Text

Submits Comments from Idvp Participants on Activity/ Ownership of Util & Bechtel,Per Cragin
	ML20212M136
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/29/1982
From:	Cragin J; TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:	Schierling H; 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 5511-212, NUDOCS 8701300017
	Download: ML20212M136 (13)
	v • d • e

U

'R TELEDYNE g,g jz/3p ENGINEERING SERVICI 130 SE COND Avt Nut W ALTH AM W A$$ACMU5l f f 5 02254 tl e617 890 3350 Tw a.7to. 324 7t06 1

November 29, 1982 5511-212 w

Mr. Hans Schierling Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 7920 Norfolk Avenue F

-a Bethesda, MD 20114 Ref: TES (Cragin) Letter to NRC-NRR (Schierling) October 6,1982

Subject:

IDVP Participants - Activity /0wnership of PG&E, Bechtel

Dear Mr. Schierling:

I now have written response from all of the IDVP participants on the subject matter.

I would like to surmiarize their conments for your records.

SWEC (Warren) Letter to TES (Cragin) October 4,1982

/

e "Neither Stone & Webster nor its affiliated companies had any ownership of Bechtel Power Corporation nor did they have any sales to Bechtel Power Corporation in 1980,1981, or 1982."

"A complete disclosure of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and its affiliated companies business dealings and ownership of PG&E was disclosed in Section 1 of Stone & Webster's proposal to PG&E of December 1981.

Copies of this information is attached. t Since that time, Stone & Webster's sales to PG&E have increased by virtue of the independent design verification program in the amount of $500,000 directly to PG&E and an additional $1,740,000 as a subcontractor to Teledyne.

No changes in ownership have taken place since December 1981. The percentage of sales to PG&E outlined above is a fraction of 1% of Stone & Webster's annual sales."

RFR (Reedy) Letter to TES (Cragin) September 24,1982 e

o "1.

Our firm has had no contracts with PG&E.

i8 2.

Our firm has one contract with Bechtel for consulting services on the Hope Creek project.

3.

R. F. Reedy, Inc. started business on June 1,1981.

4.

Total billings to Bechtel amount to $4,879.00.

5.

Total billings to all firms invoiced is $1,634,616.01.

6.

Percentage of Bechtel billings to total billings is 0.3%."

[

0701300017 870122 PDR FOIA HOLMES86-151 PDR ENGINEERS AND f.iETALLURGisTs

Mr..Hans Schierling "sPTELEDYNE November 29, 1982 Page 2 ENGINEERING SERVIC j

RLCA (Denison) Letter to TES (Cragin) November 22, 1982 e

"RLCA has not caned financial interest in Pacific Gas and Electric Company or Bechtel Power Corporation.

The extent of RLCA engineering services provided to Pacific Gas & Electric Company is discussed in RLCA (Cloud) letter to the NRC (Denton) February 11, 1982. Further RLCA did not provide engineering services to Bechtel Power Corporation in the previous two years."

AKI (Kusko) Letter to TES (Cragin) September 30, 1982 e

"Neither Alexander Kusko, Inc., nor Alexander Kusko, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust, held any stock or bonds of Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

and Bechtel Power Corporation, nor did any t,usiness with the two organizations during the years 1980, 1981, 1982."

JWW/ Tech Ed (Wheaton) Note to TES (Cragin) October 1,1982 e

"1.

I do not own stock in either PG&E or Bechtel.

2.

I have no business relationship with either PG&E or Bechtel."

FMA (Nahikian) Letter to TES (Cragin) October 6,1982 e

" Confirming our telephone response of this morning, this letter will formally advise you that Foster-Miller has neither ownership of, nor made any sales to either, Pacific Gas & Electric or Bechtel Power Corporation for the years 1980,1981, and 1982."

G0/RPS Letter (Auci) to TES (Cragin) October 8, 1982 e

"Your letter, reference 5511-151, requested Reactor Plant Services to furnish infccmation for years 1980, 1981 and 1982 of any ownership by the company or parent corporation of stocks, bonds, etc. of Pacific Gas & Electric or Bechtel Power Corporation.

We have been informed by Mr. W. Wells at the corporate office that,to the best of his knowledge General Dynamics Corporation does not itself have beneficial ownership of stocks or bonds of Pacific Gas &

Electric or of Bechtel Power Corporation; although it is possible that Pacific Gas & Electric securities could be included in one or another of various General Dynamics employee retirement plans, profit sharing, or savings plans."

"In answer to your second question, Electric Boat, a prime defense contractor and the nation's leading builder of nuC' ear submarines for the U.S. Navy has not to the best of their knowledge entered into any business agreements with PG&E or Bechtel during the three year period stated in your referenced letter."

Mr Hans Schierling "pcTELEDYNE

~

e November 29, 1982 Page 3 ENGINEERING SERVI

\\

H H & B Letter (Biggs) to TES (Cragin) October 20, 1982 e

"In reply to your letter of 25th September,1982, we provide below the information requested:

1.

Hansen, Holley and Biggs Inc. has owned no stock or bonds of Pacific Gas and Electric or Bechtel.

2.

H.H.& B. Inc. has done no business with PG&E or Bechtel during i

the last three years."

e Abendruh, Subcontractor to Robert L.

Cloud Associates - RLCA (Denison) Letter to TES (Cragin) November 22, 1982 "In reference to the attached TES letter 5511-145, the response for Abendruh Inc., and Dr. R. McNeill is zero for items 1, 2a and 2b (reference P105-4-850-310).

Note 1, 2a, 2b, refer as follows:

1.

Ownership of PGLE and Bechtel for years 1980, 1981, 1982.

2a. Dollar volume of business with PG&E and Bechtel.

2b. Percent sales attributed to PG&E and Bechtel.

. I believe this sumary provides all of the information you requested.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours, TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES p

ohn Q. Cragin, P. E.

Manager Project Administration JQC:cjr cc:

W. E. Cooper (TES)

9 a Engineerisig

~

linnne,cment Spentna r C.O. Richnreinon i

8 a

Project Mnnnger F. Sentak, Jr.

I Project Construction Engineer Qunlity Asnur.

J.E. Krocliting S.W. Harnnow LE AD CONIROL LEAD

,t t A 0 LEAD NUCLEAR CONSUL 1 AHl $

SY3 tines E L E C1Ric At.

Pow [A TECIINotoef 5 et amets E NGttit t R E NGINi f R ENelNEER ENttNEER W Cheeboeteen JL Ceee J " Odd

EJ Res 4.s t il.a berer

_K.A. Svenson u v ned eie l

A R wetest

f. f releth

_suPPORI J It'll (Hotel [ERS

-al Ar f o

FIGURE I

PROJECT ORGAHlZ ATIOil DESIGN VERiflCATION PROGRAM TOR POMR ASCEllSlott OI ABLO Cart (Ori flUCLE AR POWER PL AN T - U:ll T I PAClflC GAS f. ELECTRIC COMPAl#Y slotsE E. WE SST ER (NOtHEf AING COHPO A 4 TIOF4 l

A e

August 1982 l'RECHTING, JOHN E.

