ML20213D158
| ML20213D158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1980 |
| From: | Lynch D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0295, CON-WNP-295 NUDOCS 8004010047 | |
| Download: ML20213D158 (2) | |
Text
DISTRlBUTIL O Docket file -
DLynch, LWR #4 AR 0 7 580 QAB Projects LRubenstein, LWR 44 QAB Chron. File
~
NRR Reading File DSkovholt, DPfi Docket No. 50-397 /
r g
WHaass,QAB
,f MEMORAfDUM FOR:
Assigned Reviewers for WPPSS Nuclear Project tb. 2 O
FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Project Management Dave Lynch, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, Division of Project Management
SUBJECT:
DETERMItATION OF ACCEPTABILITY OF Q-LIST FOR WPPSS PAJCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 In a memorandum dated February 8,1979 (D. Skovholt to R. DeYoung and R. Mattson),
recommendations were made regarding the fonnal documentation of the staff review of the applicant's Q list which identifies those safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSC) that fall under the control of their QA program (QAP) described in Section 17 of the SAR. The February 8 memorandum also recommended.an interimBased procedure for accomplishing such reviews for projects currently under review.
on oral agreement by DSS and DSE to adopt this interim procedure, a memorandum was issued (dated March 16,1979) to the Midland 1 & 2 reviewers requesting their assistance in determining the acceptability of the Q, list given in the FSAR. While at this writing responses have not been received from all reviewers, sufficient responses have been received that indicate the interim procedure is functioning Therefore, we have decided to proceed with similar reviews on other projects.
well.
This memorandum is written to request that all reviewers assigned to the WPPSS 2 OL application review the list given in Table 3.2-1 and notes 1-36 at the end of this table and other parts of Section 3.2 of the FSAR as it applies to your areasg of review responsibility to determine if there is an adequate listing of those SSC that should fall under the WPPSS 2 Q4P.
The criterion that you should use in determining whether SSC fall under the requirements of the Appendix B QAP is as follows:
Structures, systems, and components that prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Additional guidance in this regard is provided in the regulatory position of Regulatory Cutde 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification."
It is our intent to arris e :t a safety-related Q-list for the WPPSS 2 application that is generally consist.4, both in scope and level of detail, to safety-related Q-lists shown in the past OL applications. Therefore, it is expected that the Q-list will be directed piimarily to the system level of detail (i.e., there is no need to identify and l'st every safety-related component or structure within omCe).
7,_.q....
o"' 4 A
.Q.80040.to Cttay/l NOC FOOM 314 (9 ?6) NRC*3 0240
@U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1979-289 369 L
r'
. a system). However, if a component consists of a combination of safety-related and nonsafety-related functions (e.g., reactor coolant pump), you should ascertain that the safety-related portions of that component are included in the Q-list.
It is requested that adequate justification be provided for substantive additions, deletions, or expansion in level of detail should such situations arise.
In conducting your review, you should use the applicant's Table 3.2-1 as a starting point and other parts of Section 3.2 of the FSAR as appropriate. You are requested to:
1.
Provide a listing of those SSC that fall within your areas of review responsibility.
2.
Identify those safety-related SSC that should be added to Section 3.2 and provide the justification for these additions based on the above criterion.
Included in your considerations should be the need to expand the level of detail of specific SSC on the list for clarity.
3.
Additions and/or deletions to the Q-list resulting from consideration of the TMI-2 accident should not be made at this time. Changes to the Q-list of this type will be made at a subsequent time as results from the TMI Action Plan become available.
4.
You are requested to confer with your counterparts in other branches, as necessary, to assure that those SSC whose responsibility for review you may question, are indeed addressed by at least one reviewer.
Your response should be transmitted by memorandum to the QAB by no later than April 7,1980.
If you have any questions, contact Jim Conway.
.nginai signed by Walter P. Haass Walter P. Haass, Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Project Management lj Dave Lynch, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management M
if.g:Yu m
...... W.M.
OFFICE IQbb.
.,b khh.
0
.QJConway:ch.
Gjlray.
s.
. 0 Lynch..
suRN.ME 04TE >j..2/.6/80.
'.s.2/.. /80.
. 2/[/.80..
3 / 7 /80 MAC FORM 314 (9 76) NRCM 0240 D U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289 369 1
.-.