ML17213A343

to Engineering Verification Program.

ML17213A343
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/30/1982
From:	FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17213A342	List: ML17213A341 ML17213A343
References
EVP-001-SL-2, EVP-1-SL-2, NUDOCS 8208180065
Download: ML17213A343 (17)

Text

ROCEDURE NO. EVP-001/SL-2 REV. 0 06/23/82 REV. 1 07/30/82 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST AUGIE UNIT NO. 2 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM 8208180065 8208i3 PDR ADOCK 05000389 A PDR

VP-001/SL-2 V. 0 06/23/82 REV. 1 07/30/82 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE UNIT NO. 2 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title ~Pa e Introduction......................................... 1 Selection Process.................................... 2 Engineering Verification Process..................... 3 A Task Force Activities........................... 3 B Review Committee/Project Team Activities........ 4-5 IV Documentation/Reports................................ 5 Attachments Al.l Organization Chart Task Force A1.2 Organization Chart Review Committee A2 Engineering Verification Process Flow Chart A3 Independent Design Review Flow Chart A4 Independent Installation Verification'low Chart A5 Independent Start-up Operation Verification Flow Chart

OEVP-00l/SL-2 REV REV. l 06/23/82 0

07/30/82 FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE UNIT NO. 2 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM I Introduction A program has been developed to conduct an in-depth (deep cut) engineering verification of Florida Power & Light Company's St Lucie Unit No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant. This engineering verification will be accomplished by Ebasco and Combustion Engineering Task -Forces independent of the St Lucie Project teams. (See Attachment Al.l for the Task Force Organisation Chart)

The program is divided into the following tasks:

A Selection of items to be reviewed in accordance with Section II of this procedure B Independent verification of the existing designs for the selected items in accordance with Section III of this procedure.

C In-place examination of installed components to verify conformance with the drawings in accordance with Section III of this procedure.

il D Comparison of component design against actual performance based on startup testing completed to date in accordance with Section III of this procedure.

The independence of the verification Task Force is maintained in several ways:

l The Ebasco and individuals who CE personnel performing the verifications will be no'prior involvement in the design, have had installation, or testing of the items being reviewed or in the review selection process. Resumes of Task Force members will be included in the program documentation.

2 Task Force members will be located separately from the regular Project teams and will communicate with the Project teams only through the FPL EVP Task Force Manager who is functioning as the program coordinator.

3 The existing design will not be available to the Task Force during preparation of the independent design.

4 Regular status reports documenting progress of the verification program will be submitted in parallel to the NRC, FPL, Ebasco and CE.,

1 OEvp ool/sL-2 REV, 0 06/23/82 REV. 1 07/30/82 II Selection Process The selection of items to be reviewed by the Task Force will consist

~ of the following steps:

1 A determination by FPL of all candidate items (components or isolated sections of a system).

2 An appropriate division of the candidate items into separate groups by FPL, as outlined'below.

3 A random selection by FPL, from these groups of candidate items, of eight (8) specific items to be verified by the Task Force.

The candidate items include all "major components" which:

1 are important to safety, and 2 have multi-discipline interfaces The candidates. will be divided into A/E and NSSS't'ems, and at least two (2) NSSS items will be chosen.

The candidates will also be divided by major disciplines as follows:

1 Civil/Structural 2 Mechanical 3 - Electrical 4 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) 5 Instrumentation and Control At least one item from each discipline will be selected.

The general boundaries of the items to be reviewed will include:

1 The component support and/or foundation system including its interface with the building structure.

2 Equipment-to-piping connection points, e.g. nozzles, weld ends, flanges, etc.

3 Local power supply, instrumentation and controls.

Specific boundaries will be established by the Task Force after the items have been selected, and component-specific boundary sketches will be prepared.

EVP-001/SL-2 REV. 0 06/23/82 07/30/82 III En ineerin Verification Process REV. 1 A Task Force Activities The Task Force will determine the design inputs considered necessary to perform an independent design review for the items selected. Utilizing the latest design inputs, inde-pendent calculations and sketches will be generated and compared with the existing calculations and drawings.

Differences between the independent and existing designs will be documented and analyzed. If the differences are determined to be acceptable, the rationale will be docu-mented and the design review phase considered complete.

If the differences cannot be resolved, the procedure out-lined for unresolved items in Section III.B.l hereunder will be followed.

2 Upon completion of the design review phase for a specific item, the independent field installation verification phase can proceed. The Task Force will obtain copies of the latest drawings and other design documents used to install the item and will perform an in-place examination to verify the as-built installation against those drawings and documents. Differences will be documented and analyzed. If the differences are determined to be acceptable, the rationale will be documented and the field installation verification phase considered com-plete. If the differences cannot be resolved, the procedure outlined in Section III.B.1 will be followed.

