ML20210B079
| ML20210B079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1982 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C148 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8609170444 | |
| Download: ML20210B079 (2) | |
Text
I my'o
.z UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION
-l g
g g
.j WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
[,,,. #
June 16, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON REVIEW As a result of our meeting at Teledyne, I would like to propose the following staff approach for performing the staff review of Diablo Canyon Phase ! Independent Design Verfication Program. We have con-sidered the organizational options of forming a review task force or establishing dedicated reviewers which will utilize the normal matrix organizations and consultants.
In view of the lengthy review process that is likely to be ahead of us, I believe that the use of our crgan-ization in its normal mode would be the most effective. We will desig-nate certain reviewers that'will give their first priority to the Diablo Canyon review effort.
Regarding the ' scope of the review, we will need to work some of the details out when we see the interim reports promised by Teledyne.
However, my current view is that the staff should review and generally concur in the logic represented in each of the interim technical reports.
That is, assuming the facts presented in the report are correct, the staff should be able to reach the same conclusions as Teledyne.
In addition to that review, we will select a sample of the interim tech-nical reports and probe more deeply into the basis for the facts and conclusions presented. The result of this effort should provide a good basis for review of the Phase I final report and agreement or
' disagreement with the conclusions and recommendations presented therein.
I also prepose that we review all or a significant fraction of the Class A and B Error Reports and Program Resolution Reports transferred to PG&E for action. This is likely to amount to less than 30 items and, if it appears unnanageable, a 50 percent audit may be appropriate.
In any event, all Class A and B Error Reports will be reviewed in detail.
In addition and for completeness, we should audit the Class C and D Error Reports and Program Resolution Reports when were classified as deviations or closecuts.
Sampling on the order cf 10 to 20 percent should suffice in these areas. Finally, I believe it will be necessary to conduct a detailed evaluation of a small number of the modifications that were prompted by the IDVP. This we would coordinate with Region V s
r-
+
Harold R. Denton.
but would be along the lines of a detailed examination of the modified design requirements, the drawings or changes instructions resulting f om the design modification, and a field inspection of the modifica-tion and associated QA/QC paperwork, Finally, I propose that Jim Knight, along with a Branch Chief from DE and DL establish the criteria by which the audit items will be selected and then recomr.end which specific itens would be selected for detailed examina tion. With the concurrence of DE and DL, this would be the basis of our work plan.
In some cases DSI will be asked to participate.
I would appreciate your comments on the above review program whose aim is to make efficient use of staff resources while providing a timely and technically defensible recommendation to you regarding future licensing of Diablo Canyon.
, '/ cod &~
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering cc:
E. Case D Eisenhut R. Mattson J. Knight W. Johnston T. Sullivan F. Schauer R. Bosnak W. Haass R. Tedesco y
F. Miraglia f H. Schierling
-