Text

Notification of 820217 Meeting W/State of CA & Joint Intervenors in San Francisco,Ca to Discuss Util 811204 Submittal Re Seismic Reverification Program,Phase I
	ML20212J150
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date:	02/11/1982
From:	Buckley B; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Miraglia F; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20209B583	List: ML20209B571; ML20209C101; ML20212J096; ML20212J150; ML20212J192;
References
	FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8703060330
	Download: ML20212J150 (5)
	v • d • e

. .

, , . ..;s- *

lDRR1LL Docket No.: 50-275 h bw it O MEMORANDUM FOR:

F. J. Hiraglia, Chief. Licensing Branch No. 3 DL FROM: -

B. C. Buckley, Project Manager Licen' sing' Branch No. 3. DL

SUBJECT:

- MEETING WITH' REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNOR BROWN OF, CALIFORNIA AND THE JOINT INTERVENORS REGARDING P ;

SUBMITTAL DATED DECEBER 4,1931 ON THE DIABLO CANYON, ;

UNIT 1 SEISM,IC R EVERIFICATION, PROGRAF 1 - PHASE I DATE & TIME: Wednesday, February 17. 1982 1:30 p.m. .

LOCATION: Plaza Ball West Hyatt on Union Square 345 Stocktori Street San Francisco. Ca.

PURPOSE:

To discuss with representatives of Governor Brown's ~

,. and 1981.Joint Intervenors. PG&E's submittal dated December 4.

PARTICIPANTS: NRC '

State of Ca. Joint Intervenors IC~Denton ' B. Georgiou J. Reynolds R. DeYoung H. Brown c. Fleischaker R. Vollmer ^ '

R. Engelken "

J. Crews a"

~

R. Faulkenberry' P. Morrill p o R B. Buckley @

- g. 5$

.2

= m as 45 u -

N Bartholomew C.. Buckley, Pm[ect Handg'er Licensing Branch No. 3 ~

, Division of Licensing cc: See next page. ;

\

. A l}

4

. . . Dl.. . . . 9. ......

g . DCBuck. ley;.jb....FJ mglia

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

i ...2ily.82.. ... 2/

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

2.....

O . nono so wacu ono OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY '""-"**

8703060330 870209 PDR FOIA D HOLMES86-151 PDR

- , , , , . . . - . . . . . . - , . , , , , _ , - - . , , , - - - , . . __,_,,....w,,

a FP.R, ,NRC, ,5,RSpMN,S PROPOSED DISCUSSION / QUESTION ITEMS February 17. 1982.

1. Introduction Observe that NRC'.' Staff had many of the same criticisms and ideas as the State and Intervenors.

2. 'D,i,scussion 10-30-81 Lettey, ,(_Ca_l,i.f.orni.a)

What would be the purpose. scope, authority, and responsibility of the Steering,Coneittee?

How should'the severity of errors be detemined?

Are the Consultants listed still acceptable? How.about Teledyne as represented by Dr. Cooper?

11 -07 ,8_1 ,L,e,tte r, ,(C_a_1,1 fo rn,i aj, What purpose would be servod by stopping PG&E's or Cloud's work?

11-16-81 Letter (California)

In what specific areas does the State believe that Cloud.and Reedy are not meeting the NRC order and letter of 11-19-817-What is the basis for bringing up Construction QA?

Have the parties seen R. F. Reedy's , audit plans? Are these acceptable por the comments on QA audit shortcomings in the 12-04-81 plan.

I

, - . - _ ,- . . - _ _ ., - - , _ _ - ,, .-_y _, _ _,m_ . _ - _ - - . . . - - - - - - - - - ~

r M.

dting with Representatives of Governor Brown of California and the-Joint Intervenors Regarding PG M's Su b ittal dated December 4, 1981, on the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Seismic Reverification Program - Phase I 7 February 17, 1982 I

1.i Introduc.t_i_on - H. Denton (NRC) 1:30-1:45 p.m.

Purposeiand Scope of Present Meeting Criteria for Independence (hand out) 2.* Introductor.y Comments - State of California 1:45-1:55 p.m.

3. Introductory C_onments_ - Joint Intervenors

_ 1:55-2:05 p.m.

4.. Discussions w1th NRC" Staff Personnel 2:05-3:00 p.m.

5. Break 3:00-3:15 p.m.

6. DiscussionswithNRC'StaffPersonnel 3:15-4:15 p.m.

7. Concludins Comme,nt,s.- H. Denton (NRC) 4:15-4:30 p.m.

4 l -

l em 6

e l

t -

--- .~. - _ _

yr---yr-y--g-- .r,., -w-yw g_-. -.----.-m--w- --

wr- g ,, -9gmy------- -w%g---,,,,-,...yy a, m-w-- --- - ---yg.ye,_-wcpwy,,..---p-

.g. ,b.

\

1,4 ,lJ,-Al,,Lette r_,[Ca lti fo rn i a ) '

How does the State believe current and future drafts should be handled over and above the agreements reached at the February 3.1982 meeting

, in Bethesda? '

12-22-81 Letter (Intervenors)

What is the basis of questioning Cloud's, Reedy's, or Teledyne's competence?

What was cloud's specific envolvement with UR3/Bluiue pos suonialf Hun does this genera.te a conflict of interest?

What is the basis for stating that the revised report was more favorable to PGaE?

How did PG&E mislead the Congress?

.l_2,23-81 2 Letter (Intervenors) 1-15-82 Letter (Cal'iforni.a),

Contains a repeat of the 11-07-81 letter with a set of coments on the 12-04-81 PG&E submittal. -

What sampling criteria is recommended by the State? What is the basis for this recomen&ation? Why does the State believe statistical methods are applicable?

What significant, areas have not been covered by the Generic samples?

In light of the NRC letter of 1-28-82 and the progress of the program to date (as reflected in the progress reports) which specific itens does the State believe need to be retained as criticisms? Reference to Order? List of items identified? .QA program elements? Sampling criteria?

^9,.c '

,s , .

p' 'i ,e ,'-

,y_".3 -. ~; e i';

C a' '

1 f x s s

s 3' l ,1,5,,(L3it_ge dContinuedl '

3y,

Does the State feel that the nonconfo 1 nance reports written as a '

result of the PG&E June 29, 1979 Ndit,of URS/81me failed to aGiess the concerns raised by the auditors? If not, why not? What does the

~ . , , State believe should be done at this tinet n

2.,03-82 Leiter _(California Before the NRC raised the issue of independence, would one reasonably expect PG&E to treat R. L. Cloud as a completely independent auditor?

Is the State aware that Cloud's ccntractural rrporting requirements.

changed after the 11-03-81 meeting (wherein the independence issue was raised?

L

, t l

2-05-82 Lettef_(In_to_ rye. _noysl l

l I

l l

l 1

- - - - w- - -v.4--%.__-m_--qwy.-ww- ---- ,__.w,.. 7-.--y, '-tw- ' ' ---fP"N""""-"-t-W--"""rt' w--T -

-T-""--"---"-""--""-?-*-"""'m-Nvw'-""-----wvNTs's-eme"'-m'""W?-P? W "

~

F, IN RESPONSE, PLEASE

's- o UNITED STATES REFER TO: M820209 f ,,

{ I NUCLEAR REGULATORY wAssiscTow.o.c. COMMISSIONCys: ^ODircks

/ g// Cornell w XL

- - - - /- ,

Rehm 0FFICE OF THE sacnETAny g [1 Februa g8h[,

~

~~~ LIM- D DISTRIBUTION St lo On eYoung y - Cunningha Engelken MEMORANDUM FOR: lliam J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Leonard Bickwit, Jr., General Counsel ('F t Carlton Kammerer, Director, Congressional Affairs Joseph J. Fouchard, Dire r, Public Affair --j FROMI Samuel J. Chilk, Secret ,, A # y

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DIS C" ION OF PHASE II -

OF DIABLO CANYON REPORT, t(:30P.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982, COMMISBIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, DC OFFICE (CLOSED TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I. The Commission discussed Phase II of the Inspection Report of " Preliminary Report, Seismic Reverification Program "at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.

. The Commission agreed to take no action concerning the eligibility of R. L. Cloud Associates, Inc., to be independent auditor for the Reverification Program based on Phase II of the report. .'

The Commission unanimously agreed to release Phase II __

of the report. (OPA)

'The Commission noted that copies would be served on the parties in accordance with the December 23 Commission Order providing parties seven (7) days to comment on the report. (OGC)

(Subsequently, the document was served on the parties.)

II. The Commission discussed a February 8 letter _from Congressman Udall. The Commission requested OCA:

(1) to ascertain from Congressman Udall's staff whether l the Congressman was aware of the Peer Group's .-

i role in the investigation; l

i (2) to determine if Congressman Udall had any particular concerns that prompted the letter;

, LIMITED DISTRIEUTION

, g39F g k

Y

~

_ . _ . . . . ~ _ _ _ . .

., l .

' i 2

'. ~

(3) to notify the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that Phases I and II of the report had been released to the public and that parties have been provided time to comment thereon.

(OCA)

/9 OCA met with Congressman

" af sa )

~

, III. The Commission requested the Peer Panel to document their findings regarding the report. # .

ggp (EDO) (SECY Suspense: 2/24/82) '

he Y

% s-ir-ea .

cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford -

Cot:r.issioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commission Staff Offices ab cutu O

e 9

- 0 A $ & $ $ [l Docket No: 50-275 FE8 19 1'E APPLICANT: Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company FACILITY: Diablo Canyon. Unit 1 l

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING ON FEBRUARY 3. 1982 WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO O!SCUSS THE SE!SHIC.YERIFICATION PROGRAM (PHASE 1) FOR DIABLO CANYON 1

A meeting was held on February 3.1982 at the NRC offices in BetNsda, Maryland. This meeting had been previously scheduled for Jansury 19 l lor 2. Enclosure 1 is a list of attendees and Enclousre 2 is the meeting anenda.

The NRC staff discussed with representatives of the Pacific Gas A Eloctric Comany (PG&E) R. L. Cloud Associates. Inc. (RLCA). R. F. Roerty. Inc.

(subcontractor o RLCA), and Teledyne issues regarding the orcoosed PGat plan for the seismic. verification program-phase 1. Enclosure 3 is a list-ing of items that were discussed at the meetino (previously att:ched to '

the meeting notice dated January 8,19R2). Enclosure 4 is an NRC letter dated January 28, 1982 to PGAE which contains five additional it:ms discussed at the meeting. A verbatim record of the meeting was kept and is attached as Enclosure 5. This material is relevant to the Diablo Canyon Safety issue on seismic design adeouency which is currently before the Comission for consideration.

M Bys Hans'E. Schier11ng Reverification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensino

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures:

See next page

?

] G See attached sheet for distribution i

o. 4 piDL:LBe3 DL: 4 \s '

we awa);.H5chier o gph ' 8203090282 820219 galia en>l2lb, 182 2/ ) 182 POR ACOCM 05000275 lDpp-P PDR l1 6hlcl i.NE5ddi OPY ~

.c.c. . . . e J . ~ ~, . . e -

l. ,

~

' . l ._ .

.. - . . DIA8L0 CANYON f- Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush .

Vice President - General Counsel -

Pacific Gas & Electric. Capany ..

P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 ' '

~

cc:

Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 .- ./

San Francisco, California 94120

Janice E. Kerr, Esq. '

California Public Utilities' Commission 350 McAllister Street -

San Francisco, California 94102 .

MS . Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More Mesa Drive .

Santa Barbera, California 93105 "Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg '.

14.15 Cozadero .

San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ,,

ih . Gordon A. Silver '

\ Ms. Sandra A. Silver -

c7 1760 Alisal Street ';'

San Luis Obispo, California 93401 :

' Harry M. Willis, 'Esq. ~

Seymour & Willis -

601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 .

Hr. Richard Hubbard MHS Technical Associates t 5uite K 1723 Hamilton Avenue

. San Jose, Cali forni.a 95125 .

Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune ,

1321 Johnson Avenue -

P. O. Box 112 -

San Luis Obispo, California 93406

~

s

Withcut Enclosure 3.

i 3

* . :,. . -:..,'.?_- -

- ~

, . . 2 . r ., . ,.:, .. ;c.

. . .4,

. :>. .y...

~

r i

Mr. Malcola N. Forbush.

~.2' -

~

cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS ~

c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatery Comission ~

~

P. O. Box 369 .

Avila' Beach, California. 93424 -

- ~

. . , : .r. ,

Ms. Raye fining. . ' ,

~'

1920 Mattie Road . .' -

Shell Beach, California 93440 Joel Reynolds Esq.

John R. Phillips, Esq. .

Center for Law in the Public. Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor - '

Los Angeles, California 90064 daul C. Valentine, Esq. ,

321 Lytton Avenue .

Palo Alto, California : 94302 !.

~ ~ ~ " ,

.c .

Mr. Byron S. Georgiov ,.

Legal Affairs Secretary ,' ' . * .f. , ~~

.Govsenor's Office . ' ,; J ' - . .

x.. _ State Capttol . '- ,

l Sacramento, California. 95814 -

Herbert.H. Brown, Esq- -

. Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.. -

, 1900 M Street, N.W. : . ..

! Washington, D.C. 20036 .

Mr. Richard E. Blanke'nbu' rg, Co.Publi her '. \

Mr. Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter ,,

, s touth County Publishing Company

~

. /

, P. O. Box 460 . ,

Arroyo Grande, California 93420 -

~~ .

Cr. James 0. Schuy'ler .

T .

Vice President - Nuclear .Ge'.ecotton Department . . . ,

Pacific ' Gas & Electric. Company ,

P.O. Scx 7442

~

San Frar.cisco, California ' 94120 .. ,

Bruce Norton, Esq. '

l Suite 202 l 3216 North 3rd Street. i Phoenix, Arizona 85312 ;

~.. -

l

Without Enclosure 3. -

l t

. . .s n ._, . . . . . .,. .*.

. .= c. . . . . .. -

~

. Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush. ' . .

..~ l3- .

.s.. :.. . . . .

. , . . .g . . . .

g . .

i

Mr. W. C. Gangloff , ' - -

. Westinghouse Electric Corporation ~ .

P. O. Box 355 '

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 -

c.. . ..

David F. Fleischaker. Esq. .

l P. O. Box 1178

,. / ,

Oklahoma C1ty Oklahoma . .. 73101 .. ,, - . !

. . ~

~. , :;. : - . . . .. . .;

Arthur C. Gehr. Esq. '

Snell & Wilmer ~, . .

3100 Valley Center .

. i Phoenix, Arizona 85073 -

C - f ., p . . . ,

, ' a. >

' 1. ' ,. ,' r ,,,, ,e .

e

. q. ' , t ** . . .

... . ,e t..

.j.

.c. .: . ? . .' . , G ;'.( . . - -

v.. . : C . ,- * * ^ .,. . r ;, . ;

> . . s.

. y t....

+ .5 . ..,. s ,s fe. .

.:.'.2.. ; ., . s. -[. . , .,+ ** f. .,c. .c. .

g j.

., . ,.,;.' .; s .j . .- .

.. > .; . ., ,J, v, 5,,.,

-* .w .y -, , . , ..- es. ..

....x,...,.

. .:. . , = . .> . .

.J ,.' . ,.; a . . :, . ,. ....p,.

. .... '.n..,.. . .. ... .. ..

..~. .-

. .... - , m ,: . .. . n. . c ..+. ... ... :. a... ,m _.

. . , , ..c. . . -

.z,3

. * ..',! . t-x

4 ,

,- , ,-:.. - 1 3 -

~ '.

, a ':u...:- .Y ..n.

-y .

s

.. ~ . .

.,. .t..

. r.

. y . .;r.. .

- . ,+. ... . . . . . . ,- . .

Without' Enclosure 3.

. . ~ _ . = . - - . . . - _ _ . . . . . - . . . -_..-.-.-- _ .-. . -. - ---.-. _ -

A L %K . . - =

. . , u. e ENCLOSURE 1

.r .

- Diablo Canyon Feb. 3,1982 Meeting Attendance List

+

Name .

. ~ - Affiliation n -

' ' '~

Hans Schierling- ' '

. , . ~. " . 'NRR Dick Vollmer ,

NRR Dick DeYoung -l . I&E Harold Denton -

NRR D. Eisenhut- '

. . , - NRR

~

B. Jones - -

. ELD

~

F. Miraglia -

~

NRR Jesse L. Crews -

' Region V Philip J. Morrill . Region V Bob Bosnak . . . . , .,

? *

' NRR/DE/MEB

--9= . .Eq- .,

Franz. Schauer .

, , .'! F fi . . , NRR/DE/SEB

(

~

Goutam Bagchi A.j

_'[ 'i , NRR/DE/EQB Ken Herring :.? ..g

' ,J . .NRR/DL P. T. Kuo -

j NRR/DE/SEB J. P. Knight NRR/DE

.J J. H. Sniezek . .

~ I&E A. Giambusso ~

Stone & Webster

~

R. L. Tedesco NRR Stephen S. Skjei NRR/DE/ET A. W. Dromerick -

, . !&E/Eng. E/ Tech. Supp.

F. C. Cherny , ,

NRR/DE/MEB

. Walter P. Haass

~NRR/QAB

'...'. .c J. R. Fair

'. IE:HQ E. J.'Sullivan

~

NRR/DE D. Fleischaker Joint Intervenors H. Brown State of California P. Hubbard -

MIS / State of California Bob Senseney -

NRC/ International Programs B. D. Liaw NRC/0CM l

..c

'.N

._ 2 EuLM

. . 5:

. . . , t. -

[. ,

4

t-Name . . -; : Affiliation .

- ' ~

W. C. Gangloff .

. ' Westinghouse

. M. N.-Tramp - i - JJ I '

PAITECH John 1. Riesland -

-' _ NNC' Jane H. Bergler .

PG&E .

William A. Bourassa - ' ' '

SNUPPS/Rockville Md.

William G. Wendiand' .

R. Sanacore , ._

M. J. Holley.:Jr. ,

~- '

Hansen. Holley & Biggs, Inc.

~

Dick Davin .

. .[r- PGE Frank Sestak. Jr. c .

~ Stone & Webster Carlo Richardson, Jr. 7 " - l,.. . Stone & Webster .

Craig Grochmal

.: 4 :.I'.? :Q 5 tone & Webster

.. . . ..~

( Edward Denison . .

.'. T. Robert L. Cloud Associates Nebert Cloud

~

,..,.;,. . Robert L. Cloud Associates Roger F. Reedy -

.j.. '.::.R. F. Reedy, Inc.

William E. Cooper; - :., _c. - Teledyne Engineering Services Jasies Rocca . .

_ PG&E l

John B. Hoch s

PG8E-

~

l Bruce Norton Norton. Burke, Berry & French, P.C.

t l D. A. Brand' ,

PG&E 1

Jim .McCracken -

J' PG&E Roy R. Fray i . PGEE. '

Gary H. Moore ,

PG&E Barclay S. Lew

~

.[#,

PG&E . '

~

Richard F. Locke .

. PG&E Warren A. Raymond ~ PG&E William J. Olmstead NRC/0 ELD e.

g b

l

. . _ - ._ .-_______.-______.__._____-_____._-..__-__..__.___,-.__-...-___..__-.-_._.--_...._1 - _ _ . - _ . - - - , __ _ . .

P .

.- .. . .~ ,

l

, . ' . . : . f.i ; ._ . ;i .

.C.

.. .:ji~. .:

- ENCLD5URE'2

.y_

. ., . , . .: ~

! ; Agenda .

(n'

,. Meeting with PG&E ',

February 3.-1982

'5eismic Reverification Program

,. . . ~.

0900 - 0910 -

Opening Comments and Introduction *J.N C a.-

0915 - 0930 ,

. . ' Opening Connients and Introduction - PG&E 0930 - 1045 1._ Scope and Technical Aspects.of Plan

. - -.. Items '1. 2. 3 5 5 of Jan. 28 Itr.

D. G.. Eisenhut to M. Furbush I." :-. Items I.1'-18 appended to Mtg. Notice

.' .- . Agenda .-

.- ~

1045 - 1100 -

. Break .' .

1100 - 1230 . .II Sample Criteria -

. : o, .

.. . ~

.-' r ' .2 ,. .w...Iten 4. 'of Jan. '28 ltr. D. G.' Eisenhut

- r-' s f. G to.M. Furbush '

.U; .:. . . , , :, r , , wv- . w, - . .

. . ,' ' . - .. 4, Items 'II.1-6 appended to Mtg. Notice

'.?,....

. ,: Agenda - -

r :.

, .s.. . .

1230 - 1:30 . .!.unch.

,e c,.

f, t

-.o 1 :30 - 2:15 ' ,III.. Benchmarking of Results

. t. , . . . -

~

. .. - Item III.I' appended to Mtg. Notice Agenda 2:15 .3:15' ' IV. QA Audit Methods l ". .. ." . , l'tems .!V.1-4 appended ta Mtg. Notice Agenda

\ . .

5:15 - 3:30 .

Break . . . , . .

. .,- ; ,,. .- . .r. . .

. . w :,, ' .. *# -

3:30 - 4:30 - . -

V.: Size and Technical Qualifications of Review Team

-e. . . . .

_~, Items V.1-4 appended to Mtg. Notice Agenda l

l 4:30 - 5:30 .VI. Contractual and Financial Qualifications

. of Review Team

. Item's VI.1-5 appended to Mtg. Notice Agenda v -

,-n,, ,,.. .----.----,,,.w. . --

-sww-~ ,=m- e,,.~---wvv~----'- - - - - - - - -

._n

., v

~

.:.. . m, . IdiC,.;,....'.l...%p%: 4;fl.L %

(

~

ENCLOSURE 3 t . t-* , .

S. .f g

~ Attachment .

. . Agenda 1tems l Hetting with PG&E l January 19, 1982 .

. Seismic Reverification Program

. l s- .

g e %

. - ~.. .

,..9

!. . . Scope and Technical Aspects of 'P1'an

, 11. Sample Criteria . ,.; -

.z . -

, . . . . , t..

!!!.. Benchmarking of Results . i. . ".: ' .

/

t '

t

,.. q :. .

~

IV. QA Audit Hethods . .

V. Size ar.' Technical Qualifications of Review Team VI. Contractual and Financial Qualifications of Review Team .

I .

l .

W s 5 l .

e

. g "c

e l . O' d e .

I e

,m**

s .-

1. g l @ . O

O S ser.l.a mac2ar -w-+ . .- = medied. .

.;- ., , , :.y . r_ i 5._ _-

n --

c

.< s

. " i j ,, ' ' . -

15. Seismic service contract' activities within -

program scope , .

16. Details for analysis of PGSE internal interfaces

~, .

17. Definitions for (a)'significant deficiency or .

error ano (b) insignificant deficiency or error

18. Guidelines for determining appropriateness .

of design methods considering change in " state of the art" technology ,

II. Sample Criteria _ .

~

1. Criteria for selection of semple calculation and for expansion of sample size jf needed

2. Statistical basis Ior sample. size and proceoure ,

in case of f ailure - o .

~

3. Eqaipment sample from safe. shutdown -: . -;-: .

'^ ,

s '

-and cooldown systems ,

6 I:. ~ .

4'. Adequacy of design process and quality assurance; reporting on basis of sample cases * '

5. Criteria for sample checks 'ano independent. .

calculations

~

6. Application of current evaluation tecnniques to independent sample calculations in analysis of structures and components. , -

~

Ill. benchmarking of Results ' -

1... Benchmarking to NRC problems, 'of . computer ;

code for piping analysis i ;,

~ '

IV. 0A Audit Methods

1. Reporting procedure for R. F. Reedy to R. L. Cloud and PG&E .

I t 2. Scope of QA review (procurement documentation control; instructions, procedures and drawings; document control; auditing)

3. Review of operational QA prograin (post 1978) with respect to implementation of corrective actions

_ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ 2 _ ..__ ___ ___ _ _ .. _ _ _

s

. c , . w .2 - e . . ... .._;. . . , ..

.i a; g, ; y. c .g

,,s m . . .. . . .- . . . - ...A. .

- ' ~

= . * , -

. . ~ .- -

y ,- .

_. .~ _ . - -

w 3. . - -

v. Size and Technical Qualifications of Review Team

1. IdentificationandqualificaUinsofindividuals -

performing QA review ,. , e

2. Expertise of incividuals in civil-structural design and analysis .

, .c -

3. Empertise in seismic analysis of structures -

4. Assignment of individuals with appropriate expertise ~ to. specific tasks Yl.

Contractual and Financial Qualifications of Review Team

1. Previous involvement of cocpanies.and individuals in Diablo Canyon a:tivities now under their independent review scope. '

2. Previous involvement of companies or inciviouals in Diablo Canyon Seismic design work'

, ~

.e w 9;+ % 5_;.?,,';':_L-:;. 'l'i h

~

v 3... Previous employment by PG4E.of individuals now participating in independent review

. . 1; , .s - ,

4. Ownership or control of PGLE stock by incividuals participating in indepenoent review-

5. Employment by PG4E of relatives or members of present

' household of individuals partic'ipating in review, and position if appropriate.. '

'. . ; . _.,_ .4. _ f.

~

b . . .-

'. .c. , . -

j . h Y r,. * , '

,u,.- .r- ,

a s- ^

. - >- ~

- c. . - . A y.

x..x:p. :: 'yJ,f .

x~.,.

e

... , , , t .* . . -: . .- 3 . . .. - . o

, g i-rs . .. .: . . ~ d'

'. m .a' g. . : ., . ; . ' .

. , . , :. - ~ - . . . . . . . * +*.

.n

.', . ,, 4 e* ,

a dB

~

h- $ 8

- - - - . , - - - , , - ,-.,e,, ,,..,-,..,.-._---_,.--,--.------.----,,,._,,,_,.,____,,,-,,._,.--..._c,_

i .

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR 18iUSUAL OCCURRENCE--PNO-V-82-09 DATE: 2/

This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE safety or public .

interest significance. The information.is as initially received without verification or :

evaluation, and is be,sically all that is known by IE staff on this date. '

Facility: Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PGEE)

Diablo Cazyon Ihit No.1 .Licansee Emergency Classification:

. Docket No. 50-275 . Notification of Unusual Event San Ms Obispo Comty, California Alert Site Area Emergency

Subject:

SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF ppl PRESSURIZER RELIEF,'PORV AND Eo b PORV BLOCKING VALVES The licensee notified NRC Region V (San Francisco) of plans to make written notification to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLP) in the Diablo Canyon proceeding regarding the apparent lack of properi seismic qualification i of the pressurizer relief,.PORV and.PORV Blocking. valves as well as associated piping.

According to PC&E, the subject valves and associated piping were seismically -

qualified using seismic design spectra of.the containment : building operating -

floor (elevation 140 feet), whereas the' valves :are located at the top of the pressurizer vessel between elevations 170 feet and 180 feet.

Specific analyses to determine the significance of this finding is currently; in progress by PGEE.

The ASLB notification is being made in this instance ,because these valves.

and their qualification were the subj ecr of specific : issue rin. the recently completed ASLB public hearing.

Media interest is expected. NRC Region V (San Francisco) received notification of this occurrence from an NRC Region V iinspector at PC&E's offices in San Francisco at 2:50 p.m. PST on February.24 1982. This information is current as of that time.

CONTACT: P. J. Morrill, 463-3740 or J. L.-Crews, 463-3735 DISTRIBUTION:

H. St. PMB8 Phillips E/W Willste Landow _

Chairman Palladino EDO NRR IE MtSS DIA -

Comm. Gilinsky AEOD RES Comm. Bradford PA Air Rights Conn. Ahearne MPA SP INPO MAIL:

Caren. Roberts ELD NSAC ACRS ADM: .Mgt.Br.

SECY , . , , Regional Offices f A ,6W , l pe -

y.

g

/p:s utoq'o, . UNITED STATES e ! ' ' ., .,. , *r 7, . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-- . 1 ,E WASHW GTON. D A 20555 g .p, %. , , ~' g

{, 4, > ; +y .

Y N February 26, 1982 .N

'%.* ,,', < / 9J ,

OFFICE OF THE [/.* % *.

sacRETARY g,', ,]

of

~'l {][.

,l

'~/

... : y , '

Ot t j g\\

MEMORANDUM FOR: Persons on Service List for CLI-82-1 (Dockets 50-275 O.L. and, 50'-323 0.L. )

FROM: Scott W. Stucky,, h'i keting and Service Branc ( '[ Le

SUBJECT:

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY REGARDING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC'S MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT On February 26, 1982, Commissioner Victor Gilinsky released his additional views relating to the Commission's order CLI-82-1 of February 10, 1982, in the Diablo Canyon matter. A copy of Mr. Gilinsky's statement is attached, and should be appended to your copy of CLI-82-1.

Attachment:

As Stated o

k a

go?

.5 Il

\x <

') '

pgaO g ,aOaa9, e on ll7

p

. C?.

.. .%T

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'o2 FE9 20 P220 COMMISSIONERS:- .

Nunrio J. Palladino, Chairman !.

~

7' Victor Gilinsky Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne Thomas M. Roberts

'35-?*3 Eb5 S3'IN

)

In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND' ELECTRIC CO. ) Docket No. 50-275 0.L.

) 50-323 0.L.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

) ,

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY REGARDING PACI?IC GAS AND ELECTRIC'S MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT On February 10, 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

charged Pacific Gas and Electric with making a material -

false statement in discussions of the Diablo Canyon seismic design with the NRC. The Commission's Order was brief to the, point of being telegraphic, and,I sense that the public was left wondering about the Commission's finding as well as its significance in view of the Commission's failure to impose a civil penalty. What follows is my own view'of the matter:

Last September, PG&E informed the NRC that errors had.been discovered in the seismic design of.the Diablo Canyon l nuclear power plant, which had just received NRC permission I

for test and low. power' operation. The NRC suspended the low i

i G

.,,.p-- -,-..g , .y,._,.--,-- ,

n. -

i power license and required a reverification of the plant's I

seismic design. On November 3, the NRC met with PGEE officials, led by the Company President, Barton W.

Shackelford, and with PG&E's consultant,-Robert L. Cloud, to e

discuss the seismic reverification program being conducted by Dr. Cloud's firm.

9 As a result of questions raised by other parties to the case and in Congress, NRC was becoming increasi,ngly interested in the extent to which Dr. Cloud's review woul.d be conducted independently of PG&E. The Company naturally had a strong interest in emphasizing Dr. Cloud's independence since NRC's early acceptance of him as an independent reviewer might have speeded up the reverification program which stood in the way of the power plant's startup.

At the meeting, Harold Denton, NRC's Director of Nuclear -

Reactor Regulation, asked whether NRC would receive the same ;

reports which Dr. Cloud gave to PG&E. George Maneatis, a ll PG&E Senior Vice President, responded "You.just got it. And I have to say, Mr. Denton, that some of these things have .

just been disclosed to be, so you got it almost the same l

time I did."

i f Bruce Norton, PG&E's attorney in the Diablo Canyon case, stated "I might add we do not have it [ Cloud's report].

It's not a question of us reviewing it. We don't have it l .

l

p

_3_ ,

either. It just hasn't been done yet...." He then added, with considerable force, "I frankly resent the impiication that Dr. Cloud is not an independent reviewer because he *

. is...The report itself hasn't been prepared. If you want a ,

copy of it before we get it, fine, or simultaneously. It is an independent consultant, and you know, I don't know how we ,

can show you that more than to give you the reports when they are prepared.'

In fact, as NRC pieced together later, at the time these statements were made PGEE had already reviewed and commented on two separate drafts of Dr. Cloud's report and, unbeknownst to NRC, was about to receive the third' draft.

, '. The NRC's subsequent investigation revealed that six of the PGEE officials at the November 3 meeting, including Donald' A. Brand, the Vice President of Engineering, who was

responsible'for handling the Cloud contract, knew of PG&E's review of the cloud reports. The company's officials failed to' correct the false statements made in the meeting.

Perhaps more importantly, neither the Company nor Dr. Cloud l corrected these statements after the meeting although they had ample opportunity to do so.-

4 Mr. Norton, who had insisted at the November 3 meetiitg that PG&E had no access ,to Cloud's reports, told NRC investigators that he did not learn about drafts of the Cloud report submitted to PG&E until December 14. He had

.. t . . . - .

4-asked PG&E before the November 3 meeting about the status of

~

Cloud's report and'was apparently misinformed by his-clients. He told the NRC investigators that, "If I had known the repor_t of October 21st had been received by PGEE, I

I would not have said what I said because when I used the term report, I was encompassing any report whether it be preliminary, interim,-final, whatever..."

Mr. Maneatis told the NRC investigators that, at the meeting, he was referring to Dr. Cloud's oral report of November 3 to the NRC. Mr. Maneatis explained that he did not know that PG&E had received written drafts of the Cloud

report until he was told of such reports by the NRC on December 10. The other PG&E exployees and Dr. Cloud have said that they assumed that the questions raised related to the final report, not to the draft reports. -

This last artificial distinction won't wash. Even PG&E's General

Counsel, Malcolm Furbush, agreed that the Company's

, statements " appear to be incorrect" and said that, "Had I known about those reports, I would have said something at In fact', in this context, the draft reports the meeting."

! are inherently'more significant; it is the drafting which determines what will be emphasized and what will not.' .

Where does this leave us? It is troubling that a company which seeks permission to operate nuclear power plants O

e e

..--r--ww--~~s-+--+--+----.-w -w*w----w--

-s-should be so insensitive to its obligation to inform federal regulators and the public. The issue is not the circulation of the reports but the false portrayal of PG&E's relationship with Dr. Cloud's firm. When we grant a utility a

the authority to operate a nuclear power plant we must be confident that its' officials will be forthright with,us.

That is why the Commission's finding that PG&E had made a material false statement is so important.

I would have gone beyond the terms of the Commission's order and imposed a civil penalty to underline the seriousness

with which the Commission views PG&E's actions.

Nevertheless, the Commission did require the top management of PG&E to meet with NRC officials to discuss ways of -

ensuring that this problem will not recur. A meeting between the Chairman of the Board of PG&E and the NRC '

Director of Inspection and Enforcament and the NRC Regional Administrator is scheduled to take place in the near future.

PGGE should lose no time in acting to restore confidence in its integrity.

As for Dr. Cloud, we cannot, in my view, simply ignore the fact that he also had an obligation to inform the NRC that his draft reports were being reviewed by PG&E. Again, it is not the circulation of the report which is of concern, but the failure to disclose the interact' ions between Dr. Cloud's firm and PG&E when the question was raised by NRC. The only

r - _ _ __.

. , reasonable course, at this point, is to regard his report as, in effect, a PGEE report and to look to someone else to perform the independent audit of the reverification program, O

e W

6 8

9 e

e G '

g 0

t e

e e o

e. ,__m 9 ex-*

(. __ ;-_____; ----

l REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIOS)

ACCESSION N8R 820302008d DGC.DATE: 82/02/26 NOTARIZEDs.N0 00CNET s FACIL 50-275 Ojaelo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit la Pacjfje Ga 05000275 50-323 Diaolo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Pacific Ga 05000323 AUTN.NAME AUTHuR AFFILIATION STUCKY,3.w. Docketing & Services 8 ranch RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT APFILIATION , ,

Office of the Executive Legal Director

SUBJECT:

Forkards V Gilinsky addl views re CLI-82-1.

DISTR!buTIUN CODE: 08023 COPIES RECEIVED LTR b EhCL _ SIZE _ 7 _

TITLE: Non - Anti: trust Isauances NOTESri cy:J Henchett (Region W).LPOR 2cys 05000275 1 cysJ Hanchett-(Region V).LPOR 2cys. 05000323 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES fB ""^'>h^"r LTTR ENCL 10 CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL ACTIONat sawppa si UT2) 1 1 LIC SR 83 LA 1 1 1 1 INTERNAL: ASLAP

C) 5 15 ASLS 01 1 1 ELD /PS8 1 1 GC 1 1 IE 2 2 PA i 1 EXTERNAL: LPOR #1 er7- NRC POR 1 1 NTIS 1 1

\.~

\

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REGUIRED: LTTR n9 FT' ENCL 19 F7"

\ f'k hi m -

.. ru r r t. er, e ms ' ' - - -

,! .3.

. 4

5. FORs OFFirF OF INWCTInN AND FNFOROFMENT ,

6.

7.

R.

9 FACILITY NOTIFirATION ITFM OR FVFNT RF010NAI ACTION fn. I ff. Riverbend Telephane call Upwrede of Potential Construction Deficiencvs Gulf Follow up in I

17. Ifnit I from GSU States Utilities 1098) natified RIV on 3/lA/82 that accardance with

13. DN 54-4*.R l.frensine the deficiency invalvin= the UtjIiFation of a sin =Ie MC 7597 14 Fo=ineer on current transformer in recirculatlan pump circuits

15. 3/1A/R7 was beine up=raded to a si=nificant.constructian IA. deficiency (See DR 7/t7/R78. The Iicensee plans ta

17. redes 19n the circuit to weavide redondenCv. The IR. l.icensee plans to submit a 30-44v report in 19 accordance with 50.55te).

?O.

l

1. i

2. FORs OFFICE OF INSFTCTION AND FNFORCFM2NT DAILY RFPORT - REGION V

't . DATE: 3/17/82 4.

g ility Notification Item or Fvent Rewtonal Action T*1ephane call d ific Ga= At 1:59 a.m. on 3/14/92, a seismic event was observed by cortrol Information Only

. Electric from Resident room operators. Ground acceleratian was measurert et 0.0008 g for 9 Diahio Convan Inspector en a 20 second duration by the Teratech seismic monitors. The l 10 lini t t 3/15/82. earthquake was centered about eleven miles south-east of the site II. DN 50-775 Na damase to the facility was observed.

17.

13. Sacramento I.icensee Today the licensee is condur.tino en Fmergency Plan exercise ever Information Only

14. Municipal confirmed on a period of about 8.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. The exercise is directed primarily

15. Utility 3/8/97, taward onsite responset however, the EN will he activiated and 1A. District and offette surveys will be perfarmed. Lacal =overnment

17. Rancho Seco participation wt11 he minimal. '

tR. DN 50-312 19

70. Veterans Administration An enforcement ennference has been scheduled for 3/23/97. Information Only

71. Medic =1 Centar between the mer.4eement af the V.A. Medical Center and the

27. Freana. CA mana=ement of the R*= ton V office. The NRC will he represented

23. l..icense Na. 04-01935-03 by the Chief. Radiolamical Safety Pranch and the Chief. Mateatets 74 Radletion Protection Section. The NRC will discuss the M. '

enforcement optians available to the NRC as a result of finalines

76. from a recent inspection.

l 27.

i 79. General Mr. R. D. Thomas. Chief. Materiale Radiation Protection Section, will participate Informatian Oniv 79 In a seminar an 3/19/R2. far the me<fical staff at the I.etterman Army Mentic.1

! ~40. Center. Preefdla. ean Francisca. 04. Mr. Thoman will discus = licensin=, re=ulations l 7t. and the inspertian and anfarcement pragram a==aciated with the u=* af radia-I . .. . w..- i u 4 4 r e ... ,

l .

r

()=

v en. ... s usasee.

30 San Die =o. em 4ausu. e e.saen< r= e. e a v* s = a

en - a u == %

31. California ew n n u*nue*o a n- + . e. e e

32. of iodine-131 for thyroid carcinoma instead of O License No. dose of 29.9 mCt.

to erescribedreport will be filed A

37. 04-01369-02 technician error. The misadministration was attributedthe

34. The calibration noted by the technicians prior to date of 2/26/82. was nat in accardanc. with b) 35. 11rensee has isotope administration. The Tl 1106/1.

36 mistake in the future.institested carrective procedures to prevent the same 37 This item is submitted for infarmatian oniv and is closed for reporting 39 purposes.

8 39 (cant.)

40 dally REPORT - RFGION V g

41. Date geisuseamannaams Secaker Subject 4 . 4 44 llll> Thomas W. Rishop Orwantration 4 Section Chief. N* clear Power Plant Construction 4 Reactar Construction Napa Rotary Club. Napa. CA 47 NP*LO Projects Branch O

49 Pacific 49 Telephone call Gas &

50 Flectric from licensee 7 n of the Pressuriret Relief dqlEEEEEEEEEEEP Diablo Canyon on 2/24/82.

The St. to make written notification tolicensee notified NRC Restan V of plans A PN was issued on i

52. (8ni t I Board (ASLB) the Atomic Safety end Licensing 2/24/82.

M3 DN 50-275 apparent in the Diablo Canvan Proceedin=s rewarding the 54 relief, PORV and PORV Blockinglack of proper seismic gualification

55. valves. er of the pressurvr associated pipine were The subiert valves and

56. Spectra af 57 the containment buildingseismica11v gualified usine seismir desian SR.

operating floor (elevation 140 feet). whereas the valves are located at the top of the 59 pressurtrer vessel between elevations 170 feet and IRO feet.

The 60 ARIP natification is beins made in this 9 valves and their gualification were the in the recently instance becatese theme completed A4LP Public hearina.sesbiert of =recific t estie O

. . - _ . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ T .. _. . .._ ._ - ._ __ _ _ _ _ . . _ . .

s .; , .~. a 2_ %

NRR DAILY HIGHLIGHT March 18, 1982 ,

DIABLO CANYON ,

- Two long days of discussions were held on Wednesday and Thursday.of last , .

week among lawyers and techy,1 cal persons representing PG&E, Governor Brown, Joint.Intervenors and NRC Staff concerning a possible settlement among all parties on the scope of Diablo Canyon Seismic Design Reverification program and the independent company or companies to carry out such a program. As

' a result of the apparent progress achieved by'these discussions, all parties agreed to extend the deadline for agreement until the following Tuesday.

The representatives then consulted with each of their respective parties -

over the next several days. On Tuesday of this week the parties reported to the NRC Staff the results of these consultations. Based on these reports, the Staff concluded and all parties agreed that further discussions'were n6t

likely to be fruitful in reaching a settlement that all parties would accept.

i NRC Staff, in accordance with the Comission decision of March 4. is now considering PG&E's proposal that Teledyne Engineering Services be approved. '

as the independent company to carry out the Seismic Design Reverification program required by the Comission's Order of November 19, 1981.

(

i ,

j s -

t . . . .

i ,. ..-

h I 1 L\

p .

i l

___,_,.__.,_._.',.-_______,._.__,_-_.m..____.. . _ _ _ _ _ _

+*# %, UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f r; a wasHmoTom, p. c.2oses

%, . . . . . p March 22, 1982 Docket No. 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: F. J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL p FROM: H. E. Schierling, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND CONTRACTORS - DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1 DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM Date & Time: Thursday & Friday March 25 & 26, 1982 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM Location: Room P-ll8 Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD

Purpose:

March 25 - To discuss the organizational structures for the Design Verification Program. Phases I and II and to discuss issues pertaining to revisions of the Phase I program (preliminary agenda items attached).

March 26 - To discuss staff questions pertaining to the QA audit reviews performed by R. F. Reedy, Inc.

(preliminary agenda items attached).

Participants:

NRC PG&E D. Eisenhut J. Hoch, et al R. Vollmer R. Tedesco J. Knight F. Miraglia PG&E contractors for W. Haass Phase I and proposed H. Schierling contractors for Phase B. Buckley II'as appropriate.

J. Crews T. Bishop P. Morrill M. Messier '

CM b- s flans E. Schierling, P ject Manager Design Verification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 '

Division of Licensing j cc: See next page '

y

^

p os016(

j hff . - -- .. . .- - - .

~~

. s .

AGENDA ITEMS (PRELIMINARY)

I. March 25, 1982 Meeting

1. Teledyne qualifications in cihil-structural aspects of nuclear power plant design.

2. Teldyneproceduresandcriteriaforehaluationofcurrentcon-tractor performance to date and in future Phase I activities.

3. Consolidation into single Phase I program plan of earlier Phase I submittals and inclusion of required NRC revisions and of potential additional revisions by Teledyne.

4. Proposed organizational structure and contractors for Phase I of design verification program.

5. Infonnation on independence (financial and technical) and qualifi-cations of proposed Phase II contractors.

4 l

l

AGENDA ITEMS (PRELIMINARY)

II. March 26. 1982

1. Criteria for ehaluation of QA programs; applicability of selected parts of ANSI N45.2.ll considered for guidance in evaluating PG&E QAP.

2. ImplementationoftheQAprogrambyPG&Erelatihetoits assigned " audit role."

3. Applicability of QA manual to Unit 1.

4. Impact of organization change in 1972 relative to effective-ness of implementation of QA program.

5. Verification of design work accomplished by service related contractors prior to requirement for contractor tc apply QA in 1977-1979 time frame. ,

6. Current assessment of overall QA. program effectiveness based on review and evaluation performed to date.

l l

I l

i --

, + . . .

Mr. Malcolm H. Turbush DIABLO CANYON

+

Vice President - General Counsel ' -

Pacific Gas & Electric Canpany P.O. Box 7442 . .

San francisco, California 94120 cc: Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 .

San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

California Public utilities Commission 350 Mc Allister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More 11esa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Daispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. k'illis , Esq. '

Seymour & Willis 601 California Street, Saite 2100 San Fran:isco, California 94108 Mr. Richard Habbard MH5 Technical Associates Suite A 1723 hamil ton Avenue San Jose, California 95125

' Mr. John Marrs, Managinc Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 i San Luis Obispo, California 93406 i

p . - . .

u e-fir. Malcolm H. Furbush -

cc: Resident Inspector /Biablo Canyon NPS --

c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 ,

Ms. Raye Fleming .

1920 t".attie Road Shell beach, California 93440 Joel Reynolds, Esq.

John R. Phillips, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Thiro floor los Angeles, California 90064 Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

321 L.s tion Avenue Palo Alto. California 94302 .

Mr. tyron 5. Georgiov Legal Aff airs Secretary Governor's Of fice State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert N. Brown. Esq.

Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.

19001. Street, te.W.

'*a s hi r.; ton , D .C . 20U36 rir. Dick Blankenburg, Editor & Co-Publisher South County Puolishing Coupany P. D. box 460 Arroyo Grance, Cali fornia 93420 fir. Jarces C. Schuyler vice Fresioent - t uclear Generation Department Pacific bas & Electric Company P.O. box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 brute teorton, Esq.

Suite 20t 321b teorti, 3rd Street Phoents, Arizona 85012

~

- - ~; .

~

Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush -

Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation -

P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 _

David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. O. Box 1178 '

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. .

Snell & Wilmer :

3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. Owen H. Davis, Director Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company -

1050 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1180 Washington, D.c. 20036 o

O i

i j

l 4

i

.l

~

MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION Docket File 50- 275 I&E Region I

NRC PDR -

, I&E Region II Local PDR ISE Region III NSIC I&E Region IV TERA I&E Region V -

LBl3 Files -

NRC Participants

' D.' senhut . D. Eisenhut ,

R. Purple R. Vollmer R. Tedesco R. Tedesco B. J. Youngblood J. Knight A. Schwencer F. Miraglia

F. Miraglia W.,Haass E. Adensam H. Schierling J. Miller B. Buckley G. Lainas R. itattson ,

T. Ippolito .

T.'Speis B. Russell M. Srinivasan D. Crutchfield O. Parr

T. Novak F. Rosa S. Varga B. Sheron, Acting D. Vassallo L. G. Hulman R. Clark R. Houston J. Stolz W. Gammill R. Vollmer , F. Congel

~ '

J. Knight L. Rubenstein R. Bosnak . W. Butler '

F. Schauer C. Berlinger R. Jackson G. Lear F. Schroeder K. Kniel

Attorney, OELD D. Skovholt OIE (3) G. Knighton ACRS (16) M. Ernst OSD(7) A. Thadani J. LeDoux, I&E W. Minners E. Grimes, I&E S. Hanauer M Williams, DL H. Thomoson W. Johnston

JZwolinski S. Pawlicki P. Collins -

V. Benaroya , D. Ziemann Z. Rosztoc:y V. Moore -

W. Haass D. Muller Recional Administrator R. Engelken bc'c : Applicant Service u st R. Ballard

A o ton j kley Licensing Assistant _J. Lee

.# g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

! o 3 I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 MAR 2 4 E Docket No.: 50-275 EMORANDUM FOR: Pat Sullivan, Chief Administrative Branch Office of the Secretary FROM: Hans Schierling, Project Manager Reverification Program, Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING TO BE HELD MARCH 25, 1982 - DIABLO CANYON This is to confirm the telephone request by Jean Lee for a reporter to prepare a transcript of the meeting to be held on March 25, 1982, with Pacific Gas and Electric Company regarding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (see the enclosed meeting notice for details of themeeting). We need the transcript two or three days following the meeting so that we can make copies for our internal use as well as for the parties to this proceeding. We anticipate attendance of approximately 100 people. Please contact me (X28423) or Jean Lee (X28413) if you need additional information.

N Hans Schierling, Project Manager Reverification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing j

Enclosure:

l Meeting Notice i dtd. 3/22/82 i ,

1 I

f e O g6Ygk1 If r t

-. .. -.- .- . ~ ._ -

~ .n =< e s, ,. ,

ry'g s,

, . , . . UNITED STATES g. . .,

. & NUdLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E. casm=oron.e.e.neses g .

March 22, 1982

-]

~

"L. . . !

Docket No. 50-275 -

$ M $M & k .I, ,

l MEMORANDUM FOR: F. J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3.,DL].

g(' ,

J .

i i FROM: H. E. Schierling, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No. 3. DL i

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND CONTRACTORS - DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1 DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM-

=

N b u, Hal 24,8L l Date & Time: Thursday & Friday yjfk k. , kggd bc. M '

! March 25 & 26, 1982 9 00 AM.- 4:00 PM p G f} f i ghpggg} ygQ{ fygf

Location: Room P-118 . 1 .

j Phillips Building f)0 fECC CAT T(_q (/C) 0' 'khMl.

7920 Norfolk Avenue I i Bethesda, MD

{g

Purpose:

March 25 - To discuss the organizational structures for E.

.the Design Verification Program. Phases I and II and to

, discuss issues pertaining to revisions of the Phase I j program.(preliminary agenda items attached). '

r-March 26 - To discuss staff' questions pertaining to the-1 l

QA audit reviews performed by R. F. Reedy, Inc. - '

(preliminary agenda items attached). .

Participants:

NRC _

.P.,jl( ;

D. Eisenhut J.-Hoch, et al R..Vollmer .'

i R. Tedesco -

l l

J. Knight . .

F. Miraglia PG&E contractors for .

W. Haass Phase I and proposed 4

H. Schierling contractors for Phase

i B. Buckley II as appropriate. '

i J. Crews .

t T. Bishop -

P. Morrill j M. Messier / .

)

i fM W '

, Hans E. Schierling, Project Manager .

Design Verifi' cation Program l

. Licensing Branch No. 3 '

i Division of Licensing !

l ~ -

9y b3fec:'Seenextpage f .

lh

l. .

. _ - . . - . _ - _ - . _ ~ . - . _ . . _ . _ _ _ ___.

0

%" , ,. . o : cc 7, ,

AGENDA ITEMS (PRELIMINARY)

~

I. March 25, 1982 Meeting , .

1. Teledyne qualifications in civil-structural aspects of nuclear power plant design.

2. Teldyne procedures and criteria for evaluation of current con-tractor performance to date and in future Phase I activities.

~

3. Consolidation into single Phase I program plan of earlier Phase I submittals and inclusion of required NRC revisions and of potential additional revisions by Teledyne. ,

4. Proposed organizational structure and contractors for Phas IE of design verification program.

5. Information on independence (financial and technical) and qualifi-cations ofj proposed Phase II contractors.

e t

O e

S 1

9 9

i 4 ,

e 9

e r

e e

0 9

1

--~ ,--,-----.--,-.,,-----,-----------,,,,.--an . . , - ., - . , - . , - - . - - - - , - . , - - - , , . - .n.. r - , - - - - -- -

.~

. s AGENDAITEMS(PRELIMINARY)

. II. March 26, 1982 UM i ~

V d[

(9dh8. -

f,

. A C TI L C --

1. Criteria for evaluation of QA programs; applicability of sele.cted parts of ANSI N45.2.11 considered for guidance in evaluating PG&E QAP.

2. ImplementationoftheQAprogrambyPG&Erelatthetoits

. assigned " audit role."

' 3. Applicability of QA manual to Unit 1.

~

4. Impact of organization change in 1972 relative to effectihe-ness of implementation of QA program. '

5 .' Verificationofdesignworkaccomplishedbyserhicerelated

' contractors prior to requirement for contractor to apply QA in 1977-1979 time frame. , ,

6. CurrentassessmentofoherallQAprogrameffectivenessbased

on review and evaluation performed to date.

e p 9

44 o e e e e t 9

l . .

' s e p

~

A l ,

. x :.,: . -. %._ ;;.y L ~.; -

i e ... ::.p, ;..n.&M.1

..... ...mer- s. , , , .-, ' . .

.?

r9 _ ., _ . . . .

[:

,.3pe.M. .,e.w _

it

.tr L

k. A h .+ b N [ h 9 '

2 ,,

I

.w;.. . . . . . . . .- .1.....

~>

- gagg,g ya, Sg_gy5 p ~> M m @y,y -pQ3g%.s,,. ;.apm.

ih=. W* 5, Uf'R -. , g ::.g.Q:--

~~ W 8 M T M D M Y ~

!' fb .*

p v MMNEMORANDlM FOR: ' N.. Denton. MRR'YW'

~d.'d.*'$i

w X' Carter. NRR W W M W E Y N '- W i

,"M . W ,. $.y WR..?. Eisenhut.OL%D D D )I.

Purple.DLf,M[3 P

v f.

J%.hd. j,. .JBeveki,DL g .i

@8@@N'WiYS 1 I?.~;..$cNN5fN[^.hMA t e r 'l # -

JYVM

5. NEFMtyedesco,'DL'yh&, hMM.m t .& M" ' k l. $ j 7 M [ M h' ;

k.' 'j.yh.efp.:

.. ~w ,- -- "-

3 ~~.* -

'd.].]..Qi[Y.'.y, ,- -

' t

M d i g.h W,$, . E .Lainas,,DL :s h

% W,, N. . M% 6 v.'m S.$Nanauer'. DST . . $

'c L ,w'w w...

hff,'Mid.h a.denttson'Dsr4 R.UDilmeri DE.M. . r % 4% @P"N'*

".wik c - D h...a. M.y,y, . dc.:N.. "

.'.. -

ug.nompsoa. Acting DHFS * ?.. -g.. .ct.g,,, .e a w

W -w.4 .g/.0;e J. M. J.

' W' P

.W i rf . V w . 1P;'pI Safezek.

"politoORAB IE '. M'< a9%,#6M~ib.rh4 # +." F/~ ';

.'- M.@. N. w M .~*"s

..c t w.r 8

2 i $. , ,' p w.y ..

,m.,

_v -

h*^ 4 L M

-... 3

..,,m......-s~,--+--..

~

i FMQRreglia, Chief' l Tumir* . -

i W ' Licensing Branch Nof 3"; . % .I -

1 R@d @.m:t,$ " d'* ' M k*y 5L"S c M N.. * *-M s.R

' ?A/. Mans Scfri rling. Project Manager' ~

i

' FROM:

j .;>f. ; ~,. ,7 - u ,'d$',}. $ licensing / Branch No. 3' 'aas,@..... . ' ' N' -' ' ' -

..[; . . '!.j

. f. ;. ..w(f yMvision of Licensingt@p)*7?Q,.nT. [;m % '; - ." C '-

.. i p - -

SUBJECT:

.r. w p k w rs; m m'M .c #p m - .%...

f' I.M '

,, y QDAILTKIGI.IGHT w[.g;@NY 'fN . ikh, hN .. . Shy.N' x.W L.- 'D "l

W[4%. . $.'. q.$m.<. ,m~!h5.?'k.'. r'l=:c. e .: a.s: ?.

', ,:.,DIA8LO CANTON 25 .w ,.:

.s o. , . m..

.. . . . , . . . . ......n.. 7- c. . . . . , - -

.f. ,,.7 ./ .' Company The meeting of the staff with R.' F. Reedy. Inc. and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) scheduled for Friday. March 26,'1982 has been cancelled.

7 The purpose of the meeting was to discuss staff questions pertaining

%;;.? to the reviews performed by R. F. Reedy Inc. of the QA programs of PG&E ,o . .

di '

and companies with seismic service.related contracts. The meeting 7;;u .. was cancelled at the oral request of PG&E to provide more time for preparation

%~. G' and for coordination with Bechtel Power Corporation, recently hired 2 . ..

.Q.y ., by PG&E as project, monager. .The meeting will be rescheduled.

~ ? .. , ,. m

, .r. Wy,' <a.'*J. Q )W ;.'E.."

5* ' s , %e e

, . . . . ., - p:,. ~.&, Ab. ,d,,&. u.** "'. %, 'U.* M .

... ... . ?; J %.,,,, ..

. c ,

y. . . ..

3.,p.s f .

t . , , f . .y ., . ,. ,, i ... .s. . .

.. he,2 ~ '

, ' ' . "h.b'k,/ t W

x. 9.

^

.,9 %v .'

n. 4,., p.y c y ". ....../Licens .1 ng ranch No. 3 h . ., . . -(....., ,. h Division of Licensing . ~r..w. > ,14-+ '. ,.e w..

J .e: m

... . , . . . p -

e.g cc: L/BC's

e d. '

.' r - - i rvr- Drp i ,

gt - '

r F .- ; . . . -

. .- ..u . : :r s . .n. '. .. . .

. .. ... . . . . . . m W..

&.;,'..,1,=< . . ?? - .

. ~\ r:.n; , ; .

1: ,5.? q: c.y1.f , Lv.$p V.

. . . - l ,

i .

... V c, N%

( .

s t/(c.a

[em neo ,g'g

! ^

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ((,,,y;"I-3 wAenemorow, o. c.zeses

.)n. b f

.* MARCH 2 9 BB2 f{ ,

C 4.,( f

.c <

3 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert H. Engelken , .

Regional Administrator, Region V ; ..

FROM: Harold R. Denton, Director, ONRR

$UBJECT: DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PP0 GRAM As we have discussed, the QA audit report dated March 8, 1981 by R.F. Reedy could have an important bearing on the scope of work required of PGt,E. We request that Region V review all the Reedy QA reports and provide us your views with respect to (1) the appropriateness of the current scope of the Phase I design verification program, l.a. those design activities which must be completed prior to fuel load; and (2) whether the scope of the Phase I and 11 programs as defined on November 19, 1981 in the Commission's Order and the staff's letter need to be modified to address issues identified to date, e.g. should either the Phase i or Phase 11 program be expanded to include otlier than design activities. Please provide your views by April 2,1982.

derm %

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: R. DeYoung N 0,d

+ m

'k0 t {[

g00

/ 1%, umTeJ STATE 5 f w a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

2 wasnimarow.o. c.anu

$.,**..*/ .:ge . 9,.

Docket No. 50-275 3 f 29[d5 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Miraglia, Chief, LBf3, DL FROM: Hans E. Schier11ng, Project knager, L8#3, DL

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND CONTRACTORS - DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1. DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM Date & Time: Thursday, April 1,1982 NME: 'IHIS MEETING WAS 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM ORIGINALLY SCEDULED Location: Phillips Building, Room P-118 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland

Purpose:

To discuss staff questions pertaining to the QA audit reviews '

performed by R. F. Reedy, Inc. (preliminary agenda items a ttached) .

Participants:

NRC D. Eisenhut H. Schierling R. Vollmer B.Buckley R. Tedesco J. Crews J. Knight T. Bishop F. Miraglia P. Morrill W. Haass PG&E J. Hoch, et al PG&E contractor for Phase !

Hans E. Schierling, Project Manager Design Verification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Attachment:

Agenda Items cc: See next pago

) \

L p x / Ik

~

AGENDAITEMS(PRELIMINARY) 1.' Criteria for evaluation of QA programs; applicability of selected parts of ANS! N45.2.11 considered for guidance in e' valuating PG&E QAP.

2. Implementation of the QA program by PG&E relative to its assigned " audit role."

3. Applicability of QA manual to Unit 1.

4. Impact of organization change in 1972 relative to effective-ness of implementation of QA program.

5. Verification of design work accomplished by service related l contractors prior to requirement for et,ntractor to apply QA in 1977-1979 time frame.

6. Current assessment of overall QA program effectiveness based on review and evaluation perfomed to date.

O e

t B

B 0

==

e 6 e a

e

r .

c.- o ,,

e Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush ,

Vice President ' General Counsel ^ -

Pacific Gas & Electric Ccapany P.O. Box 7442 .

San Francisco, California 94120 cc: Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.

. Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice C. Kerr, Esq. . . .

California Public UI.ilities Comission 35014cA111 ster Street -

San Francisco, California 94102 fir. Frederick Eissler, President -

Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

, 4623 More 11esa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 .

Ms. [11zabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozaderol.

. San Luis Obispo, California 93401 .

itr. Gordon A. Silver Pts. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis .0dispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.

Seymour & Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100

, San Fran:isco, California M 108 Mr. Richard Habbard 11HS Technical

Associates suite K 1723 Hamilton Avenue Saq Jose, California 95125 lir. Johi Itarrs, lianaging Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 i

, y,

. s .

~. s.

Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush ,-

cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS .-

c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Rosa Shell beach, California 93440 Joel . Aeynolds. Esq.

John R. Phillips. Esq. .

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard .

Thire Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Paul C. Valentine, L'sq.

321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, Califor,nia 94302 Mr. byron 5. Georgiov '

Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office

. State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 .

Herbert H. Brown, Lsq. .-

Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.

1900 h Street, k.W.

Washirigton, D.C. 20036 fir. Dick Blankenburg, Editor & Co-Publisher South County Publishing Cor.ipany P. O. Box 460 Arroyo Grance, California 93420 lir. Ja.ves 0. Schuyler .

Vice Presioent - NucIvar Generation Department Pacific Gas & Electric Company

P.O. box 7442 j San Francisco, California 94120 I

bruce Norton, Esq. .

Suite 20t l 3216 North 3rd Street !

Pncenta, Arizona 85012 i

e s f I

{

l l

.~

~ '

~~-~ -

r- . . __ ._ _ _-. _._ ._

~

e,. . i. .

Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation ~

P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr Esq. .

. Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 ,

Mr. Owen H. Davis, Director

' Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 105017th Street, N.W.

Suite 1180 (

Washington, D.c'. 20036 l

i l

I e

l

}

r - -

e s MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION .

Docket File 50- 275 !&E Region !

, I&E Region II NRC PDR. ,

Local POR I&E Region !!!

NSIC IAE Region IV . -

TERA I&E Region V LBf3 Files

.NRC Participants -

D. Eisenhut TBishYp

nhut- -

R. Vollmer PMorrill -

R' Purple R. sco R Tedesco -

B. J. Youngblood A. Schwencer kMrgia-

y,.Haass -

F. Miraglia H. Schierling . .

E. Adensam B. Buckley J. Miller .

G. Lainas' . . M on T. Ippolito .

T. Speis B. Russell M. Srinivasan .

D. Crutchfield 0. Parr T. Novak . F. Rosa

5. Varga B. Sheron. Acting .

D. Vassallo L. G. Hulman R. Clark R. Houston -

J. Stolz W. Gam 111 ~

R. Vollmer ,

F. Congel J. Knight L. Rubenstein R. Bosnak . W. Butler -

F. Schauer C. Berlinger R. Jackson

. G. Lear F. Schroeder "

-K.- Kniel -

Attorney, OELD D. Skovholt 01E ( ,

G. Knighton ACRS 6) M. Ernst

OSD (7 A. Thadani J. LeDoux, !&E W. Minners -

B. Grimes, I&E . - S. Hanauer ,

M. Williams, DL H. Thomoson W. Johnston JZwolinski -

S. Pawlicki P. Collins .

V. Benaroya , D. Ziemann

2. Ros2toczy V. Moore W. Haass Region Administrator R. H. Engelken D. Muller bec: plicant Service sin

R. Ballard ,^_

W. Regan . Branch LB#3 A. Toalston Project Manager B. Buckley/L_Schier11ns Licensing Assistant J. Lee

. 5 e .

,Y "g .. unit 3sTAvas NUCLEAR RECULATT6RY CwfAMISSION

[

, -.c- .

i

- - - - MAR 311982 Docket No.: 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: Pat Sullivan. Chief Administrative Branch Office of the Secretary .-

. c. . .. . : ....

.FROM: Hans Schierling. Project. Manager *

.. .1.1censisg' Branch No. 3 " - .

Division of Licensing SUSJECT: REQUEST TRANSCRIPT 0F MEETING TO BE HELD APRIL 1. 1982 -

DIA81.0 CANYON This is to confim the telephone request by Jean Lee for a reporter to prepare a transcript of the meeting to be held on April 1.1982. with Pacific Gas and Electric Company regarding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear . -

Power Plant. Unit 1 (see the enclosed meeting notice for details of the meeting). We need the transcript two or three days following the meeting so that we can make copies for our internal use as well as for the parties to this proceeding. We anticipate attendance of approximately -

100 people. Please contact me (X28423) or Jean Lee (X28413) if yqu need additional information.

r b

Hans Schier11ng. Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Meeting notice dtd. 3/29 '

.$ x gpt (6,g .

- - ~ ' ' ' - --

me [- ,

jg UNITEJ STATES t

, /' * *. * *

NUCLEAR RESULATCRY COMMISSl:N

,[

g fn

/ ! WASHINGTON. C. C. 20SSS .

k****** .

fjece. .'; t :W2 Docket No. 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Miraglia. Oiief, LBf3, DL FROM: lians E. Schie[11ng," Project Manager, LBf3,'DL

SUBJECT:

.': . . :..~ h0TICE' 0F MkETING. WITH. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COWANY

. G.3 ..;p AND.IDNTRAC.TDRS' *l)IABLO CANYON, UNIT 1. DESIGN VERIFICATION

'.U..

.

if,. .- PR.O.G.

. RAW *. 3. .!.. i. ., ..-.

. . . . . . . . . .a, .

? . . .. -..-u . . . . . .

.' bfi' .} . . Date & Time' .. .Thu'rsdy,' A' r.13 l', .1982*. ,;.*'. -.." . . NUTE: p 'IHIS MEETING WAS'

~

? ' ,- .

~ g':00. AM . - 1300 PK ~~

ORIGINAL 1Y SOEDULED POR MARDI 26, 1982 I. . .

Location:' , Phillips Building,' Road P-118 '

7920 Norfolk, Avenue

. . .,Be.thesda, Maryland

. . .n . . ... . .... u ... .

Purpose:

. ~~ ' Td discus'sstriff q,uestfons pertaining. to the QA audit reviews

.. .. performed y R. F. Reedy, Inc. (preliminary agenda items

. '... .' s.-'A.tt.a'ch'ed)'*2.

. . .. 9

'NRC:* ' ~. .,.....

Participants:

'. D. .Eisenhut H. Schierling B.Buckley

. R. Vollmer

R.~.Tedesco . .J.. Crews. .

'.'. . .J. .Kni ght **,.*;. T. Bishop '

7.*191 rag 11a ~' P. Morrtil '

.~~

J.'#,.fj .,

. . . ,Wg Ma as s, . . ' ,

' ** 3~.

. .R- .

PG&E J. Hoch, et. .al. ..

PG&E contractor fo'r Ptase t ! '

Hans E. Schierling, Project Manager Design Verification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Attachment:

Agenda Items cc: See next page ,

9 y

U '3 gS .

7 .. . .

~ .

AGENDA ITEMS (PRELIMINARY) -

1. Criteria for evaluation of QA programs; applicability of

. selected parts of ANSI N45.2.11 considered for guidance .

. in e' valuating PG&E QAP. .

. .. 2. . .laplementation of the QA program by PG&E relative"to its

- * ' .* aksignaid

.-- .2

.audit ..

role."

..: . s. .

) . ..

. . . .s. . . . . . o .. s Applicability. of- QAiman661'tt' Unit;1. - ,,..

. ."3.. ,

o _ . ... . . . . .

z . _ .3, ,

l .

4.~ Isipact of organization change in 1g72 relative to effective . '

. ness of implementation of QA program. -

.- 5.' Verification of design work accomplished by service related contractors prior.to requirement for contractor to apply QA -

i in, 1g77-197g time: frame.'..

'6. Current ~a'ssessment of overall QA program effectiveness based ..

I.

on review'in(.evalu.ation performed to'date. .

.. 1. . .. .

f .

- a s.. '-

~ , ,

.,- . n :;r . . ...;i , .. . ;. .n ...... :. r. . .. , . . . .

..,...o~.-

'.nh .... .. : : .'. ' . .>h;;; .

.a. . .*

.a.. +. -.,

#. . .t

. , ."*. 5y.hp: .-

sa. ,.., . .... .... .... . a g.- .

t *, s .(, ;*t.

- . . , u s -t.

.. *,:.=. :~n.s. s- o. - ..",

.n. .

. v _ ;,. *

. * '. ... = .

l l

1 I

t ,

l -

. i l

l l-t

n--,r ,.- - _ , . - , .n ,, - - l

r L.

- . o.

t . -

1

, * *. - /

O!.A8LO .C ANYON Mr. HaTcolm H. Furb/sh #-

Vice President

General Counsel ' -

Pacific Gas *S. Electric Ccrepany P.O.' Box 7442 . . .

5an Francisco , California ,94120 .

cc: Phiiip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 .

San Francis,co,- California 94120 Janice E. KerrI Es Q . W .

, Californ.is Pub]ic Utilities Commission .

ar350'Mc A1.11Mer'Mreet .

~~ 5an Fra~ncWco California '94102 .

.,.... e%-

2';;. . : *; , r.f.2- ,

5,,' . I 5.Y

" W /FredirHE EiNG, President .

,,[i" .

Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc. . - . ' 4.7

~

F

~4623 More Hesi'DrifiC*

?i.

, ~ Santa Barbara,' Calif 6rnia ,93105 . .. -

j Ms. Elizabeth lApfelberg .'

1415 Cozadero ...-

Sin LGis Osiipo,-California 93401 . .*/.

.a. -

.a ,

- "+

Mr. Gordon'A. Silver '

- f' '

Hs. Sandra A. 511v'er' -

1760 A11 sal . Street .

i San Luis Obispo, California 93401 , ,

Harry M. Willis Esq. -

Seymour & Willis i

601 California Street, suite 2100

- .. F'X

' Y/

- San Francisco, . California M108 m

.gr. a.. . i'!S

.~ mnet

.L'?

.. p-D,0;; , .6g&p:e.

..w

< . - :. .~ ' m a. .

.,e,. n .s y. <.._ ; .

,' .D.n,U ' '

Mr. M chard Hubbard '." '.. . Ci -

' ' d- @[d ,

. ., ; jp

MHS Technical Associates i.-

'Lf' - "' ;

l 'Yu ) .

Suite K '. *- ..r u. '

1723 Hamilton Avenue-San Jose, California 95125 .

-e . ,

i : .- .

. Mr. John l'.arrs, tianaging Editor .

l' San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune .

i 1321 Johnson Avenue -

P. O. Box 112 ,.

1 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 ,

j .. .

1 e

l .

l i

o n s

=-

,** e. .

-~'

fir. Malcolm H. Furbush ;- .

cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon '.?S .-

c/o U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

P. O. Box 369 .

Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming -

1920 P.attie Road Shell beach, California 93440 '

Joel . Aeynolds,- Esq. .

John R. Phillips Esq. .

Center for Law in the Public Interest'. "-

s. 10951 West-Pico Boulevard . . . -

Thire Floor p.fl: ? , ,

Los An9eles, California 90064 17..n l * .,

. Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

321 Litton Avenue *

,1 Palo . Alto, Califofnia 94302 '

i J '.:a . Hr. Dyron 5. Georgiov ' '

I.,- ",. Legal Affairs Secretary .., , ,,,.

Governor's Office .

- . State Capitol

Sacramento, California

, 95814 . i Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

4.- ".

Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.

.1900 h Street, k.W.

'!ashington, D.C. 20036 ..

., .v ; :

..... . . ;, . & . :.- . W . .'.

-)24- "l97..i.?.

.,, .'.:.T '

.. >' ?

., . ';' D*: g'.'2:> . ...

Mr. Dick 81ankenburg, Editor 8 Co-Publisher

- # 'N-

South County Publishing Company ' , ,-

. ':n P. D. bon 460 : '

' ~. ;

Arroyo Gra'nde, California 93420 *

. Mr. Janies 0. Schuyler -

Yice President - Nuclear Generation Dep'artment *

Pacific (,as & Electric Company * .

P.O. box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 bruce Norton, Esq. .

Suite 202 .

. 3216 Nortis 3rd Street

. Phoenix, Arizona 85012

. . .g g e

g G

8 a . e

. , . o. .

L, ,

p Mr. Halcola H. Furhush - -

Mr. W. C. Gangloff .

Westinghouse Electric Corporation ~

P. O. Box 355 .

, Pittsburgh,. Pennsylvania 15230

. David.F.'Fleischaker, Esq.

P. O. Box 1178 .

Oklahoma City Oklahoma. 73101 Arthur C, Gehr. Esq. .*

Snell & Wilmer

..?-

. 3100 Valley Center .*

.F. .

Phoenix, Arizona 85073

. 4 4: . , ' , . ..

>, vs. i-: -

, .;.

gM,i ;e'*,.

' . ' ..4:' . / . . . *. ; **

r r. .

. . .i ; *. S., ,

. Mr. Owen H. Davis,' Director "i. ' - ' "Y,J.. ~ ' '

. N. T

Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company ,

1050 17.th Street, N.W.- - .

Suite 1180 -

Washington,D.cl.20036

.5....e . .. . ':.. .. ... .

.. v.. . . .. . . .

. .u

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

, .4.. ... .

.g.

f , ,

, , .g . .

...,,,..j..,

jyj .

. j .

. o..:. . . \

v.; .

. .... .s; .., .

. . . .w - ..

!N

., / .t ., ndN. . ..f.

4

. . . ;. c. .. i... .....:bh.!'U d.,3...v.. :r,..d,kjv.,'i.d...,Q@..

r

. m. ..

w.

. 1

c. . eJ< u , e .... . .s . . m , u. .. . . . .

,3 j.f y'.' . .hj'. .\ '.id

., ? .

.%. '4. . . .

t .e. .,.. ,. ,.

0 .

8 , -

. g .

. s a

D 9

0

- _ _.- -.--- ,, - ~ ,- ,,._o ,_y .- - _ . ----

6 5 5 7 rw (

, K heit s

., J 7 ( ,. ., ( %

APR 121982 i

'EWA"m!" FM: ,Pichard H. Vollner, M rector Div.jsion of Engineering ,

FR21: " "

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

~5UBICTi DI ABLO CAdV0N DESI@l VEP.IFICATION PROGRAM ,

Attached is the Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) sutraittal, dated April 2, 1982, of the TES Phase I Tropram Managenent Plan (the olan) for the Independent ~

Desion Verification Program (IDYP) for Diablo Canyon Unit 1. The olan was submitted in response to the staff reouests, expressed at the March 25, 1982 i meeting, for a single TES docum it with the following objectives: . (1) consolidate, as appropriate, the earlier progra plans submitted by, PG8E, dated December 4 ..

1981; R. L. Cloud Associates, dated March 1,1882; and TES, dated March 8, '

1992; (2) include the additional elements identified at the Comission meeting on

.: March 4,1992 (see SECY-82-99 dated March 1,1992, transcript 'of Comiission meeting, neo fron S. Chilk to 11. Pircks dated March 8,1992); and (3) address ;

issues and include TES ctrritt9ents identified during the neetings on and . arch 25, 1932. Of narticular concern to the staff is the r8 prog, ram February 3, and ,

its inpler'ientation by TES ,and subcontractors to the IDVP activities thnselves. '

1 2 j Ve reauest that your staff review the attached TES olen for the IDVP to assure that this consolidated and updated document meets the three staff objectives

identified ab'cVe. Since the earlier PG8E version of the progra plan, with recomended staff modifications as described in SECY 82-M9, has. already been

. approved by the Commission and since most of the activitjes described in the .-

. plan have been in progress for see time (and are near empletion in some > -

> cases) it is important that the staff perfom this review without delay.. 'To

! expedite the review we have provided advance cooles of the program plan to l your. orincipal staff that has participated in the Diablo Ca,nyon design verification

effort to.'date. ,

. Ue request tSat your staff nrovide us with t5e results of the review by April 19, l 1982. Imediately thereafter we will infom H. Denton, by ner'o, .of our conclusions

and recomendations, including a letter to PME and TES infoming them of ,

l our review results and need for additional infomation, if any.

i 1 ;

h hv bpl90, $ 1( .. '

Q l

l f$ , ,

s i . . ,

- - .o..- -~~ ~ ~. - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

l oment ....................~. .................. ...................... ......................

Suas. Avg ) ..............,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,................., ,,,,,,,,,,,,,.......... ........................ ..................

........................ ........................ ........................ ...............................................................m..

C 4 ? E l . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

r:r. ; ;,.:. :...e:..: . m CFFICIAL RECORD COPY '. ust:om-r <

1

~

g.

..Nc%re !*. ve11n >r ., .>-

, APR I 21982 6 fins.1 atinistrative nate: TA".S "'r-5er CW.r> has 5*n esta511shed for "nia51e P.anyon 1 - Hs,ino Verification Prnaram" and should be used by the staff to account for effort ev.psnded on t51s activitv. . -

Original Signed By:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, nirector Division of Licensino cc: H. Denton, w/o encl.

E. Case, w/o enc 1, ..

R. Engelken, w/o enc 1. ,

J. Crews , w/o encl. .

.. DISTRIBUTION -

Document Control: 50/275/323 -

W/0 ENCL: '

TERA '

~ '

DEisenhut/RPurple -

,. RTedesco FMiraglia BBuckley' .

HSchierling JLee .

LB3 File '

JKnight -

WHaass RBosnak '

FSchauer . .

PTKuo GBagchi MMessier -

. _,_ h'i n - A ,,

. 01,;LB#3

'.0.1,.

' [. . . . . . ... . @.. ........................ ...................... ................

Teh........7.

, HSc,hierlin9: e... s ................u .

. p . . i. . . (l. . i. .a. . . . . .

11. " i12

.. A2. . .. A1....

.R.m. .,R.

1.e2.... ..c..o........

..a1.1..%..

.n.:.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ ........................

'~ - .

. . O FFICI AL R ECO R D CC .i m e: .in _:::.. n ..

- = _ . . ._ ==. . -= -

. .=

.c-note au- - --w. = 4/4,/h . A c", r* k

= geg.seream ,.- ee os o i _

n. V .%k

{ gag 7.ku3LF 0.etw.ku+

R %llmer Wka555

R.Takese o AeMon Fee feste end Retum

- ,e, ~,o, ,,, - R. h a k As -

__-^d For Cervection Propero Reply j caroute,e ,KFor veur Information see ,se Donunent

= ,^ __

,.o. ,

Slanet.ro F . 5 L" ac s LA t'J dst. MobbN do-

' a m U.c k 4 4 L yn den

+w.g-I. A. A sf d vns%-

A g ' 3 'O 3 '

' % lt- ryhy win by b;v. eus isinpww.44m a epias eep 9'} ",'"

vt<M & copy of k u.tr 4 y;se;p 1

.S & W i l l 7ep u d {ar m % .

DO NOT use this form CORO et eencurronees, disposele, FROhk (Nameb arg. symtof, Agency / Post) Room No.-84ds.

4(4I l I L* g3 sost-see v Posted 41

. . - ... .. . ... ...._ .......,,, ma m cE'!*si-n.=(Rev. 7-76) e l

g q

.,1 2 gS Rig )o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, . [, '$,

., b'.- (f'. . i

.;,#/ WASHINGTON D. C. 20555

'g 'kk-

,e

- ..* APR 161982 MEMORANDUM FOR: M. Rothschild. Office of the Executive Legal Director FROM: F. J. Miraglia, Chief. Licensing Branch No. 3, DL

SUBJECT:

DOCUMENTS ON DIABLO CANYON TO BE SENT TO LPDR FOR SHEARON HARRIS At the public meeting that was held on April 7,1982 regarding Shearon Harris. ..

we indicated we would provide the LPDR with copies of some documents ,

regarding Diablo Canyon Design Verification Program. We have assembled a set of such documents that in our view would provide interested persons information on the background and status of that program (see enclosed).

It is requested that you take the necessary steps to have this information provided to the LPDR. If you have any questions, please call me (X27161).

b A _

Frank J ia Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: R. Tedesco

Enclosures:

See attached List i

I l

U 1

! O' jk I TV .cg( Jj f

,g{

's, .

3 Listing of Documents Regarding Diablo Canyon Design Verification Program

1. Commission Order CLI-81-30, November 19, 1981

2. Letter H. R. Denton, NRR, to M. H. Furbush, PG&E, November 19. 1981

3. Letter M. H. Furbush, PG&E, to H. R. Denton, NRR, D'ecember 4, 1981 transmitting detailed program plan for independent seismic design verification.

4. Commission Paper SECY-82-89, March 1,1982 transmitting NRC ' staff evaluation of Diablo Canyon proposed seismic design verification -

program. -

5. Letter P. Crane, PG&E, to H. R. Denton, NRR and R. H. Engelken, RV, March 30, 1982 transmitting PG&E tenth semimonthly status report including updated list of open items and errors.

6. W. E. Cooper, TES, to G. A. Maneatis, PG&E, et.al. transmitting TES Program Management Plan - Phase I for Independent Design Verification Program, April 2,1982 l

l l

l i

l l

t ,

I i

+ ...m-

.l t

.)*

.f UNITED STATES

! $*'% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

5 a wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20585 *, .

April 20, 1982

\ ..... #

MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing FROM: Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM --

PG&E TECHNICAL PROGRAM _

i In response to your requests of April 12 and 13, 1982, we have reviewed the April 2,1982- Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) submittal for the Indepen-dent Design Verification Program (IDVP) plan and the. April 6, 1982 PG&E report which describes the Technical Program of PG&E.

The PG&E report which references the TES plan responds to the staff request for a single program plan and.for-a definition of the scope and methodology of the PG&E Technical Program. This report together with the Teledyne sub-mittal adequately addresses the method of resolution of errors and open items that are identified in the IDVP and the interfaces between the two programs. The TES plan.is a consolidated and updated document that meets

, the three staff objectives identified in your memorandum of April 12, 1982.

r We recommend that these two documents be approved and that the following j comments be addressed in the next revision to the TES plan.

As previously indicated, the qualifications and background of_the_ structural review team need to be amplified. TES has not indicated how this will be i accomplished.

Section 5.1 of Appendix D indicates that the sample of equipment, piping, buildings and components to be design-verified by independent calculations l 1s shown in Table 1. Table 1, however, has no information about building I samples.

va Mov 4

f.

1 D. Eisenhut Table 7-1 of attachment 1 in Appendix D indicates the load combination and structural acceptance criteria for mechanical equipment. The method of load combination (e.g., absolute sum or SRSS) should be clearly indica-ted, p- gf.h- -

/ Ri chard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering cc: H. Denton E. Case R. Tedesco.

F. Miraglia H. Schierling R. Bosnak F. Schauer W. Haass J. Knight G. Bagchi P. T. Kuo M. Messier E. Sullivan 4

um ubu m u . ____________._____,___.___m___

' [9 me g o,, UNITED STATES y ,, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r , j WASHINGTON D. C. 20555

%,...../

Docket No: 50-275 APR 2 6 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: F. J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3, DL FROM: . H. E. Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3, DL

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY -

PARTICIPATION OF BECHTEL IN DIABLO CANYON PROJECT DATE & TIME: Friday, April 30, 1982 ,

9:00 AM LOCATION: Room P-110 Phillips Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Marylard PURPOSE: PG&E will explain to NRC management the role which Bechtel will assume in the completion of the Diablo Canyon project PARTICIPANTS: NRC H. Denton, R. DeYoung D. Eisenhut, R. Vollmer, J. Crews, R. Tedesco, J. Knight, F. Miraglia, L. Chandler, H. Schierling and B. Buckley PG&E G. Maneatis, J. Hoch, et. al.

BECHTEL H. Friend l\,?v Q>v- - ,

i ka'n,sE.Schierling,ProjectManager Design Verification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page ,

1

\

i rgesom,a Y w

l

. s'

DIABLO CANYON ,

Mr. Halcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counse) ,

Pacific Gas & Electric Canpany P.O. Box 7442 -

San Francisco, California 94120 cc: Philfp A. Crane, Jr., Esq.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq. .

California Public Utilities Commission 350 M: Allister Street San Francisco, California 94102 fir. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More Mesa Drive -

Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis-03ispo, California 93401 ilr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Will'is, Esq.

Seymour & Willis 4

601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Fran:isco, California 94108 Mr. Richard Habbard MHS Technical Associates Suite K 1723 Hamil ton Avenue Sa, Jose , Cali fornia 95125 Mr. John "arrs, "anaging Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue .

P. O. Box 112 l San Luis Obispo, California 93406

. S

{

l t

l I

a 4

r

, ,'e Hr. Halcolm H. Furbush i

, cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS ~

c/o U. S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. D. Box *369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 P.attie Road Shell beach, California 93440 .

Joel Aeynolds. Esq.

John R. Phillips, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Thiro Floor Los Angeles, California 900b4 s Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

321 Lytton xvenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Mr. 'cyron S. Georgiov Legal Af f airs Secretary Governor's Of fice State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, E sq. .

Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.

1900 h Street, N.W.

Washirigton, D.C. 20036 Mr. Dick Blankenburg, Editor & Co-Publisher South County Publishing Cor.ipany P. O. box 460 '

Arroyo Grance, Cali fornia 9342u tir. James 0. Schuyler Vice Presioent - Nuclear Generatiori Department Pacific bas & Electric Company P.O. box 7442 .

San f rancisco, California 94120 bruce f.orton, thq.

Suite 20e 3216 teorth 3ro Sti eet Phoenix, Arizona 85012

- e Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush -

Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electri.c Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. O. Box 1178 .

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. .

Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 s

Mr. Owen H. Davis, Director Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Compani '

1050 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1180 Washington, D.c. 20036 O

e

=

+

A e

7 he E #

k e

e % .

r

. 'o MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION Document Control (50-NRC PDR LPDR TERA .

NSIC~

LBf3 Files JLee Project Manager _HANS SCHIERLING -

ECase DEisenhut/RPurple RTedesco (only if participant or if held in Bethesda)

JYoungblood ASchwencer FMiraglia EAdensam JMiller A Glainas WRussell DCrutchfield TIppolito JKnight WJohnston DMuller TSpeis RHouston LRubenstein ,

FSchroeder MErnst JKramer (Division Directors - only if participant in meeting)

Attorney, OELD JONES OI&E Regional Administrator, Region l Resident Inspector ACRS (16)

OSD (7)

NRC Participants cc: Service List

..a

, '/ %, UNITED STATES .

y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20065 s ,.

.i APR 28 q 1

l' MEMORANDUM FOR:

H. R. Denton,' Director. Office of N'uclear Reactor Regulation

~

i FROM:

D. G. Eisenhut. Director, Division of, Licensing, NRR

SUBJECT:

APPROVAL OF PHASE I PLAN FOR DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 J

The staff has reviewed the April 2,1982 submittal by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) of its plan for Phase I of the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) which responds to item (3) of Comission Order CLI-81-30.

The staff also reviewed the April 6,1982 submittal by PG&E of its

" Technical Program which responds to a staff request made in the meeting on March 25, 1982. Based on our review of the documents we conclude that the plad for the IDVP meets the requirements of item 1(a), of the Comission Order and we recomend your approval of both programs. -

Accordingly, we have prepared the enclosed letter to PG&E for your signature.

The TES plan for Phase I of the IDVP is a consolidated document for

- various aspects of the program (e'.g., management plan, engineering plan, applicability of statistical methods), includes the additional elements identified by the Comission during the March 4,1982 meeting, and addresses issues identified during meetings with the staff on February 3 and March 4, 1982. We found that certain subjects need some additional -

clarification and recomend that they be included by TES in a revision l' l

to the program within two weeks. The items are identified in the enclosure ?

to the letter to PG&E.

The PG&E Technical Program ' includes design verification activities

performed internally by PG&E in accordance with its responsibility as the licensee (e.g. the resolution of technical issues resulting from the original annulus problem). 3 Our recomendation for your approval is limited to the Phase I activities g

themselves and does not apply to the adequacy of the Phase I activities

-1 as the bas,is for reinstating; the suspended. license (fuel. loading and low d

' power operation). As you, know the Reedy Report on the audit of the QA activities for the seismic design of Phase I by PG&E (and its service related contractors) raised concerns within the staff regarding'the QA efforts by PG&E in general. We have discussed the bases and findings in the report with Reedy and have recently received coments from PG&E on

the report.

$ kc y'd'

'b tp$np a peo .

.,;- = ,; - -

y. .

s .

APR g 61987.

) ,

i 1 The staff has not yet , concluded whether, as a result of the Reedy findings, j any changes are necessary in the scope of Phase I to

of providing a sufficient basis for reinstatement of, meet the the ' objective ifcense to load.

] fuel and operate up to 5% of power level. Although, the need for expanding

, the scope of Phase I in some form appears likely at this time, we recomend that we proceed by approving the Phase I program plan since these activities must be completed- regardless of the eventual scope of the Phase I program. .

.. *1 : .

- ~

l .

~ . .

, p.

.' Eii

] , - - utrren tor Division of Licensing j -Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t

cc: R. DeYoung E. Case

, R. Engelken l -

R. Purple *

R. Vollmer

. R. Tedesco J. Knight

. J. Crews F. Miraglia R. Bosnak .

l ; F. Schauer , [ :

I ; W. Haass -

'I '

l

G. Bagchi l

M. Messier -

E. Su.llivan

, P. Kuo T. Bishop P. Morrill '

J. Fair K. Herring

L. Chandler -

I t

I 1

1

. e g % , . .. *

=a m ehe em h ' * * * . L m. .e e w* wh bE = *

,. . ' d g>3 88 %,#'o, UNITED STATES

[ % . . </,' , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

;f %',,l,# , gj wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555

s v44 a

% ***** /

APR 2 81982 MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR

,s THRU: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing,jDL FROM: , Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3. DL

SUBJECT:

REVIEW PLAN FOR DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM The staff has reviewed the Teledyne (TES) plan for the Diablo Canyon Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) - Phase I and the PG&E plan for its Technical Program. With some minor changes both plans have been found acceptable and a letter to PG&E has been prepared. Since the activities under both programs have already been ongoing since last fall and in some cases are nearina completion (e.g., QA review by R. F. Reedy under the IDVP and annulus review by PG&E under the TP) it is important that the staff promptly perform the detailed review of these activities.

On February 25, 1982 we issued for comment a proposed detailed review plan for the entire Diablo Canyon 1 Design Verification Program (DVP).

The emphasis on certain aspects of the original program has changed and we have redefined those staff activities that must be completed in the near future. Attached is a summary of the activities, including proposed assignments for conducting the review. Before proceeding with fine tuning and developing a computer tracking system, we would like to discuss them with you.

We also~ recomend a meeting with the staff identified in the attached chart to discuss the activities currently in progress.

M

! Frank J. MiGhg a, ief

( Licensing Branch No. 3 i Division of Licensing l

l \

l ',

y& qN S AO ' W? )b W

l

Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Design Verification Program Near Term Staff Action Items

1. Decision on TES Plan for IDVP Phase I (1) Sta'ff review complete, input to PM (2) Memo to Denton with proposed letter to PG8E and TES (3) Letter.to PG&E and TES.

2. Decision on PG&E Plan for Technical Program (TP)

(1) Staff review complete, input to PM (2) Memo to Denton with proposed ltr.

to PG&E and TES (3) Letter to PG&E and TES

3. Scope of Phase I ,

(1) Staff meeting on (a) Reedy QA audit reports (b) Results of QA meeting on 4/1/82 (c) Implication of QA findings on Scope of Phase I (d) Staff recomendation for scope of Phase I (see Region V memo of 3/29/82; for example, identify elements of Phase II to be done prior to fuel loading, accelerate Phase II program review and approval (2) Prepare memo to Denton with staff recommendation (3) Prepare letter to PG&E on revised scope of Phase I

2-

4. Staff Assignments -

(1) Approval of assignihent of individuals to Diablo Canyon design verification effort (see attached chart for proposed structure)

(2) Assignments of individuals to '

specific activities in the IDVP and the TP (3) Define' specific activities to be followed by Region V .

(4) Identify Region V activities that need support from NRR and IE (5) Develop schedules ' '

5. , Review of IDVP and TP Activities {

o Determine current status of IDVP and TP activities based on latest semi-monthly reports o Determine current status of errors and open items on basis of listings provided.by Cloud, TES und PG&E in their semi-monthly reports and evaluate proposed resolutions o Meeting with PG&E and TES, if necessary, to identify status of activities o Review expansion of s' ample size initiated by TES or PG&E o Review QA audits completed by Reedy and prepare eviluation 9

o In depth review of IDVP and TP activities performed by PG&E TES and others at their offices o Inspection of design modifications at the site l -

- . _ . ._ ~ ._. - _

g g. -" h eh- 6

' 6. 0A Program proposed for Tes plan o Determine acceptability of QA activities proposed in TES plan o Request and obtain, as necessary, copy of Qk manuals for conduct of IDVP by TES. Cloud. Reedy, PG&E.

o Review QA manuals o Request information from Region IV based on'its inspection of TES QA program o Prepare written findings on review of QA manual and on audit of QA implementation l

1 l

l

~

e NRC Rev'iew of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Independent Design Verification Program

~

IDVP Policy Review' Group D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer J. Crews Tech. Direction Project Management R. Vollmer E. Eisenhut or or J. Knight R. Tedesco Project Branch LB#3 PG&E F. Miraglia Teledyne H. Schierling et.al.

NRR I E, OELD Region V R. Bosnak - Mechanical J. Fair

L. Chandler T. Bishop F. Schauer - Structural B. Jones P. Kuo - BNL, "

W. h33ss - QA G. Ba9 chi - EQ M. Messier - Financial K. Herring *- Seismic ,

Brookhaven

Will provide support to Region V

. . - . . _ ~ . -..... .~...e. .-. . ... ,.

>R #f Q

-. o UNITED STATES

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

{. . g REGION V j

.7 1460 MAR 1A LANE SUITE 210 4

,e WALNUT CRE EK, CALIFORNIA M508 MAY 11 19g3 MEMORANDUM FOR: F. J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3. DL FROM: J. L. Crews, Director, Division of Resident, Reactor Projects and Engineering Programs

SUBJECT:

REGION V INSPECTION OF ACTIONS RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON REVERIFICATION PROGRAM The enclosed memorandum provides a description of Region V inspection activities related to the Diablo Canyon Reverification f rogram. The results of this inspection effort may ultimately be reflected in a Safety Evaluation Report issued by your office. Accordingly, it is requested that you complete the following actions regarding this effort:

1. Coordinate with NRR Division of Engineering and Division of Licensing and IE to determine if the inspection program, as described, is compatible with their planned actions.

2. Identify, as appropriate, additional areas where Region V inspection effort is requested (regarding the Diablo Canyon Reverification Program).

3. Identify any specific items, within the planned inspection scope, for which you, NRR:DL, NRR:DE, or IE request special emphasis.

It is requested that your response to the actions identified above l be provided to this office by May 25, 1982. Please contact T. W. Bishop (FTS 463-3751) if you have any questions regarding this request.

// ,

i

' Y

4. L CWws, Director

[41vi on of Resident, Reactor Projects and Engineering Programs

Enclosure:

RV memo T. W. Bishop to J. L. Crews ,

, dated May 10, 1982 I cc: D. G. Eisenhut, NRR, DL Sl d

\

R. H. Engelken, RV E. L. Jordan IE R. H. Vollmer, NRR, DE b OfQk ('{( 1

\

L%

hg?/A q.

(

k'7 ./

_ _ _ _ _ -_ -.,,....m._.m.~.__.m.

. / * '. -

aL * . **

A %kmeA 1.

'~

.yaseg .

'4 jeg *

. UNITED STATES g Qg ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7, p. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20115

w e s w.a

~

February 1, 1982 f CHAIRMAN .

'$we , a N c. r b h . N i k e t f The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman J C ::sittee en Energy and Commerce -

Un.ited States House of Representatives .

Washington, D.C. 20515 .

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We share the can'cerns 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 icw-power oper~ation, 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'Nov' ember 19,198 we suspended .

Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (.PG&E) license pending satisfactory .

. completion of the folicwing: .

.. The ::nduct of an independent design review program. cf all safety-related activities performed pricr to June 1,1978 under all seismic-related service contracts used in the design of

. safety-ralated structures, systems and c:mponents.

2. A tech.fcal re;;r: tha fully assesses the basic cause of ali design err:rs identified by this pr: gram, the significance Of the errors found and their impa:: on facility design.

. 3. FME's cenclusiens of the effectiveness of the design verifica:icn program in assuring the adequacy of facility design.

4 A. schedule for c: mpisting any mcdifications to the facility that -

are re:uired as a result of the design verification pr.ogram.

1 - -

l In ne C:m.t.ission ordered THE.to pr: vide.. Lor NRC review and-a;;addi:icn, l \ r:v,al : . .

A :es:-i;;':n ar.d cis:.ss':e.:f -he ::r;;ra:s ;ualifica-icr.s cf the lg3@bgj?)

:1 . . :- ::.:ar'et :: : :n t x:uic pr:;:se : carry cu: :he

i

_ _ . . . . - - _ m .. ,._ _ _. . .m_.._...,.,_.

' ~

independent design verification program, including information that demonstrates the independence of these companies. ,

2. A detailed program plan for conducting the design verification' program. ,

In recognition of'the need to assure the credibility'df the design

~ verification program, NRC will decide on the acceptability of the ,

companie~s' proposed by PG&E to conduct this program after providing the Governor of California and Joint Intervenors in the pending operating licensing proceeding 15 days for corment. Also, the NRC will decide en the acceptability of the plan proposed by PG&E to conduct the program, after providing the Governor of California and the Joint Intervenors in the ,pending operating license proceeding 15 days for comment.

Prior to authorization to proceed with fuel loading, the NRC must be satisfied with the results of the seismic design verification program and with any plant modification resulting from that program that may be ,

necessary prior to fuel leading. Tha. NRC may impose additional requirements prior to fuel loading necessary to protect health and safety based upon. its review of the. program or any .of the information .

provided by PG&E. This may include some or all of the requirements specified in the letter to PG&E dated November 19,,1981.

Responses to each of the four questions in your letter are enclosed.

A decision to perr.it PG&E to proceed with fuel . loading will'not be made until all th'e actions contained in the Corcission's November 19, 1981 Order are fully satisfied. , ,,

Sincerely, ,

y W Nunzio J. Pallacino l -

cc: Rep. Carlos Mcccheid l Enciosurer: f'y'J l .

1. Cc.r.ission Order, dated 11/19/81 .

2. l. r fr:m Office of Nuclear Reactor l

Regulation, NRC to PGLE dated 11/19/E~1 dtb.b d .

l

3. Resp:nses to Questiens ---

g C (ty cN

V. . . ~ . . . . . . . .

MVOWIL ,>

+

Question 2:

Please provide the criteria to be used inassur '

" independent." . .

Re s o o n s e_: The competence of the individuals orcompanie -

selection or individuals of an may auditor.

not have had any direct '

previous involvement with the activities at

, Diablo Canyon that theyw ,ill be reviewing.

In addition, the following factors wil'1 be considered in evaluating the question of *

independence: .

Whether the individuals or companies

1) -

involved had been previously hired byPG& ..

Whether any individual involved had been *

2) previously employed by PG&E (and the nature of the employment).

' 3) Whether the' individual owns or controls significant amounts of PG&E stock.

Whether members of the present hous-ehold

4) of individua'is invol.ved are emp.loyed by PG&E..- - .. "

Whether any relatives are employed by capacity.

5) PG&E in a management In addition to the above consideration ,

to assure independence: ,

be. provided of

1) An auditable . record all comments on draft willor final reports, of such any changes made as a resultcomments, issue an

- changes; or the consultant (withoutwill prict only a final report .

iteensee comment).

NRC will alsume and exercise the rescon-2) sibility for serving the report on all parties. . . . .

e

. ,_ _ _7,, -,---_-_--

~

p .. S l n'i il res p!,\il IA\ ' i

(.h n k ,

an .

i :v o ,o auin u s o r,,

em 6 i

\

)

(,, < .

xc= cr.srA:BiiCCw_ISSICN

. fli%-.kv b -

Ve ((d hg( .

. kA- I ( 'Y'~-

f f f ~ (

L.Cl 4 (44,M -

1 C hn w -

' b. e ,

I-

.'9. =s: cf:

,, I:: da .

MEZTING WITE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANT .

TO DISCUSS SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW, DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 -

[

(..'- D A.O I : March. 25, 19.82 PAGZS: 1 thru 177 AO: Bethesda, Ma.m./ land i .

.uneasox /~ atenxo c .. _r_ q .

4C0 71. ~'a Ave., S.*4. 'J'*"' 7 ==,..C. C. 20014 h

T e l.shp - - = : (202) 554-2345 4

e

.- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _________m

(

. 1 MR. MIPAGLIA: One it,em that car.e up was an expressi 2 of clear indication of what the staff requirerents are for the 3 co.n@ift-of intere'st~st aremelksT 7c:I think the staff would be 4 l receptive to each of the program plans describing the procedu

- g 5 I and process that you proposed to use relative to these conflict 9

s6 j of interest state =ents and the criteria which you would use to E, 7 have an individual fill them out, the kind of records that you j 8, would propose to caintain and igplement that requirement and 11 '

d 9 the proc'edure's are explicit' enough and acceptable to the staff.

z

$, 10 We understand that you have a process an'd that you have criter:

z_

l 3-11 by which you are going to' implement that process.

p .12

_MR. COOPER: Tha't one'givEs'me a lo,t of difficulty.

h' E 13 Individual companies choose to handle that by different techni.

=

'3 e

14 That has to be demonstrated to date in this program, and I thi-y j

15 it's possible we might get these techniques together, but it's 16 administrative type of commission requirement, and until I hav

'^ \

d 17 ' more guidance in -- than I have seen put forward at this time.

a 2

M 18 noticing that there are differences in the way we handle the i:

(a 19 thing, our response to what we understand to be the requests ,

20 would have great difficulty responding to that at least in the 21 kind of time frames we are t'alking about for the plan submitta 22l I would rather -- perhaps we could eventually incluc l

23 ) it as one of the things that I have called project procedures i

to ec==it tc 24 l program procedures , but I certainly wouldn' t want ~"

1 25 j this for next week, and I might have trouile even after that.

I.

I

! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

\.- - -

. ~ _ . . . ., n m.,. . .w.,_w . g ,_ nw

m m ,.s.,. , . . _ _ _ - . -

mr --_ m--- -- . . .

~

1

. a. 163 l.

. 1 .

I I just -- maybe some who have been involved in this issue longer 2 than I have a thought on it.

I

, 3i, Bob? .

- 4 MR. CLOUD: Yeah. Having enjoyed the benefits of j i

e g

5 1

participating in this program for some period of time, my first-3 6 question is would you want such procedures to be addressed to all R

d. 7, individuals that might be involved? -

E I

) 8. MR. MIRAGLIA: i think what we are saying is that we d ;

ci 9' would, leave it g

C

to you--to-proponn ch.Mada 'qy-wh&ch--you,-wopg. - - - - ._

h z 3

10 ; use.Fwhat-ihdiVi-duals you-wourdTdR!ctfw:cpese e%n_crggg _

i l

is 11 i arid -trrm a te-thitwou-wiQqpf'gs.-to ic21&=ent-ents-:,,

~

12 itiddvof2agrogral:i ard that .yttMill~tEIEtifn%rTikin& ofhe'.A -

f

!= 13 i

di:'En:tvrR ,

l j 14 ,

MR. CLOUD: I wouldn't have any objection to that t:

w

!! 15 except that I would propose that such procedures should be U

f 16 confined to the management offices involved with the program.

Es .

ti 17 ' Jus t as a catter of practice. Don't misunderstand me. I don't

!5 18

= have the -- you know -- the son-in-law of any of the PG&E people ,

g i g

a 19 l on my staff. I am just saying as a catter of practice that it's .'

j

.i 20 going too far that each professicnal not own stock in PG&E, for '

l

. 21 exa=ple. It's sort of -- to quote an eminent member of the NPC l

t 22 ) staff, it would be centra y to the A=erican way. l MR. COOPEP.: Let =e cite an exacple. I sho.*ed a !

23l! .

I 24j Figure 1 and 2 coday. I had setibbled those out, and I went ec ,

25 l ?.cn '4 ray and ! said, " ray, you ,got sc=ebody -- Fon, can ycu get I e

I v n==c.% =e=neis.c~~...vv -

. 1

.k I s 1. .

._. . somebody that can letter these up for t'e in a hurry and get 2 in.chis report?.

y- .

He said yeah, and one of our co-op student j 3 it;

'~

i and about ten minutes af:er they were given to ce, the ,C l'

-4 engineer in the program came in and s' aid I'm p ing to ci:a y ,

= 5 7l ! for not having these guys cleared through personnel deparer.e

} , j 6lbeforehedidit, 4

and I said, Gee whiz, don't I even have tw 7

1- K to get that guy to fill out the thing? I got.in this bind .

~.

l 8

J had Ron do it five minutes age.

d 9 He said, Okay. I'll give you two days. I said, I

. 10

! He will have gone back to school in two days.

11 n

- * * - (Laughter) '*'t-.

f- 12 MR. . COOPER.:.

4 This' is how ridii.Blous it is really

. g 13

= getting as we are trying to do this thing thrcugh wh'at we are l

14 E cet:mitted to today, and guidance -- bai 25TEad!issidanss-ps ,33e j= 15 MR. HOCH: Can I ask tou a question? I don't kno' g 16

-if-I reviewed all thise things.'

s Mhve you found any of your g 17 employees who have a conflict yet?

E

{ 18 MR. COOPER:, No.

E 19 X MP. CLOUD: No.

, 20 wngt-fW,h . W o.- w i- bly w..Somcap, v. ith 21 somethius-cnat-viWiili$'#

22[

MR. COOPER: Excuse mi,

" ! The answer would have bee 23 h yes only we. knew better than to ask him to fill out the form 24 l because he wo ked en Diablo Canyon.

'v Now ,-

25j ,

FR, DENISON:

8 3

The answer is yes in one instance.

ll 5

a

\ ,=

- .a ..a + .,. + w . ~ .- n - = - " ="

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

~ ~~~ ~'

1 .

' !. 20 8 '

D *

16'5

}

.i '

j

!. I l father o*.ms sixty-three shares of stock.

l

2. W . BF.0WN : I don't think anyone is satisfied with the.

i 3 ulti= ate resolution of -- the governor, the joint intervenors -- l t

4 ' we all would have liked it differently, but I think the staff e 5

' better be cautious in not getting into a position and backing N

$ 6 down just because somebody suggests .that it might not be -

C E 7 , convenient. The bottom line was that there were pretty n

j 8' ,

thoroughly understood guidelines. Nobody liked exactly what d

i 9, they were because they came out of different stuff, but I think 2_'

10 2 it would be proven and we would insist from a literal reading of j 11 ; what the cocaission did,"ts--= - i L wne-peopteuco Q g a !

~4 12 z ,

coni 11Tr qf~i;queresc;r=. define-d=by the s se',s s ton s ent to th.e n-: -~ mw . ._..n

=

13 w6E6TPMy7he chifr:ian5Non't recall the subsequent ,

$ 14 l extensive conversation that went on, and this ended in two days t..

E 15 - of incenvenience. That is something thEt we have to live with

. N l

]. 16 or we will enp up quibbling over something that we should have s

!! 17 long behind us.

3 G 18 c-MR. VOLLFE.R: I think those guidelines were fairly '

(

$ 19 j clear. I don't think they caused the probler. I think the i l : n '

t 20 proble being posed was one share of PG6E or a hundred shares is 21 i a conflict of interest or things of that nature. Is that ri_zht? ,

22 I hope that there is no question in anybody's mind that pecple t

I 23 g who are part of th'is program sho.uld,_no.t :.be reviewing-worj that .

24 ! th ey . we -re c.a - c a.r t..y . c.oc.b. e fo re, and tha t . has,h e e n 7 _

} 25 I hcpe that is not the problem. !

I

. . _ .- n . ~ ~ . - - .

.t

. N .

Doesn't seem to have anything to do w.

1 MR. FRIEND:

2 (stock ownership whatsoever. -

3 MR. VOLLMIR: No, but that %7.s another matter that l

, 4 cb:ought up in a nurber of cther meeti1gs to which you w.ren't a pa.

I

e 5 MR. FRIEND: But the whole dialogue has been about r -

j 6 R

!cwning stock and financial interests, and you just enunciated 2 7 j seme different rules. T t2iink?.tha.tfs prgbablyrhy-it'~s~ w Cat j 8 *} impcry. ant'"tF.st~y6u do giveys..;some, guidance._,MaybeJoth.o a.;: - -

J .u sa. .s % * *'A

i 9 app [_Maybe only one.

z' .

c h 10 MR. MIRAGLIA: Bothi tof _them,do .applFirsMtedsp 3

j is 11 cpently written.-r_.We-will-doethat.

ti 12 MR. CLOUD: I.would .say. that the issue of persons 5

i g 13 reviewing work that they have participated in is a non-issue.

=-

m 3 14 one ever does that. What I'm suggesting - and.perhaps we ara b

j 15 going overboard when we require that every person involved b i

j 16 project not own stock, not have a relative in PG&E, et cetera 4

g 17 mean half the people in the Bay area worked for PG&E ati cne t:

5 E 18 or have relatives that worked for them or whatever.

i~

C 19 : MR. ECCE: As an alternative to -- I'm a little unc 5 l n

20 If we didn't take advantage of what you stated or the program 21 people didn't take advantage of what you stated with respect t l

22 l putting a procedure together and s cating what the procedure wt 23 } in the 'n ear term at least, is it acceptable to just centinue 5 3

24 4 n

\ the policy of having everyone do what they}e been doing?

25 .! is , sign th"e statement and so forth?

f

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

I

\ - -

__. ._. _ .,.. _. m , ,. . m w 3 p g . g

,, +g * *.

167 i

I MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes. .

2 MR. HOC-i:

Because in the short term that may be the -

. 3 most expedient way to handle it. -

/

4' MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes.

c 5 ,

MR. COOPER: If we can agree on that, I will try to '

3 ;.

6 put R

a together a program procedure as defined in our program plan.I ;

,9

~

" 7 I- It's the implementation of ,the criteria. I am concerned about, i i J.

! 8 a

and I will try to put together ,such, but I. won!t.J.mplement it J :

h d

9 l prior to sending it in for your comments because it is in P p

Y E

i

=

10 l response to a di. rect procedural issue that you folks have raised..,

3 11 ,i "s 3

y Ordinarily I would plan to imp,le(n.ent a. proce. dur.e. a.n.d. send it to . . . . .

- 9 i

12 l you for information.

E

,{

s 13 , MR CLOUD:

E ,

I think we could right now with complete it 14 '

and full assurance know that no engineers will be involved in

& 15 reviewing work tihat they have done. ..

E 3

16 MR. COOPER: That is true.

i 17 MR. CLOUD: So -- and I would suggest that sooner or i

f. 18 later people will' have to accept the fact that most of the 19 people doing this are honest men. i 20 MR. MIRAGLIA: There was some comments raised by the 2j

. I parties, a .d I think we said with respect to undocketed reports l i

i '

22 i that we are still -- there is still a question that the staff i 23 had on February 3rd ami that PG&E is attempting to deal with. , ,

24 1 Again, I guess the apprcoriate plan is to address that matter to l i

25 ; sene degree as well. i

! i .

I i

/ g UNIT'EUTATEs

,;.'[',

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V h>Mg,d 3 g

P, 1450 MARIA LANE SUITE 210

,e WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596

. % .' .% ...- /

MAY 11 198g MEMORANDUM FOR: F. J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3 DL ' -

FROM: J. L. Crews, Director, Division of Resident, Reactor

Projects and Engineering Programs -

SUBJECT:

REGION V INSPECTION OF ACTIONS RELATED TO THE DIABLO CANYON REVERIFICATION PROGRAM The enclosed memorandum provides a description of Region V inspection activities related to the Diablo Canyon Reverification Program. The results of this inspection effort may ultimately be reflected in a Safety Evaluation Report issued by your office. Accordingly, it is requested that you complete the following actions regarding~ this effort:

1. Coordinate with NRR Division of Engineering and Division of Licensing and IE to determine if the inspection program, as described, is compatible with their planned actions.

2. Identify, as appropriate, additional areas where Region V inspection effort is re Reverification Program) quested (regarding the Diablo Canyon

3. Identify any specific items, within the planned inspection -

scope, for which you, NRR:DL, NRR:DE, or IE request special emphasis.

It is requested that your response to the' actions" identified above '

be provided to this office by May 25, 1982. Please contact T. W. Bishop (FTS463-3751) if you have any questions regarding this request. ,

b' Jl . llb

/

IL C ws, Director '

ividionofResident, Reactor l

. Projects and Engineering Programs l

Enclosure:

RV memo T. W. Bishop to J. L. Crews, dated May 10, 1982 cc: D. G. Eisenhut, NRR, DL R. H. Engelken, RV E. L. Jordan,'IE*

R. H. Vollmer, NRR, DE -"

\ ,J [

g @ p(O)'\ Q ~

t l

7 f f*~* T[ ~ U:.;TED STATES 8 *1gs. ,

'i 'flUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.' ,3

, Q, [$ 4sj

i

g ',, %.' ,$

f

t 1 ,, REGION Y 1450 P.* ARIA LANE. SUITE 210 i

/

i

. 3 ,

- WALNUT CREE K. CALIFORNIA $4596 m

' MAY 101982 .

., MEMORANDUM FOR: J. L. Crews, Directer, Division of Resident, Reactor

, Projects and Engineering Programs FROM: .. T. W. Bishop, Chief, Reactor '

Construction' Projects

, Branch e

"~

~

SUBJECT:

REGION V INSPECTION OF' ACTIONS RELATED TO THE

,, DIABLO CANYON REVERIFICATION PROGRAM

. ?

In anticipation of a request td s'upport the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in the Safety Evaluation Repor,t (SER) for the Diablo Canyon Reverification Program, it is suggested that we clarify our areas s

of input. Our input shouldcreflect, among other things, the results of our inspections. Accordingly, it is intended that, within Region V, the scope and responsibilities for inspection /SER input will be as identified below. It-is expected that Headquarters support (IE/NRR) -

will be provided for this inspection effort.

V

. "' '1. Implementation of' Independence Requirements for Technical Reviewers .

' Selective examination of individual technical reviewers

" independence statements"; selective examination of employment resumes to confim " independence statements"; selective interviews with technical reviewers to confim " independence statements" i

I and assess the reviewer's freedom to fully explore concerns.

L 'e This process shall be performed for each organization involved

! ~

,. in the independent reverification (Teledyne, Stone & Webster, i R. L. Cloud Associates, and R. 'F. Reedy,' Inc. )

. Lead Respons1bility: J. H. Eckhardt. .

2. Examination ~ of Implementing Procedures for Controlling Work i '

- Activities lC -

,/ :

! # Verification that apprcpriately approved procedures have been

! ' ' developed to control work activities; selective examination l of procedures to assure coapliar.ce with approved program j plans, SAR/ Tech Spec requirements, istC Order, NRR letter of Nov. 19, 1981, and pertinent QA requirements.

w...

I

? J e

* /

1. /

o r. M x.osyp k

. _. - - - ~

.m .

,} \

y %) ,. p

' ,. e g

q.

(1 J.4HiEckhardt

~

- 1 i

' This'proceds steald be performed for each organization involved in the haveriffcation, activity and follckup/ technical program

, Wctions (Teledyne, Stone & Webster, R. L. Cloud Associates, 7

o R.YF. Reedy, -Inc. , abd the integrated PG&E/Bechtel organization Lea'd Responsibility: P. J. Morrill .

. t P , ,. . 's 3_ '- .

3. 1

' Examination of Implementation of Procedures for Activity and n ,

Program Control .

t ,

1:

q3 Verification that independent mverification activities and 1

followup / technical program actioqs are perfonned in accordabce,

i<s with controllingcrequirecents (approved program plans and - ' ,

procedur'es, *SAR/ Tech Specs', and QA documents). Examina tion '

' , is to be achieved by: auditiig tc determine if personner

)

' are knowledgeable of program jyquirements; and auditing L

s impTementation of control 7fng mguirements. -

r. 1 -

This process should'be performed for each organization ' 1 (Teledyne, ' Stone _& Webster, R.

L.~ Cloud Associates, R. F.

[, ^ Reedy, Inc., 'and the integrated'PG&E/Bechtel organiz L'ead Responsibility: J. H. Eckhardt

4 e

4.s.' of Assist NRR Reviewers in Examination of Technical Adequacy On-going Work Activities 3

! Verification activities an ,d followup / technical progrof technical ad i selective 'sampi.ing of individual work items.am activities through Examination should assess such things as depth, scope., and thoroughness of a review activity; appropriateness, of engi t

and adequacy of corrective / followup measures.neering During assumptions; this t

?

L3 E .personnel.

examination the' inspectors.shall be alert for, and i 4

This process should be performed for each organization (Teledyne, Stone & Webster, R. L. Cloud Associates, R. F.

Reedy -

Inc., and the integrated PG&E/Bechtel organization).

r Lead Retponsibility: NRR (Regional contact:

P. J. Morrill) 5.

Examination of Plant Modifications Verification that phant mdifications are accomplished in

'accordance with approved design documents and in accordance 1 with established quality nquirements.

Examination shall invol,ve a large percentage of field nodifications and shall include of quaMty physical relatedinspection mcords. ofSample the nodification and-examination selection shall include some of the specific work items examined under paragraph 4, above.

Lead Responsibility: J. F. Burdoin mm anew =

wome -emem .= -

N. ,

, , , .-- . . . ,n.--, - - - - . . . , . , .n,...,,, ,,_ - - , , . , , - , , , - - , _ _ . < . , . . . . . -

' ~

e , _ _ . . . _ __ . _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .

l\

o y .~. .

. g ,

J. L. Crews -

Many of the above inspection activities have been in progress for some time and are documented in Region V inspection reports and -

NRR/IE trip reports. This form of documentation will be continued,

. with a sumation to be provided in the Region V SER submittal. ' '

s .

(- C---- l

. l. %.y I 6.Q T. W. Bishop, Chief Reactor Construction Projects Branch cc: J. F. Burdoin .

J. H. Eckhardt J. R. Fair, IE K. S. Herring, NRR P. 'J. Morrill H. E. Schierling, NRR .

D. M. Sternberg T. Young O

g 6 4 oo 6

h a

- e oeee e

4.*me emo m3 p e 49 - -

G 6 ' gre y

. , . , ,e,g, - . ,w- -

-e= w e- m' * ' " ' ' ' * * ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ^ ~ ~ ' '~ ~ " ~ ' ~ '

~ '~

' APR 141982'

(

PE!:0RANDtL* FOR: Rii:hard F. Yo11rer, Director Division of Engineering -

TP.RU:

' canfel R. Mv11er Assistant 01 rector for -

Envirornental Technology ,

FRCH:

Maurice Pessier Senior Antitrust Econceist Antitrust and Economic Analysis F. ranch SUFJECT:

CRITEP.IA TOR FIM/J CIAL It.'DEPD DEFCE OF P.EYERIFICATTO:

, . True -

The purpose of this me=o is to c1,arify the criteria used to deternine the financial independence of the seise.ic design reverification teens proposed by applicants. At the Parch 25 P08E peating Staff indicated that it would provide the criteria (both technical and financial) by which a contractor would be appreved (see pp. 162-67). If the criteria for financial independence is stated, we and the applicants should be in a better position to judge the acceptability Uf the prooosed contractor:

l'nder the Diablo Canyon criteria the following factors are being considere<.

to judge independence:

1. No direct previous involvement with the activi'ies' t at Diablo Canyon which are being reviewed;

~

2. Ho previcus seismic desian work for..PSEE;

3. no previous employnent with PG8E; '

4 No ownership or control of PGLE stock;

5. ro relatives enployed by PC&E, In addition, contractors have been asked to reveal:

- 6. Their total revenues;

7. The percer.tage of their total revenues accounted for by electric utility accounts; and E. The percentage of their total revenues accour.ted for by the licensee.

-Ba chlYo34 9 XA 3pp-

' ~ '

> AEAD has 'been involved in judging inde;!cndanca under k all of *these' criteria.

except for factors (1) and (2). Currently we lack set linits for the above factors. For exarple, there are no time linits set for previous

'~'

e: ploycent; no limit on the arount of stock which can be owned or controlled, ,

if any; how eeny relatives can be acployed by the licensee if any; for hew =any years this data applies, and whether it applies to individual reviewers, as well as to canagerrent. - -

s . m Pecernendation l' 1. Neither 1'ndividual mer.bers of the contractor's rianagerent, individually or collectively, nor the corporation should own er control five percent or nore of the licensee's stock;

2. The licensee should not account, for nore than five percent of the contractor's revenues in each of the past three years; and

3. Individuals assigned to the Project; Tean should not:

, . a, own or control any of the licensee's stock;

. b. have worked for the licensee within the past, twelve months; and

c. have any nenbers of his household currently e-: ployed i

by the licensee.

In order to detemine the approcriate criteria it is necessary E recognize i the dif ferent roles the centractor's management and the individual reviewers of the Project Tean hold. If the technical review plan of the l

cor. tractor (and subcontractors) are approved as being

independent" of che licensee, then it would seec proper to apply the above criteria to management differently than to the individuals on the Project Team. For exanple, if the Project Tean reports simultaneously to the Mr,C, the licensee, and to its panagenent, the staff can be fairly assured that there will be a ninimum of influence felt on the Project Tean as a result of either 'canagement or the corporation holding the licensee's s tcck. The sarse lack of influence between management and the project' Team can be astmed regarding previous employment by managenent and/or empicyment of the manager.ent's household eenbers. Thus, for individual eenbers of corporate managenent it is recor.w: ended that they need only affim that individually or collectively they do not own or control five percent or more of the licensee's stock, the same recuireocnt of the securities and Exchange Comission. This sare five percent criteria would apply to the corporation.

In tim best the contractor has been asked to supply its total revenues and the percentage of these revenues accounted for by electric utility accounts. While total revenues may present an idea that the contractor is financially stable, and therefore will remain independent. I believe a better measure of independence is the contractor's ability to retain sufficient and qualified technical personnel. If the Project Tean is acceptable, we can.presune that the contractor will find a way to coepensate ther. ,

6 === ,- .. w _

---n -~m,-,- +w_q -,--.,,pp.,

. 3

. The staf f has also been concerned that the contractor should not be heavily indebted to the electric utility sector for their business.

On the other hand, we have insisted on experience. In view of the fact that the electric utility industry is the most , capital intensive industry in this country it is highly unlikely that a qualified cor.pany -

will not derive a substantial portion of its business free this sector. ,

For the purpose of assuring financial independence it should be sur-

, ficient that the ifcensee not ' account for core than five percent of the -

contractor's total revenues in each of the past three years. ,

The criteria for ' individuals of the Project Tean follow the Diablo Canyon guidelines except a limitation has been set on previous eeployzent (twelve nonths) and the ownership of stock (none). These linits are arbitrary, but they should not impose an endue burden on the centractor.

In cases'where subcontractors are ermleyed individuals should be classi-fied by their function as.either r.anagement or Froject Tean menbers, and then the appropriate criteria should be applied.

7:aurice Messier Senior Antitrust Econcoist-Antitrust and Economics Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear K,cact.or Regulation DISTRIBUTION:

AEAB Reading -

AEAB FILE .

DMuller MMessier Reading NRR:AEAB DE MMessier:na DHuller 4/ /82 4/ /82

~ . . . - . . . _. . . - ..

. i" .g' * -

NUOL EAR REGU!.ATOF.Y CG*.'.'.*!S0 lord

.. . . . qi., i c

. 3 1s w . u on.c.c. m ss .

c ~ r:. - -- /

v . s. .

, . .,. May 4.1932 *

. A, %,7M MEM3RA!iDUM FOR: Caniel R. Muller, Assistant ' Director . . . .

, Envircnmental Technology, DE . ,

, FROM: Richard H. Vollmer, Director, DE . -

SUBJECT:

CRITERIA FOR FItiA!!CIAL IliDEFE!iDEliCE.0F REVERIFICATIO?i -TEA".S ..

I have revitwed Mr. Messier's memorandum of April 14, 1982 on this subject and find the criteria recommended ther'ein to be too restrictive.

I think as a basis for our independence criteria we should use those items specified in the Comission's letter to Congress. In that, the primary factors were cited as the competence of the auditor to do the '

job and that the ccmpany or individuals involved in the audit not have previ~ous involvement with the activity under review. In addition, i

the Commission cited criteria similar to those you had indicated; .

namely, previous involvement with the company or project, ownarship or control of stock, and emplop ent by the company under review.

3 Further, the discussion of separating responsibilities between manage'-

ment and the project team might be very difficult to determine and enforce because the organizational aspects would likely be different from au.ditor to auditor. .

With the above considerations, would it not be appropriate to quantify

~

the thoughts expressed in the Commission's criter'ia to make'the:a more 4

useful to the staff on a specific job? In terms of stock ownership, I would suggest some reasonable level but not zero 8 a criteria basis.

' You may recall that in the past we only had to cite stock ownership .

in excess this process of as

$7500 well*.and criteria like that would seem reasonable.for

( -

i l

/$rk

- Richard H. Voll.her, Director ~

Division of Engineering .

- s cc: T. Sullivan l J. Knight .

i M. Messier

. .e eee.*

Ns g -

O kl g g#/

. . . N f- _

-.-~q m t- ,w , - - + y ..,*-.----,-ew-- ---a yy ,--% - e -ywv,-g -,,,y.-e-.,ve-g----*.---~,.-e.,- --e-.-+n +, .-.ww-ww-,.,e-w-wr-y--,--ww

. ENGINEE. 'NG SERVCES t

f. ..

'20 5f C0hD ayg %gg

,, j *AJ -4W w&SSA m.5 W C2254 NMT 4I7. tM3350 *as 6?'C' 22s-7533 April 5, 1982 q e O U1 d 5511-18 Q % :. h,.

Mr. G. A. Maneatis, Senior Vice-President, l Facilities Develooment Pacific Gas and Electric Co. -

77 Beale Street CONTROLLED DOCUWcNT .

San Francisco, California 94106 cn IrQ Mr. H. R. Denton, Director g Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Reagulatory Commission s9 *[/ g7j.b%* >

Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. R. H. Engelken, Regional Administrator

~

.]i f(

Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region V f

<2*\8h fg M gh U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 4 = p 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 481 W h*ainut Creek, California 94596

Subject:

Independent Design Verification Program: Potential or Ap-parent Conflicts of Interest of Individuals

Reference:

Docket No. 50-275, Diablo Canyon Unit 1, License No. DPR-76 Gentlemen:

During the meeting of March 25,1982 (transcript, page 167, lines 6-12)', I committed to submitting a Program Procedure draft on this subject for NRC and PG&E approval.

That draft is enclosed, and would be included as Appefidix G of the IDVP Program Plan when fully approved. We believe the eclosed draft is re-sponsive to the directions and needs of this program; but recognize that it is a procedure imposed by others and we will modify it in accordance with your coments.

! Very truly yours, TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES William E. Cooper P Mf Project Manager jf l WEC/lh Enclosure cc: H. Schierling (NRC)

R. R. Fray (PG&E) ,

~~

R. L. Cloud (RLCA)

NN g R. F. Reedy (RFR)...

c- r . . -

h P

O . NEERS AND METALLURGISTS l

- - - - 4 -,p-*-- - - - - - , ._.,,,g,_--.,.-_m,,_ ,__,.,,.% _ _ , , - - - - - , - , _ _ , , , , . , _ , - . - - - ,.w-w. ,y...--.ma .------ -

- ,, ,m..___,,,,m.

EIGINEERiNG SEPNiOES

- MARCH 29, 1982 DRAFT OF DONPP-IDVP-PP-005 POTENTI AL OR APPARENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF INDIVIDJALS 1.0 POLICY -

i In order to assure the independence of the Independent Design Verifi-cation Program (IDVP), it is essential that responsible individuals assigned to the verification program be free of potential or apparent

~~

conflicts of interest. This consideration includes previous work on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, financial interest in PG&E, and employ-ment of relatives by PG&E. .

2.0 APPLICABILITY This Program Procedure applies to the following types of persons who are assigned to the IDVP: ,

a. All exempt employees, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, ,,

who are participating in an engineering function. *

b. All " Contract Engineers," consultants, or subcontrac tor em-playees.

3.0 PROCEDURE

a. Each of the organizations participating in the IDVP (TES, RLCA, RFR and SWEC)' shall prepare a " Statement Regarding Potential or i . Apparent Conflicts of Interest." Similar to, but no less inclu-sive than, that of Appendix A to this Program Procedure.

b. The term "immediate family" as used on the form includes, as a minimum, the employees spouse and the parents, siblings and children of the, individual and his or her , spouse.

.: : . 2.. . . . ._ . .

-- g pg,3 g g- -- --

ENG!NEERi!4G SERVICES

c. Each individual to whom this Program Procedure applies shall be asked to complete a " Statement" and file the completed form with the Personnel Relations Manager, or sim.ilar appropriate ind.ivi- .

, dual as determined by the participating organization. ,

/ *

d. The completed form shall be retained by the Persor.nel Relations Manager, or equivalent, and shall be auditable by authorized NRC and PG&E personnel,

e. The Personnel Relations Manager, or equivalent, shall review the completed forms and shall notify the organization's Project Manager if a question . arises as to the use of a particular indi-vidual on the IDVP.

f. If the Project Manager is in doubt, he or she will address a

- letter to the NRC (Denton) and PG&E (Maneatis) . outlining the facts, without identification of the individual, and request con-currence that the individual be assigned to the IDVP.

g. Each semimonthly report shall include the, following sta ement:

"As required by DCNPP-IDVP'PP-005, individudls assigned by this i organization to the IDVP have completed an acceptable Statement . .

Regarding Potential or Apparent Conflicts of Interest."

- . . - - - , , ,,n - ,_. , , , . , , - - - . _ _ . _

. .-w-, - . . - , , , , -.,w + -n.,-- , - - ,- - ,e -,-

~~~"

g g g gg,g-ENG!NE.%NG SERycEs

'f. .

APPENDIX A STATEMENT REGARDING POTENTIAL OR APPARENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST To: Teledyne Engineering Services Whereas, the undersigned employee (" Employee") understands that he or she is being considered as a participant to provide services to Pacific Gas &

Electric Company with respect to the Design Reverification Program for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Unit I; and Whereas, Employee understands that it is necessary that proposed partici-pants be screened for any potential or apparent conflicts of interest with respect to this assignment; Therefore, for the above stated purposes Employee makes the following representations to Teledyne Engineering Services:

1. Employee has not engaged in any work or business involved with or related to the engineering or design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant-

2. Neither Employee, nor any members of his or her imediate family, own any beneficial interest in the Pacific' Gas &

Electric Company, including but not limited to comon or preferred stock, bonds or other securities issued on behalf of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company; .and

3. None of the members of Employee's imediate family are employed by Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

This statement is based upon the Employee's best information and belief and any exception *s to the representations contained herein have been j described on the reverse side of this document.

l l

. Dated: ,

Signature:

Print Name eeee I

i

~

April 16,1932 N i;ote to: T. Sullivan, DE ,

, From: M. Messier, AEAB . .

e

Subject:

DIABLO. CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM I have reviewed Appendix G of the IDVP submitted on April 5,1982 by TES.

The criteria-they suggest to avoid any conflicts of interests for any me.?.bers of the resject Team meet what I suggested in my April 14, 1982 memo (attached) with one exception. TES would prohibit anyone who previously worked on Diablo Canyon while I recomended that no one who has worked for PG&E within the past twelve months be allowed on the Project Team.

ign u Adf Maurice Messier Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch .. -

Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated 4

e y pGf 9 9

, .- _ ,_ -.- , ,- _ - - - _ ------- -.-, ,n

._ _ r ~~- ~~ ~ . _ . . . . _ _ . _

~~

~

. .. ,? o y g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 l WASHINGTON D. C. 20555

% * * " * ,/ .

MAY 2 7~ 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard H. Vollmer Director Division of Engineering FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

CRITERIA FOR INDEPENDENCE OF PARTICIPANTS IN DIABLO CANYON _

DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM Commission Order CLI-81-30 of November 19, 1982 requires (paragraph 2 of Attachment I to the Order) that information be provided to demonstrate the independence of companies perfoming the independent design verification program (IDVP) for Diablo Canyon. The general criteria proposed by the staff to assure the independence are contained in a letter from Chaiman Palladino to Congressmen Ottinger and Dingell (Attachment 1). The criteria were discussed in a meeting on March 25, 1982 with PG&E and Teledyne (Attachment 2).

Region V has proposed to inspect activities related to the IDVP of Diablo Canyon (Attachment 3), including the " independence statements". It is necessary that the staff provide specific criteria to determine the financial independence of individuals and companies participating in the IDVP. M. Messier recommended such criteria (Attachment 4), which, however, have not been approved (Attach:nent

, 5). W. Cooper of Teledyne proposed criteria and procedures to detemine the

, independence of individuals (Attachment 6). M. Messier reviewed the criteria and found them acceptable with the exception of previous involvement (Attachment 7).

l We request that the Division of Engineering finalize the criteria for detemining the financial independence of individuals and companies engaged in the Diablo

, Canyon IDVP and provide us with an evaluation of the Teledyne proposal by May 28, 1

1982.

In addition, we recommend that the staff develop specific guidelines to be used for assessing the independent reviewer's freedom to fully explore concerns arising during the assignment (Attach nt 3).

i

(

thW Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing l

l

Contact:

Hans Schierling, LB#3 i

l s X28423 :- [.>

f g pW q

6

\ n.' '

e

. .. . 3 l,

gy p g Distribution: .

Document Control: 50-275/323

. TERA LBf3 File DMu11er DEisenhut/RPurple '

MMessier .

RTedesco TSullivan

. FMira lia ,.

MEMORANDU'i FOR: Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering uc ey .

l FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director HDenton Division of Licensing OELD .

, JCrews R-V

SUBJECT:

CRITERIA FDR INDEPENDENCE OF PARTICIPANTS IN DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM ,-

Cocmission Order CLI-81-30 of November 19,1982 requires (paragraoh 2 of Attachnent I to the Order) that information be provided to demonstrate the i

independence of companies perfoming the independent design verification program (IDVP) for Diablo. Canyon. The general criteria proposed by the staff '

to assure the independence are contained in a letter from Chaiman Palladino to Congressren Ottinger and Dingell (Attachment 1). The criteria were discussed in a meeting on March 25, 1982 with PG8E and Teledyne (Attachment 2).

Region V has proposed to inspect activities related to the IDVP of Diablo Canyon

( Attaement 3), including the " independence statements". It is necessary that the staff provide specific criteria to determine the financial independence

of individuals and companies participating in the IDVP. M. Messier recommended such criteria (Attachment 4), which, however, have not been approv5d (Attachment

! 5). W. Cooper of Teledyne proposed criteria and procedures to detemine the l indeoendence of individuals (Attachment 6). M. Messier reviewed the criteria l and found them acceptable with the exception _of_ previous involvement (Attachment .

) 7).

t '.. '

We request that the Division of Engineering finalize the criteria for detemining the financial indeoendence of individuals and companies engaged in the Diablo Canyon IDVP and provide us with an evaluation of the Teledyne proposal by May 29, 1982.

In addition, we recommend that the staff develop specific guidelines to be used for assessing the independent reviewer's freedom to fully explore concerns arising during the assignment (Attachment 3).

l Jrigina131gned by ,

Darrell G. Eisenbd

\ 'yh Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director j ,

Qf Division of Licensing -

Contact:

Hans Schierling, Laf 3 ,, 23 ACM4J cPPN:E) ........................ .h.kI. .@.f. .. , ....... .h. ...... .h.k ........ .................... .................. '

.un ,R,T ,p, h

> .......................?.}c./M.cg h..

l

. .j1 a,,,, ,,, ,,,

.m> ........................ .......M............... .... 8, ,8, ,,..,.,.......,.,, . . . . . . .

.......(............ . . .

Nac ronu ais oo soi wacu ct.o OF7lCIAL RECORD COPY use onm-m.

E___.__,.--_.____ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _.,

MaAe.4---4 # ---- a.- -d. A 13Mdh- -M---*--*---wd m---44---Eam-

-"4--

+h*--.4_.. iia =&a-aa. .a.- -A=<---'e -e-

,._m --_a- _ --.d-.h -.--- ._

N 2

F l

i i

I g . . , .

.,e s..

. . - M.S

., a L a,.nd a d

~ - ,; x'. ,e,... a

. . , , , . ..v.c '

e 4.1

_v f.' -g'.w'. . @h,r*g t, .,A ..' sT. . Udh.. .t . .-. . , ',. 1,6 A. .

e. ;

. ~

t

=

h y gp,( .

~

' '. - ' . Y .. ,

. . g. . . ,. 3

m. A ... .

. s .J .. , s. .it i A

,yftr- 1. .N aer**LFr. .,.a, . 7 ,, ' I.

s .v- ..

f . ; , e' + -

. , ; r A M* '. ' 't W de e .

.. . ..,.a4 .L . , v 8

e ., '. gW $f .

., ..M.,. ,

=

. AL s '." % 48, . , .

y. 1,. he n -

1 . 4 ,

.a 4. .fp)* ^:

se.ae. e - -

. . =N. .

m . . =# 4I ;

c- , .- <

7 ..; .Ah 4 w- ..hsesk ,.; f-e.mE p. e==

b '

l

-]

1

' . . ist O ' . #- j.e- % Aak AYM'$mP" .h A . ....a*

- d **

.I wd@.'~2.' 3 *J CT.F."M '<

1 " Ett ^

E m. Resum ' '.' h*'#d, i m .

3Mf7L wQ1 v' ^nr- .

rri' *-- c e .

m Esw__ - w 4: ,

i

~ ~ ' .

, ~ s n ty s . : .

.. ~

' ". ' a -

o .r,

. t *"""v.u E

^.te - Q)g a !

. s. _e ,r ~ , , ,y ,,

- 6 .a ;

l .f. .., .- -

w.-<.--

,p., s .

9., }g

.. c ,.

4 ,.

i

(

, 9, y - -

.?. ',L

't g'. %,'

, ,- % s',,

Wh q.s. , '

,,",}

f ;

. .. l 4 Q ,. Q. ..' Q Q' [ .'. !

]d $. %p.e$ h,..

g'#

. . - JP

,n .

, * 'y l o# <

^

.. s , , p,e- ,.4, ,,

\

1

', , [ 'M , ',.

n c N,.., O.. m. f. M.f*yy%y -

1h ' (

i v.u. ys - 03

j. . ^

sj >.-_.%

f

. 4 .,

' l.;, \ .'s' ..

5 p .; h 'N. s'-. r y (( .'$ ;v Q k-l, ". .

l

. y(. r, '

ihje , ,

. t ;. . .

8

. .. l 4, . j ., 2, .

q af,

,- . , wce. ., .g,c,4 9 t

. . . . -. .i '. :n s .s .

! 4 y .% _ ,- _g A.z $ . $;.;j

. '.[ T d. f3 2.

~1 .

,, . Tj ; ',,. f.!;). '

V, ,

, J, . . %,,,,. 4 esenssen , '"

, --- v nt?pe .* . *w %

s . ~r., .

. . . . " ~

yw, rg- - , mn.a..n *r.-

m u.,3.~P,

p.. ;

9 l.f.

,m..yy. .

,A ,}

,**s '.

4. ,

' - .y,*)O ,. .. ,

.m\ .T

.a

.I' h y i i:

8 , 441. J.4,r- . "E '..& es. t . *

' 3 t :,

pesq.e w

+ * *y s.,9 .;D./(w'%,<F[e'. -

e ;

gg,t 3 i y;,4t'l. .

...

A L YOM e

.2,*t+ A ,,qa N, ,.

. 4w ,s ..

. n . a .?,y' ;

.g9.a:,g 4

., 6. ,4, ^ ., ,., "' . >, -'* - , ' ' -

l l

L l

f w .

,wm - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - -

UNITED STATES b

f *

\ NUCLEAR REOULATCRY COMMISSION [

2 j c.

T[o a WASHINGTON, D. C. 30004 1 .gg JUN 4 1982 Docket No. 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: Pat Sullivan, Chief Administrative Branch Office of the Secretary FROM: Hans Schierling, Project Manager ,

Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING TO BE HELD JUNE 10, 1962 -

DIABLO CANYON This is to confirm the telephone request by Jean Lee for a reporter to prepare a transcript of the meeting to be held on June 10,1982,with Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Teledyne Engineering Services re-garding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (see the enclosed meeting notice for details of the meeting). We need the transcript within two, days following the meeting so that we can make copies for our internal use as well as for the parties to this proceeding. We antici-pate attendance of a Pleasecontactme(x27238) or Jean,, Lee (x28413)pproximately 30 people.

if you need additional information. .

ht) (( f Hans Schier11ng Wojectf Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Meeting notice f dtd. 6/4/82 r a

e

s l \ yh pid"p( /

i l

l

p ...,{o.,

UNITED STATES

! a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ . ,I wAsHinarou,0.c.20sss

...../ p poy -

Docket No.: 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: F. J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL FROM: H. E. Schierling, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES - STATUS 0F DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM

s wtr it DATE & TIME: ( .2:00 noon LOCATION: Teledyne Offices 130 Second Avenue Waltham, Massachusetts (Phone: 617/890-3350)

PURPOSE: To discuss status of the design verification program efforts, includingschedulesandQAprogram(seeattachedagenda).

NOTE: Meeting will te transcribed. -

PARTICIPANTS: NRC H. Denton, D. Eisenhut, R. Vollmer, L. Chandler, and H. Schierling PG&E l G.Maneatis,J.Hoch,H. Friend (Bechtel),etial.

Teledyne j - W. Cooper, et. al.

F Hans Schierling, Project Manager Design Verification Program l .

Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing l

/-[fttachment:

,,)g,//,Asstated l

d" (['cc: See next page l .

L

~ Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush ' '

Vice President - General Counsel '

Pacific Gas & Electric Compan'y ,

P.O. Box 7442 .

San Francisco, California 94120 *

.cc: Philip A. Crane, Jr. , Esq. -

Pacific Gas & Electric Company .

P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq. .

California Public utilities Commission 350 K:Allister Street San Francisco, California 94102 .

11r. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More flesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 .

Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg .

1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver ..

Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street -

~

San Luis Obispo, California 93401

. Harry H. Willis, Esq.

Seymour & Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100

- Sa.n Fran:t sco, Cali fornia S4108 Mr. Richard Habbard itHS Technical Associates Suite K .

1723 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John l'arrs, l'anagi..g Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune

- 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 -

San Luis Obispo, California 93406 1- -

E e

e

- . . . - - . . . - . - - ~ . . - -. ._ -. . .-

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

s a .

s a Hr. Malcolm H. Furbush , .

~

cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS '

. c/o U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 P.attie Road Shell beach, California 93440 Joel Aeynolds, Esq.

John R. Phillips. Esq. ' ,

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard .

Thiro Floor los Angeles, California 90064 Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

321 Lytton Avenue

Palo Alto, California 94302 Mr. byron 5. Georgiov -

Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol

~ ~

Sacramento, California 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.

1900 h Street, N.W.

'Jashington, D.C. 20036 '

Mr. Dick Blankenburg, Editor & Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company

P. O. Box 460 -

Arroyo Grande, California 9342U ltr. James.0. Schuyler Vice President - Nuclear Generation Department Pacific Gas & Electric Company -

P.O. box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120

i bruce Norton, L(eq.,

Suite 20Z

' 3216 North 3rd ' Street Phoenix, Arizona 85012 .

L

Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush -

Mr. W. C. Gangloff '

Westinghouse Electric Corporation -

P. O. Box 355 ,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 -

David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. -

Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. Owen H. Davis, Director Federal Agency Relations '

Pacific Gas and Electric Company ,

1050 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1180 Washington, 0.c. 20036 6 e

. - _ - = _ #

4 0

. ~

e a

F e

. _ J J.

v L. *~

~

AGENDA NRC Meeting with PG&E and Teledyne ,

1. Overview of IDVP - Phase I (Teledyne)

- status of program

- additional verification and sampling

- Teledyne conclusions and recommendations on QA findings by R. F. Reedy

- interim technical reports - purpose and status ,

2. Overview of IDVP - Phase II (Teledyne)

. - status of program

3. Project Schedule (PG&E)

- IDVP by Teledyne

- Technical Program by PG&E

- NRC interaction dates

4. QA Program for Diablo Canyon Project ..

- PG&E/Bechtel consolidated QA program for veri.fication program S. Other Issues (NRC) 9 0 0 9

e S

' 9 0

e s S

^4- (,

l' e wv

+*pa a%q, L*!1TED STATES '--

g

, i 4g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

3

; wannematom.o.c.noess

% , , g , ** '

, s: T(CVh & ( & 1 JUN 41982 MEMORANDUM FOR: James Fitzgerald Acting Director Office of Investigations Richard C. DeYoung. Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT The enclosed letter is forwarded for appropriate action by your office.

The individual alleging deficiencies has indicated corrective action that he would find appropriate. NRR does plan to have the piping system ,

thennal/ deadweight analysis included within the scope of Phase II of the l Independent Design Verification Program, j Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated pq lC

~

s .' * . .

ch8/D- -

gH A.

N3C Washington, D. C. *

Dear Mr. Richard DiYoung:

I am currently involved in the Diablo Canyon Review e ffort now in progress. . I must say that' this is the worst nuclear power plant that I have ever worked on, and it is not SAFE. I was hoping with the' introduction of Bechtel that a complete re-analysis of Unit I would be done. Alas this is not to be. The PG&E management /

engineers only correct the mistakes that are found accidentially or are forced down their throats. If the error is an generic one, they will not review everything but just what caused the error and they will only correct '

that one mistake. The latest review is for hosgri only but the real danger.is that:

1) The thermal / deadweight analysis does not match the seimic or current field support configuration.

Systems are failing when corrected.

2) The so-called 'As-Built" pipe support drawings

are not as-built but instead are the accumulation of 'all the changes to the support drawing over the past 13 years. The support have not been walked dcwn in the field to show there~. latest configuration or orientation .to the pipe. Also interferences with structuro are not show on the drawings.

I only ask that you have R. L. Cloud & Associates review the thermaI/ Deadweight analysis as well as the Hongri they are now doing. This will confirm what I have said. If action is not taken, I may be . force to seek a public hearing on this. I am pro-nuclear but invalid analysis andincompetence must. not be igored. This paint in ny opinion ,

in bad from the analysis to the supports.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely -

A Concered Engineer

\ ..

gg69(lO$#

][F

T

/ '

^g UNITE] STATES

!" c NUCLEAR RE ULATORY COMMISSION

{ I wAanweGTON, D. C. 20006 June 7, 1982 h

wo MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing FROM: Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering f

SUBJECT:

DIA8LO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM -

REGION V INSPECTION ACTIVITIES In response to your memo of May 17 regarding Diablo Canyon Design Verification Program and Region V's inspection activities, we agree that the items that have been identified are needed and appropriate.

ichard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering cc: R. Tedesco F. Miraglia H. Schier11ng J. Knight kA M rM b*Y a ,

t I

W' u 0 L (s ' \ b

' %h- ,

J

)

yf W

< .p . I ( (' \\

. . . ~ . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . ...._. _ . . . . . ~ . . . . _ . _ ._.........E

.. ~ .. o e

/ %e, UNITEJ STATES 3' ~ 7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 a .

,,,../ JUN 9 1982

%. f Docket No.: 50-275 6\ r pc,} Z,5 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Miraglia, Chief.

Licensing Branch No. 3, DL FROM: Hans Schier11ng, Project Manager Design Verification Program, Licensing Branch No. 3. DL

SUBJECT:

O!ABLO CANYON INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PR INtpre m u 0F TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES, 2_5 ,

Xs0 26,1981) ,

NRR staff participated in an audit conducted by Region V personnel on May 25 and 26,1982 of the Diablo Canyon Independent Design Verification Program (IOVP) activities of Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) in Walthman, Massachusetts. Representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG8E) were present as observers. Attachment 1 is a list of NRC participants, the PG8E observers and the TES personnel contacted, including their consultants.

The following is a summary of some observations and items of discussion.

The technical information available at the TES offices in Waltham for the Error and Open Item (E01) issues is rather Ifmited. (E0!s are reported in TES semi-monthly reports and are tracked by PGAE in semi-monthly reports).

Each isshe, identified as a " File" by number, has a file package which includes status identification at various stages during .the IDVP process through the use of standard formats. The information provided in these forms in many cases is not suf ficient to allow an evaluation of the issue or even to under-stand the issue. Upon completion of the review effort, TES issues an "IDVP Completion Report", which also is a standard form. This does not necessarily indicate that further action on the E0! may be required or not. (Similarly,PG8E in its tracking of E0!s identifies some issues as " Closed" which also does not necessarily mean that further action may be required or not), Based on the files reviewed, the staff recommended that additiers) information and a better definition of the E0! status be provided in the semi-monthly report.

The item discussed below demonstrates the deficiencies.

The staff audited the TES documentation for E01 File 932 and discussed the 10VP review with R. Foti and R. Wray of TES. The issue of File 932 is the restraint for a vertical pipe of the containment spray system in a floor penetration in the auxiliary building. It was identified by R. L. Cloud Associates (RLCA) during Sample Piping Analysis 100. The PGaE drawing and analysis showed a rigid support in both veritcal and horizontal directions while RLCA field information showed I

a 1 >

);l}tk g I

F. J. Miraglia -2, a support for dead weight only, i.e. no horizontal pipe restraint in the penetra-tion and no vertical restraint against pipe uplift. File 932 included the above mentioned standard foms for status identification, beginning with the

" Error and Open Item Sheet" issued by RLCA on January 4,1982 to PG8E and to the NRC in RLCA semi-monthly report 5. The last fom was Revision 6. "IDVP Completion Report" which was included in TES semi-monthly report 13. The

, infomation in these forms was insufficient to gain a clear understanding of the issue, of the particular analysis that had been preformed by RLCA and TES and for a technical evaluation by the staff. However, additional information contained in File 932 at TES consisted of PG&E and TES calculation and sumary sheets. 'TES stated that more detailed information is contained in the RLCA File 932 in Berkeley, California. The IOVP analysis by RLCA of the as-built restraint showed an overstress in piping; an RLCA analysis with a rigid support assumption resulted in stresses within allowable limits. PG&E was advised of the results and subsequently redesigned the support and made the appropriate modification. R. Foti, the TES reviewer for pipe supports, had evaluated the RLCA analysis in Berkeley and Waltham,and concurred with the RLCA analysis. In the case of File 932 TES issued an IDVP Completion Report form (File 932 Rev. 6) stating that File 932 Rev. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item. (The PG&E status of IDVP items indicated in semi-monthly report 13 that File. 932 was " Closed").

, The staff noted that E01 File 1062 makes reference to File 932 and appears to be a follow-up of that File. File 1062 was initiated on March 15, 1982 and no further action apparently had been taken so far.

