L-83-160, Forwards Suppl a to Independent Verification of Design & Const for St Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Generating Station, Resolution of Discrepancies & Corrective Action Plans
| ML17301A027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1983 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17213B181 | List: |
| References | |
| L-83-160, NUDOCS 8303280087 | |
| Download: ML17301A027 (54) | |
Text
REGULATORY
<FORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY
.M (BIDS)
'AOCESSION,NBR:8303280087 DOC ~ DATE: 83/03/21 NOTARIZED:
NO F'AGIL,'50<<389 'St, Lucie "Plantg Uniit 2i Florida Power 8 Light Co, AUTH ~ NAME
'AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGgR ~ E ~
F1 or ida;Power 8 'Light Co, iRBCIP ~ NAME
'RECIPIENT 'AFFILIATION EISENHUTiD ~ 6'ivision of Licensing DOCKET 05000389
SUBJECT:
Forwards 'Suppl A.;t Const for 'St Lucie Resolution of Disc DISTRIBUTION ICODE:
8001'S
~TITLE: Licensing Submittal:
NOTES:
o,"Independent Verification of.Design 8
Uni;t '2 Nuclear, Generating Stationi repancies 8 iCor,rectiye Action Plans,"
OPIES ~RECEIVED:LTR.
- ENCL J,
. 'SIZE:.
j,', 2+~~4 PSAR/FSAR Amdts 8, Related Correspondence REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME A/D LIGENSNG LIC BR ¹3 I A INTERNAL! ELD/HDS2 IE/DEPER/EPB '36
'NRR/DE/AKAB NRR/DE/EMEB NRR/DE/GB 28
,NRR/DE/MEB 18 NRR/DE/QAB
'21 NRR/DHFS/HFEB40 NRR/DL/SSPB NRR/DS I/A'SB NRR/DSI/CS8 09 NRR/DS I/METB 12 22 0Q
,'RM/DD AMI/Mli8 EXTERNALS ACRS 41 DMB/DSS.(AMDTS)
LPDR 03.
NS I'C 05
'COPIES L'TTR ENCL 1
0 0
0 3
>3
~ 0 1
1 2
'2 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 6
-6 1
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID "CODE/NAME LIC BR ¹3 BC NERSESgV ~
01 IE,FILE IE/DKPER/IRB 35
,'NRR/DE/CEB 11 NRR/DE/EQB 13 NRR/DK/HGEB 30 NRR/DE/MTEB 17 NRR/DE/SAB 24 NRR/DHFS/LQB 32 NRR/DS I/AEB 26 NRR/DSI/GPB 10 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 NRR/DS I/PSB 19 NRR/DS I/RSB 23 RGN2
-BNL(AMDTS ONLY)
FEMA REP DIV <<39 NRC 'PDR 02 NTIS COPIES LTTR,ENCL 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
-1 1
1 "2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
i3
'3 1-1 1
1 1
1 1
1
~TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES RKQUI'RKD: LiTTR 5?
ENCL,rf5
H Ii
.0 W
j>>ll I g!,>>
II n
a tn V
~
~
!N, /
ttHl H g P fit If If'I f >, 'I ff ri, );3>>>>1 0l )
'WH f ')I
'W <lip I )
4 II
.Il,ll X
0 g ll>>l
', fk'I)II!IN!>>
')
Ii I,I It'>>(
'I,", II tf I
l I
'iu '1i(,'t I ri Ig W
,lif',
4!
, f>>p 44 I
Hl k
ft I>>
r hi V
BOX 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 33408 Q lb FLORIDAPOWER & LIGHTCOMPANY March 21, 1983 L-83-160 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Attention:
Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
Re:
ST.
LUCIE UNIT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-389 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM Enclosed please find Supplement A to the Engineering Verification Program (EVP)
Report.
The original report was transmitted to you January 10, 1983 by letter No, L-83-10'he supplement includes additional clarifi-cation of the process used in resolving discrepancies identified during the program.
Corrective action
- plans, which have been formulated by the St.
Lucie Project Team are also included in the supplement.
The EVP Task Force formal concurrence with the planned corrective action closes the loop on all eight observations.
It should be noted that
= the FPL Project Team examined all comparison sheets prepared by the EVP Task Force as well as the 84 discrepancies resulting from that comparison process.
The Project Team concurred that no generic problems were indicated which would increase the risk to the health and safety of the public; however, the project is proceeding "as a
good idea" but not a
requirement, the recommendation to augment ou" color,. coding system.
We believe this material, will. assist you and your staff in completing the assessment of the program by March 31, 1983.
8303280087 83032' PDR ADOCK 05000389 A
PDR~
PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
0
'If
Should you have any questions concerning this supplement please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, o rt E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology REU/RJS/PPC/rms Enclosure cc:
J, P. O'Reilly, Region II Harold F. Reis, Esquire "2"
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR ST.
LUCIE UNIT NO.
2 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SUPPLEMENT A RESOLUTION OF DISCREPANCIES CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS Prepared for FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPLY MARCH 1983
/
'I 1
aVZ ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE 1
STEP PROCEDURE FOR RESOLUTION OF DISCREPANCIES, FIGURE 1
A SU>MARY OF ACTIONS RESOLVING 84 DISCREPANCY REPORTS m
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS 25 Discrepancy No. EVP-U-14 Discrepancy No. UIR-46 Discrepancy No. UIR-47 Discrepancy No Discrepancy No UIR"48 UIR-49 Discrepancy No. UIR-50 Discrepancy No. UIR-51 Discrepancy No. UIR-52
N 1
/
L' D
INTRODUCTION Supplement A
is issued to provide clarification of the review and decision process leading to resolution by corrective action, where required, of all Engineering Verifica-tion Program (EVP) Discrepancies.
Figure 1
is a
step-by-seep procedure demonstrating, in flow chart
- format, the process used for resolution'f differences between the independent and existing design along with discrepancies noted in installation and testing of verifi-cation items.
The six-step process shows how the EVP Task
- Force, assisted by the Review Committee and the St.
Lucie Unit 2 Project Team, carried the program from design comparison through approval of corrective actions now underway.
A tabular summary of actions by the EVP Task
- Force, Review Committee and Project Team is included to provide a more basic description of the resolution process.
- Included, as a supplement to Volume 3 of the Engineering Verification Program Report (January 1983),
are completed discrepancy reports for the eight program observations.
The
~ Project Team in processing the observations has identified the corrective actions planned and/or completed.
The Task Force has formally concurred with all corrective action plans.
This additional information is provided in support of the EVP Task Force conclusion that the small number of observations (no findings) resulting from this extensive verification program confirm:
- Design, procurement and construction is in accord with good engineering practice.
Demonstrated product quality indicates the effectiveness of QA measures.
I No Generic process or procedural problems affecting plant safety were det'ected.
ENGINEERING COMPARISON LINE ITEMS (1296)
FIGURE 1 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM STEP PROCEDURE FOR RESOLUTION OF DISCREPANCIES COMPARISON ITEMS RESOLVED WITHIN TASK FORCE (1212)
DOCUMENTED DIFFERENCES DISCREPANCY REPORTS (84)
UNRESOLVED WITHIN TASK FORCE (67)
RESOLVED TllROUGH ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION WITHIN THE TASK FORCE (17)
RESOLVED TflROUGH DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION WITHIN THE REVIEW COMMITTEE (18)
[RECYCLED FOR TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE]
(41)
REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT
& TRANSMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORfATION BY THE PROJECT TEAM [RESOLVED WflEN EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRED Cl ASS IFIED AS FINDINGS (NONE)
(TWO) CORRECTIVE ACTION BY PROJECT TEAM IS COMPLETE
[TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE OBTAINED]
REMAINING UNRESOLVED AFTER ADDITIONAL PROJECT TEAM INFOlQfATION ACQUIRE (EIGHT)
CL'ASSIFIED AS OBSERVATIONS TO PROJECT TE (EIGHT)
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS ffAVE RECEIVED TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (SIX)
CORRECTIVE ACTION PENDING (SIX)
1
'I V
(1
Page I of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 84 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITIIIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
EVP-U-I EVP-U-2 EVP-U-3 EVP-U-4 EVP-U-5 Resolved.
The SI Tank Isol Valve was specified to 1974 edition ofASME IIICode, a more recent edition than specified by the independent design.
Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review commit tee.
Resolved.
Project max. specified valve opening time is acceptable.
Resolved.
The existing valve C is acceptable since it exceeds that specified by both independent project design.
Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle with additional information indi-cating marginal possibility of valve submergence.
However valve is in open (safe) con-dition during maximum flooding.
Resolved after recycle EVP Task Force agreed to examine site operational test records for flow and Delta p. Confirmed during field verification phase by task force.
J j
Page 2 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
EVP-U-6 EVP-U-7 Resolved.
The valve operator (actual) qualification test cycles exceeds inde-pendent specification numbers.
The equip-ment is, therefore, acceptable as delivered.
Unresolved.
Transmitted to review commit tee.
Resolved after recycle.
Although the valves were procured as duplicates of St. Lucie 81 valves. Later vendor tests qualified the limitorque operator to meet general standards for Class IE equipment.
EVP-U-B Unresolved Resolved after recycle.
Although the valve operators were not required (as originally pro-cured) to be seismic qualified as IE equipment.
The SQRT evaluation concluded seismic qualification.
I I
C Page 3 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY STATUS BY COMMITTEE CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
EVP-U-9 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
EVP-U-IO Resolved.
Adequate number of limit switches which are diverse and redundant are available.
EVP-U-II Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
EVP-U-12 Resolved.
There is no require-ment to actuate the valve after time delayed spray.
Resolved after recycle.
Although the existing valve design did not require diverse and redundant position indication it was concluded both designs assure the plant can enter into cold shutdown w/o overpressurization.
Resolved after recycle by correction of setpoint typo-graphical error to absolute instead of gauge pressure in spec. revision //03.
t+
gh ~ ~
'W
'A
~
A
/
Page 4 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY STATUS BY COMMITTEE CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED PRO3ECT TEAM (REF ERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
EVP-U-13 Unresolved EVP-U-10 Unresolved Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
Although not included in the existing specification the project team referenced EMD imposing the same contact rating to which the vendor provides a letter of com-pliance.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to project team 12/15/82.
Project Team to investigate and take corrective action as required.
Observation Obser vation A review team has been assigned to resolve the concerns expressed by EVP-U-Ia (Rev. B). Their evaluation willaddress safety impact, impact on QA program and reportability.
(Ref. Trans. to D. Miller dated I/II/83)
The EVP Task Force concurs with the Project Team response and planned action. Transmitted to D.D. Milleron I/11/83.
(Ref. EVP-529/SL, dated I/28/83)
EVP-U-15 Unresolved Transmitted to review committee.
EVP-U-16 Unresolved.
Resolved after recycle to Phase 2 for verification of field packing certification.
Valve manufacturer packing was replaced on all valves.
See EVP-U-IO.
Resolved after recycle to Phase 2 for field verifi-Page 5 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
EVP-U-16 (cont.)
EVP-U-17 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee EVP-U-18 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
EVP-U-I9 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee cation. Although system condition prohibited hand-wheel operational test.
The Project Team provided accept-able limitorque handwheel sizing criteria.
Resolved after recycle.
Project Team supplied environmental qualification report which projects a 00 year integrated dose well within the existing specifi-cation level.
Resolved after recycle.
The Project Team supplied evidence to the review committee assuring a more benign chemical environment than existing speci-fication level. Project speci-cation willbe updated.
Resolved after recycle.
The valve manufacturer received CE approval of an equivalent cleaning class prior to delivery.
I I
Page 6of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT-TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
EVP-U-20 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee EVP-U-21 Resolved.
S.l. Tank Isolation Valve design loads and stress limits specified in both the independent and ori-ginal equipment were found to equivalent.
EVP-U-22 Resolved.
-Original design specified cooling water temperatures are higher resulting in a more conservative design.
EVP-U-23 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee Resolved after recycle.
Review committee discussion confirms that either lock open sctpoint could have been selec-ted to provide a safe operational condition.
Resolved after recycle.
Further investigation of FSAR seismic accelerations revealed that original specification seismic levels are correct.
' I i,
Page 7 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEEAND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
EVP-U-20 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
The HPSI pump manufacturer provided a critical speed analysis assuring that the critical speed/
operating speed difference exceeds 20%.
EVP-U-25 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review commit tee.
Resolved after recycle.
A summary of loads and stress limits by the Project Team proves the original specification values are correct.
EVP-U-26 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee EVP-U-27 Resolved.
Interference with pull space requirements was found during the field installation phase.
This is a maintenance-related item (not safety-related).
Transmitted to Project Team for information only.
Resolved after recycle.
It was determined that the number of thermal transients specified is not sufficient to require cyclic operation analysis.
Vf' 0
~ 1 Ve
0 I
f
Page 8 of 22 A SUhlhIARY OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COhlhlITTEF. AND PROJECT TEAM RESOLVING 84 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PROJECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMhllTTEE PROJECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-I Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-2 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-3 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
Resolve after recycle.
NRC staff has reviewed previously and found the clean-up system valve installation complies with single failure criterion.
Resolved after recycle.
The Project Team supplied references to industry standards specified, and generic qualifi-cation reports covering these requirements.
Resolved after recycle.
The Project Team supplied references to industry standards specified, and generic qualifi-cation reports covering. these requirements.
UIR-4 Resolved.
Since the installation has already been completed the discrepancy is irrelevant.
Confirmed in the field.
I I
Page 9 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PROJECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PROJECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PROJECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-5 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-6 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-7 Unresolved.
4 Transmit ted to review committee.
UIR-8 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
No vendor requirement for failure mode.
HVAC plant installation spec. identifies fail "as is".
Resolved after recycle.
~
Cycling tests are not required for infrequently used clean-up system values.
However pre-op testing was performed.
Resolved after recycle.
The clean-up system has been previously reviewed against single failure criterion and approved by NRC staff.
Resolved after recycle.
It was determined by the Project Team and agreed by the Task Force that the H2 recombiner electrical load need not be in-cluded in the first block D-G Loading Sequence.
lh
Page IO of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY STATUS BY COMh'IITTEE CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-9 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-10 Unresolved.
Transmitted to reVIew committee.
Resolved.
The Task Force determined that operating pressure specification is not essential since design pressure is indi-cated.
Resolved after recycle.
Backup protection for the elec-trical penetration (per R.G. I.63) has been previously agreed by the Project Team as a backfit commit-ment.
Resolved after recycle.
The project supplied acceptable reference to all applicable standards requirements.
UIR-I2 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
The clean-up system valve design
- prcssure, as stated in the data sheet (Appendix D, Sheet 60),
provides the required pressure differential information.
/
Qil
Page 11 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEEAND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING N DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY STATUS BY COMMITTEE CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-13 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
No vendor spec.
Requirement for failure mode.
HVAC plant installation spec. identifies fail Itas Istl UIR-14 UIR-IS UIR-16 UIR-17 Resolved.
The outdoor relative humidity level is not essential to the design and/or safety function of the clean-up system valve.
Resolved.
Indoor ambient pressure is not essential to the design and/or function of this component.
Resolved.
Specification of a flow test is not essential to the valve safety function.
Resolved.
Pressure prop across the open valve at design flow is provided by the vendor.
Not a design spec. requirement.
Page 12 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY STATUS BY COMMITI'EE CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-18 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
The offsite release, in the absence of humidity control, is below IOCFR100 guidelines.
UIR-19 UIR-20 UIR-21 Resolved.
The dust-holding capacity of the HEPA filter, though.
short, does not affect the safety function.
Resolved.
The outdoor relative humidity is not specified for the HEPA, since it is not essential to the safety function.
Unresolved.
Transmitted to review commit tee.
Resolved after recycle.
Existing design, though
'ouble swing door in front differing from independent design, satisfies requirements.
Confirmed during field veri-ficationn phase.
UIR-22 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
Rationale for applying elasto-plastic analysis to missile barriers is acceptable.
Yield stress limitation does not apply.
