ML17273A068

Summary of 820427 Meeting W/Util,Ge & Ebasco in Bethesda,Md Re QA Program Concerning Design,Const & Operation of Plant

ML17273A068
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	05/04/1982
From:	Nerses V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8205110187
Download: ML17273A068 (18)

Text

~" U.gI.R~cu(

(4

">o

~

+

~

~ ~c n

4~ +>>*<<<<

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'lVASHtNGTOM,D. C. 20555 MAY 4 1982 Docket ho.:

50-389 APPLICANT:

Florida Power and Light Company, (FPRL) '.

FACILITY:

St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD IN BETHESDA, 'MD. WITH FPEL ON APRIL 27',

1982 REGARDING'FP8L'S QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA),

PROGRAM On'April 27, 1982, at the request of Mr. H. Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, representatives of the Florida Power In'Light Company, the applicant, and Ebasco, the Architect/Engineer (A/E), met with members of the NRC management staff to discuss the applicant's QA program.

The applicant discussed with the NRC staff, FPSL's involvement in assuring the quality of the design, construction and operation of the St. Lucie Plant Unit 2.

The applicant presented and described the quality systems used and verificaiions performed to assure.

that (1) the design of St. Lucie

~ Unit 2 is carried out in a planned, controlled and correct manner; (2) all appl'icable design bases and coIImitments are incorporated; (3) structures, systems and components are manufactured and constructed in accordance with the specified design and (4) all NRC regulatory requirements and guidance are met.

The applicant noted:

1)

They have ultimate QA responsibility for the design and construction of St. Lucie 2; 2)

Very few construction subcontractors are used at St. Lucie 2 which greatly simplifies. control of construction interfaces.

1 3)

To assure top level management involvement in QR program policies and activities, the President of FPEL has established a

QA Committee chaired by the Executive Vice President.

4)

A QA/QC Coordinator is'-d"-siqnated by the head of each department or organization responsible for ;"clear safety-'related activities to serve as the prime interface for Gc~rdination of. ouality related mat.ers within his department, with ihe--~A department, and with, other departments.

/V

0

'l

,g 4 1S82 5)

A program has been established and.maintained for Quality Assurance indoctrination, and for training which assures that the required level of personnel competence and skill is achieved and maintained

'n the performance of quality-related activities.

6)

Internal QA auditing and QA auditing of the A/E and HSSS vendors QA program is performed on a regular basis.

7)

FPSL assumed the responsibility for all site related procurement

~

acti vity.

8)

A post'installation review of piping systems which is just getting underway for St. Lucie 2 (79-14 program):

9)

FPKL developed and implemented a design defense program which involved

.a FPL/AE/NSSS review of St. Lucie 2 design against all SRP requirements.

The program started in 1979 and continued into 1981 producing a

1000 page report.

Areas of non-compliance were identified and addressed.

10)

Startup testing is being done entirely by FPL and.the start up organization was established in 1979 in order to provide early startup feedback as an additional measure to assure quality.

ll)

Independent consultants (Bechtel, Quadrex and EDS Nuclear) were contracted to review three St. Lucie 2 systems for compliance with NRC regulations.

Areas of non-compliance found were minor and subsequently corrected.

12)

An engineering verification program is being initiated where FPSL will chose components and/or subsystems in each engineering discipline and have.the A/E or HSSS verify calculations, specifications, drawings, etc.

The NRC staff suggested that the engineering verification program (item

. 12 above) to be meaningful should be conducted in a manner that is open and assures "independent" verification.

For instance, all deviations found in calculations, specifications, drawings, etc.

should openly be report'ed by providing ihe information to the NRC.

Also certifying that the A/E and HSSS vendor personnel doing the verification have.not been involved in the St. Lucie 2 project.

The staff have'ndicated a willingness to review the applicants proposed program and to provide any cori",ants.

that will assist in making the program a meaningful one.

Enclosure:

List of Attendees Yictor Herses, Project ttahager Licensing Branch No.

3 Division of Licensino r

I cc:

See next page.

~

5 St. Luci e.2 4/27/82 gA Management meeting t<AtlE Y..Nerses E.

Dotson W. B. Derrickson 7

G. Z. Boissy J.

C. Moulton R.

F. Englmeier E.

A. Adomat H.

Q. Dager E.

Z. Zuetiman Leo Tsakiris N. T.

Weems R.

E. Uhrig

..J.

E. Yessely R.

L. Tedesco F. J. Hiraglia R.

H. Yollmer H.

C.

Dance D.

P. Norkin J.

t~i. Taylor

.E.

