ML13308A060
| ML13308A060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1982 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13308A061 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202040042 | |
| Download: ML13308A060 (18) | |
Text
9~
11982 Docket Nos.:
50-361/362 APPLICANTS: Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
San Diego Gas and Electric Company City of Riverside, California City of Anaheim, California FACILITY:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 13, 1982 MEETING WITH SCE On January 13, 1982, members of the NRC staff met with SCE representatives and SCE's consultant, General Atomic (GA) at GA's offices in La Jolla, California. The agenda for this meeting is given in Enclosure 1.
Attendees at this meeting are listed in Enclosure 2.
The morning was spent discussing the status and elements of the Independent Design Verification of San Onofre 2 and 3 being conducted by GA for SCE.
H. R. Denton, NRC, emphasized' the importance of the program being conducted.
The salient points of discussion are summarized below.
Mr. Denton inquired about GA':s experience in design of PWR's. Mr. Wessman of GA indicated that while most of their experience was preliminary design oriented that the GA engineers involved in the program had experience with the design of Fort St. Vrain, on HTGR, from preliminary engineering phase through field verification and had also participated in the design of portions of PWR's.
Mr. Wessman summarized GA's method of approach as follows:
o Review of the design verification procedures used by SCE, Bechtel and CE in the original design.
o Sample the QA process to assure the implementation of pro cedures. This review would include a technical assessment as well as a review 6f documentation.
o the criteria to be used for selecting the sample would be to focus on systems significant to safety and to be representative of the three organizations involved in San Onofre 2 & 3 design (SCE, CE and Bechtel)'.
o the specific procedures and acceptance criteria for the design review would follow the guidance in ANSI N45.2.11, Section 6.3.1.
_the GA Lnpe mrdi he frpp to dn idpendent alculations.
OFFICE S
OFFICE...........................'f1'W dii1bhd'thrthe"FSAR 'i8 to*Meatete"byGA.
S 8202040042 820119 DATE)
PDR ADOCK 05000361
_co___e A
otPDReo
__c o2.0.OFFICIA.RECORD.COPY..
us...1980.2982 NRC FORM 318 110/80) NRCM 020OFFICIAL IRECORD COPY
'USGPO: 1980-329-824
JAN 1 9 1982
-2 Mr. Denton emphasized the need for the program to include independent calculations by GA of some components and systems important to safety.
SCE agreed to commit to have 'GA perform such calculations. The interim report by GA will identify the components and systems and the basis for their selection.
The importance of field verification by GA to assure 'as built' configura tion was emphasized. GA had intended to include field verification and the interim report will identify the components and systems to be subjected to field verification by GA.
The independence of GA from SCE was discussed. Less than 1% of GA revenue is from SCE related contracts. However it was noted that a larger amount of Torrey Pines Technology (TPT) Activities ( 44%) over the last 2 years were related to SCE, CE and Bechtel contracts. Mr.
Wessman indicated that this larger percentage was misleading in that TPT is a division of GA and not an independent fiscal entity and that GA was a matrix organization and resources would be drawn from GA to support this activity. In addition, GA has taken steps to assure no substantive conflict of interest of the personnel assigned to program.
Mr. Wessman summarized the status of the program:
o 30 professionals on-board o 12 to 15 professionals were being added during week of January 11 o Interim report would be submitted on January 25.
o 7 potential findings have been identified to date and transmitted to SCE. SCE indicated these would be immediately forwarded to NRC upon receipt. GA provided the staff with a copy (see Enclosure 3).
The staff inquired as to the significance of 2 of the 7 being designated as Revision A. Mr. Wessman indicated no Revisions have been issued and the designation reflects mis understanding of instructions issued for form preparation.
A copy of a handout provided by Mr. Wessman is contained in Enclosure 4.
In the afternoon the staff met with SCE representatives to discuss the following matters related to San Onofre 2 and 3:
JA 191982
- 3 Readiness for Operation Region V representatives summarized the construction items requiring resolution prior to licensing. Two construction items are open, one regarding cable separation and the second regarding a recent 50.55(e) report on a LPSI valve. Mr. Dietch indicated these items were to be completed by January 31.
