ML19264F030
| ML19264F030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Catawba |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1983 |
| From: | Jabbour K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19264F027 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-278 NUDOCS 8402060566 | |
| Download: ML19264F030 (9) | |
Text
,, $# %'.',
ENCLOSURE UNITED STATES
(
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,v.
g l
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s.,...../
Docket Nos: 50-413 and 50-414 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing THRU:
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief 4 u Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing FROM:
Kahtan Jabbour, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES SECY-82-352 FOR CATAWBA NUCLEAP, STATION Catawba's Safety Evaluation Report stated on page 1-3 that: "On August 20, 1982, SECY-82-352, which addressed quality assurance in the design and construction of nuclear projects, was issued. This document describes the measures that have been approved to provide quality assurance for near-tem operating license facilities.
They include the applicant's self-evaluation, regional evaluations, and, if neces-sary, independent design review. The staff will address appropriate implementa-tion of these measures for Catawba in a supplement to this SER."
The following information is provided regarding the activities that Duke Power Company had perfomed (or will perfom) as a result of significant events at other nuclear facilities, or in response to SECY-82-352 to provide assurance of quality at Catawba.
As a result of the seismic design problems that were discovered at the Diablo Canyon Nutlev Facility, Duke Power Company initiated a seismic design audit of the Catawoa Nuclear Station in early 1982.
The audit results were presented to Region II on May 25, 1982. The stated purpose of this audit was to identify deficiencies in Duke's seismic design infomation exchange process, to identify any inadequate seismic designs, and to recommend changes which would reduce the potential for breakdowns in Duke's seismic design program.
A five member audit team of senior engineering personnel (not directly responsible for the areas under review) was, fomed by the Vice President, Design Engineering. The audit methodology consisted of sampling of infomation exchange adequacy at critical interfaces throughout the seismic design process. The audit team expended approximately 10 person-months and while infomational exchange breakdowns in Duke's seismic design process were identified,there were no design inadequacies. The audit team deter-mined that sufficient data had been reviewed to conclude that design conservatisms would preclude any actual design inadequacies.
There were no safety concerns resulting from this audit.
go2gggoh
Thomas M. Novak In addition, in October 1982, Duke Power Company and TVA completed a design / construction audit of the Catawba Nuclear Station. The evaluation results (Enclosure) were transmitted on December 30, 1982, to J. O'Reilly, Region II. The Catawba audit was performed to INP0-developed criteria (Phase I) and took place from September 27 to October 14, 1982. During this time, Duke and TVA expended over 10 person months of effort. The audit team consisted of senior Duke and TVA personnel experienced in the design / construction of nuclear stations. The Duke personnel involved had no direct responsibility for the areas under review.
Fif ty-seven findings resulted from this audit, Duke took action on fif ty-four of these. All of the findings were the result of isolated instances of inadequate implementation or interpretation of existing procedures. There were no major programmatic findings or deficiencies.
On March 1,1983, a meeting was held between Region II and Duke Power Company to discuss Duke's self-initiated evaluation of the project management, design and construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station.
Furthermore, Duke Power Company stated at the March 11, 1983, ACRS meeting, that they *will perfom a Phase II INP0 self-initiated evaluation for Catawba later in 1983.
We expect that the evaluation results will be transmitted to Region II in December 1983.*(Now scheduled for February 1984).
I discussed the above activities perfonned by Duke with H. Dance of Region II.
He stated that although Region II did not perfom a fomal assessment of Duke's activ-ities regarding quality assurance, they believe that an independent design verifi-cation program (IDVP) is not necessary for Catawba because Duke is an experienced and integrated utility that acts as its own A/E and constructor, and Catawba is very similar to McGuire 1 and 2.
I would suggest that DL would wait for the results of Phase II INPO. However, based on the input received to-date from the Region and the resident inspector, and the results of the above activities, I would recommend that DL would not require an IDVP for Catawba.
b]E.- &N&G Kahtan Jabbour, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
D. Eisenhut J. Taylor H. Dance V. Brownlee W. Haass P. VanDoorn
- c.>at:u.s4.,ua.12t fw.....
.. iD.: t :.D t......
sumut > KJAhbnur/Amc M#ggm...,
.]No y,a k,,,,
mie6A.i!B3.
