ML13308A118

Summary of 820412 Meeting W/Util & Ga Co Re Final Rept on Ga Co Independent Design Review Program.Viewgraphs Encl

ML13308A118
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	04/20/1982
From:	Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8205030636
Download: ML13308A118 (23)

Text

APR 20 9 Docket Nos:

50-361 and 50-362 APPLICANTS:

Southern California Edison Company, (SCE)

San Diego Gas and Electric Company City of Anaheim, California City of Riverside, California FACILITY:

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF MEETING TO DISCUSS FINAL REPORT ON GA INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM On April 12, 1982, members of the NRC staff met with representatives of the General Atomic Company, (GA) and SCE to discuss the GA final report entitled, "Independent Verification of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Seismic Design and Quality Assurance Program Effectiveness,4 dated April 5, 1982. Attendees at the meeting are given in Enclosure 1.

At the meeting, SCE outlined the basis for their confidence in the design and the design process and GA summarized the results of their report. Slides presented at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2. At the meeting, SCE representatives indicated that, although the program called for corrective action plans (CAP's) to be instituted only for "findings," SCE had also issued CAP's for all "observations."

origira Harry Rood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosures:

See next page 82 0 50aag OFFICE SURNAME)

HRood:ph ia DATEO 4/94) 2 4/

/82 NRC FORM 31810 8o0) NcM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• ~ USGPO: 1980-329-824

Mr. Robert Dietch

- 2 Mr. D. W. Gilman cc:

Mr. P. Dragolovich Bechtel Power Corporation P. 0. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Mr. Mark Medford Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Henry Peters San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Ms. Lyn Harris Hicks Advocate for GUARD 3908 Calle Ariana San Clemente, California 92672 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

University of San Diego School of Law Environmental Law Clinic San Diego, California 92110 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

Suite 222 1695 West Crescent Avenue Anaheim, California 92701 Mr. A. S. Carstens 2071 Caminito Circulo Norte Mt. La Jolla, California 92037 Resident Inspector, San Onofre/NPS c/o 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

ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDEES MARCH 12, 1982 MEETING INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM SAN ONOFRE 2 AND 3 NAME ORGANIZATION H. Rood NRC-DL W. Haass NRC-DE-OAB R. Bosnak NRC-DE-MEB F. Cherny NRC-DE-MEB R. E. Lipinski NRC-DE-SEB David Jeng NRC-DE-SEB K. P. Baskin SCE G. L. Wessman TPT/GAC J. Jack Adrian SCE R. H. Vollmer NRC-DE J. P. Knight NRC-DE F. Schauer NRC-DE-SEB

ENCLOSURE 2 QUALIFICATIONS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE)

Headquarters engineering staff over 400 Station engineering staff of approximately 100 and total station staff of over 800 o

10 CFR 50 Appendix B Quality Assurance Program in place since issuance of Appendix B Fourteen years of Unit 1 experience Deliberate and methodical pace of corporate nuclear activities Industry leadership by SCE senior management

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION 0

Compliance of Quality Assurance Program with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B 4

Tenure of Quality Assurance Program 0

Staff of approximately 70 personnel Independence from engineering, construction and operations activities Additional level of review of Bechtel and Combustion Engineering Quality Assurance and design activities Augmentation of Quality Assurance organization by separate records management organization

SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS Suspension of project design pending resolution of seismic design basis Uniformity of design basis Severity of project design basis Depth of review of project design basis

CONSERVATISM OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA Number of Structural Design Reviews Sources of Additional Margin 9

Utilization of Enveloped In-Structure Response Spectra

QUALIFICATIONS OF ENGINEER-CONSTRUCTOR 0

Three decades of nuclear power plant design and con struction experience Design and/or construction of 84 nuclear projects Largest nuclear engineer-construction staff in U.S.

10 CFR 50 Appendix B Quality Assurance Program in place since issuance of Appendix B Selection of Bechtel to complete projects initiated by other organizations

QUALIFICATIONS OF GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY Business Experience Active in nuclear power industry since 1958 Full range of NSSS and supplier capabilities to the nuclear industry Breadth of Technical Capabilities All major engineering disciplines Verified and state-of-the-art computer codes ASME certifications Applied experience Depth of Capabilities Total staff of 1920 916 degreed professionals, including 485 with ad vanced degrees Required Infrastructure First NRC accepted Quality Assurance Program (1974)

Document control capabilities (since 1970)

INDEPENDENCE OF GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY Financial Less than 1 % revenue from Southern California Edison Company related contracts Corporate Integrity Company completely independent of Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) Companies Maintain corporate image of parent companies No substantive conflict of interest of personnel No past work experience for key personnel in design, construction or quality assurance at SONGS 2 & 3 No immediate family employed by SCE or SDG&E No significant ownership or creditor interest in SCE or SDG&E Compliance assured through Security Question naires

SCOPE OF REVIEW Program was structured to give a discerning basis on which to make a definitive evaluation.

