ML20195J389
| ML20195J389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2538, NUDOCS 8801280077 | |
| Download: ML20195J389 (12) | |
Text
.
p* i s' r"1 O m 7 9 '- Q CERTIFIED COPY DATE ISSUED: December 4,1937 U mo!.eJ e.
h-MbN I
I u
ff))^. llA$f$Y
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON QUALITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION NOVEMBER 24, 1987 Washington, D. C.
The above subcommittee met on November 24, 1987 in Washington, D.C. to disucss readiness reviews (RR) as applied to nuclsear power plants and waste facilities.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on November 10,1987,(AttachmentA). The schedule of items covered in the meeting is in Attachment B.
A list of handouts kept with the office copy of the minutes is included in Attachment C.
There were no written or oral stastements received or presented from memberrs of the public at the reeting.
E. Igne was the cognizant ACRS Staff membver for the meeting.
Principal Attendees Others ACRS F. Fogarty, INEL D eed, Chairman P. Rice, Georgia Power Co.
F. Remick R. P. Saget, DOE D. Moeller C. Siess C. Wylie NRC Staff J. Nelson Grace F. Hawkins J. Kennedy J. Bell M. Sinkule 8801200077 080122 PDR ACRS PDR Highlights:
2538
~
(
- V O 'e Q ~l}
5' DESIONATED ORIGIEAL p:
O L c d i dJ Certified By [M8
Q&QA in Design & Construction 2
3 l
i l"
J. Nelson Grace, Administrator of Region II, briefly discussed NRC involvement in Readiness Review (RR).
In 1983-1984, the NRC conducted a comprehensive study of "Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the Design'and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants published as NUREG-1055 in May 1984. One principal recomendation of that study was to pursue the concept of RP. for application to nuclear construction.
In 1984, the NRC agreed to participate in the pilot operational RR progran proposed ("volunteered") by Georgia Power Corp. for Vogtle, Unit 1.
The NRC's primary interest in participating was to test the benefits and feasibility of applying the RR concept in conjunction with a test of I
NRC incremental review and acceptance of a licensee's completed work and activities. Also, NRC envisioned that the RR program would give NRC the l
opportunity to review licensee activities in a structured and timely i
manner and would provide detailed information to support staff findings, technical positions, and decisions pursuant to the issuance of an operating licenses. The pilot RR program has been completed at Vogtle, i
Unit 1, and a license was issued for loading fuel and low-power opera-tion in January 16, 1987. The program lasted slightly over 2 years.
\\
In total, the NRC reviewed, inspected, commented and accepted, after appropriate corrective action, 22 readiness review modules on all aspects of design, construction and operational readiness of the Vogtle plant, prograns and personnel. Overall, GPC expanded about $14 million dollars in direct support of the pilot program while the NRC resource 1
expenditures are estimated to have been 19 cquivalent staff years and an additional $318,000 in contract support from EG&G Idaho.
L
Q&QA in Design & Construction 3
The pilot program at Vogtle has been judged by both GPC and the NRC to be an outstanding success.
The degree of plant hardware, program, procedure, and documentation review by the NRC far surpasses the routine NRC programs.
The NRC is confident that one of the more significant end products of the pilot RR program is much greater confidence and assur-4 ance that the plant, programs, and personnel conform to NRC requirements and licensee commitments.
In reviewing the results of the pilot programs, the question was asked as to whether the NRC would participate again in similar utility RR initiatives and the answer is yes.
He stated that overall the RR concept can bring predictability and stability to the inspection and licensing process predictable in tha sense that the licensee and the NRC can core to early agreement that the licensee process and program meet NRC requirements, and stable in the sense that the NRC licensing and i
inspection program to be implemented throughout the design, con-struction, and preoperational phases will be well defined and understood at the cutset.
M. Sinkale, Region II, briefly discussed the lessons learned from the pilot RR program.
Examples of some of these are as follows:
0 Despite the larger than expected cost to conduct the review, the program has been judged a success and worth the resources
- expanded, I
pw.
Q&QA in Design & Construction 4
o The self-initiated nature of the RR concept is of paramount importance because it provides the licensee the incentive to properly support the program.
o Greater emphasis should be placed on initial planning, devel-opment of review procedures, and training of the reviewers, o
The RR program and the normal licensing / inspection programs should be better integrated in future applications.
o Verification of program implerrentation should be accomplished at more optionel times during the life of the specific program activity.
P. Rice, Georgia Power Corp., discussed the RR process as applied to Vogtle, Unit 1.
The primary objective was to perform, is an own-er-initiated effort, an in-depth self-assessment that would provide both early identification of problem areas and a mechanism for early resolu-tion of differences in NRC and GPC interpretations of regulatory re-quirements.
The GPC organization for implementing the RR program consisted of a RR l
task force end an independent RR board.
The RR task force consisted of engineering and support personnel selected for their expertise in applicable design, construction, operations, and quality disciplines.
These personnel reported to RR discipline managers, who reported to the RR program manager.
The RR board consisted of GPC technically 7
Q&QA in Design & Construction 5
experienced senior managers and one or more independent technical experts. The technical experts wert selected based on their broad technical background in a particular discipline and rotated serving on the board for:the module reviews appropriate to their area of expertise.
Both the RR task force manager and the RR board chairman reported independently of the project to senior company executives.
The overall scope of the program was divided along traditional project functions (i.e., civil, mechanical, electrical, operations) into 22 modules, 7 appendices, and the independent design review that as a whole addressed all aspects of safety-related work on the project. The first module, reinforced concrete structures was submitted to the NRC in March 1985 (20 months prior to fuel loadi, and the last submittal, the in-dependert design review, was made in July 1986.
Preparation of each RR module was a multi-step process that involved establisbrent of module scope, identification of licensing commitments, verificatien of implementation of licensing comitments, identification of quality assurance audits and NRC inspections, and assessments of work processes covered by the scope of the module.
Each module required acceptance by the RR board and the board's technical expert prior to the submittal.
Additionally, senior project managers were required to concur with the results of each module and to comit to implementation of identified corrective actions.
Upon completion of each RR module, GPC formally submitted the module to the NRC regional administrator for review and acceptance. Upon
Q&QA in Design & Construction 6
I completion of their review, the NRC selected work activities covered by the RR module for on-site NRC inspections. Upon completion of these NRC inspections, the NRC identified any significant area of non-compliance l
in accordance'with existing NRC inspection and enforcement policies.
The GPC investigated, assessed and corrected these items in a thor-cugh=orough and vigorously scheduled manner in order to promptly and completely resolve all concerns and to avoid recurring questions or ccccerns in subsequently scheduled areas of RR.
Upon satisfactory completion of NRC inspections of RR module work activities, including satisfectory resolution of any resJlting Concerns, the NRC formally identified to GPC that the scope of work covered by the RR module had been reviewed programatically and for implementation and was deemed satisfactory subject to completion of remaining work in full compliance with all ccmmitments.
The ability to avoid "last minute" problems during the licensing process is in GPC's opinion, strong evidence that the readiness review concept as proposed in NUREG-1055 is a viable method for increasing the stabil-ity and predictability of the nuclear design and construction process.
Mr. R. P. Saget, Director of the Quality Systems Division, Richland Operations Office, U. S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington gave a presentation on the subject of (RR) particularly as it has been developed and used at the Hanford, Washington and other DOE facilities.
To illustrate its application, he discussed the BWIP uses of RRs to date. He said that because of certain programatic comitments and concerns about BWIP, a stop work order (SW0) was issued on May 1, 1986
~
080A in Desigii a Construction 7
on all but 6 BWIP work categories. He then discussed the application of thc RR process leading to the partial lifting of the SWO in certain critical areas where it could be dimonstrated that its lifting could be justified.
He said that the entire SW0 would be lifted in the next few months.
