ML20212M115

Forwards Comments on Proposed Idvp,Phase II Mgt Plan. Copyrighted Matl Encl

ML20212M115
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	08/02/1982
From:	Brown H KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20209B373	List: ML20209B366 ML20209B381 ML20212L166 ML20212L187 ML20212L196 ML20212L211 ML20212L224 ML20212L251 ML20212L286 ML20212M096 ML20212M107 ML20212M115 ML20212M136
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8701300011
Download: ML20212M115 (22)

Text

$O

• Les ErruCPATRICK, LOCKIIART. HILL. C2rarsTor2mR & P1ntLIrs A PenneMTP I.gC1rDMO A PhortenOM4 CORME@ON 1900 31 Srnz zT, N. W.

Estuxorox, D. C. 20o06 tzurnown taca) 4aa.,m Mu m g, m,na, cxx7 art =r.mv. 7.reews a msow

===n warza e stner ma srw

Auc.us*6 '

1'082

~s mann emswu unas 202/452-7005 c.) =a =OO Mr. Harold R.

Denton, Director Office of tiuclear Reactor Reculation U.S.';uclear Regulatory Commission I*ashir.gton, D.C.

20555 i

Dear Mr. Denton:

Enclosed herewith are connents on behalf of Go >ernor --

3rewn concerning the prcposed Independent Design Verification Program, Phase II Management Plan.

Sincerely yours,

! /WT /

.f

~~ j,

Herbert H.

Erown HHS/dk Enclosure cc:

(with Attachments)

Q,4 Service List Byron S. Georgiou, Esq.

Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 1

\\

l

/

8701300011 870122

/

PDR FOIA l

HOLMES86-151 PDR

s Julv 30, 1982 4

D MEMORANDUM rOR:

Counsel to Governor Brown FROM:

MHB Technical Associates

SUBJECT:

Comments on Proposed Phase II Program Management Plan Diablo Canyon Design Verification Program The proposed Program Management Plan for Phase II of the Diablo Canyon Verification Program was submitted to the NRC by Teledyne Engineering Services ( "TES ")

in a June 18, 1932 t o. _ o.-.,

.r. c. c, d R.. e.. - o.n..

".".a.

3. '.c s e

.7 7

- y.op a..

us.._a_.. dam

-v d

to develop t.ne accitiona.3 in:ormation Mr. Centon requested in h.4 -

".v o,<.c

~k o_.-

.l,o, 1 9 g 1 l e *m

• c. *

• o

.*p a _l c o li..

.a..

. G 3 _r.-

w,

. m _ _ _. e n' r_e o

m o

.k., s,

• k.o.

.O.b. 6 g o_

• 1 D,. o "y * =.~.. as o_.#C,.#.". w=.'

s T-l*V

1. a # #.. a_ #-

w""

"'* e

.".T.F_

1 w

ww_.

y...

b u a _#.# a '

'w '.e

'w.i.. a_

• ", a *w "w ". e D.4 " '- l o C =.. ". ^...'.# - a_...e. e

,s u= s-su :ye..# ad,

w.

u--

v

- f ceco $

,A

.s t

a

..c..

_eg-e..i c $n =ano _- a_ _' _= _ a 5 c c.. _ a c _ a-y e. _ o _... =_ c' y _ _4 o.-

'.o a "u

a. 1,

' 978,.DG&T 4.. '.a _.7 a l d a s 4.". a c ".# "..# * # e s,

c..#

'i

- a - -.= =..- ". # e e.i = " a_ d c o.. _ _ c v-s o s '

e m.."- c.-v,

in

'0

- 70 Or. u"7v 8,

_' 4 0 '-

_=_..'.e...

y provided TES 's proposed Phase II' Program Management Plan to n_ o ". e... ^ _" _ - ^ *.s*..

1. _ o " w. i 'w' e n c o.... =_.. ". s.

D " _ c "_ '... ' o "... a ' _- =_ "_ "_ = s *-,

.v

.c. e '. #c."'mi

.. e. e.4.. = _- a_

e..o_ _" a _ c -...=_.. a myf_'_~_='_'e o

..a_

" r. _0

=^- d

. orc.ocsal and scecific ccmments re2atec. to.carnicu,ar sect cns of the proposal.