6l.WIB3 6L../83
.,L,, e m e,1,,4,
' tlNITI D r.1 AT E S
[, },
NUCLI Alt iti GUI Al()HY COMMli/;lt P!
m..m a,iora.n c..n....
=.
3&,g.J'.
,, ^
- .4 -
a...*
FROM: RICHARD DEYOUNG, IE ORIO. DUE DATE:
01/09/84 TICLET NO:
839422 DOC DATE:
12/15/83 TO:
DENTON NRR RCVD DATE:
12/19/83
- YELLOW **
FOR SIGlwATURE OF: APPROPRIATE ACTION DESC:
CC:
SUDMITS MEMO CONCERNING IDVPS FOR CALENDAR YEAR CASE /DENTON 1984 PLANTS 1.
FPAS 2.
SPEIS 3.
MATTSON REFERRED TO: DL DATE: 12/19/83 4.
VOLLMER CONTACT:
E.JeENovi~
5.
THOMPSON e..
ORACE gggt.
7.
SNYDER PLEASE REVIEW THE DUE DATE IMMEDIATELY:
IF THE DUE DATE DOES NOT ALLOW ADEQUATE REQUESTS FOR REVISION OF YELLOW T IME TO RESPOND TO THIS TICKET, YOU MAY TICKET DUE DATES MA( BE MADE, WITH REQUEST A REVISED DUE DATE. THE REQUEST JUSTIFICATION, THRU THE WEEKLY WITS MUST INCLUDE A VALID JUSTIFICATION AND UPDATE UP TO ONE WEEK AFTER ASSIGN-BE MADE THROUGH YOUR CORRESPONDENCE CO-MENT BY NRR MAIL ROOM. THE NEW DUE ORDINATOR TO THE NRR MAIL ROOM (KAREN DATE, IF APFROVED LY NRR MAILROOM, BOWMAN OR MELANIE OARVER).
WILL DE USED TO TRACH DIVISION COR-RESPONDENCE COMF'LET ION SCHEDULES.
PLEASE DO NOT HAND CARRY CONCURRENCE PACKAGES TO DIRECTOF.E. OFFICE WITHOUT FIRST GOING THRU THE NRR MAIL ROOM.
Y*
pa as o 'n'g u
D
' UNIT ED ST ATES y ; j".,,ff', (
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.S' sg v%g4/'
s WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20%5 fE
,h 5
s jf DEC. :
23 m
"ir +/G UM FOR Harold R. Denton, hirector Of fice of Nuclear Teactor Regt.lation F RO:
Richard C. DeYoung, Directnr Office of Inspectirn and Enforcenent SUNfCT-IDVPs FOR CALEllDAP YEAR 19F1 PLANTS As we agreed, the responsibility for management of the Indeperdent Jesign Veri-fication Program (IDVP) will be transferred to IE on January 1,19El.
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will retain SER input responsibility #or seven IDVP reports (Waterford 3, Shoreham 1, Palo Verde 1, Fermi 2, WNP-2, Corenche Peak 1, and Wattt Car 1).
If will assur,e principal responsibility for any :DVPs performed for plants not listed above and with applicant estimated construction completion dates (as of September 30, 1983) in 19f4 and beyond.
NRR and the a:propriate NRC Regional Office will provide technical support to IE in review of tnese IDVPs.
As requested, correspondence and contact with applicants will be ccordinated throt.gh the NRR Project Manager.
There are presently fifteen plants with applicant construction completion dates in 1984:
Byron 1, Callaway 1, Catawba 1, Wolf Creek 1. Limerick 1, Seabrook 1, Midland 2, Zimmer 1, Perry 1, Watts Bar 1, Susquehanna 2, Shoreham 1, Palo Verde 1, Waterford 3, and Comanche Peak 2.
IE proposes the following actions with respect to these plants:
1.
A decision was previously made by NRR with respect to the need for IDVPs for Watts Bar 1, Shoreham 1, Palo Verde 1, and Waterford 3.
As stated above, NRR will retain SER input responsibility for these plants.
2.
A decision was previously made by NRR with respect to the need for an IDVP for Midland 2.