Mr. James E. Kennedy, Section Leader,s Operations Branch of the NRC Division of High-Level Waste Management (DHLWM) discussed the purpose of (RR) in HLW and Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) programs. He stressed that RR concepts, albeit by other names, have been and continue to be used in these progran, with emphasis on the HLW program, based upon NUREG-1055, the so-called Ford Study, And, unlike in nuclear power plant licensing, in this program (by edict of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) NRC is employing the RR approach with DOE in the "pre-licensing consultation" portion of this program.
He cited as an exemple the BWIP hydrologic testing program, which is part of the BWlP's use of RRs previously discussed.
Since the MRS Program is on "hold" until Congress authorizes it, he did not elaborate on the use of the RR approach in its regard.
Si.:bcommittee Discussion and Action Items The following items evolved during the subcomittee caucus period:
o The meeting was highly informative and educational. The meeting served as a forum for personnel from DOE, HMSS, NRC and the ACRS in fruitful exchange of information.
Q&QA in Design & Construction 8
o The NRC should be involved in the inclusion of RR now, rather than wait for a new order of nuclear power plants; a member suggested that RR be included in NRC's regulation.
o Good experience is now being gained in RR application at DOE /NRR.
Before the subcommittee adjourned, it was determined that no report be written at this time, and that a subcommittee report by Mr. Reed on nuclear power plants and Dr. Moeller on waste facilities be presented to the full ACRS at its December 3-5, 1987 meeting.
NOTE:
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H St., NW., Vashington, D.C. or can be purchased from Heritage Reporting Ccrporation, 1220 L Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888.
e
Fedml Register / Vol. 52, No. 217 / Toeeday, Novemhar todesrg The only possible envinnmental Commission finds that the probability cf Findag,f)ie,g g y..
impact due to this proposed action could any accident wn! not be increased b
-4 N
Nm be from increased leakage from the permitting the exemplion requestad y containment to the environment the licensee, and any st accident
" N #""-
- 'd following an accident which damaged radiological releasea m containmant v3
(.,
nuclear fuelin the core and pressurized would not be greater than previously upoo 6 the containment. ne applicable determined. ne exemption does not envimMn _,,
W ceWadas requirement for the PCRM line otherwise affect other radiological plant requested ac6cm wiH ash penetrating containment specifies a effluents. Derefore, the Commission configuration consisting of two sets of concludes that there are no significant
@ mt&ceb Q,
- d ""'
' J automatic containment isolatidn valves radiological environmental impacts a
[the existing design has one set of associated with the proposed Foe fartbee delaus wM M
automatic isolation valves), which exemption.
action, eat Gna regnest (si dated October 27, W, as _
9d receise isolation signals from diverse With ard to tential Octok R N ad M_1. N.
sources (i e., high drywell pressure and nonradi logicalimpacts, the proposed which is available,for public Tuspection reactor coolant water level.) To be in exemption involves systems located H b ComeW s M h*
full comphance with GDC 50 entirely within the restricted area es Room 1717 H Strut NW. Washmgton, requirements, the hcensee has defined in 10 CM Part 20. It does not DC 20555 and et the Monroe County committed to modify the existing PCRM affect nonradiological plant efDuents c
ary Systen u6 Custer to incorporate two sets of automatic and has no other enviionmental impact Road, Monroe, %an 482m Techmcal Specifications to m,the plant isolation valves and amend Therefore, the Commission concludes clude that there are no significant advene Deted at Bethuda, Meryland, this Rh day of Nwmber,1987.
these valves. These actions will be nonradiological environmental impacts completed prior to startup following the associated with the proposed For the Nuclear Itagulatory Ccamminion.
scheduled March 1988 Lt.RT outage. Any exemption.
Martin J. Vlasilh environmentalimpact associated with Director, Project Directorate RI-1. Division of this proposed exemption could occur Alternative to the Proposed Action g,ocarp,,j,c,_qu,fy, y g.cf,f only during the interval that the Since the Commission has concluded Projects. Ofhee o/ Nuclear Asocer
- 8'# '#"'
exemption would be in effect,i e., about that there is no measurable five months. During the exemption enstronmentalimpact associated with p
Newst e W av period, the licensee has committed t the proposed exemption, any alternative CC** ""
implement seural compensatory to the exemption would have either no
/
actions which provide assurance that the PCRM will be properly isolated impact or a greater environmental dhog Mee on hector vehen required in the unhkely event of ifnpact.
Sa%ua% hhh on Mty an incidert requiring containment The principal alternative would be to and Quanty Assurance in Design and isolation. The licensee will, while the deny the requested exemption.This Construction; Meeting exemption is in effect. maintain plant would not reduce the environmental operating procedures that require impacts of plant operation. Further, The ACRS Subcommittee on Quality operator action to s erify the isolation of without the requested exemption, the and Quality Assurance in Design and the automatic containment isolation licensee would be required to shut fown Construction will hold a meeting on valves and to actuate the remote.
the presently operating facility as a November 24,1967. Room 1046,1717 H manualisolation vah es to isolate the result of the requirement to maintain an S'reet, NW., Wa shington, DC.
PCRM in the es ent containment operable PCRM as required by plant
%e entire meenng will be open to isolation is required. Each of the Technical Specifications. A public attendence.Tbc agenda for the automatic and manually operated valves considerable delay also would be subject meeting shall be as follows:
will be leak. tested at least es ery 30 days incurred as a result of the time required Tuesday. November 2t 1967-&J0 without regard to the 18-month test to design, procure, and install the plant a.m. until the conclusion of business.
period specified in the plant Technical rnodifications to achieve full compliance De Subcommittee will review QA Specifications Instrument channel with CDC 56 requirements. This delay F.xperience in Readiness Reviews as
'unctional tests, logic systems, valve would impose a significant economic applied to nuclear power plants, with a response times and valve stroke testing impact on the facilitv without the benefit view toward possible application to will be performed in conjunction with of any significant increase in safety.
Hl.W geologic repositories and monit red retrievable storage (MRS) the leabrate tests at least every 30 days. Altenativa Use of Resources Furthermore, the h.censee will sisually facilitaes.
inspect tne PCRM valves and piping for
%e action in the granting of this Ctral stataments may be pesented by leakage. piping deformation, or other exemption does not involve the use of members of the pulbic with the abnormahties on a daily basis for the resources not previously considered in concurrence of the Subcommittee duration of tM exemption period.
connection with the 'Tinal Chairman; written statements will be Based on these considerations, the Environmental Statement related to the accepted and mada available to the Commission bas determined that the Operation of Enrico Fermi Power Plant, Committee. Recordmas will be permitted compensatory actions committed to by Unit No. 2", (NUREG-0700) dated only during those portions of the the licensee should provide a level of August 1981.
meeting when a tr t la bele kept, and questions may be ed only isolation similar to that intended by Agh ad Pm Mted members of the Subcommittee,Its GDC 50 and that there is reasonable assurance of containment integrity in ne Commission's staff reviewed the consultants, and StaH. Persona daalnca event of an accident requiring licenaee's request and did not consult to make oral statements should notify containment isolation. Further, the other agencies or persons.
the ACRS stafimember named below as
& MM WJ{h T*'-
40260 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 1987 / Notices far in adeance as is practicable so that flammability hazard cargo on I-5 and end at the General Library, University of appropriata arrange.ments can be made.
hszardous cargo traffic on the AT & SF California at Irvine, Irvine, California Dunng the initial portion of the railway wc tid remain in effect. De 9213. A copy of item (2) may be meeting, the San =mittee, along with licensees contend that the nearby traffic obtained upon request addressed to the any of its consultants who may be of hazardous cargo on I-5 is sufficiently U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
present, rnay exchange preliminary low so that the risk of control room Washington. DC 20555, Altention:
i view regarding matters to be operator incapacita tion is acceptably Director, Diviolon of Reactor Projects-considered dunng the balance of the low. Furthermore, the licensees state Ill, IV, V and Special Projects.
meetlag.
that the same traffic is likely to remain Deted at Bethesda, Maryleod, this 30th day The Subcommittee w0l then hear unchanged for the duration of their of October,1987.
presentations by and hold discussions facility licenses.