-1.

G =,. = - _~r C O

-..-. S C n C =.- -. - -xa b--.._: 1....-.

w=

o.,

.u

. =.

. O a._.,-

1 0 ".. D7 C ~7 u' S 7 '

_C 7 "., o_.r

0 U. _r.". r.s 10, 1CO' 2.4

.e u

~u a_

-v-At least 14 separate errors in design and constructic., were identified at Diablo Canyon in the seven weeks between authoriza-

~.

~

l rien of the-fuel loading and low power testing license on September 21, 1981 and suspension of the license on November 19, 4'

1981.

In response to these errors, the NRC ordered that a two-phase design verification program he initiated.

Since suspension of the license, more than 186 additional design and construction l

deficiencies have been disclosed in the bi-veekly status reports submitted by PG&E and TES.

These design and construction deficiencies involve almost all subjects and items reviewed to date.

The multiplicity of deficiencies establishes clearly that j

?G&E and its major contractors failed to implement properly 1

a large number of the 18 mandatory cuality assurance criteria rec.uired bv. Ac.cendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 of the rec.ulations and ccmmitted to by PG&E in the Diablo 'Canycn operating license application.

Insights into "why" the widespread design and construction breakdowns occurred were provided by the QA/QC program reviews and audit conducted by R.

F.

Reedy Inccrpcrated ( "Reedv. ")

Of 4

i PGSE and its principal seismic safety related design service 4

I

- contractors who performed work prior to June 1, 1978.

Indeed, l'

in a report first issued in March 1982 as part of the Phase I verification croc.ran, Reedy stated the following three cenclusiens i,

concerning the PG&E cuality assurance program:

(a)

The PG&E Quality Assurance Program for design i

work was not adecuate in areas of policy, i

procedures and implementation.

The Cuality Assurance organization had insufficient program j

responsibility.

I i

(b)

A general weakness existed in internal and i

external interface and document controls.

This i

c.uestions whether accro.ariate design information i

1

,, - -. + - -...

a.,

i l

i was being exchanged and utilized by design. groups and consultants.

One concern is if. the latest Hosgri seismic data was inputted for design analysis.

(c)

.The design verification program was not formalized and was inconsistently implemented and documented.

This. included major gaps in design overviews of the design approach to mechanical and other equipment.

1 hus, the Reedy report indicates that the 200 design and ccnstruction deficiencies identified to date may have had as a significant root cause the failure of PG&E to implement the required and committed to CA/QC program.

Additional significant disclosures are found in the recently g

I released report by the Brockhaven National Labcratory ("3NL Report").

SNL, at the request of the NRC Staff, conducted an independent review and development of the vertical floor seismic response spectra for the Diablo Canyon containb.ent annulus 4

1 structure.

The developed response spectra were then utilized by SNL for evaluations of two selected piping systems.

In a July 1, 1982, letter to Dr. William Cooper of TES, Mr. Den:cn ncted the following seven aspects of the design process utilized i

by PG&E and its principal seismic subcontractor, URS/31ocm, and I

s=mmarized by URS/31com in its May, 1979 report for the contai..-

ment structure, which as a result of the SNL Report require l

further exploration and assessment as to their generic implica-tions for the Diablo Canyon design process:

1.

The distributed masses of the steel members comprising the annulus structure apparently were not included in the v.athematical model used in the original seismic analysis.

+ "-

.D 1

2.

The mathematical model used in the original analysis apparently considered the joints between the beams and columns to be rigid, whereas the t

Brookhaven interpretation of the drawing indicates these joints are more appro.criatelv considered flexible (shear carrying enly).

3.

Statements on page 11 of the URS/ Bloom May 1979 re. cort "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Containment Structure, Dynamic Seismic Analysis for 7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake," May 1979, concerning the structural connections may not be consistent with the mathematica3 moce. usec in tn.e origina analysis.

4.

The response spectrum smoothing technic.ues emo.lov.ed in the original analysis appear ~ed inconsistent with the FSAR commitments.

5.

Design dimensions were apparent.3y usec, insteac.

of the as-built dimensions in the two piping problems sampled.

=

6.

