ML20211C143

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Lists Meetings Scheduled on Facility.Details of Meetings Encl.Nrc Atendance Recommended
ML20211C143
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Diablo Canyon
Issue date: 12/29/1982
From: Schierling H
NRC
To: Eisenhut D, Knight J, Parr O
NRC
Shared Package
ML20209B155 List:
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8610210278
Download: ML20211C143 (7)
v • d • e


Text

_

..f...

se.

., ;:r l'L.{t9l$v,,

j';'

Note 4o -

D. E..s.du-

...... :: T. bleve k

+

3, y,, p ::..... ;_ s. g 9 x o. epa.r r "L. C6d hc T. B s's k '(

.c W L. 4 fu u k.s L,'.tln'

%k g, k.~3L sAJM. Leu. kdI. C.u yd i h-s-Bo344 Pts E eop3

~

i/r Su b.cn c.,

&Aad4 8 9t. a u(p3 ( Sch 4 olyckn.)

t/r NAL~de-i/n Sm F% caco 1% E a AJ.R. v a J.. m h w t/n.

L Lon Obago S6c V.vf-t/b

.k, T%

PLAI 4 E SL D c4t : b a x.

a. 4 L d. M A.C d k A c4 o r e c o m a c d.

co a t:ecs.d.. P % w {t, w d k a w e<..

(.h g 9610210278 860930 PDR FOIA HOLMESO6-151 PDR py p o

/O 36 a1 00897; 2

1,..

DIABLO CANT 0!! PROJECT Job 15320 T

Yerification December 22, 1982 1

h.,

b E

"i

' PROPOSED }EETING NOTICE

f s.......

' January 4 and 5, 1982',~

y DATE:

.g 4

PLACE:

toston,^ Mass. 5WEC Offices

~

~.,. ~

1 8:30 - 5:00 TIME:

7 7(4.

c

SUBJECT:

Phase 11 EDI Resolution

.w BY:

.IDVP DRGANIZATION:

DCP, IDVP (TES & $VEC)

[}

i%

~;

AGENDA:

To discuss resolution / completion packages provided by the DCP for Phase l' c

g E01's.in the following technical areas:

y

' Pipe Break Analysis I.

Pressure / Temperature Analysis (Input and Output) 4 A.

?

Flooding Analysis B.

C.

~ Damage Assessment (Jet / Whip Effacts) l I

11.

System / Component Design T

A.

Design Conditions / Component Sizfag B.

Qualsfication/Clessification i

C.

Systems Operation D.

Design Implementation t.

III. Separation A.-

Electrical Separation / Single Failure Analysts E

5.

Fire Protection A tentative list of'E01s associated with the above noted technic

'5 '

provided below. This Ifst may be subject'to change as the result of further

,J work by the DCP.

v I.

A.

8001-8004,8006 B.

8005, 8040 C.

8014, 8028-8031,'8049

( c.4.)

- - - a =v; n

,. 1-l s

..... q..

008976

11.. A.

8010,8013

..8.

8011. 6018, 8044, 8051-8053 7

l

. C.

8015

~

~

,. D.

8027,8036,8048

.III.'A.

8017,'8041,' 8042, 8045,.8046, 8032 j

.8.

8019, 8021, 8038, 8039 The ostifne above was prepared to assist in pfanning the meeting. If the 10) believes another sequence for the discussion would better accomplish the meeting objective, the egenda should be adjusted accordingly.

i l

[

I i

(

f.,

AIN L

e r

h I

{

i l

CoqksWh o

> dtM 60 m,

c f,

,n

\\

\\

r Q NI $.$r y

/'

\\

l l

1

..-t

+ ~ y.,..

...,.v.-

..;,. v....,? -

...a

.....y u. :.,.:...

.=...

g.g':.

H

.a.:

.n

~.,y..

..pyl myng

. ; 7.. :*:' : ;; : *.:.,......

  • ENGINEERING SERVICEE c

,. : ~. '

'~~.

..,.,,0;. '

~ ~"., MEETING ANN 0UNCEMENT

.' 9.

f '..,...

.,, ~...

w-

. ~;~-,-n

..:'... a. a:.y.,g,.,. w..-

.,,.1, c.v
.

r.:

u

._ y.

.: *,._ ';.:.n. n 7.~ ~

~

.'......SY. '~R.F.. REEDY. INC.

DEPARTMENT DCNPP-10VF e..:..,i.... _.

