CLI-81-30, Forwards Ltr to Util Re Approval of Teledyne Engineering Svcs 820402 Plan for Phase I of Independent Design Verification Program Per Commission Order CLI-81-30 & Request for Addl Info
Text
-
9)*
UNITED STATES
~
yh raf.g(*,!
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555
- g s ++v/,
APR g6 q i
.t 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. Denton' Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
FROM:
D. G. Eisenhut. Director. Division of, Licensing, NRR
~
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL OF PHASE I PLAN FOR DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 The staff has reviewed the April 2,1982 submittal by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) of its plan for Phase I of the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) which responds to item (3) of Comission Order CLI-81-30.
The staff also reviewed the April 6,1982 submittal by PG&E of its Technical Program which responds to a staff request made in the meeting on March 25, 1982. Based on our review of the documents we conclude that the plan for the IDVP meets the requirements of item 1(a), of the Comission Order and we recomend your approval of both programs.
Accordingly, we have prepared the enclosed letter to PG&E for your i
signature.
The TES plan for Phase I of the IOVP is a consolidated document for various aspects of the program (e'.g., management plan, engineering plan, applicability of statistical methods), includes the additional elements identified by the Comission during the March 4,1982 meeting, and addresses issues identified during meetings with the staff on February ~3 and March 4, 1982. We found that certain subjects need some additional clarification and recomend that they be included by TES in a revision to the program within two weeks. The items are identified in the enclosure to the letter to PG&E.
The PG&E Technical Program includes design verification activities performed internally by PG&E in accordance with its responsibility as the licensee (e.g. the resolution of technical issues resulting from the original annulus problem).
Our recomendation for your approval is limited to the Phase I activities themselves and does not apply to the adequacy of the Phase I activities as the basis for reinstating; the suspended. license (fuel, loading and low
-1 power oparation). As you, know the Reedy Report on the audit of the QA 4
activities for the seismic design of Phase I by PG&E (and its service related contractors) raised concerns within the staff regarding the QA efforts by PG&E in general. We have discussed the bases and findings in the report with Reedy and have recently received coments from PG&E on the report.
b, f
)
g1os%"M '
~
i Wa====md
~
..v APR g6 E s
1 The staff has not yet concluded whether, as a result of the Reedy findings, j
any changes are necessary in the scope of Phase I to meet the ' objective of providing a sufficient basis for reinstatement of'the ifcense to load?
fuel and operate up to 5% of power level. Although, the need for expanding i
the scope of Phase I in some form appears itkely at this time, we recommend that we preceed by approving the Phase I program plan since these activities must be completed-regardless of the eventual scope of the Phase I program.
1.'.'.-
.I j
arre 2.'Ei ennut, re tor Division of Licensing l
-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
R. DeYoung E. Case R. Engelken R. Purple R. Vollmer R. Tedesco J. Knight J. Crews F. Miraglia R. Bosnak F. Schauer W. Haass G. Bagchi i
M. Messier E. Su.llivan P. Kuo T. Bishop P. Morrill J. Fair K. Herring L. Chandler j
uck yl_
ll
~
i.
I 4
1 1
1 A t <
1
-'e g
- - ~
e r
m--
p wr
- w g
s
- =,3
',y s
-