ML20197J099
| ML20197J099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1984 |
| From: | Brocoum S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197F919 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-489 NUDOCS 8410100327 | |
| Download: ML20197J099 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
.g WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
~s...../
SEP 2 8 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
George Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing FROM:
Stephan Brocoum, Acting Chief Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1 SALP REPORT As you requested in your September 20, 1984 memorandum, the Geosciences Branch's input for the Diablo Canyon 1 SALP Report is attached.
P W
Stephan rocoum, Acting Chief Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated cc:
J. Knight S. Brocoum L. Reiter H. Scherling R. Rothman R. McMullen i
^
lD SLll0 loo 32
?' ^-
Sf4Lt' LVd lud L lon UldD io LdilyOn Un lL I,
ddnudry 1,
l 'JdJ - dune JU, l 'J O'4 NRR Activity: Seismic Design Basic Roovaluatinn prnnram Prepared by:
Branch:
Geosciences Branch Overall Performance Category:
1 Evaluation Performance Criterion Category Basis Management Involvement Management up to and including V.P. levels has been evident. They are in Assuring Quality actively concerned with assuring a good program.
)
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from Safety Standpoint 1
The approach thus far by PG&E has been of high quality and there is every indication that it will continue to be so.
Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives 1
Have been responsive to NRC concerns.regarding issues about new geological and seismological information and have taken the initiative in gearing up for seismic reevaluation.
Enforcement History N/A a
Reporting and Analysis of 2
Took 2 weeks to notify the staff about the contents of a very significant Reportable Events report on the tectonics of Coastal Central California, and minimized its importance in reporting.
Staffing (Including Too early to completely. evaluate because all of the technical. people for the j
Management) seismic reevaluation have not been selected. Most have, however, and they are of high quality. PG&E management is closely involved in the effort and apparently will continue to be.
. ' Training Effectiveness
'and Qualification N/A I
e s
9
3MLr LWe lud b lull U I C U 1 0 L dfly ull Ull 1 L ddilutry 4,
13OJ - dullt' JU, l 'J O4 i
NRR Activity: 300 Nt T O(J/f4 8,b
- krMA, 6a/r ra rt <>9
'l
' ~
bOUN f Prepared by:
Branch: 6,,, m L e Overall Performance Category:
/
} Evaluation [l Performance Criterion Category Basis
)
k 1.
Management Involvement in Assuring Quality g
4gg pp/ g /f,, h @ h,
g,
{
A CCAM A 'or Y 'UseMt ' Y f H 9fdo*1 s
2.
Approach to Resolution of 9
I U
/ bj N M # ts $8>r f r M
/r g 4
)
c /vA/
(t Technical Issues from Safety Standpoint
/
(f ktf it'tif h 30 lu lCbth i
3.
Responsiveness to NRC
//w 4-rosp.,,e,%c & //d. con as m ygs,A 45_ gce;
- Initiatives,
, %f ne,,,,,
,Q J
,.M,Lp,,;;(,Q% g g,, )%
\\
y s %. onr*/r*J w < so y cers y sy! S a<i<n,re rea vMr
~
m 4.
Enforcement History
\\
i
/.
h a
l 5.
Reporting and Analysis of d
udt '/d hy4f//,.r4// dSeut., p( d,% c/ <-
~
m Reportable Events g
,p,g.,.
,f 'e,,, yg, 'Q,,;,. o,C c e.g.j;f J
^
Ct fak.,,ik, esJ moor ~m o /*e ! ob *"1,no A nr /N rh a r AE9,.
t
/
E e,<4 4 er. j d48 v4 /c See,s.re o //./ */47 din b/
t 6.
Staffing (Including Management) j p a,pt,__,4 -l/a. en W,7,2, e.eM,p he,a e,o,/ L,,.rQ,J. ist,.$
f de.ve,/s.wa-,se<, A /Lywesf4,ygwkh. Pcjg m
h erare.t*,,,,'ve/va e).m :/4 e$ f nd'wpa r a A w./G,d ve % fo e
t'
/
7.
Training Effectiveness and Qualification j
EC
[G $f y
Input to the SALP Process I
A.
Functional Area: Fire Protection 1.
Management involvement in assuring quality:
Throughout the review process, the applicant's activities exhibited evidence of prior planning an3 assignment of priorities. Decisions which I
were made were usually at a level that ensured adequate management review. Management was aware of the importance of fire protection and took steps to see that our review and' site audit went well, including making contractor representatives available as needed.
Rating Category 2 2.
Approach to resolution of technical issues:
During the various meetings, telecons, and in the several documents submitted in conjunction with the resolution of our site audit issues, the applicant's representatives displayed a clear understandung of 9
our concerns with the level of fire protection. The applicant's additional fire protection commitments revealed a consistently conservative approach toward providing an adequate level of safety. The justification provided in support of the applicant's fire protection program was based on sound fire protection engineering principles. With.the exception of fire protection Fo e.
UNU sTED F a st Doe t-Atsrnss.cEr 400 ErfEUEDC~f e Il*!PrW&~
e, where additional analyses was necessary, all outstanding issues were resolved in a timely manner.
Rating Category 1 3.
Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives: With few exceptions, the applicant provided timely written and oral rs'ponses to our e
s}
requests for informaton. Although, most of the proposals offered to resolve our fire protection concerns could be construed as viable, our effort to resolve some issues required a number of submittals before acceptable resolution was achieved.
p Rating Category 2 g1
g g 6 A sALP %
A
% A~dL Au~
S it %. n m
h % a g a n ( % v deca u d a a m a g 6
wM -
o J tJo.n d<all mc w
d - o i. iL Tc h J %d p di ~ h2 LL L 4 @4 a 2 A Q h a., at,& A c
~ & M -acsLs-eaes) m eedy u At1 d a f & Q; m g g d
at_ a u y,
a.a)
Anmah M4q m s u As%,~, & A-A ae &
Ah p.f : L k L cA c% > an + -y m uL L.
NN hh&
As bm y) v 4 Aw p % v-a 1% c-~
d - % a wtn.4
.. d h a b o h a a % * - a Afd Cdo)
% [ Ldh
'! W