The NRC resident inspector summarized the operations items requiring resolution. These included radiation protection (effluent monitoring system, radchem laboratory, release procedures and the environmental protection plan), certain administrative procedures required by the Tech Specs and some TMI items. Mr. Dietch indicated that SCE had established a Radiation Protection Task Force to resolve all open items in that area. He indicated that all radiation protection and other items would be closed by the end of the month.
Status of SRO Retraining SCE indicated 15 candidates were in the SRO retraining program (12 candidates were retests from October group and 3 RO's for upgrading).
The retraining program focussed on areas of weakness identified by the results of the October exams (Tech Specs and Administrative and Emergency Procedures). The candidates were totally dedicated to training and had no other assigned duties. SCE indicated its intent to perform an overall assessment of candidates prior to allowing them to take exams. Exams are to be given on January 21, 1982 and results are expected on January 28, 1982.
Status of Beach Access Discussions SCE indicated that discussions with California Coastal Commission (CCC) regarding beach access have proceeded. SCE and Commission staff have reached agreement. SCE anticipated the CCC to approve agreement the week of January 22.
Relief from certain NUREG-0737 Items SCE has requested relief from certain schedule dates in NUREG-0737 (see SCE ltr. dated Dec. 22, 1981). This matter is currently under review by the staff.
4 JAN 1 9 1982 Licensing Schedule Mr. Denton indicated that assuming results from SRO examinations are acceptable and the interim GA report does not identify any significant items of concern, it appears that issuance of a low power license for San Onofre 2 could be discussed with the Commission during the week of February 8.
Emergency Operating Procedures An SRO briefly discussed the Emergency Operating Procedures for San Onofre.
Mr. Denton observed that the procedures are event oriented rather than symptom based like some BWR procedures.
Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page.
I OFFICE DL:LB#3 OjF'F
.i a : b SURNAME NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO198-3 6
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Docket File 50-3(,
L W. Johnston NRC PDR S. Pawlicki Local PDR V. Benaroya NSIC Z. Rosztoczy TERA W. Haass LB#3 Files D. Muller H. Denton R. Ballard E. Case W. Regan D. Eisenhut A. Toalston R. Purple R. Mattson R. Tedesco T. Speis B. J. Youngblood M. Srinivasan A. Schwencer
- 0. Parr F. Miraglia F. Rosa E. Adensam B. Sheron, Acting J. Miller L. G. Hulman G. Lainas R. Houston T. Wambach, Acting W. Gammill B. Russell F. Congel D. Crutchfield L. Rubenstein T. Novak W. Butler S. Varga C. Berlinger T. Ippolitto R. Clark F. Schroeder J. Stolz K. Kniel R. Vollmer D. Skovholt J. Knight G. Knighton R. Bosnak M. Ernst F. Schauer A. Thadani R. Jackson W. Minners G. Lear S. Hanauer Project Manager H. Rood H. Thompson Attorney, OELD D. Vassallo J. Lee P. Collins OIE (3)
D. Ziemann ACRS (16)
V. Moore NRC Participants H. R. Denton F. J. Miraglia J. Eckhardt A. E. Chaffee bcc:
Applicant & Service List
Mr. Robert Dietch Vice President Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. D. W. Gilman Vice President - Power Supply San Diego Gas & Electric Company 101 Ash Street P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 cc: Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
James A. Beoletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800.
Rosemead, California 91770 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe ATTN:
David R. Pigott, Esq.
600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Mr. George Caravalho City Manager City of San Clemente 100 Avenido Presidio San Clemente, California 92672 Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Rourke & Woodruff Suite 1020 1055 North Main Street Santa Ana, California 92701 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. V. C. Hall Combustion Engineering, Incorporated 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Mr. Robert Diatch
- 2 Mr. D. W. Gilman cc:
Mr. P. Dragolovich Bechtel Power Corporation P. 0. Box 6U860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Mr. Mark Medford Southern Cal i fornia Edi son Company 2?44 Nalnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rnusaoad, California 91770 Henry Puters San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Ms.
Lyn Harris Hicks Avocate for GUARD 3908 Calle Ariana San Clemente, California 92672 Richard J.
- Wharton, Esq.