Case ORGAN I ZATION NRC/NRR/DL/LB83 FPEL FPKL FPIt L GE

~

FPEL FPEL FPEI Ebasco Ebasco FPSL FPEL FPSL NRR ERR/DOL tlRR/DE RI I.

IE/DRP IE ttRR

~ '-rl, u, A~n.ca<

Pwr~~p~

~ ~~'

~y~

-FLORIDA.PCNER ASD LXGHT CONPAVF c.d~

J~

BT.. LUCIS. UHXT 2 KNEZ'HEHRZHG VKRXFZCIaTIOM PROGRAH, J 7~

+s/n/~.

FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COHPAHY STi LUCIE UNIT 2 ENGIHEERl NG VERIFICATIOH TABLE OF CONTENTS

.Section Title Intxaluation Sel.ection Process Enqfneerfna Ver<Acation Process, Reviev Committee

.Repox ts

~

e "t' e

-e e

~

1

~

~

~

~

~.

4

~

~

~ e, ~

2 4

I

~

~

~

~ e e

~

~

~

~

~

~

e

~

~

~

~

4'3 e

e

~

~ '

e ~, ~

Attachments; A1 '- Organization Chart

,A2 - Engineering Verification Process Flee Chart

4 FLOP?DA PQHEP 5 LIGHT C(@pgHy ST, LUC!E UHTT 2 EHGI HEEMNG VERIFI CAT!OH'Introduction:

A program has been developed to conduct an )n-depth (deep cut) engineering. verifi-cation of Flor)da Power and 'L)ght'ompany's St. Luc)e Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant.

.-'Th)s eng)neering verif)cation 'will be accomplished by Ebasco and Comb'ust)on Erigi; neering task forces )ndependent of the St..Lucie project teams.

The program )s d)v)ded )nto the follow)ng tasks I

Task A - Selection. of items to be reviewed in accordance w)th Section II of th) s. procedur e, Task 8 - Independent verification of the ex)sting designs for the selected

)tems in accordance w)th Sect)on IIX of this procedure.

Task C -.ln-place examination of )nstalled components to verify.

conformance:with the draw)ngs

)n accor dance w)th Section Ex'f this proceQure.

Task D - Comparison of component design against actua1 performance based on stertup testing co. pleted.to date,

.-The.independence of the ver)f)cat)on task force )s m5)nta)ned in several wa'ys:

The Ebasco and CE personnel performing the-verif'ications w)13 be individuals who have had no pr)or direct involvement in the design, installation, or testing of.the items.being reviewed or )n the review select)on process.

2, Regular status repoI'ts will be submitted to. the NRC documentirg pro-gress of the verification program.

3.

The existing design calculat)ors a~i'3.l not be ava)lable to the task

.force dur)ng preparat,)on of the independent calculat)ons,'<san jo>ce >je>p+<s Hil1 be 1oca ted sepa ate ly Scorn:

the xeggyer prospect "earns and vi13. ocncnunicate with.the pr~gect, tep~ on~@.thxough the Progress.Cooxdiaator.

~ 1

XX.

Selection Proce'ss; The selection of items to be reviewed by the task.force'+ill consist, of two steps:

~.

1)

A determination of all candidate items.-

(components or isolated sections

'oZ a BystGJll) 2}

A determination.of the actual items to.be

~

reviewed. by the task force.

Zhe candidate items include a11 "ma)or components" which:

~

1)

. are important to safety.

2),.have multi-discipline interfaces

'Th'e candidates w9.11 he div'idled into A/K ance'SSS items.

At least two (2).NSSS.itazs shall be chosen..

"The general houn6aries of the items to be reviewed aha2.1 in-clude:

1)

The component support and/or foundation

'ystem inc3.uding its interface with the buildinj s ructure.

2) 'iping up and* Gown stream to the fix:st support locations, 3)

Local p'ower supp3,y, instrumenta"ion and

controls, Specific boundaries wil be established. after the items have been selectecL.

The candidates will also be 8ivided by major disciplines as follows:

1)

Civil/St@'uctuxal 2)

Mechanical 3)

Electrical 4)

Heating, Ventilation and'ir Conditioning (HVAC) 5)

Instrumentation and Control ht Least one stem from each discipline will he selected, Shen all the candidate items have been identified and ca"egor-ised as described, the actual items vill be'selected in a ran-dom fashion,

zzz; En irieerin Verification Process; Utflizing the latest design fnputs, independent calculatfons.vrill be perform d for.the items selected, The resultfng design data sfll be. compared fifth the

. exfstfng design; dfff'erences wfll be documented; and the differences'will be.

analyzed and resolved.

