpo.t chtwat.t'dhy3ct(Unch%
y D,%& C9 haveita, Ik e fla J A+,%ct :
(a.pekel.,lafy).
% 9.wl 2u,
2-04/a dLevrwr&
66u.un (cd cl cr.."bccFrL2.s t,vs crn bss.asu ilps,k
?>/t IJ >
)
n,,. -
l..
til.3 b; cot 3 sct. 2tg ks i N L..d
( uF np.t.h %.u.{J M ne3 to /0 h i Sk rd Cit.
5S01 -
6-3 L :.,c., C. C t' A, il e C.
0.u F i /1 Clyr 1
.t.
InlVJ
}.
th' c c',
to 4 to 3,
1.f.
Ca w Gl~' k-1 C c Sr -
0,wc. A.,
ceA... 4 m 4.,s e u (, e'ic h i
, a u 0! 3 i
et,3 2,,,,,,
- i. Etha~
nh /1 z - 3 Ao/a 3 Leo t I, w., j, c,,,
ih.6,1 3 'l h" sep a.
4t{,>et e Le d IT c2 FeG ctw>c r h k-a.
Feh sy,e w, a.. I y
L c n opp t,cd.Ar y
[
c c h tet) p.n a w a l (u P6E ca..U T3c0 A) s s, *,ih h <..i 7
pdh'r,y&
Ovf)n.. t fJ'6 2 -5 4 A,ct2 c-c-,
, a tt.
p (w q lD V. ] v x A da.ty.,nu. b t
. y - A.
Is..s. sepc e,s. c(A- -- e,~p4 ~ des t -
-sn..lt a v k' -
.6
'd b 5 *g. \\
I L.-
de W VI, s'
,fa~
{,. t t il N ksi J' am,g A.gn
,te G A dg.
I KO A
&& UIS l)clo.u,a 1/ 7-t u 133 Kca.-
j Cl.
0$ lits'e'dci l.s W
~ri coggr-VOII'T Y.?
' 4Ailts-1/uhe f!Qss.
- G1:(.f.* s:'i w r*.ta /ve T t)M e L
l!.$~,D 's i.l ] it t7 '
- .6 ' 0/k ui 1
s
)
Ikyed4,Gr)
- 2enw.;,c.co.a 1\\f6 aj'
PROBLEM STATEMENT Allegation No(s): 58 ATS No(s):
BN(s):
This - document lists (or directly references) each allegation c.-
concern brought to the attention of NRC' personnel.
.The purpose of this statement sheet is to~ assure that ALL points raised by-the alleger are covered.
If the problem statement is not_ clear as to who,.what, 5th e r o,
when, oo f why regarding the-issue, the. commentary section will amplify the statement.
.The commentary section will also be used-
'if there is. apparent conflicting information'or if there.is 50 or very little original information available which describes the concern (s).
('This can occur if, for example, a one line concern was received in an interview).
PROBLEM STATEM5NTS'(use extra sheets as necessary)
-ALLEGATION #
VERBATIM STATEMENT OR REFERENCE 58 Phillips Red Head stud anchors have been forbidden for use in nuclear power plants; inspectors have reported than.nany-were improperly installed--inconsistent drillinc-depth--and are subject to frequent dislodging. See also allegation ros. 25, 142 154 and 176.
J COMMENTARY Date This Statement was Completed 3/16/84 D.
Haist l
Technical Reviewer Signature l
10
<,y,m._,,-__
'j' UNITE 38TATES 8
NUCLEAR RECULATERY COMMISSION
.3 REGION V CONF #005/6L tese w.cAuronesa soutavano g
cutta see vuausur enaam etazA e....
sumusur,cnaan.cAuronn:A seems N o C3 SUtNARY OF SPpc1*L 805P. -RELATED INFORMATION JATE Tli!E INITIATED TIME COMPLETED
~stsum:$0NC&tN[
% 2/83/
y:ps,.
f:,o,
TYPE O
M ARTICIPANTS 8Jf4* [
9/dr'[
me o.,,
y,,, ou, m:
( )JEETING
{
l
( W INTERVIEW
, 0 74s,
.Ds/e._
$/ev fA' z_
( ) TELEPHONE-CALL g Q,, h p /s h t M e - p COLLECT-( )YES ( ):10 (s./ sg,*,f )
( ) OTHER LOCATION
'I #* h ^
CALLED NO.
