ML20209B163
Text
F 3.Lfg"%[0 UNITED STATES cf.
g y*
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q ('
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.w... /
DEC 4 M
+
NOTE TO:
D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensin NRR V
THRU:
R. L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensi FROMe
& - Wlb 5 ' ^ # l 'a: n. ~ -
(-
^
J
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRN4S Based on discussions with PG&E on October a and November 3,1981, PG&E initiated ce tain re-analysis efforts and have subnitted two status reports to date (Nos,13 and Nov. 25].
In addition, PG&E has provided to R0-V a
" Preliminary Report, Seismic Reverification Program" prepared by R. L. Cloud Associates, Inc. (Nov.181 These submittals are consistent with the discussions at the aforementioned meetings.
On November l!!,1981 the Commission issued an Order (CLI-81-30) suspending fuel load operations pending completion of certain identified actions described therein.
In addition, on that.date, the staff requested additional information from PG&E required to conduct its evaluation for operation above 5% power.
The Order and letter expanded the scope of the reanalysis and verification efforts which PG&E had initiated based on the October 9 and November 3,1981 meetings.
As a result, the information provided by PG&E to date do not include a discussion of PG&E's proposed actions or schedules to comply with the Commission Order or the staff's letter. This fact is illustrated by the comments received from R. FTaass on PG&E's su5mittals to date (see attached).
It appears to me that it is necessary for us to get back 'in phase' and that PG&E's response to the Order and letter, expected early next week, will be our first opportunity to determine the depth and breadth of PG&E's efforts.
Based on this information, we can plan the extent and scope of review activities.
We have previously provided to you an identification of the Diablo Canyon Design Verification Tasks and some initial thoughts on the establishment of a Project Team and Steering Group. The establishment of this team and group is necessary to assure that our review can be conducted in a complete and expeditious manner with the proper coordination of management and technical input.
\\
d
[I p
~
f/ /2 /[O/dsL M4-
P
'l,'s A*4 :
.y a
2-We are'available to discuss this matter with you fur.ther.
1
, Frank J. ftbpg
, p ef
- Licensing Yranch No. 3 Division of Licensing i
e 9
4 9
e i
I i
i L
J t'
i i
i 1
-. -.. - - -. = = =
x m.
J h stWu u
)7.
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
y-
.1.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 d'%....+/
/
DEC 0 31981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
QAB COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY CLOUD REPORT AND PG&E BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORTS #1 & #2 As discussed in the meeting in your office on December 2,1981, QAB has the fol-lowing major cormients on the subject reports:
1.
The basic objective of the preliminary Cloud report (November 12,1981) is to review the trail of engineering information flow from organization to organization for applicability.
It does not address the adequacy of QA controls governing this information flow or the verification of its.
correctness.
2.
The PG&E Bi-Weekly (Semi-Monthly) Status Reports (dated November 13, 1981 and November 25, 1981) do not address the work progress achieved in the area of quality assurance.
PG&E should be requested to include such information in future status reports consistent with the directions specified in the Commission Order and the related staff letter. At a minimum, progress achieved with regard to reviewing the QA controls applied to the original design work by PG&E and by service-related con-tractors, and the QA controls established for the current seismic re-design effort and the reverification program should be described.
3.
The Cloud progress reports that accompany the PG&E statue reports pro-vide little information regarding the QA controls established for the current Cloud work.
These controls should be described in ~ greater de-tail.
4.
To assist the staff in assessing the adequacy and completeness of the PG&E response to the Commission Order and related staff letter, it is essential that the Program Plan (Item 5 of the staff letter) be pro-vided as soon as possible.
(
~
s Walter P. Haass, Chief.
Quality Assurance Branch tvision of Engineering cc:
J. Knight F. Mi raglia.
E. Sullivan J. Spraul B. Buckley 9
.