Text

Forwards Eight Summary Documents,Per 811230 Request. Clarification Re Polar Crane Review Also Encl Since Sequence of Events Not Clear from Comments & Repts
	ML20211Q667
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	Cloud R; ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:	Engelken R; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML20211Q614	List: ML20211Q609; ML20211Q667; ML20211Q903; ML20211Q958; ML20211R025; ML20212A005; ML20212A076; ML20212A521;
References
	FOIA-86-151 P-105-4, NUDOCS 8703030156
	Download: ML20211Q667 (53)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:-

i. La ~.

~ g -. a ~ @(WElk8d RO"ERT L. CLOUD AESCCIATE2. INC. RECaVED ~ ~*

13. UNIVERSITY AVENUE SERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94710

.4i .t5 n4 3: EG NN ~ P 105-4 - - s. ~ January 15, 1982 Mr. R.'H. Engelken Regional' Administrator U.S.NRC, Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 260 Y-Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Ref: Docket

1) Nos. 50 - 275 50 - 323

2) Letter: Engelke'n to Crane, PG&E 12/30/81

Dear Mr. Engelken,

Enclosed please find'the information you requested from Robert L. Cloud Associates in the subject letter of 12/30/81. There are 8 su==ary documents, numbered sequentially as P105-4-825-003 through P105-4-825-010. A cover sheet on the enclosures lists the abbreviations used in the tabulation.. In addition a note of clarification on the review of the polar crane.is attached since it is difficult to discern the sequence of events from the com=ents And reports. There is a one-to-one corr 4sp'ondence between many of the com-ments and the revisions. In general, however, this is not the case. The work was continuing throughout the period O'tober - e November 1981, and the subsequent drafts were changed and ex-panded as a result ~of improved knowledge gained in the course of the on-going review. As requested, neither I nor any of our person ~el have dicsussed these responses outside our organization. The information contained in the explanation of comments is true and' correct to the best of my knowledge and beliefs. \\ You 1 ',.

kll6660304 HOLMES 86-353

~0 ./ PDR 3 ou ! J. RLC: hec I Enclosures I; }b{ h... 4 m-m 6 ne' a'%3Nt v-@e. -+.ggeM sh m g--gua.-w-e .e, men, m go..m=M %ee.- -ha- -e--- - ** pre =em-e.+- e seu=- ws. -m"M--+=-m'u-me-

m

'. 4-3- - _ g; ~ n a._ 2 I (' ..t .+:. l ABBREVIATIONS IN THE ATTACHED TABLES 21,1981) .There are 4. copies, designated Draft 1 is dated October 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. 1/1 is a partial copy containing pages 41 to 46. 1 '= 'Draf't 2 is dated October 26,.1981. There are 2 copies, designated j 2/1, 2/2.. 2/2 is a partial copy containing sections 3.3.7.5 thro 6gh 3.3.7.5.11. 1 Draft 3 is dated. November 6, 1981. There are '2 ' copies, designated- '3/1, 3/2. Initials of RLCA personnel are: P.H.A, P.A. - Paul Anderson E.D. - Edward Denison S.M. - Shafi Motiwalla i j P.C.C, P.C. - Pao Chen t R.L.C. - Robert Cloud H.L. - Hanson Loey s d 9 6 e l h i i l

t-p .s ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES. INC. e 138 UNIVERSITY AVENUE BERMELEY. CALIFORNIA.4710 .4:s > ui.... ^ P 105-4 January 15, 1982 Mr. R. H. Engelken. Regional Administrator U.S.NRC, Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 260 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Ref: Docket

1) Nos. 50 - 275 50 - 323 2)- Letter: Engelken to Crane, PG&E 12/30/81

Dear Mr..Engelken,

Enclosed please find the information you requested from Robert L. Cloud Associates in the subject letter of 12/30/81. There are 8 summary documents., numbered sequentially as P105-4-825-003 through P105-4-825-010. A cover sheet on,the enclosures lists the abbreviations used in the tabulati.on..In addition a note of clarificatio.n on the review of.the polar crane.is attached since it is difficult to discern the sequence of events from the comments and reports. There is a one-to-one correspondence between many of the com-ments and the revisions. In general, however, this is not the case. The work vas continuing throughout the period October - ~ November 1981, and-the subsequent drafts were changed and ex-j panded as a result of improved. knowledge gained in.the course l of the on-going review. As requested, neither I nor any of our personel have dicsussed l ..).SYiay of. s MAWin the year one sind nin STATE OF CALIFORNIA On this COUNTY Oh&g/g, f **- hundred and..$.0 c. . efore me,..fd2Cae:..

, SU N[ N ' ~.,

p ea r. I W w.4f f, known to me to be the person.... whose name N..... subscribed to the within - -l9 ? '_l _' _ l _ fj,,,Qy instrument and acknowledged to me that..h.... executed the same, t -~ IN %7TNESS WHEREOF 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my \\*f;hg,$5g Y.f officialsealin the. . County of{bernt.sduthe day and year - ~ ~ . NOTARY PUGUC-CAUFGRNIA in this certificate first above written. s:.wmcAccunTY u, / A g b ras. w n.ms + g T g' gg,;,-

~~~3GX.T.T;7 uy commis, ion expire,..&.eW..?.?--

... q.q:, pes o G*de'r's twin N, - kao e ement-General s l -.m m._

o j o 11.,.,...... ....J -- 7.hw., ~.L... -- t a a 'ac.ava.u a iv., un n. s a .so... I sa c..r.a. u: uv..cn a..s u P 105-4-825 001 v i Comnent s Comment Resolution .N

t. _

hL Pq,e Section Made by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision . l.og and/or other no. No. TCTII RECf Coinment Yes No Doct:x.cnt.for Sub- / uho stantiating the Reasons for Revision 4 tio request las been unde of tin piping group .X 'New*Information hE 3*2* I 41 3.3.7.1 X [I to provide doctaientation. 'Iherefore, we j would like to be given tie opporttnity to . )*: i provide info now deemed udssing or inade-qtate. Is tie atulit going to cover equipnent .l loads? FRT I i 41

3. 3. 7.1 X

Tne? .X / I l8 f 41 3.3.7.1 'X liow Lturotch X y-e I l t 41 1.3.7.2 X 'thae? X i I l ) X f 44 1.3.7.2.1 X I I il I, [ l f f I .l i kL j s l t 8(

.M ',.? .{,.d. ,'-s' , k-(: ' - i g s,. : /

1}*I.e' t., ' =/., * * - }

4. a l 4'

>.b J. f,..',%(Q *j . '., ' S, r-

,.... [ /. 3 ', .A I ,>s- 'r .. - ( f. O *na ,5 %" i,s,L. 4 e t. .,i{J.,y.p,;.,4 ; g, ... -d'f .N ./ ..e'.- (

*;. '. F,

v. _j. 'n op *. ;,~ n:" *:y... * ! y - ,N l ([ [(*, %'. *.. o, ~ l.". * '+. I ..Gya: *;#C'g.s...,...; s" i. ...o

1..,

,7,. .. J -,;,., l .4.. 2 ,. w _. :.e._ m v.. n un, c as.aaria.mn a%.,m. a..c...

n a aa n--

-.. a. l s.w. p a v.u. ., u. . n a vs u v. .. a nie u a..a n s.gva.u s aw.i i i-p r. Cornment Resolution comments Section Hade b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other I[Page Ho. No. 'PCR k Cf Comment Yes tio Doctar.cr.t for Sub-T'., F*/ who stantiating the 8'Y Reasons for Revision - i, 1 3

j

}2 .X Incorrect section title 11 Table on S':2tL 3.'3.7.5 Electrical Equipment and i Content InstruraentatioD .; j a t ~ X consiste'ncy 't 2 1 1.0 X Use Reverification throughout t. b I 2 2 2.0 X or conduit systerns X factual clarification f li I j; i I X' static is-X l' .2 3 3.l(I) i l and-seien le-loa dinge-a re i I X i 2 3 3.l(II) X building qualification. reports. J D9 f I' \\ i'. l t X e 4 3 3.l(III: X eivil/ structural 6 g l ? X l i ) 4 3.l(III: X Blume 'did both the dynamic analysis of all bldgs structural qualification of g the turbine & intake bldgs. PC&E did e I structur.al qualification of contain- { ment & aux, bldge. e j 1 I 5

1. 2 X

thrust X s is...k' unet I- .g. 1 t

e. ..(

f r..'..Mm..

{,5 ' s - .a . :s "'rpfji[.,.j$.iI . h$ke; k: $b ][ k - -"'"+i $ & '- Y N.,N,. - i f,jg,y,g.g,.y.,.. sp .., :. m.ng er, s to ar.nrat,s. ne runa r a u2-ai-alt ~u61.' i ~ sucevuu vr s.ur.nc.ni anu As a nc. sus.ua Aun un ns.t.a rate.t. Anannns m.unc.trt,anur. ac.4anau l Comment Resolution Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other Comanents Doctur4nt for Sub-Revision l' age Section Hade b Quoted Yes No stantiating the

g 8

tio. No. WEE-R R Commant Reasons for l I who Revision '

i f

i. '. ) i 1 indicated'in Fig'3.2.2-1 'X factual correction. * 'Its not 6 3.2.2 X ~ ,1 5 straight-forward. x typo i 6 3.2.3 X X the word building is Building? ? 7 3.2.3 X more appropriate. It was corrected in Draft 2 j

\\,

s I told cloud people to look in H&Nf! X

I 2

7 3.2.3 f.i1e 9.7 3 N-- (Spectra could'not be located T PCaDd) ~~ (E files. I, ~ t Ji These spectra were thought to be valic X I 2 7 3.2.3 X until October 1981. d 3 i l J is becauset W didn't have to XJ That l 2 7 3.2.3 X qualify anything in the turbine,bidg. j j factual clarification ~ Log 3.1 i g

l Did W need to qualify any equipt. in X-

) '2 7 3.2.3 X T.B.1 f': ? a il l il

P 'l ~ ,[;' ;;:,.lb h *d,* My N, ~ ' [f I r;'J.[,'YM 3.Ii' if

T -

} = E ',. ../f r.% $.*l;.,' [(f..f.' L'd(!f.Q'l.;q,;f.tf.g.)t- ' q,c...* y,. i, f.% ?:.j )

.Q J.

pp,g n. .>'. : J f, - , J[,D

gt g.

..,.... ;. l t s.: &.. K. ; y. ara.3l %-> _,M. _ _,;,,l Y ' i i L .l si u. q t.ure./ruanot, Gutest.n l anu Aid nr.suLyr Aud UN Kg.ca rnr.;LitatNn:tt sr. Asr Au Anar cq naruar P 103-4-d23-004 a aun.sness ur t. v 1 Comment Resolution . i, corrmen ts t g' Page Section Hade by-Quote'd Revision . Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other Ilo. No. TCIE3LCT Comment Yes No Docu:r. crit for Sub- } f, * / who acanciating the "Y Reasons for i 'Ravision

l H

i' /2 9 Fig 3.2 JAB provided on basis of NRC-PC&E-JAB X X Mtg. to establish cr'teria for llosgri Evaluation l,, t I l /2 9 Fig 3.2 If " Definition" of ground motion means ~' X X ground responsa-spectra it was based i on the corebined ef forts of Blume for li ^ PC&E and Newritark for NRC. llowever. 7.5 [- e, 8 magnitude of EQ was dictated by HRC based on US65 advice to them ~ P i. i X I: )X FIELD ERRECTED TAHKS- /2 10 Fin 3.2 i 2-1 OUTD00lt I ./2 10 Fig 3.2 ~ DEVEl.0P HONE ** NO'NE .X X factual correction i-

l 2-1 SPECTRA URS/Bl,ume i

X

- For polar crane only.-

'X i, Craneii and Outdoor Tanks. l* /2 10 F i 's.* 3. 2.X X, j 2-l e e l .l /2 11 Fig 3.2 RI.C Other Seisanic Category I Piping PC&E X factual correction [ 3-1 it tl T j i [ h

.;:r;. I .t ,T i

c. -

j P , - q-(i. { ',.j. I ,,, 79.. * -.. .i 's ..... h e ;'h.N8;.n;$hM ;,.h, 1-l. ijiM..i.. N as, M.s 4 . '....i,'.,2 ,l .= a ws-o y*s-wn;. > l + c ~., < W . *16um,fs w.hi IO '7*II3d.* Nr a.- . a.

C 4

r35Wh t av..nna va s vr..s.u s pn u A a s nr.aut.o a av.s H l t s Comment Resolution (; Comments aft Pf.ge Section Hade by Quoted h tision Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other [ Docux.cnt for Sub-r go, yng RLTI-Comment Yes No j# stantiating the l: l/ who Reasons for f 'P Y Revision i 0. y Where is piping qualified by PCLE7 X factu'al correction. I I 1/2 11 Fig 3.2.x l 3-1 f t analyzed X use'a.better word f. j t/2 12 3.3.1 X investigated-t i { l ~ f 1/2 a a a o analysis x 12 3.3.1 1X investl ation j { E t I i t i l } n a a u ./2 12 3.3.1 analyzed y X i re-evaluated, i i i /2 12 3.3.1 X analysis X re-evaluation t. i l' Sincu'URS/Blume had performed the X added statement on torsio'n Referencp 1, preliminary.' /2 13 3.3.1 X original DDE analysis of the"Contain- .a factual correction report.. Seismic Reverifica ment Structure the need for new or ad-tion Pr,ogram. Nov. 12, 191! [ i ditional info in the 1977 time frame Ij when the llosgri analysis was undertakei n was rat her limited since the structure t I war, built to the original design docu-I. ments and Blume was to use the original .4 (. cynamic model except for the (vertical analysis.(of) the(annulus)and for I 7 i torsional (response) l 1

~l '[ 4 - ) h.'

f

).V; M.W.HTd.iEWik'tf...#8hpW... l 6 1;: ' ? 'g:, ,g ' '[- i '., :., p,.g4f?dy;t.; 6?,% (,d;M .O li ,7

/ i.e

,p.. ' x t* 7'Jk9:.y'

1.,,

.i,. v r. , y. j 7 ,s. 41;...:. ; ;. m.ud Q....j,jj,,..M i _.g,.i-Sj-ME. 4.

i

.. J a .......o. vr aat p... 4. .u..,v uu.tva un nu n ras.a. ..A..a.s. s, .*v 4.... n o r. -. ~.... ---. --- --- .i.j t.- Comment Regolution i ~ Comnent s }!ade b Quoted Revisimi Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other

f ofC P. ge Section YcIE kbCT ilo.

No. Cormnent Yes No Docuwnt for Sub-stantiating the 1/ who Reascas for

4

'y Revision i I Il /2 14 3.3.1.1 X ? X i 1 .I j ror is not too clear-1 suggest extract 'l 3.3.1.1 X This discussion of the orientation er-X used better. statement /2 15 'I ing somethin.from the attached write-f i! up prepared or PGLE Technical Report e i i. /2 15

3. 3.'i. 3 X

Cooling-Fans X Correct nomenclature Fan Coolers i I /2 16 3.3.1. X no conclusion X ,' i 4.1 A conclusion, slightly qualified, I. can be drawn

3

? '] /2 16 3.3.1. X See material provided by llanusiak. We X [ l 4.1 .think annulus structure is qualified t r subject only to a look at revised pip,e j loads, etc. for reoriented spectra. i. 't g-l t l' /2 17 3.3.1. X system 7 X factual correction l* 4.2 vessel I correctnomenclatYre

FI '

.I 18 .l. 3.1. X Fan Coolers A X lf l/2 fy 4.2 Couling-Fans p,. I e i I

'I '1

,'t -

y .I 3 .,; I- . n 7, z.4 .-e, ; 3..

;,.4

, fa^U#"l,'N' 'd. sNh;.:EF; n. O. 5 -, ..ym ~~ r.w ' q". w - .s a'a ...*;u...'l4-2,.'u JOf d-.'e.D '. ~ '~"u.--- a - M \\ x .,.v.... .,..~.......g ..a .s -v ..av v.. l I l s l Comment Resolution Comments NE P.g c Section Ifade b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision . l.og and/or other Docu:r.cnt for Sub-No. No. TtW'E CF Comment Yes No + atantlating the -#* / who Reasons for 6 sy Revision t This seems to imply there was an early - X /2 18 1.3.1. x 4.2 version of spectra that.were hi her than now. I'm not aware.of suc Please inform or reword as necessary for clarity. r minor...and do 7 X* ' Editorial change /2 20 3.3.2.2 X based-on-spot-cheekst-These-minot 4 i changes-will i u87 /2 21 3.3.2. I Please check with Ed Kahler of PGLE X-- There was. no revision. from lX EQC Dept. to'see if evidency 4.1 Draft'l to Draft 2. As Ilosgri review is available (We noted subsequently, Draft think so) 2 was revised to incor-porate new information 3 Design Review for llosgri was performed X-- Lo8 7 /2 21 3.3.2. X 1 4.1 by URS/Blume as they.reunalyzed the Intake for the Ilosgri.. e a 4.2 proven by Blume analys.es & ad document - X reword Hay 197.-Revised Blume This is not an assumption. It was '/2 21 3.3.2. X report o Intake Structure ed in that report. p. I-p per -liost,r t-requirementti .X j ,/2 24 1.3.3.3 X j.

4...

j ..r-t Y..' s . E "E "Y8 "" X 9[ I "'.". Y I "e s.w r e n m,. / 1/2 2S 3.3.3.4 X et si. .i l i 5

i e,. r,M. 9- ,5 d,.'1'.: $l a.' *!? ' ~ ',A 2 ',

t,.{Q V t ;;t;;; ? (* Y!-

t ,.4.b';w; r;a \\L.

i.-

i

;'.. ?s,G,]..pf, ' h.: p..qaK...

l t

. r;,

,.,'. :.:. ' i,.

un # un s u.a.a.ein'a.s.% u. 7a H. Li. '~.,i.I.T... ^.t.trAcWMb4r r wa -J.>-wv -- .~. .n. ou ~........,.. n .,va.w tva Comment Resolution I comments .g' Page Section Hade by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other j Docts.cht for Sub-No. No. YCIE' "'ItL'Cf Cownent Yes No stantiatring the uho I Reasons for Y Re/ision 'g ' s2 2 tl 3.3.4.1 X ',. 8, ' I.og 1.4 main steam line anchorage drawings X factu'al correction for the C-line al' I v f2 29 3.3.4.1 a dif- "small" [ X X X '2 29 3.3.4.1 X Please review'this with Sokoloff lie I t.hinks this is in error. t s i 35Z 0.5 - II X /2 29 3.3.4.1 lX t All difference of weights were resolv-X '2 29 3.3.4.1 X / ed with URS/Blume. for determining the vertical response X /2 29 3.3.4.2 X of the control roosu floor due to its l relative flexibility. This model is t the basis for vertical scissaic qualif* icacitm of equipment located on the i e control roo.a f loc,r. Ti.e vertical spectra doter.ained frota this model j were used f or the qualification of ,i control room equip;nent. l; k .s ' y d X garbled X g g,. A j /2 30 3.3.4. b-1; f 4.1 -l

o ,y - ~$ c.'J7* 'b. N. '.'.,, $ h;,j'j., $,,^ '". B.' - ) '. H ?. "~ . Lf:.,hl$ \\u v.au Yr bunn:.n't anu' 12s addoturi~ua iun ut.ih. i,dCdili'XiWiiNn hrkk,ftbhb.s-7 2. ' b iS$Y ? .s Comment Resolution comments Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other Docurcnt for Sub, ' i^ g ' hge Section Hade by ? Yes No Ho. No. YdiE llCE Comment stantiating the 'j d/ who Reasons for I'- n, Revision PY. I Table 3.3.5.4c Cannot find X shoul~d be Table 3.3.4.4 + f/2 31 3.3.4. X --factual correction-- 4.2 ) J 4 Remove this.'We. include a,2D analysis X changed 3D to 2p Log 2.5,1 ./2 32' 3.3.5. X 1.1 as our qualifying analysis.in llosgri Report. P Conflicting st'atements X clarified and reworded 1/2 32 3.1.5. X based on snora information Log 2.5.1 1.1 i 1 + s Please see llanusiak to update where X . j 'l / 2 33 3.3.5 X . i 1.2 this stands. i' We have completed llosgri-qualification X . Additional information. i/2 33 3.3.5. X of Dome Service Crane. and it is gathered 1.ogs 2.5.1 fi 7 { b. 1.2 documented (llanusiak) t.

t j

l'ilA Insert B X editorial change /2 33 3.3.5.1. 2 The modifications have been coripleted x, g g. i t/2 34 3.3.5. X 2.3 in the field. - g, ./2 35 1.3.5.3. X The modification has been completed X 3. in the field l I/2 37 3.3.5. X The rc<3utred modification have been X 4.3 completed in the field. 4 e k l 71 i n-t n 8,6 t'.. r. n r y review otilY hY No t-A iini t nl>I n 4 e

~ * - ,. :.",;gNQ i }. ', . ': ' v x j

- ' : ?. ' ;, 'i f,'t i

i ],h>:a.u[ l

j t

t Pf. m.x

.~ e*1 g*, *;,.l,

~ u, 2 t n.'..t 'Y .1 .-.,, l;O j ip 6 at I c ", p 5 ; l.A; ",' Qp :;6 'r.'. * : ' t.< y y~. a. u...: dd;;';,';,;g,,,',j$,..'.;;,3.L. ! a ' L% h g;j,(; i ' ' t 'I oum.a.u ve t,vrm a.n t anu Ata as. pus.uttua vn.u a.. (' Comment Resolution 1 Cociment s ,' f ' P.a ge Section Hade b Quoted Revisi l Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other [. Doctar.cnt for Sub '. tio. No. P~C W ~R E Comment Yes 1. stantiating the l [

/

who Reasons for (Y Revision g Clieck with E P Wollak. I believe all' Comment was crosse.d out /2 41 3.3.7.3 X req'd mods are complete. 7,. d .'e The modifications were made'. X The error reported was notice L. P105-4--595-012 i/2 47' X on a table of seismic accler-P105-4--593-002 ations. F.H.(PC&E)noted that P105-4--593-003 V/2 47 3.3.7.3 X 7 X the calculation used the cor- . P105-4--595-025, i rect value. S.H.&E.D.(RLCA) P105-4--595-028 8 then selected a new sample of gg 3,3 4 calculations--2 errors were /2 48 3:3.7. X. reviewed .X recorded X Editorial change h 4.5 analyzed l I Pages 49-54 cursory review only by X L)etail 4. Drawin 504566 used

i

/2 49 3.3.7.5 X VJChio - OWS & others must review the correct acce eration in the calculation. Ufout expli :it P105-6:-595-022 I 21evation.information the det ill P105-4--595-023 eas. assumed by RLCA to be use i This must be revi, ewe'd by OWS Hot throughout the Turbine Buildi ig. /2 $5 3.3.7.6 X Appli c- .H.(PG&E) documented that th c i able letail was located at ground Level Log 3.3 I indieeriminately poor word, omit caised additional questions & led to {T. l m1y & thus resolved the erro :...This I /2 5 ') 3.3.7. X Lwo errors. 6.1 in-exce.ss-of-over .X lo significant change in mean.ng p ^

t -

[ Two additional Raceway Details (S93 X rhe supports are'11mited by dasign 'Co certain areas of the ;, '/2 $6 3. 3. 7.. X 6.1 S147) show no requalification after plant. RLCA omitted the word."indiscriminatoly" because ip( the Itosgri spectra were 1suued sau not applicable... Additionalcalculatiopsweresuppliepl, by R.S.(PG&E) to show llosgri.gualific,ation for S97. Deta on May 9 1977, g' 3147 was'not'used a was not qualitiod.foi-llosgri. 1 i Log 3.4.2.1. ,v 1 I

O i _ _ ~ O' j 7'i 8h ' C,'..'.'-diff.bh7[ 16 1l I'd} '1 ui'ff jf:N;I P .,, $,; Pt.. '. .. P.' f -.i 1 ' fy.4.' f IIi[ kN t NE ; g 7,:.~e: g. P Y ,,$,- :f'd,.,,. 0 .g ,.d._ ' , ',f N,l J(q u..._ -- --- - -d }1t ). E,,, ? . 3 ..mnchstA,.gu..M....14.: Ma.=. o.s.1.: ,~, q; ....s ..m. w. .w o. ov. j Coinment Resolution

(

I, ~ Comments Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other i' ' ' Paga Section H.4de by Quoted

nevisten, Doewar.t for Sub-r/

po. No. YGir klIT Conunent t Yes LJ stanciating the N' Reasons for- .d - uho i Revision j .PY P- ~ 1 Hote: Original design was designed & X 'New f' acts g' 1/2 $9 4.0 x draf ted by URS/Blume. :.llosgri'modifi-cations were designed by URS/Blume + and' drafted by PG&E'on new drawings f which showed the modificitions only and ref erred to the original drawings i [ X This was a typographical e Intake 'l/2 61 CC,N. i X error [ f, Inlet [ I t 1 l i, i 5 5 ll I, '..h (b' 4 b. u k. 5^ i

t.

i

i i

Uv.f-I h

l 1 ( [ In A llt)..,' ' c I.'. };.;. y; k,'.S ? ' ., l '. a' f e.f f "P. '."7 .,. :E.f...fhf < q.' ji-[( f,[k[Kly[. U.yi.f .s [ .. ] 1 ~ Q '. ' .bY ,hl.

u. },,a 3 * ;;*,;. r,s,. i

. '.a..,,,,,u ;_,4 ;,_ L%g =... ~

s.. a : a.

an a s. u nu, .u.. - u durunsas ut cunar.nr anu J a s n.e.suLutAun.un noc4 s'at.LAntan.' s courir./rt,anuhU .j P 105-4-825-005 I Comment Resolution. 1 coment s Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other I 3 H.tdc b _CE Docist.cnt for Sub-Page Section Comment Yes No f""'d f E YCR' stantiating the

1o,

t:o. "I who Reasons for !i . : Revision . 'P Y

i nor

',l S.H. Jim Hocca cmnents, SH 11/03/81 Hot ap- !} 1/3 Titl.: Page plical la

I 4

4 x l 1/3 Titla Page x Partial? p Preliminary. l' l n 4 { s Addressing the IES/Bltme Contracts for the h x ,i 1/3 Tit! 2 Page x tids tinu fram i ll = s -g. i Ikmin - 524'-3381 x 1/3 Tit) 2 Page. x [ .I Incorrect section title ~ 1/3 ii T of C S.H. lie-evaluatim-Effort x i Electrical Equi [must and Instrurentation } y l-x f 1/3 1 Title x Partial? f, a 1 A Preliminary Report I M, " -r e x Stated facts

this w.is expanited to incitale activities 1/3 1

1.0 x cxclusively per fon.ed by PGainilE and/or Bitsm as rewuds develoisioit, tran:.mittal uixt use p of data, .. s., N4 t }a. ( j ,1/3 l' l.0 x. as expanded alove I s x interface Athat extr.teti between ICuxlE and l M i

l o. o' ~. r.:r'A Myy.;g g6. j. t.,, u y.;,;g ',3..

1., 3'... ' J:W h"Q,,;'n;O.4 T

.Qvi r :,> ~ e ?Qjp:Q,iR'-('" k gqj,I?. V .R

,;,,\\p[

i. s ^ ' p

3. }gi.j.

[ S.. ' h. ; t.fDQ'3//. ',l 1 l,;;f.

.. %.... 3, e.e

r...

[. -h, - [fs [ 1 .1 i j '.f,

..... D............ v :._.,_. ;.,,3.ss,M.%v.*g3 N.

't qd..;gi;y,:~::g..;} 5 u.' i .i M + p vs t.ura.n a nao S a a ar.svt.u a ion un as.t.a ras.a. Antua.sti vs..ms sw...-- 1-sv. .n.s a P 105-4-825-005 l-Coument Resolution 2 Comments Page Section Ifade b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og r.nd/or other 'f E Doctr.r.cnt for 'Sub-j. no. No. YCEE 7 CE Comment Yes No stantiating the i/ l uho Reasons for g f 'Y Revision t I; apre$artiatladnury report, ~~~ X I t '3 1 1.0 X l } 3 l 'Ihis entire section was x x

gty, expanded and rewritten to pro-

'3 2 2.0 three categories: vide a clearer and unre com-p) (1) develoinent of. data by PCandE for Prehensive discussion of ob.jec-transmittal. tive and scope - not necessarily (2).... as a result of cmments (3) progran followed by URS/Bhme l' (4) t (5)..... and lxu it was used I. I X ? Verificatfori that LAtS/Bltan was following 3 2 2.0 l x I a QA Progran anl that it was to l 'I - j i X 3 2 2.0 x as expanded Interface Aof I'CandE with LRS./Bltmn. i y I i i l! x s 3 3 3.0 x 1% sulk work p I trau.nussion l !i 111tsiurk tran:.ud sulan fl I i t l X K in-liouse use or 3 4 3.0 5 forens for A transmittal to n'32

g.

f.y .pl b-

.t i ]q' 1. E,fi.?) '

-4

?sh i f,i;l. rl-{b';.i.* V Q *. - allJ.,*'<. y'.?h.},.)'Q)dy Q g(.. m.4.: Qj x.,. f - Y s r'.i! 3js.. I

-,y,

'lQ - Q.q.;;. [ j .,u g! ... y w.. a,. - S 4 hj[:.,.<, c. 3:. {$.J.ll.i[s '; ' ~,.,, i,f': d'3h, Y

'.' '0 9'ir

.g l .ra' 1.,if m),f.;.t p;sf: lipfigs.f3:

. ).

.W r g

_..u". 6..: . d 2hi5 b dys20'i 6T.%?h L.

r6a F -. --'2-ta s at. dot.ufiOd Uh MLCa PRE 1. AttinA. t 01.Unr./ruanor, dt. Asnlu 4A rt. Y

1

. survie..u up cute.c.n t' nap P 105-4-825-005 F l Comment Resolution 3 -trade b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other Comments Doct:r.hnt for Sub-Comment Yes 16 P.y,e Section 'PCIE~ ~kfCT stantiating the '"Il rio. No. ,,:l who Reasons for I'.. "#*/

/

PY* Revision j' ii Ja - 1/3 5 3.2 x tmsis for desits x 'lle basie-orientation-of... applicable' [. m r Althour): ensual cbservations were made... x I/1 5 3.2 x prinury x ...the basie intent of the present effort IV

1 1/3 5

3. 2 x

was' to detennine if tie applic,able engin... C correct owrall x ...aml general ' accuracy.. 'l t/3 5 3.2 x ,1 f I x I/3 6 3.2.2 x .. thy 1E enghicer... 6 cTvf17 I f ~ x ...descrit.ed in-the-body-of this report. t/3 6 3.2.3 x within 'the general st.ategy regarding equipuent... l Q', partial? X /3 6 3.2.3 I 7 For this prelludnary report, much... 7 Hut does this wan7 Iku anch? x g. x tiill this get by fl107 of. . g a

i

.g I 4 f

o -l ~ - -

,'.o

. p,,.. -;;t.t ; - -. f.*f m,. . A*. ; y g .s 3 ;,., n,.,.q3 ;. - <w..cs 9g ; :s..$ 7e. yypjj -i?j:, ? J Q.,;,...b,.'..;.,..g ;r g ..w ,..t; '.,,... /s.6.dr'y& G

,;. V...-

7 ,.~ p(,... .s. ,s > - ;9 ' u te !+g(4.,;ti.'3... . ;s. ; :/.s - l i.s 8*tp..;y .>..g p.

4,,. /j, -

' W. s, f .. f{, -gi[,>&,7,;.N'y .,3.: b ; J., .s....x..,. g

i:

....y.. .y i, : '. . 17., ~..- 7 16 J g '.:;,'; f G.p. f, cA '.,, e ..p: ,78 a e '.a a?.A,' n';: TLj,..,, 2.,.. ~ ?"). 2,. '.;.; - lT. ,7.w;. : d;.*; ff..bijn.';d.. ' ty9 3 ..,3 : ....';............._......_....t,._L,;~g 7 P 105-4-825-005 ) M Cournent Resolution s. Cominents ' II' Pa r,e Section Ifade b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other - Docu;nent for Sub-No. No. YCit 7 Cownent t Yes No scanciating the "'# / who Rear.ons for PY. Revisioa '(.. E DO. t ... spectra, throur,h Anucivinent 83. x 1/3 7 3.2.3 x contained in n v 2 i,. r. Deletion of irrelevant sentence Then what? now not' valid spectra of but x -]/3 7 3.2.3 x 'out? r x In-house usef 'l/3 9 Fig. 3.2 x stated the facts x ' s depth 1/3 12 3.3 x 3. ~ 4 '. """#'I*' 5 6. t ,T.. 7. Ancilf'ary i inproved volding x l. Generic equigment... 1/3 13 3.3.1 x ,t -l l t ',7 t-provided statenent on torsion g x lt appears the NHC expansion wants note of a i'?/ { l: 1/3 l'l 3.3.1.1 x It ok at wtut ICantE did in developing tie ?.0 t data Lley sent?.1 skn't see Llut in this 's).. t; l; .cc titm. w I? \\- ~ 'A. Cciunent was not cause of rewrite. ~ r'hg ..it was assured tlat... x 'l/3 14, 3.3.1.1 x '? ItwasagenerAleditprial. " change. W i; l .i I

e

~

i ~ y.., I f'04. ty' 'h ~ ', Q.q. ,Q .p. ' $'g,$ ' *h r f ~" d' i ' .c ' W:fQ'. '..i.b.?.5's 8: ' ,.fD %. j,f @.. " 'J,7l G $.. i$. l . O.. ' , r..Y3P f !.e.kf$: l D.'. 6% N,/h:*. @,?.l.98?. * '.d[Yl;?q% fu., A.? ..{l -1. ' l t.iA886 T,'? . I '. s...L 1.h.M,#4 t:hp~t.d; v.-ign gy; ch' f Fx ~~~ >j. .._.m 2.3 2 1 3 tw*M $si . ljip ~~ b^eg }Mj g + .. e..t .m. 2. _.. J - SUiO1ARY OF cot 2 TENT AND _lTS' RESOLUTION ON RLCA PRELIM 1NAd, at.utsc./ruanac, st.asnit, An tr.at'act, nr.ru a Et i P 105-4-825-005 f. S' consen't Resolution 3 comments i Revision Reasons for.Revisi'on 1.og and/or other 7; 'g' Pa f.c Section Pfade 12y Quoted Docuu:nt for sub-No. No. YGE RfCF Coenent Yes No f'#* / stantiating the E i who Reasons for .[., Revision c f f. do wuld x ' Additional Info. -Ing 1.1 I I/3 14 3.3.1.1 x I i t Iku aliout'Bluie's independent.uotki x i /3 15 3.3.1.2 x f.:8.x_ 1 1 mat did I'CandE do with info ima Bitne? Is x ./3 15 3.3.1.3 x }ionly recipient bur nost inportantly in interiza teport. Wat did PCandE d> in the .l data review? k 1 4 .,~: n .. s u i Is tie stneture adequacy really in question x [ 1/3 16

1. 3.1. 4. l' 12ecause of tie error? or jtzst systems and L

x p' l-. i stpportsi [ V,, i: 'this is also cuvered in teclnical report. x j_ 1/3 17 1.3.1.4.2 x

p' j See attac!cd write-tp.
l
~

.{. Editoria1' change, no real Gon s i de r ing-tha t -ile-ermputa t ions -were-coticeL, x ./) 18 1.3.1.4.7 x Ltds tyiie of stacament doesn't give sin a wna content change. g '(( e ^ feelind. I. ~ I !6 - I 1 i l l/3 .18 1.3.1 4.2 x M)rc wiki will this be in <xxipleted interim x Stated more facts M. ' reporr? l Mf. .) 21 i-A 4 '=

a , ' : r 14 ~ N-e l 1 ?v.. .;kik.hlqW:$f}.'~M;;,qq'* ' ~ ' ' * ; # V,[ w. jhY - ..h.ff.(.,g O i t- .U r :.;t.Q .. S 3

,,j.

, 2 ha f.',h:. 'i%. ir. T,( b ' [' h$.$3. m- 'g},.g. fY@ 1 g I: anu a a s nr.suidItOfun at.U[rd5Onin.41'fo6uriORT hr.b,,.,' cKr A ~ l ~ t.ut. car.'n t' st.cr w ur P 105-4-825-005 j j .f I - Conument Resolution 6 Coinnen t s ' .. ' I ' Page Section Hade b Quoted Revision . Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other N.: Doctar.cnt for Sub-No. No. YCIE E Conunent i Yes No scantiating the 3. "' I who Reasons for '4 / Revision '). '.~' ?PY io.. a 'Ihis is also covered in teclnical report x

/3 18 3.3.1.4.2 x

a,ee,attacted write-tp, ig

i 1

Is this amulus only or'eittire containnontf. ,/3 18 1.3.1.4.2 x x v v. 4 Again developtunt of info transmitted to Bitsn:7 x- ' '[- j /3 19 3.3.2.1 x Ia si .. ? L I ti l: iQ mat does Bluas do independently? x i /3 19 3.3.2.1 x s.. g.: l mat (kaes tMs mean? Editorial clarification also log 1.2. 2.2.2 x '/3 20 3.3.2.2 x Q11e revisica.s are tused on spot clecksh reflecciag nore info. p i i Again, diat did IGancE do with data frcza 111uiu? Ikw used 1 7 .i. i 5 lused on tie x x ) 1)tb change froin Draft I to Draft -i /3 21 1.3.2.4.2 x ... foe-ele reason that tie building is 2. t' i: 7 essentially rigid. May 1979, hvised Bitsrc report .! 2)A clarification added frota Draft 2 to Draft 3, referenc-on Intake Structure 7;, ing Bltme report on Intake I' 'this e,Inuld be stated differently, e.g.. x Structure xM ( t/3 21 1.3.2.4.2 x "as tic building is rigid" p ~.

e..

a ll l.

.w,' 4 e .,.e... g, .,he.. ..p w.. e..,.,.j...<4 "? .,.t g s 1 . ?){ M,'. "., ' Ih; hfe cf [.,.'. [ J, y.w.w$y.. CEN. y )a,x :y. 49:n;' r.

.6

. !k - " L'.'\\bi. $ ' ' I .s., x{~a,1. e :sc d.y d ' s '^ n.+-~"- .4 + ....x' ~ P 105-4-825-005 I e-l Comments-Conunent Resolution 7' \\ i fg* Page Section Hade by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revi' ion I.og and/or other-s No. No. TCTE 7 1I T Comment Yes No Docu:r.cnt for Sub-who f tantiating the ( C Reasons for j i'

l R6 vision ig

)

f F'." is ll/3 21 3.3.2.4.2 x Rigidity of the building appears-to-be a gpod x . See previous ccanent o asstsiption ba54 toon a cursery examination j, of the drawings but "this assunction will be A', verified in... 4,; p Is tids one of cle codes R. Cloud, ws talking i 3j aboutI

{

f = Y ~ l. [ 23 3.3.3.1 x Iku about 1 u n developed? x g 1/1 ) 1 if .I ) I.: ,1 ~ 1/3 24

3. 3. 3.'1

.x Wiat did Blians do? x i li l l this 4 t/3 24 3.3.3.1 x ... arid will be a part... x Editorial }. .il 's t f ti 26 3.3.3.4 x Sinuld anything be said.about' these drawings x ij' l like ckecked azul ok t i. i' l tlose l' lt An $verage weight of weights in... [ [ 3.3.4.1 x M. 't ; i . B. 4 g: .e- 's 1 x til this lxn a' closed calc? - x .s ,I r "j

x o.,

+. 3 1 {.

t...

t i; t.Gs. L. N i i W;i i s p.p N a l

?

p-

p..,,,....... . v.: ..L'$f$.5U I . n.. y i A '. - Y,.:. 4 ?0k?.g:j.ft!.

q.l.,5,x{'.

pfg..,/t,h.n....c -,,y y 'I 1

x.,

.:,.-y [ l,.'.: 1 ' r: - ... v.:. ,j fhk i, i M..i -... - --- - -.b. - -..f.'d83- - - - - INjdk k .. 2, [Ud* 4.h 'i A' ?' ...... ~............ ~...., '.. a.. a. z. G...;.,..w; : i . a... - cby' .l P 105-4 825-005 I Comment Resolution 8 p' E f Corr.mant s' .r.if t Page Section llade by Quoted i.ision . Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other Doct: ret for Sub-l

0, gg,,

yg7 ggt cy-Comment Yes No stantiating the "d / who Reasons for s PY ' Revision j

i

.,l / 3 29 1.3.4.1 x Wat does B1tsin do independently?- x e e L .t ..e b,. 'j Is tiiis part 'of' reverification progrant. W x I/3 36 ~1.3.5.4.1 x i sorm spot checks'will tm smule... x t/3 37 't. 3. 5.4. 3 x I asstmo in reverification prograra i t and will be considered in the reverifigation .x Editorial I t/3 39 3.3.6.28 x t I programa. j, l j X I/3 41 3.3.7.1 x Hot in log? 2 t' t I/3 41 3.3.7.1 x ... interface to examinh.q x Editorial

i and will be done irr icverification prog.

l will x Editorial, this tas.k musy be acccmplished by'furtter t/3 41 3.3.7.1 x ex.anhution of... files.-) j during verification prograra' l ,t 'J g 'I s . a r.r 3, Q-1 .g gj. I I

l

Mre v,7 54 g,f/.;# ). L We f... r, t. %

g. r:

',.,,.

f s

),f ..t.~ ty' a f. Nigg$MMdh$$$$n(;gGhj' (]q J ...,.4 gg,fg gJi ' e.. ;' ' ',3 ' ,7 o ;. ~ .y'.,' .J. P l ~. J MIi,' I - ~~

N ;........".'" '2 * *'f.b. '[ $.',' ;'.r.*$ $

N d

4 * ~+E ig 5 i l P 105-4-825-005 4. i. Comment Resolution 9 ~ I, ' l Com.w nts ','# f

Page Section M.ide b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revis. ion 1.og and/or other L'k l

( Na. ifo. YGTE W Comment Yes No Docur.cnt for Sub-bf "# / uho stantiating the Reasons for -l PY Revision "3. 'l e 'this will be implenented-fer;the long... x' Editorial (hange - ~ 1/3 42 3.3.7.1 x accouplished during' t- !!/3 45 1.3.7.2.3 x will cley? x J, See'P105-4-825-004 conment sheet' See F105-4 825-004 cormient shec f 1/3 47 3.3.7.3 x Ib we need note, I x. k' I F i} j! I/3 47 t.3.7.4.1 7 7 Cannot read l' t l i lj } i ~x during reverification prograin 'this s'ection, revised for otlw - See P105-4-825-004 l 1/3 47 1.3.7.4. x j re ons. q i. r,' I 1/3 48 1.3.7.4.5 .x u ut's signfficance? x 1he review refarred.co by the core-o 3 men.t was performed between drafts. See P 105-4-825-004. 'Ibe parentheses were not included',lut tl:o section was rewritten by I, 1/3 51 1.3.7.5.6 x

or instnanentatiai..

7 x /. (IUTA) after O. Steinhardt (FCEE) I ad telephoned & stated that all k IJ analytical work for electrical ~ equip. ami instnsamcation was peric L Also,conuents on Draft 2,' Cop <1. ed by PG&E personnel'. j h 1/3 55 1.3.7.6.2 x Cuxluit weiglit? x' .i x x Significance l l of l (" 1 A. [d Ij [,' l a.. - l ,j o.h.. 9 n-i

ees. I i E k _l' '.:

s f;,.

!N$a.. . iv,. ^ gr: . ;?;.:wyT' h$,;)y. su..pn

m. u.

a . % g.sw4 -w ___.._______.............___.._.......,m...-a-t P 105-4-825-005 .' l. ~ Connan t s - Comment Resolution 10 l l Quoted ' Revision . Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other Docur.cr.t for Sub-Paa,a Section IIade b ' Comment ~ Yes No $o^ f LHo. No. YdiE CI-t stantiating the i./ who Raasons for .'P Y Revision ,3, ./3 56 1.3.7.6.3 x Corrected? x, s .x Will this be requalified?', x See P105-4-825-004' See P105-4-875-004 l j I l i x l i j /3 57 Con (4.0 x Maybe riot true ainystore l Ibes this acan doctmentation within. 'j FCmdC h /3 58 C i (4.0: x W at did we do with it? x t I l a 61 OLS (4.0 RIE ...information... x typing error

f

. /3 infonial T. i i ...addititaulh errors!.. x Editorial change .0 61 5.0 W seisnac input. 61 5.0 x Ik Inlee Structure x

this is a typographical error

's ' f /3 .j Intake

l l

,1 Conclusions ccupletely rewritten h, d 'l/3 62 5.0 7 7 As-with-any-review-ef-any-design-rejeen, x for other reasons mouc-errors-ausd-sone-utistakes-ten -or-aipparent ] W'.:: will-be-fotendr lQ' c j )g - ..:n. g N l .I *

!,i i r -c,;. - ...c a ::,.,..;,+ D r. 4. oj r y L u. !;; -i ;o }?.. ...,. e:... : lp.,Q,, ... ;'y%..,. t ;.. ;.. '.' ;.L I. ' >. a 1 . a,. >:g. i 'h, dl [5' 'I' b Y,,4 ,'q;*U!k- ,'f. t

iFiUU.Nh.$h.. h.

!h 1 @ Dip A.[F.*'8_ h,'i N $. 0' ' #~ .? 4.m 6ML. t _ . e y. s .. m. i .y 1 .j ~ ..........,.......2 Co: nun t s' I P 105-4-825 005 P.t ge'Sectionl lbda b P Quoted Comnent Resolution .I ' . kJ fL 'j: d ' "'#- / No. No. ~ URTR E Conunent t . Reasons for Revision Revision 33 i PY. uho Yes N6 ~ 1,og and/or o'ther h * . Docu:r.cr.t for Sub-scantiating the S I/3 62 5.0 x Reasons for b . resolutions will result, sir.ce.... Revision i )( Editorial rarrite -( have been accouplisted t - b. 1 ~ I * /3 63. 6.0 ? ? Reference 1.ist .x Ikm:nclature 1 i g i i i f e I d. 4 F. 3 44 e f l '} i 1 1

4 i

} ij 3 } ,b N'. y

c

.8 t w. ~ p 5

I t i l r f .'s.' , d *.sr. t ,n ...,. rt. y n ..y[p,1C,. j ' P 8% ' '.d}. l! ,f, q, E 4";\\ j L .a jf.. li . ' S* 1; 9. a j ,c. w d.%. .ST. 2 4a.a l ...u...._...,J. .r. sv3. rg,o g yd.uug7 y ) ...v w.. s i .-.-...o. l e' Comment Resolution comments 'f' Pa c,o Section Made lay Quoted Revision . Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other Docta.cnt for Sub- ~M.71M Comment Yes No P iio. No. stantiating the "'I who Reason's for .W Revision l .I. Electrical Equipment and Instrumenta. X.

Incorrect section; title.

1/4 11 1;ableof S.H. .ontent tion k.' 1 l re. this-preliminary-part-of the./verific-X See Pld5-4--825,-005 3/4 2 2.0 3,g, ation program was to examine-Seismie. Design-and-Qualification-infermation of-three-categories: 1 1. Ensure that all...ap lied if 2. Chart the... design c ain. 3. Review... interface specifically i l for this preliminary report X 1/4 2 2.0 S.H. a ~ J It The info X Editorial.- 1/4 2 2.0 S.H. p I {. l ~1/4 2 2.0 S.H. h"f" X !f I e 4 .g b' l v i-r 3.2 herein .X Editorial L 1/4 2 2.0 7 7 2 b'. requali fication of equipmerit was .X . Factual correction 1/4 6 3.2.3 y ,j divided - no - between PGandE and '.g Westinghouse 4* N l q, a i

i t i = 4 fi'I5 i'- N (: h, si ..g...*. i r <j b.~.. "." : ~....'....: "

.". : '..~.:.. '::.S..Y."L;:2=tMl=2C ' :..- ' ':-~~ a - - ---- - & "" " ; " " " i i

Comment Resolution ] Comments cc Scccion Made b Q'uoted R:-vi sion Reasons for Revision 1.oA and/or other Pjg, Docuts.t for Sub-' ft go, pgg-k CT Comment t Yes No s tantiatinge t;he ./ ut.o Raasons for y Revision t 4 7 3.2.3 X - 00 Pal X 'The word "qualifie.d" was 5 .j changed.to " evaluated" s. PGLE reviewe.1 t'he analys'is performed X Reflects clarification of 'I 4 7 3.2.3 X qualificatiori responsibilic:' u by Westinghouse, and' documented the review in the appropriate engineering, ? release. 6' i r, I PG&E Responsible for Qualification

X See preceding comment

4 10 Fig.3.2. X 21 8

t g. d I- [( '4 11' Fig 3.2.lX }i* PG&E X } 3-1 j b f: l L f' j f4 11 Fig 3.2. X }i* PG&E X 3-1 ( I.p. PCandE & Subcontraet'rs 'X I' '4 11 Fig 3.2 X o 3-1 f '4 14 3.3.1-X assumed ? X-- Comments not specifically / J addressed. Genera'l editor Lal .i i n [j... rewrite. 7 -v. i4 3.3.1. x "o.g.a .t. x-- I i =. ts.. I

, k'lgfi.Y' f ?j i. 5- . v ', il,' .[, 'll .d

~...,.

2.1._;

..d .i.., ......... u u. ~.. s.... -...- uu ..v u.a.s un, s.u.u..... -. .~o.3.-.----------------r-- Conment Resolution Co=nen t s E3M " -pgdb,1hr Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other L. g b '~ Docu;r.cnt for Sub-Connent Yes No aft 13 0. 0-stantiating the g,j g,, Reasons for f Revision , l / s; 15 3.3.1. V8 Etic 811Y 8*I8Y'"* Ti X X Comp 1'etely rewritten.for X I other reas,ons,

y

%) ~ ,1 't/4 17 3.3.1. analyzed y.. X 'l 4.2 qualified f .s t-4.2 I.' ,l] I/4 17 3.3.1. 9"*IEEI'8EA8" 8"81 8I8 X-- Y X 4 I ( r N OF 9"*l'EI'8'L*" 8"81 8i8 X Y j t/4 17 3.3.1. I X 4.2 l FORMAL RESPONSIBILITY. ]l h. l/4 17 3.3.1. qualified. analyzed .y_. X 4.2 j i i~ 4.2 X'- t/4 17 3.3.1. revie d qualified r X qualif[eation-analysis' X-- l l, 1/4 18 3.3.1. X l; 4.2 (same substitution.3 times) S g 5-l hi[ I/4 16 3.3.1. I) ne by Panus or y ? X X

e.

l 4.2 [

j

. g' .e*. l t

a x v... E 6 ' ". LM.-~!, %pp..Q:~. . :;, y/,,q;j 1R *;{$... " g. f 3. ' ./ ?:. '.s,., y.y.l q, W.~.T., J* t. q_ ;. p'. gp _ yl J.,.,. p .,t + 3 r is- - ' 't. t. ;,s ? .:.G r.$,? C'..'.'.W] f ~ ?/i; mis,e,y r ', : .. '. -[..~ l k ' Y :.'.,N. h_,.f.,v '.' W V.'h*;. g'.' h.f,g.'. 6 h r . '... -.._..................._.......tt -- - w._. : MW. i n; t ei Comment Resolution co r.mant s "I' Pr <,a Sec ion Made b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og' and/or other - Docte.cnt for Sub- -l : no. No. YGIE CT Convnent Yes No stantiating the

/

uho Rcasons for P7 Revision l [ b 3 ,/4 21 3.3.2. X essentially X it 4.2

l 4.

it 4

/4 21 3.3.2.

X if because X 4.2

}

!/4 21 3.3.2. ,X a-good-assumption reasonab1p X Editorial .i 4. 2. I 9 t [- t 1/4 23 3.3.3 X Qualifiers-Consultants X PGLE, as licensee, is t responsible for qualificat.on, .i e 1/4 31 3.3.4. x either by Westinghous'e-and-- 'X Clarification of ( respon,sibility 4.2 a .I / 4 32 3.3.5.1 X ' Dome Service' Crane.' X'-

Dome
Service. Crane' is t'he 1.og 1.5 correct title Log 2.5 i

.. Log 7 \\y, [ t/4 39 3.3.6.3 qualified-jointly analyzed by URS/ X PG&E is responsible for g X 111ume and (qualified by)PGaridE. qualification

c. -

L{,4 i i-1 e. t/4 41 3.3.7.1 table giving seismic factors as a func X X Factual dosunent changed in f' t a y tion of hanger spacing. 3 h2 6 A-e t t.

i. I 1.'t.7.1 X

publication X' Added formal *5 ih Draft'3 I I t

a, - ' ' ~ o

m.. ;.

':( %. M.... r. .l w.u..a 3 t w.Mv. 3 jyy f/ h, ' y {..,.. ~

.' {ng..a ;.

. ' A

,..A

.. >l,,,. ;.,: : y.

.' \\ t ~ p:,. .g).s.j m.' s..y ;.. . ;y 4y;,y, {j l' 5 .........~

.....;.:2;: k s2m&4.w h or

h N @ -

'M '~ y Comment Resolution P Pa;c Section Made by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision . l.og and/or other f Co:.monts Docu:r.cnt for Sub-i i ilo. No. YCR7u.CW Comment Yes No stan::Lating the uho Reasons for Revision PC&E 'is responsible,for qualifiers Testing organizations ~X I 4 43 3.3.7.2 X qualificatiori See Jiin McCracken for. help on 'this t

X Sentence added to document

[ 4 45. 3.3.7. X valve analyses in }{ Seismic report t~ 2.4 " Summary Report on' Evaluation for Postulated F: '7.5M llosgri". ,s. 4 46 3.3.7. x on a sampling basis: .X Editorial 2.5 X It. ' r l I qualifiers testing organizations X-~ 4 46 3.3.7. t 2.5 IX qualifiers testing organizations. X-i i '4 46 3.3.7. 2.5 X L .i Cl)LRIFICATION OF 1 FORMAL RESPONSIBILITY j 7 '4 49 3.3.7.' qualifiers Testers .X .l X Westinghouse analyses, PG&E qualifies 3 .c I X-- /4 49 3.3.7. s 5.1 X S. '. l Of the PGandE qualified equipment, it .X- -- tg /4 50 1.3.7. g;, w.is qualified (by PC&E after) cither' .5.] 'X g by analysis or' by testing .s-c I

e l $,$fh '

l?sh.{$.;h*'i b?Uf,N,; '; iW i;,L';f,p en 1,

c ,., -{-Q ),-'.;0f' ' t '.f.t f..ff'f:;,,. d. f:'. , (if .yp% bhg i. p;);3, e,. v.:p-e c-e

hk r

.......:.a. <(a.. m.ja:L .n,, <w-% a.a a, a__....... I Comment. Resolution cairncnc s i Quoted. Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other P.v;c Sec: ion Ride by, Comment Yes No Docu;r.cnt for Sub-1 ,L t;o. No. ~P'GIE.7LCX-5::tatiating the I who Raasons for f .j Y Revision /g p t. i 1

4 50 3.3.7.

X S-e Ross Lavertyi X 5.3 + i X PCEE responsible for (PCandE and.qualifieb-Consultants /4 53 3.3.7. X qualificarion 5,33 j' n. X Editorial change. 3.3.7. t Pila Replace w/ attached text /4 55 Complete rewrite' 6.1&3 4, !j 56 63, ~ i j.' l i4 57 4.0 7 7

SUMMARY

AND G0HGLUSIONS Discusion X . Editorial l e /4 57 4.0 HRG PC&E g' 4 X r l-p In i I' /4 57 4.0 qualifiers, testing consultants 1 PCLE responsible for [ ~ X qualification i [ j i ( I 'g, i /4 57 4.0 sample-check!"5 random sampling X j g,g, 1, i

h

/4 57 4.0 basis - Not always the case. WAC -1

Several groups of componepta Hone ly2 f

E.D. i d, were discussed outside of .t chebuildingbasig-a I 1 f%

.j t. i 4, 1 l ,.. h,C f, (.S ,%.u p' ) .r. 2,'.f,@.'..1,',...I.', * !.?. $f 9, m. [ i.h,.q.s. F '1 i I ..4, a-e. .t ) Ob i ". g ,n. , [,,g.N, gh r, j f,7,g{e, ..L;.. y,,i[*. IS I.. .'. 1 f y. 4

1. ~. C.

ll t f Comment Resolution QJ Coxocnts Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other 't i Pa<;e Section Made by Quoted Revisi

Doctr.r.cnt for Sub-Yes

'Ho stantiating the

to.

No. TCR' RLM Comment t 2,I E Rear.ons for / uho I.{ Revision Y .s i .t. f 9.' These drawings were reviewed'against y 4 $7 4.0 E*D* current revisiona ,j* ,j> l. (; r. T 1 no (building) changes x 84 57 4.0 E.D. ji .+ and was found 7 x s4 57 4.0 E.D. = 5 Based-upon'-the-information-that-ha's X Reflects increase in scope L /4 61 4.0 l-3,g, been-reviewed -there-is-no-reason-for (Phase II)~ 7 l 1 1 concern i i c i t I"E*"""*E*" I" f " T"' I' X Typo '4 61 4.0 S.H. / [ l New page g__ t 14 61 $.0 3,g, Formal change t 3j,

insert here 4

g_ /4 61 4.0 ad. l ?, explicit X Rewritten for other reasons '{ My /4 61 S.O 7 7 9 H -h*;. ,/ 4 61 S.O y Thia'is a typographical

Hone

.X Inlet intak9 ercor 1

e s o.y i ilI/.4,) t/.1.d,. p!Q'h 1 .. -/,t h9 i f 5:. ;Ch'.llWd; ',.My t:N}{TJ, {iI.l: 4. '. ~ t ~ an: kj 't-.-. ~ ~.. ~...... <... .......... -.~ ~. - s f. tu.s-a son-e s q: Comment Resolution j. Con:nsnc s Quoted Revision . Reasons for Revis'fon 1.og and/or other Docuxent for Sub- .l ;j g Page Section M.ide by-Comment Yes No 3,* go, ygi;E7LCE raft scantiating the p'g ha./ up,o Reasons for ' Revision j ppy so.. o e No' change--Dr' aft.1.to 2 I 1/4

62 5.0 9

9 As with any review of an esign pro ' X t ject, some errors and some mistakes' . major rewrite.- Draft'2 co. real or apparent will be found. 3 for other reasons p l \\ 'd t 6.0 REFERENCE 1IST X ,This was changed to None 'l / 4 63 6.0 X i references i ) s 5 4 k.' O I I { g L~

J f.

y I t i; + 4 q' + e 4 g f i; l EN \\ .n.: p: 4 E. .I' j-5

r. l L,[ @I r h* i! . - - - - mT? - d. ....u.--..------ ........,........,.......4. e ,i l' P 165-4-825-008 commaars Cs went Resolution 1 [

j f

l Pa;c Section ~ Ride by-Quoted Revistoil . Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other .stantiating the [ Docun nt for Sub-Yes No tto. No. 'PCTE71 CT Connent i

/

uho Reasons for 'i! - -"" U N Ravision . nu.

f..

hil VJG

x

' typographical error 3 2.0 - x l2/1 J. [ r

r

( ~ $~ [ ... qualifying equipau:ne x more accurate description.

2/3 4

2.0 x couponents or systems VJG -l' i-1, t . geologic and seismologic

4"C
l more accurate description of

...with the Adescription of the Ilosgri... x 2/1 6 3.1 x the background work j, i 2 ...and seismie-loading are forwarded... l cartivpuke description L '[ i s. I. 3.1! ... develops y asuntytical andels... more accurate deIscripti. ' '. 2/1 6 x gromd respmse spectra asut 'f... i-J t-l2/1 9 3.2.3 II" ^"*ilI8fY 6*'""*"'*--- factual conunent." r Building. x x ' c: r I {- Seisuologic and Geologic Definition... x editorial 2/1 11 l'ig. 3.2 x t I-s additional background inforsn-f j- ...with ' additional-informatient provided for... x 2/1 15 3.3.1.1 x nixiels developed ation was incorporated g.. g- ','.'.4 }. ,o v ?? ? i p.. s g 3 L

^ e e.4,c y,..>.{o!N.

.O:

I va .. > c., -{eg.) ,.;.,cg.. -[.j,g. .j, E, /.! - [j,..; f ~ C.* 75 N'k,Q' Tr 1Q W.h * '. '. 3! ~Y ; p. 5 "* f j-7 jfi,{ ' . M; i 'W ., r."y wp... U., y t n w C E 0 ~*, - W '*'Xl M'S:

j aq

.t D'A Y. a .................... &=' : :=i-i r.-.' r '---Sf. y), ' ' ' ~ ,I

j P 105-4-825-008 Comment Resolution 2

Ij Co:r:nent s- .e Section ?bdc b Quoted Revit._ n . Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other f Dces:r.cnt for Sub- - r P.d. YGH-kfCT Yes No 'I'It Conunent I i No. stantiating the [t.',.- nd./ uho Rovision I 1,

oPy Rsanons for

! M, (+ i e ~ -~ additional background inform-i (n additional amulus info provided by... x P;- 2/1 15 3.3.1.1 x ali on was incorpor'ated, II i i f # L #81U"dl Y**P "88-t based 1 3% 1 a 3, li h? j. 'this is verbatim frain VE write-tp for tech- 'X reworded se'etion so as not 17 3.3.1.1 x {2/b nical report.Since this report is indc Q t to, quote verbatia p;. I'd sul: gest sone rewording. ,? t i I t preliminary report was changed i I believe. in ccntrary to this statemmt. x 2/1 19 l.3.1.4 l x g there is 'arple data to conclude the structure to point out the current an-6 j will qiulify for revised loads. Did they nulus re-evaluation 3 8 l read tie write-tp on tids subject? [ t I believe I resolved this with Shaft tbtiwalla preliminary report was changed r j to point:.oututhe.; current an-l; x It will be revised. St x nulus re-evaluation.- g y .s x This is the correct title'. I.- ... Cool ~ ant vessel for clie... L, - 2 19 1.3.1.4.2 x l/1 g systun e* j. t 'T i h Ross laverty/Panos Antiochos sinuld Sonnent I x !2/1 21 1.3.1.4.2 x m this. vm e I I'ra not sure tids is correct. Ross lavert'y Ross Laverty provided a* Log 3.1.2* x

nemo to demonstrate that revised tic questlun of cortect use of spectra long Line ago W1978) amt 1 recall tran:. salt-this had been addressed in c.

ting correct spectra to }{. { Hay;of 1981 h i l i. Told Quft tttiwalla tie problesa wasjcberected x x ley IGautE 1mg time atp*. g = a i i

i M. . f.,,, . v.'. f4 % .t'.p?S ' Q ~ . Y :.}llh. ;t, .2

s: ' Y :: '

.' '. S o e l, . h' I ..C'L / F z.. i '[fi),[*,,m,

E.'

); .:..g g' P'105-4-825 008 kl hi l! Cotament Resolution 3 lf Connants P.v;e Section P.ede b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other P' Ducc.cnt for Sub-t!a. No. YGIE'- l T Comment Yes No D f ' .stantiating the

/

who Reasons for -t ,"o P Y Revision j x factual cosunent,, Log 1.2 soil information HA 10/27/81 Il ,2/1 22 3.3.2.1 x i 1 l x Additional design reviews Log 7 n The design review is for the A.S.W. Ptsp Com. were provided by M. Lee (PCEE) 4 ' /1 24 1.3.2.4.1 x '2 partsuits only. 'the design revis of tie in-

i take stnerure for tic Ilosgri event was per-forned by uts/Bitaie in April 1979 and verifiac by IComuE in my 1979.

EL 10/29/81 l i URS/Blume Report '4 The URS/Blume report showing x P. 7 of utS/Bltne report (my 1979, rev.) rigidity was cited May 1979(Revised) il 2/1 25 1.1. 2. 4. 2 x di.:nuistrated the tamilding is a rigid Intake Structure I J I stncture Hl. 10/29/81 t } .'s !}. eliminate' redundancy t x s per-Hosgri-requirent:nt. t I! 2/1 27 3.3.3.3 X A si factual, conunent(' clarification) x ... building-francs. interior.. 2/1 28 3.3.3.4 x tie floor bean.s, interior coltsns. J 10/27/81 Li a r t, 463685 O I' 10/27/81 x factu'al conunent. g g t 2/1 30 T 3.3.1 x 465131 ~CMZ 10/27/81 l t SLi x editorial ...anclearage dra=#ings... 2/1 31 1.3.4.1 x L J E, .g g i

y* j \\ t l-t ";.< *..a,. .. g,.,

.". <fi9 7..It

~ . T. '.Y'- SM.. O 1i. e. , i',,. qf N/.5, h,a.'N* d,*E

5 E'.

U lp ll .[! ..Ii# .l,, ') Ik g. 4 'l:<.6 0 U* 3 ,;,. :.. }b,, s l }i N. i }j.jf. l} Q;;.,.f,,. f, s;y.4 o n h*.t.***y..}l{ c.f_.[*4. [ a.:f, j g,, y , > *J. t ig ,Q, ?. 6

f; :: '

\\,\\ .. ~.. . l..?y t ...___......__...._............&..M _... -. q., - _. _.. x...n ;.g.p- .;ta m nuh. _,;... y a;;, b a ~; . 2, l P 105-41825-008 4 'g Conunent Resolution 4 Cormcncs ll !*,ge Seccion Pade by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or 'other (

Docur.cnt for Sub-(..:

to,

No. YCR71'CI-Conunent t Yes tio 3 f ' stantiating the N n3./ uho Reasons for g r+y Revision I

1 f.

}' t a x PCandE's definition of L ...yad engineer of-pGandS-who-wa -responsibl ff f/1 31 3.3.4 1 x it haE Responsible in _ ge their erigineering title, fer-the-seisade-analyses.

I 8

% or the Auxiliary / Fuel Itaidling Bldgs f Desi 1.. D tl.. ..nass and stiffness x. This is a more complete. des = /; - t. I dynande ~ cription.(editorial) t l! ne-conputations-by-cenguter were.done.ac... The cxtensive comments on P. 12 and 33 were addressed 2/1 32 3.3.4.1 x by editorial changes to impro se the language and clarity 'l mst prograns rm ...as inhc to caputeq the seismic... The basic information was not chan ad,J.e....thsre was I for ation of an apparent mass discrepancy, whic.w.ts' reported verball: to have been resolved .however,' no documentation was found of the resolution-i t 2/1 32 3.3.4.1 %e 4 lead engineer of InnE also... hxE Responsible t l, 4. l. ...discussims m q discrepancy-eQueights..., 2/1 32 3.3.4.1 in nunor E.:. I g p. . i 2/1 32 3.3.4.1 E-W and II-S directions 3 {/ t for all. elevations except 140. j [v l (f' ~ . n. 5 i ~. L _ .l [

= i I c I .y Q*l 't.< j. M. Kib" ;33 ,..,,(,,5 t y[ .[ 'Aqg : ' .,l

y.

ii -

I

^ d.. ., ~ .% n . r.W = .. ] m }' (. i NSj'W .h,,. 'V ' A b i. r. .p- .. y....;,._ ..y.j.. 4 C d de &.~$1,, }l .., ;*i '- .t* . i.DJJ, .y 4... .a.' c

1

.._.e 1i_L _ _ whhi,b. 6,j,; M $,i'jIl g ;g y jeg _ -~ --

~_s.__.........__.__.........__......cr--......

P 105-4-825-008 .e

i I'

Conunent Resolution 5 ~ conenen t s 1. Po. PGE-~ R T couunent Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or cther Section Mada b Quoted Doct:r.cnt for Sub-Pa$e Yes No c f8IE stantiating the

l

"# / Reasons for uho ~ f. !i 2PY Revision al. ; e _am. _ ...couputed by ICandE-fer-the-DDE-nedel and... Editorial-(See preceding page>. 'i 2/1 32 3.3.4.1 x w s also discussed. n 1 i

lhe differences of weightsdwere xesolved 2/1 32 3.3.4.1 x

i at all elevation q c

*lhese udnor differences were in the Sherwal 2/1 32 3.3.4.1 x

aw! progran used for design of reinfo'rcement g' steel and also in weights couputed in Dytox s 2 prograra used for the 00E nudeL g

i i

f An-ave r age -we i ght-o f-wei ghts-in-the-E-W-and 1/2 32 3.3.4.1 x '7 H-S -di r ec t i ons-and-t he-we n ght -o f-DDE-atalel-a t-l El eva t ion-1401 -we re-f inall y-us ed-in-the-Hos gri l f analystarw i t h-no-doetsient a ti on-as - t o-lmw-t he weight-dif ference-was-resolvedi-A-detailed l 9 l e nsina t ion-o f-the-above-w il l-be-pe r farned-in ~ the-overall-reverificatiers program. } I p. For all elevation except El.140 the' average. h.r e ,2/1 32 3.3.4.1 x wight of EW -HS of three centputatiers'couputer i stan cugaitatims wre used (Sherwal 4 E-W run, .it Sima w l H.S Riet anal Dylex). At El 140 it was 4," fotsul Llut difference of 35Z is due to dif-e terent teguirenent in tw prograns. In Dybox V' 1 l wight of fuel ILuulling Ilidg was separated. '. q},j ;.. i. f 4 j as laulepenwlent nuns aimi in Sletwal 4."* - 5

I wight tus ic;ed as a vertical force.

M I l

i

- WF.. .fl1. *. Oj, ypg.l.'.: (u, ,l i b ..r.,,- ~m..., s,4... ~ . ~ ;g;g**+y7d.1Ofk.Ygjj;p.yt. t~ .t. r.a h:. ' $' * ' Qf.p, ',' $ i..' . i j%Y- . o i

: d * *J 7 c.

QN ..eH -]. e.$q'.4 W, lj K a # W h.f,ba',$ .,tf u. /.g. 'y!,' e Jp.4 c.'d{ t. f ?.- j3'J;? ~ sd i i i$ ;~&.?ft

2...

? 1 t P tos a n9s nna i. j Comment Resolution 6 s Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other comments Revision Doce.r.cnt for Sub-i,- Quoted scantiating the Yes No i Made by 1 !'IE P. se Section ~P'GIE7ECT Reasons for Comment no, No. Revision '8 / uho f 'PY f l 1herefore it was concluled clut weight used. x Editorial. f for dynamic analysis fran Dylmm-2 is the right l !/1 31 3.3.4.1 x weight for El.140c A detailed examination 4 4 of tiie above will le performed in the overall 1 i reverification program. 'x See. clarifying statement Log 1.5 ??? nm't mderstands. Commen't' 1'in attachment th g 2.5.~1 t-x !/1 35 3.3.5.1.1 x ~TC3 Paul Anderson w W1 rewrite this { P 4 mat cmparisant factual commen't x lead Respmsible - ,,!/1 39 3.3.5.4.1 x

b See discussi n in document x

these-partleular-carors-were not of... P105-4-825 ' 2 addressing i j1 comment f-Jion no. 3.3. >j !/1 50 3.3.7.3 x tiete use was X 7.3 in ..l ('this ws not an error. Just a conservative l' assisiption) i A 5 line delection plus acidition of 'x' l /t 51 1.3.7.4 x' 3

- are not required" 1his is cannent and stbsequet O

Except fran W NSSS &[uipnent, llosgri requalk-telep1xxie conversation with 0. i i x l j!/1 54

3. 3.7. 5. t x I

ficatian ws deoe in-inuse, using on-haski Steinlardt - clarified the (Lx uimts plus styplenuntal testing by Uple. qualification process. Analytical g Ib need for cuumsticatim w/ other parties, work was done in-house at PCancE. lj l 1his refers "to following' comments y. m x Cumimts by OWS, 11/27/81 on Pages 58 & 59. it { l' !/1 58

3. 3.1. 6 x

M,, [ ,,k.e' l I; m i j t t I i ,1 f

.-- =~, lI 'g t .I m.:.. [e p 8 . J. .( q, a,).J .o, ,+ < V f,J.%;6 '(g'Sii' 'h.b'". i [. w.u ; W- "?* feu.0%w y~,p. - 6'.f.I! ?.f.0 ' i.i.Ui,(?;[C/ ;i.E'i: 5y 5. 'I t. n r . !;; ;.vQ.,.,c aj y ~ ~. .t-w..~.'.- m: .c,,,.a,y..'*.)q..< i ,xq og.. r. .:. w. ..s p.y. O h 7 w '.'*U.~4e^'N

8Wd **N d

.a u. au.s a vc wuea.r a a nas, A. a str.aut.u a tua un. na. - 'l P' 105-4-825-008 P t Coment Resolution 7 Com: cent s Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other Revist. Doctu.cr.t for Sub-ISdc by-Quoted i P re Section 'Pl%F.-ktCT Coment Yes No stantiating the 'if t U$. No. Reasons for '. ) id / who Revision IPF

f

)o-2/1 58 3.3.7.6 x Originally it was' understood'that x j 1 li 1

l.

x. in Unit I structures . f 2/3 58 3.3.7.6 x [ used/and re'-evaluated ti '7' e 1 x ll 2/1 58 3.3.7.6 lx 1.c \\ 4 r 1,: [ x 4 - lt 1/1 58 3.3.7.6 x' Drawing'050030 standard i l-. s x .j ' 2/1 58 3.3.7.6 x October ~ i it I x-Preliminary Spectra differing from the 2/1 58 3.3.7.6 x 5/9/77 spectra were issued for Unit 1 . Containment Annulus. New spectra (7/21; 77). superseding the 5/9/77 Ilosgri ,' j jl Report spectra were issued. g , 1 l s0: x Cranner 1. using use-of" y. 1/1 59 3.3.7.6 x 1 log 3.'4.2 h calculations did explicitly x I explicitly note 71 danping. 2/1 59 3.3.7.6 x I s e i

i .j = i.kI ~l' [ ff}l T.' i:j h ,.y .) ; -. #. , m'. ., ].3 f. s V.i g g:..J.'. c; f .x n.. '.Y' k[ 0 k . off, '' -

' j ' ~,

l - l. + ..g,---.4 =-.~* -*' j = Comment Resolution 8 g Comments Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other Quoted Revision Dodw.cr.t for Sub-l I Page Section thde by_ Comment t Yes No stantiating the ]g' No. No. YdiE~~kLCT Reasons for r who Revision opy 4 >i ho,- thre accurate characterization of Los 3.4.2 tc; i-: ' Of the 6 it appeared that possibly-2 ' situation.,tb change in: content. d-p x x q lj j2/1 59 3.3.7.6 one used reduced spectra consistent 8 with 7Z damping,but t h i s'-wa s -no t - r e f e r-eneed. without. explicitly stating that .l this was done. i. i' 4 X Acceleration values for this(value Of) 3 x 2/1 59 3.3.7.6 damping were bbcained by taking 70Z of the 4Z~ damping values. (at the pe.aks l of the spectra.)- = x

2/1 60 3.3.7.

X were had been An' additional raceway sanple was*

log 3.4.2

( l selected. 'Ihe results changed f P105-4-595-Oll t th* Write-uP-7 g 1 ._ obvious. v-7 r'ewo n'i'RVB-P105-4-595-013 the significance of the overstres 9 2/1 60 3.3.7.6 X ( P105-4-595-016 not P105-4-595-017 t P105-4-595-021 v. P105-4-595-029 t h:. s I ,1 L evision Bitne Report Haj1979gStructure fotni note facts ); 11 12/1 63 4.0 x See comment in Section 3.3.2.4.2 Blunt x on Intake demonstrates rigidity. Design report l d reviews were subsequently performed & 4f 'i

t documented. No further verification is 4

necessary. VJG gr j < 4. g See Section.3.3.7.4 - VJG. - X See P105-4-825-004 Se,P105:4 825-004 q l o This should be closed out heret.N,?. 3.3.*7.3 p VJG 3.3.7.3 l ' 2/I 65-4.0 x. J. W c

I 3

,,m. ,1 i

t

't,.... y,. - r' -.j ! s ,.,.z.. _. :c..,. :,{i:'.._ ,'. M ',, s. T,? -ft;ij.f.Q',Q'g'Q iI@it y,l;O*.V h n ?$$.';* bI Nhh .i ?:b ~^ %ea c ..~.. ~.. .:.c.v ::r... .ni. .:.1ity=.aew j P 105-4-825-008 .~...,m,,. 1l Comment Resolution 9 l. Co:rmant s Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other ,i P.go Section llade by Quoted Yes No l! Doctr.r.cnt for Sub-rafc H3. No. PM E 7 LCT Comment scantiating the dd / who Reasons for i 'PY Ravision p. 1; One-item-of-HVAG-equipment-was-quali 4-g See previatis caracnt". l '/1 67 5.0 x fied-with-the-inapplicable-spectrar-In l ;t view-of-the-large-safety-factort-the-error-appeara-ineensequential. r \\ A concluding P,saying open items will.' 'x Change reflects commitsInent" ~ i. !/1 68 5.0 7 7 1,e picked up.in the overall... to Phase I Program t a; ji e g e ?l t o 6 l' j' \\ t E 2 9 f g l8 L-u u t. Ii i { I, l n L R.a. If I.' .r ( I' IU. ' n. ,u. L g

4 i 1 [l e. . a.. P' .'t Tfl%,W n.jkih.d%) ' 'ht. =% g i.:,n....t N. vh.

e....u..1 r :4.4. v. ~

< p; - 5.. 1, ..y,

D.l': p d.a t-y,,4f,;w,;;g:% i M. h V -<.J..

?. '

.r e

r. n

t...s *.

..by E-e

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

-~:,g-m:aem,

_ t aus-.c-us.r wvr " ~ ~ " ' " * *

Comment Resolution O

com:nen t.s Iog and/or other I i>.gc Section }:ido b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision Docux.cnt for.Sub-tio. No. MD S**" stantiating the ,f aft 63 / uho Reasons for i' iPY Revision .o. l Wyle Feasibilit'y/ Trip Report to

These documents are iii X._

Log Volume 18, section 6/2 53 3.3.1-X 5.5. Bettinger Aug. 1, 77 3.4.1 L X-- ~ PCEE/Uyle 9/7/77 Heeting Agenda Incorporation of additfonal l i Wyle Letter 15 Jul 77 X;. factuai ma,teriat. .-(k l Ref. Meeting '7/13/77 \\ 1 L.. n i 4 Letter contained in Log /2 $3 3.3:7. X )' Volume 13, section'3.4.1 Proj. Lett. ;1962 6/15/77-X-- i i i 5.2 i l i st These documents.are in l 9 X Telepho'e call from J.. Herb n '* / 2 53 1.3.7. X (PGLE) to 11. Loey(RLCA) Log

Volume 13, section 5.4 Wrong supplied additional back-3.4.1 ground information. Doc-

} I 1 .uments quoted in final report version were later. supplied t { ] Ib.. r "' $E .,g w.l' I

i US$k....khssk*..

5.E f. Nh .'c ,i$ '

d. Thkb$ ink '....i

.t. f' : l.'. '.Ph& :.: h' kYk's '. t f,i '.Q::'%y1.H' +

4. ' 4,. '.

f t%[,Q>.;. fl'f Of 9 j. ..'T fh - L ~ Q*. n;.. hf. : t h.h. Dl,ye.W..w .... :..'F n , i. p ts Q*i ,. s. .... f. i.. ' - -..--....kr.a;]'..W.,t.w.. y.a.. fg,

?

,..q ..._... (..,:. 4,4.,. .1, e p;g.. .. :s - u..... a::.r

. u.. u. y..

4. ...a - - - --- P 105-4-825-009 .._..--................m., I connant s Comment Resolution p. [ Pa c,e Section Ride b Quoted Revision Reasons for Ravision I.og and/or other ' [' i-Doctz.cnt for Sub-Na. No. YCiE-EX~ Comment ? Yes lio .'l. "/ stantiating tha f./ e-t Reasons for

l'.,Y uho Revision 7t

!Y ' .p'. i f- , ~, ~ accuracy. adequacy x ' Correct poor usage of, 18 3.3.1. X language l 4.1 ,i 1 3 is-presently-re-evaluating-the has re-x l I 19 3.3.1. X viewed the structural adequacy of the 4.1 annulus steel and confirmed its cap. ^' ability to sustain the Ilosgri carth - p,.; i ~ I quake loads. -

j

!i 4 x. This.is the correct title el 19 3.3.1. 'X hydrogen Recombiners ". ~ 4.2 l 4 g shall will X il 23 3.3.2.2 X i.'. i 1 EPU -- Please c3ari.fy X. .) 81 24 3.3.2. X r. 4,1 l .? I maintain that there h a de, sign re '. x Il 23 1.3.2. X view.nnd that it was removed from the { CE files by one of the numerous organ- .t" f 4.I tej izattons that were' interested in de-y j-sign reviews EPW ,g... hA-f X The word "Re'v." was written - M [ ' ?;b.f, i 7 /1 25 3.1.2. X g;. out, i. e., "Rev i s e d'g'- * -' j, !

1.. ?

editoriai j-f. ,e g

i y 7

[,,.,? ;l'.f.,T

. ' ",>. :.,4 y

'V s: 27.,j :, iy :,T y,j.gsp 4

) ',' ):. nl-d.u. 3

, j

._.;.:l ;u y i.y g. t.* N ' '3 i. D.. ,,,.e. '@,) yM, _ ; Q- . Mfd d.g'>k':)Qy,g! a. / 9:q

p.N..

tn ,. ' '.. :,"Qi, 'n.Y,.ij$b t,?.'l fgtj:n.. ,y. '~ Vi ...s-y t?.2 i'4 f ' 1;. $ W ;R1. l5":$,2:C. V ............... z.,u. -.... :ssh ~p. 4.. < yv.ss }..' yfvh .,;4 ,I 1 ..r].2. m.. A..G_. .w.w --^ . s-P 105-4-825-009 f j Comment. Resolution Coe.ments h P.v.c Scction Ride by Quoted Revision ' Reasons for Revisiop Log and/or other T Docur.cnt for Sub-ga, go, y g g g RL.C f Comment Yes tio ~ stantiating the / uho Reasons for e ? Revision. [ ,1 28 3.3.3.3

3. Fuel Oil Filter e These are out.

X f., !;' e side of the

5. Fuel Oil Strainer

6. Fuel Oil Transfer PumI,

Turbine Bldg b f

)

.I 11 These are not Class I X 1 51 1.' 3. 7. 3 X are is X CRAMMER { ll 1 52

1. 3.1. 4 X

s f I ~ l ,i i O

1 i

'I e L t

^

l I l. O 7 4. 3 - Q't

'l

r..

yT )1 a. L.'. l r, .a A ; .t

i s

t...g;

..,, s:,a. -. . 1 g).. ; L y &.,.... Q m;;;.g,. ..w !,....f,y S. . i.. .. ';ilrf: *i[f. y' n:._:i.s (q,0,..'

y. - j-Ming.c.+W;-:

p-g,w w;. G}%a i

.c

.1 . :. :.v - B s 1 __......._..__..._.....__........,-;.:%.._.-s=_-.- P 105-4-825-010 Comment Resolution

(

Corrnent s Pve Section M.<de by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og.and/or other Doct=cnt for Sub-. : i fdft g3. go. YGR-~1tlIf Comment t Yes No stentiating the ,,; c-pd./ yho Rcasons for opy Revision ho. l

j The writing style is awkward and un.
]

3/2 Extr. X Page polished. Statements are made that shos X 1 PG&E in the worst lightiswhen the same [ thing could.be,said without the emphas-is. Some places statements are made with qualification and are then stated [ some place else without the qualifica-1 tion which out.of context looks very. bad. CER f j t discovery of a mi'saEplication of X 3/2 1 1.0 X 8 seismic floor spectra - Hot True,

g l

tuSe1smie-Reverification-Programs-Rrk. X Editori'al change [- j. 3/2 1 1.0 Pila Cloud-Associates; Berkeley;-GA;-Get-12, P,' 1981 ~ X Editorial change valuable useful j. 3/2 1 1.0 pigA i. J* subcon' tractors X 3/2 1 1.0 X C': 1 ] kw e.- }aG lt-ham-been-completed-on-a-priority' X Editorial change 3/2 2 1.0 pigA basis-and-must-be-considered-a-prelim-f inary-report;-as-requested-and-titled. y'. L.' j't . A r;. E E nd ' X 8 i

1/2, 3 1.0 x

4

..1 s j 694 ~ 6 ,,,. bl , y,y Y . l ) .T 'h, _ '.hl ,.;.l.A,'*L , ', y... .k; 2..>,%["h..*J?..' ' t -

kf%i; 1

'dih5[h..,..,,. N [f-k ' 'l d' ih

k. [

yp f. Ik' It.[),.,. I j ~ *2, 7(5'-}u I 'f.y Q.-skap +- ......aa. . - ~..-..:.r}L '*T 11a.hh s'D4 l P 105-4-825, Conunent Resolution l

i comments

.i Revision . Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other l' 8f L[lge Section Ei.le by Quoted. Yes No Ducig.cnt for Sub-ga, No. % 5 O tt.F Comment .i. stantiating the ,"'J / uho Reasons for .' r 0Py , Revision [ ho.. ? b i E URS/Blume' develops ground. response X F* 3/2 6 3.1 X.. spectra ? is ' ~ E 3/2 7 3.2 X It was convenient to develop.an orgqn-x [; ized approac.h to the review to min 1 {' 'alze confusion, lost motion. and tol 7,. j ensure that a Q .= 'i: . } 3/2 7

l.*2 A second tenet of this effort was to' 2 f

X i-i- ~ x perform'a. review that was both broad i , and complete but also had the r'a 4 g quisite depth. j I. t r-3/2 9 3.2.3. x why pertially? -1 Hare'information was log 3.*1.1". h g uhered ji ( i, g>1gA The-s pee t ra-t ran eami t t ed-t o-We s t ie.g- ~ X Hore information was l house-for-the-Exterior-and-Interior. gathered. Also editorial

Log 3.'1.1 if2 9

3.2.3 ', 3 Containment-SErueture-on-Harch-16-(-23 change (' ;.. IG77,respectively,-were-partially 3 eupereedee-by-the-Enterieu-Centainment spect em-1::mued-June-5 -197 7. I [f : i 3 The spectra for the Exterior.and In :. - terior Contair. ment-Structure were transmitted to 'Jestinghouse on Marcht'. 4 16 cud 23. 1977, respectively..The-Exterior Containment spectra were. '#(' i superseded by the spectra issue (June 1977 s, j l u

t o

. *~

5? A., MN ' $b'Y : -'.*;:?: ?;; ,, kNi h4) , l'*h,. _.H,f l_, t ;

[

Y . e' b. 1 rl, ~. -.... - - -....,.... - - - - ........ ~......., P 105-4-825-010 g Coimment Resolution no. No. YCIF.7 E Comment Revia...a Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other Pqe Section }Sdc b Quoted Yes No Doct:r.cnt for Sub- = stantiating the .'f[

/

uho Reasons for .'py, .o. c-Revision

tl.

X Editorial change'

Log 3.1.5 i..

.f Ho-record-was-found-of-any-Turbine y, 3/2 9 3.2.3 PIIA (, Building-spectra-ever.being-sent-to Westinghouser-as-they-did-non-perform any-evaluation-of-Turbine-Bailding I equipment. - 1 Keword X Qu'alifies that the amount i 3/2 15 313.1.1 X-all-~ - found may not be all that p of transmittal.documentati<>n -

l 7'

f exista i with additional mode is developed for the X inore.information gathered LOG A3/2 15 3.3.1.18 X vertical ' analysis of the annalus and for I torisional response based on additional g annulus informatican provided - Rewrite I s o' In the case of the arnalus, the only drawing X documsitation available are the tour sketcle ,l 3/2 16 3.3.1.1 X sent to tRS/Blutas fma. ICandt (log 1.1 Itaa ( ..r J5), 4ast the calculation sketch at IRS /Bluiu ) (log 1.1, Itua $17). f. I-in the* ffinire as agplicable to thit.1 7* I This change reflects a 1.OG l more accurate statement i 3/2 17 3.3.1.1 X of fact u I. ~~ 'y. A X certain systan and equiprent were analyzed 3/2 17 3.3.1.1 X @_idn ppropriate systra. *Ihe orientation crior re:.ulted in tius use of vertical spectra tio . Spectra were used correctly - i 4, the spectra wLre incour,ct e I o ll 5

1' ,y ~;,:. .... :}.:S.$ ,sa ,y }j$.xff_ m.e,f'hlh_ &l ' NQ .., i '.l'.;.' *..,. .'..lLt. ;a. a,..N"Qf' ff= m y,,, a i. .............../1..,..,....__......,_.... g P 105-4-825-010 p, ~ Comment Resolution Y [ Comments '! P..:LeSection }bde by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision 1.og and/or other JJ '~ Docu;r.cnt for Sub-b[y/ YGIt71R Comment Yes No tio. ' No. stantiating the who Reasons for I Revision _1 ~ ~' IGE p licy was to not keep transmittals x ge adeurata descrip'tJoa, I. /2 17 3.3.1.2 X P since it did not in itself contain design info editorial in nature [g*, 1s this how they are defining informal? 'Ihis sim:uld im pointed out. j ~ e ~ -- {I .diac about prior to Feb 77 X 12 17 3.3.1.2 X riginally X /2 Ifl 3. 3 23. X 4.1 g i L v.- nore? y l /2 19 3.3.1. 7 9 4.1 ? g? *; E therefore qualified? X ..The revision made was an [2 20 3.3.1. X 4.2 teditorial change and did - {._., not relate to the coaunent I"V"lidate the seismic epialification X l /2 20 3.3.1. X 4.2 [ 5 f-n> sich infontation ws fcnnd X a. /2 22 3.3.2.1 X i1 l t '/2 22 3.3.2.1 LAut tonn? transmittal letters? .g,. X X. j.

i) k fI ..,[jk.5I 1 <..';;;, :q it'. .i s

, y,

Q;C

' ' M.' 'd . 'ILE ' M.7,g'. ';.'?tt j';.6%.' b:.'. ..t;- $;[ " I f. s!... i. ._,_s ......i1,-...,.--..-----...--.---.a--e..-. s.2 P 105-4-825-010 ' '~ Comment Resolution Corr.me n t s Pa r.,c Section >:ade by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other r; E,1 k Doctn.cnt for Sub- .d f L No. No. Mise 7CCF Comment t Yes No stantiating the Y

/

who Reasons for~ j 'PY Revision P.. Hore infortnation was .. LOG l3.1 - s X /2 23 3.3.2.3 X Was any ever needed to be sent to anyone? According to parpgraph 3.3.2.4.2 this should gathered about the-specifia.- be deleted equipmerit. 3 that it was not required r i -Q i

/2 24 3.3.2.

8CI X. X ( 9' 4.1 i } Spell'o'ut Rev.'to Ra'v'ised i Revised & log X i/2 ' 25 3.3.2. Shafi 4.2 . editorial comment i l) l 3.3.3l

s d'YI X

Additional informatio'n. - Log 1.3 ./2 26 X i gathered Log 2.3 .j ~ s i; clarifv w/ Paul I/2 28 3.3.3.3 Shafi X 4 ..a b 1 bel 011 Strainer ^ M' thderground Vault', ', / 2 28 3.3.3.3 Shagi 'X f.". e 1 bel Oil Transfer limp fl.P Paul of Turbine r P l-t jg .,ty l 4 9 n tranuntttal letters were not required X t ? p/2 31 3.3.4.1 'y

j to be kept M

[ i yf-F.

l 31' 3.3.4.1 im wre these inteimlly Aveloped cp(t4fied X

'r d f.. j/2 & Im were tipy verifial? .l g o-i- {- 4 f-

}

p.

o i ' l .,,{h.ll$!E'.'g.Q, ,,.; ( .) 4 z, - ' :..~,C. j - ;..'? Ik$a.'rhI.[ } f;;- ' JI/(,{ ?',9 '..; j;/Pi',,Q.i V I,!E V,. ' l ' p.: h.4f',;.j% ! . i-) j (i$ '$ s .I ,Ir T .s. w 9... Ay 6 s M.i*s.t40,.f.,.h.fp, ' CD,h 4,).r;f*$p 5. ; i, 7y,. 1 $ $&&.,1, k.,* ,: \\ 1- ^ .a. < ,a. >. 2 L L.._ :..l' ,.:. c,;; a ~: P 105 4 825-010 Comment Resolution y,, l-Cox.nents 'l' 1%c Section Made by Quoted Revision Reasons for Revisi'n I.oR and/or other E o Doctr.r.crt ior Sub-No. No. TCiE-~~kCCF Cominent ' Yes No stantiating the '/ uho Reasons for hY Revision i2 f X.

Editorial change, no.

/2 33 1.3.4.2 X lhis can be rewritten to sotni a little better difference'in' conte'xt 1 v, 4.- .[ ? 34 1.3.4. X Jiy does this paragraph exist. 'Ihis was stater X '.. I txi page 32 j ( 4 1.3.4.4.2 X ( reviewed) mor qualified? X This was a clari.fication 3 showing PCandE had actual r responsibility of qualific.icica i l 36 1.3.5.1.1 X' 3-D elastic analysis X g. q 1- '] [ 36 1.3.5.1.1 X ,ni a inelastic analysis X t.

5 36 1.3.S.I.1 l>CC 7 1-D

-X ~ Hore information was LOC 2.5.1 , gathered l f' ' 2 16 1.3.S.1.1 X ,Jiat? ~ 1971 (Ing 2.5). Results of the 2-D nonu X Editorial change nonlinear--inciastic l incar l i. t 16 1.3.5.1.1 g>CC7 seisaic analysis, 'X Editorial change 4 ,( i d-i- j l .of ahe cr.snel

r r

T [l X Editorial, change ' / p. *. r f l i '2 16 1.3.5.1.1 X Uut does this want g. l -l h-i- i., l l t

I .v t { I -l;.l, '.'((f}]t,. y- ..4___awa. -. w.s_ .a ..u.u.......G,.u...-,...-- ..............w.. w.. .u,. P 105-4-825-010 l Comment Resolution -j ' e cox;nent s Revision Reasons for Revision I.og and/or other Quoted 'I' Par,c Section Made by tio. No. TiHE-KIE Comment Yes No Doctr..i.nt for' Sub-1 '/ uho stantiating the Rzasons for 'Y Revision i a. X E l'a '2 39 3.3.5.3.1 X Is'this sentence necessary would be required 1 5-j i X 1 2 39 3.3.5.3.'J X Is this 1 eve tha J drawings Bitsre revised ou(r) 1 o i X 2 40 3.3.5.4.1 X Again drawing transmittals were not' required I to be kept e l i 2 41 3.3.5.4.3 7 ICaniE and IRS /Bitzna jointly revised the t X j sid> ject crane construction drawings. 1 f 1 r^ X ] $1 3.3.7.3 Shafi Class 17 y I 'j r l 1 X Requalification analyses 56 3.3.'s.5.6 X Rmove this sentence were.kne in-house so no i outside. parties were j. { involved { i ) 61 1.3.7.6 ILis this been reported. a.twuld be an ICR X' j X s I g p f 61 1.3.7.6 Edwar pine twenty i i'e n:* i uf our for the ten raceway .X-n. .A second raceway sample _ was taken.and resulted. in 's. additional errods--see - p105 I,-825-008 3.3.7.6 s. i. ,( rr.. ,, s.. v ~ L.

O 1.'

r

...i : 3 + ,v .1.N : ' '. - {,' ' ' $ f. '., . _ a _ _._ ' f

s ADA-77 s

'.M ' #iSE #5.C ..u. ..... q.iKD - P 105-4-825-010 ..a... f.. a- ..m,. ..-.a..,..-.... ....s. o. .t u.. ...u.oo .q Comment Resolution Coir. nan t s 'It P.ge Section Ride b Quoted Revision Reasons for Revisio'n 1.og and/or other Doce.unt for Sub-No. No. PCiX~ CF Comment Yes 14 o stantiating the I/ uho Reasons for !Y i Revision d

-1 (as ' calculated) if the correct spectra 1(values)

~ See' abo've ,2 62 3.3.7.6 Ed X DEsit pre used. 'the quasi-static calculation methoc riployed is quite conservative, the signifi-cance of the overstress say be reduced to j

s within allouable stress is a refined method is used for desigu-i t

,2 64 4.0 can they ex}xxsul on this x

X f.

2 66 4.5 h -applicable-drawings-were-used-and-refer-X used similar words in the PCC enced-in-the-building-analysis - out. 4th draft: t g t' In the case of electrical'condaits, nine X Last line: " Electrical 2 69 4.0 7 7 of the simiple of twnty support designs sup ort details"-changed i checked did not use seismic acceleration to ' conduit support detail i values, consistent with. the Ikwgri spectra. . for noinenclature reasor}s 3 FCa4E is currently reviewing qualificptions of all electrical supixart details. I l

this i$ usw3ther simnary not a conclu,starra X.

X. The conclusio'ns were re. i i 2 70 5.0 X i <M ete written, but not due to this conunent, which is editorial j i 8 ( k N ~. g i. [ f I

u.u . a. _. m l _ u _._ 2._. _ .,.., ~. _ O

, :. n cu,*'o, ut2 TED STATES

/ / / ! -g. fh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 4j ,., <:,,,;v. 3q.t j; V/ ASHING T ON, D. C. 20555 Jr.:;uARY 1 2 1382 Ms. Lynn Weinberger 2110 Hatpat Lane Sonoma, California 95476

Dear Ms. Weinberger:

I apologize for the lateness of this response to your letter of flove.Ser 18, 1981, in which you requested that we consider the issues associated with the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. I assure you that much of our ti..e and effort during the past two months has been dedicated to the consideration of the Diablo Canyon issues and concerns. The protection of the public health and safety is the primary mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC). On November 19, 1981, the Commission issued an order suspending the license for fuel loading and low power operation of the Diablo Canyon, Unit *;o.1. The order also requires that the licensee, Pacific Gas & Electric Cc.npany, complete specific actions identified in the order before we will consider lifting the suspension. On December 8,1981, we received from the licensee a proposed program for the verification of the Diablo Canyon design aspects for seismic services related contracts and the qualifications of companies who would independently perform the verifications. Th'is.information is currently being reviewed by the NRC staff. This review and all other issues associated with the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant have the full attention of the NRC management at all levels. I can assure you that the suspension order will not be lifted until we are fully satisfied that the operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant will not affect the health and safety of the public. Sincerely, M.'b'y o r n (1_. Ll _l1 ij Darrell G. Eisenhut, ' Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation e e o W 6 O

r _y_ _.- _.___.,_.,..m___,.___.. 6 (.' g.. ,1 125 j 1 UNITED STATES 07 AMIRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS!!ON 2 3 DIABLO CANYON SEISHIC REVIEW 4 S Room P-116 6 Phillips Building 7950 Norfolk Avenue 7 Bethesda, Ma ryland 8 Tuesday, November 3, 1981 9 PRESENT4 10 E. JORDAN H. DENTON 11 D. EISENHUT B. BUCKLEY 12 E. YOLLMER i R. DE YOUNG i 13 J. CREWS R. FAULKEN'ERRY B s 14 J. KNIGHT F. MIRAGLIA 15 On behalf of the NRC 16 R. HUBBARD H. BROWN 17 On behalf of Intervenors 18 G. MANEATIS B. NORTON 19 D. BRAND W. BAY:0ND 20 W. GANGLOFF R. CLOUD 21

7. GHIO i

B. ?ETTINGER 22

5. TRESLER J. BLUME 23 On behalf of PGCE 24 25

~ 5 e ALCEAsCN AEPCAT:No CCMPANY. INC. I = wacm ve_ scu. ms-~ crc ~. aC. :com:o2nsA.:us

f._ ~~ L e .'4 - [. anu UNITED STATES o,, [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l February 1, 1982 ~ L: FAC. h3 The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman I Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We share the conce'rns expressed -in your November 13, 1981 letter regarding the implication of the recent seismic design errors detected at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The implication of these errors has been and will be thoughtfully considered by the Comission. ' The timing of the detection of these errors, so soon after authorization' for low-power operatibn, was indeed unfortunate and it is quite understandable that the Congress' and the public's perception of our licensing process has been adversely affected. Had this information been known to us on or prior to September 22, 1981, I am sure that the facility license would not have been issued until the questions raised by these disclosures had been resolved. Because of these design errors, on November 19, 1981 we suspended Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (.PG&E) license pending. satisfactory completion of the following: 1. The conduct of an independent design review program of all. safety-related activities performed prior to June 1,1978. under all seismic-related s.ervice contracts used in the design of safety-related structures, systems and components. 2.~ - A technical report that fully assesses the basic cause of all design errors identified by this program, the significance of the errors found and their impact on facility design. 3. PG&E's conclusions of the effectiveness of the design verification program in assuring the adequacy of facility design. l 4. A schedule for completing any modifications to the facility that are required as a result of the design verification program. In addition, the Comission ordered PG&E to provide for NR'C review and approval. 1. 'A description and discussion of the corpora e qualificatiens of -he company or companies that PG&E would propose to carry out the