CALLING NO.
W -- 199ty' SU.'4 MARY :
ASE 400,00, het 400 hevAtt as, iMfAefet. naAh!AMucWT PQEssetes
[.swione.o euesnsus n 'c.ur car.utes* (i.e. sacri 4ce safes % meet scheMei,eW ?:
e: e. w. s s.. x u s.s w.c n. ~.> neun iWok 6a c%r lasai>- w4
.2. o Do w c.,a a de' tai,a a
u.W 6.h, x s
(
c>$ + 0 e im tkr 9; b
'uf du A. ?
x:rL ciod,Jz w L i,< a. + c. c. a,.;, n.. w J. 8
~ a.d d c.,i,u.s,:~
<,.>.s.t,.11 Q.s l
L bt a ? ? ? 'A G i b.aeie8 c.l f -. a L.
.r. a :.D. n.
c.,;;d 1 4.,,. A, L '
d, m c LhL L&
v x: s'.n
,. t a s.. t :.r wxc u 4 i
/
g,,r r. M & e 7tt.r- - a fe., > 7e'.
't o *. A u a,. -
a.
,a. </ L,.<rm f 7 k:H.. %,t/
av
/E. S *
- f.
rel6 bl* 1r
/A, aulk
.s CL de
$ '9 :.,b. s,,a.1 a r n 7'la o.efr4G. $1. L a*b at $J L a r i it akuA f
f i
- f. aNs,;
r-1. e, rl% .?.$: Do Mis D
.c -> a nJr < >.u II (OUEk)
""$)L j yf DJ
- fh/r2
'I
- ,g.,,-
,, ; y,,,; -% - ~ ~..;-*.----"
C.. Ia;.u..c,.1,,._,,..~...'..-.~.-.-----.--,--,.
.e...;
... r r...,..
REGION V FORM: 113
C, c o u pas oG o -
y c us - p.< c..m e.<.y 4. A* w <a0 ft.
.a.
w p;E '
' gvk=d= s =yc -ws.s pu.;,.c 1* t y :' < ~<
.c. ~ <
- e. e e < >.,
- 74.<
a.ra.;
r<.4 %ds. + + %j-~ dau Ay
><- e. ~ <9. cJ.7 -% watir. Y A c ri k a.r 4 t!.m /4 y <M-M y u<<- m.ry.. f. dis. pc, +p,., s,,, ty
/
d ta tF'r i, <<h -
y
- M.,., p,. av / -H. in /-L A re h. t 4.4,;,.
y.e,.r(. u td tal4 +
r-s <. p
- s e Q-C : r cy ediv.r is.uf 743 :
M'El/te>ol EXtn9tENCE :
CD,/ c kaeny Qc/ cpl y
aren 2~ &npr4
- 4 y & fa g fes y, p f,4 <
-Iy
- s4.rf hLs..t G*j<y Fe+l 2 + Jurif<. L'N SUMRAMy' : Z; diu,lu. c h-r c *v<na r la fa <. f. 'L. p.U. v sy M
- Y< f 4k'Y-eiO Y T k'~l )
[(f e. ' o$
T<
h e.
- *1 LN *!
he b.!
M
/'4/*<trcA 44 f /ar aka 5 <\\
h A6cdel.r, f
O & h s s h 6.\\
< a p. ir.,
t7/k
/.y.6 l
s w,----
---o
6 g
e
' - i, i
3 3
Ux e rua Wut SAa Ab dAkte dfm '4 $8 3
t
/k F+P'%
fmtuluu O RPF % )Eo O,pj io j[h 4m. 7 (ahwi Nilic3 AJ b) s e ct c_ct.,.
L a x L ee, & I,i
~
u-a n.re
- Y "-
- lu>r * "- ~e*J mi
% u.va i yK ewiAt rn m,;> bJ ctultg da-g% A L k
- aA s vip d 4 y 4 cG119sy au 4*
g w/
y % du m
p e
.e
+e
= umme se
'de e
e 4-e
=e
.es...
e ee. e ama e.-
... +.
o=+.
e e
0 e
9**
ew
~
n!Als1 e. % r ~ 1 2e, em h
( 61:s L,,19)
G on.u wu or+ce
/
A 57
_g a#hed,
Ow a e oorec R es @s 3
~
u el geh,p7.-F24f#'d i
\\
gg who A' #
x%
i y,,.j,c,.q/zillo S
oy g i/ g m
+$
%"d P '3"^
1 4 he cul M S g. - b 3 m w a e u " " ; 5 ' Y s
(L/1/82 a t G^*
_ bh m W b' 4,,,/ A
/
'N
(_{
h a yv "i cu h
's r steak
~
N g
Y; wic pgskak W N
,, 4 3-/7/37-( l '
Ed - 4
fpot I
^ N^
gy
$30DA q,n a no" yr /A' s
\\
A14 h &
b l
\\
eci.fwei..rac. s.cc:rtce-
. jzi/g 3
( s m e s erice ia x m =i-)
ic(),
ji in on w v><.
Plroccall
'l:Icpm - /c GS9/n bil. A.Myen, alucpr/no/5 6irAcame elfc(12a/o0 s e s' T24 /3 CwJnrA. S 7D /tu;3 c)t.
12418 SI' CWT ~ 3 Y2 Mits M it//9 @ M.. Hvcn's Wffcc Kevuurt 10:L%vl~1' nuti/no )5y nutzeri (/. e f. S&)ws.:.o ie usnM) r 0 e&nt' d 2/c.vd~/y /ux<x// by ho<e
~ A//fger ches /10 l
c & d ch wshfu c/ a //e9m fitts w/7t1 vidaehi-(/M J y
Reject 0i// csan. ct/kjer & he ic/c.'di/>bd cc
-d.lYgdL fugeyfeC{
Q&nmc>gh [4jne fc A.0[( ffy[Z M
d "h'Ont ustf(nj. et. )
(.// h y d th7 itb 5 7
~
i
- 7/sc>nfsen /rss Jrzesi heahm'p aj ;% r pn s'E.>u.
- behtoe s As/ c / thsyckn it hasiioJ4, ce sup/w.srh.
- bd4ew
/hi: ha4 d.ecay>sd/11yd c' V A CA OCl.~
s Y
/9 t*lCl kfll'< /?fO/ ' f'1!/ W c'*l'lf < h hlYll l 1.$f)Hc lt J
~
e 7' lei.c Rkc
/20l Cl(Utit/ t)c l a>y 6tMik./ 0 ldidJ d.' '
~
<y 4,/ues //.d in i ><d lo ed.
Ix/ aust Qll), Ylte'tj {)dt"krin l,t t.f 11
}ydh
~~
ll j
ins foJbd du tht> > a.u sedi3/sdozj.
l 5
Ylie Clikc67n fr Ct Y nti 7't tt ryu e c;ich
.2 N C+rchris., fhecaan lb clo So tuv&W casu. Hunt b A I.l b Chh)c 6m No. SV
- id sau whd TH" slandIW, bu+ E k.ja.
~
receus cable reh andu a pnrAan cythe stumlier.
7/ea.
/ tam /xrs 6ef&
auttt '4/?..... Rley +
adds f4eir owis s/ph houtua. Code -
"3
. - One patcAsa crcha snay have may ct&e>&
reeli < R/cy akh / leet Jianakw i&v cot 6c/.
- /%vk Papaser9ja is nm/ Mmkspibh$( fra.
s&lafazu wdire fondud>h
- uxd Eta & owk pniida sfc/c og ca}/e.
Prodaeh>1 9e6 7%3 edWe ao f//co3 - ArAen %y eu-t a.pb l
fluy lputaa.ct Yeb?
71uy %
ua. X-Y %eb, and Xfeeffcable aatapc4 &
CM 7%ereAre have y fee /
/eff o m,
71w(
.scaje -hta y Seef (w? Wand VaasWy) a+d
[A snny og il lafa..
Paysseryn.
hcu clocorms./a-t flus p12Wem en Jwenal f dit "Mothtf kpd.c b ; %
d es s 5 0 4 iIn *.
Oc> m F apyna d l.
Papsup. cbdd$ er f% tswe a i+ wit /caaa.
idley b he %A>hd -askad cw/c. A wyA p
l takt pnblene ha Ju had, w/uu Aa Ag okcomented flunt, a.sk do ut. Iva %M$ aips
etw. }& spny a+d somnut, to4tn 71ionYuw sla.kd fra.cetMif we los f-Nk l
3AfE A
yeato ap, he mennt kl IV we losF, au tc nof since lega.h ed.
allap. doeuA kaw If 71smpsor bid 4/in 4 alu, M, else bd bebeca Jo,
- (.2/$p ehtoeo $nceaW/f sMuk1%.t ts bepelessarct b
fAat 7kyen a.Jche 6 elm co abc.