IE will assume responsibility for review of the Midland 2 IDVP.
3.
NRR has notified Pennsylvania Power and Light Company that an IDVP is not recessary for Susquehanna Unit 2.
The reasoning was that Unit 1, of similiar design with the sane architect engineer and constructor, had an IDVP performed and Unit 2 incorporated improvements resulting from the lessons learned on the Unit 1 IDVP.
.d l5 VP gp3Wi"
Harold R. Denton 4 Integrated Decicn Inspectinnt (IDIs) were conduc ted on Callavie', I and Byron Drtober 1:. 195J, ( n.tr. wealth Fc son v as E
D. Licent ut lettti
" formed that an IP" ft
. c;m.u" rc+ ne w w y.
/s sir ilc - letter
' '; C l f " 'J r ( ' 1) EL: '
I, f 5 E(
+'
' ' inn [leci r " fol,an'.
\\!.'!
rC S pei. t
- O Eallav,ay 1.
5.
Im IDI is being conducted en Seahroa.
/, cecis ior en tim need for any aciditional action by t hc applicant v ill be helc' in abeyanco pending completir" of the IDI.
L.
M.; h;
'cen notiE ec by Cincinnati Gas "d Electric Compar,y (CG&E) that an Independent Design Revice (IDR) Program, similar to an IDVP will be perforred on Zinrer 1.
IE will take the lead in reviewing CG&r's IDR program 7
In IDVP is beina conducted on Corunche Peak 1.
A decision cn the need ti, m additior 1 acticn P t"c applicau with respect *o Co-nche feak E will be held in abeyance.
8.
Wolf Creek 1 is a SNUFPS plant.
An IDI was conducted on Callaway 1, also a SNUPPS plent.
It doer r.ot appear an IDVP is necessary for Ucl.~ Creek 1.
Uwevor, pr i e r t o rr-# ng w c h a de r i n m v.e will n auw / Enc' sure ?)
u sas uas an
~ lt ctric Ca any:
si, i de n t i t ;, dif f erei a : :n the design process between the two plants and discuss the effect of these differences on its confidence that the design process for Wolf Creek 1 is z.t least equivalent to that for Callaway 1, (2) to describe those atrects of its quality assurence program related to design that provides asst.rance of the acceptability of the design process, and (3) to address those findings of the IDI report for Callaway 1 that are applicable to Wolf Creek 1 along with a report on the extent these findings affect or do not affect the design of Wolf Creek 1.
9.
An 101 or an IDVP has not been conducted on Limerick 1, Perry 1, or Catawna 1.
We will request applicants for these plants to present their bases for assuring the NRC staff that their plants have been designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations and Safety Analysis Report ccmmitments. is a proposed request to Philadelpnia Electric Company for Limerick 1.
Similar letters (Enclosures 4 and 5) are enclosed for Perry 1 and Latawba.
Because of the nearness of the applicant con-struction completion date for Catauba (5/84), we request you set up an early metting with Duke Power to dis cuss,lons for Catawba.
Harold R. Denton g )
1983 Although the letters to applicants have been prepaied by ]E, we believe that all correspondence with applicants dealing with licensing riatters should con-t irue to be ti(;ned by thr f;PP Divici(.ri of L icensir c and have-born prepared
<cordir-
..' e havt
< cred irr 1
'ncu ri er
'e
- h e ' ',;', o le'.crs will t,e l ? t c
.1'
- 4 1 (i $endi t'
', U C Il lt
- /
I~
f
'?
r*
t hi 5t-l:li.T { s
.,3.
, r l. "u l r t
- h the n eli-
'D.
1<'
cent er t i:
-l
.p ' ( 4 wn dat.
i ie
.a ci.r ;a
.':cui'<
it it t.:i t t e r.
.i c h, M
; /
hii &tc on u.a Er,rcer:cr +
Of
,1 c ins; Enclosurt-1.
Dra f t Calla.ay 1 Letter nraft.-lo l f Leeck 1 Letter 7
Pr it t l'
> r '. d
- ctter 1
D r r. f f L a oa..t a 1 L c t te r 5.
Draf t Perry 1 Letter cc:
T. E. Murley, RI J. p P' Willy, Pil e
,lcr o.