Wharton & Pogalies University of San Diego School of Law Environmental Law Clinic San Diego, California 92110 Phyllis N. Gallagher, Esq.
SuiLe 222 1695 West Crescent Avenue Anaheim, California 92701 Hr. A. S. Carstens 2071 Cainito Circulo Norte Ot. La Jolla, California 92037 Resident Inspector, San Onofre/NPS co U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Charles E. McClung, 'Jr.,
Esq.
Attorney at Law 24012 Calle de la Plata Suite 330 Laguna Hills, California 92653 AGENDA January 13, 1982 MEETING AT GENERAL ATOMIC OFFICE IN LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA AM - Discuss Independent seismic design verification program.
PM -
Discuss San Onofre 2 Items
- 1. Readiness for operation.
- 2. Status of operator re-training; need for simulator testing.
- 3. Status of Beach Access discussions with California Coastal Commission.
- 4. NUREG-0737 items; reques for relief and potential license conditions.
- 5. Licensing schedule; present to fuel loading.
- 6. Emergency Operating Procedures.
List of Attendees January 13, 1982 Meeting La Jolla, Calif.
AM Meeting SCE D. J. Fogarty -
Exec. V.P.
R. Dietch -
V.P. Nuclear Engineering & Operat.ion,;
K. lIaskin -
Mqr..
Nu lear Engineerii J.
A rian -
Mqr., Genera. 1 on i niq i neer i ng SDG&E A. T. Davis -
Group VP Operations GAC H. M. Agnew G. Wessman NRC H. R. Denton F. J. Miraglia J. Eckhardt.
A. E. Chafree PM Meetina SCE D. J. Fogarty R. Dietch K. Baskin*
J. Adrian*
J. Haynes D. Lockker W. Zintel SDG&E A. T. Davis NRC H. R. Denton F. J. Mirailia J. Eckhardt A. E. Chaffee
- Part-time
P.O 3
31608 T
eprone:,714) 455-265A ocRGE L WESSMAN January 11, 1982 Mr. D. J. Fogarty Executive Vice President Southern California Edison P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Dear Mr.
Fogarty Attached are Potential Finding Reports 2408-PFR-0001 through 0007.
Sincerely, George L. Wessman Project Manager Enclosures cc:
J. Hempe -
Bechtel J. Adrian -
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT 2408-outR SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION PFR NO.
REVISION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS:
Safety Injection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop lA Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG 82 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
P&I Diagram 40112-10 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
B inC 1.09-21 4 " -, -L LQ sh ould be included 1o the computeior mahemit I c.i nL. modo1 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
Line 109-24"-C-LLO is shown in Stress ISO Dwg.
1204 109-1 (Sh.
58 PSG 82), but no nodal points have been designated. Consequently, the runs Q45H25 or Q39H59 do not pick up this line in the mathematical model. There may be a potential error in Stress ISO Dwg. 1204-004-1 (Sh. 50 PSG 82) in interfacing with this lin.
1-11-82 PREPARED BY: -_F._Lin_
DATE:
1-11-82 REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS dJAGREEPF ISVALID BY __________DATE L
0 REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
0 PAGE 2 RFF NO.
REVISION (for all PFR reports)
C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS o AGREE PF IS VALID O DISAGREE BY:
DATE:
D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY:
O ADEQUATE 0 INADEQUATE VALIDITY:
0 VALID 0 INVALID 10 CFR 21:
0 NOT APPLICABLE 0 APPLICABLE 10 CRF 50.55(e):
0 NOT APPLICABLE O APPLICABLE CLASSIFICATION:
0 OBSERVATION 0 FINDING JUSTIFICATION:
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN "FINDING" COMMENT ON "OBSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY:
DATE:
E. TPT PROJECT MANAGER 0 ACCEPT 0 REJECT BY:
DATE:
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT 2408-PFR-(0002 SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION PFR NO.
REVISION A
A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS:
Safety Injection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop 1A Piping Stress Analyses Package PSG 82 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
P&I Diagram 40112-10 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
The cantilevered line holding valve 3/4 x 114 x C-376, which branches out of main run 002-24" -
C-LLO, should be included in;.the computer run mathematical model..
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
Computer runs Q45H25 or Q39H59 do not depict this line in the mathematical model, although Stress ISO 1204-004-1 (Sh. 50 PSG 82) identifies it as a dashed line at nodal point 46.
F. Lin 1-11-82 PREPARED BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS AGREE PF IS VALID BY D
DATE r.72 O REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE O
DISAGREE BY DATE 0
REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY:
DATt:
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT 2408-PFR- 0003 SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION PFR NO.
A REVISION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS:
Safety Injection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop lA Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG 82 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
ASME B&PV Code, 1974 Edition BASIC REQUIREMENT:
Input data for Seismic Anchor Movement (SAM) should be clearly specified in the Calculation Package.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
Sheet 39 of PSG 82 which identifies SAM data is not clearly docuImeni ted muIl Is not readily traceable.
It needs more specific detailed description on the source and its validity of data and the application to mathematical model nodal points.
PREPARED BY: F. Lid DATE: 1/11/82 REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS 6AGREE PF IS VALID BY L*
DATE o REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT 2408-PFR- 0004 SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION PFR NO.
REVISION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS:
Safety Lnjection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop lA Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-245 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
User's Manual ME 101 linear elastic analysis of piping systems.
BASIC REQUIREMENT:
ASME Section III NC-3673.2 requires that a stress intensification factor be used for reducers.
OESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
At Idoi IIl)t140 1 nd 14'-) wh1r4 I e hi.heit 1
)IIE stinitici a
r ol.conit n
curf (718()
n!l.)
1.1i rodnwJ r
1in ltdi rIpo l II'd III II i pm an1d t
,14.here It no W.Lrenii IItun:I l.catItIon i1o' aipplid
.L Il Iutc. t ion.
Ih rode r
ilvl I
re:i I o eneni.-fication factor for reduicri be us:ed which would Enicreas;e tl--esseS.
PREPARED BY:
N. Marsh DATE:
1-11-82 REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS 6 'AGREE PF IS VALID BY DATE R
o REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE o
DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT 2408-(v(0'*
SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION PFR NO.
REVISION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS:
Safety Injection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop 1A Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-78 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
Pipe Support Drg No. S2-Sl-059-H-006 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
CalcuLations use latest design loads.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
Support X-rigid at node 143 Drg.
No. S2-S1-059-H-006 shows design loads of (+29850 and -25100).
Sheet 63 of -PSG No. 78 is given as
(+43510 and -39901) for the loading at that support. An unsubstantiated statement that higher loads are still within the margin of safety was made.
PREPARED BY:
N. Marsh
/
,L DATE: 1/11/82 REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS O AGREE PF IS VALID BY DATE L o REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT 2408-PFR-0o6 SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION PFR NO.
REVISION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS:
Safety Injection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop IA Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-78 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
Pipe Support Drg.
No.
S2-Sl-059-H-009; Computer Run Q22L27: ISO Drg No. 1204-059-1.
BASIC REQUIREMENT:
Support analyzed to correspond to support used.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
ISO Drg.
No.
1204-059-1 and sheet 63 of PSG-78 call for a spring support at node 147.
Computer run Q22L27 calls for a rigid support with spc ng constant of 1.080 lbs/bL.
(spring).
Where as 1)rc.
No.
S2-SI1-059-1-00'9 calls fcr Mech.
Sniubber at Node 147.
ThLs is incoiisis tant.
PREPARED BY:
N. Mars1 DATE: 1-11 -82 REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS O AGREE PF IS VALID BY DATE 2Z7 o REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT 2408-PFR-0007 SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION PFR NO.
REVISION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS:
Safety Injection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop IA Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-78 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-78 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
The seismic response spectra used in the analysis be for the location to be analyzed.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
Sheet 7 of Package PSG-78 refere!
to response spctra for nozzle (IA) from C. E. transmittal 900-1-52-0.
[he response spectra.used in the analysis is S 023-900--55-0 which is for nozzle (2B),
Sheets 33 through 35.
Thore is no statement to the effect that the response spectra Is the same for both nozzles.
PREPARED BY:
N. Marsh 1
DATE: 1-11-82 REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS SAGREE PF IS VALID BY -,
DATE O REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE o DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY:
DATE: