ML20209B150
| ML20209B150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1981 |
| From: | Haass W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B155 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8112100549 | |
| Download: ML20209B150 (2) | |
Text
.
w Nc7 7,
UNITED STATES E ' ) v.,( 3 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,
'E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t
\\..v.../
NOV 3 01981 A
MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch #3,&
~
Division of Licensing FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
QAB EFFORTS REGARDING THE DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM As requested in your note of November 20, 1981, the following describes efforts QAB would expect to perform to determine acceptability of the results of the PG&E design verification program for Diablo Canyon:
For each of the four areas of concern, (1) All seismic service-related contracts prior to 6/78, (2) All non-seismic service-related contracts prior to 6/78, (3) PG&E internal design activities, and (4) All service-related contracts post 1/78, QAB would review the results of the PG&E program to determine the QA controls anc' procedures that were established and the extent to which they were imple-mented during the conduct of the original design work. The specific QA con-trols of interest are design control; procurement document control; instruc-tions, procedures, and drawings; document control; and audits. The QA controls would be reviewed for PG&E activities as well as for the activities of the service-related contractors.
QAB would review the adequacy of the QA controls established to conduct the design verification program both by PG&E ~and its contracters/ consultants.
Criteria for determining acceptability of the QA controls and procedures would l
consist of the applicant's SAR comitments at the CP stage and upgraded staff guidance that was adopted by PG&E (generally Rev. O of the SRP Section 17.1) during subsequent stages of the design effort.
QAB would review the QA aspects included as part of PG&E's submitted plans and procedures for the conduct of the design verification program as well as
[
the bimonthly reports and final reports.
Assessment of the adequacy of PG&E's efforts in conducting the design verifi-cation program should not await receipt of information from PG&E, but rather should be performed on a continuing basis. In this regard, staff audits of PG&E progress on this program should be made through meetings and periodic m ow sw m
r.
o' Frank J. Miraglia NOV 3 01981 visits to PG&E facilities. Such an approach will permit identification of mid-course ^ program corrections, if needed, and timely completion of the staff assessment of the program results.
>'l (?D Walter P. Haass, Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Engineering cc:
R. Vollmer W. Johnston J. Spraul l
l l
i i
,.