The staff discussed the status and relationship of both files. The staff stated, and TES agreed, that as part of the 10VP TES would verify any field modifications that had'been made as a result of the IDVP. However, it was not clear if such verification already had been made by TES as one could assume from the issuance of the completion report and from the " Closed" statement in the PG8E tracking system. Furthermore, it was not clear how File 1062 is related to File 932 or ifitisauniquenewpenitem. ,. .

The IDVP technical review effort is conducted by RLCA in Berkeley California. ,

W. Cooper stated that the RLCA review is independent and can include additional verification without prior approval by TES; additional sampling, however, must be approved by TES. Detailed files of material reviewed, independent analysis performed and their results are maintained by RLCA in the form of work -

packages. TES personnel from Waltham have reviewed and audited (check of assump-tions, calcuations and drawings) the work packages in the RLCA offices. The transmittal of information and documentation between RLCA in California and TES in Massachusetts appears to be more of a problem than initially had been expected.

At present, about ten equivalent fulltime professional TES personnel are assigned to the 10VP, primarily in a program management function. Individuals identified as team leaders in a particular area of expertise are frequently the only team members. More staff is expected to be assigned shortly for additional verifica-tion and sampling and for Phase !! of the program.

9 e' f6 % 3 e -6e a as e eye e e 4- S- e us.44 e Se - =eS 4m etee Gees e

' .2'".

F. J. Miraglia TES made available to the NRC staff a~ draft report by RLCA on their seismic analysis of the auxiliary building for their familiarization of ongoing work.

W. Cooper (TES) did not object to also making the same informaiton available at the same time to the PG&E observers at their request, although the report was on " work in progress" rather than final. Cooper stated that TES is in a unique position in the IDVP effort in that PG8E as the client cannot receive any pre-conclusionary information on the IDVP while the NRC has access to all information at any time. In Cooper's opinion PG&E and the NRC, in effect, are both clients of TES in this project. J. Knight (NRC), after staff caucus, advised TES that the NRC should not be considered as a client. The NRC will investigate and audit at any time any type of work, be it preliminary or a draft, work in progress or a final product. However, only completed work packages should be made available to PG8E in order not to jeopardize the independent status of TES. The PG&E observers acknowledged this position in prin-ciple but noted that any staff findings or conclusions which are based on such preliminary information should be appropriately identified as such by the staff in trip reports, inspection reports or other documentaiton.

W. Cooper stated that in the process of reviewing material and resolving E0!s frequently additional clarification and infomation is needed from PG&E. The staff stated that such requests and the pertinent PG&E reponse would be within i

the intent of the IDVP. The staff emphasized that no discussion or exchange of results or completed work should take place between TES or RLCA and PG&E unless the same information is also provided to the NRC. The staff also stated that any information exchanges should be well documented, in an auditable form, including telephone calls.

This report presents observations made by the author during the audit, it does not address all activities of th NRC staff. For example, P. Morrill of l Region Y reviewed in detail the TES procedures for the IDVP; J. Eckhardt of Region V interviewed a number of TES employees assigned to the IDVP regarding their independence in the assignment; J. Knight, P. Kuo and H. Polk of NRR looked over the RLCA draft report mentioned earlier and discussed with -

J. Holley and M. Biggs, civil-structural consultants to TES, the appropriate-ness of certain assumptions for modeling sructures. The details of this audit will be documente'd in a Region V Inspection Report.

I Hans Schierling, P ject Manager i

Design Verification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 i Division of Licensing l cc: See next page 5

J

.- y _ - .,. ._ y.- _ _ __ -. - ~ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . - , _ ~ . , _ . _ . - . _ - , , _ . _ _ , - . , - _ _ - _. -- __ _. .. .--_

. . . . .x-,.

,, .g......-..-.--... - - . . . . . . . . . . -.. . . - - - . - - - - . . . - .

f ' Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush DIABLO CANYON .

Vice President - General Counsel , ,

Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 .

San Francisco, California 94120 cc: Philip A. Crane, Jr. , Esq. 4 Pacific Gas & Electric Company s

P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 ,

. Janice E. Kerr, Esq.* .

California Public L'tilities Commission 350 M:Allister Street -

San Francisco, California 94102 IV. Frederick Eissler, President '

Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More flesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105

-Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -

Mr. Gordon A. Silver .

Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street

, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 '

Harry M. Willis, Esq.

Seymour & Willis 631 California Street, Suite 2100 San Fran:isco, California S4108 Mr. Richard Habbard

!!HS Technical Associates Suite K -- , . . .

1723 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Itr. John !!arrs, l'anaging Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 i

J e

b e

O J

~

. , , . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . = . . . . . ..../....

. . . . .. . a - . . . . ..

.o .*** .

.yjji f *

. . m .

> n.

.g ' *

.t o,Mr Malcolm'H. Turbush

~p At } . !

y

,.l, .

b

i i cc:' ResidenI.,Inspec.or/Diablo k Canyon NPS *

, c/o U. 5. Wuclear. Regulatory Commission -

/ P.~0. Jon 369 ,

4 4 N.") Avila teach,. California 93424 ,

. (p y' .

'Hs. Raye Fleming '

L "1920 Mattie Roac - 1

' ~

Shell bu:h, Ca10ernia -93440 '

e

, c . ,

c g '

/ Joel Aey.ioles, Ety.

, . r . John.t.. PM111ps, Esq. .

7 '

,, 7 Center -for Law in tne Public Interest l s 10951 West Pico Boulevard .

Thira Floor n.

Los Angeles, Cattfornia 90064 -

Paul C. Va109tiriel Esq. ' #

321 Lytton Avgnh * '

Palo Al !.3. Califernia 94302' H r . '.ip ro') 5. Geert,iov -

Legil Affairs Sgcretary . <

Governor's Office r #

i t State Capitol / ',

Sacramento, Cal'i forn.a 95814 t

'p Herbert H. Brown. Esq. . . .

i Hill,s Christopner & Phillips, P.C.

1900 h Street, N.W.

] ashington, D.C.f 20036 *

i fir. Dick Blantenborg, Editor & Co-Pialisher Soutti County Puciishing Company '

/,* P. O. 6es 460 j .

p. Arroyo Grande, California c 91420 ,

. Itr. Jat.ies 0. Sr.ruylar - *

(

c . Vice President - Nuclear Generation (Jeprtment Pacific (,as & Eler'.ric Company '

P.O. boa 7442 '

i

, San Francisco, California 94120 O

4,uce horton, thq.

u Suite 204 -

3216 bc,rtti 3rd Mreet

~

i Pnovnin, srizora 6012

. 4 4 '

/ ,* . ,

j

..s' . . a .. . .........oj, ....o. . - . . . . . . - ..-<r . . ..

a . . ,

. .A- ., ,

e i

Mr. Malcolm H. Fur 6'ush - 3-I

^ Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse. Electric Corporation P.~0. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David F.: Fleischaker, Esq.

P.-0. Box 1178 Oklahoma City,,0klahoma 73101 .

f Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center ~

Phoenix, Arizona 85073 f Mr. Owen H. Davis, Director Federal Agency Relations. ,

Pacific Cas and Electric Company 1050 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1180 Washington,'D.c. 20036 -

h i4

+ f

., 1; k

P J

. Jan.

l i s l

l i .

\. ~

( ,

,i l

l

, a

\

k i -

l

-.94' . 9 .e.e.e. - e e. = -. .e ..og.,. ,og , , %%, ,. , a. ,,, ,, . . . - , , , , , , , , , ,, . , , , , , , , , _ , _

, 1,, 1

,,._s, , - - , _ .---

...--....u . . . . . . - . ...-......-.:..-- _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< . , x . :.. .

.{ W ATTACHMENT 1

~

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS f TES AUDIT MAY 25 AND 26, 1982 NRC TES II P. Morrill W. Cooper J. Eckhardt R. Wray -

J. Knight G. Moy H. Schierling C. Sprangers P. Kuo '

J. Malonson H.' Polk l J. Cantalupo

> L. Noriega PG&E (Observers) R. Foti R. Ciatto B. Lew R. Fray TES Consultants M. Holley J. Biggs W' .

J r e e e

A e

I k

1 1^

i P

k j ~. , ,, .- , , . . - -. , .- ,.

~i. ..,. _ ..

(

/o. m. .*\

., , .{ j UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COi*.f.HSSION

(( (

,s- .# f WASHINGTON, D C 2M55 s, '>. e::.: / 5

'f

' JUN 16 1992 Lociet f;os.: 50-275 and' 50-323 MEM0F.ANDUM FOR: Richard H. Vollmer. Director Division of Engineering,liRR FR;M: Carrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, NRR SU5 JECT: REVIEW 0F FIRST INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT FOR

_. DIABLO CANYON IDVP - PHASE I Attached is the first Interim Technical Report (ITR) issued by

R. L. Cloud Associates for the IDVP and approved by Teledyne, the IDVP Prcgram l'anager. Teledyne intends to issue possibly as many

as 30 of these reports in accordance with Section 9.1 of the IDVP Progra.T. 'anagement Plan dated March 29, 1982 j

'a'e request that you review the conclusions and their bases presented in the report with respect to proposed additional verification and sampling. In addition you should evaluate the ITR as a nethod to present IDVP findings on which the staff will base its SER supple-ment. While PG&E will issue a final report on the IDVP in accordance with the Commission Order of November 19, 1981 the intent of the ITRs is to provide the results of completed IDVP tasks so that the staff-can initiate its review'on these elements.

We rec ~ st your coments on the specific contents of the first ITR and on the general ITR concept by June 22, 1982.

~_.., '

.. . . . .c. - .

~ 'Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, NRR

ttachnent

As stated cc: H. Denton E. Case R. Engelken J. Crews E. Jordan h \

6 \ 0

' hCO

.g go [

1% It *

" "%, UNITED STATES

,'#^ 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, g.

- $ REGION IV s11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SulTE 1000

[C( &k

. ." # ARuNGToN. TEXAS 79011 JUN 2 3 M2 W@M {

cc,_ SN 814L (WU W 3

MEMORANDUM FOR: Daniel G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing h (- FROM: John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV

.-j

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF VPB INSPECTION OF TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 1r REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE FITZPATRICK AND YANKEE ELECTRIC FACILITIES (VITS 82-39)

The Division of Licensing (D. G. Eisenhut) requested that Region IV determine the validity and safety significance of concerns expressed to NRC with respect to hydrodynamic analyses and design modifications of the torus and its associated components and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plants.

Results of our inspection are summarized in Section D.2 of inspection report 99900513/82-01, attached. Five nonconformances were identified.

The alleger indicated that the use of unqualified individuals, excessive management schedular pressure, inaccurate analytical models, and use of erroneous input data, could result in possible deficiencies in the hydrodynamic analyses for structural integrity, and in the subsequent design of internal and external component supports for the Mark I con-tainment and its associated catwalks and piping.

Review of available records and interviews with selected engineering, management, and " contract" personnel did not confirm the allegation that unqualified individuals were used to perform the analyses, nor that mange-ment applied excess schedular pressure to the analysts such that the quality and integrity of the analyses were compromised. The allegations concerring inaccurate analytical models, and the use of estimated dimensional input data for certain preliminary design modifications l k made in early 1981, were substantiated. However, it is recognized that l the design activities performed during 1981 were preliminary in nature,

, using similar data from similar plants, all. of which could be viewed by some as erroneous or inaccurate design methods. Plants involved in N :d these analyses were J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone Unit 2, Nine Mile

%lg Point Unit 1, Pilgrim Unit 1, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power alants.

i g- Review of a sample of design modification drawings transmitted to the N affected plants did not reveal any significant design defect or deficiency

}

IY'

&g

Memo to Eisenhut that would prevent the torus and the suppression system from performing their intended safety functions during a LOCA or system abnormal condition.

Teledyne Engineering Services management stated that all calculations related to the Mark I torus, and its internal components, would be reviewed and redone, as necessary. These actions will be completed by August 31, 1982.

This item will be further evaluated by VPB during future inspections. If you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact us.

/

4%

John T. Collins #

Regional Administrator Attachments:

NRC Inspection Report 99900513/82-01 cc: R. F. Heishman, IE R. L. Baer, IE J. E. Gagliardo, RIV E. H. Jo'hnson, RIV R. C. Haynes, RI J. P. Knight, AD, CSE I

i l

l

.- . . -_ = -_- --

e

, j#"* UNsTE) sTATts j' 's , 'T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' ? I g

REGloN IV

?, .q S11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000

,, , ARUNGTON. TEXAS 75011 E M 1 1 1962 Docket No. 99900513/82-01 Teledyne Engineering Services ATTN: Mr. F._C. Bailey President 130 Second Avenue Waltham, MA 02254 $

Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. D. F. Fox of this office on March 29-April 2,1982, of your facility at Waltham, Massachusetts, and to the discussion of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

This inspection was made as a result of concerns expressed to NRC pertaining to possible deficiencies in the structural analyses of the torus catwalks and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants.

Areas examined during this inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

During this inspection it was found that you failed to meet certain NRC requirements. The specific findings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter. ,

Please provide us within 30 days from the date of this letter a written statement containing: (1) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed.

Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.

\,

y y o Y Off

Teledyne Engineering Services The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Connission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days

! from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such infonnation. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days so that are a newavailable due datefor your may review, please be established. notify this Consistent withoffice promptly(b)(1),

section 2.790 any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the infonnation which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which claimed that the information should be withheld i from public disclosuc e. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in

10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.

If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Programs Branch

Enclosures:

1. Appendix A - Notice of Nonconfonnance

. 2. Appendix B - Inspection Report No. 99900513/82-01

3. Appendix C - Inspection Data Sheets (12 pages) l

APPENDIX A Teledyne Engineering Services Docket No. 99900513/82-01 NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE Based on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on March 29-April 2, 1982, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full com-pliance with NRC requirements as indicated below:

Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 states: " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appro-priate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."

Nonconformances with this criterion are as follows:

A. Project 5511 Program Plan - Design Reverification Program) imposes Pacific Gas and Electric specification, dated November 11, 1981. (Specification for Consultant's Quality Assurance Program), on Teledyne Engineering Services (TES). Paragraph 4.1.3 of the specification requires that records be retained in accordance with the storage requirements of ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1979 and that " Record storage shall include measures for protection from inadvertent destruction and include, as a minimum, two hour fire protection or duplicate storage at separate. locations."

Contrary to the above, the QA record storage facility does not include measures for protection from inadvertent destruction described in ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1979, does not provide for 2-hour fire protection, nor were duplicate records stored at separate locations. Specifically, the TES single-record storage facility does not meet the NQA-1 criteria for facility construction, drainage control, 2-hour minimum fire rating, piping penetrations, and documentation of review for adequacy by an individual competent in the technical field of fire protection and fire extinguishing. Further, certain records relating to QA in-doctrination and training, historical files of superseded issues of Quality Assurance Procedures and Technical Engineering Procedures, and specifications and other technical documents referenced in pro-curement documents, were neither stored in a single storage facility nor were duplicates stored at separate locations.

s

% gNNgug

Teledyne Engineering Services B. Section3.1oftheTESQualityAssuranceManual(QAM)statesinpart that, " Design activities shall be prescribed and accomplished in accordance with this manual . . . ."

Contrary to the above, certain design activities were not being accom-plished in accordance with the QAM. Deficiencies observed in the hydrodynamic analyses and design modifications for the torus of ;

the Mark I containments of the Fitzpatrick, Millstone, Nine Mile Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants are as follows:

1. Section 3.0.1 of the QAM states in part that, "The Analyst . . .

shall include sufficient referencing of source data, principles, equations, etc., to permit the ready traceability of his efforts for calculations . . . ."

Contrary to the above, the analyst did not include sufficient referencing of principles, equations, and 3ource data, to permit ready traceability of his efforts for torus calculations (e.g., 2253-3 and 2252-2). Furthermore, the checker did not perform his prescribed duties as evidenced by the fact that these calculations, exhibiting his signature, did not accurately reference principles, design equations, data sources, and other means which provide traceability of the work. .

2. Section 3.6.3 of the QAM states in part that, Nisapp4WMeeumanamn, Mia 6 t QA Record . . . ."

Contrary to the above, design verification documentation was not treated with the status of a Project QA record as evidenced by the fact that completed calculations which exhibited the signatures of the originator, checker, and design verifier were not entered into the TES document control system, nor were they stored in accordance with QA record storage requirements.

C. Attachment 2 to the Project Quality Assurance Programs (PQAP) for the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone, and Vermont Yankee projects, states in part, "The latest revision of the following documents are applica-ble . . . TES Engineering Procedure EP-1-001, General Control Proce-dure . . . ." Sections 1.1 and 2.1 of EP-1-001 state in part that, "The work controlled by this Engineering Procedure is being performed for the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) under TES project number 2386 (J. A. Fitzpatrick) . . . the following Technical Engineering Procedures are invcked . . . TEP-1-003 (Design / Analysis Control) . . . (and) TEP-8-008 (Project Personnel Assignment] . . . .

e

^

. . r Teledyne Engineering Services Contrary to the above: ,

1. Engineering Procedure EP-1-001 is not imposed on the Millstone or Vermont Yankee plants.

2. Technical Engineering Procedures TEP-1-003 and TEP-8-008 were not being implemented on the Fitzpatrick project.

D. PQAP's establish maximum intervals between audits of project activi-ties by the Quality Assurance organization and the conditions and requirements under which they can be waived.

Contrary to the above, audits of project activities were not accomplished within the maximum allowed intervals, nor were they waived in accordance with the prescribed conditions and requirements as evidenced by the following examples:

1. Revision 1 of the PQAP for Fermi 2 established a requirement for bimonthly audits beginning in November 1981. Provisions for waiving a scheduled audit are also contained in the PQAP; however, the waiver must be documented and concurrence of the project manager and quality assurance manager is required.

Contrary to the above, an audit of the Fermi 2 project was not accomplished in November 1981, nor were records supporting a i waiver of audit available.

l l

i

4 Teledyne Engineering Services 2. Revision 6 of the PQAP for Vermont Yankee (October 29, 1981) established a requirement for internal QA audits to be conducted every 3 months. Revision 5 (August 8, 1980) established a requirement for bimonthly audits.

Contrary to the above, bimonthly audits of the Vermont Yankee project were not accomplished during the period from August 8,1980, '

through October 29, 1981, nor has the quarterly audit scheduled for February 1982 been conducted to date.

3. Revision 4 of the PQAP for Millstone Unit 1 (October 30, 1981) established a requirement for internal audits to be conducted every 3 months. Revision 3 (August 8, 1980) established a requirement for bimonthly audits.

Contrary to the above, bimonthly audits of the Millstone Project were not accomplished during the period August 8,1980, through October 30, 1981, nor have any quarterly audits, required since October 30, 1981, been conducted to date.

E. Section 17.3.b of the Teledyne Engineering Services Quality Assurance Manual (Record Retention), contains a 6 year retention requirement for audit records.

Contrary to the above, all PQAP's examined (eight different projects) l contained a QA Records Requirement List which required retention of audit reports for only 1 year.

4

ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 DATE(S) 3/29-4/2/82 ON-SITE HOURS: 79 CORRESPONDENCE ADORESS: Teledyne Engineering Services

. ATTN: Mr. F. C. Bailey President 130 Second Avenue Waltham, MA 02254 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. C. G. Sprangers, Manager, Quality Assurance TELEPHONE NUMBER: (617) 890-3350 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Engineering and Consulting Services.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Approximately 90% of the staff of the Waltham, Massachusetts, facility and 30% of the Hayward, California, facility are involved in nuclear activities. Major projects include work on Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, V. C. Summer Unit 1, Fermi Unit 2, Limerick Unit 1, =

and Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

o ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: b ( ' D Date O M D. F. FgRe'ac' tor Syst/Ms Section (RSS)

OTHER INSPECTOR (S): A. L. Smith, Equipment Qualification Section APPROVED BY: D O b C. J. QaJe~, Chief, RSS ,

Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:

A. BASES: 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

B. SCOPE: This inspection was made as a result of concerns expressed to NRC pertaining to possible deficiencies in the analysis for structural integrity of the torus catwalk and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont- .

Yankee Nuclear Power Plants; to evaluate the in place quality assurance program; and conduct an initial management meeting.

PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: J. A. Fitzpatrick, Docket 50-333; Millstone Unit 1, Docket 50-245; Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Docket 50-220; Pilgrim Unit 1, Docket 50-293; Vermont Yankee, Docket 50-271; Diablo Canyon, Docket 50-275; and Enrico Fermi 2, Docket 50-341.

a

~

l . ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES l WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 6 A. VIOLATIONS:

. None B. NONCONFORMANCES:

1. Contrary to the Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the Diablo Canyon Project Program Plan, QA records were not stored in a single record storage facility which meets the imposed require-ments of ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1979, nor were the duplicate records stored in separate locations.

2. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and section 3.0 of the QA Manual (QAM), design activities related to Mark I contain-ment torus hydrodynamic analyses and design modifications for the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone, Nine Mile Point, Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants were not being accomplished in accordance with the QAM. Specific examples of this nonconformance are:

(a) Hydrodynamic analyses did not include sufficient referencing of source data, principles and assumptions to permit ready traceability as required by section 3.6.1 of the QAM.

Further, the checker of hydrodynamic analyses did not perform the duties prescribed in section 3.6.2 of the QAM as required by section 3.6.1 of the QAM.

(b) Calculations exhibiting the signatures of the originator, checker and the design verifier were not treated with the status of a'QA record as required by section 3.6.3 of.the QAM.

3. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the Project Quality Assurance Program (PQAP) for the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants, activities affecting quality regarding Design / Analysis Control, Project Personnel Assignment, and Project General (Engineering) Control were not accomplished in accordance'with prescribed procedures in that the required procedures were either not imposed or not being implemented on the above projects.

ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

. WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT IN5FtG11UN NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 6

4. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the PQAP's for the Fermi 2, Millstone and Vermont Yankee projects, audits were not accomplished within the specified intervals, nor were they waived in accordance with the prescribed conditions and requirements.

5. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 17 of the QAM, PQAP's for eight projects contained a requirement to retain audit records for a period of 1 year, rather than for 6 years as required by the QAM.

C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS:

None D. OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:

1. Management Meeting - The purpose, scope, and nature of the Licensee, Contractor and Vendor Inspection Program were reviewed with the President of Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) and the Quality Assurance Manager. The concerns expressed to NRC with respect to possible errors and deficiencies in the hydrodynamics load analyses of General Electric (GE) Mark I containment torus components, and in the subsequent design of related component supports, were outlined. The format, content, dissemination and publication of NRC inspection reports, and TES responses thereto, were discussed in detail.

2. Possible Analytical Deficiencies - An inspection was conducted to determine the validity and safety signific, ant of concerns expressed to NRC that the use of unqualified individuals, inaccurate analy-tical models, erroneous input to structural calculations and excess management schedular pressure could result in possible deficiencies in the analyses for structural integrity, and in the subsequent design of internal and external component supports for the torus and its associated catwalks and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants.

Review of TES records, and interviews with cognizant personnel, indi-cate that TES was contracted by the owners of the.Fitzpatrick, Millstone Unit 1, Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Pilgrim Unit 1 and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stations, in 1975-1976, to provide consulting services and to perform certain analyses and design

~

ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 6 modifications pertaining to the torus of their Mark I containments.

Some design modifications have already been supplied to and incorporated by the affected plants; however, the total contract effort is not scheduled for completion until late August 1982.

Review of e'ployment, a training, and qualification records, and interviews with selected engineering, management, and " contract" personnel, did not confirm the concerns that unqualified individuals were employed to do this work nor that TES management subjected the analysts and designers to schedular pressures such that the quality of their work was compromised.

l However, the NRC inspector noted that TES did not have documented instructions or procedures to assure that the technical qualifi-cations (education, training, and related experience) claimed by newly hired permanent or contract employees conducting safety-related activities, was verified, stored with the status of a QA record, or that appropriate corrective action was taken when anomalies or inconsistencies were uncovered. TES management stated that appropriate procedures would be developed and implemented prior to June 30, 1982. This item will be followed during future inspections.

l Detailed examination of the structural analyses, the resulting design modification drawings and their supporting stress calcula-tions, and interviews with cognizant personnel, indicate that the allegations relative to use of inaccurate analytical models and erroneous input data to structural calculations were based on factual observations made during a 4-month period in esrly 1981. *

With respect to the use of inaccurate analytical models, the NRC inspector determined that the analysts:

(1) used the structurally similar Millstone torus drawing to obtain needed dimensions as inputs to Pilgrim hydrodynamic scoping and analyses since all. requisite Pilgrim data was not available at the time;

( 2 ', changed the analysis techniques from a dynamic analysis to an allegedly equivalent static analysis without documented justification;

n ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT IN5PEGIl0N NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 6 (3) used preliminary and undocumented hydraulic forces as inputs to the calculations; (4) did not document the sources of design inputs nor assumptions in the calculation packages.

TES management stated that: (1) these deficiencies are unique to work related to the identified plants and, therefore, are not generic in nature; and (2) the proper Pilgrim dimensional data has already been incorporated into Pilgrim calculations.

In response to nonconformance 8.2 above, TES committed to the following corrective actions: (1) the engineering justification for using a static analysis method would be documented; (2) all affected calculations would be redone using the latest GE published hydraulic forces and applicable analyses methodology; (3) sources of design inputs and assumptions would be documented in the calculatica packages; (4) all resulting design modification drawings ara supporting stress calculations, including those previously transmitted to the affected plants would be reviewed and revised as needed.