SU8KCT: Status of audit of DCP 0.A. Proaram (Nov.11 - Dec. 7.1982)

. ~

l ',

i z ;. _ _..,;
:;:-

T f.0 CATION: 55 Beale Sti.' San Francisco Ca.

ROOM: 2nd Floor. F & G 1

....... ~.

DATE:

"Januarv 5.1983

-'t TIME:

10:00 a.m.

n c. v ',

j ORGANIZATION' R.F. Reedy. Ine:Diablo Canyon Proiect: Teledyne Enoineering Servic

~

AGENDA:

1. *: Introduction and discussion of scope and method of audit.

.2.

.Sunsnary of results of verification audit of corrective action of:

(a)

DCP office design activities (b) Site design activities 3.

Presentation of observations and findings.

4.

Discussion of audit status and continuing activities.

r l

ATTENDANCE REQUESTED:

DCP RFR. Inc.

TES Ll2C A h.

p

!. BsLy Rv

/

~

  • , '. f..

'.s. :a.,c.'.

.. ~:.*.,?. s,.. *,. a u.a...:;.....*,'?s :4,s. ' *

  • g*
  • v ;::.:-.h4*.

,. ' - * * * ~. ::

a s.::;;r.e..*

.sw ;J,..ri,;-.. *.- b..

,~

r.. >;

.e u,..

. ~.. s. a... ?

. r. :.. *.,.

..,;.. a. b,.

. *Q *

. ~

..,.~ <..'i.*

. /.],

..s.

'e....

t s....

..s* ;,,.a

..

  • f 'e b

s.e #*/

e i..

. 6

.s

)

4

,y,.'

  • * ' - ;I;., a

.s.

~

", * ' * ' C,5.,Y.'&**j..

E'.".'-

,.,,.;..$.$ IQ. '
  • i
  • W

. ; '.. e. g'.. ;.Q.: lpl..i,,;,.- g. ~. ' *

  • g,,l,..'.',

m'..'....

1*.

.~. p. g, g..~'

r.".

..5 s,t *

..,.g,,,.,

?,.

.s,.....g.m.... _.....,....

...s..

..... s..

.. 4

%vay S~ =

.. L4Lasdi Ft d

  • ',' b,{ O. N t.. A u n..a s se.t:,c e..z..:'r....

' * * * "~

.N M'* ' *.' '..?,N,=*.. *^ - yf* *..'

?

r 7

N.

e

...M4E a

a. c h K.. e h e - n

'.....eR ba y Q~DL 31k L

.. -. ~.

.F#'

t.

g 4..L.

Se op. o5 u t.. ~ E,, 9. 0 s J 6w.

j 54.r..

A

.... ~...

. ( se uf we.,' re tu.A ~ af Ne.c./ ec. <e aue wu%

  • t1/u faz

~

w % eaV -t

, p< p. b

.D(re n c a s q m u,J c a w((

<,Avr s.e I

~

Aq.Aq, PGE / DuW(

4 Frwo.4 3.Ibh

'b. L w

12. /4sLl3 NeC-3.awM i

l R. Vo((w e-

'J. k g u.

g P. T. %o i

t1 R..uk. C 6 NL.) 1 i

.;g s

r

~

~~

~ ~

. v.l.t &f f t.

oggg 7D DIABLO CANYON PROJECT

. ' %fM Job 15320 V.prification "T

December ~23

% Fvwcr s co

,.1982 i

h il H

l

\\

..1 e

- s..

.~

I

.o

\\

q

^

$y PROPOSED MEETING NOTICE j

.x.a:........:

- -~.

^

.y DATE:

January 11,-1982

.g y

PLACE:

San Francisco,45 Fremont.

m

~

.fg-

_ TIME:

8:30 - 4:30

....y l

-T

SUBJECT:

Phase II Additional-Verification zp A.-

SY:

... I DVP.

- $L I

SS ORGAM12ATION: DCP,IDVP'(TES&SWECf

'[

g

-?

yf

^ 'li-AGENDA:

.. p w

'I To discuss Draft Interia Technical Report on Phase II Additional i

~.'O Veriffcation.

4

~

j kp19ec Ad-:

}

~

w H.%li 3; M t

  • b E upre u k kve..

.I e

i

  • DsI repure h kw 0

t7

. C.