SCOPE OF REVIEW BASIC PROGRAM STRUCTURE DESIGN ONSTRUCTION U

U U

U U

U I

SIS SCE QA&&

a SCE QA ENGINEERING aQ AUDITS AUDITS TS U

U U

U U

DESIGNSTUTN DESIGN U\\1SYSTEM

)

DESTMIGNCOPLTE I BASIS j I OR DSG R

~

ETR TASK G PR CS KAST S

K U

U U

U U

TAK

SC 0 P F 0 F RE VIE W PURPOSE EFFORT DOCUMENTS ISSUES (Manmonchs)*

REVIEWED RAISED To DETERMINE IF THE DESIGN PROCESS USED BY SCE, BPC AND C-E SATISFIED COMMITMENTS IN:

35 MANUALS 2 OBSERVATIONS TASK A o

APPENDIX A OF PSAR AND o C-E QA TOPICAL REPORT TO DETERMINE-IF THE DESIGN CONTROL PROCEDURES 21 1280 35 OBSERVATIONS TASK B IDENTIFIED IN TASK A WERE IMPLEMENTED IN THE 33,000 INDIVIDUAL 1 FINDING DESIGN DOCUMENTS.

CHECKS TO REVIEW THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF SELECTED SAFETY RELATED STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS 111 500 41 OBSERVATIONS (FEATURES) FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN BASIS AND 22 FEATURES 1 FINDING METHODOLOGY IN FSAR SECTIONS 3.7 AND 5.8.

To PERFORM INDEPENDENT CALCULATIONS USING TASK H1 ALTERNATE ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES ON SELECTED 3

2 SETS OF 1 OBSERVATION FEATURES REVIEWED IN TASK C, CALCULATIONS l0 DETERMINE IF SCE AND BPC PERFORMED AUDITS AT THE SITE AND FABRICATOR'S SHCPS IN AREA OF IMPLEMENTA-8 AUDIT PLANS &

5 OBSERVATIONS TASK D TION OF SEISMIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS AND TO EVALUATE SCHEDULES 2 FINDINGS EFFECTIVENESS AND RESULTS OF SUCH AUDITS.

279 AUDIT REPORTS TO REVIEW BY VISUAL EXAMINATION THE TASK 6 (AS-BUILT) INSTALLATION OF A SEGMENT 1

41 DRAWINGS 2 OBSERVATIONS OF PIPE.

• INCLUDES REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF POTENTIAL FINDING REPORTS.

VOLUMES I & It OF THE REPORT SPECIFY REVIEW EFFORT ONLY.

REVIEW PROCESS o

Established selection criteria e

Areas selected Procedures written Review performed Questions raised (PFRs)

Resolution of questions Observations -

Valid deviation that could not create a safety hazard Findings -

Valid deviation that could create a safety hazard Corrective Action Plan (CAP) -

The set of steps planned by SCE to meliorate the affect of a finding a

Review documented

REVIEW PROCESS (continued)

Comprehensiveness of review -

A five-tier process Independent Reviewer Task Leader Original Design Organization Findings Review Committee 0

Project Manager

SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3 13 POTENTIAL FINDING REVIEW FLOWCHART CAPS 66 REVIEWERS 3 TASK LEADERS 7 F D I N G S D E S I G N ADEQUACY 86 OBSERVATIONS 2041 170 FINDINGS PROJECT DOCUMENTS QUESTIONS REVIEW MANAGER AND RAISED COMMITTEE ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION INPUT 77 NOT VALID 000 RESPONSE

PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS Design Review Procedure Review -

Task A Two Observations No discernible impact Three Findings Lack of formal procedures for C-E Project Manage ment coordination and design review functions Resolved by CAP and Task B, C and H review Conclusion The design process Meets commitments Expected to produce an adequate design

PROGR AM CONCLUSIONS (continued)

Design Procedure Implementation Review -

Task B Thirty-five observations No discernible impact One finding SCE lack of strict compliance with procedures Resolved by CAP and review of all SCE design work Conclusion Implementation of the design system is satisfac tory

PROGR AM CONCLUSION (continued)

Seismic Design Technical Review -

Task C and Independent Calculations -

Task H Forty-two Observations.

No discernible impact One Finding Design of concrete anchor inserts for cable tray supports Resolved by CAP when implemented Conclusion

-The design of the twenty-two features is adequate

4 0 PROGRAM CONCLUSION (continued)

Design area -

Tasks A, B, C & H The seismic design of San Onofre Units 2 and 3 is judged adequate

PROGR AM CONCLUSION (continued)

Construction Area Audit Plan Review -

Task D Five Observations No discernible impact 4

Two Findings Lack of SCE procedure for auditing of effectiveness Lack of maintenance of permanent records.

Resolved by two CAPs Conclusion The audit program is adequate Construction -

Pipe Segment Walkdown -

Task G 0

Two Observations Installation shown acceptable No Findings Conclusion The installation of the pipe segment is adequate

PROGRAM CONCLUSION (continued)

Unit 2 vs Unit 3 0

Concentrated on Unit 2 0

Significant unique features of Unit 3 reviewed Conclusion The conclusions of the program are applicable to Unit 2 and Unit 3 Overall QA Program Procedures reviewed using QA program documents and PSAR commitments as source documents Requirements interpreted in light of 10CFR50, Appen dix B and ANSI N45.2 Conclusion QA program, in general, responsive to 10CFR50, Appendix B No deficiencies found

Ae 6

PROGRAM CONCLUSION (continued)

Overall The seismic aspects of the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 project are judged adequate and supports issuance of the full power license for Units 2 and 3.