ML20209C059
| ML20209C059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1983 |
| From: | Harpster T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B155 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8304050552 | |
| Download: ML20209C059 (2) | |
Text
g t* " 4 f,.
9'e, UNITED STATES y"e j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,z
.p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Y.v }
Docket No. 50-275 MAR 2 51983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
George W. Vsnighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
Terry L. Harpster, Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs, IE
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON SWEC INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT, NO. 38, REVISION 1 By letter of March 18, 1983 (Sestak to Maneatis, et al), the Stone & Webster
~
Engineering Corporation (SWEC) forwarded Interim Technical Report, Number 38, Revision 1, entitled " Final Report on Construction Quality Assurance Evaluation of Wismer & Becker." The QA Branch has reviewed this report.
Section 6 of the report, " Evaluation of Review Results" does not. appear to be entirely consistent with the findings.
For example, Section 6 states "... the contractor performed his work in compliance with PG&E Specification 8752...."
Conversely, the E01's listed below indicate this was not true in every case.
1.
E01 9005 indicates review of welding procedures apparently did not comply with PG&E Specification 8752.
2.
E01 9006 indicates CMTRs did not comply with PG&E Specification 8752.
3.
E01 9010 indicates records of weld procedures apparently did not show compliance with PG&E Specification 8752.
4.
E01 9011 indicates the welding records did not show compliance with PG&E Specification 8752.
5.
E01 9012 indicates deficiencies were found in the welding procedures required by PG&E Specification 8752.
6.
E01 9014 indicates an apparent lack of documentation certifying the halogen content as required by PG&E Specification 8752.
7.
E01 9019 indicates welding documentation did not comply with PG&E Specifi-cation 8752.
8.
E01 9027 indicates there were no records of NDE performance on tube-to-seal table welds as required by PG&E Specification 8752.
9.
E01 9028 indicates weld documentation apparently did not identify the welds to specific welds as required by PG&E Specification 8752.
I l
4 9 3o'/65 off L 1
rn
MAR 2 51983 G. W. Knighton 2_
Sibilarly, Section 6 states that "... the work performed met the applicable standards...." As above, E01's indicate this was not true in every case.
Furthermore, Section 5 of the report, "E01 Reports Issued," does not provide adequate information for judging the acceptability of the E0I " buy-offs." We believe that more information in this regard should be reported.
Each E01 reported includes words such as "This file was reviewed and analyzed with the adcitional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recom-
- rer.ded and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan.
No physical modifications were required. AN IDVP Completion Report has been issued."
We believe the' report should be self-contained to the extent that interested parties should not have to review each IDVP Completion Report to determine the rationalization for closing-out the E01.
- rerefore, we suggest that SWEC be requested to:
1.
Expand the report to include the basis for closing-out each E01. The detail should be such that the reader can understand the justification for the action (or lack of action) taken.
2.
Expand the evaluation to clarify how the conclusions agree with the findings.
[V {
tw
~
/
erry L. Harpster, Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc:
E. L. Jordan, IE J. M. Taylor, IE B. K. Grines, IE H. Schierling, NRR B. Buckley, NRR u__
1 e"g*
s c,
UNITED STATES i4 3 '
?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j ;* d!. ' 1
(.>g-- ' /
WASmGTON. D. C. 20555 FEB 181983
.....f
~.. -
y IEM]RANDUM FOR:
Roger !1attson, Director Division of Systems Integration FROM:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON - REVIEW 0F CCWS Over the past couple of months a nunber of questions have been raised concerning the adequacy of the design of the Diablo Canyon Component Cooling Water System (CCWS). While it is recognized that the questions raised on the CCWS may have inplications for other systems, the focus for our review'has been the CCWS since such a review will determine the validity of questions that have been raised.
The concerns were the subject of a Board Notification $Y[c{ol'd Yin accordance is75"IJ The allegations referenced therein, will be evaluated by Region V an
,,ith normal practice.
In addition, the transcript of an HRC meeting with an individual who raised a number of questions has been sent to the IDVP contractor
-(Telegy,ne)gequesting that it be factored into Phase II of that program.
(See
.' E H'cl.osure T for transmittal letter.)
In addition, the staff met with PG&E
'EdpEdsentatives on January 28, 1983, to discuss the design basis for A copy of the transcript of that meeting with PG&E is attached as re.
PG&E has informed me that additional information, including respo es"t'6"siaY ouestions at the January 28, 1983, meeting, will be supplied to the NRC at the end of February.
In order to provide confidence in the design review approach for Diablo Canyon, we have determined that the staff should undertake a new review of the CCWS.
Such a review should be sufficiently. detailed to provide the following deter-minations, which should be addressed in your SER:
1.
The extent to which the CCWS design satisfies the FSAR comitments.
2.
The extent to which the CCWS satisfies all NRC regulations applicable to Diablo Canyon.
3.
The extent to which the CCWS neets the applicable criteria in the latest edition of the Standard Review Plan, and 4.