5 5

.M-

'Q

.W

' N-y r

o

G ~..,:'

,.*.'a u:. : '.. :,.r.$Gl5.5 Z.l: ;; i.~.uu.ii~,:..k t.:.u...c..~.:4.:'.7..

.. ~.

.'~~~.~ ',:. :.s.,.., :. r --

s

. 3...:..

  • ;.*:.?:

'.s

.M

_ a

.:..e... si.: ;., :.. f;. -

. r.

e,

  • 4,

- 44.j.a

.1 oc

.J s.e,..

4-

)

i,:,

ok..,,.

4 1

l e

i 9.

l '.

1 g

g 9

~-

y.:

_., p.

ce.

'a

..o

... ': :.s i, <..

.u' ' :..s...->..ab -

t e, :,

e

,.4 %.}n s n:.e..p,

.*a zu..,:,.s2. e.co..,,s e-...

..s....

y,... :

s.

f._#

m.e t'..,

$b hh 4

C

.w.. e

...............,.......s'.+.,r<....,...

  • i.

--'~"'-[....,.e..-

l

,7 41

.b'CC h

I

...~....~

i[, [ "..... * -

l

- t.

~

T. !CN $d [ 5[

L '.

d $4a.(4, '*

-.-..S

.g (-.......

u..~. -

..~n

.y

.. e r.. :. :,,.,.

. ;,g,,....2......,...,. ; :,,..

,,g g 3

_:: H. L ta u t h y i

..... ~h.y;a.y;

.. '. 5.. u u. w <.I

3. % k i

20 GC repre5E4 64

~

oPn' nPre.w k kves

~

1 l

~

%m n -.

k Ma.:s e a

\\

. 'Ik&( ( Q L p 4d

k. 5 GrI-skk hak T-h%.d a~.u :

PG G / Bath (

z4. ~\\

Tsd A/ R c.p. D. Et A 4

'f BA<,ch s t. c \\

o. esm. kT l

L

+ - ('

M December 30, 1982 Note to: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement From:

Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON -- COMMISSION DECISION ON QUESTIONS CERTIFIED BY APPEAL BOARD AND ON JOINT INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR HEARING ON LOW-POWER LICENSE EXTENSION l

On December 23, 1982, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order, CLI-82-39, copy attached, resolving the three issues certified to it by the Appeal Board on July 16, 1982, ALAB-681 (see my note dated July 23, 1982). The Appeal Board's certification was prompted by Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen the record underlying the Licensing Board's partial initial. decision authorizing issuance of a low-power operating license on the basis of allegedly significant new information resulting from the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP). A similar motion to reopen the full-power record was filed by the Governor before the Licensing Board. The Applicant and Staff had opposed these motions, the Staff arguing that the matters presented by the intervenors were the subject of the ongoing IDVP and, accordingly, that the motions should be denied without prejudice to refiling upon completion of that program.

The Applicant argued that the Commission's Order suspending the low-power license had divested the lower boards of jurisdiction to reopen the record. Both the Appeal Board and the Licensing Board (in its Initial Decision authorizing issuance of a full-power license issued on August 31,1982) detemined to hold in abeyance the respective motions to.

r,eopen pending Comission resolution of the certified questions.

The Comission, in CLI-82-39, concluded that it did not intend the issuance of its Order suspending the low-power license and the establish-ment of the IDVP to divest the lower boards of jurisdiction nor does it wish to do so now.

It further determined that these motions should be resolved according to accepted Comission criteria as reflected in the Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, and in case-law and that where a

" motion to reopen relates to a previously uncontested issue, the moving party must satisfy both the. standards for admitting late-filed contentions,10 C.F.R. 2.714(a), and the criteria established by case-law for reopening the record."

(Slip op. at 4). The Comission noted "that reopening the record does not necessarily require that fuel loading and low-power testing be stayed" and that at this time, in light of the 6

/

g W

~.

.,, -- 2'-

suspension of the low-power license, there is nothing to stay (Id. and n.6 at 5).

The Comission also ruled on Joint Intervenors' August 17, 1982, request for a hearing regarding the Applicant's requested extension of the low-(1) power license.

In denying the request, the Comission concluded that the lower-power license remains in effect on the basis of a timely request for renewal and (2) a request for a low-power license does not give rise to a proceeding separate and apart from the ongoing full-power license, that the request for a hearing is subsumed within the full-power proceeding and accordingly, that there is no section 189a (Atomic Energy Act) right to a hearing, and no need for any "significant hazards consideration" determination. The Comission also concluded that the request for a hearing would be treated as a motion to reopen the low-power record which, in light of the already-filed motion to reopen, is merely duplicative. As a consequence, extension of the operating license should await authorization by the appropriate board.

