ML20210E745

Forwards Evaluation of Allegations 1422 & 1438.Allegation Assigned Classification D,Since Specific to Unit 1,per G Knighton 841130 Memo

ML20210E745
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/21/1985
From:	Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17083B484	List: ML20209C687 ML20209C692 ML20209C725 ML20209C729 ML20209C734 ML20209C742 ML20209C774 ML20209C779 ML20209C786 ML20209C810 ML20209C853 ML20209C869 ML20209D170 ML20209D204 ML20209D416 ML20209D421 ML20209D450 ML20209D560 ML20209D649 ML20209D703 ML20209D864 ML20209D903 ML20209E021 ML20209E030 ML20209E037 ML20209E052 ML20209E145 ML20209E211 ML20209E268 ML20209E506 ML20209F952 ML20209G177 ML20210E664 ML20210E745 ML20210E799 ML20210E811 ML20210E916
References
FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8609250084
Download: ML20210E745 (3)

Text

I ,

yi ,

].f o UNITED STATES g

y $(./y gp

,.q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%.~..../ MAR 211985 d

?!EFORANDUM FOR: sistant Director FROM: James P. Knight, Acting Director Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

EVALUATION OF ALLEGATIONS ON DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 We have reviewed allegations 1422 and 1438 and the evaluation of them is enclosed.

The classification of both these allegations per George Knighton's November 30, 1984 memorandum is D--the allegation was Unit 1-specific and does not apply to Unit 2.

James P. Knight, Acting Director Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated cc: G. Knighton H. Schierling M. Ley R. Bosnak E. Sullivan 9609250084 FOIA 66090SpDR PDR HOLMES86-197 1 W

Task: Allegation or Concern #1422 and 1438 ATS No: BN No:

Characterization Stokes and Yin are prevented by the NRC from following through with issues. Isa Yin's independence to fully investigate and resolve his concers has been obstructed.

Implied Significance to Design, Construction, or Operation By preventing Yin and Stokes from investigating their concerns, potentially significant safety issues may not be evaluated and resolved.

Assessment of Safety Significance In March, 1984, a comprehensive review was initiated with respect tn the impact piping and piping support issues identified at Diablo Canyon should have on low power operation. This effort was carried out by a group of nine senior staff members and one consultant from BCL. Six of the participants had no prior personal involvement with. review of Diablo Canyon. The individuals in the group were chosen on the basis of their expertise in piping and pipe support design and application of quality assurance programs in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. During the period March 30, 1984 to April 12, 1984, the review. group activities included meeting with Mr. Yin, a public meeting with the licensee, a site visit to observe examples of piping and supports at issue, meeting with Mr.

Stokes, the principal alleger on piping issues, and a public meeting with the ACRS to discuss the. groups activities and conclusions.

In its report of April 12, 1984, the review group concluded that these issues did not demonstrate a generic problem with respect to a breakdown of

! quality assurance or design and construction effectiveness and that the piping and pipe support issues under review at Diablo Canyon should not preclude criticality and operation at lower power. The group further recommended that seven license conditions be imposed to document the actions necessary as a prerequisite of full power operation.

To verify compliance with the license conditions in a comprehensive yet timely manner, the review effort was divided into nine task groups: one group to focus on each of the seven license conditions, one group for natters related to the Independent Design Verification Program and one aloup for audit of programmatic OA matters.

O %

Each task group explored to its satisfaction compliance with its assigned license condition, matters related to the IDVP or programmatic QA matters as appropriate, building on the information gathered during the review for low power operation. The task teams communicated with Mr. Yin in a number of instances during the course of their review. Mr. Yin's comments were given serious consideration by the task team members and accommodation made where the team members felt appropriate.

The task teams found that there were some deficiencies in the QA programs related to design of pipe supports during the reverification program.

Without exception, however, review of the actual analytical work performed, review of the design control process as it actually functioned and review of a spectrum of as-installed hardware provided compelling evidence that the design of piping and piping supports at Diablo Canyon Unit No. I was a process that was under control and a process that yielded acceptable results. Despite extensive auditing and inspection there have been virtually no significant changes to plant hardware found necessary.

Staff Positic.n Further review of piping seismic design adequacy at Diablo Canycn Unit 1 is not warranted.

Action Reouired None

. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - -