ML20138C059
| ML20138C059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1984 |
| From: | Funches J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Beckwith C NRC OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (ORM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136F578 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-6819, FOIA-84-751 NUDOCS 8510220171 | |
| Download: ML20138C059 (12) | |
Text
.
AE-t5- ~=. -.'_3i5$U-@~
~
Distribution:
y Contract File PRAB R/F Subject File:
J. Funches JUL 13 1984 L. Solander TRIPLE BECKWITH MEMO SDS MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles A. Beckwith, Jr., Secretary Senior Contract Review Board Office of Resource Management FROM:
Jesse L. Funches, Director Planning & Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR SENIOR CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (SCRB)
APPROVAL OF FIN A6819. " EVALUATION OF SELECTED NRC OPEN ITEMS BEFORE FUEL LOAD (PROGRAM I)"
~
Enclosed for review and approval of the SCRB are:
(1) the Project Descriptive Summary for FIN A6819; (2) the current Statement of Work; and (3) the current NRC Form 173.
If you need any further infomation, contact Michael Kaltman on Extension 28041.
Please let him know when the SCRB ceeti may have the appropriate people in attendance.,ng is scheduled, so that we Ori5 nai Signed by i
.Tesse Funches l
Jesse L. Funches, Director Planning & Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
l
Enclosures:
As stated i
I 8510220171 851016 PDR FOIA O
7 CARDE84-751 PDR D']
l =~o.P.?g%g.....e.R A,M,S,R,,,,,,,fLR, L,P AS,,,,,,
P
->.a
.n u.....
.. a eunenas.....
- " > U. 0.1 M......71.
./.M.......... ll.L3 l M.....
i.
- 2 2ie..s.aom.cu ca.o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- " " 2 " '" " 8 '
J 1
Project Description Summary J
Office:
ONRR/DL Project
Title:
Evaluation of Selected NRC Open Items Before Plant Fuel Load FIN No.: A-6819 Type of Contract:
DOE Contractor:
INEL c
FYBudget($K):
FY83 f]fkt
'FY85 FY86 FY87 j
Prior:
0 Operating:
$1132X -$700K Follow-on:
0 0
Scope of Work The objective of this effort is to assist NRR to determine (1) whether the alleged improper practices during the construction at Comanche Peak, Waterford 3, and other NTOLs are valid, (2) whether any departures from proper practice are significant to the safety of the plant and have generic implications i
, concern ng other practices or other safety systems at the plant and (3) whether there is proper implementation of-the applicant's and vendor's quality, assurance programs at the plant site. Actions for plants with near term licensing activities are Comanche Peak Waterford 3 Fermi'2, Wolf Creek, Diablo Canyon 2, Byron 1, and Limerick 1.
See the memorandum from W. J.
Dircks dated May 25,1984, " Actions on Plants with Near Term Licensing Activity." Other plants may be added to the work' scope for FY85 at a
'i later date.
Plans for Comanche Peak and Waterford~3 for completing the outstanding regulatory actions have been developed. Similar action plans will be developed for each NT0L plant before assigning the work to the contractor.
1 I
l~
. User Need:
William J. Dirck's memo to Office Directors dated May 25, 1984, Page 2, 3(b),
directs that contracted resources should be used to the maximum extent possible in constituting the review team.
If this project is not approved, Inspection and Licensing Resources will be diverted from Operating Power Reactors beyond a level acceptable.to the Director, NRR (Licensing) and Regional Administrators (Ins pection).
Construction and preparation for restart is nearing completion at several facilities; however, there remain a number of issues that need to be evaluated before the staff can make its licensing decisions. The issues remaining for these plants are quite complex needing persons of technical expertise to evaluate them in a timely manner.
There is a need to assure these issues are eva?uated on a schedule to satisfy hearing and licensing decision needs. Technical assistance will be used to evaluate these issues with competent technical personnel in a timely manner to meet schedule requirements.
products:
The contractors will provide assistance to NRC Teams at the plant site.
identified by the SES Project Manager. Work assignments will be made by the NRC Lead Engineer. The contractor will present his findings and conclusions to the NRC Team Leaders.
Continuation of projects:
The technical capabilities needed to complete these evaluations include engineering and project management expertise in the areas of plant systems, quality control / quality assurance programs and industry standards. The INEL has provided satisfactory technical assistance to NRC in these areas in the past and maintains diverse technical capabilities and expertise to handle the evaluations needed by the staff. Specifically, INEL has provided satisfactory technical assistance to NRC in these areas for Waterford Unit 3.
I l
3-Justification for Source Selected and Discussion of Alternatives:
DOE source selection justification, NRC Form 367 is attached with each state-ment of work. Because of the urgency of the effort, immediate initiation of work precluded the possibility of a new RFP with in the time frame allowed.
NRC Office / Region Coordination Coordination is being ' accomplished and will be completed prior to the SCRB meeting. Coordination of technical assistance for the NT0Ls and ors listed in the " Scope of Work" on the first page with the Regions and other Offices is being done by NRR/DL/TAPMG.
i M
e O
g* e l
k.
DATE:
July 2,1984 STATEMENT OF WORK i
Title:
Evaluation of Selected NRC Open Items Before. Fuel Load (Program I)
B&R Number:
20-19-40-41-1 FIN Number:
A-6819 i
Total Estimate Level of Effort: 5.3 direct technical staff years Projected Completion Date: November 30, 1984 Add.the following paragraphs to the NRC Statements of Work attached to NRC Forms 173 dated March 30, May 3, and May 12, 1984,. and INEL proposal dated April 1984 for FIH A-6819:
" Project 2: Resolution of Comanche Peak Allegations NRC Project Manager:
J. Donchew (FTS 492-7230)
NRC Lead Engineer:
T. A. Ippolito or designated Group Leader Cognizant Manager:
Mark Williams Projected Completion Date:
November 30, 1984 Estimated Level of Effort:
2.95taff years in FY84 U.1 staff years in FY85 4
i A.
BACKGROUND Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station is in the final stage,s of the operating license review process. The Construction Permits for Unit 1 and 2 were issued i
on December 19, 1974. Texas Utilities docketed their application for operating licenses on April 25, 1978. The Final Environmental Statement was issued September 24, 1981. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was issued on July 14, 1
1981. Because of the large number of outstanding issues identified in the SER, i
I the staff reconmended delaying the ACRS review. SER Supplement No. I was istued on October 16, 1981, and the ACRS meeting was held on November 13, 1981. The.
ACRS, by letter dated November 17, 1981, supported issuance of an operating license. The latest SER supplement was issued on November 23, 1983.
f Comanche Peak has been in a heavily contested hearing for over two years.
All but one contention have been dismissed. The remaining contention questions j
the ability of the applicant's Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program to prevent deficiencies in the design and construction of the plant. The y
Licensing Board has admitted many allegations of design and construction ceficiencies into the hearing as relavant to this contention.,For details see enclosed "Coinanche Peak Plan for the completion of' Outstanding Regulatory Actions."
i The applicants are currently projecting a fuel load date for Unit 1 to be in late September 1984.,The number of hearing issues and the timing of evaluating l
these issues may impact this date.
I b
i Y
P
i 2-B.
OBJECTIVE The objective of this effort is to assist the NRC in determining whether the alleged improper practices during the construction at Comanche Peak are valid and whether any departures from proper practice are significant to the safety of the plant and have generic implications concerning other quality control practices or other safety systems at the plant and in determining whether there is proper implementation of the applicant's and vendor's quality assurance programs at the plant site.
C.
WORK REOUIREMENTS 1.
The contractor shall have a team composed of a team leader and team members and decide upon a plan for performing the evaluation required in Task 3 below. The plan shall be presented to the NRC Lead Engineer at the site for his approval.
2.
The contractor shall provide assistance to NRC Teams at the plant
' site identified by the NRC Lead Engineer.
The INEL team will interface with the NRC teams through the INEL team leader.
3.
3y a review of the OA/0C documentation and associated informatien',
and interviews with appropriate personnel, the contractor will:
review the implementation of the licensee's quality a.
assurance program (including vendor programs) and provide a technical assessment regarding program impl ementa tion.
b.
based on their review of program implementation (a) and additional reviews regarding specific allegations, provide a ischnical assessment of allegations concerning improper practices at the facility. Specificall),
their assessment of the safety significance of the c.*
reviewed allegations and the potentia: generic implications of the allegations.
Work assignments described above (a & b) will be made by the NRC lead Engineer.
u um_
_________._____________________m_
^
1
, t 4
The contractor's team leadar shall. report daily to the NRC Lead Engineer on the progress and status of the program, t
5.