Items unable to be resolved by the task force wf'il be, referred to the Revfew Commfttee 3n accordance

<<fth the provisions of:Section V of this procedure, Followfng successful,verification of the design,

'ari fn-.place examinatfon of

=-the installed components Hfll be nerve by the Task Force.to venfQ fnstallatfon.

n accordance wfth the draff ngs,:

The ffnal'verfffcatfon actfvfty wfll he a comparison of design v's. actual per-..

formance based on startup testing to date. by Plant Operations.

All steps fn each ph'ase of the fndependent ver$ffcatfon program ~ill be proper-ly documented for record purposes..

Details of the process.outlfned above are depicted on the attached Design Veri-fication Process Floe Chart, XV.

Review Committee;

,A review committee wi11 be establi.shed to:

1.

Review and disposition, unresolved items (potenti,a1 Hndiiigs).,

2, Znitiate corrective action iC regairecl.

The comnittee will consXet oi the FPL Bngiaeeriiig.Project Banager>

the

.<<PL Program Coordinator, the Rbasco Project Engineer, C-E

~

'Project Manager, and. the tack force managers viM technica1 sup-.,

port provided hy rPL, Ebasco, and C-E p object personnel.

The committee sha13.:

~

1.. Define criteria for determining the degree oS impact. that-the unresolved items (potential findings) have on the de-sigii adequacy

.of'St Lecie Unf,t 2.

2.

Review the unreso1ved item (potential indinq) 'for accuracy, Unresolved items (potential findings) determined riot 'to be accurate sba3.1 be returned to the review task force..Xf

accurate, each uiiresolved item shall he categorired as. either minor or major.

A miiior ml resolved item (potentis1, Zinding) is one that requires explanation or inte oretation oZ exist-...

. ing designs Xrp We originator.

Minor unresolved items (potential find'ngs) shall he Bispositioned hy the Program Coors, n detox'.

Wv...

rV'+

[

'Ui Review Cormaittee; (cont!8)

A major unresolved item {potential finding) results from.

a technical Qisagraementl a process flaw or a ge'ne Xc flaw in the existing de'sign procedures.

'Zhe committee shall as-sess the impact of the major un.resolved items (potential.

findings) on,the overall plant design, Zf'it is determined.

that a major unresolved item {potential finding) has the potential 'for sigaificant,impact on the plant design j it shall be 'identified. as a Finding.

UnresoIved items (poten-tial f'indings) that do not have the potential to si~ifi-ca'ntly impact the plant design shall be Identified as obsezvatioas.. All.unresolved items (potential H.ndings}

~

and their final dispositions 'shall be documented in the '

appropriate status report and summary.sed iz the final ze-.

.POX't o

~

The 'FPL.Eagineer3.ng Pro)cot Kanager shkll'transmit both Findings and Observations to the NBC, Ebaeao and C-E.

Ebasco and/or".C-P shall evaluate the Findings in accordance with

~ '

established proaedures and propose remedial action.

The t.ask force and the Review Committee aha11 review the remedia'.

action plans and evaluate their accuracy.

- The FPZ Zx.gineering Project Ravager shal3. ev'aluate any comments the 'task force and the Review Comni<tee may have regarding the

~

proposed remedial actions.

Xf agreement cannot he reached>

FPL management'hal1 direct an appropriate course of action which mil3. also be documented in the appropr'ate status report and summarized in the final.report.

V:

The follovlng reports villbe generated hy the Task Force and/o

~

Review Committee during the engineers.ng.veri@.cation program;

..l.

Meekly statue summaries of the Qvera13. program.

Summaries of all Review Committee meetings, 3.

-.Component completioa reports ae the verificatioa process for each selected component ia completed,

'4.

A'inal report upon overall program completion.

I Ii

~

~ ~

~ I ~

~'

~

~

CaICWr

~CCf

~

~

Vol Pl E.B.

lemur COMPILE LITRST mewed ll4PNS W/Ill

&s~

Qtkl&t 4>

g4Itl Esca Q

kg QcgslQlj Sf44M VkctM Flerm IQS'Alt

$fifglVP kueav-

~l~

%4044~

CAtl~

lf40 sweat 0 QVI4%V

~At/

pc~

sr

+QillWM CAMOAI Futtgu4f I~

KLIKfT HO,

,BY. ',

. ~

c.'b(KD.BY.....

PATE,...... ~..

tLOwmreeEa4voHl cou~ue PRO4KCT H>.

ZDZ/N dvYEX'PP Cr Nf.

8, Z

<src:

V~ lr-fCH

'de N/Zn 7

v T's/od/Ig giNAW+8'r lQ

pPS.

PlRIPDPE A/ /P&iHPC'c'wc.

A<4f'E.'pu'W dew gSSC 6 PzdJF47 PZdJ>cp ggh'5CO yah:

FdPa'WHI~'~F (r'75<

PPP h<ICi8Z

.rZdld~~

N8$<a vgfg CX PH

~

I

~

~

~ f sl'd'C(F.

PSuldcr

UMlTEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON WASHING/ON, O. C. 2,0555 r<AY 4 le82 Docket Ho.:

50-.389 APPLICANT:

Florida Power and Light, Company, (FPIEL) '.

FACILiTY:

St. Luci e P 1 ant, Unit 2

SUBJECT:

~

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD IN BETHESDA, MD. WITH FP8L OH APRIL 27', 1982 REGARDIHG FP8L'S QUALITY ASSURANCE '(QA)

PROGRAM Ori'April 27, 1982, at the request of Mr. H..Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, representatives of the Florida Power 5 Light Company, the applicant,,and

Ebasco, the Architect/Engineer (A/E), met w'1th members of the HRC management staff to discuss the applicant's QA program.

The applicant discussed with the HRC staff, FPSL's involvement in assuring the quality of the design, construction and operation of the St. Lucie Plant Unit 2.

The applicant presented and described the quality systems used and verifications performed to assure.

that (1) the design of St. Lucie

~ Unit 2 is carried out in a planned, controlled and correct manner; (2) all applicable design bases and corn> itments are incorporated; (3) structures, systems and components are manufactured and constructed in accordance with the specified des,ign and (4) all HRC regulatory requirements and guidance are met.

The applicant noted:

1)

They have ultimate QA responsibility for the design and construction of St. Lucie 2."

2) 3)

4)

Very few construction subcontractors are used at St. Lucie,2 which greatly simplifies contr'ol of construction interfaces.

To assure top level management involvement in QA'rogram policies and activities, the President of FPKL has established a

QA Cormittee chaired by the Executive Vice President.

A QA/QC Co'ordinator is designated by the head of, each department or organization responsible for nuclear safety-'related activities to ser've as the prime interface for coordination of quality related

~

matters within his department, with the QA department, and with other departments.

VikY 5)'

program has been established and maintained for Quality Assurance indoctrination, and for training which assures that the required level of personnel competence and skill is achieved and maintained:

in the performance of quality-related activi ies.

6)

Internal QA auditing and QA auditing of the A/E and HSSS vendors QA program is. performed on a regular basis.

7)

FPSL assumed the responsibility for all site related procurement acti vity.

8)

A post installation review of piping systems which is just getting underway for St. Lucie 2 (79-14 program).

9)

FPEL developed and implemented a design defense program which involved

.a FPL/AE/HSSS review of St. Lucie 2 design against all SRP requirements.

The program started in 1979 and continued into 1981 producing a

1000 page report.

Areas of non-compliance were identified and addressed.

10)

Startup testing is being done entirely by FPL and the start up organizat~on was established in 1979 in order to provide early startup feedback as an additional measure to assure quality.

11)

Independent consultants (Bechtel, Quadrex and EDS Nuclear) were contracted to review three St-. Lucie 2 systems for compliance with HRC regulations.

Areas of non-compliance found were minor and subsequently corrected.

12)

An engineering verification program is being initiated where FPSL will chose components and/or subsystems in each engineering discipline and have the A/E or NSSS verify calculations, specifications, drawings, etc.

The NRC staff suggested that the engineering verification program (item 12 above) to be meaningful should be conducted in a manner that is open and assures "i'ndependent" verification.

For instance, all deviations found in calculations, specifications, drawings, etc.

should openly be reported by providing ihe information to the HRC.

Also certifying that the A/E and HSSS vendor personnel doing the verification have not been involved in the St. Lucie 2 project.

The staff have indicated a willingness to review the applicants proposed program and to provide any comments that will assist in making the program a meaningful one.

Victor Herses, Project Manager Licensing Branch Ho.

3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc:

See next page.

St. Lucie 2'/27/82 gA Nanagement Neeting HANE Y. Herses E.

Dotson M. B. Derrickson G.

J'. Boissy J.

C. Noultan R.

F. Englmeier E.

A. Adomat H. J.

Dager.

E.'.

Zuetiman Leo Tsakiris H. T.

h'eems R.

E. Uhrig Q.

E. Vessely R. L. Tedesco F. J. Miraglia R.

H. Vollm r H.

C.

Dance D. P. Horkin Q.

N. Taylor

.E.

Case ORGAHIZATIOH HRC/HRR/DL/LBri3 FP&L FP&L FP&L GE.

FP&L FP&L.

FP&L Ebasco Ebasco FP&L FP&L FP&L HRR HRR/DOL HRR/DE RII IE/DRP IE HRR