ML19249E881
| ML19249E881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eric Turner HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910020655 | |
| Download: ML19249E881 (5) | |
Text
y-
~ k.f$ -
.?
..a
.g DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files.
FWilliams RTedesco I&E (3)
NRC PDR OParr RDeYoung Local PDR ELicitra VMoore bec: JBuchanan LWR #3 File MP.ushbrook WKreger TAbernathy DVassallo RMattson MErnst ACRS (16)
Dross SHanauer R0enise i
SVarga JKnight 0 ELD 1
~ Docket flos. STtt 50-498 STN 50-499 SEP 121979 b&
0 1
i Mr. E. A. Turner Fl "l gJ Jl,' /'
l Vice President D
Houston Lighting ar:d Power Company p.
U' L.
j dJ P. 0. Box 1700 i
Houston, Texas 77001
Dear Mr. Turner:
SUDJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IllFOR:!ATION FOR THE REVIE'l 0F T SOUTH TEXAS FI!!AL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (FSAR)
As a result of our continuing review of the South Texas FSAR, ue find that we need additional information to completa our evaluation.
information re The specific j
the Enclosure. quired is in the area of quality assurance and is listed in
'Please inform us when you plan to submit your responses to this request.
please contact us.If you desire ar:y discussion, or clarification of the enclosed re i
Sincerely, Original signed by, t
O!an Parr
.r Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Uater Reactors, Branch #3
{
Enclosure:
Division of Project Management As Stated.
t I
I See Next Page cc:
l e
r k
D PM,iLW R,,',# 3,,,,,,,DPg:p,W,R,_#,3 EA,Lici tra,:m,ec,,,,,,0 D Pa r r,,,,,,,
9!...i..:;.l.79...
9L.L*...G9...
=c mm.,,_
10/0 196 3910020 8
r Mr. E. A. Turner cc: Mr. D. G. Barker Mr. Troy C.
L.' ebb
. Manager, South Texas Project.
Assistant Attorney General
-s 4
Houston Lighting and Power Company Environmental Protection Div.
P. O. Box 1700 P. O. Box 12548 Houston, Texas 77001 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. M. L. Borchelt Central Power and Light Compny Mr. R. Gordon Cooch, Esq.
P. O. Box 2121 Baker & Botts Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 1701 Pennsyl vania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 7'
Mr. R. L. Hancock N%
City of Austin Director, Governor's Budget Electric Utility Department and Planning Office P. 0. Box 1088 Executive Of fice Building Austin, Texas 78767 411 W.13th Street Austin, Texas 78701 Mr. J. B. Poston Assistant General Manager for Operations John L. Anderson 7
City Public Service Board Oak Ridge National Laboratory a.
P. O. Box 1771 Union Carbide Corporation L,
San Antonio, Texas 78296 Bldg. 3500, P. O. Box X r==-
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mr. Jack R. Ne man, Esq.
Lowenstein, Neman, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.
W' Baker & Botts
>.~
One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 y
N. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corporation gl[
P. O. Box 355 p,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
!?.'
?.'
Mr. E. R. Sc hmi d t NUS Corporation h.'
NUS-4 Research Place fl';
Rockville, Maryland 20850 L.' '
Mr. J. H. Pepin
'g,
Brown & Root, Inc.
L P. O. Box 3 Houston, Texas 77001 n
w 10/0 197 I
m.
2.. T s..
- n. - - 3 A.
p f.'po- & n,~..:.
w. 4.. L.. '
.U.'.-
2.4;>;w
.e..
heen a?d
\\
- n.-
.i'.,..'
C. > -
r
?
- r. s.
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITI0ilAL IrlFORMATI0t!
i FOR THE REVIEW OF THE FSAR FOR THC 3
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UrlITS 1 A'19 2 5..
N.
e.e p.-
t.,
.A s.
W'.
!A. '.-
y.s-to 9*
?
2 s,
eje..
, s.. -
- a.
%y..
Uw.
L
'g.
