ML20127A917
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,,(p.= =eg\\
' UNITED STATES l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,)
y n
4 g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20SSS
%,.... /
(
. Docket No. 50-382 JUL 191983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Deputy Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Ins'pection Programs, IE
SUBJECT:
'SSER CONCERNING IDVP OF WATERFORD In your memorandum of May 11, 1983, you. requested our review of and SSER input for Torrey Pines Technology's " Independent Design Review of Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Emergency Feedwater System" (GA-C16900) dated March 1983.
We have re-viewed the three volumes of this report and our SSER input is enclosed.
We have concluded that the work performed by Torrey Pines Technology provides
' edditional assurance of the acceptability of the design and construction of 4
Waterford Unit 3 and that, with respect to quality assurance, there is an acceptable basis for granting authority to operate the facility at power levels up to and including full power.
Any disagreement with this conclusion from the staff should be resolved before the SSER is issued.
.for (WalterP.Haass,DeputyChief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspecticn Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement En:lesure:
SSER Input
[0/ 8'M Y
cc:
E. L. Jordan, IE J. M. Taylor, IE R. Bosnak, NRR g
g E. Sullivan, NRR G. Knighton, NRR J. Knight, NRR J. Wilson, NRR d
13P7&tuy3 xA
~-
.m
. - _ _ ~, _ _
<.. ~. -,. -. - - _, - - _.., - _
('
e
(
17.
QUALITY' ASSURANCE l
17.7 Independent Design Review l
l 17.7.1
Background
Torrey Pines Technology (TPT) has completed its program for the independent design review of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
The TPT work, performed in accordance with a staff-approved program plan, included a tech-nical review of the Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System design to detennine if l
the design control process adequately converted the design basis of the EFW System into an adequate design.
In addition, the program included a physical verification to measure the conformance of the as-built structure to the re-l quirements of the design documents.
The objective of the program was to provide increased assurance that the overall design and construction of the l
station have been properlysensesuc. tad. g,tD.
The program included the following six tasks:
Task A - Design Procedure Review - evaluated compliance of design procedures and control with NRC approved QA program Task B - Design Procedure Implementation Review - evaluated EFW System design, documents for compliance with the established design procedures and l
controls identified in Task A Task C - Technical Review - addressed adequecy of EFW to determine whether system design is adequate to perfonn its intended function Task D -
Physical Verification of selected portions of EFW System to establish conformance of the installation to the requirements of the design documents and specifications l
Task E - Processing of Potential Findings, including Evaluation of LP&L's l
Response & Followup Task F -
Program Management, Administration and Reporting i
.,...c
.PT Evaluation Process i
TFT assigned technical personnel specific itens to review in accorcance with ec rented procedures. When a reviewer uncovered an apparentlp significant
- evia:1on, a Potential Finding Report (PFR) vias prepared.
Eacn PFR was pro-I cessed to completion, with the applicant perfor ing corrective acti:n on each valic PFR.
TPT reviewed the applicant's ' pro:esed action on each PFR which could cerceivably result in a substantial safety hazard and, if required, iterations l
were made until TPT found each proposed corrective action acceptable.
17.7.3 Assessment by TPT During the evaluation, TPT reviewers generated 38 PFRs.
Subsecuent processing of these PFRs showed that 14 were invalid (i.e., additional information showed e
e a
-'^'
0 t,
' (
no deviation to exist), 20 were judged by TPT to hav no potential to cause a substantial safety hazard, and 4 were judged by TPT s having the potential to cause a substantial safety hazard.
The apparent eviation in each of these 4 PFRs was called a finding.
A corrective action was developed for each finding and accepted by TPT.
TPT concluded that the QA program including QA procedures and specific design control procedures for the EFW System were adequate and re-sponsive to 10' CFR 50. Appendix B and the comitments in the.PSAR.
17.7.4
$5sessment by NRC Staff J
The NRC staff reviewed the TPT evaluation reported in Technical Report GA-C16900 dated March 1983 and met with TPT and Lottisiana Power & Light representatives on i
June 9, 1983.
The TPT report includes a technical summary, the program results, and a compilation of the 38 PFRs, corrective action plans for each of the 4 findings, and the TPT review of these corrective action plans. We reviewed the 38 PFRs and conclude that TPT's assessmer,t of each PFR was acceptably con-servative.- That is, we agree that the apparent deviations in 34 of the PFRs r
were either invalid or have no potential to cause a substantial safety hazard.
l The 4 findings are as follows:
1.
Potential for water hammer to occur in the EFW pump l
discharge lines.
2.
Potential for freezing in the EFW System lines which
(
are located outdoors.
3.
Computational errors made in the design of the i
j condensate storage pool.
4 Environmental requirement discrepar.cies with the FSAR.
Louisiana Power & Light has issued corrective action plans for the above findings which are acceptable to TPT and the implementation of these plans is in progress.
The staff has also reviewed these corrective action plans and finds them accept-
- able, d
17.7.5 Conclusions i
The independent design review of the Waterferd Steam Electric Statien, Unit 2 by TPT indicated that the quality assurance prcPan, design process, and procedures fer the EFW system are acceptable except for 4 findings where a;;repriate cor-
)
rective actions have oeen described.
The retuits of this evaluation provide 1
increased assurance that the QA program esta:lished and irclemented by Louisiana Power & Light and its principal contractors did effectively control the overall
,py me-and construction activities for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 2.
Although deficiencies were identified, the overall design and construction activities were adequately performed so that no adverse impact on safety was found.
Therefore, with respect to assurance of proper design and construction, the NRC staff concludes that there is an acceptable basis for granting authority to operate the facility at power levels up to and including full power.
l r
l j
('
.y,,
s
- 7 ; "'. '.II:. :__ 83 130uAB 2.
CATE:
s/24/a3 3.
- Ts u.::::.__
g,
- ,;;g;7
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF TORREY PINES IDVP REPORT ON WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 Mem toTayloretal,fromTMNovakdatedS/k1/83 5.
REQUESTOR:
5.
ACTI0ttREQUESTED:
SSERinputtoPMbyduly 15,1983; meeting with applicant and Torrey Pines to be scheduledi
- 0',7 fe. %te-fecd 0 1
4
(
Taylor Haass Gilray 7,
ASSIGilED 70:
(DIVISION)
(BRAT 4CH)
(IliDIVIDUAL)
IXFECTED CO:!PLETI0fl DATE:
SSER input to PM 7/15/83 i.
IXi!li3ID COMPLET!0ft DATE:
M
\\
\\
i, \\ 3 COMPLET!0ft DATE:
- C".!!.TATI0tt OF COMPLET!0ft: am-r L. @ CLU" r
y LIASE RETUR!i THIS. FORit TO DIV!SIO!! DIRECTOR'S OFFICE WiiH CCMPLETED ACT10ft.
e