For b Mear R@
Ces.
with representatives of the NRC Staff, Hence, they propose that the need for H*"7 bd' its consultants, and other interestad periodic surveying of the traffic is ptrsons regarding this subject.
unnecessary. %e NRC stafNs Senior Project Manager. Project Directorate V, Daision / Reactor Projects-lit. IV, Vand Further information regarding tops reviewed the licensees' risk assesament to be discussed, whether the meeting and finds that there is no basis for (FR Doc. Br-25044 Eled 11-0-87: 245 aml has been cancelled or rescheduled, the expecting that the hazardous cargo Chairman's ruling on requests for the traffic on I-5 near SONGS 2 & 3 will swoo coos ww opportunity to present oral statementa remain unchanged for the duration of end the time allot:-d therefor can be the facilities' licenses. The licensees' obtained by a prepaid telephone call to conclusions are based primarily on the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the cognitant ACRS staff member, Mr.
application of naenally averaged spill COMMISSK)N Elpidio Igne (telephone 202/eJ4-1414) data to the desenption of potential spills between 8.15 a.ro. and 590 p m. Persons neat SONGS 7. & 3. Nationally averaged
[ Ret. Nc. IC-16112t 812-44751 planning to attend this meeting are data intrinsically aie insensitive to local urged to contact the above named variations.He risk at SONGS 2 & 3 is Fr.rm Bureau Growth Fund, loc.
Individual one oc two days before the derived from local potential events (i.e '
Nos ember 4.1987.
scheduled meeting to be advised of arry spuls within a few miles of the plant).
Asocy: Secunties and Exchange changes in schedule, etc., which may Hence,in the absence of suppor ing C mmission ("SE'b have occuIred.
data, we conclude that there is no basis for the proposed TS elimination.
Acroc Notice of a; plication for Date: November 3,1987.
Trierefore, the proposed Tec.hnical exemption and approval under the Modoo E LibaMn' Specification change is not acceptable.
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the A ssis tant En ocetne Duucsarfor Propc4 By December 9,1987 the licensees "1940 Act").
A* "
may demand a heari with respect to Inc. ( Applicant,m Bureau Crow th Fund, Applicant Far (FR Doc 87-2s045 %d 11-G-47; 8.45 an]
the d?nial described ove and any
).
1 som coca rs**w person whose interest may be affected N#I#"CD' UNO AC# S#CUC#8' by this proceeding may file a written petition for leave to intervene' Exemption reques'.ed pursuant to I
U A request for a hearing or petition for section 6(c) from sections 1(a)(32),
Southern CaRfornia Edison Co., et s!4 leave to intener,e must be filed with the 2(a)(35). 22(c) and 22(d) and Rule 22c-1 Dental of Arnendments To Facmty Secretary for the Commission. U.S.
thereunder, approval requested under operating Ucentes and Opportunity Nudear Regulatory Commission, section 11(ab for Hearing Washington, DC 20555. Attention:
,ammary of Appb, cation: Applicant Docketing and Service Branch, or may seev en order to pernut it to assesa a contin en, deferred sales load ("CDSL")
ne U.S. Nudear Regulatory be delivered to the Commission's Public a
Commi4!on (the Cnmmmion) has Docwnent Room,1717 H Steet NW.,
on certain redemptions of its current denied a request by the licensees for an Washington.DC, by the above date.
and future series ("Portfolios") of amendment to Fecdity Operatina A copy of any petitions should also be shares, to permit it to waive the CDSL License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15, issued sent to the Executive Legal Director, under certain circumstances, and to to the Southern Californla Edison U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, permit the imposition of a service charge Company, San Diego Cas and Electric Washington, DC 20555, and to Charte, of, initially $5.00 but not to esceed Company, the City of Riveralde, R. Kocher, Esq., Southe.n California
$10.00 ("Suvice Charge"), on exchanges California and the City of Anaheim, Edison Company,2244 Walnut Crove of shares amotg its current or future California for operation of the San Avenue, p.O. Box 800, Rosemewd, Portfolics.
