ML20210U833
| ML20210U833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1986 |
| From: | Mike Williams Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U520 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8610100219 | |
| Download: ML20210U833 (4) | |
Text
e Rrog s
14
'o UNITED STATES I \\*
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c."*J / $
(.h4Mi/g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 S
g.
March 14, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Steven A. Varga, Director PWR Project Directorate No. 3 Division of PWR Licensing-A FROM:
Mark Williams, Chief Technical Assistance Management Branch
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON ALLEGATION N0. 676 Pursuant to the request of Tom Novak in a February 25, 1986 memorandum enclosed is the resolution at Diablo Canyon Allegation No. 676. This completes all outstanding Diablo Canyon allegations that are the responsibility of this branch.
If you have any questions on the enclosure contact Harold Polk, x28426.
f PO%
I Mari H. Williams, Chief Tec inical Assistance Management Branch Plaining and Program Analysis Staff OffLce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated i
cc:
J. Funches H. Schierling R. Brady H. Polk 9
f
0-Enclosure 3
i.
TASK: Allegation or Concern No 676 ATS Nos Characterization The alleger sites incomplete, inconsistant and suspect accuracy of information furnished by PG&E in a January 27, 1984 response (DCL-84-031) to the NRC and skips significant hardwre.
Implied Significance to Plant Design, Construction or Operation If the safety factors sited by PG&E are not sufficient to account for the Hosgri or Double Design Earthquake (DDE) seismic event then failure of the anchor bolts cound render a system inoperable.
Assesment of Safety Significance The alleger seems to have taken a statement out of context and made an inappropriate interpertation of this statement. Each of the earthquake loading conditions, DE, DDE and H0SGRI have a complete set of conditions included with the loading.
These conditions are descrived in the load combination equations and the accompanying allowable stresses. This grouping of loads and allowable stresses or loads is documented in the various NRC documents and various industry standards and codes.
The particular document cited by the alleger states that the " factor of safety of at lease 3 has been maintained between demand and capacity for Hosgri and DDE level loads".
Staff Position On the basis of a review of the provisions of PG&E memorandum DCL-84-031 dated. January 27, 1984 the staff condludes the design parameters associated with the anchor bolts are satisfactory.
The staff considers the allegation closed.
Action Required None
Y n-
=_
ll{Gpin '1702.
a o
. J Exhibit 1
-=m
_.z..,
=
II. *
.. _._ _ _; s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)f(
Enf.ett t!12 !!uEltet BtsulAtetx Gemeinsten
~
w.. p.: c 0
.m #
] k[f (, s q
/
In the Matter of n
)
)
PACIFI'C GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-275
)
50-323
)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
________ )
AFFIDAVIT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS
. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 7
CITY OF BERKELEY 1he above, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
My name is I am submitting this affidavit freely and volontarily, without any
- threats, induce.ments or
- coercion, to Mr. Thomas Devine, who has identified himself to me as the legal director of the Government Accountabili ty Project (GAF).
I am submitting this af fidavit to evidence my perscnal kn owl edg c-of deficiencies with engineering practices en large bore pipino and pipe supports at the Diablo Canycn nuclear power plint.
Based on t:.y review of Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion (NRC) inspcctor Isa Yin's comments in Diablo Canyon Supplemental Safety E.aluetion No.
25.
I believe that I am one of the persons he would have sought to question had he been allcwed to.ccmplete his I
i nves t i ga t i ori.
I was in a position to be directly aware ci the 1
~Ig.
questions whether DCPO procedures F-6.and I-26 were 4
transmitted to the consultant (s) in a timely manner.
13.
There was heav,y emphasis on production pressure at off-q 1
nc:. eke site consultant (s) u,
that could overrfde; quality concerns,
'to the h
e:: tent that
,., g, 4..
quotas were imposed'on the number.jcf. packages y
d ", '-
that had to be processed daily.
' J C.,
__J n.
3 5"
14.
Personnel s't of f-site consultant (s) of ten assumed their g'-0 responsibilities for extended periods prior to recieving any quality assurance indoctrination.
15.
Quality assurance surveillance activities at off-site consul tant (s) were inadequate, because they only occured on
(
an erratic basis and were shipped f or extended periods of 16.
Quality assurance additing acti vi ti es at,off-site time.
consul t ant (s )
were inadequate, because they failed to check
(', Q f for the full e:: tent of prior errors that could be represented by specific findings.
As nienti oned
- earlier, I will provide further issues and details on the allegaticns
- above, if the NRC chooses to correspond with me on these concerns.
If there is such a
correspondence, I
request that the NRC contact me through Mr.
De vi ne.
I have read the above 5 page affidavit, and it is true accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
l
(
(
=
5 g
-