The SD bends in the cicinc analvsis were accarentiv mocellec. as long rac- -,-

n..

i is has tne e:fect ius cencs.

of softening the model and reducing the natural frequencies.

7.

The cicing suc.. cort forces como. uted bv. the SNL

.i model are much larger than those computed by the PG&E model.

As a result of the preceding breakdcwns in the PGIE,'E'ccm desicn 4

t process, ENL recommended that "given the magnitude of the support force increases a real valuation of all (pipe) support designs would seen warranted."

In addition, SNL concluded that its results differed frcm the results obtained usine. PGsE's recentiv develcr.ed "New Hesc.ri -

5 Mass Spectra."

Indeed, in response to a cuestien frc.- David Fleischaker during the July 27, 1982 meeting among PG&E, TES, ENL and the NRC, the ENL personnel ccafirmed the folicwing two i

~

SNL conclusions were with rec.ard to PG&E's "New Hosc.ri - 5 Mass Spectra:"

~ _ _ _ _ _ _

=

2.

(a)

BNL support force values obtained using BNL models'.and PG&E supelled spectra do not match.

The differences are prcbably due to the differ-ences in modelling.

(BNL Report, p. 11).

(b)

Support'f'orces calculated.using BNL piping models~a'nd BNL 3-D Model B envelope for independent spectra substantially exceed PG&E calculated values.

The major cause for this is that Model B spectra greatly exceed the spectra used by PG&E.

(BNL Report, p. 12).

Thus, even the current PG&E seismic reanalysis in important aspects was not in accord with the BNL analysis and thus may provide an inadequate level of safety.

The foregoing new information -- the numerous

• design and c:nstruction deficiencies disclosed since November 19, 1981, 1

the breakdcwns in the PG&E and URS/Blcon design process di glosed t

in the BNL Report, and implications of the findings and 4

c:nclusions of the Reedy report -- require that the reverification i

.croc. ram be altered in a sic.nificant manner in recocnition of the i

facts that:

4 (a)

The Ph.ase IfPQase II dichotemy in the reverification n

pr: gram as originally contemplated by the NRC is no longer I

i technically justified.

Thus, the Phase I/ Phase II dichotcry i

should be promptly abandoned.

(b)

The PG&B seismic design process breakdowns were not limited to the period prior to June 1, 1981.

Rather, the break-f:.ns were evident in the URS/Bicc= 1979 report and continue to sc=e degree even today in the current New Ecsgri - 5. Mass spectra.

Further, the seismic design process breakdowns appear generic, thus requiring.a complete remodeling and reevaluation of seismic safety features.

.ca.

(c)

The conclusions of the Reedy QA/QC audit raise serious questions as to the adequacy of the PG&E QA/QC program in other than design activities.

Thus, the reverification program must encompass all PG&E QA/QC activities, including site activities.~

The reverification program should verify, to the maximum extent possible with non-destructive examination, the proper construction 1

and installation _ of Diablo Canyon safety features in the as-built c:nfiguration.

(d)

The multiplicity of mistakes disclosed to date indicate that the reverification program should be broadened to address all items "important to safety," rather than be artificially limited to only " safety related" items.

(See the definitic:'.s for

-he preceding as set forth in Mr. Denton's November 20, 1981 Me=0randum which is included herein as Attachment A.)

Clearly, the General Design Criteria ( "G DC " ) set forth in Appendix A to 1: C.F.R.

Fart 50 and in particular the quality assurance measures I

cf GDC 1, require verification for all activities and items important to the safety of Diablo Canyon.

II.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1.

(Section 2.1)

The Diablo Canyon reverification program should be re-structured and expanded as su.marized in the preceding " General C:mments."

The TES proposal, contrary to the preceding, appeared a

' generally to ignore the significance of the 200 design and con-l struction deficiencies identified to date.

4

• /

It is und2rstood that E Pagien V recently re:cmr.ded to E-:,72 that site activities be evaluated as pa. cf de Dia' ic Cr.y:n re'nrificati:n r

~ -. _ - - _ _

_ y 3 6

2.

(Sec tion.J. 2 )

Th / resources to be devoted by TES, Reedy, Stone & Webster Engineering dorporation ("SWEC"), and Rob.ert L. Cloud Associates

( " RLCA" ) to the reverification program, and the proposed schedule for the program, are not described by TES.

Clearly, the anti-

___ c m cipated resource allocation and t'ime span for completing the verification program provides an indication of the depth and extent of the intended verification activities.

3.

(Section 2.2)

The TES proposal fails to describe how, and to what extent',

the work TES performed for PG&E in respense to I&E Bulletin 7932 will be evaluated during the verification program.

7 4.

(Section 2.4)

The SWEC scope should be clarified _ to assure representative examples from each design service contractor.

Further, contrary to the TES proposal, the design efforts for representative sample of mechanical, electrical, seismic, and structural safety features performed by the nuclear steam supply system vender

~(bestinghouse) s'ou d be included in the verification program.

_. x

.f other equipment venc. ors per:orrec significant i

In accition, design efforts for important safety features, then those crganiza-tiens should also be identified and their design control and design verification process be evaluated.

The SWEC verification review when ccabined with the RLCA ef forts, should be sufficien 1

to assure that the design process results in a design in conformance with the Diablo Canyon license application and NRC i

regulations.

-B-0 a a

5.

(Section 2.6)

The Reedy acceptance criteria for QA/QC programs and their implementation, should be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 and GDC 1 of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.

The NRC's regulatory guide, and associated A::SI standards, should be utilized as criteria for design and site activities consistent with PG&E's commitments in the licensing application and consistent with the timing of the issuance of Regulatory Guides and ANSI standards.

Contrary to

~

the limited Design Control Practices Evaluation methods proposed by TES in Section 5.7 of Appendix D to the Management Plan, any such design control evaluation performed by Reedy should, as a

=

minimum, be evaluated using the requirements set 'forth in Section 2-11 of ANSI Standard N45.2.ll-1974 (enclosed herein as Attachment 3).

6.-

(Section 3.1)

The engineering program plan set forth in Appendix'D cf IIS's Management Plan should be consolidated to increase the clarity of the TES proposal by eliminating the need for the numerous cross-references between the two documents.

Such a censolidation.could also increase the scrutabiliuy of the Management Plan.

7.

(Section 3.2.1)

As set forth herein, and in the " General Ccmments," the design change for structures, systems and components "important to safety" should be developed and considered in the verification

n

-O.

program.

The preceding comment applies throughout' the various aspects of the TES proposal and in the interest of brevity will

..ot be repeated.

8.

(Section 3.2.2)

The QA review and audit by Reedy should be sufficient in depth and extent to identify, insofar as practical, the under-lying root cause of any design or construction deficiencies disclosed by the TES, SWEC, and RLCA assessments.

Further, contrary to'the TES proposal, in the absence of an acceptable CA program or its implementation, all safety activities conducted by the deficient organization should be reevaluated.

9.

(Section 3.2. 3)

The basis for the acceptance criteria set forth by TES in Appendix D-should be explicitly stated.-

10.

(Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5)

An integral element of TES's design verification proposal

_s sr.:pLing.oi. structures _,_ systems and components to determine that they are in fact designed in accordance with applicable requirements.

However, TES's proposed program dces not adequa:ely describe the statistical basis for the criteria to be used for

-~

the selection of a suitable number and type of samples to be viewed mnder the program or for the selection of additional verifications.

n short, TES has preposed to use sampling extensively withcut providing adequate guidelines cr criteria for evaluation cf that

= -.

' 9 sampling.

Thus, contrary to the TES proposal, including Appendix C the reto, the proposal should be altered as follows:

(a)

Define the confidence level which the auditors desire to achieve for each sampling effort and provide the basis for selection of that confidence level.

(b)

Provide the statistical basis for the relative size cf sample utilized in each case.

If the statistical basis is not being utilized, then the judgmental or other criteria should he specified precisely.

(c)

For each sample selected, demonstrate factually that the sample is representative of the total population of the item being sampled.

(d)

Define precisely the acceptance criteria for each 4

sampling ef fort, together with the factual basis for those criteria.

This is essential if any meaningful review is to take place.

(e)

Specify precisely the criteria to be used for expanding a sample based on the results of the initi~al sample.

f (f)

Identify the person who will confuct the Phase I program review.

In addition, TES should specify in detail the score of work' croposed for the satistician.

i

~

l 11.

(Section 4.6)

In order to provide an opportunity for planning and i

participation in the TES program, TES should provide a weekly i

lcok-ahead report to all parties (PG&E, NRC, Joint Intervenors, 4

l Governor Brown) in the Diablo Canyon licensing proceeding, h

r L

o

-11_

a

' listing all planned meetings and site visits proposed by TES, l

RLCA, SMEC and Reedy with PG&E and subcontractors for the sub-All such meetings and visits should be opened secuent week.

to all parties to audit.

12.

(Section 6.0)

Contrary to the TES proposal, program reports should be 1

submitted to all parties simultaneously, rather than to only' FG&E and the NRC as suggested by TES.

The preceding comment i

applies to all of the procedures noted in Section 7.0 of the TES proposal as well.

Further, in the interest of scrutability, all program reports should provide a sufficient level of detail i

to the parties to describe unambiguously the matter of the r censideration.

t E

4 3

4 t

(

1,

)

i i

)

i l

I t

f i

e I

i I

1

.A

..C n,r:%.

.. :... -. s

. A

,e,,

um., 5... 5 icu

.n.:

y "r

NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION

.d.

e ms m cTou.:.:. ens

..g. p

.%:Qk NOV 2 'O l.e.:* -

.s

-....a

.u.

v.

..e v-w

' MEMCRAN-',.'.". FOR :

All NRR Fersonnel.

.n..

5

,,aro.; R; Denton, Direct:r en M:

n w

c '..'.i"-l =. = r R.a.> c... r R a.. u l.= '.i o n.

C#.#.ic.a

.=

SU3 JECT:

STANDARD DE. INITIONS FOR CCMMONLY-USED SAFETY C' A55*. FICA'1CN

~'

-. v e r.e i a.<.....

,.e.

.3 yri o-

1. . a l i s s ~i.. i.n

'.5 a v...

,'a. =. #... : '. -. ~...

i

.. a.e. 2..

a.

. y 3

.c 1 4.

.'... 5 =.

1. . =..

..'.a'...'.=.-a. i s o o. c.... '. s..a c.., n s # s..=. o-. v a...

.. 3 a I 'A

= t =.... :-...e e.

..w. C.i.;..;.

'e.. 3 :

T o-

..w. e.

.$. D. 'I i '".2 - # c n C. s o$. a.. v

.S.e s #.~ 1 '.".' '. 4. C n *..=....s '.'.e.=. d

1. ..-=..-. a

.*4 y

~

,--,"s sa7Ety TEYiEW and.'*.

'd. Ort specifi-t w.i 4

110SDsing 20:1Y;.Tes.

.o

.In thG 00r.du0 O f.*inA

..s. } ] y,

4..

3....

-3

..L. a..... 3 a 4..

p. 3 p..

3c.

.y,u s a #. *..,v

~,~.2 d,,..a, "

s n

2.,c' c-#,-

j-.

r,.

i....

a

- =.l.:..s. "..=. v a.

%.,. =..n ". e. = d a. ~. #.... a..e

'..n..=...'.c..:=..= M. y, -

'io w c,v s.. o...,.... '. =.. =. y c:nsistant with the efinitiens and usace Cf such te.s ir. :he. s;ula-icr.s, and d

. c i e.s. c -..s.

2.,.13.y i.r..

..u..

....n.. e.

..w. e

.. o. i c-. :...,. s.

- o.

.... 3 4. _. :...,,...

wn

,..c..

J... e.

.a v a.

' s a.., "... d =.-w a.y

1. ..- s....a r..c o-..'. s r~^ w. d.= v a 'N~ o 3 ". #. d.>. n c.=3...-..k. a

~ n s i s..*... ". 2.= c..a c '.... e s.a

.=.....e..

'i...a s.= =. #. #. v-

.s

.5.= v a.

1. . r. - l u. =. d. -

(.> ;" - a. s ' a..' c.

e a ),. r

....~~.

e..

r s3..s.and e.p.;c5, e e. c. r. s.. c. '.. n vi... - a..s. =...'. = - =.

o. 'i.=.

s m.n au n.

u

.:....e

..... g o i n e

..u..a y u

,.. u...e. a.. :c ee.....e. <. S. =.

