ML19241C060
| ML19241C060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1979 |
| From: | Haass W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Skovholt D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907260500 | |
| Download: ML19241C060 (7) | |
Text
.
r T -J.
2 @ w,,, gu a
APR 2 3 979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Donald J. Skovbolt. Assistant Director for Quality Assurance & Operations, Division of Project Management FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Project Manager.ent SUBJECT.
SUPPLE (ENTARY REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSOCIATED BUDGETARY ESTIMATES As requested, the QAB has developed u listing of suggested supplementary review considerations within the QAB areas of review for plants nearing their OL decision dates and other plants based upon our present under-standing of the recent events at IMI-2.
Enclosed Table 1 presents this listing. Initially, it should be noted that we cannot identify, at the present tire, any supplementary review considerations that are diractly related to specific events that occurred at TMI-2, with the exception of items B.4 and C.l.
Rather, the items identified may be characterized more precisely as those which address the broader i=plications of the TMI-2 events and whose implementation would substantidTly increase our confidence that regulatory requirements are being properly translated into procedures and other actions by the applicant.
Implementation of these itecs would also provide valuable feedback infomation to the QAB to assist in assessing the validity and practicality of our acceptance criteria and review process. Table 1 also includes a listing of review items - not directly related to QAB activities - resulting frmi our consideration of the IMI-2 events that we believe shculd be factored into other areas of the NRC review process. Scce of these items do affect 0AB indirectly since they would be considered in our review of test programs. This effect is accounted for under item B.4.
It is expected that the supplementary review considerations given in Table 1 will require modification in the futum as more cocplete infor=ation becomes available from the TMI-2 event and further analysis is perfomed.
Sudgetary manpcwer estimates to acc::cplish these suoplementary reviews and to establish and document staff positions are given in Table 2 for 790726o5*
LL tr
Donald J. Skovholt each QAB area of review and by fiscal years. Note that only the manpower estimates associated with Conduct of Operations and certain Test Program reviews (Itec:s B.4 & C.1 in Table 1) are considered to be directly related to the upcoming OL decisions. -
Originai signed by Walter P. Haass Waltar P. Haass. Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division cf Project Management
Enclosures:
1.
Table 1 - Supplementary
~
Review Considerations 2.
Table 2 - Budgetar'/ Manpcwer Estimates for Supplementary Reviews cc w/ enclosures:
J. Gilray R. McDermott H. Berkow
^
/
Distribution:
Centra File QAB Projects QA
"'ron. File
~
Reading File l
WHaass. QAB i
DFM:QAB WHaass:gt l
4/ /79 I
TABLE 1 SUPPLEMEllTARY REVIEW C0t1SIDERATI0tlS Long Plants flearing OL Decision Range Prior to Short term Long term Changes item OL issuance Implemen ta tion Impl emen ta t ion _
to SRP A.
QUAll1Y ASSURAtlCE 1.
Increase coordination of QA prograc review with I&E at OL stage:
a.
Periodic meetings / discussions / visits during review to assure understanding X
dnd provide feedback, b.
Participate in inspection of QA Manual (i.e., review of policies and procedures to assure proper translation X
of the QAP description).
2.
Review of LERs and inspection reports for a 2-year period (minimum) prior to operation to assess trends and potential generic proble.is.
X Also at CP stage.
3.
Su:ivnary meeting with applicant to discuss results of 1.b and 2. at CP and OL stages.
X C,78.
IfilTI AL PLAf1T TESTIflG 4
CO 1.
Plant visits by reviewers during review and testing to assure bet,ter test implementation g
and provide feedback.
X
Pdge 2 Long PIAa!.1_llfarino OL Decisic i Range Prior to Short tenn Long tenn Changes Item OL issuance Implemen ta tion Implenienita tion to SRP 1
2.
!! ore detailed review of LERs and inspection reports during the review and test program X
period to identify and assess probleins.
3.
Revlew of startup test report submitted by dpplicant ili Coordination with I&E.
X 4.
Additional reviews engendered by items listed in Part D below.
X X
X C.
C0!iDUCT OF UPERATI0!iS l.
Exparid review of applicant's inanageiiient resources (i.e., capabili. ties and experience) dud /ol' access to personnel in Vdrious fields of expertise that niay be needed during linusudl events.
The latter may include pre-arlanged contractual support and/or foriiialized arrangements with other X
X nuclear plant owners.
D.
QAB f10T DIRECILY lilVOLVED C' l. Qtialification of components to withstand O
radiation environment including level of X
X radia tiosi and identifica tion of components.
CO
Page 3 Long Plants flearing OL Decision Range Trior to Short term Long term Changes item OL 1ssuance Implemen ta tion Implementation to SRP 2.* Assign specific responsi.ility and expand reviews for Chapter 15 evants to assure clear definition of system / component X
X capabi1ities.
3.
Expdiid criteria for control board design to improve huisian engineering.
X 4.* Expand review of design to ensure that sur-veillance testing of operational plants can be conducted without defeating safety X
functions.
5.
Consideration of design changes to preclude X
X operator intervention at inappropriate times during auto-initiation of ESF.
6.* flore emphasis on analysis of mechanistic failures rather than random failures p
g (i.e., insuf ficient identification of cause X
X e
of failure).
N N
7.
Instrument readings should provide operator A
wi th paraiiieter of interes t (e.g., flow-X X
rather than pump on).
8.* flore emphasis on realistic transient analyses (i.e., consideration of actual design features X
X rather thari excessive conserva tism).
9.
Improved interfacing of maintenance and operation functions in operating plants to assure proper X
X coordination.
Pdge 4 Long Plants llearing 01. Decision Range Prior to Short tenn Long tenn Clianges Iteni OL issitance finol enierit a t iori linpl enien ta t ion to SRP
- 10.
- Utilize Project Review Teant coricept to improve inutual understanding of systeins X
by reviewers.
- 11. ' More detailed analysis and evaluation of all LDts t>y a sepaiate group specifically assigned X
to tills task.
Iliese items are expected to inipact in soine way the review of Test Progroins by QAB.
's h
C0 N
N UI e
TABLE 2 BliDGETARY t1AtlPOWER ESTIIMTES FOR SUPPLEMEtiTARY REVIEWS Cons truction Permi t Operating License Conduct of Testing Qiiility Con ~ duct of' Tes ting QiiaTify Operations Proqrams Assurance Totals Opera tions Programs Assurance Total A.
FY 81 and beyond (per case):
Pre-acceptance (Rll)
Acceptance (Rl2, R22)
Evaluation & Qi (R13. R23)
(1)**
1 1+(1)
(1)
(2) 2 2t(3)
Evaluation & 02 (R14, R24)
(1) 1 1+(1)
(1) 1+(2) 2 3t(3)
Evaluation & SER (R15, R25)
(1) 1 1+(1)
(1)
St(2) 2 7+(3)
Post-ACRS (R16, R26) 2 2
10t(2) 7 17t(2) llearing (Rl7, R27)
TOTALS (iitan-days)
(3) 5 St(3)
(3) 16t(8) 13 29t(ll B.
FY 79/80* (total titaripower):
CP's (man-days)
(9) 11 11+(9)
OL's (nun-days)
(57) 183t (92) 136 319 + (14 CA Development of staf f positioris A and i:1 corpora tion liito SRP CO and Standard fornat:
N M
(1)
Item C.1 5 nan ~ months 8
~
D (2)
Item B.4 3 riian-ritonths I
- Approxiiitately 1/3 of the man-days would be expended in FY 79 and 2/3 in FY 80.
- ttanpower estimates in parentheses are those associated with review items directly related to the itil-2 events (Items B.4 and C.1).