/ --; y_ ~ 'o UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o g a WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 s February 1, 1982 R: ~2 7...-......, Pr.C').a UT! iY.C CD-3 A S I The Honorable Richard Ottinger, Chairman Subcomittee on Conservation and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives -4 Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We share the concerns expressed in your November 13, 1981 letter regarding the implication of the recent seismic design errors detected at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The implication of these errors has been and will be thoughtfully considered by the Commission. The timing of the detection of these errors, so soon after authorization for low-power operation, was indeed unfortunate and it is quite understandable that the Congress' and the public's perception of our licensing process has been adversely affected. Had this information i been known to us on or prior to September 22, 1981, I am sure that the j facility license would not have been issued until the questions raised by these disclosures had been resolved. i Because of these design errors, on November 19, 1981 we suspended Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) license pending satisfactory completion of the following: ~ 1. The conduct of an independent design review ~ program of all safety-related activities performed prior to June 1,1978 under all seismic-related service contracts used in the design of safety-related structures, systems and components. 2. A technical report that fully assesses the basic cause of all design errors identified by this program, the significance of the errors found and their impact on facility design. 3. PG&E's conclusions of the effectiveness.of the design verification program in assuring the adequacy of facility design. 4. A schedule for completing any modifications'to the facility that are required as a result of the design verification program. In addition, the Commission ordered PG&E to prcvide for NRC review and approval: 1. A description and discussion of the corporate qualifications of the company or companies that PG&E would proposit to carry out the 1 'UD Q. = = - -

1) t -,. pn e,

T *Q*p' **

== UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '81 NDY 19 P6:06 l COMMISSIONERS: .. c...... I W% ..... '"i Nun =io J. Palladino, Chairman ""jfAhC5* Victor Gilinsky Peter A. Bradford EfnEED ll1 John F. Ahearne Thomas M. Roberts ) ~ In the Matter of ) } s PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC' COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-275 OL ) (Diab.lo Canyon Nuclear ) Power Plant, Unit 1) ) ) ORDER SUSPENDING LICENSE CLI 3 0 1. On September 21, 1981, the Nuclear Regulato'y r Co:cnission (" Commission" or "NRC") authorized the NRC staff to issue a license to Pacific Gas and Electric' Company ("PG&E") for fuel -loading and the conduct of tests at up to 5% of rated power at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant s Unit 1, CLI-81-22, 14 NRC On September 22, 1981, the NRC staff issued such a license. License No. DPR-76. In taking these actions the Com:tission found that it was in the public interest to allow effectiveness, and the NEC scaff fodnd that the applicant was in compliance with NRC regulations and construction permit requirements relevant t o' the licensed activity. C' I k OI ,M /[ ,,T k _k O - m a y a u Ar r '7 g. _~

w_ 3 3. This new information indicates that, contrary.to statementsmadeinPG&E'soperatinglicenseapplication) certain structures, systems, and components important to safety at the plant may not be properly designe~d to } withstand the effects of earthquakes, and further indicates that violations of NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B have occurred. Had this information been known ~ to the Commission'on or prior to September 22, 1981, Facility' License No. DPR-76 would not have been' issued until the questions raised had been resolved. 4. Accordingly, the Commission suspends PG&E's license to load fuel and conduct tests at up to 5% of rated power [ .pending satisfactory completion of the actions specified,in attachment 1 to this Order. In -furtherance of this, PG&E is hereby ordered to show cause pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 and-50.100, why Facility License No. DP'R-76 should not he suspended pending satisfactory completion of the actions specified in attachment 1, insofar as it authorizes. fuel ~ loading and other operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1. Further, the Commission finds pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(f) that, because it is now uncertain as to the. extent which structures, systems, and components _important to safety of fuel loading ~and testing at up' o 5% of rated - power will in fact withstand'the effects of earthquakes, and because of the sericusness of the violations, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be .-m_ .,m ..w ..-e- -~.-,...e

~, =,

s,

= 1. Provide the following information for NRC review: For All Seismic Service-Related Contracts Prior to June 1978 .6 (a) The r.esult's of an independent design verification pro' gram on all safety-related ~

: -24 agtivities performed prior to June 1,1978

' under all seismic-related service contracts utilized in the design process for safety-related structures, systems and components. Information.concerning this program shou'l'd address qual 1ty assurance procedure,s, ' con'trols and practices concerni'ng the development, accuracy, transmittal, and use of all safety-related information both within PG&E and within each contractor's organization, as well as the transmittal of information between PG&E and each contracter. It should also include performance of a suitable number of senple calculations related.to each contract to verify the adecuacy and accuracy of the desigh process for affected safety-related structures, systems and components. The informatien to be provided concerning this design 6 _ ~ _ _._ _ _ 7 .__;.-._i

.:~--- m a 3 a PG&E internal design groups, each contractor internal ~ design group (s), transmittal of information between' ~ t PG&E and each contractor, s transmittal of contractor developed information within PG&E; and ~ identification of any deficiencies or ~ weakn' esses in the implementation of quality' assurance procedures and controls by each contracto'r ind by PG&E. T (4). Development of criteria for the conduct of this design verification program should consider the relevant guidelines contained in ANSI N45.2.11, Section 6.3.1. (5). Development of criteria for selection of a suitable number and type of sample calculations related to the design of.. safety-telsted structures, systems and components involved. The purpose of these sample calculations should be to .w. .m.,

-3 .,u m.- -_~m-1 5 ~ 2. The following information shall be provided for NRC review and. approval. NRC will make its decision on these proposed companies after providing the Governor of California and Joint Intervenors in the pending operating license proceeding 15 days for. comment. Qualifications of Companies Proposed To Conduct Indeoendent Reviews' ' A description and discussion of the corporate qualifications.of the company or companies that ~ PG&E would propose to carry out the independ'ent design ve'rification program discussed in 1 above, including information that demonstrates,the independence of these companies. 3. As soon as practicable following NRC approval of the company or companies to conduct the independent design verification program, the following information shall be provided for NRC review and approval. NRC will make its decision on the acceptability of the program plan after providing the Governor of California and Joint Intervenors in the pending operating license proceeding 15 days for cc= ment. ProcramPlanForThebes5cnVerificationProcrams A detailed program plan for conducting -he design verification programs discussed in 1 abcVe. The ~. - - - - - ..-..---_._._.-.7__._, -. _ _ - _.. _, ____.___--_---._7- , -, ~.. _ - _ _ _ - --w_.,. ,.7 e-. m _y 3

_y 7 i the information provided by PG&E pursuant to' paragrap'h 4. This m'ay include some or all of the requirement's.specified in the letter to'PG&E, dated November.\\i9, 1981. ~ i z.. 2 e e e 9 e e e S .e 4 O 9 e g 9 9 4 9 4 6 S t D l s 9 e "W +

e-e--

m,, my

^ i,= - m a e 2 theStaff.M Alternati technical specificationply, the Comission could have inserted a or a license condition into the license to prevent fuel load. Finally, the Comission could have provided PG&E an opportunity for a prior hearing and an opportunity to cure before de-ciding whether to suspend the license.. In order to illustrate the severe and precipitous nature of the Comission's decision to suspend, it is important to note some of the facts before the.Comission but omitted from the majority opinion. An underpinning of the Comission's September 21 Order authorizing issuance j of the fuel load and' low power license is the low risk that would be entailed by activities ~ under this license. At present, fuel has not yet been loaded into'the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 core and PG&E has comitted in writing not to co'mmence fuel. load until it has received the concurrence of the Comission's Staff. Additionally, the Comission has two resi-dent inspectors assigned 't'o the site to monitor PG&E's activities. As the fuel intendad for. Unit:1 has not been loaded into the core and as assurance exists that it will..not be loaded until satisfacto'ry resolu-tion of the present issues, minimal risk to the public exists at the present time. 1/ It is not the Comission's experience that licensees have taken icticn contrary to a written comitment such' as that involved here. This is due, in part, to the Comission's extensive power to take sumary action if a licensee. rescinds its comitment. To 1.11ustrate this, I note that' the Comission recently filed a motion opposing a i request for an injunction of the Diablo Canyon icw-power license in l . Jaffer v. Brown, No. 81-5878 (9th Cir., filed November 4,1981) which l statec: "The discovery of a series of errors in portions of the en-l gineering analysis has forced deferral of the' implementation of 'the low-power license by Pacific Gas and Electric. No action under the license will be undertaken until problems at th'e facility are resolved l to the NRC's satisfaction." Thus, as a practical matter, the Co=nis-sion's reliance on PG&E's written comitment is not unreasonable and the 1 j Comission has so stated in court as recently as November 10. l l 2/ To the extent that the Comission needs to take any legal action, it Ts important to note that under the present technical specifications and license, the risk to the public is minimal because PG&E can load fuel but cannot change the plant status to above a cold shutdown condition (Mode 5). This is because of Section 1.19 of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 - Technical Specifications' which provides the following defin,ition of OPERABLE-OPERABILITY: A system, subsystem, train, component or device shall be OPERABLE or have OPERABILITY when it is capable of performing its specified function (s) and when all necessary attendant instrumentation, controls, electric foWer, cooling and seal water, lubrication or other auxiliary equipment that are recuired for the system, subsystem, train, component or device to perform its function (s) are also capable of performing their related support function (s). (footnotecontinued) -h --s..-- ,e====*-a --e=*-

^ h ~ =. f. .,) IMLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSK.T ~ 2 WASHIN 3 TON. C. C. 20SS5 ... o .f f' ./ November 19', 1981 Docket No. 50-275 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120

Dear Mr. Furbush:

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON' UNIT 1 - INDEPENDENT DESIGH YEP.IFICATION PROGRAMS The Comission's Memorandum and Order (CLI-81-30) dated Nove=cer 19, 1981' suspends your license to load fuel and operate Diablo Canyon Unit 1 at-pt:wer levels up to 5". of full pwer, and specifies the programs that.a.:st be satisfactorily completed before license suspension will be lifted. Also, based upon recent NRC inspections conducted at PG&E and the Blume Offices in San Francisco, the NRC staff has identified a number of serious Quality Assurance (QA) program weaknesses related both to the errbrs in the Unit 1 seismic design and tio the implementation by PG&E of applicable criteria of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50. We have preMminarily concluded that: a. the PG&E QA Program did not appear to effectively exercise control over the review and approval of design infor: ration passed to and received from Blume, b. the PG&E QA Program did not appear to adequately control the distribution of design inferration frem Blume within affected internal PG&E design groups, and c. The PG&E QA Program did not appear to define and im31emen: adequate quality assurance procedures and controls over other service-related contracts particularly in the pre-June 1978 time period. ' ccordingly, you are required to provide the following additional infor:ra-A tion, under oath or affirmation, for NRC review and consideration _ prior to issuance of any operating license authori:ing o6eration of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 above 5". pwer: l 4 1 1 0 'A 4 5 %. a y.-

w . - w 3 c (b) A technical report that fully assesses the basic cause of all design errors identified by this program, the significance of design errors found, and their impact on facility design. (c) PG&E's conclusions on the effectiveness of this design verification program in assuring the adequacy of facility design. (d) A schedule for completing any modifications to the facility that are required as a result of this program. For modifications that you. propose not completing prior to operations above 57, poder, the bases for proceeding should be provided. 3. For All. Service-Related Contracts Post-January 1,1978 -(a) The results of an independent desi'gn verification program. of a suite.bl.a sagle of the activities performed on Diablo Canyon Unit 1 by each service-related contractor. that were completed subsequent to January 1,1978 related to the development of the design of safety-related structures, systems and components. The extent of the information provided related to this program should be that which is necessary to determine whether the overall contractor and PG&E quality assurance procedures and controls that were in effect during this time period were fully 'and effectively implemented. This-information should also include a suitable numoer of sample calculations to verify the adequacy and accuracy of the sample contrac or and PG&E design activities for safety-ielated stnactures, systems and. components. The information to be provided concerning this design verification program should be based l on and include the results of conducting the program i elements set forth in Enclosure C. (b) A technical report that fully assesses the basic ceuse of all design errors identified by this program, the-significance of design errors found, and their impact on f acility design. (c) PG&E's conclusions on the effectiveness of tnis cesign verification program in assuring the acequacy of f acility de si gn. l (d) A schedule for comaleting any modifications to t.Te f acility tha. are required as a resuit of tais program. For modifications that you propose not ccepleting prior to operations above. 5". poser,-the bases for proceecing should be provi ded. mm .NN

- q=sm

.>m,p

-.W.'

.~: _.

- =. E.:, u.

-; -.w w '5 -

In Ehe interest of efficient evaluation of your submittals, we request that you submit as soon as practicable a response to the request for additional infomation that was enclosed in'the Staff's Meeting Su: nary dated October 19, 1981, on the October 14-16 meetings with PG&E. Sincerely, /, MNk k - Harold R. Denton, Direc' tor Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See Next Page [ O e 9 l s O l l O ' ~ ^' .- yggemt vM- - e e . ~ ~ -. -. -. -

___a= r ca.._ _ 1 ~ j Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush., cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatery Cocmission P. O. Box 369 Avila' Beach, California ' 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 ~ Joel Reynolds, Esq'. John R. Phillip.s, Esq. Center for Law in the Public. Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard ~ Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Paul C. Valentine, Esq' ~ 321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 7 Mr. Byron S. Georgiov Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office $ tate Capitol 4 Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C. 1900 M Street, N.W. Washington, D*.C. 20036 e Mr. Richard E. Blanke*nburg, C'o-Publisher \\' ~ Mr. Wayne A. Soroyan, News-Reporter ~ ~- e South County Publishing Company ? P. O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Mr. J ames- 0. Schuyl er ~ Yice President - Nuclear Gene. ration Qepartmen Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, Califo'rnia 94120 Bruce Norton, Esq. ~ ~ ~ Suite 202 3216 North 3rd Street Phoenix, Arizona B5012 [ =.

~. g w. p.- ENCLOSURE A . Elements Which Should be Included in the Design Yerification ' Program or Non-Seismic 5ery1ce Reiateo Gontracts Pr1or to dune,1978 A review of all quality assurance procedures and controls used by each. 1. pre-June 1978 ren-seismic service contractor and by PG&E with regard that contract; a ecmparison of these procedures and controls with the related criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50; and an identification of any deficiencies or. weaknesses in the quality assurance procedures and. in controls of the contractor and PG&E.* Devel'opment of a network for the design chain for all safety-related 2,. This should include all' structures, systems, and components involved. interfaces where design infomation was transmitted between PG&E inter design gmups and each contractor. A review of the implementation of. quality assurance procedures and ^3. controls used by and for: 'o PG&E internal design groups, each contractor internal design group (s), o transmittal of infomation between PG&E and each contractor, o transmittal of contractor developed informatien within PG&E; and o an identification of any deficiencies or weaknesses in the implementati of quality ass 6rance procedures and controis by each contractor and by PG&E. Develcpment of criteria for the concuct c; :nis cesign ver1ficnion 4 program should consider the relevant guidelines containec in ANSI N45.211; Section 6.3.1. i I ?'T**"_'

~ - ~...,

r ]

x 5. w i .~ O l. Elements Which Should b' e Included in the Design Yerification Program of PGai. Internal Design Activities

1. ' A review of all quality assurance procedures and controls used by inte:

PG&E design groups by. selecting for d'etailed eiamination certain safet; related structures, systems or components as representative samples of the overall facility design. A comparison of the PG&E procedures and controis used for the sample structures, systams or components with th-related c'riteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50;'annaniidentification cf any deficiencies or weaknesses in these PG&E quality. assurance procedu and cor}trols. 2. Development 'of a network for the design chains for the s' ample structur systems or ce=ponents involved. This should include all interfaces Eh .y. - design information was transmitted between internal PG&E design groups ~ 3. A review of the implementation of quality assurance procedures and con used in the design of the sample structu're, systems or components by internal PG&E design groups, and an identification of deficiencies or weaknesses in the' implementation of quality as'surance procedures and controls. by internal PG&E design groups. l 4. Development of criteria for the conduct of this design verification program should consider the relevant guidelines contained in ANSI N45.211, Section 6.3.1. M =

1 s-q ...-[, ENCLOSURE C Elements Which Should be Included in the Design Yerification t 19/c Program of Service-Related Contracts Af ter danuary 1, 1. A review of quality assurance procedures and controls used by each post January 1,1978 ' contractor and by PG&E with regard to that contractor by selecting for detailed examination certain activities of the contractor as representative samples o.f the entire activities carried out; a canparison of the procedures and controls used by the contractor and PG&E.for the s$nple activities with the related criteria of Appendix B-to 10 CFR Part 50; and an identification of'any deficiencies or weaknesses in the quality assurance controls'of the contractor and PG&E 2.- Development of a network for the design chain for the structures, systems or components involved with the samole activities. This should include all interf aces where design information was transmitted between PG&E internal design groups and each contractor. A review of the. imple.nentation of quality assurance procedures and 3. controls used in the conduct of the sanple activities by and for: o PG&E internal design groups, each contractor internal design group (s), o transmittal of information between PG&E and each contractor, o transmittal of contractor developed information witnin PG&E; and o an identification 'of any deficiencies or weaknesses in the implenentatien of ' quality assurance procedures and controis by each contractor and by PG&E. s 9 e ~ --W**

- w.-*e=e.g.

.s y .. =, _.. l n b RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN NOVEMBER 13, 1981 LETTER TO - I CHAIRMAN PALLADINO FROM CONGRESSMEN DINGELL AND OTTINGER Question 1: Please provide, prior to the i'ssuance of the 50.54(f) letter, the definition of the terms (i) " independent," (ii) " competent," (iii) " integrity," and (iv) " complete f

Response

Although one of the options under. consideration by the Commission was a 50.54(f) letter, the Commission decided to i suspend PG&E's license to load fuel and conduct tests up to 5 percent power by Memorandum and Order dated November 19, 1981, pending satisfactory completion of certain actions, including the conduct of a design verification program. Also, a staff letter of the same.date required PG&E to i carry on other design verification programs prior to issuance of any license authorizing operation above 5 percent power. The most important factor in NRC's evaluaticn of the-indi-viduals or companies proposed by Paci'fic Gas and Electric to complete the required design verification program is their competence. This competence must be based on knowledge and experience in the matters under review. These individuals or companies should also be independent. Independence l means that the individuals or companies selected must be j able to provide an objective, dispassionate technical judgment, provided solely on the basis of technical merit. Independence also means that the design verification program must be conducted by companies or individuals not previously involved with the activities at Diablo Canyon that they will now be reviewing. Their integrity must be such that they 'are regarded as reputable companies or individuals. The word " complete" applies to the NRC requirement for review of all quality assurance procedures and controls used by each pre-June 1978 seismic and non-seismic service related contractor and by PG&E with regard to that contract. A comparison of these procedures and controls with the related criteria ~of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 is also required. Any deficiencies or weaknesses ~in the quality assurance. procedures and controls of the contractor and PG&E will be investigated in more detail. In addi. tion, calculations will be checked in an audit program. Numerical calculations for which the original basis ca'nnot be determined will be recalculated to verify the initial design input. m M suum all8h'* ~ i ~

. x Question 3: In view of the licensee's past1perldrmance, i. and that of its subcontractors, wha't. procedures will be utilized to ensufe1t' hat there are not conflicts of interestst.in-the performance of any required audits?:,' ^

Response

We are requiring that PG&E provide th~e NRC with a description and a discussion o~f the corporate qualifications of the companies-r.-c; ;L proposed to carry out the various design u. verification programs, including information that demonstrates the independence of these companies. This information will be provided to the Governor of California and the Joint Intervenors for comments. Based upon review of the information provided by PG&E and the comlents of the Governor and Joint Inter-venor; the NRC will decide on the accept-ability of the companies with respect to their " independence" and " competence." In addition, approval will not be given by NRC if we determine that a potential conflict of interest exists in the performance of any required audits that cannot be adequately addressed by procedural safeguards. Question 4: What' plans does She.NRC have to ensure that a similar situation will not arise at other plants now under construction? What, if any, additional quality control procedures does the NRC propose to institute in its inspec-tion program?

Response

The Commission is developing an action plan that will result in i mproved NRC review of quality assurance programs at operating nuclear power plants and nuclear power plants under construction. The details of the action plan will be available in the near future. e h W 6 Wh n

_u Hon. Nunzis J. Palladino November 13, 1981 Page 2 in the utility's program and to respond to such deficiencies in a manner which dissuades repetition and which gene ~ ates public confidence in the r regulator's vigor. We. regret to say that, on the basis of'the evidence presented to date, the response to both the first and'the second issue is disheartening. i l For a number of reasons, the significance of.the Diablo Canyon situation is greater than the incident itself. First,'this is the first real' test of the Commission's regulatory performance sin ~ce your. appointment as Chairman and Mr. Roberts' as Commissioner. We regret to say that we ~ i derive little comfort from the Commission's acquiescence to the utility's offer to voluntarily delay exercising the authority granted to it by its license and to contract for the performance of an audit of other -seismic safety systems. The Commission's continued reliance upon the utility's good intentions to conduct this audit seems doubly misplaced sin'ce the issue ' raised concerns the adequacy of the utility's resolve and capacity to monitor itself and those under its direction and control. The failure'of both the NRC and,the utility to discover the errors over a period of at least four years eviscerates the credibility of any reanalysis either the agency or the utility now performs or contracts to have performed.- As has been pointed out "it is like asking the people who made the mistake and the people who didn'.t find it before to tell us what else might have gone wrong."1 Any real or apparent conflict-of-interest publicly perceived will undermine the attempt to restore public confidence in the safety of the plant and the ability of the utility and the Commission to provide for: the i public safety. A second factor which magnified the significance of the events at Diablo Canyon concerns the public controversy and demonstrations which have surrounded the licensing of this reactor. The disclosure of these errors has not only resuscitated the protest, but also vindicated the position of those who have argued that the reactor is unsafe and vested these opponents , ith a degree of credibility that was previously unattainable. Moreover,. w the credibility of the protestors has been gained at the expense of the Commission which appears incapable of discovering that the wrong blueprints were used in constructing a portion of the plant, and greets such discoveries with apparent nonchalance. The failure of the Commission to either revoke, suspend, or minimally, l add restrictive amendments, to the existing low power test license in spite of disclosures of errors of apparently increasing significance strains the faith of all but those'most devoted to a belief in the Commission's commitment to a vigorous and independent regulatory regime.' The' Commission's position in this instance is undermined by the Commission l staff's public concession that the disclosures were of sufficient cagnitude to have prevented the issuance of the license originally; The Coc=ission's - failure to initiate formal action against the existing license becomes l

1. " Questions at Diablo Canyon," San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 28, 1981.

"*P*****W- -*=r ++

- se

1 Hon. Nunsin J.. Pdl1cdins 4 November 13, 1981 Page 4 3. In view of' the licensee's past performance, and that of its subcontractors, whs,t procedures will be utilized to, ensure'that there are no conflicts-of-interests in the performance of any reqaired audits? 4. What plans does the NRC have to ensure thdt a similar situation will not. arise at other plants now under construction? What, if any additionni quality control procedures does the NRC propose to institute in its inspection program? Sir.cerely, y jt John D. Dingell, Chairm n Richard L. Ottinger, Chaiman Committee on Energy & Commerce Subcomittee on Energy Cccservatica & Power s s i e b% 4 e e e O 6 - -e mww=reemwwsupersewgoywe ---,_,-.r-r,_

}}

ML20211Q667

Contents

Text

Dear Mr. Engelken,

Dear Mr..Engelken,

SUMMARY

Dear Ms. Weinberger:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Dear Mr. Furbush:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Response

Response

Response

Navigation menu

ML20211Q667

Text

Dear Mr. Engelken,

Dear Mr..Engelken,

SUMMARY

Dear Ms. Weinberger:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Dear Mr. Furbush:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Response

Response

Response

Navigation menu

Search