ML20211B704
| ML20211B704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Vollmer D NRC |
| To: | Harold Denton NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B155 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8610200412 | |
| Download: ML20211B704 (1) | |
Text
,-
[ L, r[w,L
.,/
>, u:%'*.,
n T
/
UNITED STATES
[
p,
\\/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gl g.'
5 y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
./
October 26, 1981 1'O
/.(p45K LCM C
e NOTE TO:
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON DESIGN QA Based on what we have learned to date from our seismic and QA team review of Diablo Canyon. I believe that we may need a broader look at design QA than that provided by Cloud and IE.
It's a "given" that the annulus area design will be redone to fully meet seismic margin require-ments and PG&E may even be able to show that margin to failure existed without redesign and modifications in the event of an SSE.
Even so, the original design process has been shown to lack the QA we currently feel appropriate and I suggest the following longer term remedies to '
overcome this:
i 1.
Require PG&E to perform an independent design review of all safety-grade structures, systems, and components under their engineering responsibility within one year from full power license; 2.
Require PG&E to perform a more detailed design reverification for two selected systems under their engineering responsibility, in-cluding inspection of actual plant hardware installation to design
.s specifications by a third party within one year from full power license.
NRC would observe the IDR process and we could use an independent QA team to witness the design reverification and reinspection process. A program of this nature should provide the assurance we seek and is likely to be acceptable to Brown & Hubbard based on my discussions and Hubbard's I
I testimony on the Shoreham and South Texas record.
Dick Vollmer 0
J 8610200412 860930 PDR FOIA HOLMESB6-151 PDR
-w