- d!!ep Jejam
/ slat econ 4 but been ebmd illey 31
+/taf,0ersen(s> Aaee acidael ne f N
i p#
/wm/ss h dscomenh -rled tesse sef kt deln (m peuhu) - assj/nd co+, get &
y j
i
/ecerc/s.
l
- Aevrds G a At a. niels /.s/reac1(vaidi) i &a is an aaud h1/
but ysv caer 9e a alines +
}
any Mnt and su pe9 t in the w/u aa m+
d l
i Dx fle scua /12 l
Albphin Ni, &0 j
- boticou supp/mes a u a ka&j " b R&g.
y
- d a n p o h r p e d a s / p ") L hed a upMd a4 fvWo/ud c>see pr arce
- fM /mbk/>r (au g urispyces' c4&thn) rs pnzaak -
g SIMct $4 edh (1?Oj dn.d S*6'// b
- fG6l6d' /kret/ R
%d" NCA 5 bco -f 3-SC A/007, c{.thd fo//o/73
(,is /uth dec.unten6 -/1141 p?r&Lnt (de has sw), M allip % Aroma f 4xsahs eeuaAL< achk Jo be o.
/60
+Ja.
Choo I.niceuh, Me beliele % & ?naoc4
(
I
\\
d MN M
/
$d// ! /Id 3
would f%
al Hs way back b day zerc, 1+
% usa q waus.
w
- wL ass & Led use cand:athe 4%
%/ hk superuam o 4 %8 ava. ap~
)
Nio,
k><d su M1 asea t3 (Kelk Calboa)
- g?.Ql\\ u os.rke was %
ean 6, sy>ua og'f recedo edu'c4 Ae shoa's xd har i.e.
o g
$s Al a]nav o//' mccab (w W1u24 he ckd af
&l,N;Wan Ospeca% hinck
, hiduc% vanh
~
ukes pr ad k emp9 med. A d a s ca
n caos siae,catAm< Wa dotal A ecuad 7 'bu Acach (Suspe<js L Ca%e be 'pk+ nof enezdatu, pad jr1y*u4d ( - % u m s m ura e< w & a '
- g
-=
l
)A Hu c%tml cotkl ed s/u lie d a ndel -
alAp nudH.teu riae Nc/2t e+ 7% ratut h Dr. Apu - AlwJd -uwk " a. fus k
.p
%.dak +tuipaMn caso acM dRNkunN eetM '4x4 S dat k'fd& lL$f kuhiy 4 Fi19 0-4 p>asy Mtora cownJ coM peamet ans.hacA rj egem 1
beducen emnbr da. cabri w P G. M decunued cebef.
no specik co< lad & Beld wout og fu am e..
=
= x=== :
_5: 3
- belew fGE u&ky &c Acw offathect a.
cespl.etL Cupj f citaa:)xy 9*/CO
- b>awnzy'/4ti is /td dwe%K, lxtiey ana.
- 7/wsc au pra 3 DClu!J & (* /kut /N] j.?nbky ft:'csc Scuwd GYprahn%(gi:rn 7t /)r 99z.,
tssi p./x b G / 4 k-d L W R N st ty -
hihqchDiAlufp2
- t2L&gi, be.iau> tiu. &cags sa> yin, p>vla:a hua de f>ue 6f'2A cAsJ Nod >xchh r>r.syeehry d.f D.
r " OCMilif faaErge.,- $ 43 da, zyf hgaxs pVi tjwm it'/utA M9tute irupceArn cf r*a &
/he rij$f tun't
[7btniit<l7%
O Aki Sla?<:
1 Is ecupckd /z, /f'u r?)U hwstkf b4c/c.
hnu F p.',y.m bu,, cn..Mfwue /c i
y %,.
7%
s j
/C% cc hic pak, mspeshn samp4 ped 4w QAb
'lc b< Echkh?5ul -
tygo k Eccl tele e a uLL f
' s (.].s p 1 J t y p 1 b M i d a p,c < ec.c 4 /3 60 4'3 c.+'
l t
I kp rf "}aG) u%tk > and cett/ xa ffa:t
/to, et g<, v ;Qpecsw ; % fut l
lltLit.
