ML20211B849
| ML20211B849 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1982 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B155 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8610210198 | |
| Download: ML20211B849 (6) | |
Text
_
3 FL r
I, m ik_
p%
cr//s/st gHA a
N3C
ashington, D. C.
l 1
I
Dear Mr. Richard DiYoung:
i I am currently involved in the Diablo Canyon Review e ffort. now in progress.. I must say that this is the worst nuclear power plant that I have ever worked on.
and it is not SAFE.
I was hoping with the introduction of Bechtel that a complete re-analysis of Unit I would be done.
Alas this is not to be.
The PG&E management /
engineers only correct the mistakes that are found-accidentially or are forced down their throats.
If the error is an generic one, they will not review everything but just what caused the error and they will only correct i'
that one mistake.
The lateat review is for hosgri only but the real danger is that:
- 1) The thermal / deadweight analysis does not catch the seimic or current field support confi5uration.
Syste=s are failing when corrected.
- 2) The so-called 'As-Built" pipe support drawings are not as-built 'but.instead are the accumulation of all the changes to the support drawing over the past 13 years.
The~ support have not been walked down in the field to show there': latest configuration or orientation to the pipe. Also interferences with structure are not show on the drawings.
I only ask that you have R. L. Cloud & Assceiates review the thermal / Deadweight analysis as well as the Hosgri they are now doing.
This will confirm what I have said.
If action is not taken, I may be force to seek a public hearing on this.
'I am pro-nuclear but invalid analysis andincompetence must not be igored. This palnt in my opinion is bad from the analysis to the supports.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely A Concered Engineer 8610210198 860930 PDR FOIA HOLMES86-151 PDR
.. _ -. _ ~...
j
(
I 1
Dets
//
j ROUTING AND TRANSMRTAL SUP G-;
. (p[t [Rt,,
i m m.m.
.mw.,.em nome.r, wis.i.
o.=
b8mns. Aconey/ Post)
).h iWk 8
L R Ttd e > c o 3.
3.
4.
S.
Action FIIe Note and Retum Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Repy Cietulate For Your Information See Me Comment 1;.
Signature
^
Coordination Justik REMARKS t
O k A A
'hJ kk Th'$h l
uur 3 um -. m x Ferda, E/za, i
Q
- V$
NY' t.
QW{ Ak S % c Q ru ch 4 g, L %
Aluak
\\
DO NOT vee this form as a RECORD of approvels, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM:(Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post)
Room No.-.-Sidg.
LI*
k %,[
S
{
6081-102 V
OPTigL FgM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
..................._......., = a * > cE > O i-t a =
V 'V l
--*=---m
-w--+
.---m w
r
'.e STATUSOFDIABLOCAhYONPHASEI
- 0 PHASE I INITIAL VERIFICATION SAMPLE NEAR COMPLETION BY RCLA AND TES 0 ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION / SAMPLING BASED ON ABOVE RESULTS BEING PROGRAMMED 0
INTERIM REPORTS ON SOME ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION AND SAMPLING TO BE ISSUED STARTING.IN JUNE (30-50 IN NUMBER)
O PHASE I FINAL REPORT NOT YET STARTED -- NO SCHEDULE FOR 1
ISSUANCE O
LITTLE INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL WORK PERFORMED BY TES FEW PACKAGES COMPLETED l
l O TES HAS AUDITED PHASE I REEDY ~ WORK 0
INTERIMREPORTWILLDISCUSSR'EEDYAUDITS['PRTICULkR, N
NEEDFORADDITIONALVERIFIbATIONOFDESIGNPROCESS.
L
~
t STATUS OF-DIABLO CANY0f! PHASE II e
PROGRAM PLAN IN PREPARATION -- SUBMIT TO NRC LATE JUNE CLOUD -- STRUCTURAL AND MECHANICAL REEDY -- 0A S&W
-- AUX FEEDWATER, CONTROL ROOM VENTILATION AND PRESSURIZATION, 4160 V SAFETY DIST. SYSTEM i
l
c..
l-STAFF EFFORTS ON DC IDVP e
INSPECTION / REVIEW TEAM CURRENTLY AT TES:
KNIGHT, KUO, POLK, SCHIERLING, MORRILL AND ECKHARDT e
EflL CONFIRMATORY PIPING ANALYSES 2 PIPE RUNS DEVI ATIONS FROM PGE ANALYSES NEED TO RESOLVE DEVIATIONS FINAL REPORT IN JULY e
AS RECEIVED REVIEW OF INTERIM REPORTS e
RESPONDING TO R-V INSPECTION /SER MEMO, GENERAL AGREEMENT e
GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH REVIEW PI AN., PROPOSED BY DL.
KNIGHT (CHM), SCHAUER, 30SNAK, HAASS WILL GENERATE DETAILED REVIEW PLAN FOR DC AND OTHER I9.9S FOR GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION SELECTION, CRITERIA FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS AND REQUIRED STAFF FINDINGS FOR SER.
WILL BE ADOPTABLE TO MINIMIZE STAFF REVIEW FOR IDRS NITH FEW PROBLEMS.
o WILL UTILIZE MATRIX NRR ORGANIZATION AND IE RECOURCES.
l DEDICATED REVIEWERS IN MEB, SED, QAB, E0B AND CONSULTANTS WHERE NECESSARY.
a =
e.
3 i
PROPOSED MEETINGS e
EROWN REQUESTED MEETINGS WITH TES AND REEDY e
STATUS MEETING WITH.TES DISCUSSED WITH COOPER
- OPPOSED TO PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS FINDINGS /.
RESULTS DURING EVALUATION PERIOD
- WOULD AGREE TO STATUS MEETING
- FULL INFORMATION MEETING WHEN PHASE I REPORT ISSUED e
RECOMMEND:
STATUS MEETING IN TWO WEEKS INFORMATION MEETINGS TWO WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT OF INTERIM REPORT, PHASE I REPORT, AND PHASE II PROGRAM PLAN i
..........7..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.