I, Collins, R!V J. B. Martin, RV G. Cunningham, ELD D. Finenhut, NRR
e Enci sure 1 Docket f,'o.
50-483 I'
Brun
'5(
I Pr$ % i (}s. !,1 i'fil O'
'leClfiC C(UT/ ~ fly 1901 Grc t ic +- St reet P. O, fl n 4 10.9 Lt. Louis, flis souri 63M6 Dear t'r.
f:1 rya n :
E rr-
[,c s i.;;p s. n r 4 f i c c + : n rc e, s < u < _ r 311m y 1 As
,'cu are aware, the f;RC staff has been M elina additional assuri :es from
- p pl i c c-'e c for 0; a ing 1icences the
+h, c'er i p ;>rece< n ucnd it
. : ns t ruci " rg their plant has fully complied with fiRC regulations and licensing commitments.
ti e,,
e ba;c c
,: ev -
h.
, + r> d ' -
m Inspection (IDI) performed at Callaway 1 end talieve that an Inderc-dent Design Veri #ica tion Progran or siri'cr proa-"4
'c not necessary for this
' ant at this time pending satisf actory resolution of the Callaway 1 IDI report ndings.
Siru rely.
Da rrell G. Eisenhut, Di rec : r Division of licensing I'ffice of Nuclear Peactor :sgulation
< n d O L S D B fo Jp u
u a,
Docket No. 50-482 Fr. 1:
- h. Cadran President nin se Gas and Electr'c Corpany P.O. Ecy ?O8 Witchita, Kansas
$7201
Dear F,
- r. Cadnan:
SUBJECT-Pc si en Ve H fic c t i en f.c t ivi t.ios
' Y l-C rrr! 1 As you are aware, the NRC hrs been seeking acdit ional assurcrr.c f rc-appli-cants for operating licenses that the design process used ir conste.cting their plants has fully cor: plied with NRC regulat ions and licensing om:ait-ments.
In addition, as you may be aware, an Integrated Design Inspection was performed on Chilaway
' by the NRC Office of Insr rtion and En" rcement.
S i n ce '..ol f C re e,, is ( f similar ccsign mid has :he san' architect er ;ineer and constructor as Callaway 1, the staff is considering v.hether this ard possibly other f actors may support a conclusion t hat the design process for, olf Creek I has met NRC regulations and lictnsing commitnents.
To assist us in this decision, it is requested tFat you provide witFin sixty davs frer t'e date of this letter, a summary of differences in the design process bett.een the two plants along with a discussion of the effect of these differencss on your confidence that the design process f or Wolf Creek 1 is at least eqt" valent t o tha t for Callaway 1.
Also provide uc. with information on ha 3Eclicable
{ p l f f*h'
f1r. W. K. Cadman
- ?-
Callu 1 Ir.f oora t d Desian W ction re; or-
'i tW r
- c. F= ve bom-
- r e w
- ' f o r Wolf Creek 1, a cescH ptien o' *he espect< o' nur cu'li+. assurc':
program rel *ed to desinn t.hich ascurect t hr.t t he appl-10. si n ce" titr it were irpl>~ nted et Unii Creek 1, arid any other int <>
.: which ecc
'd
.: p p o r t t h.
c
- l u.7 rn th the desig: ;ercess #0 r ',. i <
C rei.
he e been
- peel, i t:pl erie n t e d.
Lle wiii be pleased to meet with you to discuss this rcquest.
In t" s regard you should notify Joseph Holonich (301/492-7793) of my staff if you desire to meet viith us so vie can make the necessary nectine arrangerents.
Sinccrtly, Darrell C.
l..
?nhut, Di rect cr Division of <.. censing Office of fluclear Reactor Psgulation
Docket f!o. 50-352 f;r Edw. cri r.
Bauer, Jr.
Vic e I r e s i cien t and Genera l Courn 1 Philacclphia Electric Cor:pany 230! I'cii et Street P. O. Cox Ff:99 Phil rdel phie.. Per.nsylvania 19101 Dear Mr. Bauer-
'";'FCT:
Desitn Verifitction Perce.