SUPERVISOR POWER DIVISION EDUCATION U.S. Naval Academy - Bachelor of Science, Naval Science 1965 LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer - Rhode Island EXPERIENCE

SUMMARY

Mr.

Krechting has over 16 years experience in the engineering field.

Currently, as Supervisor of the Systems Engineering Group, he is responsible for ' the development and maintenance of fluid system descriptions for the SW.C reference / standard nuclear, fossil, and industrial plants; development and maintenance of fluid system related Power Division Technical Procedures and Guidelines; and resolution of any generic fluid system design problems.

Since joining SWEC in July 1974 as an Engineer in the Power Division,' he has been assigned to the Charlestown Nuclear Power Plant p roj ect, which was in the design development and PSAR production stage; to the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) 3,000 MWt' Reference II Design Study for General Atomic Cocpany which developed a conceptual reference plant design; and tc the Sundesert Nuclear Plant. project which was in the design development and P.SAR production stage.

Mr. Krechting was assigned as the Principal Nuclear Engineer on the North Anna Power Station - Units l ' and 2 project, and subsequently as the Lead Power Engineer on the North Anna Power Station project.

Prior to joining SWEC, he was employed by Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems as a Senior Systems Engineer on the project to determine the feasi-bility of floating nuclear power plants.

He then worked o5 the nuclear and reactor auxi.liary systems design development for the Offshore Power Systems' floating nuclear power plants.

He also has 6 years experience in the operation and maintenance of U.S. Navy submarine nuclear power plants, including two years as the Chief Engineering Of ficer of a nuclear submarine power plant.

ISVa6-1515 1

DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD kT.ECHTING, JOHN E.

50109 STONE & kT.BSTER ENGINEERING CORPORAT* 3N. BOSTON, MA (July.19 7!. to Present)

Appointments:

Supervisor, Systems E'ngineering Group - July 1980 Senior Power Engineer - March 1979 Power Engineer - December 1977 Engineer, Power Division - July 1974 l

Systems Engineering Group. Power Division (July 1980 to Present)

As SUPERVISOR of the Systems Engineering Group, directly responsible for development of Reference Fossil Power Plant (RFPP) fluid systems design, including preparation and maintenance of system descriptions and P&ID's; development of Reference Nuclear Power Plant (RNPP) fluid systems design, including preparation and maintenance of systen descriptions and P&ID's; development of the Industrial Reference Power Plant (IRPP) fluid systems design, including preparation and maintenance of system descriptions and P&ID's; development and maintenance of system-related Power Division Tech-nical Procedures and Guidelines; and resolution of nuclear and fossil plant fluid system related generic engineering and design probles reports ' and development of preferred solutions.

North Anna Power Station - Unit 2, Virginia Electric and Power Company (June 1978-July 1980)

As LEAD P0k'ER ENGINEER, directly responsible for the supe rvision and

~

4 administrative control of all Power. Division personnel -assigned to the p roj e ct, including nuclear, mechanical, facilities and piping engineers and designers; technical responsibil'.ty for the power plant's nuclear systems, steam _ plant systems, and liVAC systems, including equipment and piping arrangements, conformance to design codes, performance calculations, and l

d rawings ; preparation and techn::al adequacy cf nuclear, steam plant and liVAC equipment and process, specifications; coordination and approval of proj ect work performed by the Power Division staff groups; development of engineering man-hour estimates and schedules to ensure timely completion of work; and coordination of interface between the Power Division and other engineering disciplines, such as Structural, Electrical, Engineering Mechanics, and Control Divisions.

North Anna Power Station - Units 1 and 2, Virginia Electric _

and Power Company (Aug 1977-June 197S)

As PRINCIPAL NUCLEAR ENGl?.T.ER, directly 'recponsibic for th[ technical dmirn of the p Jnt's r.u C ear and nuCkeJr auXk kury syUteOS, knC udIng ply:n$

a r ran gement s,

conformance to design codes, and prepsration of design

^

calculations.

Also responsible for the supervicica and coordination of the engineers :n the ';nclear Engineering Group, inclu,!;ng the :ch~duling of v: h and for the pr parat:en of nuclear equipment specificatiens and pur. chase c ders.

7 5b" o-1515 1

J}K Sundesert Nuclear Power Plant. San Diego Cas & Electric Company (Jan 1976-Aug 1977)

As ENGINEER, directly responsible for coordination of the layout of the annulus building to ensure compliance with system design criteria, con-formance with NRC high energy line criteria, optimization of space utili-

=ation, and development of layout requirements.

Developed PSAR write-ups for the NSSS systems, including reactor coolant system, chemical and volume control, residual heat removal, and safety injection.

Responsible for liaison with the NSSS vendor to resolve interface requirements.

3,000 MWt Reference II Desien Study, General Atomic Company As ENGINEER, coordinated the design of the piping and equipment arrangement inside the containment with the goal of reducing HTGR plant costs.

The various disciplines coordinated to accomplish this cost reduction included structural, pipe stress, engineered safeguards, and engineering mechanics.

The ' work included development of containment' structures; analysis of high energy line break (both for pipe restraint and containment design pressure dete rmina tion); application of high temperature pipe stress criteria to piping arrangement; arrangement and location of pipe whip restraints.

Responsible for developing pipe sizes for the major steam (main, bot, and cold reheat) and the feedwater systems within the cons traints of minimum costs, pipe stress criteria, allowable pressure drops, and maximum fluid velocities.

1200 MW Nuclear Power Plant, New England Power Comcany a'ad Central Maine Power Comoany, Power Plant (July 1974-July 1975)

As ' ENGINEER, responsible for the development of design criteria and implementation of those criteria for the layout and arrangement of the plant's annulus building.

Responsible for the development of design bases,

. system description, equipment specifications, and PSAR write-ups for several NSSS an.d reactor auxiliary systems, including chemical and volume control, residual beat removal, boron recove ry, liquid waste, gaseous waste, and solid waste.,

In addition, coordinated the development of the Source Term section of the PSAR and Environmental Report.

PWR SYSTEMS DIVISION AND OETSHORE POWER SYSTEMS, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (Aug 1971 - Jun 1974)

As SENIOR SYSTEMS ENGINEER, responsible for design of the reactor plant cuxiliary systems (i.e. component cooling water, service wat r, spent fuel pool cooling and purification, containment leak detection,' combustible gas centrol).' Responsibilities included development of design criteria, con-formance to design codes, PSAR write-ups, system descriptions, heat talance and flutd flow calculations, and equipment specifications.

Supervised the laycut and arrangement of assigned systems.

75V.6-1815 2

JEK U.S. NAW - NUCLEAR SUE 1\\RINE FORCE (June 1965-July 1971)

As CHIEF ENGINEER, responsible for the operation and maintenance of the nuclear submarine's propulsion plant.

Directed ship's force and coordinated shipyard ork during an extensive submarine overhaul.

Supervised 4 officers and 35 enlisted men.

4 0

em 9

9 e

e 4

k e

e O

6 e

O O

9 7.* ~ '-p - 1515 3

September 1982 SkINSON, KARL A.

P0k'ER ENGINEER POWER DIVISION

~

EDUCATION Worcester Polytechnic Institute Bachelor of

Science, Mechanical Engineering 1974 Northeastern University - Graduate Courses in Mechanical Engineering LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS Professional Engi-neer - Massachusetts Nuclear Reactor Operator EXPERIENCE SIM1ARY Mr. Svenson is a Power Engineer in the Power Division, experienced in the engineering, design, optimization, and construction of nuclear and fossil electrical generating stations.

Currently be is assigned to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Design Verification effort after recently completing a study of steam generator replacement for a Japanese utility.

Previously he was assigned to the' Power Division's Studies Group where he served as Project Engineer for a variety of nuclear, fossil, alternative energy, and cogeneration studies for utility, industrial, university, and government clients.

He was' in direct charge of these activities and had overall responsibility for project execution,

schedule, and budget performance.

[

o Since joining Stone. & k'ebster Engineering Corporation (SkT.C) in June 1974,

,Mr. Swenson has been assigned as an Engineer on several nuclear power plant projects in various stages of completion, including Virginia Electric and Power Company's North Anna Power Station, consisting of three 925-Mk' Pk2 plants.

He also was Coordinating Engineer responsible for a variety of retrofit act'ivities and station modifications at VEPCO's Surry Units 1 and 2 and North Anna Unit 1 PkR projects after their initial operation.

Mr. Svensen functioned as the Project Engineer on a $30,000,000 water treatment project at Surry Power Station.

He was responsible for the 4

detailed' engineering and design, construction, and start-up of two full-flow, mixed bed, condensate solishing systems and building.

Including Surry, he has been the responsible engineer for six condensate polishing systems representing a total of 100,000 gpm of installed capacity.

As part of his project experience, Mr. Svenson was arsigned the responsi-j bilities of Assi:, tant Hesd of the Field Exter.:,ien ifSce at the %:-tb a -a Power Station construction site.

He was remonsible for the eneineer.nz resolution of problems., n d design changes associated with a variet; of nuclear and secondary plant systems.

I 75V46-1131 1

2 l

-}as Mr. Svenson has also been assigned to the Great Northern Paper Company's Coal Conversion Project, responsible for implementing plant modifications to convert large industrial boilers to coal firing.

Prior to joining the North Anna Project, he was assigned to the Oswego Units Nos. 5 and 6, 820.W fossil fuel projects where he was responsible for various rotating equipment and water treating systems.

Before joining SVEC, Mr. Swenson was an AEC licensed reactor operator for a research nuclear reactor.

His responsibilities were plant operation, radioisotope production and control, and participation in research projects.

~

s e

TSV;6-1131 2

1 DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD SVENSON, TARL A.

89350 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, BOSTON, MA (June 1974 to Present)

Appointments:

Power Engineer - Oct 1981 Engineer, Power Division - June 1974 Diablo Canyon Power Station - Unit 1 (1200-MV PWR), Pacific Gas and ' Electric Company (June 1982 to Present)

As PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, responsible for confirming the design of the auxiliary feedwater system as part of an independent design verification program.

Steam Generator Replacement Study, Mihama 2 and Takahama 1 (470 and 780 MV PVR) s Kansai Electric Power Ccmpany hitsubishi Heavy Industries Limited (Mar 1982-May 1982)

As POWER ENGINEER, coauthored a report describing details of completed U.S.

steam generator replacement jobs and developed. conceptual designs to replace steam generators at two Japanese units.

The conceptual designs provided drawings, estimated radiation exposure, schedules, costs, vaste quantities, and tradeoff studies between alternate methods of replacement.

Details of potential problem areas and recommended solutions were provided.

Studies Group, Power Division (Oct 1979-Jan 1981 and Sept 1981-Feb 1982)

As POWER ENGINEER assigned as Project Engineer responsible for a variety of

' feasibility and conceptual studies.

Technical reports were prepared for nuclear-and fossil projects evaluating system alternatives and for government, industrial, and academic clients evaluating alternative energy Typically,' power cycle and fuel types were evaluated for plant and sources.

site-specific alternatives.

These alternatives included cogene. ration, fluidized bed combustion, conventional stoker coal firing, and various conservation techniques.

Fuel cost studies and cost p r.oj ec tion, site studies, capital cost estimates, cycle optimization, environmental and institutional issues were evaluated.

Participated in macheting efforts that included proposal preparation, man-hour estimates, presentstions to pror.pective clients, and pr paration of project. scopes of work.

Prepared the bcilcr feci pucp cpt ini. ation stu.!ies for t!m C. l ! - Ti 2.d K C - T.

reference fossil ccul plants.

Also evsluated seccadary plar.t systems for the British 1,200-We L"JhR.

75V'6-1131 1

KAS Coal Conversion Project, Millinocket Mill - Boilers 1 and 2, Great Northern Paper Company (Jan 1981-Aug 1981)

As POWER ENGINEER, responsible for implementing various plant modifications necessary to convert the existing boilers to coal firing.

Duties included specification preparation, purchase order administration, interfacing with construction and planning activities, and providing engineering support for project detailed design work.

North Anna Power Station - Unit 3 (950-MW PWR),

Virginia Electric and Power Comnany (Aug 1979-Oct 1979)

As ENGINEER assigned to the Nuclear Engineering Group, responsible for the reactor coolant and Nuclear Steam Supply System vendor supplied systems, decay heat renoval system, containment vacuum and leakage monitoring systems.

Additional duties included review of current NRC regulatory guides to develop recommendations for client position statements and implementation, coordinating the activities of a multidiscipline grcup to prepare the asymmetric subcompartment pressure analysis and to assist in the development of effective shielding to minimize exposure from ' neutron streaming.

Also responsible for developing the radiation monitoring system and specifications.

Surry Nuclear Power Station - Units 1 and 2 - (800-HV pWR),

North Anna Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 - (925-MW PWR),

Virginia Electric and Power Company (Oct 1977-Aug 1979)

As COORDINATING ENGINEER, responsible for developing an'd implementing a test and start-up program organized to allow Surry Units 1 and 2 to meet NRC license criteria and to quickly return to power 'after major plant modifications.

Modifications included steam g ene ra t'o r, ceplacement, condensate polishing sytems, makeup water treatment systems, containment cooling, and a variety of smaller modifications in the secondary and primary plant.

Functioned as a PROJECT ENGINEER on a $30,000,000 water treatment project.

Overall responsibility was to ensure the timely engineering, construction, and start-up of two full-flow mixed bed condensate polishing systems with their regeneration and waste handling systems; a 40,000 sq f t, two-story steel-framed building, and to provide engineering services to. assist in the engineering of a makeup water treatment system. Specific duties included providing design basis engineering, development, and review of all design l

group

drawings, secondary plant transient

analysis, and coordinating i

r..ul tid i s c ipline staff group, client, and construction activities between a completed less than two years af ter authorization.

groups.

The psoject was Tield ten.n n_0ffice (FXO), Mineral, Virginia, North Ar.na Pv.e r > t c t v t: Un i t.s 1,

2, and 3 (925-MV P'R)

Vi rcinia E1cet ric.,nd 0 xcr Comnany (July 1976-OctI l977)

As ASSISTANT HEAD of the FXO (February 1977 to October 1977) and as ENGINIER (July 1976 to January 1977), responsibilities included making commitments for engineering to su port construction activ2 ties in the final' stages.of Unit I construction and start-up, the the North Ar.n a Pever Station 7SV-6-1131 2

as reviewing and signing of engineering documents for the Head of the FXO in his absence, and the engineering support activities.

Activities included.

assistance in the design of a full-size pump test facility to test NPSH characteristics of the containment Recirculation Spray and LHSI pumps, responsibility for running the test

program, and assistance in the evaluation of the data received.

Additionally, responsible for the resolution of design changes and nonconformities.

Where necessary and when requested, assisted in the start-up and testing of plant systems.

North Anna Power Station - Units 1 and 2 (925-MV PWR)

Virginia Electric and Power comoany (Nov 1974-July 1976)

As ENGIhT.ER assigned to the Mechanical Engineering Group, responsible for implementing the change to "All Volatile Treatment" for the secondary plant water. chemistqr and the layout, design, and procurement of two full-flow powdered resin condensate polishing systems and their associated waste systems.

Included in this was upgrading and increasing the capacity of the existing steam generator blowdown system and design changes to the condensate a:d feedwater system.

Additionally, responsible for answering Nuclear Regulatory Corr. mission questions concerning secondary plant systems and updating and revising the FSAR.

Oswego Steam Station - Units Nos. 5 and 6 (820-MW Oil-Tired)

Niagara Mohawk PowersCorporation (June 1974-Oct 1974)

As ENGINEER, responsible for the full-flow deep bed condensate polishing

systems, mixed bed makeup demineralizers, and their waste treatment facilities.

Additional duties included specification" preparation and equipment procurement.

Nuclear Reactor Facility Vorcester Polytechnic Institute (Dec 1972-June 1974)

As AEC LICENSED NUCLEAR REACTOR OPERATOR, responsible for performing nuclear laberatory experiments including the instruction for the use and operation of the research reactor and the various support laboratory equipment, including multichannel gamma ray spectrometers.

Additional duties included the production, handling, and control of radioisotcpes produced by neutron activation analysis experiments.

s 75VI.6-1131 3

.s-so rt-UNITED STATES

['

~j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssincron. o. c. 2esss T,

. ; y **

June 30, 1982 CH AIRMAN The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chaiman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representative's Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Tnis monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093.

Enclosed is our twentieth report covering the period from Pay 15,1982 to June 15, 1982.

This twentieth report discusses actions that were taken during this period on operating reactors and on ifcensing reviews of new facilities.

Recently, a change in the construction completion date was announced by the utility for Grand Gulf (from Pay 1982 to June 1982).

On June 15, 1932.

the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued a low-power licensa for Grand Gulf Unit 1.

Since many applicant construction completion da tes have slipped,

the Coanission has revised the decision dates for full-power licenses in Table :

to be commensurate with the applicant's need for a full-power license.

The previous column in Table 1 titled Connission Decision Date has,been replace:

with two columns to reflect a Commission Decision on the immediate effective.

ness of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) decision and Cormiissio:

decision on a full-power license.

Operating licenses restricted to up to 5 rated power are nomally issued by th'e Director, Office of Nuclear Reacto Fagulation, af ter a faYorable ASLB decision.

On Pay 22,1982, the NRC issued a Final Safety Evaluation Report favorable t the restart, of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

The plant restarted c Pay 22.

The Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission (NRC) is developing generic recer mendations concerning the steam generator tube rupture problem as discussed '

this report. The report also discusses current NRC actions on fire protectier the status of the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 and Indian Point hearings, and ti actions taken by the licensees of plants with auxiliary feedwater headt damage.

Sincerely,

,. m

~

Nun::io J. Palladino

Enclosure:

NRC Ponthly Status Report I

to Congress p

ki cc:

The Honorable John T. P/ers 8;rotrJec(6%

7 9

2.

Diablo Canyon Unit 1 - On March 19, 1982, the staff accepted Teledyne Engineering Services as the manager for the independefit design verification:

program.

The NRC staff approved the Phase i plan on April 27th. An audit quality assurance progran, including implenentation, of PG&E and of seismic service-related contractors, has been completed by R. F. Reedy as a Teledyr.

subcontractor.

The conclusions of this audit raise questions as to tha act of the PG&E quality assurance program in other than design activities. Tel as program manager, will issue an appraisal of the Reedy report.

Teledyne also issue an appraisal of the activities of the Phase 1 program. A manage meeting between PG&E, Teledyne and NRC took place on June 10, 1982 at Walt!

Massachusetts. The staff has under consideration the question of expandin; scope of the reverification program required of this unit prior to fuel lo decision on this issue will be made before currently, ongoing activities in the Phase I program are completed.,0etailed semi-monthly status reports o program activities are being issued by PG&E, Teledyne,' R. t.. Cloud Associa and R. F. Reedy, Inc.

3.

Shoreham Unit 1_ - The hearing started May 4,1982 and is expected to cont'

'well into the summer and fall of 1982. Currently there are about 40 open items,17 which relate to hearing issues. On June 11, 1982, the Commissic approved a final amendment concerning Emergency Planning to 10 CFR 50 and l

Appendix E.

The rule provides that for the issuance of an operating lice-authorizing fuel loading and operation to 5". of rated power, no NRC or FE review, findings, and detenninations concerning the state or adequacy of 4

of fsite emergency preparedness shall be necessary.

The rule also specifi that emergency preparedness exercises are part of the oper ational inspect

-[ c.....,

UNITED STATES l

%v f -lp

,[ c.'g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION k

f

g wasHmo ton. o. c. 2ons q

r 7t t :.

YAf r

(

n JUL1 1982 Dr. William Cooper Teledyne Engineering Services 130 Second Avenue Waltham, Massachusetts 02254

Dear Dr. Cooper:

During our meeting of June 10, 1982 I noted that Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), a staff consultant, was preparing a report of studies perfomed to aid in our review of the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

I also indicated that I would provide that report to Teledyne Engineering Services for its use in the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP). A pre-print copy of the final report entitled " Independent Seismic Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Containment Annulus Structure and Selected Piping Systems" is enclosed.

All supporting technical documentation such as computer input and output is available for further infonnation.

The Brookhaven study is a detailed analysis of certain aspects of the seismic response of the containment annulus steel structure and a sample of attached piping at Diablo Canyon Unit No.1.

In addition to indepen-dent modelling of the annulus steel structure and piping, Brookhaven also independently developed vertical floor response spectra at all elevations of the annulus structure and performed an independent analysis of two piping systems supported by the annulus structure.

