ML20092K205

Forwards Proposed Agenda for Independent Design Review 840628 Meeting in Bethesda,Md

ML20092K205
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	06/22/1984
From:	Fox C SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE
To:	Samelson A, Willman P ILLINOIS, STATE OF
References
OL, NUDOCS 8406280122
Download: ML20092K205 (5)

Text

p-

. aSCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE

. A %<te.ea p t WASHINGTON OFFICE:

7200 Sears Tower. Chicago,liknois 60606 1101 Connecticut Avenue.N.W. Washington D.C.20036 Telephone (312) 876-1000 Twx 910-2212463 Telephone (202) 857-0600 Telex SHV M590 PRIUCIPAL STAFfi .

June 22, 1984 ggg 7F) 0RP @ ly D/R4 DRS 1RC DRSS _.

DA0 ML BY PUROLATOR OL SGA EIC OI A_

Mr. Allen Samelson DRMA FILE fl/lAL Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division Southern Region 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 BY MESSENGER Mr. Philip L. Willman Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 160 North LaSalle Street, Room 900 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Re: Illinois Power Company Clinton Power Station - OL Docket No. 50-461

Dear Allen and Phil:

Enclosed is a copy of a proposed agenda, prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, for the meeting on the Independent Design Review presently scheduled at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 28 in Bethesda, Maryland, of which I notified you previously.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on this.

Very truly yours,

%b Charles D. Fox IV CDF:kb Enclosure cc: Richard IIubbard

-Jean Foy Richard L. Goddard James L. Milhoan M ames G. Keppler

, Byron Siegel 8406200122 840622 PDR ADGCK 05000461 A PDR Jg25g d/

E

t

.. l l

AGE!!D4 June 28, 1984 i De following agenda is suggested for the June 28. 1984 meeting:  !

• Inteeductfan - NRC/IE

• i Icape of Review - 11tincts power /Sechtet as approprfate 2.

Reference Cffnton IDR Section I Introduction and Section II Charter of Frcp05ed i t

s. i l

Discuss how the total design pr$osss including interfaces is to be evaluated encompassing Illinois Power Company, $srgent and ,

i LLmtty (501). General Electrfc, vendor (s), consultant (s).

l centractor(s) and subcontractor (s). (

i B.

Dfseuss entrapoietton of past and current Set revfews to the  !

t Cifnten Power Station (CP5) design process, e.g..

l e Deserthe the extent the IP scope of work with Sal, for C95 -

wt11 he compared to the scope of work for femt, Le$nlie.

Byron, etc. to deterintne aftsflarf ties and differtnces.  !

2. Refemnce Section III Scope of Work of Preposed Clinton IDR.

i

a. Ofscuss ap i selection.proprfateness of licensee making sample system

- Present crf terte used to select 14PCs and Standby Liquid Control Eystem as sample systems. l

- Compare with MC crf terfa in Enciasyre 1. ~

b. i Present revfew plans for usch samp1m system for each technical disetpline,  :

- Otscuss how rovfew pTans voet NRC criterta discussed in Enclosure 1. j i

- - Discuss how mvfew plans include ffemibility to extend j

- - wertical review beyond the magia systems den needed to

, deteristne ,ff daffcfencies are systenatic or pervasive. . .

I

- Bfscuss how all abservattens and dettefencies identified wtli he evaluated to detect trends.  :

c.

Desertba the entent f tees within each of the sampia systems wfl1 es reviewed  :

d. l Desertne entent deffefenctes and causes will be evaluated to  !

deteistne generic fq11 cations and irnpact to other systems '

l . ... .. . . ,

b;._ _. _ --

, .s

.. . t N

e. Describetheextenttheneviewwillinbicitonsite \

Warificatfen, on a sangiling basis, of the design and as-hofit conditfott.

- t

• 20R Independence Crfteria - Joint WRC/ Illinois Power -

Reference Section WI - Independence of Freposed 10R Plan ,

u

1. Discuss independence criterta preposed by IP Referenta $ection U -

Independance of Preposed IDR Pfen

- Discuss what is meent by the stipulation "Mininiti contacts will not necessarily dfsqualify candfdates for the ICR"?

Qualificetton of Ifidspendent Reviewer - Illinois Power /Hechtel as spareprtate Re% nance 5ection VII - Qualifications of Fraposed ICR Plan l

1. Discuss quaTifications of independent reviewers to be sepfoyed in the IDR as to:

Pfumber of years of nuclear power plant design experience, including (

the namme of ottenfrattont whom awpicyed and dates of such employe-snent, and activ< ties involved during the employment.

l Protocol Goveming Communications - Joint itRC/1111ncis Power /Sechtel l l 1. Dtscuss protical l

Quality Assurance Program - Illinois Power /6echtet as appropriate -

Refernce Section VIII-Quality bsurance Requfremants of Proposed IDR

1. Discuss Q4 Prngram of Independent Reviewer. h 5pecific Questions oft Illinois Power Ney 31,1984 Totter-Illinois Power ~

1. Page 3 of hty 31, 1984 letter.

a. Discuss What is maant by phrese 'No signiffcant balents of plant  !

design work perfenfed by a contratter"? i

' b. Identify oil design subcontractors and their scope of I woMr/actfWfties

' 2.

5ection 41Q-of Attachment 1 of May 31,.1984 letter. , ,  !

a. Define "Clinton Power System unique equipment and systems" b, Biscuss qualification requirements of other equipment and i systems?

t Opportunity for Public Comments ',

f.oncludfng Reenrits . NRC i

.i - -

a .

EllCLDIURE 1 Independent Desic_n Review Attributes

! The concept of IDRs is based on a comprehensive ennminstion of the developant and leplementation reviewed to assess ofthethe design quality offor a sample design system of the facility being activities. The IDR should be a eultidfeciplinary review including, as e minimum, areas such en mechanical systass and components, electric power, civ11 and structural, and instrumente-tion and control. The primary focus is on en assessment of the implemented design control process for the ortpnization(s) parfoming design and engineer-ing services for the licensee ine"uding the architect engineer (A/E), nuclear system supp1fer (N555), vendor (s), consultant (s). contractor (s) and subcon-tractor (s).The system inenagement of the total desi A/E, #555, vendor (s), censultant(s). contractor (s)gn process

, and by the licensee.

subcontractors is evalu-ated.

.The process. evaluation starts with deveTopment of a logic or flow natuork of the design Each functional entity within the design organization should be identified. For each of these entities. internal and external design inter-feces which involve transmittel of design information should be specified, From this network, critical design eMas er areas with the least tolerance for error sticuld be 1dentified. Within each of the design entitles, the specific pro-cedures for the vartfication end innsmittal of design information should be tuviewed for confottence with the everall quality assurance program, and to identify specific weaknesses in the design process. Based on the results of the procedure mutew and the identification of critico) design stees, a l specific sample'should be mviewed in-depth.

The review should the following focus on desigr. work for a selected sample system (s) having characteristics:

(1) Essential to plant safety .

(2) Designed y the A/E (3) A cisarly defined design basis (4) Generally wpresentative of safety-related feature'; in other swetems

- (5). Design which involved internal interfaces between disciplines and guternel interfaces 4th .the MSS 5 vendor,, component ,vandocs.

nnd engiffearing service organizations -

i I

e l

• _ _w

,_g, __ --

m, g- . - .J:-i_ ,

_s.. . - ;-

tw M--

=

,e,. s t

^

7 ,

I

. I t

i (5) Major portions editch are aimady installed in fact 1Jty which wt11 '

e mble veriffeation that design controls, as applied to the orts-  !

1ool changes fleid destyt, have also been applied to design enages, including  !

The review should extend beyond the sample system where reeded to detemine if deficiencies are Systenutic or pervasive.  !

i The reytow should emphasize facters such as;

=

{

( l Veltetty of design' inputs and assumptions l

q h Validity of and conformance to design specificattens - "  !

( I Validity of analyses l Lh Erstam interface requirements  !

5 . . . .

L(6 ) Prgper component classificationInadvertant synergistic3 effecl  ;

l (7) hevtsion control l Oocumentation control  !

Wrification of the desten l

),Wrification of at-built condition ,

l Detailed review piens should be prepared for each me.ior theipline stnssing -

{

Sn in-depth review of a relattvely narrow scope rathat then a superficial reytow cf evenything in the FIAR pertinent to the senple system.  !

f9rmulated for' Plans should be I ;

i (1 Nachanical systems t (2p) Nechanical components  !

q Civil and structurul l

(( ))) Doctric power Instrumentation eed centt1,1  !

R copy of the recently cosipTeted integrated design inspection report of the Seabrook Unit 1 pueleer power pient is provided as Attachment 1 to this enclosure se illustrate what constitutes a sufficiently in etoth review of a reactor design smesse.

While the inspection fetused on the Containw.st Buildtog Spray Systtm.

l other arans were also covered where necessary to edequately evaluate the degign process.

Attachsent; 5eabrook Integrated Design Inspection 50-443/83-23

= = '"'

L