ML20197J013
| ML20197J013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1984 |
| From: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197F919 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-489 TAC-42460, NUDOCS 8408270526 | |
| Download: ML20197J013 (3) | |
Text
-_
N O
, ~~,
VG fy>ck ),, \\
~
['T
'k UNITED STATES
/
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
s E.,,
/
WASHINGTON,q.C.f2d05 5 f 13 w
D A._
u.
t t
u h)e u>va A *^' g, 3, 9p13 n.r d
u>w p'%y j
\\r-~
x
)
uj pa
&wx 3 M P-n m
_4 4++g:
,t.,;.h,,
{> j & ) cd GJA)&$ N l-D
- Y ;.
.s -
\\
. ~, _
~ _ _ _. =
.M@
~in L y: m w., m e
.,c':_1.
a-WrW
}{pyM
{
- 2MWMdWII4-
?
. M*W; "' 5?;W2:=4 i
, O, T~w-52%
JEiW5-::" #~29:=W W%f J J A,,
2 :7 5,
Q go y i
~L
==1a-~~~ =.:- %.;= ^^--
3;*2 u~ = + _.=.~ ~ = a.
~
9 510-
-.@-Miif. -M Y-'
C/
.dCNNhTW 5 Ri d'"d WW2h
- nw@wmm
_ m = -
I+Ibi
+[hYhNn+:
7h'7 7, .
3 5 n
.x w.
gj;;m-"
,- 19++- c,--#.?_. r. +->+.-.7...-
I
,**: ~
[ -- - -
,t..
a.
7-w 8
[
c
?
ss Pb DL g
x297 &
l..
ay
?
4 a o 3.2gf
SALPINPUTEVALUATION C
4 DIABLO CANYON SAFEGUARDS REVIEW.
Criteria Category 1."
Management Involvement and Control in Assuring Ouality 1
The applicant has provided consistent evidence of prior planning and assignment of priorities.
Decision making is consistently at a le'el that ensures adequate management v
review.
2.
Acoroach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety 1
Stanaccint The applicant has provided teyhnically sound, timely, and thorough approaches in a almost all cases.
3.
Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives 1
The applicant provides timely, acceptable resolutions of issues initially in most cases.
(
4.
Enforcement History N/A 5.
Reporting of Reportable Events N/A 6.
Staffing (Including Management) 1 Positi6ns are identified, authorities and responsibilities.
are well defined.
7.
Training and Qualification Effectiveness 1
The safeguards training and qualification plan and. pro-cedures contribute to a well defined security program.
n
/
bf IO ADDRESSEES:
J. P. Knight P. T. Kuo H. Polk M. Hartzman J. Wermiel H. Walker O. Lasher F. Coffman
\\
t F. Witt
/
J. Pulsipher sd
~
": 2""i j
C.
ag w
s
,6 T. Sullivan
-V
^
L. Reiter 7
L. Crocker b
V F. Ande on s R. Hei man D. Kubi ki
- 8. Buckley v
9 S. Brocoum v
r khd h4 d[
a s,
, o,b Y' V
C t
V, AF,
- u. 0-GuL aow 2
I
pSuc oq%
UNITED STATES 5
E
^h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- p W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 September 10, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Robert F. Heishman, Chief Reactor Construction Programs Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
COMPLETION OF PIPING REVIEW ACTIVITIES FOR DIABLO CANYON As described in my memo to you dated July 11, 1984, a team composed of myself, D. Allison (IE), A. DuBouchet (consultant) and J. Crews (RV) performed a review of the implementation of commitments made to the NRC in Enclosure 3 to PG&E Letter No. DCL-84-238 dated June 26, 1984 (Attachment 1). This review was performed during the period July 17-21, 1984 at the Diablo Canyon Project offices in San Francisco and at the plant site.
Specifically, this review looked at programatic provisions for current and future work. Based on the inspection sample it appears that:
(1) Training programs are up to date and are being kept current.
(2) Engineering procedures are adequate and are being implemented.
(3) Audits, responses and corrective actions are adequate and timely.
(4) Cancellation of the tolerance clarification program has effectively addressed concerns about the controls in this area.
(5) The transfer of design responsibility to the home office has been effectively carried out.
Attachments 2, 3 and 4 address the detailed results of the review conducted in the Corporate Offices as they relate to the previously identified deficiencies.
It should be noted that the original deficiencies were identified in the Onsite Project Engineering Group organization, however, due to the transfer of the design engineering responsibility to the home office, the team reviewed the implementation in the current organization.
~
Richard H. Vollmer September 10, 1984 addresses the onsite review of current activities of DPEG which-are related to the previously identified deficiencies.
afu o ert F. Heishman, Chief Reactor Construction Programs Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attachments:
As stated cc w/ attachments:
R. DeYoung J. Taylor H. Denton J. N. Grace D. Eisenhut G. Knighton J. Crews Region V A. DuBochet I. Yin, Region III 3
)
I r