All computer codes employed were verified and results were checked with other codes available in the public domain. Since early results indicated significant differences between the Brookhaven calculations and the original work by URS/Blume and PG&E, Brookhaven was also requested by the staff to attempt duplication of the original analyses using the models and computer inputs developed by URS/Blume and PG&E.

Our initial review of the report has lead us to conclude that, as a minimum, the following items require further exploration and assessment as to their generic implications.

1.

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

2.

The mathematical model used in the original analysis apparently considered the joints between the beams and columns to be rigid whereas the Brookhaven interpretation of the drawings indicate these joints are more appropriately considered flexible (shear carrying only).

I,a Qh r

F' 2..

3.

Statements on page 11 of the URS/Blume May 1979 report "Diablo i

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 r.athematical model used in the original analysis.

4.

The response spectrum smoothing techniques employed in the original analyses appears inconsistent with the F54R commitments.

5.

Design dimensions were apparently used instead of the as-built dimensions in the two piping problems sampled (PG&E piping models, 6-11 and 4A-26).

6.

The 50 bends in the piping analysis were apparently modelled as long radius bends.

This has the effect of softening the model and reducing the natural frequencies.

7.

The piping support forces computed by the BNL model are much larger than those computed by the PG&E model.

As I stated at our meeting in Waltham, I recommend that you consider the Brookhaven report in your decision making process for Phase I of the IDVP regarding the seismic design adequacy of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

You should inform us of your views regarding the validity of the BNL results and of their generic implications.

Should you require any clarification on the report, we request that you contact the NRC Project Manager to make the necessary arrangements.

~

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

C.CbRI (C

A G T 's I

i

=

N.Schierli

/, p rgjo, UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.

- l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 S%...../

.JUL 8 1982 Joel Reynolds Esq.

John R. Phillips, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Seismic Verification Program By letter dated June 18, 1982 Teledyne Engineering Services submitted the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP), Phase II Program Management Plan in response to my November 19, 1981 letter to Mr. Malcolm H.

Furbush, Pacific Gas & Electric Company. A copy of the submittal is enclosed for your infomation.

In accordance with my letter of November 19, 1981 you are provided a period of 15 days for filing written coments on the program plan for the design verification.

If you should have any questions on this matter please contact me.

Sincerely, 8

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/out enclosure:

See next page

$ct ukt N ',5 a p o c w o m$ 2 g

~

h f

$Y

pppm ~.- -

m...

7 g

2

yw DISTRIBUTI0ti w/out enclosure g g gg g Document Control (50-275) flRC PDR L POR PRC System tiSIC Joel Reynolds, Esq.

LB#3 Reading I&E John R. Phillips, Esq.

FMiraglia ACRS(16)

Center for Law in the Public Interest HSchierling 10951 West Pico Boulevard JLee Third Floor RTedesco Los Angeles. California 00064 DEisenhut EGCase Gentlemen:

HRDenton LChandler,0 ELD

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Seismic Verification Program By letter dated June 18, 1982 Teledyne Engineering Services submitted the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP), Phase II Program Management Plan in response to my flovember 19, 1981 letter to Mr. Malcolm H.

Furbush, Pacific Gas & Electric Company. A copy of the submittal is enclosed for your infomation.

In accordance with my letter of flovember 19, 1981 you are provided a period of 15 days for filing written cocnents on the program plan for the design verification.

If you should have any questions on this matter please contact me.

Sincerely.

Original Sassed bl H. R. Denton Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/out enclosure:

See next page

!b'l

Seemevious._sonc.urr_a n_c.e c5M.LBd3: 0L, I LBd3: 0L

..OELD t, DL D: ?DR fC, I

i m.q !*HSchierling:cz *FMiraglia *LChandler b.

N/ /

06/23/8'2 7 '06/28/82

01/2/82

/c c,

07/

S2

x

,,(p n n e c k UNITED STATES

{ $ v (/I; NL' CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf

-a(9:j]

e wAsamcros. o. c. mss Q%..

CH AIR AAAN Y

The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman I

Subco rsittee on Energy and Water Development Cormaittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives

'a'ashington 0.C.

20515

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 95-1093.

The enclosed report c vers the period frem June 15,1982 to July 15, 1952, but also includes significant new information since that time.

This twenty-first report discusses actions that were taken during this period on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities.

The total delay in this month's report is seven months, five of which are attributed to Shoreham 1.

Recently, changes :n the construction completion dates have been announced by the utilities for Bellefonte (September 1953 to May 1955), LaSalle 2 '.'anuary 1953 to April 1933), Byron 1 (A:ril.1983

August 1983), ulo Verde 1 (November 1982 to August 1953), Palo Verde 2 (November 1933 to August 1984), and Catawba 1 (0:tober-H54 to N:vember 1984).

The construction c mpletion date for Seabrook has been changed from November 1923 to May 1984.

The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued a low-pcwer license for Grand Gulf, Unit 1, on June 16, 1932, and.a low-p:wer license for Susquehanna, Unit 1,* on July 17, 1982.

Cn July 23, 1932, the Comission authcrized a full-pcwer license for San Oncfre, Unit 2.

The report also discusses current NRC acticns on the status of the Three-Mile Island Unit 1 and Indian Point hearings, Nine Mile Point Unit 1 safe-end rylacement and the acticns taken by the licensees -

of plants with make-up no::le cracking and auxiliary feedwater header damage.

Sincerely, l

~r c2n Q

,7 h-Ae^'

Nu ClLQ(oJUW 7b

}p,nzioJ.Palladino i

1

Enclosure:

lj q

NRC Monthly Status Report to i

Congress cc:

The N norable J:hn T. Myers

,.3

.g.

5.

Diablo Canyon Unit 1 - On March 22, 1982, PG&E announced that Becnte'.

Power Corporatien had been contracted to act as the project completi:n

=anager for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2.

M integrated PG&E organi:ation for the Diablo Canyon project was formed consisting of PG&E anc Becntel pe rs onnel.

Cn June 7,1982, a motion was filed to re-open the record for the p pose of receiving new evidence on alleged breakdcwns in the Diablo Canyon QA/QC program.

On June 18, 1952, PG&E submitted a QA pecgram for the activities of :nat organization, w".ich is under staff review.

On June.18, 1932, Teledy e Engineering Services submitted a program plan for Phase II of the Independent Casign Verification Program (IOVP) that relates to thos'e require ents of the pregram for issuange of a full power license. Teledyne has issTed t e first two, of apprcximately 25-30, interim technical reports en ecmpletec hase I activities of the IDVP.

Tne first report reia:es to the need f:r a::iticnal verification and sampling under the scope of Phase I of the pre; ram; the second report ;revides the Teledyne ccaciusiens re;arding the cuality assurance audits ;erf:n ed by R. F. Reedy.

Tne staff has under consideration the quastien of expanding tne sc::e of the reverification pr: gram recuired of this unit prior to fuel lead.

i decisien en this issue will be made befcre currently en;oir; activities in : e Phase 1 pr:gra.m are cc pleted.

Detailed semi-menthly status reports of the program activities are being issued by PGLE, Teledyne, R. L. Cicud Assectatis, anc R. F. Reedy, Inc.

A UNITED STATES

~

[}g m ' j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.- /

WASW NG TO N. D. C. 20555

%g o.-

,/

AUG 191982 Dr. W. E. Cooper IDVP Project Manager Teledyne Engineering Services 130 Second Avenue Waltham, Massachusetts 02254

Dear Dr. Cooper:

At our meeting on August 6,1982, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) described its corrective action program for Diablo Canyon Unit 1, to respond to findings from your Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) and from its Internal Technical Program (ITP). We have requested PG&E to provide additional detailed infomation on the corrective action program, a copy of the request is enclosed. Since the program also impacts on your IDVP, both in format and schedule, we request that you provide us with the following information, based on your understanding of the PG&E corrective action program.

1.

Identify the error or open items (E0Is) from the IDVP and the ITP which you consider new to be addressed by the PG&E corrective action program.

Recognizing that the E0Is within the scope of a particular element of the program, for example large bore piping analyses and supports, can be resolved as a group, describe the process and method you will apply in that resolution, for example through the issuance of an Interira Technical Report (ITR). Any such resolution of these E0Is should clearly include an assessment of potential generic implications.

2.

In addition, identify those E01s from the PG&E ITP that you consider not to be included in the PG&E corrective action program and the resolutien of which will not be accomplished in the established IDVP/ITP interaction process.

3.

We have requested PG&E to identify the elements of the corrective action program and to provide us with a schedule for the completion of soecific work-packages of those elements.

Based on that scnedule, discuss ycur plan and schedule to review those work-packages. As we stated at the August 6 meeting, we expect to attend and participate in meetings or discussions between you and'PG&E on this matter.

~ -

D

=

Dr. W. E. Cooper,

4.

At the August 6 meeting, you discussed briefly future ITRs on the initial s ampl e.

Provide an updated list of future ITRs including your schedule for submittal to the staff.

5.

The IDVP Semi-Monthly Report, Number 18, states that 177 E0Is have been identified by the IDVP. We request that you include in the Phase I

. Final Report or provide as an ITR a clear record for each E01 (IDVP and ITP).

This includes a description of the original concern, method of resolution and a conclusive statement of the specific resolution.

6.

We have requested PG&E to provide a list of systens, structures and components required for fuel loading and other modes of plant operation.

We intend to provide this information to you for your consideration and request your views.

Some of the information requested above is contingent upon the PG&E submittal of requested information. However, you should provide as much of the information as possible in ' order for the staff to review the information prior to the late August meeting with you and PG&E.

,Si nce rely,

I.

' ff 1{ /l r

s lb"h) d.{ Ei {nho(t, T1 rector E

rreT Division of 1.icensing cc: Mr. G. A. Maneatis, Senior Vice President Facilities Development Pacific Gas & Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106

b

. f.

. q3b i

.m 000.'i~5n L.mp.

~~p

...*c

/

'.i 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

In the Matter of

)

Docke t Nos. 50-275 0.L.

5 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

)

50-323 0.L.

)

6,

( Diablo Canyon Nuclear Powe r

)

( Full Powe r Proceeding)

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2)

)

7 8

RESPONSE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 9

TO GOVEkNOR BROWN'S. NOTION TO REOPE:: THE RECORD i

10l' MALCOLM H.

FURB USH 11 ;

PHILIP A.

CRANE, JR.

l RICHARD F.

LOCKE 12[h Pacific Cas and Electric Company P.

O.

Box 7442 13 i San Francisco, California 94120 4

j (415)781-4211 14 l

ARTHUR C. GEHR 15 l Snell & Wilmer l

3100 Valley Center 16 ;

Phoenix, Ari:ona 85073 l

(602)257-7288 l

17 !

BRUCE NORTON 18 i Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.

3216 N.

Third Street 19 Suite 300 Phoe n ix, Ari:ona 85012 20 (602)264-0033 1

21 !.

I 22 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and E l e c t r '.

C: pan'.

230

~

g 24 P 1

25 !

DATED:

August 16, 1982 o

26 l l

'~~__"f,

{

"aiC619uld J200M PDR ADCCK 05000275

~

4 PDR

-_. A

y o

t I

1 li RESPONSE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C i

TO GOVERNOR BROWN'S MOTION TO REOPEN l

2 HE PROCEEDING TO TAKI EVIDENCE 3

ON QUALITY ASSURANCE 1

4 On Augus t 2,

1982, attorneys for Governor Brown, l x

5l representative of an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 'l 6'

2.715(c), filed a

motion i-requesting the Atomic Sa f e ty and 7

Licensing Board to reopen the record in ene i

full power ~ ciablo I 8'

Canyon licensing proceeding to take evidence on Pacifi c Gas and 9

Electric Company's (PGandE) quality assurance programs for i

1 10 11litoj design and construction of the Diablo Canyo facility,1/

and pe rfo rm a

design review and pnysical inspection structures, systems and components of j 12 impcrtant to safety.

PGandE i i

i 13 l respectfully requests that I

enis Board deny Governor Brown's i i

f 14 l moti.on in all respects for the reasons set forth in

ne ;i

)

15 I following Memorandum of Points and Autnorities and l

16 l supporting material which is incorporated herein by refe tne j I

rence, j

17 MEMORANDUM OF POINTG,. ND AUTHORITIES 3

i 18 l I

19

_ Introduction and Status of the Proceedino 20 On January 26, 1982, the hearing record of the Ciaolol l

21 C

anyon full power licensing proceedings was l

closed sus;ect to,

22 j the filing of the usual closing pleadings.

On I

February 24, !

23 !

1/

similar motion was filed with the 24 1 A

1 I by Joint I

In te rvenors A

Board I

in the low power proceeding.ppeal 25 Board has certified certain questions The Appeal }

cerning the issue of whether the Appeal Board to the Cc: mission 26 <

con-i to rule on the motion.

has jurisdiction

( ALAD-6 81, July 16, 1982.)

.I I

t Il

i, s'

1 1982, PGandE notified the Boa d and the parties

that, as a

2 result of the Independen t De s ign veri'i a l'o..

Program

( f m en 3

PGandE might have to perform additional analsyesof the 4

operr.ted relief valves and their l

associated block valves 5,j contirm their seismic qualification, and

ha*

'e i

6 modifications would be made

", a.4ntain their qualification'

.his was confirmed by the Sta##

7 i-ceard Notification l

~

p"0-5

~o'-

8 ;,

09.

On March 18' 1 982, Governor Brown f ile-a ~-- ion reques ting a

9 s.e Bo a rd to dece.

4 j

'ts decision pending eval ua d n of PGa nd 'r ' s 10 g 3 etter and the Board notific3-e p

g ",.

,n n. p r i., 2, v

i

.s. e coa a 11 L ruled that:

ei 12b "No final j udgme n t w i 7', w ma t te r un til such this y

I 13y evaluation can be Eale horougn c'e di scove red, relevant informa t en,0

lY f

15 l On May 13,

1982, Governor grow 1 filed 2"a. -

ano the r maticn 16 ;p concernin9 the status of pGandE'*-

4'">.stigation into tne ma tta s -

l 17 i covered in Board Notification PNC-5-82-09.

Cn wune 14, 193,,

18 this Board denied Governor Brown's latest motion f or the reasons 19 set forth in its order, 20 l Cn Sep tembe r 28, 19 81, PGa nd E noti'ied 21 i Administrator C~

the.NRC's Re91on V Cffica o-Anspection and s

22,

n-orcement o' a otential problem e

4-w f

'oe analys:s of pipinc

,'3' systems contained in

-ke annu.us area u

t su 24 ll

. a.

COntai,"a,-

buildd-n3 In response, the Stae< issued Boa *d

<<< Cation

'No '

l 25 I 81-27 and scheduled the I'

<4 l

--rst c,

a series o<

.~ e e *-.4 ncs wi -

26 l' PGandE to discuss the ro b l e"..

Cn

.u.o v em b e r 19,

19g1, t,

f e

i j !

('

s f

I I

1 Commission issued its order suspending

icense No DPR-76 (CLI-2 81-30).

The Commission stated in its crder i

that, contrary t:

3 PGandE's license application, errors in design and vi 1' i

o ations of 4

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, had occurred.

On that

basis, the l 5

Commission suspended the low power license and promulgated l

a two -

6 phase program to reinstate the low power litense and to ascend 7

to full power operition.

8 Meanwhile, PGandE had beg un an independent design j

i i

9, verification program, retaining Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.

10,, ( RLCA) and, subsequently, submitted a program for Phase I I

(pre-11 fuel load) to the NRC Staff for its approval pursuant to 12 Commission order.

The Staf f also expressed opinions on th e.

13 various contractors involved and recommended that contractor l a

14 such as Teledyne Engineering Se rvic e s,

Inc.

(TES) be given 15 I

responsibility for the performance of the Phase I program At a; 16 meeting on March 4,

1992, the Commission approved 17 with certain revisions.

SECY-82-89,

On March 12,

1982, PGandE formally ;i 18 nominated TES as the contractor for the IDVP and on March 19, !

19 1982, pursuant to Commission direction, the Staff approved this i 20 { selection.

RLCA and R.

F. Reedy Inc. (RFR), a firm retained 1

to investiga te the design quality assurance prog 21 I

rams of PGandE 22 its principal design and j consultants, act as s ubcon tra cto rs andl i

23 l report to TES under the IDVP.

24 Phase I of the IDVP was formally approved by th e NRC 25 Staff in a letter dated April 27, 1982.

Phase II of the IDVP 26 was submitted to the Staff for its approval on June 18, 1982.

I i

i 4

1 Another design verification program is being conducted internally by the PGandE/Beethel Project 2

Crganiza tion (Pro;ect).

3 This program was also approved by the Staff's letter dat d e

April 4

27, 1982.

Pursuant to the Commission's Order dated No 5

1981, the Project, TES, RLCA, and RFR have filed l

bi-monthly !

6 reports covering the work comple ted during the e

7 specified period.

previously These reports have been distriouted by the !

8 Staff to the NRC Commissioners, t

the parties and others by

+

.eans j of various Board notifications.

9 10 ll L

II 4

11 f

facts i

j 12 !

The Brown motion incorporates the l-i Joint Inte rvencr 's I 13 f Motion to Reopen filed with the Appeal Board on Ju ne 8, 1982 and 14 l[ the Hubbard af fidavit attached thereto as the prima ry factual l j predicate for their instant motion.

15 The response of Pacific Gas c

16 j and Electric Company to the Joint Intervenor's Motion da ted Julv i t

17 2,

1982, and the attachments thereto, incorporated herein as,I are

{

18 though se t forth in f ull.

As shown in our response be fore the 19 Appeal Board (a t pages 6-19),

the allegations made in the,

i 20 j Hubbard affidavit and previously filed motions consi l

st in large i 21 part of mischaracterizations, misstatements of fact and 22 conclusions and are, overall, seriously misleading i

i l

23 j In Gove rnor 3r wn's most recent

pleading, 24 mischaracterization and misstatement of fact i

I are once again the 25 l mechanism or pe rs uas ion.

While ignoring tne 4

c stinctions '

26 between the defined scope of Phase I and Phase II of the IOVPl !

i 1

and totally ignoring the. Project 's internal 1

i technical program, l Brown refers to the IDVP as " narrowly limited" a d 2

n

" narrowly confined areas".

as addressing 3

He the'n compares the IDVP to the 4

Brookhaven Report which he cites as

" compelling evidence" leading to a need for evaluations of "implementati 5

on of design and construction CA" and "an evaluation of the actual q 6

I the as-built plant".

ualityofl 7

The Brown mo tion also chooses to ignore.

the PGandE/Bechtel corrective action progra 8

l m which emanates from,'

9, the IDVP and is subject 1

to verification oy the IDVP.

I 10 that program are set De tails of f forth in the affidavit of Howard S.

Friend 11 ' which is attached here to.

12h}

Governor Brown continues to mislead this Board oy 13 never discussing the overall requirements of the Commission Order, CLI-31-30, and the November 16, 14 1931 letter of Harold v

l Denton which establish what 15 is recuired to be accomclished by.

16 the IDVP. It is clear that when the Order and lette r

are taken 17 ' toge the r,

the total IDVP program (Phases I and II) is intended to cover seismic and non-seismic design aspect 18 of safe ty-related 19 structures, systems and components,

20 [ll whether the design work was !

done by PGandE or by service-related contractors.

This is :

21 hardly a program which is

" narrowly limited" i

to 22 6 confined areas".

" narrowly l l

23 Perhaps the bes t example of Governor Brown's assail-i 24 ment of the facts can be seen in h is continued reference to 25

" generic" QA breakdowns.

To cite the Brookhaven

Report, which t

26 looked only at the annulus

area, as authority for this [

s 1

proposition is simply fatuous.

As set forth in the affidavits t

2

. of Bain and Raymond, et al., wnich accompanied PGandE's July 2

3 response, site QA/QC activities were, except where deficiencies 4

were noted and corrected, in compliance with Appendix 3 at all 5

times ma terial hereto.

Contrary to Gove rnor Brown's cald l l

6 assertions, there is no indication whatsoever tha t t

" breakdowns" 7

occurred in site QA/QC activities at Diablo Canyon.

f 8

III 9

The Commission's Action of November 19, 1981 l

Establishing the Procedure for tne IDVP

~

10 Leaves This Board Witnout Jurisdiction to Accord 1

11 Governor Brown's Recuested Relief 12[

In filing their motions to reopen before the Appeal 13 Board, both Joint Intervenors and Governo r Brown a imed their ;

14 arguments at the suspended low power license and the low power 15 proceedings.

Our response

was, the re fo re,

based almost 16 exclusively on the facts surrounding the suspension of th a.t 17 license and Phase I

of the I DVP.