The contractor shall report his findings daily to the NRC Team Leaders identified by tne NRC Lead Engineer.
6.
The contractor shall present all his findings and conclusions for an assignment evaluating allegations in Task 3 above in a report to the NRC Lead Engineer. A copy of this report will be 4
in the interim report and in the Techaical Evaluation Report to the NRC Project Manager.
D.
CRITERIA
(
l
/{s 1.
The licensee's applicable quality control procedures at the
/,'
plant site.
,KN
/ j.
2.
Accendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Quality Assurance Criteria f i
,e e
i c
Nuclear Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants.
j.
/
[h
., ;/
f j
3.
Applicable industry standards.-
I 4
Direction from the NRC ' Lead Engineer.
5.
Attached Worksheet for review of allegations.
N.
(
E.
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL i
i 1.
There will be up to 84 d'irect technical staff eeks at t plant site s
at up to 6 days a week and 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> a day expendd( by th contractor's team. This team will be up to a maximum of twelve'peo e and will visit the site up to 7 different times during the period of i
performance.
i f
2.
A one-day, two-person visit to'NRC Offices at Bethesda, l
Maryland, is expected for presentations of findings and conclusions.
3.
Monthly. progress review meetings between the NRC Project Manager
'and the Contractor Program Manager will be conducted in Bethesda, Maryland, at INEL headquarters; at the-plant site or by phone.
7 i
t 4
No other travel is allowed without prior approval by the NRC f
Project Manager.
5.
Overtime sust be authorized by the NRC Project Mr. nager.
{
t t
l l
l
~.
r 4-F.
PLANTS AFFECTED AND SCHEDULE This assignment is concerned with the following plant:
Docket No.
Comanche Peak 50-445 l
G.
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
{
The level of effort for this project is estimated to be 3.0 staff-person years over a 6-month period beginning Ju,1y 9,1984.
H.
REPORTING REOUIREMENTS 1.
An interim report as required in paragraph C.6. will be provided
^
on a date agreed upon by the NRC Lead Engineer and Project Manager but not later than September 30, 1984
-2.
A final Technical Evaluation Report summarizing the work and the i
findings and conclusions of the contractor will be provided four-weeks after the interim report.
l O
t l
l l
L t
t
Dated: May12.h984
(
MODIFICATION TO THE STATEME.E
Title:
Evaluation of Selected NRC Open Itmas Before Plant Fuel Load 8&R No.: 20-19-40-41-1 FIN No. : A-6819 Estimated Level of Effort: 2.3 direct technical staff years in FY84 Projected Completion Date: July 31,1984 J
Modifications to the approved INEL Proposal dated April 1984:
Add to the top of page 3 of Sestion (1) Work Re@irements:
f
" Project 1: Waterford 3 Quality Control Allegations NRC. Lead Engineer: Lisa Laso/D. Crutchfield Estimated Level of Effort: 2.3 direct technical staff yearsin FY84 Projected Completion' Date: July 31,1984" Add the following additional level of effort to Section (5) Meetings and Travel of the revised Statement of Work attached to NRC Form 173 dated May 3,1984 The total level of effort in the INEL proposal dated April 1984, in the Modification attached to NRC F0ne 17.T dated May 3,1984. for this FIN and in the following paragraph are for Project 1.
"The second vis,it described in itas 2. will be for four weeks instead of three weeks for the seven-person team.
There will be an additional two people at the Waterford site for 17 person-days working 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />s-a-day during the estimated period of May 14 to May 25,1984 There will be a final Visit of the seven-person team to the Waterford site for one week, seven days-a-week,12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />s-a-day following the visit described in item 2."
Change the date when the interim and draft Technical Evaluation Reports will be provide to NRC for Project 1.
These changes are to Section (2) Reporting Requirements,
- 1. Technical Evaluation Letter Report:
Add the phrase " Project 1 Reports"between the heading " Technical Eva,luation Letter Report" and the first paragraph under the heading.
Modify the first paragraph under the heading by the following sentence:
"The interim report for Project I will be provided to the NRC Lead Engineer for the project at the end of, the plant site visits between May 25 and June 10, 1984."
l i
_ _.., _,_ _. _........ _., ~.. - - -. _ __.
30 i
STATEMENT OF WORK RESOLUTION OF WATERFORD UNIT 3 QUALTIY CONTROL ALLEGATIONS
/
t 2
Statement of Work
-i B&R Number:.
20-19-40-41-1 i
FIN Number:
A-6819-i NRC Project Manager:
Jack. Donchew (FTT 492-7230) l s
NRC Lead Engineer.
Lisa Laza- (FTI 492-7791)/ Dennis Crutchfield i
Cognizant Manager-Marie Wt1Tfans June 3D Projected Complatforr Date 8 % 1984 Estimated Level of Effort:
months A.
Background
/
/
The NRC has received. allegations of improper practices duMng the construction of the Waterford Unit 3 planc.
j control practices followed at the plant.Some of these allegations refer to the quality These allegations must be addressed 1
by the staff in the low power Ticensing decirfon to be made by NRC for the l
To address these allegations, ip is necessary to assess the validity i
plant.
of the specific allegations of improper quality control practices at the. plant, i
1 the safety significance of any departures frem " proper" ouality control I
procedures, and the generic implications of these departures.
i 8.
Objective
'4
/
The objective of this effort is to assist the NRC.in detemining whether the aileged improper qualiticontrol practScar during the construction at Waterford Unit 3 are valid and whether-any departures from proper practice are i
significant to the safety of the plant and have generic implications concerning other quality control practices or other safety systems. at the plant and in determining.whether there is proper implementation of the applicant's and vendor's
}
quality assurance prograar at the plant site.
C.
Work Reovirementt
/#
1.
The contractor shalT have a team composed of a team leader and team memberr and decide upon a plan for perfoming the evaluation i
required irr Task 3 below. The plan shall be presented to the NRC Lead Engineer at the site for his approvai.
1.
The contractoE shall "providEassistance to the NRC, Inquiry Team and j
QA Paperwork Document Review Team at the plant site. The INEL team will interface with the NRC teams through the INEL team leader.
I f
b
(
~
i
( l, '
t
-2 7.
By a review of the QA/AC documentation and associated information, and interviews with appropriate personnel, the contractor will:
review the implementation of the licensee's quality a.
assurance program (including vendor programs) and provide a technical assessment regarding program implementation, b.
based on their review of program implementation (a) and additional reviews regarding specific allegations, provide a technical assesyment of allegations concerning i
improper QA/QC practices at the facility. Specifically, 7
their assessment of the safety significance of the reviewed allegations and the patential generic icplications of the allegations.
4..
The contractor's team leader shall report daily to the NRC Lead Engineer on the progress and status of the program.
5.
The contractor shall report his fihdings daily
'to the NRC Inquiry Team and QA Paperwork Document Review Team leaders Mr. Peranich and G. barrison, respectively.
6.
The contractor shall present all his findings and conefusions from Task 3 above for all the allegations evaluated in a 4
i meeting with the NRC staff, in an interim report and in a final report.
D.
Criteria 1.
The licensee's applicable quality control procedures at the plant site.
2.
Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants.
3.
Applicable industry standards.
4 Direction from the NRC Lead Engineer.
5.
Attached Worksheet for review of allegations.
i i
l 0
4 e
,..-.,.-ee..,
,,, ~ -., -. -, - -
,,, _ ~.,
,n.,
,,...r..
(' E.
Meetings and Travel 1.
A three week visit for a seven-person team to the plant site is expected for review of the alleged improper quality control practices.
2.
A one-day, two-person visit to NRC Offices at Bethesda, Maryland, is expected for presentations of findings and conclusions.
3.
Monthly progress review meetings between the NRC Project Manager i
and the Contractor Program Manager will be conducted by phone.
4 No other travel is allowed without prior approval by the NRC Project Manager.
F.
Plants Affected and Schedule This assignment is concerned with the following plant:
Ocek'et No.
Waterford 3 50-382 G.
Level of Effort and Period of Performance The level of effort is estimated to be;8 staff-person months over a 3-month period beginning April 3,1984 1
H.
Reporting Recuirements
[
1.
An interim report as required in paragraph C.6. will be provided by April 20,1984
(
2.
A final Technical Evaluation Report sumarizing the work and the findings and conclusions of the contractor will be provided four l
weeks after the interim report.
l A.
Technical Evaluation Letter Report l
i The contractor shall provide the NRC Technical Assistance Program Manager with four copies of the final Technical Evaluation Letter Report (TER) which sumarizes the results of the contractor's evaluation. The NRC Lead Engineer shall be sent one copy of the final TER.
- i i
j I
i l
I i
r m
- - ~..,
.,.. _