,y

. o-

..s. e c r-., i l..,.a.. n

. e a :. :.,

,. i e.e.. :.,. e.,.. =... :. ~- i - :.y,

.n,

...=.. s #. ". *

d. i e - "..". #... s.:..... -... :.. #...=...."i.:..., :::

e

(.e. ; e.

2y.].) 3.os t.n

..e...

.iv.3

..2.s:io:

....s

-- -..r-..

s o.

-. c...,.....

w..

y.

.r.

.s - - ] :, s....oq w.

.e.. a

• m.r....e. : - - i n..a j q g.

.... 3 :..s. 3 - 4...~.

2. !. 2.. a. 4../, n...,...s.,.. s. u a

r.s

..o

.ow v

v.

a

.s.3..et.n

.4..s

c. a.4 n.e.. '1 3. 4. O W :. 3 w

1.,.....,.r..e,.e,,-..-_....:....,..s.....

w o

.o

.o

=.:.

..%...e m....s.... e..

3..s

.., g. ;.s. 3 - j,. 3 by.o.

J. o. } *1.%' -0.5 a s d. I 'i.

e W

.n ns s... c. o l a 3

..h o. s 'a m 3 3. *..3, i. gr... nd..g.7C.

a r~d r a. s. # b, #... 3

1. . C r ". s- =. b.y E.6 a".A J.

w.

w e

...e.....

..w. a...,. s.,.

s. g :: p. e.. 4.

g.

e...... j n

..w...,.,j.3....

..... e. e.

6.,....

2..

.o

.?. s.'. . '.'. l.- ' a

..'.",..=d.

'.. '. '. '. i r..... *..-. # C.7 W i. o I C - 3 w.*...

a-..-

1. =v**.'.

..::,,s r

.o n

,. t :.. S.V s

=.....e W. a"

..ng4.3-3 2 -..-.

.#. :.- *. *. * #. i........'..a...*

5.2 # :.,v,

.$,,~. a.

...e."..

^

.c i..

4...

..........g..

.*4...w..-.] c. s.. : -.. e.

s.ay.jv--

s n..m, c,...-..,

s. :.

w e c

.3..,.,,-

e.

3...-g]

c.o.. e. J. o n r.. 3 c-e... y.].s.e.e:.34...s.:.....e g.. s.

5 g e. =. y.t.3.ee:::...e..

icen..c.

,..h..

.....j no'a.-

J..ag.a.ej'4

s.. T. s. p.... i.. s., 3.q A.u.s

.,Ul.d Le

.- a s '. l

1. ... C.'..s n C.= s..,..' :-

d. :- #, #...1 -

3

-t.C.,.5 3.. :.

.o in

.o

.a pn. 'i C.e,,..

u s

f.. ug $ $o-J..a y a. ) C r.a.

s. C :. 2

....., L :.. c l y

..,w

.. vi

..o

.o w

s w*.'. c... *#.... '. 4. 5

.I

'. a. #... 3, '. - 'n' *. V a..

'.. '. 'd. * #. #..~. #.. #... $ #...

. '. -: =.. ~..

.]r....

..... i. s.

L..

.i

.-. o.e.. /. 2. - e. s.

4 a.e..

os.s s.

2. n.

e. x. - o. l d

u. m.3. y- ] i. c. s. w e..e.....

n s

e w

.a..

y sii o" ;..":.,...- e....... s. ] jo-gli

.e..

.-..e C.

C u." s ' #..:.,V,

"*Y

.W 2.". d l i..:.. s i.. 2 '.. #. ". #., #. :.e 2...d 5.kn o, 'td s.a.

1 -

o

z. ),y

. g :. 6 a. e..

?.

i r.

e.n.

. ~ o 1..:... y

, {.s.1. ~

.a. -...... 3.

-o yr r..

~

s T

a A*d 9

(d7 t'N (Nl 3 AA' r y m.p.4. s Q,y' M y' f [

l lPf

)

)

~.

. 3 Fe s:nnel r

-2

_*...,:=...

...g=..-.

a ;

.... -...n :.

. i.

It is ex;ected taa: niner edit: rial.. revisions will have to be :.ade to s e

~

.xis...., -

",......-e a-

= -- %--, s i.n c rc.

......=,..='..'.=1..d..... -... s. s..=... '.. '.-

r e

~

h es e c e fi..i ti e nsl.',......,You shculd review the reguia::ry guidance documents within

~

/ cur pu view in this regard and' rec:rcend the necessary changes; it is n::

upec ed :..1: this wil.1. involve extensive revision eff:rts.

I Want to,nake 1

..v

..e*

.5 =.- a i s ' e n i y' i n a.e. '..'.',1 '..e.h i.. - 'w.... s. s..=... v 1'...'. = '...~: a, =.

4

sed by a'.'. :cgni:an: groups within NTJ in ex;ressing cur ecanical recuirements.

• . is r.w....,v i.. *..=... *. w.. k v '.5 i s "a c.i c'..

'w-d i c's...=.,a.w*..=.'......'.'t u '.. =... =. n..e.

, +,

w, dify existing te:hnical req'uirements, er ::

.,.3

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

br ade,n -he exist.ing sc pe of tp.o. 3 5..e..

.3

.y:.,,

+.. ? c..

'r...~.

w-.....

. ~. -.

~.

/y

~

~..

[t D

~ m

-.,...: ~

u.. -

a

?-

.u. = r. i. s.

.e.. ns e n.. n,

..l l.-...:.-

V. :...s

.y g M.. =.2

• =.:..-.. 2. :., j.2 - 4..

w.

C.

..m. e. t

.t.. m.o

,, :....e. 2. ;..

-a....

. c.,,1.., s _- _-.

e

.,4

'...:.~.

- -.:. *, y e.

o g

2

y

.)-

4 J e

. ~. -..... -

.. ~.. -.

• h-

~.

...m...,..u.....,

n..

a.

=.

.......... =....

- - ~ ~.

= - -....

-.=. -l = = %*..=

...,......r ;.

?.. '-* 1. t....

......~,.d'...=

--L. n. : --.

.. s..-

.. ~ ;.

11 i t

.:..."_=.L.

-.. c*.

c. : a. y ::.., *.... -. -.-

9;.-

i.v.

... w s..

.a

-.3.,

J.s:.

,.L..

. - -. ~. -

.i....>.....-

.v

a......:, :

u. -a:sw

..... _...w..-g=.=. v

- - =,... ~... :

=..

_._s..

Ocfiniti:n

, c...

. r = 10 CFR 507.. Ap cen.. dix A. ( Gen. era l.De. si.en t,-i:3, ia.

s.= = #. #.... =5..I.-

n. :.,..

. _....s.

'Tnose sti acti:res,systemF,~and 'ch=;cnents -h i d i e

tha* the #a:ili;y can he cperated without uncue.-isk to he healthv de' ras 5E$abi e

~.J.I a,;

s... i...... 1.....,....

..m....

e and safe.v b : a d......_.......

....:las...

nc:=:a s ses the..

s c'. ;lant, faa:dres, ::vire (.-

renssa,.i) y i..v,t

4....w.

<4 e

..,i

. s. c.

4

.1. a r a.

..,..4.nc..w.e,..,.>......-..-.............-_,..

a.

.- sa.. c.

4.,n.,ns Teci 1:y ::e a t en- (1.e., ner:al opera 5.,1,.

4.n a.

s r

...s. ~.e. a.. - -

r..go.e s

.i:n an:

.a s.,.

s..o.....,.

.a.:ie

. el 33 wel)

, -..: r...,....

nel ude..s.. Sa f aty. Gra de. (

.r,.. safa:y-Rela ted) as a su: set.

v. -..,-.

.e s a :a:.

.a.-

e._.....,_........._.._..v=-:r....

.... =...

.....:.:..;........._..... r..... g..

affniticn - Fre: 10 CFR 100, A;;endi:

A - sae secti:n:. III.(:), y;,3,(1), 33g

..s..s...

i... e s........ -.

.e.. s *..=.~.a e

.. a..e s d a s #. :.. =. d.

a

.,, u..

(.,1.e.,....... s :

4

. -..... >.... :...'.-. #.... c '

e.. -

sc...y e....o..e..s) e e 2.v.-

3.,...

