ML25167A191
| ML25167A191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1984 |
| From: | Ebersole J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Palladino N NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| Download: ML25167A191 (1) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman July 16, 1984 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Dr. Palladino:
SUBJECT:
ACRS REVIEW OF THE REPORT OF THE DIABLO CANYON PEER REVIEW GROUP During its 291st meeting, July 12-14, 1984, the Advhory Committee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review of a draft report (Reference 1) prepared by the Diablo Canyon Peer Review Group as requested by your memorandum dated July 9, 1984.
This matter was considered during a Subcor11nittee meeting held in Washington, D.C. on July 11, 1984.
During our review we had the benefit of discussions with members of the NRC Staff, including NRC Inspector, Mr. Isa Yin, representatives of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company {Licensee), and representatives of the Independent Design Verification Program {IDVP) organization.
We also heard statements from two members of the public and had the benefit of the documents listed.
The draft report of the Peer Review Group relates to activities under-taken by the Licensee in accordance with the seven conditions imposed by the Co,r,nission in the low power license for the Oiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, unit 1.
The report also addresses issues raised regarding the scope and effectiveness of the IDVP and concerns relating to quality assurance aspects of the work done by the onsite engineering group.
The Peer Review Group has concluded that the seven license conditions have been addressed satisfactorily by the Licensee, that the previous conclusions of the NRC Staff regarding the acceptability of the IOVP remain valid, and that the Progranmatic Issues concerning the onsite engineering group have been resolved.
Although Mr. Yin participated to some degree in the reviews made by the Peer Review Group, he has concerns about the extent of the reviews and the judgmental basis for some of its findings.
We believe that Mr.
Vin's concerns represent a difference in professional engineering judgment.
We believe that the Peer Review Group's review of the Licensee's activities was adequate for the purpose.
382
Honorable Nunzio July 16, 1984 we agree with thr:: conclusions reached by the Peer ktview Group that the issues discussed in the draft report have been resolved and should not prevent operation of the Di ab lo Canyon Nuclear Power Pl ant, Unit 1 at full power.
Sincerely,
~c~~rsf-t_~
Chairman Reforences:
Subject:
Diablo Canyon License Conditions on Piping ana Supports
- 2. Memorandum from Nunzio J. Palladino, NRC Chairman, to Jesse C.
Ebersole, ACRS Chairrr@n, dated July 9, 1984,
Subject:
Review of Diablo Canyon Issues
- 3. Memorandum from I. T. Yin, Region III, to Richard H. Vollmer, NRR, undated,
Subject:
Comments on SSER License Condition 2.C {11)
Prepared by the Viablo Canyon Piping Peer Review Panel
- 4. Draft Memorandum from I. T. Yin, Region III, to Richard H. Vollmer, NRR, undatea,
Subject:
Co111T1ents on SSER License Condition £.C {11)
Prepared by the Diablo Canyon Piping Peer Review Panel
- 5. Letter from Thomas Devine, Counsel, Mothers for Peace, Government Accountability Project, to Nunzio J. Palladino, et al., dated July 11, 1984,
Subject:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 383