ML20237K205
Text
- _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _ _ - -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N5ic soiA Rtoutsi suustRisi
- *r blh *
~
[*\\
AtsPONSE TYPE
)*
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF l*"*'
M **a m 3 R O
^"
/
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST AUG 14 jgg7 DocnE't hvMsERist ur eoeweow MR Pevm/ E AND Ms. Ping U'\\{
KEcu! STER PART l.-RECORDS R'ELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checAed boxes)
No agency records subject to the request have been loc 4ted.
No additional agency records subtect to the request have been located.
Agency records subject to the request that are identifed in Appendix are already available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency records subiect to the request that are identified in AppendixC W R O 1_,_ are being made avadde for public mspection and copying in the NRC Pubhc Occument Roorn,1717 H Street. N.W., Washington, DC. In a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.
The nonproprietary version of the proposailst that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversaten with a member of my staff is now being made avadable for public inspection and coving at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N W.. Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOIA number and requener name.
Enclosed is informaten on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street. N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency records subsect to the request are enclosed. Any applicable charge for copies of the records provided and payment procedures are noted in the comments secten.
Records subrect to the request have been referred to another Federal agencyhesl for review and direct response to you.
In view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated PART ll.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC OlSCLOSURE Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part 11, sec-tions 8, C, and D, Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection ar'd copying in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N Wi, Washington, DC, in a folder under this FolA number and requester name.
Comnets
< p v7~av w ade
, y, av fDIS-9 h 7l@) e cL fOIh - 8 Y~ 7 N *
/}
StGNATV E,ciRECTOR, OlviSiON OF RAES A '
'R ORDS
" k f tU O sa sy t
. r..
8708190135 870814 PDR FOIA DEVINE84-743 PDR s
l s
NT.C FORM 464 iperi n to 06)
1 APPEN# !_C_
j eleased in En ti re ty F01As 84-743/ 744-776 n
( 3 hel Q M lak' Number Date Subjec t i
Allegation No.131 - RV-84-A-009 (4 Pages)
]
1.
2.
3/9/84 Problem Statement - RV-84-A-009 (1 Page) j 3.
2/2/83 Pullman Field Warehouse Requisition (1 Page) i j
4.
12/28/83 Interoffice memo from Karner to Stubes
Subject:
Acceptance of ASME Section I, Design Class II Materials with no Traceability (1 Page) q 5.
1/6/84 Copy of memo describing carb1de precipitation potential problems to PPP (3Pages) 6.
4/23/83 Notes (1 Page) 7.
1/6/84 P0 for Bolts (Studs) Referenced on req for support 5/32R (4Pages) 8.
11/28/83 Pullman QA & Documentation Requirements (1 Page) 9.
12/27/83 Interoffice memo from Karner to QA Supervisors (1 Page)
I 10.
6/24/83 Pullman memo from Cornish to Field P1pe Support Engineers
Subject:
Allows Code deviations (1 Page) 11.
1/6/84 PG&E memo from Miller to Rockwell
Subject:
Welding of Studs to containment liner (5Pages)
Memo from Mendonca to Kirsch
Subject:
Unit A325 Stud Welding 12.
(4Pages) 13.
2/22/84 Note from Kirsch to Tom
Subject:
Reference the A325 Bolt Welding Issue (1 Page)
Note from Wagner (1 Page) 14.
15.
2/27/84 Conversation Record (1 Page) 16, 2/17/84 Ltr from Schuyler to Martin
Subject:
Welding of A-325 Bolts (6Pages) 17.
2/29/84 Ltr from Schuyler to Martin
Subject:
Welding of A-325 Bolts (7Pages)
Memo from Reynolds to Kirsch
Subject:
Diablo Canyon Inspection 18.
11/30 thru 12/9/83 19.
1/6/84 Pullman memo from Karner to Rockwell, PG&E
Subject:
U.T. of 2 Welded Beam Attachments NPS BBD-18 on Hanger (12 Page
--- - J
1 APPENDIX C Released in Entirety F01As 84-743-744-776 Date Subject Numbe_r_
j 20 1/14/84 Note from Karner with memo from Neary to Karner (11/30/82)
I attached -(2 Pages)
~
21 4/7/83 Info subject to PG&E for review and duposition (11 Pages) i 22 5/18/83 Info submitted to PG&E for information-only (8 Pages) 23 4/14/83 Info submitted to PG&E for information only (8 Pages) 24 Misc info on bolts (2 Pages) 25 1/17/84 Interoffice memo from Karner to All Field Engineers Subject Welded Studs (A325) (1 Page) 26 1983 Field Warehouse Requisitions for information only (4 Pages)
Dates: 3/9/83; 3/22/83; 3/16/83 and 3/26/83 27 5/6/83 Information only for PG&E (9 Pages) 28 1 2/4/ 78 Inspection Report (3 Pages) 29 10/10/78 F1 eld Requisition (2 Pages) 30 11/ 21/78 Order No. F7177-6882 (128803) inspected (1 Page) 31 3/26/ 79 Field Requisition (2 Pages) 32 4/18/ 79 Inspection Report (3 Pages) 33 3/3 0/ 78 Description of Material & Spec 111 cations ((2Pages) 34 11/ 2/ 79 Cases of ASME 8oller & Pressure Vessel Code (4Pages) 35 Many field inspection records (98 Pages) 36 3/16/84 Problem Statement (RV-84-0027) (1 Page) l 37 2/14/84 Memo from Martin to Schackleton
Subject:
All egations 196 & 197 (1 Page) 38 Allegation of Concern 196 (1 Page) 39 Allegation of Concern 197 (2 Page)
)
APPENDIX C Released in Entirety Number Date Subject Allegation or Concern No.198 (1 Page) 40 Allegation or Concern No.199 (1 Page) 41 GAP #199, Pet 1tjon at 12 (3 Pages)
~
42 Allegation or Concern No. 200 (1 Page) 43 Allegat1on or Concern No. 201 (1 Page) 44 Allegation 200, 201 (RV-84-0030) (1 Page) 45 46 2/7/84 All ega tion (2Pages) 47 4/12/83 Nonconformance Report (2 Pages) 48 5/12/83 10CFR21 Nonconformance Report (1 Page) 49 8/1/83 Nonconformance Report (2 Pages) 50 12/22/82 Weld Inspection Sheet (38 Pages) 51 4/26/83 Nonconformance Report (2 Pages) 52 4/8/83 Weld Inspection Sheet (13 Pages) 53 4/6/83 Nonconformance Report (1 Page) 54 6/17/83 Foley Communication (14 Pages) 55 4/7/83 10CFR21 Nonconformance Report (1 Page) 56 4/7/83 Nonconformance Report (5 Pages)
keethuu u f
Released in Entirety F0IA 84-743, 744 & 84-776 Number Date Subject 1
6/6/84 Inspector's Report - E. Garica/G. Yuhas - (1 Page) 2.
6/6/84 Ltr from Wenslawski to Schuyler,
Subject:
NRC Inspection (14Pages) q l
3.
Problem Statement - Allegation 207-212 - RV-84-34 (1 Page) 4.
Allegation No. 207/RV-84-A (6 Pages) 5.
Allegation No.140/RV-84-A (1 Page) 6.
1/11/84 Allegation - RV-84-A-02 (1 Page) j 7.
Allegation No.163 - RV-84-A-02 (2 Pages) l L
8.
Allegation No.164 - RV-84-A-02 (2 Pages) l 9.
Allegation No. 165 - RV-84-A-02 (2 Pages) 10.
Allegation Form & Letter - (3 Pages)
I 11.
1/13/84 Memo from C1 shop to Eisenhut
Subject:
Alleations RV-84-01 & 02 l
i (14 Pages) 12.
Alleation No.157 - RV-84-A-020 (3 Pages) 13.
Allegation No.156 - RV-84-A-19 (3 Pages) 14.
Allegation No.155 - RV-84-A-18 (1Page)i 15.
Allegation No.155 - RV-84-A-18 (13 Pages) 16.
Allegation No.143 - RV-84-A-15 (2 Pages) 17.
Allegation No.143 - RV-84-A-15 (1 Page) 18.
Allegation No.144 - RV-84-A-15 (1 Page) 19.
Allegation No.145 - RV-84-A-15 (1 Page) 20.
Allegation No.146 - RV-84-A-15 (1 Page) 21.
Allegation No.146 - RV-84-A-15 (1 Page) 22.
Allegation No.147 - RV-84-A-15 (5Pages) 23.
All egation No.147 - RV-84-A-15 (2Pages) 24.
2/17/84 Ltr from Schuyler to Martin
Subject:
Class IE Electrical Raceway Supports-(4Pages) 25.
3/12/84 Memo from Bishop to Eisenhut Subject Allegations Regarding the Supporting of Different Electrical V1tallties from a Common Support; Allegation No.147 ATS RV-84-A-15 (6Pages) 26.
Allegation No.148 - RV-84-A (1 Page) 27.
Allegation No.141 - RV-84-A-15 -(1 Page) 28.
Allegation No.135 - RV-84-A (1 Page) p 1
1 n..
'e*f4
,q
APPENDIX 0 - (continued)
Released in Entirety Number Date Subject 29.
3/20/84 Allegation Nos. 135 & 136 - RV-84-ll & 40 (3. Pa@s) 30.
11/15/79 Foley's Invoices (9Pages) 31.
10/9/ 79 Foley's Specification 5422 - (13 Pages) 32.
7/ 21/ 78 Foley's Engineering Disposition' Request - (1 Page) 1 33.
Note (1 Page) 34.
7/1 0/ 78 Foley's Engineering Disposition Request - (1 Page) f 35.
10/4/ 78 (1 Page) i 36.
10/30/79 (1 Page)
I 37.
Allegation No.136 -
(1 Page) 38.
5/11/83 Foley's Internal Audits - (12 Pages) 39.
1/84 Allegation Forin - (1 Page) 40.
1/84 Allegation Form - (1 Page) l 41.
12/13/83 3 ter-Office Memo from Walcheski to Canning Subj: Foley's Audit PA-135, Item 12 - (2 Pages) 42.
9/27/83 u i Foley's Audit -
Subject:
Welding Electrode Coritrol - (2 Pages) 43.
1/17/83 Foley's Audit -
Subject:
Work on Containment I Annulus Steel Modifications (2Pages) 44.
Foley's QCP (1 Page) 45.
5/16/83 Ltr from Wilson to Etzler
Subject:
Internal Foley's Audit (1 Page) 46.
Minutes of Meeting held 12/19/83 (Pullman Power) (1 Page) 47.
Minutes of Meeting held 12/22/83 (Pullman Power) (2 Pages) 48.
Allegation No.137 - RV-84-A-40 (1 Page) 49.
Allegations 137,139 & 140 - RV=84-A-40,13 and 14 (1 Page) n i
A, j
4 0
.'.jg
- ].Y,15
.gs t
.F Jg i
- - ~ - - - - - -
~
b[
\\
APPENDfX E
[.
rotA 84-743 84-744 f
84-776 RELEASE l
1.
N'.
)[-
11/83-9/8{" calendar - 1. Yin's record of'.assj nments and appointments 11pages g
y, Uedzted Memorandug Yin to Vollmer w/draf t of investigation /
inspection report (dtd 7/23/84) attached t
162 pages
$.3/23/84 Draftir.vestigation/inspectionreport Rev 2 prepared by Yin 121 pages h
7estimony Matcrials I
4 i
t h.3/26/84 Yin's presentation n
- s 3 pages
- 5. 4/ai/84 vin's prepared testimony 4 pages h, 6/14/84 Testimony prepared b'y' Yin 6 pages f-
- 7. 8/2/84 Yestic>ony prepared by rin 2 petes
(.8/30/84 Yin - Opening statement 2 pages
$,S/30/84 Norman L. Donaldson Comments 8 pages
[(), Undated Notes prepared by Yin 3 pages Corresp ndence 1
//,
7/10/84 Memorandum Yin to Vollmer - Cominent s on SSEF License f).,
condiction 2.C. (11) 9 pages 1, X _
lQ,7/23/84 Memorandum Yin to Rill Files - implementation of RIII t
policy - apparent differences in conduting NRC progams between the offices 2 pages n
l3, 9/8/84 Tacsimile memorandum Combs to Yin - requesting edit bt portions of the transcript 15 pages
)Y.10/1/84 Memorandum Yin to Schierling - SALP input 9 pages
_Other r
13. Undated Series of miscellaneous notes and information collected 144 pages to review anyl assess allegations assing to Yin (#79, 82,84,88. 89 & 97) t I
~_
J
O July 2.1987 y
\\
k 9\\
+
,y, APPEND'It F
.,c Released in Entirety FOIAs 84-743/744/776 Number Date Subject l'.
