ML20050C056
| ML20050C056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/29/1982 |
| From: | Haass W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Papay L SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204080074 | |
| Download: ML20050C056 (2) | |
Text
..... -
=
4 cr A
w e
y MAR 2 91982 DJ STRIBUTION:
Wentral File co 1 <
NRC PDR 4
LPDR 1
NSIC C
NG Mr. L. T. Papav, Vice President TERA 2
CgyYO Q
Southern California Edison Company QAB Projects 4
()
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue QAB Chron. Fild P.O. Box 800 WJohnston, DE T
Rosemead, CA 91770 RDiggs, LFMB N
VWilson, MAB
Dear Mr. Papav:
JSpraul, QAB t
SlJBJECT: NRC ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON QA' TOPICAL REPORT Your letter of January 8,1982, submitted Amendment 5 to the Southern California Edison (SCE) topical report, SCE-1-A, " Quality Assurance Program." for staff re-view and approval.
Changes and corrections to Amendment 5 were submitted in your letters dated February 10 and March 17, 1982. Amendment 5 revised the topical report to reflect organizational and programmatic changes, commitments to cur-rent regulatory guides, and editorial changes.
Based on our evaluation of the proposed changes described in Amendment 5, we find that your revised topical report continues to meet the criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and is therefore acceptable.
Should regulatory criteria or regu-lations change such that our conclusion about this topical report is invalidated, we will notify you.
You will be given the opportunity to revise and resubmit it should you so desire.
To use the topical report in future license applications. SCE need only reference it in Section 17 of the SAR. Should you reference it in the SAR for a new nuclear power project, the basis of our evaluation will be the acceptance criteria in the latest revision to SRP Sections 17.1 and 17.2 (currently Revision 2). Appropriate changes may, therefore, be necessary.
Programmatic changes by SCE to this topical report are to be submitted to the NRC for review prior to implementation. Organizational changes are to be submitted no later than 30 days after announcement. Please replace our letter of November 2, 1981 with this letter, renumber the report as SCE-1-A, Amendment 5, and submit 11 copies to the NRC.
Your transmittal letter should identify the nuclear units to which Amendment 5 will apply.
Should you have any questions regarding our review or if we can provide assistance, please contact me or Mr. Jack Spraul at (301) 492-9489.
Sincerely, Original signed by Walter P. Haass Walter P. Haass, Chief 8204000o74 820329 Quality Assurance Branch PDRTOPRPEUTSchog Division of Engineering C
n A,,
Cnclosure:-Topical Reg ~n Evelveties x
y
.DE;QAB__
g
" "c 4 cc w?End...ost re:
'"praul ;'c,g.,.
.,Wy.. _ a s s,,,,
S w,g
... g...g... Cu rdan" "" " "-
. Y"' 0
- $.!0 "A
~~
~we r eau m oo no.sacu o2.o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY a
t TOPICAL REPORT EVALUATION Report Number: SCE-1-A Report
Title:
Quality Assurance Program Report Date: August 1981 Originating Organization:
Southern California Edison Company Reviewed By: Quality Assurance Branch
SUMMARY
OF REPORT c
Topical Report SCE-1-A, Amendment 5, describes the quality assurance (QA) program l
which Southern California Edison Company (SCE) applies to those design, procure-ment, construction, preoperational testing, and operations phase activities in-volving safety-related structures, systems, and components of nuclear power plants within the SCE scope of work.
SCE-1-A, Amendment 5, commits SCE to comply with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and to follow the regulatory position provided by the NRC in Regulatory Guides 1.8, Revision 1 (September 1975),
1.28 (June 7,1972),1.30 (August 11,1972),1.33-Revision 2 (February 1978), 1.37 (March 16,1973),1.38-Revision 2 (May 1977),1.39-Revision 2 (September 1977),
1.58-Revision 1 (September 1980),1.64-Revision 2 (June 1976),1.74 (February 1974),
1.88-Revision 2 (October 1976),1.94-Revision 1 (April 1976),1.116 (June 1976),
1.123-Revision 1 (July 1977),1.144-Revision 1 (September 1980), and 1.146 (August 1980).
SCE has provided for our evaluation a detailed organizational description of those individuals and groups involved in carrying out activities required by the QA pro-l gram and a delineation of duties, responsibilities, and authority of those organi-aational elements involved in the QA program.
SCE-1-A, Amendment 5 contains a i
description of the measuras used to carry out the SCE QA program activities and describes how applicable requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 will be satis-fled by the administration and implementation of these measures.
SUMMARY
OF REGULATORY EVALUATION AND POSITION We have evaluated the QA program and the organizations responsible for QA functions I
as described in SCE-1-A, Amendment 5.
We find that QA policy and direction origi-i nate at an acceptably high management level and are effectively cnnmunicated to other parts of the organization.
Individuals performing QA functions have responsi-bility and authority commensurate with their duties in implementing the QA program.
We also find that measures have been established to be implemented by written procc-i dures and instructions which address each of the criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 in an acceptable manner.
Based on our review and evaluation of SCE-1-A, Amendment 5, we conclude that:
1.
The organizations and persons performing QA functions within SCE have the required independence and authority to effectively carry out the QA program without undue influence from those directly responsible for costs and schedules.
(
2.
The SCE QA program contains requirements and controls which, when properly implemented, comply with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
3.
The SCE topical report, SCE-1-A, Amendment 5, " Quality Assurance Program,"
is acceptable for use in the design, procurement, construction, preopera-c tional testing, and operations phase activities of SCE's nuclear power plants.
k