J t'
Page 13 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-23 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-20 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
The ductility factor for flexure, as utilized in design, is acceptable and in accord with FSAR.
Resolved after recycle.
Supplementary calculations supplied by the project team demonstrate that shear rein-forcing plates are not required.
EVP Task Force concurs.
UIR-25 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
The code effective date was determined to be in error. The FSAR and official design documentation were however found to be correct.
UIR-26 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review commit tee.
Resolved after recycle.
ANSI document requirements, though not completely listed in the specification are listed in the standard spec's and purchase documents.
EVP task force investigated and concurs.
)
~
~
E g
'V
Page 14 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-27 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
4 UIR-28 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-29 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-30 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
Reference regulatory guides though not specified were complied with wherever applicable.
Resolved after recycle.
Though omitted from the original specification the requirements of IOCFR21 were imposed by subsequent P.O. Supplement No. 8.
Resolved after recycle.
Impact test requirements required for Safety Class 2 components is covered by Ebasco standard specification.
EVP Task Force concurs Resolved after recycle.
Though not included in the existing design spec. fracture toughness was reviewed and accepted to ASME illrequire-ments.
'0
'v V
a C'
4 Page 15 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 84 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE) r UIR-31 UIR-32 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
Closed bases on resolution of UIR-38.
Resolved after recycle.
No requirement for closing the MSIV from outside control room since the turbine and reactor are tripped prior to exit.
UIR-33 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
Design acceptance to NRC per SER.
MSIS signal on turbine stop valve is the acceptable solution to single MSIV failure.
UIR-34 UIR-35 UIR-36 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
Same resolution as UIR-33.
Resolved after recycle.
same resolutions as UIR-33.
Resolved after recycle.
same resolutions as UIR-33. ~
~
~
~ ~r
Lg e
Page 16 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEEAND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 84 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOI.UTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAh'l STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-37 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-38 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
UIR-39 Unresolved.
~
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-40 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-4l Unresolved.
Transmitted to review commit tee.
Resolved after recycle.
Valve fails open on loss of elec-tric power, consistent with FSAR Chapter IO, p. 10.3.4.
= table 6.2-53 is incorrect and will be corrected to read open.
Resolved after recylce.
A qualified accumulator provided for each valve holds valve open in event of air-supply. failure.
Resolved after recycle.
A breaker and fuse in series provides back-up protection to the electrical penetration.
Resolved after recycle.
Operation at the service factor rating is not considered the normal mode of operation.
Resolved after recycle.
SIT isolation valves meet the guidelines criteria specified in Reg. Guide 1.22.
Ei 4
Page l7 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMh11TTEE AND PROJECT TEAM RESOLVING 84 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PROJECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PROJECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-42 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-43 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
UIR-44 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-45 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
Project Team supplied infor-mation regarding the redundant position indication available during normal operation.
See EVP-U-9 for resolution.
Resolved after recycle.
Alarm indication is not required to initiate normal operator actions.
EVP Task Force concurs.
Resolved after recycle.
Isolation switches are available.
Closing of the Sl tank isolation valves can be accomplished by use of auxiliary Bldg. switches.
Resolved after recycle.
It was determined by the Project Team and agreed by the Task Force that the H2 recombiner electfical load need not be in-cluded in the first block D-G loading schedule. /
/
/ ~
~ /
lg r
'v 1
~
tl
Page 18 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY
~
ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-06 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-ii7 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to Project Team 12/15/82.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to Project Team 12/15/82.
Open item requiring project justification of present design or corrective action.
Observation Observation Observation Observation Corrective action has been completed.
Identification tags for individual circuit breakers are in place.
Photographic evidence was provided. (Ref. Trans. to T. H. Blodget t dated I/5/83).
The FSAR specifies identifi-cation of safety-related electrical equipment by appropriate color coded tagging, paint or tape.
The EVP Task Force concurs with Project Team response. (Ref.
Memo-Blodgett to Feigenbaum dated I/20/83.)
The EVP Task Force concurs with Prolect Team response and planned corrective action. (Ref. Memo T.H. Blodgett to Distribution dated I/2O/83.)