It'61L la
[Wyto.- pc4/f A7'c eion f^t.e.k-4 l
J Mana PG /Ef S h lin tz'i f M la a ie ('W /u % z A!C/C [To2 -d96 c., nau.a9sul ig, /2Ts'd w nd)
?
l l
a
---a m
-+m-*
aa e '
--1 (of f (2/sp4% /% 63 L2/k a.
b h aa y LDIEs 0/h E0/E P f
(93r)141boum oX
- fr&y ales aad
/va wos A c<e ~J f td du.iriw - fa4 Ma t) 0x7><qu - 4%
w60 dw up id Mwk /953 y s$' Jy[0m2) 2scAaas" EM M3?
uas Qu & Jud>'cAs Z Do, /2nAatR y
,, a-t u' aWud, cM su/ bnna LQ i
- Q*F' q 9]T)73r uaa /wret aru k udu3 & w q + tw-w wt psids.
(Alas, h sa
+19m 6// ha,,cl &).
[
- 7h fire cork /Delye. chaiih ow Mj andaa yy, AIN athyk u.a W ^ " ' *~ ~ pl 6 2,.
c " '~
~e*
L ryt" a u uo x y % csf y s A w eg p h
- Lyd we csacr shey up,* eusp %, w),
20 tot dgnS dtaw Gjseok. a46*hh b lAt &.
i
- Q chad.k a, y myu Nell a+a aniL
~ as ~~.
. T Eah>r arrt/s Sv M ix,
- Es/n "nraku 'ty " -/sa quuf.seyA. - Eadn k f dech the a % fxQ U'.
- Q c41.a/J d m,a.</vu pad wo/Eaul -
- lok oaAad, a./6p(ctat y F kurw ] p xyeg C % uta
>aspsaGuu uw ok Ad.way.Aob na cf 6ef'm-aat U sungbbya.
--+,,,-w,,.
,,,,,,_,.--,-.-.--,,-.-,.--,.,,,,,-.,,,,,-._%_,--__,--p-
.-e
._,,-,___.u--__m-.
q
-(cg D i
d/6sa6n 65-v
~ desdv.r& h dihsy no-uh ita bcwd,xdfu SfeuhhaAsse suyrc 4% rug enies' e.:.c.etcL, c
calbd /)ati. Input (%ch.ch ";y,z.czmp Ds&J by,ed C/ucAl<iL / mag ime, bec.n.x<>wa /xx hk to a apaaA f>k 14 -/4 Occons~f ba dm %%.
-jak 7&'mi, Ja prin % chkc6h f, & & ty t h s c-lxcerch "Datt injn/ eiuck/ab "au yk sualb <9 cai.t., :wita
, f c.4f cha n=4, as e Mac )>2sem.a.
/f1Mey c-clichiyd a p ca41 nco<.+d fte
/ceby af A &&el p c.d, c6 tan,1.
j7ubu by llicuywr l1e twa'cln Mcme (act,y hed malat y
lat atpa) a&ts /c14 pcwnw/
hef-A 16av.S scash.pi.rth kpt My p uaa 1% wss Aek fra Mee htim y &an nuti tAtufu ht cf k;m )
( a l& p h /aa<,
n a so c3,mu a wou un i,
.amt&) swt 77wmnm/a.i4.8 cGe tw.a' 4 fra/ tAim.}
~
70 h ro% g all M3 pay cu us Aan %
m m,.e.h., A t--
.^whoed h3 cML pt cs Ame tut dw, m., cat / f bcanuJ andg.
bQs oecd isaub hua M been oe,a5 y
o A.n?ewa0, Bola input etuchas aa hot pc.o} anans.
J
ff7 Cette 3/adurudi- (ta aup.h puni>..,)
Shp D?osu 5 % pmm pArg ymscut.
71wpso_ fu pd A (kati-J, J
ot
]kcw).u>t t.h '4.vaJr*
- i f ji45<u d A W lcJ:
~
y 1
l cl2 woau a "
/tt tuz2i Ausmdi -
p b-fk Alit. h2 id O fca ct, d l., &, f l gepa up a.d a'cuaw a e' /u', kbs,y d
k _ g L%.
40%pa+ awy& w.
4 wim t'
g luye kre cmituJ, b< Btos d, & b / L fL wradbet W wr xuun M exsrd.
