ML20209E586

Forwards Comments on Design Review Program to Be Implemented by Util as Second Module of Readiness Review Program,Per 850607 Memo.Specific Input from NRR (Secondary Reviewer) Not Required

ML20209E586
Person / Time
Site:	Washington Public Power Supply System, Satsop
Issue date:	06/28/1985
From:	Grimes B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
CON-WNP-1376 NUDOCS 8507090136
Download: ML20209E586 (4)

Text

,

e#%

i

ENCLOSURE 5

, g UNITED ST4TEs 8 e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 3 WASHINGTON, D. C. a0555 '

MSI 2 8 INE Docket Nos.: 50-508, 50-460 l;

MEMORANDUM FOR: D. F. Kirsch, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Region V '

FROM: Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs Office'of Inspection and Enforcement '

SUBJECT:

READINESS REVIEW - DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM (ENGINEERING ASSURANCE)

REFERENCE:

Letter G01-85-0127/G03-85-0299 from G. C. Sorensen to J. B. Martin dated 06/05/85, Design Review Program .

Your memorandum to G. T. Ankrum of June 7,1985 attached for our review a copy of the Design Review Program (DRP) to be implemented by the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) as the second module of the Readiness Review Program (RRP). We. have reviewed the DRP (as referred by WPPSS as its Engineering Assurance Program, EAP). Our connents are attached. We have determined that specific input from NRR (the secondary reviewer) is not required.

/

~

l ne u , .~. -s.-

' Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Coments cc: F. Miraglia 4PP-

,s

. , . s  %

9 t

i ATTACHMENT J The NRC staff has been seeking additional assurances from applicants for operating licenses that the design process used for constructing their plants has fully complied with the Final Safety Analysis Repor% (FSAR). To provide this necessary assurance, a number of applicants have undertaken an Independent

' Design Verification Program (IDVP), performed by an independent contractor, to j review and evaluate the design process, including a sample of design details and'as-built conditions. Other appifcants'have initiated a self-directed engineering assurance program (EAP) conducted by the applicant with NRC oversight.-

In other cases the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) has conducted an Integrated Design Inspection (IDI). The Design Review Program (DRP) module of the WPPSS Readiness Review Program (RRP) incorporates essential elements of a self-directed EAP.

Prior to indicating our approval, we need the following information or cossaitments:

1. Specific objectives of the DRP (EAP) were not identified in the program plan. We assume, consistent with WPPSS letter of May 22, 1985, that the RRP will be conducted in two phases as follows: " Phase I would be complete prior t'o resumption of construction and would assess the design process and sample design products in order to provide additional assurance that the design process used in construction completed to date has fully complied with FSAR commitments. Phase II would begin following resumption of construction and would include all aspects of new or changed design (such as design changes resulting from NRR review of FSAR commitments).

The objective of Phase II will be to provide additional assurance that the design process used in constructing the plant fullp complied with FSAR commitments as reviewed and approved by NRR." WPPSS should specifically identify its objectives in the program plan.

.2. The specific review / assessment topics to be included in Phase I or II have not been identified in the program plan. WPPSS should submit or

w o'

comit to submit for NRC staff review the specific topf,cs to,,be included in each phase .and describe the depth of review for each topic including a discussion of how the list of topics will form a representative sample of work completed to date for Phase I or will be representative of the design for the completed plant for Phase II. Final staff approval of either Phase I or Phase II would be contingent upon staff review of the specific review / assessment topics.

3. WPPSS should conduct a system walkdown for items reviewed as part of the EAP which addresses design aspects.

4 WPPSS states that personnel and organizations to be assessed are notified of the schedule and scope of review a reasonable time in advance of the review. WPPSS should indicate how it assures itself that such notification does not bfar the review process.

5. The qualifications and independence of the members of the Oversight Committee and independent third-party reviewers will be submitted to the NRC' staff for review.

6. WPPSS should notify the NRC staff in advance of any meetings where substantive matters resulting from design reviews are discussed in order to allow NRC the opportunity for attendance at such meetings. -

7. Checklists and other detailed review plans by WPPSS and its independent third-party reviewers should be provided for NRC review.

8. All individuals assigned to the DRP for technical review should have a record of their qualifications and experience accessible for NRC inspection.

Other coments of a more specific nature will be discussed during the July 2, 1985 public meeting.

IE will conduct inspection activities related to the DRP as follows:

- Inspection of program approach (review plans and precedures) 2-

~

^n) 1

- Inspection of program implementation l

- Inspection of program results anif' corrective actions WPP55 should understand that acceptance of the DRP does 'not necessarily exclude the possibility of the NRC conducting direct inspections of the design process on the Washin2 ton Nuclear Projects.

i s

B d

t

. _ . -- .. .-.