ML20114F055
| ML20114F055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Waterford |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Harrison S NATIONAL BOARD OF BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTORS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082170562 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-143 NUDOCS 8001170240 | |
| Download: ML20114F055 (1) | |
Text
.
o 1
NOV 5 B79 F. Harrison
!ve Director "ifonal Board of 9511**
1 Jees;are Yessel Inspectors leas Crupoer Avenue Colustus. CH 43229
.-t'e. Harrison:
As noted in the attached Enclosues. a setter involving an improper action by an Authorized flotteer Inseector was recently brought to our attention. We r W that this setter De investigated by your Office and appropriate corrective action takes. Please advise if we con be of assistanca.
l
$1ncorely..
.)
Victor Ste11o. Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Memorandum. Ste e rt to Seidle, dated October 1Si 1979
- o cc:
'4r. M. R. Green bec w/o enclosure:
H. D. Thornburg. IE Heneging Director.,,, "%
codes 4.standeres;'m. P 5.,. W. R. Rutherford. IE
~
. K. V serfrit. RIV ine==rtas s e etr W. seidie. Riy 2333 1r.5
.s Nchanical' Engineers U. Potapovs. RIV 345 E 47th Streat ame vere, w:. teat,7..
i
,..g
.w gool'170 M Mr. r. L. mumler:
3 i
1T![4 The tenrefore sensa sofier 4
Ie,egetties eel heuroese Co. 4 p
a N'dTU idE@ '
1 MD Kf:IE,,. ;Demereg~~* -~A/Dti:!E Di!E' /
~
mu 4..r.
~" g m.s 7 - ~.1.3:,'. 72 4.mandam,ath
,EThessoas....... X32s. o.
~ ~ ~ ~ - -
mensee "g,,; 3 x :::
Yy~.5
.,2xm.
- . ;,,,,q,,g,,,,, y4Qig
,;p_ g77_p______
M f
7 sessmentarmentems eer.sy. c*g * *w a+_
s gy
., a;. jp.f elA qq,g3
+..
....a..... m x
. w c. s..,. c hhf ffh b% -
n
.',o UNITED STATES g g (gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
~i
%.... /
FEB 1 1 1989 MEMORAN UM FOR:
R. Mattson, Director, DSS THRU:
J. P. Knight, Assistant Director for Engineering, DSS FROM:
R. J. Bosank, Chief, Mechanical Engineering Branch, DSS q
SUBJECT:
MEB EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION EFFORT AND POTENTIAL FOR LICENSING DELAYS
===.
Background===
The Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) wa.s established by the MEB_in 1974 to perform a hands-on audit of OL applicant's program used to qualify electrical and mechanical equipment for dynamic seismic input.
ICSB/PSB personnel parti-cipate in the program to assure the proper electrical function of equipment when subject to seismic input.
With the advent of dynamic inputs originating from safety relief discharge or LOCA blowdown into pressure suppression con-tainments' and from other sources, the scope of the SQRT effort was expanded to include the qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment for the total dynamic environment expected during service.
The SQRT review at plant sites conducted by the staff team since its inception '
(all PWR plants and Hatch-2) has emphasized a review of the equipment quali-fication performed by the applicant, most often single frequency / single axis methods, to determine by a review of the qualification and inspection of the installation whether the criteria in IEEE 344-1975, R/G 1.100,1.92, and SRP.
3.9.2 and 3.10 have been satisfied. Typically preparation for a site visit by SQRT has required approximately 4 man weeks, a site visit is 3-5 days for the 4 man team, post visit evaluation approximately 4 man weeks, for a total of approximately 12 man weeks per plant.
Because of difficulties with plants such as Diablo Canyon, the lead Mark II plants (Zimmer LaSalle and Shoreham) and the time expended to attempt to establish a generic qualification of GE NSSS equip-ment, plant vi. sits had slipped by several months by late 1978. With the establishment of the interim organization the SQRT was especially hard hit and all staff effort was halted due to a lack of resources by mid May 1979.
The letter from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in mid June 1979 that 00D assist NRC resulted directed to the. Department of Defense requesting (NRL) in July, reaching tenta-in our contacting the Naval Research I'aboratory tive agreement with them on work scope, resource requirements and schedules in August and establishing an interagency agreement in September. MEB memo of November 28,1979 (attached) discusses the significant work accomplished by NRL, including meetings with applicants, architect engineers and NSSS vendors, Foi A - % -W3
~
el+
.n.-
c c
prior to the receipt of the NRL letter of November 19 unilaterally terminating our interagency agreement.
The November 19 letter came as a complete surprise to both the NRC and NRL staffs participating in the program.
The MEB memo s
of November 28, 1979 led to the request by Chairman Ahearne to the Office of Management and Budget on the basis of national priority tar request reconsidera-tion by the Navy of its November 19 decision. Mr. Denton's letter of January 3,1980 (attached) also requested such reconsideration.
On February 7. MEB was advised by Mr. Dan Gessaman of OMB that efforts to effect a reversal of the Navy's decision had been unsuccessful.
Mr. Jesse Funches of Chairman Ahearne's staff was so advised on February 8,1980.,
Current Status and Plans MEB started reviewing alternative sources of assistance in January 1980, both within the government and within private industry.
Because of the procedures and long lead times in awarding contracts to private firms, we intend to issue an RFP as soon as possible, but plan to continue checking agencies within government to determine the availability of competent resources to assist us.
The alternative of using existing staff personnel is not viable unless experi-enced persons now assigned to DOR and USI.are completely released from all other responsibilities.
Impact on Licensing The NRL contract encompassed 13 plants (Zimer, Shoreham, San Onofre, Summer, LaSalle, Watts Bar, Midland, Susquehanna, Fermi-2, Waterford 3. Farley 2 and Commanche Peak).
As previously discussed, work had commenced on severaf ' plants (Zimmer, LaSalle, Shoreham, Summer).
Unfortunately such work will need to be repeated when a new co'ntractor is selected.
It is our best estimate that as a result of the NRL cancellation schedules for 1
SQRT will have to be slipped by at least eight or nine months. This time appears to be irrecoverable. An operating license cannot be recommended for any plant until the dynamic equipment evaluation is complete. Applicant milestones such as in situ tests will also be severely impacted.
8 L--
R.
. Bosnak, Chief i
Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety
Enclosure:
MEB Memo - November 28, 1979 Denton Letter
, January 3,1980 cc:
D. Vassallo
- 0. Parr R. Satterfield S. Varga H. Brammer F. Rosa L. Rubenstein F. Cherny V. Moore J. Stolz S. Hou
-D.
Ross R. Baer J. Funches
...