On the basis of the Comission's decision, the motions to reopen must now be resolved by the Licensin'g and Appeal Boards. As noted above, initial responses to the motions have already been filed.

Comissioner Gilinsky filed separate views opposing treatment of the low-power and full-power proceedings separately, f

/

/

H. Cunningham, II Executive Legal Director cc:

William Dircks Robert Engelken, Region V l

l m

~

unittVtv ugg'43 g.- L ea. y -

Ag

-s

.j...

D-tF.ETED t v."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION-.g gS 23 PJ:31 COMMISSIONERS:

-l 3 W i.

Nunzio J. Palladino, Chainnan

~4'.i~--

Victor Gilinsky John F. Ahearne Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY h

Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.

50-323 0.L.

h))

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI 39)

A.

Background

On July 17, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) issued a partial initial decision in the Diablo Canyon operating licer.3e proceeding that' approved.the request of Par:ific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a license to load fue.1 and conduct low-powertesting.1 Fof1owingtheeffectivenessreviewconducted

~

II Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-21, 14 NRC 107 (1981) yon Nuclear P Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Can l

. This decision relied l

on several earlier adjudicatory decisions and was conditioned epon one subsequent decision.

LBP-78-19, 7 NRC 989 (1981); LBP-79-26, 10 NRC 453 (1979); ALAB-644, 13 NRC 903 (1981) (Seismic); and ALAB-653,14 NRC 629 (1981) (Physical Securit'y).

j l

l I

~

g

~ :..

..~*

,4 4,

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764(f), the Comission authorized the issuance of such a. license for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1.1/ The NRC staff issued the license on September 22, 1981.

Soon thereafter, PG&E informed the NRC of the discovery of an error in the seismic design of i

equipment and piping in the containment annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

Further inquiry by PG&E and the NRC staff disclosed additional errors in the plant. On November 19, 1981, the Comission suspended PG&E's license to load fuel ancl conduct low-power testing pending the satisfactory completion of an independent design verification' program (IDVP).El The IDVP remains in progress.at this date.

l On June 8,1982, the " Joint'Intervenors"1/ n the operating license i

proceeding filed a motion requesting the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) to vacate the Licensing Board's July 17, 1981 findings on its sua sconte review of the Diablo Canyon quality assurance program, revok.e the low-power license, and reopen the record for hearing and the submission of relevant new evidence..The Joint Intervenors focused their request on evidence regarding breakdowns in 1/

Pacific Gas and' Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power -

Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-81-22, 14 NRC 598 (1981).

El Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-81-30,14 NRC 950 (1981).

1/

Collectively labeled, the joint intervenors are the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.,

Ecology Action Club, Sandra Silver, Gordon Silver, Elizabeth Apfelberg and John J. Forster.

l 4

. ~...

  • [

y-the Diablo Cany6ii Quality Assurance a'nt! Quality Control (QA/QC) prog' ram.

h On July 16, 1982, the Appeal Board certified to the Comission three questions regarding Joint Intervenors' motion.

Subsequent to the certification, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,

filed a motion to reopen the full-power proceeding with the Licensing Board.. Governor. Brown's motion focused on essentially the same subject as Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen the low-power proceeding.

In the August 31, 1982 initial decision concluding its review of PG&E's full-power operating license application, the Licensing Board declared-that the motion to reopen the full-power proceeding was misdirected, stating that QA/QC issues had been decided in full in the Licensing Board's July 17, 1981 partial initial decision in the low-power proceeding.5_/ The Licensing Board noted that it no longer had jurisdiction of that record but held Governor Brown's motion under advisement pending the Comission response.to these certified questions.

The Comission intends this response to the certified questions to apply equally to the motion to reopen the full-power proceeding.

B.

Certified Questions l

The Appeal Board's certified questions focus on the jurisdictional l

issuepresentedbytherelationshipbetweentheIDVPandtheoperati719 license proceeding.

The questions and tt}e Comission responses are set forth below.

1.

Did the Comission intend its November 19, 1981 order

-5/

Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-70, 16 NRC

, Slip op.-at 8 (August 31,1982).

l l

l O

.7-3

~

suspending the low-power license for Diablo Canyan, Unit 1, and establishing an independent verification program to deprive the appropriate adjudicatory boards of jurisdiction to

~

consider a motion to reopen the record based on'the QA/QC 4

questions regarding Diablo Canyon?

2.

If not, does the Comission now wish to relieve the adjudicatory boards of jurisdiction with regard to the QA/QC issues at Diablo Canyon?

The Comission did not intend the issuance of the suspension order and establishment of the IDVP to deprive the adjudicatory boards of jurisdiction to consider and act on the motions to reopen and does not wish to do so now. Thus, these questions are answered in the negative.

3.

If the Comission h'as not divested, and does not intend to divest, the adjudicatory boards of jurisdiction over the QA/QC issues at Diablo Canyon what, if any, instructions does the Comission have with regard to timing or other matters raised by the motion to reopen?

The Comission believes the motions to reopen should be addressed l

according to the criteria for resolving such matters established in its t case-law and rules of practice, 10 CFR Part 2.

Where a motion to reopen relates to a previously uncontested issue, the moving party must satisfy' both the standards for admitting late-filed contentions.10 CFR 2.714(a), and the criteria established by. case-law for reopening the t

record.

Par.ific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1and2),CLI-81-5,13NRC361(1981). Furthermore, the Comission notes that reopening the record does not necessarily r.equire that fuel loading and low-power testing be stayed. The Appeal Board e

E

,.,n,-

v,-

- - - -~-

.,-.--e

--m-, -- - --

-w-

~

Z.

-s

.i '

~

shall respond sep'arateTy to stay 7eque'sts in accord.with the ap'plicable criteria.E

~

C.

Request For Hearine on Low-Power License Extension Also pending before the Comission at this time is Joint Intervenors' August 17, 1982 request for a hearing pursuant to section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act on PG&E's application for an amendment extending the suspended low-power license.

PG&E's low-power license, due to expire September 22, 1982, one year from the date of issuance, remains in effect following PG&E's timely request for renewal pending a' Comission decision on the application for an extension.E As the Comission has prev,iously held, a request for a low-power license does not give rise to a proceeding separate and apart from a pending full-power operating license proceeding.E It follows that this hearing request is subsumed within the scope of the continuing 9

full-powe'r proceeding, as was the request for a low-power license.

Further operation at low-power is within the scope of PG&E's application O

In this regard, currently there is nothing to stay. As a separate matter, several step's must occur independent of-the requests addressed here before fuel loading, low-power testing and-full-power operation may be authorized.

Before fuel loading and.

low-power testing, the Comission must decide whether to lift the s

suspension and reinstate the fuel loading and low-power license--concluding the Comission enforcement' action taken on November 19, 1981 (license suspension, see note 3 infra).

In addition, the Comission must complete its immediate effectiveness review before full power can be authorized. The Comission does not plan to conduct any additional low-power effectiveness review.

liowever, it still has a Licensing Board decision on full-power issues to review and will discuss' uncontested issues with the staff.

befoie a fullaower license may be issued.

Y i

u See,;,5~U.S.C.558;10dFR2.109.

i e

E N

Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power

[

P] ant, Units 1 and 2)

CL1-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 362 (1981).

/

g,'.

~ :..

.. ~ ~

for a f'ull term full-power license and is controlled by the record developed to date in the operating license proceeding. Thus, there is no sect' ion 189a right to a separate hearing here and'no need for any "significant hazards consideration" finding of the type that would be called for were this a separate proceeding on an ap' plication for a license amendment.

For the same reason, Shelly v. U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Comission, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir.1980) (per curiam), cert.

granted,451U.S.1016(1981), does not require a hearing in this instance. This request for a hearing would ordinarily be treated as a motion to reopen the low-power record.

In this instance, Joint Intervenors have already filed a motion to reopen the low-power record with the Appeal Boafd. Accordingly, the request for a hearing on the extension of the low-power license is duplicative and is hereby denied.

The separate views of Comissioner Gilinsky are attached.

It is so ORDERED.

Fo the Comission, O

~

Samuel J. Chil f-Secretary of the Comission Dated at Washington, D.C.

this 1N day of December,1982.

l s'

l

- - ---. _ ~ -

~.. 4 -

/

3

~

SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY ~

~

DIABLO CANYON CERTIFICATION I am astonished and dis'ppointed that this Commission, which a

has so frequently and vociferously announced its desire to simplify the hearing process, should. reject the suggestion that the Diablo Canyon low-power and the full-power hearings be merged into a single hearing., As far as I can tell, the only plausible rationale for keeping two hearings going is the remote possibility that this would permit PGEE to begin low power testing (though not commercial operation) a few weeks earlier than would otherwise be possible.

