IR 05000275/1989010
| ML16341F039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1989 |
| From: | Mendonca M, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341F038 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-89-10-MM, 50-323-89-10, NUDOCS 8903270148 | |
| Download: ML16341F039 (8) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V
Report Nos:
50-275/89-10 and 50-323/89-10 Docket Nos:
50-275 and 50-323 License Nos:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106 Facility Name: Diablo Canyon Units 1 and
Inspection at:
Region V Offices Meeting Conducted:
February 24, 1989 Attendees:
S.
A. Richards, Chief, Engineering Section
.
Nen onca,-
ie Reactor ProjectsSection I
Approved by:
N. N. Nendonca, Chief Reactor ProjectsSection I
s.
Dat S>gned
~/b/g'j
d
~Summa r Neetinq on Februar 24, 1989 (Re ort Nos. 50-275/89-10 and 50-323/89-10 Areas Discussed:
The meeting consisted of a meeting to discuss I
dp I
I 333
.
I p
I
.
3393 used as guidance during this inspection.
r 9Q327Q 14.'~
Qc. QQQ+75 pot~
+DOCK
~ pDC l3
DETAILS Attendees Pacific Gas and Electric Com an S.
N. Skidmore, Manager guality Assurance C. 0. Koffer, Supervising Engineer for Nuclear Regulatory Affairs G.
W. Heggli, Senior gA Engineer for Technical Auditors United State Nuclear Re viator Commission M. N. Mendonca, Chief, ProjectsSection I
S.
A. Richards, Chief, Engineering Section, Neetin Minutes The meeting began at approximately 10:30 a.m. in the Region V conference room.
Mr. Skidmore started by describing some potential organizational considerations to strengthen the engineering inspection efforts by the guality Assurance Department.
These considerations could entail combining the licensee's Safety System Functional Audit and Review (SSFAR)
and Safety System Outage Modification Inspection (SSONI) efforts under one organization or location.
Nr. Skidmore indicated that he was investigating how best to continue and "capitalize" on these inspection efforts.
Nr. Skidmore then described plans for continuing SSFAR inspections.
Specifically, the SSFAR on the electrical system would be completed on about April 7, 1989, and the next,SSFAR may be on the Component Cooling Water System or the Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW).
Nr. Skidmore indicated that the AFW may be preferable since an initial design basis document had been completed for AFW.
Next, Nr. Skidmore indicated that this meeting was to serve as a feedback session so that they could assure they understood the NRC's position and philosophy for their SSFARs and SSOYiIs.
Nr. Skidmore than presented a
viewgraph to aid in the discussion (attachment 1).
Mr. Richards indicated that although the NRC encourages such engineering based inspections, these type of inspections are not based on regulatory requirements.
Nr. Skidmore indicated that they were committed to themselves to perform these inspections.
Mr. Skidmore then directed the group to the attachment to discuss the NRC's perceptions on the most recent Safety System Functional Inspection overview (this viewgraph was used in the exit meeting).
Nr.
Nendonca indicated that the first comment on the viewgraph relates to the licensee assuring that their SSFAR and SSOMI efforts should be highly engineering oriented and not simply compliance oriented.
The discussion then lead into the second item on the viewgraph, i.e.,
design experience level needed for SSFAR and SSOMI participants.
Mr.
Skidmore indicated that the licensee had changed contractors to aid in
the SSFAR and SSOMI efforts.
These contractors are to "shadow" licensee participants in the SSFARs and SSONIs and provide additional engineering expertise.
Mr. Heggli indicated that this use of contractors was an indication of managements'ommitment to the programs.
Mr. Richards pointed out that the SSFAR and SSOMI participants should be as critical as possible and develop instincts to assure a sound engineering approach is used.
Nr. Koffer asked a question related to the third item in the viewgraph on questioning the licensing basis.
Nr. Mendonca responded that the technical adequacy of the licensing basis should not be assumed.
The discussion led to some examples:
the earthquake design basis is subject of a separate review and need not be questioned on that basis.
However, the recent NRC SSFI team findings on Auxiliary Saltwater, and Component Cooling Water Systems design adequacies are.the type that should be questioned.
Based on the results of other team inspections, Mr. Richards commented on the importance of understanding and documenting the design bases.
Also, Nr. Richards pointed out that even if the NRC accepted some licensing basis, the SSFAR and SSONJ efforts should not automatically assume that the licensing basis is appropriate and Nr. Mendonca reemphasized that the SSFAR and SSOMI efforts should question the technical adequacy of design bases and assumptions.
Mr. Heggli then asked questions relating to the composition of the SSFAR and SSOMI teams.
Mr. Yiendonca indicated that in the selection of the NRC teams for similar efforts, a significant emphasis was placed on establishing a balanced team, and Nr. Richards indicated that team size was also an important aspect.
Mr. Skidmore indicated that they understood these points and were trying to consider them in their efforts.
Nr. Skidmore further indicated that they were continuing to press in the areas of root cause training, and timeliness of responses and reportability of problems.
Nr. Skidmore indicated that the licensee was vigorously addressing the issues from the NRC's SSFI overview inspection.
Based on consensus of the meeting participants, the previous discussion provided adequate understanding of the fourth through sixth items in the viewgraph.
That is:
assure review efforts are not solely compliance oriented but provide technical evaluation of systems; follow problems to their source and assuage proper corrective actions; and assure that all root causes of a problem were identified.
This completed the discussions on the viewgraph, and Yir. Skidmore indicated that he wanted to discuss the licensee's and industrv's effort in the procurement area.
Specifically, the work with a related NUNARC committee had generated a "white paper" to address some of the.problems in the procurement of material.
For example:
vendor audits are to be more hardware/performance oriented; communications within the industry is to be improved; cooperation between vendors and customers to improve products; and increased inspection of materials.
The meeting was then concluded at approximately 12:30 SB. I%/EEOC Phase@'s far Not Finding Prublens Lack of TeeWical Evaluative af Eng Teams Dn Not Have Evps~se tn Evaluate m Ches~en Eng~
Activities/Calculate.erne Tecum Da Hat Gb~ti~ Licensing Design Design Pracedures ts ar FBPR Cemnitmmts or Tean Reviews Start, ~th Basic
~th CLmplimce Revi~
cn crf Design Bed vBH.fice