UIR-08 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to Project Team 12/15/82.
Open item requiring project justification of present design or corrective action.
Observation Observation The Project Team willreview related equipment to ensure proper color coding prior to commercial operation.
(Ref.
memo Feigenbaum to Blodgett).
The FSAR specifies identifi-cation oi safety-related electrical equipment by appropriate color coded tagging, paint or tape.
The EVP Task Force concurs with Project Team response and planned corrective action. (Ref. Memo T.H. Blodgett to Distribution dated I/20/83.)
4'
~
~
),
I
Page l9 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-08 (cont.)
UIR-09 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to Project Team l2/15/82. Open item requiring project justification of present design or corrective action.
Observation Observation The Project Team willreview related equipment to ensure proper color coding prior to commercial operation.
(Ref.
memo Feigenbaum to Blodgett).
The FSAR specifies identifi-cation of safety-related electrical equipment by appropriate color coded tagging, paint or tape.
The EVP Task Force concurs with Project Team response and planned corrective action. (Ref. Memo T.H. Blodgett to Distribution dated I/2e/83.)
The Project Team willreview related equipment to ensure.
proper color coding prior to commercial operation.
(Ref.
memo Feigenbaum to Blodgett).
EI'
Page 20 of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-50 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review committee.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to Project Team 12/15/82.
Open item requiring project justification of present design or corrective action.
Observation Observation The FSAR specifies identifi-cation of safety-related electrical equipment by appropriate color coded tagging, paint or tape.
The Project Team willreview related equipment to ensure proper color coding prior to commercial operation.
(Ref.
memo Feigenbaum to Blodgett).
The EVP Task Force concurs with Project Team response and planned corrective action. (Ref. Memo T.H. Blodgett to Distribution dated I/24/83.)
UIR-51 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to Project Team 12/15/82.
, Observation Observation Corrective action has been completed.
Identification tags for individual circuit breakers are in place.
Photographic evidence was provided. (Ref. Trans. to T. H. Blodget t dated I/O/83).
The EVP Task Force concurs with Project Team response. (Ref.
Memo-Blodgett to Feigenbaum dated I/20/83.)
.0
+Ih Jl h
Page 2l of 22 A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEEAND PRO3ECT TEAM RESOLVING 80 DISCREPANCY REPORTS REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE CATEGORY CATEGORY PRO3ECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PRO3ECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-52 Unresolved.
Transmitted to review commit tee.
UIR-53 Unresolved Transmitted to review committee.
UIR-50 Unresolved Transmitted to review commit tee.
Not acceptable.
Transmitted to Project Team 12/l5/82.
Open item requiring project justification of present design or corrective action.
Resolved after recycle.
The "true 4 level" finish condition is within industry standards.
Resolved after recycle.
Installation of the radiation monitor using floor mounted frame, while not per initial plans, is in conformance with a correctly processed FCR.
Observation Observation The FSAR specifies identifi-cation of safety-related electrical equipment by appropriate color coded tagging, paint or tape.
The Project Team willreview related equipment to ensure proper color coding prior to commercial operation.
(Ref.
memo Feigenbaum to Blodgett).
The EVP Task Force concurs with Project Team response and planned corrective action. (Ref. Memo T.H. Blodgett to Distribution dated I/20/83.)
0 r
4 ~
'44 41
Page 22 of 22 REPORT RESOLUTION WITHIN NO.
EVP TASK FORCE RESOLVED WITHIN REVIEW COMMITTEE A
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS BY THE EVP TASK FORCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PROJECT TEAM RESOLVING 81 DISCREPANCY REPORTS CATEGORY CATEGORY PROJECT TEAM STATUS BY ASSIGNED BY ACTION PROPOSED COMMITTEE PROJECT TEAM (REFERENCE)
EVP TASK FORCE CONCURRENCE (REFERENCE)
UIR-55 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
UIR-56 Unresolved.
Transmit ted to review committee.
Resolved after recycle.
MSI valve leak test had been performed (reverse flow) utilizing equivalent N2 Flow rates.
Resolved after recycle.
Valve closing time tests had been performed.
Results were furnished to and acceptable to EVP Task Force.
V