~

This hardly justifies the confusion and procedural t

complexity caused by two simultaneous hearings on the same operating license.

The Commission should consolidate the two hearings.

l W

e I

g 4

e 9

m

.._.1....__-.

- --~-

'~~

~

~

e,_

/p"

%q, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r

j QM ) i WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 QEC E O Docket No.:

50-275 MEMORANDUM F0P.: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Ahearne Comissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine FROM:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

INFORMATION ITEMS REGARDING THE DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1 (Board Notification No.82-138)

In accordance with present NRC procedures for Board Notifications, the following items are enclosed for information of the Comission:

1.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report 18

." Verification of the Fire Protection Provided for Auxiliary Feedwater Systems, Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System, Safety-Related Portion of the 4160V Electric System", letter dated

-December 15, 1982.

2.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report i

19

" Verification of the Post-LOCA Portion of the Radiation Environ-ments Used for Safety-Related Equipment Specification Outside Containment for Auxiliary Feedwater System and Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System", letter dated December 20, 1982.

3.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report 20 "Verfication of the Mechanical / Nuclear Design of the Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System", letter dated December 20, 1982.

4.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report i

21

" Verification of the Effects of High Energy Line Cracks and Moderate l

Energy Line Breaks for Auxiliary Feedwater System and Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System," letter dated December 20, 1982.

I 5.

Stone & Webstar Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report 22

" Verification of-the Mechanical / Nuclear Portion of the Auxiliary Feedwater System", letter dated December 20, 1982.

6.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report 23

" Verification of High Energy Line Breaks and Internally Generated 4

Missile Review Outside Containment of Auxiliary Feedwater System and

Contact:

h l

'Hans Schierling, ONRR N(T '

l m 23e g

==

=

The Commission.

Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System," letter dated December 27, 1982.

- 7.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report 24

" Verification of the 4160V Safety-Related Electric Distribution System," letter dated December 23, 1982.

8.

Stone & Webster $ngineering Corporation, JDVP Interim Technical Report 25

" Verification of the Auxiliary Feedsater System Electrical Design,"

letter dated December 23, 1982.

9.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report 26

" Verification of the Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System Electric Design," letter dated December 23, 1982.

10. Teledyne Engineering Services, IDVP Draft Interim Report, " Phase II Additional Sample and Additional Verification", letter dated December 23, 1982.
11. Teledyne Engineering Services, "IDVP Semi-monthly Report," letter dated December 24, 1982.
12. Transcript of Meeting on December 21', 1982 at Brookhaven National Laboratory in.Upton, New York.

The ~enclo'sures provide information on the status of activities performed l

,under the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) for Diablo Canyon Unit 1-by the participating organizations and under the Internal Technical j

Pogram (ITP) by PG&E. The information is relevant to the safety issue on i

the design adequacy of Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

This is the subject of Commission Order CLI-81-30 which is the basis for the IDVP.

The material does not pertain to those matters that were raised by ALAB 644.

br,/arrellG.Eisenhut, Director D

Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

Enclosures:

As stated i

cc: ASLB ASLBP SECY OGC OPE l

Board Service List

+ = =

--,.+==w-

,,,.........wi..

... ~......... -

-a DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION Before the Commission Diablo Canyon Units 1&2/COMM Docket Hos. 50-275/323 OL ACRS Members Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg f-Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Mr. Richard E. Blankenburg Mr. Myer Bender Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Max W. Carbon Mr. Herbert H. Brown Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Dr. John H. Buck.

Mr. Harold Etherington Philip A. Crane, J:., Esq.

Dr. William Kerr Mr. Frederick Eissler Dr. Harold W. Lewis David S. Fleischakar, Esq.

Dr. J. Carson Mark Mrs. Raye Fleming' Mr. William M. Mathis Arthur C. Gehr. Esq.

Dr. Dade W. Moeller Mr. Byron S. Georgiou Dr. David Okrent Mr. Mark Gottlieb Dr. Milton S. Plesset Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Dr.' W. Reed Johnson Dr. Paul C. Shewmon Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Dr. Chester P. Siess Dr. Jerry Kline Mr. David A. Ward Mr. John Marrs Thomas S.. Moore, Esq.

Bruce Norton, Esq.

Joel R. Reynolds, Esq.

Mr. James 0. Schuyler Mr. Gordon Silver Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

Harry M. Willis John F. Wolf, Esq Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel l

Docketing and Service Section Document Management Branch l

l l

I s

l

~.,.....

P 7 f'

,y,. S.co b *-

d"*

!,138.

.t.,

.. 01 (:0- 275)*

g r.

2

.. t 's,

,...:.]

s

...i

~ ::=bi acar=

J. Lee 7

M. ": ik e

~.:in.

,.n,s a i l l i. '.s H. Osnton/E. Case

3. ". :. --bl.3:d
.:ar 3

.'.. :. a.a

.t.. uic.,a s R. Vollmer H. Thompson R. "sttsen

1ser

-1.a.ay, OiLO*

E. L. Jordon J. M. Taylor Regional Adminstrator F.esident Inspector

. J. M rcks, ECO (3)

E. Cnristenbury, OELD J. Scinto, OELD A. Bennette* (1)

5. Slack cc:

5 ard Service List l

..... - - -.,,, - - -.. ~,. -- - - - -

7

.. ~.

... J.

DEC 3 0 N Docket flo.:

50-275 NEtiORA!!DUM FOR:

Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Ahearne Cornissioner Roberts Connissioner Asselstine FR0!!:

Darrell G. Eisenhut', Director Division of Licensing Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation SURJECT:

I*iFOR".ATIO!i ITE!'S REGAP.Dif;G THE DESIG!: VERIFICATION PROGRMi FOR DIABLO CAriY0t!, UtilT 1 (Board flotification fio.82-138)

In accordance with present ITC procedures for Board fictifications, the following itens are enclosed for -infornation of the Comission:

1.

Stone A Webster Engineering Corporation, IUVP Interin Technical Report 18

" Verification of the Fire Protection Provided for Auxiliary Feedwater Systems, Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization Systen, Safety-Related Portion of the 4160V Electric Syster'", letter dated Decenber 15, 1982.

2.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interin Technical Report 19

" Verification of the Post-LOCA Portion of the Radiatior. Environ-eents Itsed for Safety-Related Equipnent Specification ~0utside Containnent for Auxiliary Feedvater Systen and Control Poon Ventilation and Pressurization Systen", letter dated December 20, 1932.

3.

Stone f. Uebster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interir, Technical Report 20 "Verfication of the Mechanical /fluclear Design of the Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization Systen", letter dated Decenber 20, 1982.

t Stone & Uebster Engineering Corporation, II)VP Inter.im Technical Report 4.

21

" Verification of the Effects of High Energy Line Cracks and Moderate Energy Line Breaks for Auxiliary Feedwater Systen and Control Roon Ventilation and Pressurization System," letter dated December 20, 1982.

5.

Stone a Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report l

22

" Verification of the Mechanical /fluclear Portion of the Auxiliary Feedwater System", letter dated December 20, 1982.

l 6.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, IOVP Interin Technical Report 23

" Verification of High Energy Line Breaks and Internally Generated i

Missile Review Outside Containment of Auxiliary Feeduater Systen and

'"'C'> Contact ~~~~~

  • """" """ ~*

t l

su m uch Hans..Sch.ier.1 n g.,..DNRP....

I x 2 7 2 3 8_....._.

on,

.;; ren.. su no sa wacu om OFFICIAL R ECORD COPY, e.. mi.

..;. m..

M[ '.m.-..- y A ~R O I ? A ry i 1 l t

=-

/

O The Comission 4 Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization Systen," letter dated December 27, 1982.

7.

Stone 3 Webster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interim Technical Report 24

" Verification of the 4160V Safety-Related Electric Distribution System," letter dated December 23, 1982.

8.

Stone & liebster Engineering Corporation,_ IDVP Interin Technical Report 25

" Verification of the Auxiliary Feeduater Systen Electrical Design,"

letter dated Decenber 23, 1982.

9.

Stone a Hebster Engineering Corporation, IDVP Interin Technical Report 26

" Verification of the Control Roon Ventilation and Pressurization Systen Electric Design," letter dated Dececher 23, 1982.

1 D.

Teledyne Engineering Services', IDVP Draf t Interin Report, " Phase II Additional Sacple and Additional Verification", letter dated Decenber 23, 1982.

11. Teledyne Engineering Services, "IDVP Semi-monthly Report," letter dated Decenber 24, 1902.

12.

Transcript of lieeting on December 21, 1982 at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York.

The enclosures provide information on the status of activities perf orned under the Independent Design Verification progran (IDVP) for'Diablo Canyon Unit 1 by the participating organizations and unoer the Internal Technical Pogram (ITP) by PCKE. The information is relevant to'the safety issue on c

~ '+

the design adequacy of Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

This is the subject of Cornissien Dreier CL1 T!1-3'1 which is the basis for the IDVP.

Thr! r.aterial does not ;>ertain to thnse riatitqrs that were raised by ALAC 644 Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated cc: ASLB ECY T,C OPr

,L..____

A r

.A

.~

...........M...

C 'bl B W D

!I/L

.DL;DIR DL:LB omeep

......at:..........

..............1 Schierli

..j.. /y..).g...

).j. j....-..g.j...... 3 nighton T ovak

.).g.y., s enhu t

.9GEi suawoue )

.,,.g.......

DOTE)

.:pocu m om seu em OFFitiAL RECORD COPY m... uJ.

..........,... -.... - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - -

}-

..~

t E[

o UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3

o,

  1. p l2 7/H 1

%s6 dyp q 6 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

NRC REVIEW 0F THE DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM STATUS REPORT On December 14, 1981, I forwarded the PG&E Decenber 4,1981 submittal to IE Headquarters (including Region V) and the Division of Engineering for review.

That submittal responds to Items 2 and 3 of the Comission Order (CLI-81-30) of November 19, 1981. Preliminary reviews have been cowleted. In addition to this work, the Region V investigation concerning the independence of Cloud coments is underway and is scheduled for cogletion by January 8,1982. A Comission briefing on the investigation is scheduled for January ll,1982.

My staff has developed a schedule for the overall management of the review (Enclosure).

The PG8E submittal, and the staff's review, is structured into three areas:

the contractor qualifications, the Design Verification Program Plan, and the Management Plan. The staff must consider two aspects of the qualifica-tion issue. These are the technical cogetence of the contractor and the independence of the contractor. The preliminary review indicates that R. F. Reedy is technically qualified to perform the Quality Assurance portion of the review. Telectyne Engineering Services and Cloud Associates may be technically qualified to perform the engineering reviews, however, additional information is needed from both concerning their structural engineering capability. The " independence" aspect of the NRR review cannot be cogleted without additional information from each contractor and PG&E.. The preliminary review indicates that these contractors are not independent. The results of the Region V investigation referred to above, including the current review of the NRC peer group, can be expected to directly affect our conclusions and recomendations on contractor independence. The review criteria to be used is identical to the criteria in our proposed response to Congressmen Dingell and Ottinger..This. response is under review by the Comission, and we expect to have their feedback next week. The staff plans to proceed with obtaining the information necessary to finalize its position in order to support the planned January 22, 1982 Comission briefing on the qualification / independence issue.

5-

1 j

o*

l Harold R. Denton The preliminary review of the design verification program plan indicates that the plan nay be made to be acceptable subsequent to the incorpora-tion cf staff comments. The initial comments from Region V, DE, DL and other NRC offices relate to establishing a sound technical basis for setting sanpling methods, acceptance criteria, and predetermined remedial action after failure for all audit and independent review functions per-formed by the contractor. These comments will affect the scope of the revi ew. The staff also notes that the program plan needs other minor changes in scope and some fine tuning to become an acceptable plan.

The most efficient means to resolve these comments is through a meeting with PG&E and its contractors. Therefore, DE has recommended a meeting early in January.

The overall management plan calls for the quality assurance (QA) sub-contractor;to report to Cloud rather than PG&E senior management. The staff has determined this to be unacceptable since inadequate QA for design control is the origin of the problens. The QA contractor should have input to other contractors but should report directly to the PG&E manager. The Teledyne program plan concerning their independent review of the Cloud program has not been submitted for NRC staff review. In addition, the acceptance of overall management plan is subject to the outcome of the regional investigation.

In summary, more information is needed for the staff to make a judgment.

DL will arrange a meeting with the licensee in early January to address the staff comments on the PG&E December 4,1981 submittal. DE would like to have this meeting on Monday or Tuesday of next week (January 4 or 5, 1982).

I recommend that the results of the peer group review be considered prior to arranging that meeting.

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated I

l

--.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20211C143&oldid=4011859"