2/1/84 Allegation Data Form - RV-84-A-23 (1 Page 2.
2/2/84 Memo from McInerney,to Rockwell
Subject:
81sco-Pipe 2~
Penetrations - (1 Fage) 4.
1/24/84 s Stitcone Foaa Test Neport (1 Page) 5.
1/25/84 Fire Stop Inspection Report (1 Page) 6.
7/10/81 Silicone Foam Test Report (1Page) 7.
10/19/83 Silicone Foam Test " Report (1 Page) 8.
8/ 29/ 83 S111 cone Foam Test Report (1 Page) 9.
Spec for Furnishing & Installing Silicone Foam Penetration Seals for Unit 2 Diablo Canyon 10.
10/28/75 Fire Endurance Test on Penetration Seal System In Precast Concrete Floor... (12 Pages) 11.
1981 QA Procedure (9 Pages) i 12.
2/10/84 Telephone Calls (1 Page) 13.
9/23/83 Survet11ance Test Procedure (10Pages) l 14.
11/13/ 78 Licensee Response to NRC Questions-(8 Pages) 15.
1/28/84 Ltr from Germano/Gibbs to 8ISCO
Subject:
Diablo Canyon Penetration Seals (2Pages) 16.
1/ 23/ 84 Ltr from Sisms-to Gibbs
Subject:
Pressure Seals (1Page) 17.
2/16/84
. Memo from Rockwell/ Cook / Dukes to File (7Pages) i 18.
2/1/84 Allegation - RY-84-A-23 (1 Page) 19.
2/2/84 Memo from McInerney to Rockwell subject: BISCO - Pipe Penetrations (1 Page) 21.
3/6/84 Problem Statement - RV-84-A-23 (1 Page) 22.
Allegation No.184 - RV-84-A-23 (4Pages) 23.
Problem Statement - RV-84-A-23 (1 Page) 24.
Allegation Mos. 185,186 & 187 - RV-84-A-23 (8Pages) 254 3/28/84 Ltr from Kirsch to PG&E
Subject:
OL-DPR Secy 84-61. Items 65 4 167 (241 Pages)
'noW Cuvk u numbuv 3 +a.o J
July 2,1987 1
APPENDIX F
-Number Da te Subject 26.
-10/10/84
' Memo from Kirsch to G111nsky subject: Allegations of Hudson received on 1/9/84 (1 Page) q 27.
Memo from Hudson to G111nsky subject: QA Deficienc1es in the Ultrasonic Measurement of Reactor Coolant Pressure...
Attachments included (91 Pages) 28.
Allegation No.138 - RV-84-A-12 (2 Pages) 29.
Allegation No.138 - RV-84-A-12 (7Pages) 30.
9/ 29/83 Memo from Thompsor to Shealy subject: Wire Traceability for Ten Incore Thermocouple Circuits (3Pages) 31.
1980-NUREG 0737.(7 pages) i 32.
1/17/84 Memo from Aurer to Rockwell Subjedt: Environmental Qualification !
of Incore Thermocouple Cable Raychem, St11an Insulat1on (63Pages) 33.
Miscellaneous (10rpages)~
34.
1/19/84 Memo from Leppke to NRC with 5 Attachments (271 Pages)
]
35.
1/7/84 Note from Reynolds to Kirsch, etc..(7 Pages) 36.
1/6/83 Trip Report - (5 Pages 37.
11/5/82 Memo from Hanry to Torstrom/ Arnold subj: R&E/ Materials &
Quality Services Department (4Pages) 38.
1/10/84 Difficult to Read (10 Pages) 4 39.
12/20/84 Ltr from Sh1ffer to Martin
Subject:
LER 83-034/01-T - (3 Pages) l 40.
Allegation No. 203 - RV-84-A-32 (2 Pages) 41 Allegation No. 203 - RV-84-A-32 (1 Page) 42.
2/7/84 Allegation - RV-84-A-32 (1 Page) 43.
2/7/84 Allegation Report -
44.
Allegation No. 203 - RV-84-A-32 (3 Pages) 45.
Allegation No. 204 - RV-84-A-32 (2 Pages) 46.
Problem Statement - Allegation No. 204 - RV-84-A-32 (1 Page) 47.
2/7/84 Allegation Form (2 Pages) 48.
Allegation No. 205 - RV-84-A-32 (3 Pages) 49.
Problem Statement - Allegat1on No. 205 - RV-84-A-32 (1 Page) 50.
2/7/84 Allegation Form - (2 Pages) 51.
Allegation No. 206 - RV-84-A-32 (3 Pages) 52.
2/7/84 Allegation Form - (2 Pages) 53.
1/16/84 Memo from Glascoch to Rockwell
Subject:
Condu1t Identification (5Pages) 54.
Oribken Statement - Allegation No. 206 - RV-84-A-32 (1 Page)
1 l
i l
i APPENDIX G Rel eased F0IAs 84-743/744/776 Number Date Subject Allegation or Concern No.120 (271 Pages) 1.
1 Allegation Number Changes (1 Page) 2.
3.
2/3/84 Memo from Reynolds to Kirsch,
Subject:
Diablo Canyon Special
(
Inspection - 11/30 through 12/9/84 (28 Pages) 4.
1/19/84 Memo from Leppke to Kirsch, subj: General description of the Diablo Canyon weld design program (9 Pages) t All egation 103-118,124 (23 Pages) j 5.
6.
11-16-82 Weld on Stud 8ots (1 Page) 7.
5/20/83
' Qualification & Verification of Flare-Bevel Groove Welds (3Pages) 8.
6/9/81 P1pe Rupture Restraints - Pullman Power Products (30 Pages) 9.
10/27/83 Inter 0ffice Correspondence memo from Zaid1 to Arnold
Subject:
Clarification of ESD 223 (99 Pages)
Allegation #127 (2 Pages) 10.
11.
l i
Allegation Data Form (1 Page) 12.
13.
'83/'S4 Information Table (7 Pages) 14.
12/14/83 Foley Co. Document Deficiency Notes (1 Page) 15.
10/20/83 Quality Meeting at Jim Thompson ls Office (1 Page) 16.
1/25/84 Allegation Data Form (1 Page) 17.
12/14/83 (1 Page) l l
l
Reiease in Entirety.
APPENDIX H F01As 84-743/744 & 776 Number.
Date Subject 1.
7/6/82-Pullman Audit Action Request (2Pages)
-2.
7/6/82 (2 Pages) 1 3.
7/6/82 Pullman QA Checklist (2Pages) 4.
7/6/82
- Pullman QA Summary Report (1. Page)'
5.
7/8/82 Interoffice Hudson to Eck
Subject:
Corrective Act1on to Internal Audit Reports not being Implemented (1 Page) l 6.
.6/14/82 Interoffice Hudson to Eck
Subject:
Need for QA/QC Management Assistance at D1ablo Canypn Jobsite (2Pages) i 7.
6/14/82 Interoffice Hudson to Eck,
Subject:
Need for QA/QC Management Assistance at Diablo Canyon (2Pages) 8..
7/8/82 Interoffice Hudson to Eck
Subject:
Corrective Action to Internal Audit Report not being Implemented (1 Page) 9.
7/6/82 Pullman QA Summary Report (1 Page) 10.
7/6/82 Pullman Audit Action Request (P Page) ll.
7/6/82
' Pullman Audit Action Request (2Pages)'
12.
7/6/82 Pullman QA Checklist (2 Pages) 13.
12/2/81 PG&E for Comment and Review (58 Pages) 14, 2/ 7/83 PG&E for Comment and Review (63Pages) 15.
6/14/83 PG&E for Comment and Review (107 Pages) 16 Memorandum with attachments from Macias to Warner (153 Pages) 17.
11/7/83 Memo from Chitnis to holders':of DCM M-9
Subject:
DCM M-9 Rev'9 (82 Pages)
Allegation No.126 (RV-83-A-79) (6 Pages)
-18.
19.
Minor Variation Report (63 Pages) 20, 4/19/84 Ltr from EGG to Kirsch
Subject:
Da1blo Canyon Tube Steel Design Verifica tion (6 Pages) 21.
5/21/84 Memo from Wagner to Kirsch
Subject:
Tube Steel RADII Measurements (5 Pages) 22.
Allegation No.127 RV-83-A79)
(3 Pages)
hurrcer Date Subject 23.
Allegation No.127 (RV-83-A79)
(3 Pages) 24.
Allegation No.123 (RV-83-A74)
(1 Page) 25.
Allegation No.124 (RV-83-A74)
(4 Pages) 26.
Allegation No.125 (RV-83-A74)
(3 Pages) 27.
Allegation No.126 (RV-83-A79)
(7 Pages) 28.
1/19/84 Memo from Leppke to Kirsch
Subject:
Weld Design Program (9 Pages) 29.
6/14/83 PG&E for Review and Disposition (32Pages) 30.
ll/10/P2 PG&E for Review and Disposition (33Pages) 31.
10/14/83 Onsite Engineering P1 ping and Fire Support Request (39 Pages) 5 Attachment No. 3:
(49 Pages) No. 4:
(40 Pages) No. 5 (13 Pages) 32.
11/29/82' DCFP Procedure No: 1 Rev: 3 - subject: Request for Inforamtion for a DCVP consultant.
(Robert L. Cloud Associates)
(114 Pages)
Pullman Power's tables, graphs, etc.
(164 Pages) 33.
34.
12/5/83 Ltr from EG&G to Kirsch, subject: Inspection Status Report with (198Pages) 35.
1/16/84 Allegations - RV-83-A-74 (18 Pages)
Allegation No. 214 - RV-83-A-74 (1 Page) 36.
Allegation No. 215 - RV-83-A-74 (1 Page) 37.
Allegation No. 216 - RV-83-A-74 (1 Page) 38.
Allegation No. 217 - RV-83-A-74 (1 Page) 39.
40.
1984 S.D. Reynolds & W. J. Wagner Opin1ons based on Special Inspection..
(1 Page) 41.
2/29/84 Ltr from PG&E to Martin subject: Weld Bevel Angles and Tube Steel Radius (14 Pages)
Allegation No.149 - RV-84-A-16 (1 Page) 42.
43.
Allegation No.150 - RV-84-A-16 (1 Page)
Allegation Nos. 149 & 150 - RV-84-A-16 (1 Page) 44.
Allegation No.151 - RV-84-A-17 (1 Page) 45.
Allegation No.153 - RV-84-A-17 (1 Page) 46.
Allegation No.154 - RV-84-A-17 (1 Page) 47.
48.
Problem Statement (1 Page) 1
)
s-APPENDIX H Number Date Subject 49.
10/27/83 Memo from Moore to Thornberry/Townsend subject: P1 ping Flange Analysis Requirements (1 Page) 1 Questions for Interpretations (1 Page) 50.
51.
3/7/84 Facsimile Coversheet to C. Sorensen re: Diablo Allegation (5 Pages)
Allegation No.183 - RV-84-A-4 (1 Page) 52.
Allegation No. 183 - RV-84-A-04 (1 Page) 53.
54.
11/25/69 Weld Procedure Code No. 7/8 (7 Pages) 55.
