ML20209C156

Responds to Request at 830521 Meeting Re Const Qa.Addl Info on Engineering Open Items 9001 & 9003 Requested.Independent Design Verification Program Considered Branch Comments Appropriate

ML20209C156
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/10/1983
From:	Schierling H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16340C148	List: ML16340C147 ML20209B134 ML20209B144 ML20209B172 ML20209B176 ML20209B206 ML20209B218 ML20209B249 ML20209B270 ML20209B277 ML20209B283 ML20209B298 ML20209B443 ML20209B450 ML20209B492 ML20209B597 ML20209B601 ML20209B605 ML20209B682 ML20209B777 ML20209C156 ML20209C239 ML20209C268 ML20209C274 ML20209C285 ML20209C293 ML20209C318 ML20209C326 ML20209C333 ML20209C442 ML20209C446 ML20209C477 ML20209C533 ML20209C551 ML20209C621 ML20210A699 ML20210A793 ML20210A831 ML20210A898 ML20210A977 ML20210B079 ML20210B125 ML20210B142 ML20210B176 ML20210B198 ML20210B218 ML20210B230 ML20210B246 ML20210B256 ML20210B260 ... further results
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8306210460
Download: ML20209C156 (2)

Text

t

.e= am

[4

• h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c,

UNITED STATES jp j

WASMNGTON. D. C. 20555

(...../

JF 101533 MEMORANDUM FOR: George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing FROM:

Hans Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSTRUCTION QA In response to our request at the meeting on May 21, 1983, on Construction QA, the IDVP provided us with drafts of ITR-36 Rev. 1 and ITR-38 Rev. 2.

Both drafts were reviewed promptly and on June 1,1983 we provided the IDVP with our comments in a telephone call (NRC:

H. Schierling, J. Spraul; IDVP:

W. Cooper, F. Sestak).

We had no coments on ITR-36 Rev.l. With respect to ITR-38 Rev. 2 we comented that the information provided for the E0Is should state if the current PG&E documentation address the discrepancy as discussed in the E0Is and if an appropriate close-out has been included.

This comment resulted from a series of specific questions on E0I 9001 and E019003:

l.

With respect to E01 9001, were the welds previously inspected (i.e. as part of the original construction work)?

If they were not inspected, what was the basis?

If they were inspected, were the inspection results documented?

If they were inspected but the results were not documented, what was the the basis?

If they were inspected and the results were documented, was~an appropriate close-out provided (i.e. does the documentation include the basis for finding the discrepant weld acceptable)?

2.

With respect to E0I 9003,the Westinghouse drawing requirement was met, but the Wismer Becker procedure WB 3500-2 was apparently violated.

This conflict in requirements should be resolved and the basis for finding one requirement appropriate as compared to the other should l

be provided.

1 1

m% %

w1 i

Vw

l o

George W. Knighton.

The same type of comments applie's to many of the other E0Is. The IDVP considered our comments appropriate and will address them in the final revisions.

1 I-rn, Hans Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc:

D. Eisenhut T. M. Novak W. Haass J. Spraul-L. Chandler B. Buckley o

l 1

l l

. ~,. -,,,.. -... -

-