ML20149L161
| ML20149L161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1997 |
| From: | Slosson M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900404 99900404-97-01, 99900404-97-1, NUDOCS 9707310160 | |
| Download: ML20149L161 (4) | |
Text
.
purg}
- g' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\.....[f WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056H001 July 29,1997 p
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO WESTINGHOUSE LETTER DATED JUNE 9, 1997, REGARDING INSPECTION NO. 99900404/97-01
Dear Mr. Liparulo:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the June 9, 1997, Westinghouse letter responding to NRC Inspection Report No. 99900404/97-01, dated May 2, 1997. Two nonconformances and one unresolved item were identi-fled in the inspection report.
Based on the response, the staff continues to have outstanding concerns about the past application of the Westinghouse quality assurance (QA) program to activities resulting in design deliverables used to support design certification of the AP600. The staff has determined that clarification or additional information is necessary to assess some of the Westinghouse statements in the June 9, 1997, letter. The resolution of the staff's concerns regarding the past implementation of the QA program is critical to assess the validity of the staff's safety conclusions and/or findings that have been based upon past reviews of such design deliverables.
In the cover letter, Westinghouse states that in response to the 1994 staff design review, Westinghouse identified the basemat design error as a condition adverse to quality a implemented the corrective actions.
The staff did not-find evidence of such an action during the inspection, as identified in the inspection report, or in the response letter.
Westinghouse's response states that the basemat error was controlled as a design change and resulted in the revision to the [ emphasis added] calculation.
Further, the response letter states that the revision was performed in accordance with the INITEC QA procedure. The staff requests that Westinghouse identify the quality assur-ance procedure (s) used to identify, analyze, document, and correct the basemat calculation error as a condition adverse to quality in a manner that demon-strates adherence and conformance to the Westinghouse AP600 QA program.
Westinghouse also states in the response that "at the time of the [1995]
audit, Westinghouse QA had not received INITEC letter INI/F0K0175 documenting INITEC's response to Westinghouse's August 3, 1994, letter nor did it surface during the audit." Additionally, the response letter states that in the August 3,1994, letter to INITEC, " Westinghouse identified the error to INITEC for corrective action under their quality assurance program."
It is unclear why the letter to INITEC or related INITEC QA activities were not reviewed would not surface during the QA audit if the AP600 QA program was being g~
i appropriately and consistently implemented as stated in the response letter.
9707310160 970729 NOON N
h
O Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo July 29,1997 The staff requests that Westinghouse clarify these statements to demonstrate appropriate Westtnghouse QA oversight of design activities at INITEC.
Further, please explain how Westinghouse QA determined that the review of the basemat calculation was sufficient, in and of itself, to conclude that no other deficiencies in INITEC's design control measures existed (e.g., why the INITEC quality assurance program corrective actions, as requested by Westing-house in its August 1994, letter were not necessary to be included in the audit scope).
In its June 9, 1997, response, Westinghouse states that "as the AP600 design progresses and natures [ emphasis added), design documents are placed under configuration control as described in AP600 program operating procedure, AP-3.2, ' Design Configuration Change Control for the AP600 Program'" and that the 1995 audit concluded that "the calculation was at an ' alpha' revision level and therefore not yet under configuration management control [ emphasis j
added]." Given these statements, it appears that the NRC staff may have reviewed design documents that were " progressing and maturing" or preliminary for purposes of design certification.
Therefore, the staff requests Westing-house describe how this process satisfies the requirements of WCAP-12600, "AP600 Quality Assurance Program Plan," for design deliverables that are submitted, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52, for NRC's review and approval as part of design certification of the AP600.
The response letter describes recent Westinghouse activities and references information that the staff has not been able to review.
In addition to the need for clarifications described herein, the staff requests that Westinghouse provide copies of the documents and information listed below.
1.
The November 1994 Westinghouse letter that was sent to active suppliers in response to the INITEC error.
2.
The June 6,1997, INITEC supplemental response (INI/F0K0608).
3.
The report or additional information on the Westinghouse May 1997, audit of INITEC, in which the conclusion was reached that the error was an isolated incident.
The information should include a description of the depth and breadth of review performed by Westinghouse, organizations involved, sample size, assumptions made, and number of individuals involved.
4.
The report or documentation regarding the independent audit of the Westinghouse Q ulity Program that was completed on May 30, 1997.
The information should include the breadth and scope of the audit, the conclusions, and the Westinghouse disposition of the three findings and four recommendations identified during the audit.
5.
The list of all AP600 technical cooperation agreement participants.
Westinghouse provided a list of all international design participants, but did not provide information regarding any domestic technical cooperation agreement or design participants, if any.
The staff requests that Westinghouse clarify this information.
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo July 29,1997 6.
Information on the breadth and scope of the detailed management review held on June 3, 1997.
t 7.
The review plan for the Westinghouse design assurance review. The response should include a description of the depth and breadth of review
)
Westinghouse intends to perform or performed, organizations involved, sample size, assumptions made, and number of individuals involved.
The staff would like to discuss these recent activities with Westinghouse management. Please be prepared to discuss the design assurance review plan and other responses to this letter. A timely response to these issues is expected since it may affect the staff's conclusions in the AP600 safety evaluation report.
You may contact Diane Jackson at (301) 415-8548 to schedule this meeting.
Sincerely, Original signed by 1
Seynour H. Weiss FOR Marylee M. Slosson, Acting Director Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003 cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
EDocket File #
PDST R/F MSlosson PUBLIC SWeiss TRQuay TKenyon BHuffman JSebrosky DJackson WDean, 0-5 E23 ACRS (11)
JMoore, 0-15 B18 LSpessard, 0-9 E2 BSheron, 0-7 D25 RGallo, 0-9 D3 SBlack, 0-9 E7 JPeng o-q At DOCUMENT NAME: A:R-QA9701.LET
<d@
- See previous concurrence Ta receive e copy of this document. Indcate in the boa: 'C' = Copy without ettechment/ enclosure "E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM B:PDST:DRPM D:pRCH _
E D:DE (A)D:DRPM
- l.,
NAME DTJackson:sgd 6{
TRQuay WA JILGgfis(ard
- BSheron MMSlossonF/f(/
DATE 07/44/97 ll 07/ W/97 T7/S(/97 07/14/97 07/27/97 fp/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Docket No.52-003 Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP600 cc: Mr. B. A. McIntyre Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Advanced Reactor Programs Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Energy Institute Energy Systems Business Unit 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 355 Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Washington, DC. 20006-3706 Mr. Cindy L. Haag Ms. Lynn Connor Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Doc-Search Associates Westinghouse Electric Corporation Post Office Box 34 Energy Systems Business Unit Cabin John, MD 20818 Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager LMR and SBWR Programs Mr. S. M. Modro GE Nuclear Energy Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 i
Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company San Jose, CA 95125 Post Office Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Mr. Robert H. Buchholz GE Nuclear Energy Mr. Sterling Franks 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 U.S. Department of Energy San Jose, CA 95125 NE-50 19901 Germantown Road Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.
Germantown, MD 20874 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor Mr. Frank A. Ross Pittsburgh, PA 15219 U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Office of LWR Safety and Technology Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager 19901 Germantown Road PWR Design Certification Germantown, MD 20874 Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer Palo Alto, CA 94303 AP600 Certification NE-50 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874
,