10/25/82 Current Revision Levels (Interoffice Correspondence) (1 Page) 56.
11/14/83 Memo from Hudson to G111nsky
Subject:
Deviations from Pullman Power Products' Weld Procedures Codes and :G&E's Contract Specifications 4
- 8711 and #8833XR QA & Welding Requirements at Diablo Canyon..
]
(35 Pages) 57.
11/22/83 Ltr from Scott to Secretary. Main Committee subject: USA Standard 831.7-1969 Edition (1 Page)
Problem Statement - Allegation No.182 - RV-84-A-06 (1 Page) 58.
59.
2/16/84 Allegation No.181 - RV-84-A-06 (11Pages) 60.
3/8/84 Allegation No.182 - RV-84-A-06 (4 Pages) 61.
Allegation No.177 - RV-84-A-07 (1 Page) l 62.
3/15/84 Memo from Houston to Novak
Subject:
Staff Affidavits in Response I
to the Affidavit of J. Cooper dated 1/19/84 to Allegation No.177 (1 Page)
Allegation No.177 - RV-84-A-07 (1 Page) 63.
Memo from Renolds to Kirsch
Subject:
D.C. Special Inspection (1 Page) l 64.
65.
11/14/83 Response to NRC Questions Re: Allegations dated 11/14/83 (20 Pages) 66.
1/18/84 Note from Karner to Arnold
Subject:
WPS 88/89 - AWS Application on AWS Group 11 Base Material (1 Page) 67.
1/16/84 Note from Kerr to Denny (1 Page)
Response to NRC Questions re: Allegations dated 11/14/83 (4Pages) l 68.
69.
1/19/84 Ltr from Leppke to K1rsch re: weld design program (35Pages)
Magnaflux personnel used in the rupture restraint repair program 70.
(9Pages)
Problem Statement - Allegation No.121 RV-83-A-74 (5Pages) 71.
Allegation Nol 122 - RV-83-74 (12 Pages) 72.
73.
3/6/84 Ltr from Kraus to Casella re: Task Order No. 58 (3 Pages)
Staff findings - (1 Page) 74.
75.
3/9/84 Telecon msg from Hock to Kirsch (2 Pages) l
Page 4 APPENDIXfj Number Date Subject 78.
8/3/82 Audit Report (Final)
(227 Pages) 79.
1/9/84 Note-o-Gram (1 Page )
Response to Internal Audit #101, A.A.R. #1 (4 Pages) 80.
81.
1/10/84 Memo from Kirsch to G111nsky subject: Allegations of Hudson rec'd on 1/9/84 (1 Page)
Misc (421 Pages) 82.
i Certificate of Qualification (Mike Carrell)
(5 Pages) 83.
Certificate of Qualification (Leroy Bennett (3 Pages) 84.
Certificate of Qualification (Ed Alcantara) (5 Pages) 85.
86.
1/5/83 Interoffice memo from MacCrae to F11e subject: Certification of f
Magnaflux Personnel (3 Pages) 87.
3/9/84 Allegation No.178 - RV-84-A-06 (2Pages)
Allegation No.178 - RV-84-A-06 (1 Page) 88.
Personnel Test Record (24 Pages) 89.
90.
2/16/84 Allegation No.182 - RV-84-A-06 (14 Pages)
I 91.
Allegation No.179 - RV-84-A-06 (1 Page) 92.
2/16/84 Allegation No.179 - RV-84-A-06 (1 Page) 93.
3/9/84 Allegation No. 180 - RV-84-A-06 (3 Pages)
Allegation No.180 - RV-84-A-06 (1 Page) 94.
Allegat1on No.180 - RV-84-A-06 (1 Page) 95.
96.
3/7/84 Allegation No.181 - RV-84-A-06 (3 Pages)
Allegation No.181 - RV-84-A-06 (7 Pages) 97.
98.
2/16/84 Allegation No.178 - RV-84-A-06 (17 Pages) 99.
11/11/82 Notes on a briefing (6 Pages)
Certificate of Qualification (Edward Dye)
(4 Pages) 100.
881Y MA
____-____-_______a
Re:
F01A-84-743 84-744 84-776 APPENDIX I s
Miscellaneous 1.
Draft inspection report input with comments (2 pages) l 2.
Listofallegationnumbers-(1page) 3.
Copy of slides for ACRS presentation (13 pages) 4.
Excerpts from SER, Section 5.(6 pages) l 5.
List of individuals and business telephone numbers for contact purposes (1page) 6.
Miscellaneousinformationcollectedduringmeeting(7pages) 7.
Excerpts from Diablo Canyon IDVP (4 pages) 8.
Attendance list - Inspection Meeting 2/7-8/84(1page) 9.
Attendance list at 1/31/84 NRC/PG&E meeting (1 page)
- 10. Personal list of contacts with telephone numbers (1 page)
-1 11.
Inspection plan and man-hours ( 8 pages)
- 12. DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program, Phase 1 Rev 1 7/6/82 - Teledyne-excerpts
- 13. List of tasks to be completed by DCP priour to 5% power (2 pages) j
- 14. Miscellaneous notes on the number of deficiencies contained in the ITRS (8 pages) 15.
Slide from the meeting (5 pages)
- 16. Comparison of snubber /ridgid restraint proximity criteria (3 pages)
- 17. Notes on snubber / rigid interactions (6 pages)
- 18. Listing of allowable valve accelerations - licensee document (5 pages) l 1
l
Re:
FOIA-84-74J 84-744 84-776 APPENDIX I (Cont'd) 19.
NRC consultant calculations on snubber /ridgid interactions (3 pages)
- 20. May 21 25, 1984 meeting agenda (13 pages) 21.
Task Group - listing (4 pages)
- 22. Table 5 DCP transmittal of 1/b design information (4 pages) 23.
Inspection backup information -PG&E and Bechtel roster (11 pages) 24.
Inspector's notes on review of PG&E audit report 2/2/84 (22 pages) 25.
Quick Fix Inspection date (5 pages) 26.
Draf t SER input, pages 27 and 28 - undated (2 pages) 27.
Draft SER input for allegations 79, 82, 86, 87, 88, 89, 95, 97, and 55 (30 pages)
- 28. Addresses (1page)
- 29. Teledyne Report IDVP, Phase 1 7/6/82 pages 21 and 22 plus letter 1/12/84 plus luck (1/12/84 and 10/23/83) (6 pages) 30.
Draft report by Yin dated 4/25/84 converging Items on IDVP Evaluation of L/B and S/B (29 pages)
Memorandum Bishop)to List (not attached) - enclosure not 31, 11/22/83 attached (2 pages Small Bore Piping Review Team (2 pages) gnment as Team Leader Memorandum Bosnak to Hartzman, re: Assi 32.
12/83
- 33. 3/30/84 Memorandum Schierling to Knighton, re:
4/2/84 meeting agenda (1page) 34.
5/30/84 Memorandum Task Groups to Knight, re:
Report of visit to PG&E offices in San Francisco and Diablo Canyon, May 84 (6 pages)
- 35. 4/12/84 Memorandum Vollmer to Dircks, re:
Report of review group w/ enclosures (11 pages) 36.
4/27/84 Memorandum Vollmer to Denton, re:
Resolution of Diablo Canyon piping design issues (10 pages)
l r
t..
8 e
i Re: 'F01A-84-743 l
84-744 84-776
)
APPENDIX'I (Cont'd) 1 4
37.
6/7/84 Memorandum Manoly/Hartzman to Knight, re: Briefing on activities related to conditions:#1 and 7 (7 pages)-
38.
6/29/84 Memorandum Vollmer to Peer Review Panel, re: Completion of piping review activities (2 pages) 39.
8/13/84 Memorandum McKinley to Vollmer, re: Revised summary of ACRS meeting to review draft report (6 pages) 40.
9/10/84 Memorandum Heishman to Vollmer, re: Completion of piping j
review Activities (22 pages)
{
f I
1 l
l l
GOVERNMENT ACdOUNTADIUTY PROJECT
^ Institute for Pokcy Studies 1901 Que Street N W., Washington D C. 20009 (202)234 4382 i
September 13, 1984 Offic of Administration FREEDOM OF INFORMATiON U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
%g gy Washington DC 20555 To Whom It May Concern:
9 Q -/ d)
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FCIA),5U.S.C.$552,theGovernment Accountability Project (GAP) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, files, graphs, engineering analyses, charts, maps, photo-graphs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, tele-phone messages, computations, voice recordings, any other data compilations, interim and/or final reports, status reports, and any other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, NUREG-0675, Supplement No. 26, which provided the NRC Staff's further findings on whistleb}ower charges. We request that each responsive document be identified by the allegation number (s) to which it may relate.
If any of the materials covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed, please provide all surrounding documentation, including but not limited to a de-scription of the action (s) taken, relevant date(s), and justification (s) for the action (s).
GAP request that fees be waived, because " findings }nformation can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. S552(a)(4)(A). GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through legal representation, advice, national conferences, films, pub-lications and public outreach, the project promotes; whistleblowers as agents of government accountability. We are requesting the above information as part of an on-going monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC's efforts to protect public safety l
and health at nuclear power plants.
l
)
For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portion of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld. This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen(I),
i 484 F.2d. 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.
Yours truly, A$/
/Jf l
homas Devine Crystal Dixon Legal Director, GAP Legal Intern J 19 9
+
, - l c /c d-
-%x
1 GOVERNMENT' ACCDUNTADIUTY PROJECT T Institute for Pokcy Studies 1901 Que Street. N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)23d 9382 September 13, 1984 FREEDOM OF INFORMATi(>h Director ACI REQUEST hg Of fice of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
k Ig g Washington DC 20555 To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 5552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) request copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, draf ts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures,, instructions, files, graphs, engineering analyses, charts, maps, photo-graphs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, tele-phone messages, computations, voice recordings. any other data compilations, interim and/or final reports, status reports, and any other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the Safety Evaluation 'ieport related to the operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, NUREG-0675, Supplement No. 22, which provided the NRC Staff's further findings on whistleblower charges. We request that each responsive document be identified by the allegation number (s) to which it may relate.
-If any of the materials covered by this request has been destroyed and/or removed, please provide all surrounding documentation, including but not limited to a de-scription of the action (s) taken, relevant date(s), and justification (s) for the ac t ion (s).
GAP request that fees be waived, because " findings information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. 9552(a)(4)(A). GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through legal representation, advice, national conferences, films, pub-lications and public outreach, the project promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability We are requesting the above information as part of an on-1
)
going monitoring project
-a the adequacy of the NRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear p-2: plants.
For any documents or por
..s that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portion of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld. This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen(I),
l 484 F.2d. 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.
Your truly Ot95 Iib k d Thomas Devine Crystal Dixon Legal Director Legal Intern
.ggp..
. c,..
COVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1$55 C6nnecticut Awnve. N.W., Suite 202 1
Washington. D.C. ?CO36 (202)232 6550 i
Freedom of Information Act Request i
FREEDOM OF INFORMATK)N l
ACT REQUEST i
f ce f Administration FOIMYY~72b Nuclear Regulatory Comission GM h /O' h'W Wa shington, D.C.
20555 1
t To' Whom It May Concern:
Accountability Project (GAP), requests copies of any and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview charts, maps, photographs, agreementsreports, procedures, instructions, eng notebooks, books, telephone messages,, computations, voice recordi run-offs, any other data compilations inter _im.and/or fin 1 reports, status reports, and any and all'other recor'd frelevant'to and
'with the" Safety Evaluation Report",Jelated to the ope /or Entra ' in connec, tion ration of.iablo Canyon
/
sa's~ published by the NRC Office of Nucle ~arLReactor Re f
y Thisrequestincludesallagencyrecordsasdefinedin10C.F.R.$9.3a(b)and'the NRC Manual, Appendix 0211, Parts 1. A.2 and A.3 (approved October 8,1980), wheth they currently exist in the NRC official, " working," investigative or other files
.or at any other location, including private residences.
If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. $9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, supra, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or. issued in order to implement the action (s).
GAP requests that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be con-sidered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C.j552(a)(4)(a). GAP is a non-profit nonpartisan public interest organizat'on concerned with honest and open governm,ent.
as agents of government accountability.Through public outreach, the Project promote assistance to local public interest end citizens groups seeking to ensure theThroug
,sg;p22p 73 8'
?fY
.. a 6
.c 4 Director Of fice of Administration Page Two g
I health and safety of their communities.
The Citizens Clinic is currently assisting citizens groups, local. governments and interveners in connection with investigations of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California.
We are requesting the above information as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of the.iRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear power plants.
For any documents or portions that'you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld. This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (1), 484 f.2d 820 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1 974).
Yours truly, M
A Thomas Devine Legal Director Richard E. Condit Legal Intern l
l 1
l l
- IY7 1
5 1
I FACIFIC. GAS AND E LE C T RI C C O M PANY IP G W 3 l
77 scate sincci. san rnancisco, catironnia,4 os.
<4 3,7 3 42:1 1.,,2c3,2.e38,
- ;.fi10f" t
18vCL(44 Mw(e 6(NE A&fican March 7, 1984 PGandE Letter No.:
DCL-84-092 Mr. John B. Martin, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V j
.1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 l/3 O i
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368 U
u
._t ATT)li Mr. D. Kirsch b.
T.' s.. Re:c Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-76 K
' Docket No. 50-323 f Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 I Class 1E Electrical Raceway Supports - Additional Information De Mr. Martin:
The enclosure to this letter provides the response to a request for additional information concerning the single failure aspects of using common supports for mutually redundant Class 1E circuits. This response supplements PGandE letter No. DCL-84-064, dated February 17, 1984.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this material on the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed addressed envelope.
Sincerely, J
. Enclosure cc:
G. W. Knighton Service List I
3f' l
(
w;
\\
PGandE Letter No.:
(,
1 ENCLOSURE J
I
Background
In January,1984, the NRC observed that redundant circuits are supported by a common raceway support in two Plant areas - the Cable Spreading Room and l
Area K, elevation 100'. This creates the potential for using comon supports j
for mutually redundant Class 1E circuits. As a result, this condition would i
be inconsistent with the FSAR, Page 8.3-28, which states, " Class 1 supports l
are not shared by mutually redundant Class 1 circuits." The NRC requested 1
that PGandE provide an explanation for these conditions.
{
i l
PGandE provided a response on February 17,1984 (PGandE Letter No. DCL-84-064)
{
which addressed the seismic aspect of this issue. The NRC, on March 4, 1984, i
requested additional information directed to the single failure aspect of j
circuit separation.
Response
The current design and installation of Class 1E vital circuits meets or exceeds all regulatory and IEEE requirements and standards. None of these requirements-or standards prohibits mutually redundant circuits from being supported from a common support.
The design basis for routing of redundant circuits at Diablo Canyon is 3
established by:
1.
10 CFR.50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants--The commitment to meet these criteria is identified in the FSAR, Chapter 3.
2.
IEEE Standard 279-1971, Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generation Stations--The comitment to meet these criteria is identified in the FSAR, Chapter 8.
}
3.
IEEE Standard 308-1971, Class 1E Electrical Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations--The comitment to meet these criteria is l
identified in the FSAR, Chapter 8.
g With respect to the item of comon sup ort, compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.75, Physical Independence of E ectrical Systems, is established, since j
this Regulatory Guide adopted the above mentioned IEEE Standard 279-1971.
j l
IEEE Standard 279-1971 Section 4.2 identifies the single failure design j
criteria as follows:
4
[Any single failure within the protection system shall not required.] per protective action at the system level when prevent pro j
1 0506d/0005K ___
t 7
The standard then continues to state:
]
[ NOTE: " Single failure" includes such events as the shorting or open-circuiting of interconnecting signal or power cables.
It also includes single credible malfunctions or events that cause a number of consequential component, l
module, or channel failures. For example, the overheating of
-an amplifier module is a " single failure" even though seve'ral transistor failures result. Mechanical damage to a mode switch would be a " sin le failure" although several channels might become involved.
Therefore, the Standard limits credible failures to those associated with electrical failures. Separation for the failure modes described above is accomplished in congested areas, including the Cable Spreading Room and Area K, elevation 100', by the enclosure of redundant circuits in separate conduits.
The FSAR statement that Class I supports are not shared by mutually redundant circuits was a design conservatism established by PGandE; however, deviation from this design standard was found to be required to show seismic qualification of raceways to the revised seismic spectra generated during the l
Diablo Canyon Phase 1 Verification Program. Prior to acceptance of this design standard change, reviews were performed which showed that no regulatory-l requirements, including those stated earlier, were impacted. The design of I
supports has sufficient margin to assure that loss of a single support will not cause loss of safety function. At stated in the previous submittal on this issue, an FSAR change will be submitted to clarify Page 8.3-28.
)
4 0506d/0005K,
4 Il I
I-i l
/p* **Guq'o, s{
i UNntD STATES
[ ',, ',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3.n
=ocav 1460 MARIA LANE,sVlTE 210
. O, s.
e#
WALNUT CREE K, CALIFORNIA e4696 g.'.\\ /
O m 12 W d
MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. C. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
T. W. Bishop, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Region V
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE SUPPORTING OF DIFFERENT ELECTRICAL VITALITIES FROM A COMMON SUPPORT; ALLEGATION NO. 147, ATS No RV-84-A-0015 Region V has recently examined the subject concern. The results of our j
investigation are attached. As noted under " Action Required," we indicated
{
that-this matter would be referred to NRR for use in your evaluation of acceptability of an FSAR amendment request, to be submitted by the licensee.
Accordingly, Region V requests that NRR assume lead responsibility for the l
evaluation and closeout of this issue. If you have any questions regarding j
this matter, please contact D. F. Kirsch of Region V.
l.