The above actions will be completed by August 31, 1982.

One other nonconformance was identified in this area of the inspec-tion. (See item B.3 above.) This area will be further examined dur i ng a future inspection.

Furthermore, the NRC inspector noted that Revision 0 of Technical Engineering Procedures TEP-2-004, TEP-3-002, TEP-3-003, TEP-6-008, and TEP-7-004 were not reviewed and approved by the QA Manager as r required by section 3.2.1 of the QAM as evidenced by the lack of signature of the QA Manager on the subject procedures. Since later revisions of these, and other procedures, were reviewed in accordance with the QAM, and since the QA Manager agreed to document his review and approval of the subject procedures, no nonconformance was identified. This item will.be followed in a future inspection.

l 3. QA Program Evaluation - The TES Corporate Policy Manual, Quality Assurance Manual, unique PQAP's, and the related detailed imple-menting procedures governing the areas of QA Program, organization, I

J i

i __ _ ____ _ _ ___ _ _

. ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 6 Of 6 engineering control, procurement control, QA records, and audits were reviewed to determine that they were consistent with the quality and technical requirements that have been imposed on TES. The documentation of completed work in these areas, con-sisting of trcining records for 14 individuals, 1 manage-ment evaluation of the QA program, 8 internal QA audit files, 2 external QA audit files, qualification records for 2 audit team leaders, 4 purchase orders for TES services, 5 TES purchase orders to subcontractors, 3 drawing files, and applicable QA records, were examined to verify program imple-mentation. Three nonconformances were identified in this area of the inspection. (See items B.1, B.4, and B.5 above.)

. - =

PERSONS CONTACTED Company Ts t e o,xic E ui a sexv ostes 3/14 -y/1/? L Docket / Report No. 9 94 00 J/3 /7 2- o / Inspector ) , F Y o x i

Page i of I 't.

~

NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) l Nicbc/M $ e li d kdnaper ~ &n Eresteb '75l$vne Engr 9. hev'ted:

a ~ - , -

I de/k/db /*MAA/ GfA % hk h4NA Ce*A. f$b Y .,w t $ 5l0 ,. Y $ 0 " s V *' S flif., t % s -s YES l $.unnd A k/1Ynn WL' TTY)n4 0011%n i b)D7( Sb The k G*ko E h c _ h A c.a t \ e.S LO'$ $. lWA)'JC . YiCE fW hh

$ $A d /$ A ft/f W AC/s'k!& Es a in M r /e h itir w np Yf" Q W illla m [. [00PE.R. CONwL tmt* [Nerate44g fdf l DAlkl.D f _ AidDOS$ $ ' Yill~- e3- IMM T Ic*5 l &c.kJ A. t%s mm f% 5s> 7rs 8 // A lla n hel /kkew-

~ ~

TBS 0ATNY bdeAve & dompu/ex CpH TES lov.s T d.L a 5Aame,u D e.s h n TES d 8 Q

l

s E k f'* . !"i - ,Ait' 13 $

f[ , [g ~j ~ >@ o ';c-W < . - %4e-. c,, - i s o- }- I T E' =

s s p! _E gg:

,,a c.

i E. ' -'- .

,, _: W .N- ' ' ' ' ,3 g h

%,-D tl- -. 3-

=E ?, .&* > sic ~.. - ~~ #r, -

,7 5 e tw.

a T.i t E ,,,

, u @'; ': M De. y. ~ M : "O ! g 40 4 ;; E t 3. ;.

,, . i. 9 a . i .. .. a a .N 5v y a,. w:::

9 o- = 4. .t :: s - .i -, !=x==

,t ,.

g 3 :e ; :

D $ *. 1 4$ h & 3. $ -

, 5 - .t s a

. .a. - .J

,.'3 _3, -

,: .. s u

$ k,i

.) &

5 $$ V., E ?

PJ' ~ >u, e s d.

$v ? si

q. . w. .s

, d! a '

{ .:.

3 H s

= , , .jh t -

cO -

%eRt w N -

Q (

9 %* 3 -I q k1 I- d.l, i., I I .,!

.; I5

- E.. .! . . , ,<

s z N. $ , s. s . %a -

,e

3. .c % g h,Q '5 A '

$v .k n T- 'd s

y '1

}

x$

u E N s s s*

4 ~ 4

+ s u

j

-h

'"' ' =

1.6 y s s.,c,. ,s e

\Q % Q,,,,, 9

'"ta w ~ s a

= -

\.'t ,I] yW s ,

N "ll

g QT C a *

5 5,3 a

= "

s +

+

1, "

} Q b s ey

'a-:e'g' Jwyv e' ' 4s s$ ),t bn , " 'lee j 6 1 >!,, % o e

w

,u

%% w

=~

i

. g, w.

. . ~N y < - .w Y p % f v 3 a- %

"n- "o *e-i i

o ~ d 4 -

j 5

J% y 311 a j d )g f t > g A' w u % g < b a **

P$ 6 H 3% 4 E

g t j f 4 $ MkQ s .. 9; @ N o y c s

"%

s : g e w qs -

4 M F s.z s:

j.S .{ z . % o q:;

q g i ,- *

. *]4Q q ,- x N h f% wH 33 -

eJ 1, -

' <f . ) m 6 as

-1 ,,)t f -- Qg \1 O g 2 "y"

N- JE' s; F 4 7 -

t 'w y' q u..s.

o

rs-" Q C ': .N r %

y g .). fy - .T, o >."' j v F- 'll oi. ' 60 - -

E

s '"'

s . <; ?* j 1, o. %f A.'

), -

S >r'- ; i pa '

t

< 553g co, c> o ,g cc q . '> .=

$g .g 4eq~ e4

- u -

t . Y, t S C '

o acw-q %,,,,,

W " ,, g M y A, 4 a b-WC q , , y

'% > - h i$ d e=* sd 1 2 ,_. p a w a, s u4 m s =: ) (e w a~ s s w w %w .vc g

E

", =..-

(i i

ew n m - be b ~

O M N 'I' '" '

bo to Da r- 4 E i>d 5 5

]

4 g -

"==T:3vv:

5 g'a"mme EEt

.2

!t - ~ ~ m s u ~ e- ww - -

d r z k 'e c t M :a ;.:

E E .

n h iru

w yt *- * **'

3

, o _c a l y pj,g - ,c -e -e -.< C o (e "qql

q ca 11:

g vo-s ,

w ., a * . .

. a. h I'. . . . h. to

., i m ,

p h' *'

m ga I. I S pea e 2-3 .,

.- 9 4: M u"u 4 .uuu.w

-* r =

. ;,. .4 a :aga

?

' d .m Y 2

s H4 eJ -

d t a w i 4t e* .tAm N .l

'- }a A pq w .s q- sid,

, 4 i

(

w3 .' ds

.< i G E 4g ,

7 4 dh I Am k h

n w as on e q- .;

, 1 e - .

I c$ N k Nk a ph & k Qhk 4 R 4 eg c 4 +'!

! g4 p e u 2 P ,.:&y e a w Mj o i u s 4 '

62 l 5 <

E s- 4QAn i '] . ~

s g o " ~ u s 4 ,3 %jA i

g 2m M :pN.x 4 s Ih b '., ;: 'i s 1 ._ 4 , 5

%+ w4 '4 4 ,1 3 N - % s u d

5 fl ,' *e s 1 2 % { 9,w d ~ V=

N3tt w a u -

a , J'v+asc,., r e s 't 2 -

A

d vi s.

f as c c 4 5m 7J= s t cosy,

. v e % 4 "s. i a 4

.]-

e !.

o %w o ~ .;; -

S 4N Y 'd

, p' ., - ..g i

- -. MP-p g h d % -

.'g* 2 E bi

) !. 'y) 8 o < .

o a a '3 w, 4 ws n n , 22: 2

b' e-Q 9 %'u? -

J ,

a s asas a, us &k dddd D hEk .. o m o [

4 - %

. n

.. b 5 (

m

~ W - a w w w o. s m a - - - -

> w , 5 35i "Stig T3"0*

ga b

" a r L u e u e- . _ a m a m g ~.~ne ... .

, - s e- 6 5 A N N ca n es m m en m m y m N

. .. : .( , 2--

!y 1 -

1 v

it = 8: "- "" "' < c c c o_cw, i _.

ga== i.

id I

n ' s - ~ - .

q, a _ n:.,

a.'

h.~.

=; :. . -

m

,, e... so. r t. e, ,

I e;

+

m

- -- :+a%s

,, . ...= = = . _

f l5,85)

". ~

1 .

A M k, e ?.'.' s;.Q

2....

C $

,J ,# h w L

s a %. h,9sh, .g m q ,7

" - ~ ' ' '

x

$5B 1d j p43 El E

z l')]

r d 5m A a & lha=

s - % ,

j'

%o $

e UM m%# j,. 3N f

.k< -

i t* < ~ r ,-

) A; t

=

>N - , )- .

,,, , . . t'. si

,-{

s 4 e

' i . ::w e P, 1 .t s

', s$.. -$ 4; N%el

.. l

~Mr-!,y;j

, c E 'C'*E' $

N sex ts.

E ,s , e i Dsg

.v- .

I 1

Ns dL'4 O g e

V> s. s (* 9 % s,, s

y

d

)s % %

P

-T c 4 Q 1 %; -1 - : a

,I s x; }-s

_ x[ t <

p.c a * . ,t q c ._,

s r q . . ~ . m ,,

g. -

ms 't ,J a w w .

)$'y g d , a

% I % .y g4 p R' y &

b

$ )%% 3 8

rJ M.

L A

4 C

s s us

,E

$= "

5=.

u i

Q ,I0 ,

g N

b N

E e

U - N M M .

w . _I .

l g ~ n - N w e .

31*5 3

y w I - N N u 8 4 N N

'o be o O g C- .g g,,

". d e L (-- { w* : a 5 x e . . ..

o r , -

b b e4 N O V( C 4 t' O $ g% g 5 u 8 7

sm ew - *

-.s taiw 6. be o. w E 5!"

" # # #=T45 3

-it*2 I " *E '* ! =

2 g n > 4 3 i rs >: e- o -

= > >

s, p ,,,, ,

J .: c ,.; .;

,o r . + :r w.> . > r i j -

w.

,,,-----------,--.g-,,, --------w,,--,-c . - - - - -

PERSONS CONTACTED Company rce.tkvnt Esse <-=ws Sen uggs Qatts MencH 19. Anst t>Yt2 Docket / Report No. 99900713 /t t-e t - .

Inspector ALVA L. SM orM

- Page [ of 11 (AME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print)

C. G. SPRAA/GE44 h A $4M4CrA blsnyet $CMr.fffviel

.T N VfM DA)3b/l OA 37EueLGT filc3Ysi1 gu om~s

{ lf (d)*f/T $ $$$fA//WC /w M /44tw Od f. (KS d. Cy.

7et 5 p y tvg 0 }< 0MLvND Q A .S Prc t Ati.s 7 f lu la v 5 rfb/M SecHtHwG d6fbT rc & co yMr lA Kaasiha wma nmk,1%w. rss l

l J

\

l l

=

~

a 4

Ir.spector ALVA L. SMsTH Report No. 82 -of -

Scop / Module QA PfoGEA/*f EvAwAThe DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page _ f of 17.

1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 I 8 P6LIC Y MAvunL - TELEbvNE EMc/NEEA/N6- SE/v/CES Y9h Z 4 QUALITY ASSWCMCE AfAL4/U4L Siehm 3 3 PLo3EcT QA PKostAM PRoICc7 t ts't/SS19 A-r m}ch G 4 3 Pro 5tcT QA PtoGRAM pro.TECT .5 3 2 2. Ni /

5 3 tsoseci on pro c, e sm PaarscT ziss/ssig A-r g +

) G 3 /KoIEcT QA PhG RAM PgoT ECT ECI I-sto /Siff - g f i

~] ~S flo3Ecr QA PROGRAM Pro 3EcT ++L7 W=h a 8 3 raorecT pn Peo6fAM ProIEcr 455) Ifh 0 9 3 PROTECT QA Pfef,EA m Plo3Ec7 + 91) &fra a ID 7 191/ ^4uncEnear Aubir (scxEbuts Akb Ass'C#"r*75) os/f ll y /tA WAcEnE+ T Aubs T -199/ - Lcr7EA W TRA^rtnr77AL fgg ygy. Coy fggMAyC(f ofef, ft '1 A94wAGEnE+T Aub/T */0$/* final REPtst T -

ga,fra 13 1 QA dub /7 SW/! MARY pro 3Ec7 strS ,j,;,

, 1+ 8 QA- AND/I SO'*f'* TAX Y !** 1L C T *Vcn4/

Doctment Types: I Column Nos.

1. Drawing 5. Purchase Order .l. Sequential Item No.

2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Document

3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Dociment

4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision No., if applicat l

l

)

i 8

w

.? .

1 4 25 . g 5 ~'

" f f I'$ 't s.

3.

a.

4 4 'I' ~$ s I g4 s s. 3 a .g.

S. 4. 5. E ua:

s==-

ell:

n 2sse

$ 8, - -- -

,$ hoof ae nasz lSpau

- 8. : a e; '

4

4 4 to 8 3 4 0 5 S - %

g W t Q d f f Y M N w

f nd a -

ha Q'

g % w J, 4

,:. t x 5 L ' s o

a

,2

+ +

q g L s s b % 8 f I k-

k ."

D U ho =U h w-

- - 8 -

a # 2 % E *! *,

g 3 4I 6 i a i A k O 4 ( k Q* W y S S k N 5

, x { L s :

> > ?

% h 4 5 {$ $ w s

8 $ g

=

1 4 t

y e

t e

t t

3 t x x

4 R <3s- a a

' u

e

! l1d "3 E E

= < k j !

2 l 5

.s o $

i I

I s s 2 ^

t x A

)=

s a

=

j ! {

=

R s w

el s

r.

{ w)i a =

E

= = 4

M 5 a 1~ 4 3 3 EEbu

- s t = g a ~ eme; E"So g g { { d { d 6 k < 4 $

sas

t l

1 x M C

' T = ..

l - = ; W-

" M * ,$ g'$.$ $

l f(.

m O

k % % % % e. to 5 % i n g g 3

CmWo e2 .

d

" O k N N V v .

l

Les5 Vet Luc Al vA L. S m irp/

g<epuy t no, yg pg .

Scop / Module 04 PE*6 SAM zudud7w DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page 7 of_l L '

1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 ed.

24 S TELEDYNE P. O. b S'9 po (co+7/Non 'byhAMses) 944r 9snAr 30 z. Nusco QA SPECIF/CA Tron 4.o1 -3 g .5 31 2. Aksr N+s . z. z s - s s st os>s 3 Z. 2. SPEC!A L 4H kunEn1 /Da Z (ff**'DA MuoER hm7 CA) -

pg, 3 33 2 StecoA s. QA Mum arer Joa3 (fteer>A MA ( LICHT Co-) Q E-3f f 7tltbykt P. o. S9x+ (TIMME 3 g/A LLE Y SIfi t)

ST S TELGbvAsE P. o . S00t (177 Gnswcet) r%

3 (, S TELEkvat P. O . sos 7 (ce&Ay con 9.) *)&rt 37 5 7Et.E'b yut P. O. 5003 CATutoob fnersill Co.) Ifah Jg 7 84XEK 7E57/h$ SERtilcl,INC. (CEnrpysNr,. bONAlb NE S96MER) &lg 39 g ECAI 20f 0 Pfo3ECT 4/e o . P454 PfD6MAM Vr),

40 g E C W z e 9 2. Ptolec7 4>97 Cxb 2 cram biscn ?!PwC. 44/97 Al g Ltat 2o99 Preisc7 4 711 "n rcAmt note powr % PIM festGE ASTY p.Str/ qqj,,

41 ( 7EtElraE Ens. sErwer.s Ecs/ L.Eb6EA- ~/4

.cument Types: I Column Nos.

Drawing 5. Purchase Order 1. Sequential Item No.

Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Document Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document QA Manual 8. Other(Specify-ifnecessary) 4. Revision No., if appilc e

Inspector Atv4 c, su s rei Heport. N3. 8 ze 1 -

~

Scop / Module 9A P20Har1 EuAtu47se+ DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page _'/__of / 7.

I 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 45 8 boCUM[4T Co47Xo L REcoKl> B-S+rj - o/

4+ 7 hocuncur 7 esusmvrsu h-s 3 fro: A'is c.4e4 un<wac pa,ien coer) 4 4,4

! 4f 9 30CumENT MA/TAal RECOKb d~S47O + S j +4 7 hocuncsr transmarra n. h -+ , fro: nwsA mesaa: Powce coo.) cg 17 ? T occont~, conirret ;tecco p e s e r e o.x e c y 4so o et,, a 4y 7 pocune.e r TRA^rs"#TTM % -3 3 (ro: rosro u Elvse a ca.) yf

+9 g 'bora m ENT cdAN48 DeM R. a77i sy$),

50 ? R EA c70K. CowTA oOs IA!C. TMsass TTAL R.ECOR) n e- aps g; 3 frosscT QA ProcEb e n psease tT : 29/+/xssr/19.rs Weg ll i 5 2.. 8 PEk SONNE L Fit E !"o&EA (fAacL SooMoo) ~

S3 g psenarsie n. pas. e. roeben. (Anwanks.x*Mvur^) -

$4 g pca s onoust- roene rodeot- ( ,,,a s. ans) -

l SS s ps/ sowE t. FoLE FOL W ( uct cctoA) _

l l g (, y pra smee t fsee F**>^- (csets"s yAus) -

I

,! cument Types: %

l Column Nos.

,i Drawing 5. Purchase Order -

1. Sequential Item No.

Specification 6. Internal Memo : 2. Type of Document Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document j QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) , 4. R,evision No., if appilc i

I

i lesspetLur atv4 c. .w's/7# Heport N3. F 2-o/ - '

~

Scop /Hodule 9A prosAAm EvMugTrav DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page /# of / L. li i

i 1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 ,

S7 3 PER$oNNEL FILE fot bEA. DVCEU ENos) ,

i

$s 1 PessoexEL FIL G ko' W (>0M G /NGAAm ) -

s9 f Myso&xet site forbrn- (SnarokA~s kanmai) --

(,0 g PER.soNetL rsLE f o L> E R- ( 'RA MEDI C. NA YA0 e GI 9 p{t$oNet L FILE FOLbEA ( $.yp gy yg. gg _ ;

+

g,1 g pExso++et rit.e rot DE 4 (rea sn u e.at r RATHe)

L3 g PEdsovkKL flL C F O L'}EM- ( 5 AMA bff. A. .TT MA N) ~

GA 1 PER 30N"El. FILE FotbE/L (CYDTN/A M. AMIRAMLT) - .

to$ 3 TELEbywE Erst. Sexs.tet3 IA* TERon bo edMqn r CoAs7 tot S ys'TE M pf,f GG 3 SPECIA t.. QA PfoCEbt/fE SGAP-f/~d/ - o ll I

i C1 2 Avsz A'45. i. 9 .

Q

&9 3 7tS TECNMCAL E46/A4ER/A6 PROCEbVRE ~TEP-/-do4, REAlwirA4 of so CFgtI ennwa o 1

l _

G9 3 rfs rsexaren t Ees/4cesiss- PsocchKF TEP- 6~003 l ,g, 3 1

3 7ss Prois c7 .Ltst, '2> car! DES /is) AE E/ER/flCAT1041 _ _

'70 l l icur.ent Types: % Column Nos.

! Drawing 5. Purchase Order 1. Sequential Item No.

Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Document i Procedure 7. Le tter 3. Date of Document QA Manual 8. Other (Spu ffy-if necessary) 4. Revision No., if applica l

l i

I .

inspecturz Awa : . Sm o j y,; . -ef p

=. neporg. no, yaoj , -

Scop / Module OA Rospim amnn,eg DOCUMENTS --

EXAHINED Page _/.i _or_ _' / C

, a 1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 21 _z PGfE SPM.* cairo" we. co - TEub vwr __

Q, o 7% 2 ANSJ/Mk E N $A ~l-l9>1 1%$

i 1 - .

.' I '

+

e

.m-1 -. .

~

1 9

^

1

_ ' _l ,

4 i ,

~ .

i ~- -

__ __ 4

__.) - ._

~

I j i i

.cument Tyres: \ Column Mos.

Orawing 5.

l' Purchase Order ,

1. Sequential Item No. I Specification 6 Internal Memo ; 2. Type of Document

. Procedure 7. Letter * '

3. Date of Doctm.nt

, QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-ff necessary) 4. Revision No., it appitca,

. 8

, n[ p . -

.?

? " 1 < l 2 */ I'L AT~IENDANCE LIST

' 0)

COMPANY:

GLEDYJ'E 5@dmu &cr$ POCKET NO. 991oo()3 Date: Apxit 2. /f F1 i st Inspection conference iPre-Inspection confere-)ce E

,. (Plea.se o NhME (Please Print) TITLE (Please Print)' , ORGANIZATION Prin:)

r T. & T hs1ft7dA US #ff

Abra;74di S4/ClbecAv Mix 619m-Q 6 e E. JoeW & des h.rs . %dar sua 3 sal

^

L.,n n, nmwn y a.., n<- a-,. nc . e rn A , r e. s.

AbeAs /s.< de //c Nb rwon- [s,m.hinA ~

. s ~ v

1. F L4ct>ees se . he % T Te_ed w e e u . 6 x cw

'c c % sero 64. n+co:. .e

,, b N644tw&-GR b A Sonenvi<si? RLEDvwf E~nt: 27!w<

! L tlA L. Sxirrt EC&lP, 0 AL ELC-/2. /K A/2C s

.\'

k .

l

l

. . . f !._ . . _ . . .

l l

=- . v - .u = = -

. =. -- -

2.=.- . . . . .

.. = .

L '

. N.

100 JUN 11

, Docket No. 99900513/82-01 ,

u 4 4 Teledyne Engineering Services ATTN: Mr. F. C. Bailey President 130 Second Avenue Waltham, MA 02254 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. D. F. Fox of this office on March 29-April 2,1982, of your facility at Waltham, Massachusetts, and to the discussion of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

This inspection was made as a result of concerns expressed to NRC 4

pertaining to possible deficiencies in the. structural analyses of the torus catwalks and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants.

Areas examined during this inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

During this inspection it was found that you failed to meet certain NRC requirements. The specific findings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter.

I Please provide us within 30 days frza the date "of this latter a written statement containing: (1) a description of steps that have been or will i be taken to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed.

Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.

i g,j) .h RIV \

CI:RSS N D:EIS l SC:RSS BC:VPB R&

DTTudri Canoic vFvuovu,2 GJunnavn e w i i i ns

' " ' " > . ....... 5/.1.8/.81.. ....SSC 82 . . . 51. 2. . . ...fr/.L181......g(. . / 82. .......... .................... ......... .. ..

. . . . . . . . .g9 . .. ........ . .......... ......... ...................

i................. . . -. . . .

.---..,_,__...m. ~~,,_.m._... ._..._w_,. ..__,,__r .._..__,._m-.,,-%m-_.., 3, . . - -___-,-- ym .,,y._y.,~,, , , ,-. ,_

Teledyne Engineering Services The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Papensork Reduction Act of 1980 PL 96-511.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days from the data of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Consistent with section 2.790(b)(1),

any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further recuires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10CFR2.790(b)(4). The infonnation sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.

If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, "Origital signed tg U. P.CTAPOWs" Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Programs Branch

Enclosures:

1. Appendix A - Notice of Nonconformance

2. Appendix B - Inspection Report No. 99900513/82-01

3. Appendir C - Inspection Data Sheets (12 pages) bec:

IE Files AE00 QAB NRC:PDR Reg. Administrators, I, II, III, IV,V .

EHJohnson, RIV l

"' *

W.......... ....... .. . ... . ..... .. .... .. . . . . .l . .. . .... . ... . . .. .

" *"' F .................. ... . . ..... . .... .. .... ... .. . ... .. . .!. . . .. ..l.. .. ....i . . .

- . . . . . i. .

uv't 9 s1 Ain

g. & % r g" j NtlCL r AR REGt!L ATuni COMMISS::.'N k Dg M

, g,y :

wasm .nm e e ma y. g ;

s g, *

.5..~.'..

w ws}/

June 23, 1982 i.

MEMORANDUM FOR: James P. Knight, AD/CSE FROM: Richard H. Vollmer, Director, DE 4

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON REVIEW By the attached note from Mr. Denton, we have his concurrence to proceed in the Diablo Canyon review as indicated in my memo of June 16th.

Please give this your priority attention and initiate a development criteria for selection of the audit items and general work plan for this review. Please work with your counterparts in DL and DSI as appropriate to recruit assistance.

.As I indicated in the memorandum, we will designate reviewers to give first priority to the Diablo Canyon review effort. Management attention to this review should also cannand first priority.

.' ddA-Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering Attacivnent: -As stated.

cc: w/o enc 1:

R. Tedesco.

F. Miraglia W. Johnston

[ @ .. k . . >. RE 7fIl i

gegas x

y 9,

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

ML20212J150

Text

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

Attachment:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Purpose:

Participants:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Purpose:

Participants:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Purpose:

Participants:

Attachment:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Purpose:

Participants:

Attachment:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Reference:

Subject:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Contact:

SUBJECT:

Contact:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Richard DiYoung:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search