- Li:er Unit ]
Es you Ddy be aware, the IS.C staff has been seeking ccditional assurances from a; plic6nt< for opeving licenses th?+ the design prcc:n used in c:.structing their plants has fully complied with NRC regulations and licensing commitments.
To provide this necessary assurance, a number of applicants have undertaken an I nc'c p n de n t N r. i iy '. e ri fi c r + i o:, 'c. m pe r'c r * '
- .n i ndc p < dc n' contr clor to review and evaluate the design process, including a sample of design details rnd as-built conditions.
Because c' the ne?.rress of your planned '-itial fuel load date for Linerick Unit 1, it is requested that within thirty days fron the date of thic, letter, you present ar} plans ycu have for assuring that your plant h6s been de: 1gned and constructed in accordance with t le regulatiers and Safety Analysis Report commitments.
( /-Q"6 DIM *A
Mr. Edward G. Bauer Ve 1:ill or rieased to i,cc+ with vr" <*
c a r e:! ri ' t c ' c r'r v r e
. sh'uld nu have any questionc
?n this rega ro you s b c ul e not i t, F. cit ri "
t-f": :E2-4937) of
' o tb r ec 'e
," r-eeting r_
staf-4 f you desin t'.
reet wit!' ut so we crn r a rra nce: ents.
Sincerel,,
Da r re l l G. E i n c H.t, 'ii r r - + ' r Division of Littr. sing Office of tiuclear Reactor Regulation
6
[nC'~iUre i t Doci et f,'n. 50 '13 t1r Eal D. Tucker Vice President Luclear Production Duie Pouc'- Corpany P.O. box 33100 Cha rl ot + o. I,t rth Ca roli ne
?P2 D poar l'.r. Tucicr
SUBJECT:
Design Verification Program - Catawba Unit 1 As you may be aware, the NRu staff has bee: seeking ocditional asst.'ances f rom applicants for operating licenses that the design process used in constructing their plants has fully complied with NRC regulations and licensing comnitments.
10 prm ide U.i s necessa ry as sura nt e, a rw.
o applicants have ur:ertaken an Independent Design Verification Program performed by an independent contractor to review and evaluate the design process. includir,9 a sanple cf dcsign details and as-built conditions.
Because of the nearness of your planned initial fuel lead date for Catawba Unit 1, it is requested that t:ithin thirty dr.s fron the c1 te of this letter, you present any plans you have for assuring that your plant has been designed and constructed in accordance with the regulatiors and Safety Ani. lysis Report commitments.
h~T
'b (
Mr. lial B. Tucker We will l'e pleased to e,et with
<c: - ecriiest convecience si a'd you have any questions.
In this regarc ;,cu siwuia ncti'y Lahtan JaLocur (3C: /49?-7:00) of my stcff if you desire to rect ith us se v:' c :o r ue il.e recess,ry reeting a r r r.naene n t s.
Ci r.ce rt l v,
Darrell G. Eis( nhut, Pirtct r Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatico
6 Docket No. 50-440 i:r. flu r r,
- n. Edelrmo Vico Piesiatr'
',uc lea r Group ClevelEnd Ele tric :lluminating Co.
P.O. Eex 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Pec e fir. Edelru n :
O N ECT:
Design Verification Prrga; - Perr; i+ i t 1 As you ray be aware, the NPC staff has been seekinc edditional assurances from applicants for operating licenses that thc design process used in c,nstructing their plants has fully complied with NRC regulations and licensing commitments.
To provide this necessary assurance, a number of applicants have undertaken an Independent Design Verification Program perforried by an independent contractor to review and evalucte the design process, including c saraple cf cerign details and as-built conditions.
It is requested that within sixty days f rom the date of this letter, you present any plans you have for assuring that ycur plant has been designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations and Safety Analysis Report commitments.
J '? l 5
e Mr. [1urray R. Edelman uill tc cl ea sed t o n.ee t t i t h '.ou e t vcu e ier* conven ierce s"
.ild you havn any nuer,tions.
In thir. recard vou shoulG notify John Stefani (30; 292-7037) of ny s t a f f i f you desi re t o r;2e+ t.:i t h u s can rake the r.ecessar; meetino a rr a nge c ent s.
- crr-Gv, Carrell G. Eiscrhut, Di rcct :r Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation