ML20209B200
Text
. _ _
f * * * %e,o p
UNITED STATES 3y,,c'g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.,. "
,c WASHINGT!N. D. C. 20555 e
.g..v f December 15, 1981 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing FROM:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
INVESTIGATION INTO DIABLO CANYON
. g ;>. ',.3r.n v :v :-p.u v ~..n
- .,..* e ~;.*.~
..,.,,.,: n..;.- ;;:,e,s.:
< ;y,:n.cv. :. :
,.. o..n v.
~
This refers: to your memdr'andum to' m'e dated. December 15, 1981,- regarding the s
., board no.tificatio, Report.n rgpor, ting of,,the..ialvesMg,ati.op by Region..Y. on the dis
, f a R.~ L. Cloud We have discussed the matter with Region V and OELD.
o The concensus is that board notification is not required.
Region V has indicated that the investigation will begin on December 16 and should be completed on December 18.
It has expressed preference that we neither notify the Board nor Intervenors of this investigation as it may adversely affect the conduct of this investigation.
Region V indicated to us that the factual report containing the information will be available next week for transmittal to all parties. With this new information, please advise whether you want me to proceed with the information provided in your memo of December 15, i.e., notify the Board.
.. Y,e C.v.si~
)
y, e c. - c Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing
,o Division of Licensing F.Miragl ia#
cc:
~
W.0lms tead
.e
\\I o}
126//500/9 XA-
//.
nacogk UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.?
p WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
\\...../
DEC 161981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director.
Division of Engineering FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
QAB COMMENTS ON PG&E RESPONSE TO ITEM 3 2 & 3 0F COMMISSION ORDER (CLI-81-30) 0F NOVEMBER 19, 1981 As requested by Eisenhut's memo of December 14, 1981, the QAB has reviewed the December 4,1981 letter from PG&E (Furbush) to NRC (Denton) responding to the subject Commission Order. Our review focused primarily on the qualification of the contractors selected to perfonn the independent QA reviews, and on the program for evaluating the QA controls in effect and their implementation for all seismic service-related contracts prior to June 1978. We have the follow-ing comments:
1.
The major contractors for the verification program are R. L. Cloud Associates, Inc. and Teledyne Engineering Services, both of whom appear to be highly qualified to perform the needed technical reviews and evaluations.
R. F. Reedy, Inc. (RFR) has been retained as a sub-contractor to Cloud Associates to perform the review of QA activities.
RFR also appears to be highly qualified in its assigned area of review and evaluation. However, two concerns are evident in regard to RFR.
a.
RFR should not be a subcontractor to Cloud, but rather should report directly to PG&E.
Deficiencies in the QA program are generally recognized as the primary root cause of the Diablo Canyon problem, and therefore there should be greater assur-ance that the independent review by RFR will receive the nec-essary visibility and attention. Elevating the reporting level for QA effort to that of the other technical efforts is consis-tent with the staff's long standing interpretation of the QA criteria in Appendix B as reflected in the SRP Section 17.1/
17.2.
It is noted that Figure 1, referred to in the Overall Management Plan, has not been provided.
b.
There is no indication as to whether Mr. Reedy will perform this task himself or be assisted by others.
If others are involved, their qualifications should be presented.
2.
Sections 3.0, " Quality Assurance Review," and 4.0, " Review of Imple-mentation of Quality (Assurance Controls" of the Cloud Design Verifica-tion Program report December 3,1981) need to be reviewed and revised to include all aspects of the QA program that are pertinent to the re-view and evaluaticn of seismic service-related contracts.
In addition f fD'\\
y ~ ~ ~
Q ag-V
s.
Richard H. Vollmer DEC 161981 to design control (Criterion III), which appears to be addressed ade-quately, these sections should also address procurement document con-trol (Criterion IV); instructions, V); document control (Criterion VI) procedures, and drawings, (Criterion
- and auditing (Criterion XVIII).
3.
The review of QA controls in effect and their implementation for all seis-mic service-related contracts prior to June 1978 should result in an assess-ment of the adequacy of the QA program during that period of time.
It will provide a historical record of those design activities for which QA con-trols were adequate or deficient as the case may be.
The review should also assure that any deficiencies have been eliminated in the operational QA program.
The technical verification activities under the Cloud program should identify those design areas that were correctly performed and those design areas that are in error.
For those design areas, including hardware in the field, requiring correction, it is understood that the operational QA program would be in effect to provide the necessary QA controls for these activities.
/
(1 alter P. Haass, Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Engineering cc:
W. Johnston E. Sullivan J. Spraul J. Knight F. Miraglia B. Buckley O