Onofr6 Nuclear Generating Station, California 01770 and Orrick, Hernngton F//ing Date ne application was filed Units 2 and 3 [ SONGS 2 & 3)in San and Sutcliffe, Attention; David R. Pigott.
on Septeciber 18,1987, and amended on Diego County, Cahforef a. The notice of Esq.,000 Montgomery Street, San November 2,1987.
Considarstion ofIssuance c' Francisco, Cahfornia 94111, attooey for Hearing or Nouncation of Hearing: If A-hts was published in the the licensees, no hear;ng is ordered, the requested Fadseal bgister on October 7,1987 (52 For further details with respect to this order will be granted. Any interested theap tion for person may request a heanng on this FR37583).
action, see (1) dated j y 31,1987, end (2) application, or ask to be nottfied if a
%a am=W.a., as proposed by the amendmec'.s licensees, wculd change the Unit 2 and 3 the Commission's Se ety Evaluation hearirq is ordered. My requests must Technleal Spetmestions (TS) by forwarded to the hcensees by lettet be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m., on the iv. mat to monfter and dated October 30,1987, which are November 27,1987. Request a hearing in repset toxic pas cargo trame on available for public inspection at the wnting, givira the nature of your Interstats !5 (5-5) %s requirement to Commission's Public Document Room, interest, the reason for the request, and monitor sad report exploelve und 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, the issues you contest. Sene the
=
'4 t ^-04 REVISION (1)/11/19/87 TENTATIVE AGENDA A MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVALITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ON
'QA IN NUCLEAR POWEP PLANTS / WASTE MANAGEMENT NOVEMBER 24, 1987 e
I.
Chairman's Opening Statement. G. Reed 10 Min.
8:30-8:40 a.m.
II.
Region II 1.
Vogtle Readiress Review J. Nelson Grace, M. r, Admin.
Ren. II 45 Min.
8:40-9:25 am to sine.% e,
2.
Georgia Power views on 45 Min.
9:25-10:10 am Readiness Review, Paul Rice to @ - n ic'D PPEAK 15 Min.
1990 10:25 am
.rc= L H M* ** 'MS III. NRR Presentation (t, L =f;) Gu\\ N b
60 Min 10:25=11:25 am GG,dw, ine o Introduction & Organization NRR Perspective on Readiness Review Readiness Review Discussion and response to F. Remick's questions (his letter to Moeller & Reed, dated June 18, 1987)
IV. Readiness Review Applied to NPP 1
and Waste Management H M IEM
- Frank Fogarty, INEL 60 Min.
. m 25 1 h pm LUNCH 60 Min.
-12:25-h25-pm 12 %
r, p V.
Readiness Review on the Basalt '!aste Isolation Project
- R. Pierre Saget. Director (9 h M D) 60 Min.
1:25-2:25 pm VI. Readiness Reviews Applied to 30 Min.
2:25-2:55 pm HLWM( M AJ. Kennedy, NMSS 6d3 Nr'S93,"I*G VII. Subcocrnittee Discussion and Adjournment 35 Min.
2:25-3:30 pm
[J1Ah N W M b4L ATTACHMENT & B
\\n Hs f.:dJs v G2M \\ LE
ATTACHMENT C 0
I i
LIST OF HANDOUTS 1.
Operational Readiness - R. J. Nertney, EGG, 2/87 2.
NRC Review of Vogtle Unit i Readiness Review Pilot Progrm - Marvin Sinkule, Region II 3.
Readiness Review Voetle Project, Georgia Power, Paul D. Rice 4
SECY-87-220 to Commissioners from V. Stello, Jr., dated August 31,1987, Subj : Assurance of Quality 5.
Readiness Review Perspectives - Frank C. Fogarty, dated 11/24/87 6.
Readiness Reviews on the Basalt Waste Isolation Project R. P. Saget, Dir., Quality Systems Division DOE, Nov. 24, 1987 7.
HLWM Staff Presentation to the ACRS, Readiness Reviews, November 24, 1987, - James E. Kennedy e
-