$cj,u icui cf Ardf "cho agu g qm-feainzag ae_4 fww.a a
&~
na s aup.
suo h,-1]p
/ ll
=
C
Task: Allegation f58 ATS. No. RV 83A Characterization: A site contractor (HPFoley) allows the use of Phillips Red Head anchor studs, many of which are reported to be improperly installed and are subject to frequent dislodging.
Initial Assessment of Significance:
(refertoAllegationNo.25).
Source: Anonymous (via Dr. H. Myers)/ Confidential 11/83 Approach to Resolution: (refertoAllegationNo.25).
Status: Not started.
Review Lead: Region V Support: NRR-DE-MEB Support:
Estimated Resources:
(refer to Allegation No. 25).
Estimated Completion:
12/9/83 Evaluation (preliminary) l 1/27/84 Final Evaluation i
i l
l
I 132 Task:, Allegation No'. 58 A7S. No. RV 83Amm Characterization: A site contractor (H. P. Foley) allows the use of Phillips
~
Red Head anchor studs, many of which are reported to be ispwly install'ed and are subject to frequent. dislodging.
d I': plied Sicnificance to Plant Design, Constructicn or Operation Refer to Allegt'_ ion No. 25.
Assessment of Safety Significance Refer to Allegation No. 25.
Staff Desition Refer.to Allegation No. 25.
Action Required:
Refer to Allegation No. 25.
1 I
l lO 1
^
Q*,
FM
'?
hY)~8 f F
lisens
[
Task: Allegation No. 80 aw ATS No:
RV-83-A-64 Characterization Letters dated 4 November 1983, 9 December 1983 and 9 January 1984 'from.Dr'.
Richard Kranzdorf, Spokesperson for Concerned Cal Poly Faculty and Staff, concluded that the licensing process for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) should cease until four primary issues regarding emergency planning by San Luis Obispo County / Cities are resolved:
1.
The evacuation time calculations are not adequate because only 20% was added to the normal evacuation times to account for adverse weather conditions.
Dr. Kranzdorf does not feel that the 20% factor represents the " worst case" possible which he considers may be dense fog.
2.
The main evacuation transportation routes for the Baywood Park /Los Osos area are unacceptable because both are subject to flooding.
3.
Sirens, as the primary means of notification, are not acceptable because they are powered by regular po,wer lines and are, therefore, subject to periodic interruption. The back-up system (police cars with sirens) is not acceptable because it would not be as effective as a fully operational siren system.
l 1
l (a
1
4.
.The evacuation time estimates are inadequate because the effect's of earthquakes (e.g., potentially greater evacuation times) have not been considered.
Implied Sinnificance to Design, Construction or Operation Implied is that in the event of a major nuclear emergency at the DCNPP, planning is inadequate to insure the public health and safety through appropriate notification of the public and evacuation of some geographic areas within the emergency planning zone (EPZ) during inclement weather conditions such as fog and flooding, or other natural physical phenomena (e.g.,
earthquakes).
Assessment of Safety Significance On 8 December 1983 a conference call involving Region IX of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the State of California Office of Emergency Services (COES), t'e San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency h
Services (SOES), and NRC Region V was conducted to discuss and analyze the issues raised by Dr. Kranzdorf. Since FEMA has primary responsibility by Presidential Direction to take the lead in offsite planning for nuclear emergencies, FEMA Region IX agreed to coordinate the assessment of the allegations. Additionally, NRC Region V has performed an independent assessment of the allegations. The.results of these assessments are as follows:
1.
The evacuation time calculations are not adequate because 'only 20% was added to the normal evacuation times to account for adve~rse w conditions.
Dr. Kransdorf does not feel that the 20% factor represents the " worst case" possible which he considers may be dense fog 1
I Assessment Several independent studies dealing with road capacities under adverse weath er conditions concluded that a 20% reduction in speed and capacity is appropria for a range of adverse weather conditions including heavy rain and fog These studies were conducted in several different states including California (fog)
New York (fos), Illinois (snow and rain) and Texas (rain).
Since speeds during a fair weather evacuation are already reduced from maximum, an additional reduction of 20% appears to be reasonable.
The 20% reduction factor is a widely accepted standard.
