ML20136B321

Comments on Rf Reedy,Inc Repts Re Assessment of Util QA Programs & Design Seismic Consultants,In Response to Recent Telcons.No Significant Adverse Findings Identified

ML20136B321
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date:	03/29/1982
From:	Engelken R NRC
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20136B092	List: IA-84-293, Revised Testimony of Wp Haass on Governor Deukmejian & Joint Intervenor Contentions 6 & 8 Re QA Design ML20136B086 ML20136B108 ML20136B120 ML20136B209 ML20136B238 ML20136B265 ML20136B272 ML20136B278 ML20136B285 ML20136B293 ML20136B298 ML20136B309 ML20136B313 ML20136B321 ML20136B336 ML20136B349 ML20136B361 ML20136B369 ML20136B395 ML20136B405 ML20136B417 ML20136B436 ML20136B466 ML20136B485 ML20136B552 ML20136B616 ML20136C187 ML20136E236 ML20136E544 ML20136E550 ML20136E554
References
FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8601020544
Download: ML20136B321 (1)

Text

x a

MAR 2g1937 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director ~

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: R.. H. Engelken, Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM This is in response to recent telephone discussions between you and me ~

and members of our staffs regarding the above subject. We have examined the recent reports by R. F. Reedy Inc. regarding the assessment of the Quality Assurance (QA) programs of PG&E and its design seismic consultants.

The fLdings of these reports are generally consistent with the findings of Recton v's~ insoection which was undertaken foTTETiig initial discovery and reporti.ng of seismic _ desion_ errors __and reveal potentially serious and wide ranging inadequacies in OA programs for'desian of the Diab 1n r>nynn n l ar.t.

The report identifies no significant adverse findings specific to the QA programs of PG&E And its contractors for on-site construction activities.

However, the nature of the advarca findinas~recardino PG'J's nun na nmnram and particularly the lack of PG?F mnanamnt neriedic atsottment of tha~

effec m eness of OA nrnere bnlamnnt a ti nn raises

. qiiestions regarding the adequacy of these programs.(implicitly at least)

In consideration of the above, we offer the following recommendations regarding the current secpe of the design verification program.

1. The results of an assessment of the QA programs of selected non-ca"ic safp+y -alated desion consultants, similar to the Reedy assessments recently completed for seismic design consultants, should be provided to the staff prior to NRC granting authorization for the resumption of fuel loading and icw power testing under the operating license.

2. Interim findings of the verification program for Phase II, sufficient ~~

to make a preliminary judgement as to the overall adequacy of design effort, should be provided to the staff for those non-seismic design consultants where significant adverse QA program findings result from 1., above. prior to NRC granting authorization for the resumption of fuel loading and low power testing under the operating license.

3. Ex and the sye of Phase II of the current verification program to -

nc ude an assessment, similar to the Reedy assessments for design consultants, of the QA programs for at least two principal onde

- construction contractors, such as the prime civil /structurai construction contractor and the reactor coolant system erection and welding contractor.

We would be pleased to discuss these recccinendations with you further should you wish.

Original M M R. H. Engelken R. H. Engelken cc: H. E. Schierling, NRR b ~

B601020544 851125 PDR FOIA LEIGHTOB4-293 PDR I

g. 4%/f