=
ha
{
r
._..,._..ti
.2
'd.a**
- ; $ '[,%
...g v,
.N. 1.,
- ...[*. d..,.,*.C+]'..,*,.,
+- y :
.y,'
r.
421-1 421.0 QUAL.IT_Y ASSURANCE 421.30 The response to item 421.5 is not completely responsive.
(17.2.1)
Address the relationship between the QA personnel (under the Vice President, Power Plant Construction and Technical Ser-vices) and operating personnel (under the Vice President, Operations).
421.31 The response to item 421.7 fails to address part 4.
Describe (17.2.2) measures for retraining, re-examining, and/or recertifying personnel who perform quality-affecting activities.
421.32 The response to item 421.9 states that the NRC will receive (17.2.2) copies of changes to the Chapter 17 description of the approved QA program as soon as they are distributed. This is not acceptable. We will require that the NRC be notified of changes to the accepted QA program prior to implementatior of the change. Provide such a commitment in the FSAR.
421.33 The first paragraph of Section 17.2.3.4 states:
"These (17.2.3) procedures... will provide for... recurrence of design errors..."
Correct this statement.
421.34 The method for assuring conformance with procurement documents (17.2.7)
(reponse to item 421.19) is still not clear.
It appears from FSAR Section 17.2.7.1 that receipt inspection is divided into two categories:
(1) an inspection of the paperwork by plant QA upon receipt and (2) a physical inspection / examination by the Plant Maintenance Section either upon receipt or when issued for use. Since inspection is normally a function of QA personnel, justify the use of the Plant Maintenance Section for receipt inspection.
Also, it appears that delaying receipt inspection until an item is needed ("when issued for use") could result in schedules and operating requirements dominating quality requirements if non-conformances are found. We will require that physical inspection / examination be performed on a timely basis after receipt and not delayed until issuance for use. Revise the FSAR accordingly.
Finally, Section 17.2.7.1 indicates that receipt inspection (i.e., " acceptance testing") requirements are contained in the procurement uocuments. Section 17.2.4 of the FSAR, "Procura-ment Document Control", is silent in this regard. Supplement Section 17.2.4 so that it includes a description of how the receipt inspection requirements are originated, verified, and controlled.
421.35 Incorporate the response to item 421.20 into the FSAR.
(17.2.10) 1070 199
421-2 421.36 The response to item 421.23 indicates the Plant QA staff has (17.2.14) only a passive role (procedure review as PORC member and surveillance) in the control of inspection and welding stamps and other status indicators. We will require that QA have a more active role in the control of these items. Revise the FSAR accordingly.
421.37 Identify "the Plant Technical Section" in Section 17.2.1 and (17.2.15)
Figure 17.2-3 of the FSAR. We will require that nonconformances which are dispositioned " repair" have an engineering evaluation, as the response to item 421.24 indicates nonconformances dis-positioned "use as is" will have. Further, we will require that engineering evaluation be complete before the disposition is initiated. Revise the FSAR accordingly.
421.38 The response to parts 1-5 of item 421.28 is unacceptable. We (17.2) will require that the deleted material noted in parts 1-5 of item 421.28 be re-inserted into the FSAR as part of the descrip-tion of how the HL&P QA program meets Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 or that a comparable level of detail be provided. As an example, parts 1 and 4 refer to the deletion of PORC approval of procedures; but the response to item 421.23 indicates that the Plant QA Supervisor, as a member of the PORC, reviews plant procedures. Thus, the deleted description should be replaced.
421.39 Following the third paragraph of FSAR Section 17.2.4.1, a (17.2.4) paragraph that was present in Amendment 2 concerning procure-ment initiated by the Maintenance Department has been deleted in Amendment 4.
This deletion is not noted in the margin, and it is not clear whether the deletion was intentional or not.
If the deletion was unintentional, reinstate the paragraph.
If intentional, explain why the paragraph was deleted.
Also, the last paragraph of the FSAR Section 17.2.4.1 still refers to "the Engineering Assurance Division of the QA Depart-ment", but this division is no longer shown on the Figure 17.2-1.
Clarify this discrepancy.
1070 200
-