.....,.s,

-,. e. c......,.,y s

j

...y r

..y.

. - =.., -.. - c...,.t a r... - a.e.. "..- -.'.~......=.v,

,)

6.,

,..., w :

4../.

..n..

..t. o

. 1c.,,.

,4

.e....,..

e

.e a..,

)

.w.

,,..,.u.1 : 1.y., < -. y...

.. 4.. :.,.,.w.

y.....w

.. r..

3

.a.......

..s..,...

.r...........a w..

.e. *..= a.....

. - =.

. -..,. =... =..

.m

.1 c..:..,,.

s..

c.,...

.,r..

..'. a a

a._

.e..,./..

• , c.. y u. : a. 1..n.,. v1s san 1.m...,....:.

o

.....:._, 1,...; n.s.:... :

t. #. w../ p n }.:. o d. "

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

.......s.

g*..-".**.".-.c,

• y e * = =.a. g,.s p. e e.........=.a...-

a. s. e... e.

.... V. 4.

a,...

e....- e.o. t..- e. 4

.c. 4..

t. o.. e. =.4 3. n. g.

ng.;j.4.

.,3

_e.

_3 4..

f

.J 4

a C' m.e J.a.=.

.r., a...

4..r

.. c. a d. e. d.

e,.e...

• m

,,'.,.g y.s e.. e.,..a

• i. a.

.-..... '6 s..s l =. 3

4....

i.,.e,,.....

a

0..: P. t.

3,

. a..,y

.e

., 4. J. 4.,.

. a..

1. ..,,.1 *1 1'.f.

....y-

...m..e.g.m.. + s =..n (g.a.

.= s..

e.

• sdn

.s m g.2.* *a '.

ns

. *. 3

. = ~.. =.

s-

.y

.N., y-o... *.'

c.,

I'.

..<......e).,

.u.,.y.

, 4.......

4..

i n

.e..... a. w.k..s '.

w

<, < _,.. s d 4 4. t. e o n *. }.s.. :-u.t - a.

• b..s p.

.S = 4. #..~. J. *. i....

4... ]?..... J.F. f'l,

a

..a e.,.,.,n j ;, a s..,. d 4.. J..,,....

n.

i.

I n *n o

,* '.5 2 - a

b. a. *.*r a. a..=.

• b. o 3

}.,, S

4. s.,.. s.,

w.. e.... j.

y,. e.. J J. c.s s 3--

.n.

a...d... # s '.. d. *.- e..'... w# #..'.

• a..=.- d #.. :-.a a,..>..*.

..a

.. u

... a..n..=. i.. a. a. #.

" a.3. #.,s. *.Vl - e '4 a

• a g n s

..a. s

• 6s

-s'6.s 4.

..e.'.i..

p t

s c e.

...a a /. u 3 :. y i.,

e.a n.....,..,.

4 y..ct.

. u..

n

3..,. ;,,

n

s. 3 s

...... s 3 /. *. -,13-ie s

n

...n...

v 4.

y...

A e

t u.

- }

7

.c.

Sa fe:v ~ra de

.-o se.

n::

used explicitly.in..._re gul a ti o.... -ns but widely v:ad/a;;iied b

, and indus;ry i.n sa fe y revie.w.. <~r; ess.

. ~-

. a.,n..

~

~ ~. :

}, o E:uiva i en:.'c "Sa fe:E-Relatsd','i.e..

.-w

..c a.,..,,.c.....c.r._._, n..., e.,,,'.h th ta r: s a ;:Iy t:.

subset.

a.

n...

s...a

~5he:a=e y..

.o

.u

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

..;.g.

......2...

..c.

..v

......u.

=

....:. m.. r......

a.................._.s-

......-,.a...

%.s.v 4

.s

. c, t.

m..,.

.a. 2._

s u.....

~......

+

\\

s...

N.-

~. _ _, - -

g.

I a

i r

r 1

6 O

g g

g

.e l

l.

Copyrighted Document Addressed Under FOIA For hard copy, refer 1:o PDR Folder:FOIA

....................................i 8

OWU

'I

/

FOIA Name & Number:

Pages:

/ O 4

__