The generic implications, if any, from the aforementioned determinations regarding the adequacy of the Diablo Canyon design approach and philosophy.
f-@now' j' y
Roger Mattson
- R-Your review should be completed, with SER inputs provided to DL by March 31, 1983.
If your are unable to support this schedule, please notify me promptly.
DL will arrange site visits, meetings, etc. as needed, to support your efforts which, we recognize, may include walkdowns of the CCWS as necessary to review the final as-built design. We anticipate that you will integrate the overall review of the CCWS, soliciting inputs from other NRR Division as appropriate.
L.
(
r sdn rector Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
H. R. Denton, w/o e ici.
E. G. Case, w/o enc:.
R. Vollmer, w/o enc 1 T. M. Novak, w/o enc!
G. W. Knichton w/o por1.
g.wmispu taMc '.arim +TI?EJ B. Buckley, w/o encl.
H. Thompson, w/o encl.
R. Engelken, w/o encl.
J. Martin, w/o encl.
t
.e
s
. p.
UmTED STATES I
}.\\.
c'.
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMM!SSION
',' ~ ' 2. &
'.. -y
.f Yr ASH t N O T O *d. D. C. ;;.r.55 f
. - t' l FEB 2 4 G33
. '...'V Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, fiRR P.EPDF.AW.:M FOR:
Roger J. Mattson, Director, Division of Systems Integration, fiRR F F.;M:
DIABt0 CANYON - REVIEW 0F COP.PONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM KfJECT:
18, 1983 me,orandum, DSI will provide a Safety As rc:.uested in your February ication Report (SER) input concerning the design adequacy of the Diablo
.;;a corponent cooling water system (CCWS) by March 31, 1983. The SER input
,,ill address the fcur concerns identified in your menorandum,
'/2 do not anticipate the need for any further meetings or site visits relating However, we request that DL expedite responses to this issue at this time.
fr:x POSE to the requests for additional documentation which the applicant c: nitted to prcvide during the January 28, 1983 meeting. These are as follows:
Additi:nal dis:ussion ano engineering justification for the maximam assumed 1.
leak rate of 200 gpm from the nonseistically qualified corp;nents in the "C" le:p of the CCWS following an SSE.
(
Reference:
January 28, 1983 meeting transcript at 101).
Additional verification of the design heat reeoval capability of the CCWS 2.
in the varicus accident operating rnodes including operator actions required, and assuming the most limiting single failure with respect to CCWS perfor-This reevaluation is also to include a comparison against the FSAR te peratures and assucptions for heat removal, and should provide verifica-rance.
tion of the capability of each CCW heat exchanger to handle full flow from all CCW pumps.
(
Reference:
January 28,19S3 meeting transcript at 69 through79).
r
~
Additional discussion with the applicant may be necessary following our review This may be handled by telephone calls of the responses to the above concerns.
as necessary.
W
'W
/
Roger J. t. ttson, Director Division of Systems Integration cc:
H. Denton
- 0. Parr
/Ah R3 OtA.
H. Schierling-[
R. Lobel E. Case R. Vollmer ight eFa e I.
L. Rubenstein J. Wenniel W
Lw
& p ur i m" R. Engelken f
/7(.f Ag J. Martin
?):).&
W eLA u.6.Lw
- -~
'L pf
e e
f a
.t t
- e e
g 4
9 I
a e*
a 9
9 i
fe e
y
/
e t
. t 7., g, e
e e
t I
.e e
e
, g e
a y
e o
e 9
?
e G
O 4
o 9
$ 0
/
A I'
f 1
e
, - 9 e
h h
w 9
g e
e 8
t 4
6 3
e 3
f e
- e-e
, j -
- e-t f,
g t
J g
e g
o e
O 9
a e
e 9
e 8
yo S
j
, i n>.
~
e o
e S
S I
J i
l I
D
- e.. ' c, UNITED STATES J
/ ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.i
.J i
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- [ '--#~,(,/
!.1;.
- 4 S,:.
j D0cke: Nos.: 50-275 and 50-323 t
MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. Bishop, Chief, Reactor Construction Projects Branch, Region V FROM:
G. W. Knighton, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 AND 2 SALP We have reviewed the draft of the Region V SALP evaluation. We recomend that the following changes be made:
1.
Section IV.2 Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP)
Add: The NRR evaluation of the design verification effort is provided in Section VI.9.
2.
Section V.8 Licensing Activities Add: The NRR evaluatien of licensing activities is provided*in Section VI.9.
i 3.
Section VI.9 Licensing Activities Replace:
See Attachment 1 (with Appendix) for the NRR evaluation and conclusion for all licensing activities, including those related to the design verification effort.
/
/h
. _y'g,.g.(( 'l.'./.' 'y'.B L
/
tleorge W. Knighton,' Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing g4
, (s (% D l 2
\\g'
DISTRIBUTION Do:ument Control 50-275/323 t.'t.r n' ' n:-
'~~~
PRC System LB#3 Reading JLee Docket nos.:
50-275 HSchierling and 50-323 BBuckley Attorney,'OELD TMNovak iiEl10RANDUM FOR:
T. Bishop, Chief, Reactor Construction Projects Branch, Region V FROM:
G. W. Knighton, Chief. Licensing Branch No. 3 DL
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT.1 AND 2 SALP Uc have reviewed the draft of the Region V SALP evaluation. We recommend that the following changes be made:
1.