4 Evacuation times during extremely adverse weather conditions (e.g., zero visibility fog) might be somewhat longer, however, the times noted in the San Luis Obispo County Emergenc'y P for general adverse weather conditions are available to the decisionmakers so that during extreme conditions concurrent with a radiological emergency appropriate protective measures could be taken based on these estimates It should be noted that there is no requirement that evacuation time estimates be i
l' based on the worst possible weather conditions.
4 This issue was litigated in the licensing proceeding.
In an initial decision regarding emergency planning for the DCNPP, dated August 31, 1982, the Atomic l
Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) in part stated:
. L
a "Tha evacuation time estimate mad requirements' of Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654e by Applic the purposes of this case.
and is therefore accepted for independently by the TERA Corp. A second-estimate of above report....
oration, leads to similar estimate The (Joint'Intervenor) witnesses co s as the most conservative assumptions, however nsistently urged the The time estimates by P.R.C. Voorh, which th credible....
made over a range of normal and adve ees were realistically
- time estimates for emergency ev rse conditions....
We conclude that exposure EPZ are valid and in conformacuation of the public ume NUREG-0654....
ance with Appendix 4 of The board therefore finds that adeq actions can be tak'en both on site a d uate protective emergency and requirements of 10 CFR 50 4off site in the eve n
I NUREG-0654."
7 and criteria of Part J of d
2.'
The main evacuation transportation area are unacceptable because both aroutes for the Baywood Park /
re subject to flooding.
1 Assessment These circumstances are addressed i The Plan acknowledges specific locatin the San Luis Obi Plan.
y i
etd also notes duration of flood stage at th ons which have a. tendency Caunty officials are prepared to ose locations (normally 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) th2se specific locations during flconsider temporary delays associated wit ood conditions.
sxtended in proportion to the lost capacitEvacuation times would be prsvided for a staged evacuation In addition, the Plan has y.
This would help ~ alleviate any added
congestion due to the use of alternate evacuation routes. Evacuation time estimates for a staged evacuation are provided in the Plan and are, therefore, available to the decisionmakers. County Officials would use these data to
' take the most pruden't protective measures when faced with the prospect of or actual flooding.
An important point to be considered is that under severe flooding conditions the most probable protective measure which would be employed in the Baywood Park /Los Osos area would be sheltering instead of evacuation since a) a radioactive plume from the plant would be diffused by the hills and distance between the plant and the Baywood Park /Los Osos area and b) the Baywood Park /Los Osos area is greater than five miles from the plant and c) a storm of this magnitude resulting in the flood conditions discussed above would in itself inhibit migration of the plume.
FEMA has evaluated this situation and found that the county plans are satisfactory.
3.
Sirens, as the primary means of notification, are not acceptable because they are powered.by regular power lines and are, therefore, subject to periodic interruption. The back-up system (police cars with sirens) is i
l not acceptable because it woul,d not be as effective as a fully i
operational siren system.
Assessment b
[
The siren system for alerting residents within the offsite jurisdictions around the DCNPP is electrically powered by sources distributed through seven different electrical power substations. The potential for power failures has
. been considered and procedures exist to verify power availability.
Should a substation outage be reported as a result of that verification procedure,.
those responsible would dispatch appropriate county staff to the affected area for personal notification to residents.' This activity would be performed'in accordance with the guidance provided in NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1, Rev.
I that specifies the county has 45 minutes to alert that portion of the public that did not receive the initial alert.
4.
The evacuation time estimates are inadequate because the effects of earthquakes (e.g., potentially greater evacuation times) have not been considered.
Assessment The e'ffects of earthquakes, with respect to evacuation times, has been i
considered and data has been provided in the county plan.
An estimate of the l
evacuation times has been provided for light, moderate and heavy damage levels.
These data are available to the decisionmakers so that in the event of a radiological emergency, during and/or after an earthquake, appropriate protective measures could be taken based on these estimates.
Staff Position i
i
Based on the results of the combined assessment efforts by FEMA, State, County and NRC personnel, the staff position is that all allegations have been responsibility evaluated and addressed by all of the appropriate authorities.
Action Required Provide Dr. Kranzdorf with the results of the assessment of the allegatiods.
This will be accomplished by letter, telephone or possibly a meeting with'Dr.
Kranzdorf.
l-l l
l e-e I
i
-"m'te w-w9d 2m--
rn
-m -ey y.--
a-*--e---+ae,w--
+
-*++-*Mv7-gw w- -, ---W wwe gywg ym-ew y--+my-,-tt-7
+-"T"
"#^'*"*
.