ML20209D915
Text
__.
E'
[un nee %,
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 74
- p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y.cx/
FEB 12 1985 D cket No. 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank J. Miraglia, Acting Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
James G. Partlow, Acting Director Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 REVIEW 1
Your memorandum dated January 11, 1985, on the above subject requested IE's SSER input on the QA program applicable to the design of Unit 2 (identifying any difference from Unit 1).
This memorandum is in response to that request, and our SSER input is enclosed.
It reflects an acceptable QA program description since before the construction permit for Unit 2 was issued in late 1970.
Any questions on the above or on the enclosure should be addressed to the QA Branch reviewer, Jack Spraul, on x-24530.
k James G. Partlow, Acting Director i
DivisJon of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, l
and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
SSER Input cc:
L. J. Chandler, NRR C. I. Grimes, NRR H. E. Schierlin NRR 1
7-
-y
,d Q_SD2L#32C&
i
~
QA BRANCH SSER INPUT DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 DESIGN VERIFICATION 6.
QA/QC The QA Manual for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 was issued in January 1970; 10CFR50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" was issued in June 1970; and the provisional construction permit was approved for Unit 2 in December 1970. The manual was to be used for Unit 1 only "to the extent possible...," but was to be fully applied to safety related activities and items for Unit 2.
Thus while the QA Manual was identified for Units 1 and 2, the commitment to apply the program at Unit 2 was stronger than the commitment to apply it to Unit 1.
As noted in the report to the ACRS concerning design and construction of Diablo Canyon Unit 2 (September 23,1969),the
" organizational arrangement satisfies our (i.e., Division of Reactor Licensing, AEC) requirements... Many aspects of the applicant's QAP will r
require further definition; however, his commitments and the extent of his planned approach in each of the critical areas are satisfactory for the construction permit stage...."
With the institution of the Diablo Canyon Project (DCP) in the 1981 time frame, the staff reviewed the QA program description to be applied to the DCP verification effort by PG&E.
The program was based on the QA programs of Bechtel and PG&E.
The staff found that the QA program described requirements, procedures, and controls that, when properly implemented, comply with the requirements of Appendix B to 10CFR Part 50.
Thus, from 1969 until today, PG&E has been committed to a QA program which meets NRC requirements.
In SSER 18 concerning the operation of Diablo Canyon, the staff concluded that " shortcomings found in and as a result of earlier QA programs (implementation) for certain design activities are being compensated by verification of the design under the IDVP, that construction was done under acceptable QA controls, and that current corrective actions and the IDVP work itself are being performed in accordance with acceptable QA programs." These conclusions are applicable to both Units 1 and 2.'
O e
.