Section IV.2 Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP)
Add: The NRR evaluation of the design verification effort is provided in Section VI.9.
2.
Section V.8 Licensing Activities Add: The NRR evaluation of licensing activities is provided in Section VI.9.
3.
Section VI.9 Licensing Activities Replace: See Attachment 1 (with Appendix) for the NRR evaluation and conclusion for all licensing activities,. including those related to'the design verification effort.
OriginalhignEd hy:
Esorge W. Kr.!ybn George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
, / /1 A /) [
v i
,-v t
- \\ {n
^.- l _
r1 I DL:L'O.ikly>
DL:CB#3 DLkB#,3s
'"h GiTBFTiYig/y1 BBu mam >...j..,.j.g.g....'....
"..gj. '..'cMisy".".'
."..GWK$TylitBis j.
.g.g.g......
.....g.g....
,j em>
non sia na:,,e. m3
. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 6src. im_mm
." % j\\
UNITED STATES f j.
[}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 3
..... s
~
Docket No. 50-275 MAR 2 51983
!:El10RAhDUM FOR:
George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
Terry L. Harpster, Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs, IE
SUBJECT:
C0!YiENTS ON SWEC INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT, N0. 38, REVISION 1 By letter of March 18, 1983 (Sestak to Maneatis, et al), the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) forwarded Interim Technical Repert, Number 38, Revision 1, entitled " Final Report on Construction Quality Assurance Evaluation of Wisrier & Becker." The QA Branch has reviewed this report.
Section 6 of the report, " Evaluation of Review Results" does not appear to be entirely consistent with the findings. For example, Section 6 states "... the contractor performed his work in compliance with PGSE Specification 8752...."
Conversely, the E01's listed below indicate this was not true in every case.
1.
E01 9005 indicates review of welding procedures apparently did not comply with PG&E Specification 8752.
2.
E01 9006 indicates CMTRs did not comply with PG&E Specification 8752.
3.
E01 9010 indicates records of weld procedures apparently did not show compliance with PG&E Specification 8752.
4.
E01 9011 indicates the welding records did not show compliance with PG&E Specification 8752.
5.
E01 9012 indicates deficiencies were found in the welding procedures required by PG&E Specification 8752.
6.
E01 9014 indicates an apparent lack of documentation certifying the halogen content as required by PG&E Specification 8752.
~7.
E01 9019 indicates welding documentation did not comply with PG&E Specifi-cation 8752.
8.
E01 9027 indicates there were no records of NDE performance on tube-to-seal table welds as required by PG&E Specification 8752.
9.
E01 9028 indicates weld documentation apparently did not identify the welds to specific welds as required by PG&E Specification 8752.
1 f
g
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtsSION e'
o d
0FFICE OF INVESTICATIONS FIELD OFF9CE. REGION V g
N.- /
HED MAAIA LANE. SUITE T10 q,,,
WALNUT CREEK. CAUFORMIA 9438
- ~
i5 APR 1 y pgg3 Docket No. 50-275 50-323 l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. G. Risenhut, Director, Division of Licensing NRR FROM:
J. L. Crews, Director Division of Resident, Reactor Projects and Engineering Programe RV
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION FOR DIABLO CANYON BOARD NOTIFICATION Region V is currently evaluating and investigating two allegations regarding Diablo Canyon. These are:
1.
Alleged failure of a contractor to observe Quality Assurance progran requirements regarding the removal of nonconforming item
"- hold tags", and concerns in other areas related to welding.
2.
Alleged intimidation of a contractor Quality Control inspector by crafts personnel.
The Region reconsends that these topics be brought to the attention of the Diablo canyon licensing board.
[ 4. 9 i
( ;. p' /
s',
/
j
- fp J. d. trapts, ctor ivis on of Resident, Reactor Projects & Engineering Programa cc
T. W. Bishop, RV l
L. Chandler, ELD T. Novak, ADL, NRR l
B.,Buckley, LPM, NRR H. Schierling, LPM, NRR J. B. Martin, RV P. J. Morrill, RV e
h y
u
A
{
l ROUTING AND TRANSMITTA!J SUP TO: (Name office symbol, room number,-
Initials Date Dullding, Agency / Post)
.~ -'
. h. h t h
.2.
.~
G 4Q g $$[-
~
^
- s. 6. N,'c kEK Il
~
Action File Note and Return Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circutate For Your Information See Me Comment Investigate Signature Coordination Justify REMARKS se c e,'vtd (FM) hW %ko tuo>
kfr:I(Y.00c.ed. reb'frec.[w.
p 4 1 (I G. u s u d.
d DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)
Room No -Bldg.
Phone No.
(M 5041-102 V
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
${t tuck IN-11.20s e cPO 1931 0 361 529 (109)
-