4 T. W. Bishop, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Enclosure cc:
G. Knighton, LB3, NRR H. Schierling, LB3, NRR Allegation File No. 147s
)
f. ?/
/
I 9
7
'N s
. '/
A11eastion o. joncern Number: 147 ATS No.
RV 84 A 0015 If Characterization k
Cable tray and conduits of independent and redundant trains were installed on common raceway supports. (No specific examples were given by the allegers).
i Implied Significance to Plant Desian Construction, or Operation The required independence of circuits that are essential to emergency reactor shutdown, containment and reactor heat removal, or otherwise essential in i
I preventing significant release of radioactive materials to the environment is compromised by the possibility of common failure through the common support.
1 Assessment of Safety Significance This issue was reviewed by; (1) by rev'ow ra regulatory requirements and industry standards within the topic ar..,
si) examination of approved licensee commitments as stated in the FSAR, and (3) extensive field inspections of Class I raceway supports to determine if common supports had in fact been utilized.
There is no generic requirement by the NRC to install redundant circuits on separate supports. Indeed, most facilities, even those most recently I
licensed, such,a,s Washington Nuclear Project Number 2 (WNP 2), feature common l
l 1
1 1
i l
supports of redundant esfety related electrical divisions. The requirements are that the redundant safety related electrical circuits must be (1) electrically independent of each other and (2) physically separat,ed from each otherinordertoprecludeinthefirstcasecommonelectricalfalfuresthat 1
l would render both circuits inoperable or in the second case that common harms
%g such as fire or missile hazards would affect both circuits. With respect to l
aupports, if the support is seismically designed to withstaed the design basis t
l earthquake with its total load Laposed, it is acceptable.
The adequacy of the tray supporting system is reviewed with respect to the ability to perform the intended safety function under the postulated seismic event. This review of safety related raceway supporting systems does not require inclusion of the independence criteria. The NRC position is expressed in REGULATORY GUIDE 1.29 which requires that safety related electrical systems have supports that are designed to withstand the effects of the safe shutdown earthquake and remain functional. There is no mention in this REGULATORY GUIDE of any requirement to provide independent supports.
The adequacy of safety related electrical systems with respect to electrical independence and physical separation is defined in IEEE 308 and IEEE 384 (REGULATORY GUIDE 1.75). These standards state the requirements for physical separation of redundant circuits in terms of distance or barriers, but remain silent as to any requirements of the raceway supporting system.
The specific separations of IEEE 384 (REGULATORY CUIDE 1.75) were not imposed upon the licensee because the licensee's proposed methods as stated in the FSAR Amendment 24 were found acceptable by the NRC Staff. (See Supplement No.
l i
I l
I to the Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2) dated 31 January,1975. The specific requirements are stated in TSAR Section 8.3.3 " Analysis of A-C Power Systems", " Separation Critetia for Class 1
I Systans" on page 8.3-19.
j On page 8.3~28 of the FSAR under the title " Supports" is a reference to section 3.10 for the seismic design and a statement that " Class I supports are i
not shared by mutually redundant Class I circuits".
1 Therefore, the inspector concludes that although there is no firm regulatory requirement to support different divisions on separate support systems, the licensee added this commitment to the TSAR to provide additional conservatism.
1 An NRC inspector conducted extensive examinations of Unit I areas containing large concentrations of safety related electrical cable raceway to determine J
whether the alleged condition existed. The inspector observed that several i
l raceway supports in the cable spreading room supported conduit of redundant j
)
Class I divisions.
I At the inspector's request the licensee evaluated this situation. The licensee stated by letter (DCL-84-064) dated February 17, 1984, that " supports in the cable spreading room under the control room and the K ares, elevation 100'" were exceptions to the design approach of assuring that mutually redundant Class I conduits and trays were not supported by shared support systees. This response from the licensee also stated that Section 8.3.1 of the FSAR was in process of being updated to reflect this plant condition. The
?(censee's response however did not address the degree of compliance with the
4 I
1 1
I 1
TSAR commitment and the engineering justifictaion for failure to implement the j
TSAR Commitment. The licensee supplied additional information related to this f
issue by I4tter No. DCI,-84-092, dated March 7,1984. The enclosure to this
)
t Letterstatesthat"TheTSARstatementthatClassIsupportsare6htsharedby j
hutually redundant circuits was a design conservatism established by PG&E; however, deviation from this design standard was found to be required to show 1
seismic qualification of raceways to the revised seismic spectra generated 1
during the Diablo Canyon Phase 1 Verification Program. Prior to acceptance of j
this design standard change, reviews were performed which showed that no i
regulatory requirements, including those stated earlier, were impacted. The l
design of supports has sufficle'nt margin to assure that loss of a single support will not cause loss of safety function. As stated in the previoue submittal on this issue, an TSAR change will be submitted to clarify Page 8.3-28."
Thus, it appears that the licensee had evaluated this change in design criteria, for compliance with regulatory requirements, with the result l
i that the deviation from the additional conservatism, previously committed to l
in the TSAR, was justified based on analysis of regulatory requirements and industry standards. Furthermore, the licensee's engineering had brought this issue to tbt attention of the organization responsible for submitting requests for amendment of t.he TSAR. Although an amendment request had not yet been submitted this ites was scheduled for inclusion in an amendment request.
)
Therefore, the staff feels that the licensee acted in responsible manner as 1
regards this situation; however, a more timely action to resolve the TSAR discrepancy would have been desirable. The staff feels tha't this situation does not represent a breakdown in the design process.
4 k
i L.
'6 I
The f ailure to comply with the above referenced TSAR coassiteent is considered to be a Deviation.
i Staff Position
(
l Inspection of Unit I cable spreading room ares indicated that the licensee did f
not comply with the provisions of the TSAR with respect ts independence of supports for redundant safety related circuits. This represents a Deviation from an TSAR commitment, Action Required The matter of acceptability of the installed supports will be referred to the t
- Offf.ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for use in their evaluation of the TSAR change, which PG&E will submit. No further regional action is anticipated, i
i i
j i
l 4
)