Our a rg umen t tha t the ;

18 Commission had assumed exclusive j urisdiction of the low power 19 license was not

however, as Governor Brown would have it, 20 mutually exclusive.

The Commission has assumed jurisdiction of i 21 any errors in design and violations of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix f 22 B.

Governor Brown attempts to further dis ting uish tne motion [

r

}

23 before the Appeal Board from the instant motion by arguing l

l that '

24 1 a license had issued in the low power proceeding while the full 25 power license has not.

Wha t Governor Brown chooses to ignore 26 however, is that in both cases the record is closed and i

the l

! I i

i l

1 facts surrounding the Commission's actions and the IDVP are the {

I 2

same.

Indeed, in certifying the question to the Commission, the{

i 3

Appeal Board foresaw the commonality between the low power and a

4 full power proceedings and asked the Commission:

i i

5 Did the Commission intend its November, 19, 1981 order suspending the low-power license 6

for Diablo Canyon, Unit 1, and establishing and independent verification program

'to 7

deprive the appropriate adjudicatory boards 1

of jurisdiction to consider a

motion to

~

g reopen the record based on tne QA/QC questions regarding Diablo Canyon?

9 If not, does the Commission now wish to i

10 relieve the adjudicatory boards of j uris-diction witn regarc to tne QA/QC issues at i

11 Diablo Canyon?

12 If the Commission has not divested, and does not intend to divest, 'the adjudicatory i

13 boards of jurisdiction over tne QA/QC issues at Diaolo Canyon what, if any, instructions 14 does the Commission have with regard to timing or other matters raised by the motion 15 to reopen? (ALAB-681 at 7, emphasis added.)

16 As stated

earlier, the Commission has assumed 17 jurisdicton over QA/QC violations and the design aspect.of i

18 safe ty-related s tructures, systems, and components at Diablo 19 Canyon.

The Commission has ordered that it must be satisfied, 20 through detailed procedures of verification and

review, that 21 Diablo Canyon is as stated in its application before it shall be,.

22 allowed to load fuel, conduct low power tests and ascend to full 23 powe r operation.

That the Commission has tne authority to do so 24 is manifest.

i l

25 The Appeal Board and the Licensing Scard derive their' t

26 j urisdiction and authority from the Commission.

(See 10 CFR i

1 :

,,---,---,--v,

-rn-.

-,-n=

,,n

,,,.,m-.,,,---,,,--,--,-,---,---,.,-,-,,,-----.-.--,,-..n

,a-

I 1

2.721 and 2.785.)

The proposition that the adjudicatory boards j i

2 have limited authority and j urisdiction as de te rmined by the i 4

3 Commission is well recogni:ed.

(42 U.S.C.

22.41; 10 CFR 2.721 I

i 4

and 2.785; Pacific Gas and Electric Company

( Dia:lo Canyon -

5 Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-1, 3 NRC 73 (1976).)

6 In this particular instance, the Ccamission has exercised its 7

jurisdiction and authority by mandating a

thorough and i 8

independent verification program and by se doing has precluded 9

this Board from granting the requested relief.

Indeed, the f

10 Commission has exercised discretion to withhold jurisdiction 11 from adjudicatory boards in other recent cases.

In a

very 12 recent case also involving violations of 10 CFR Part 50, 13 Appendix B, the Commission stated:

j 14 "The NRC has been investigating alleged quality assurance irregularities at Zimmer 15 since January 1981.

The investigations are still ongoing.

The investigations have 16 identified a number of quali ty as s urance-related proclems at the Zimmer site.

An j

i 17 extensive review of the as-built plant is currently being performed.

Before the plant 18 can be

licensec, a

comprehensive quality confirma tion program will have to ce 19 conducted and identified problem areas resolved.

By itself, without factoring in 20 l any rework, the quality confirmation p.rogram will be both cos tly and time-consuming.

The i

21 effect of this on the construction schedule i

of the plant remains to be determined.

22

)

i "The basis for the eight contentions 23 which tne Board has accepted as Board issues is simply a

repetition of some of the 24 problems revealed in the reports of the l

investigations which have already been 25 released to the public.

The Miami valley i

Power Project (MVPP), an In te rveno r,

which 26 filed an untimely request with tne Board,

., _ _ ~ -.,

1 that these issues be cons id e red,

suggested l

that it had new in fo rma tion on these 2

ma t te rs.

MVpP did not in its motion to the l

Board or elsewhere sufficiently identify any 1

3 new informa tion, its source, or say when it became available.

The NRC staff supported 4

the motion to reopen.

However, the staff recognized and the Board ruled that the i

5 legal s tandards for furtner hearings were not me t.

6 "As we have indicated above, the issues 7

raised in the eight contentions are being dealt with in the course of the ongoing 8

investigation and in the NRC staff's monitoring of the applicants' Quality 9

Confirmation program.

i 10 "For these reasons, the Commission con-l cludes that the Eoard has not set forth a

sufficient justification s upporting its 11 l order reopening the hearing record to con-12 sider the eight contentions as Board issues.

Accordingly, the Board is directed to issue 13 an appropriate order dismissing the eight contentions from the proceeding.

14 (Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (Um.

H.

Zimme r Nuclear Powe r Station, Unit No.

1),

15 CLI-82-20, NRC July 30, 1982.)

See also Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile 16 Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI,

8, 10 NRC 141, 147 (1979).

j 17 18 The Commission's Order ensures that all necessary 19 actions to protect the public health and safety will be

taken, i

i 20 obviating the necessity for a duplicative exercise of Juris-21 diction by this Board.

Compare (South Carolina Electric Gas t

22 Company, Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,

Docket 50- !

23 395.)

f 24 In passing the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, Congress 25 enacted "a regulatory scheme which is virtually unique in the 26 degree to which broad responsioility is reposed in thei

, l l

l

o f

a a

f T

1 administering agency, free of close prescription in its i

2 as to how it shall proceed in charter

~

achieving the 3

objectives."

Siegel v. AEC,-130 U. S.

statutory {

App. D. C.

307, 319, 405 4

F.2d 778, 783 (1968).

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, please make available at the Commission's Washington, D.C.,

Public Document Room single copies of records in the following categories:

A.

From the Chron Files of Mr. Hans Schierling from September 1, 1981, through December 31, 1983, all records concerning in any way the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and/or 2.

B.

From the Reading Files of Mr. Hans Schierling from September 1, 1981, through December 31, 1983, all records concerning in any way the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and/or 2.

Please provide partial responses as batches of documents become available.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at the telephone number given above. Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated.

Very Truly Yours, re o A.

Holmes Associate Consultant

)

,

ML20212M136

Contents

Text

Subject:

Dear Mr. Schierling:

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosure:

Dear Dr. Cooper:

Subject:

Enclosure:

Subject:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

Enclosure:

Dear Dr. Cooper:

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

Navigation menu

ML20212M136

Text

Subject:

Dear Mr. Schierling:

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosure:

Dear Dr. Cooper:

Subject:

Enclosure:

Subject:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

Enclosure:

Dear Dr. Cooper:

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

Navigation menu

Search