Upon completion of the field installation verification phase for a specific item, the independent start-up operation verification phase can proceed. The Task Force will obtain all applicable performance documents not previously provided in addition to pertinent start-up procedures and start-up test data completed to date. A comparison will then be made of the design requirements versus actual performance based on the start-up testing completed to date by Plant Operations.

Differences will be documented and analyzed. If the differ-ences are determined to be acceptable, the rationale will be documented and the start-up operation verification phase considered complete. If the differences cannot be resolved, the procedure outlined in Section III.B.l will be followed.

Task Force activities outlined above are depicted on the flow charts ( Attachments A2 through A5).

~ ~ ~ VP-001/SL-2 V. 0 06/23/82 REV. 1 07/30/82 B Review Committee/Pro'ect Team Activities Any item for which the differences cannot be resolved by the Task Force whether in the design review phase, field installation verification phase, or start-up operation veri-fication phase will be classified as an unresolved item (discrepancy), documented, and transmitted to the Review Committee for resolution.

The Review Committee will consist of the FPL Engineering Pro-ject Manager, Ebasco Project Engineer, CE Project Manager, and the Task Force Managers. Technical support will be provided as necessary by FPL, Ebasco and CE Project team personnel. (See Attachment A1.2).

3- Should the..Review Committee determine through its own review supplemented as necessary by support from the Project team that the unresolved item (discrepancy) is actually acceptable, the rationale will be documented and the item recycled to the Task Force for its agreement and continuation of the verification procedure.

Should the Review Committee determine through its own review supplemented as necessary by support from the Project team that the discrepancy is not acceptable, the rationale will be documented and the unresolved item identified as either a ~findin or an observation.

5 Any unresolved item which could affect the safety of the plant will be identified as a ~findin . An unresolved item which results from either a generic technical process flaw or generic procedural program flaw will also be identified as a ~f1ndin 6An unresolved item not affecting plant safety but resulting from either an isolated technical process flaw or isolated procedural r

program flaw will be identified as an observation.

7- The Review Committee will document all findings and obser-vations before transmitting them to the Project team for its review and further processing.

Following Project team determination of the corrective action to be taken for each finding and observation, but prior to actual implementation, Task Force concurrence will be obtained.

This will enable the Task Force to assure itself that all aspects of the unresolved item it originally identified have been accounted for.

' X ~ a Lvp-001/sL-2 REV. 0 06/23/82 REV. 1 07/30/82 B - Review Committee/Pro ect Team Activities (Cont'd) 9 - At the same time the Project team implemen'ts the necessary corrective action for a finding, it will determine report-ability. Reportable findings require preparation and submittal to the NRC of the appropriate 10CFR 50.55(e) or 10CFR 21 reports.

10 Documentation of item closeout by the Project team will follow implementation of corrective action for each find-ing and observation.

11 Review Committee/Project steam activities outlined above are depicted on the same flow charts illustrating Task Force activities (Attachments A2 through A 5) .

IV - Documentation/Re orts The engineering verification program will have a high degree of visibil-ity, with all process steps in each phase being properly documented for record purposes and the NRC being kept fully apprized of progress via regular status reports.

The following reports will be generated during the program:

I 1 Weekly status summaries of the overall program 2 Minutes of all Review Committee meetings 3 Reportable findings, if any 4 Component completion reports as the verification process for each selected item is completed 5 A final report upon overall program completion Copies of telephone conversation logs will be included in the weekly status summaries.

Distribution of correspondence will be made concurrently to the NRC, FPL, Ebasco and CE.

r 0 ~

FLORI DA POWER f LIGHT COMPAMQ 5T. LUGl E UNLT No. Z ATr~emEM T Al.l EIUGIMEE'Rl H 6 VERI FI CATI OM PROGRAM DATE 04 23 2 RP V. 07(90( 87.

ORGAklIZATlON CHART- TASK. FORCE TAS K FO'RC 6 CHAIRMAN

'T.BLODGETT T 9LODGE'ASK TASK FORCE M AMASIER FMcE MANAGER.

Do MILLER PLANT PLAINT MBCH ClVLL MECH E LIEC ENGR& APPARATOS QBSLSN OTHHZS XMsTR OTHER 5 As CNTR L AS R CCLiQ. 5 L.EC QEQ D.

EBASCO SERVICES IVC COMBUSTIOM ENSINEKRIhlG INC .

ATTACHMENT Al. 2 FLORIDA POWER '& LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE UNIT NO. 2 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM REV 07/30/82 ORGANIZATION CHART REVIEW COMMITTEE TECHNICAL SUPPORT REVIEW COMMITTEE AS NECESSARY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT REVIEW COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN D L CHRISTIAN FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT TEAM E W DOTSON EBASCO SERVICES, INC EBASCO SERVICES INC PROJECT ENGINEER PROJECT TEAM E Z ZUCHMAN COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT TEAM J C MOULTON FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EVP TASK FORCE MANAGER D L CHRISTIAN EBASCO SERVICES INC EVP TASK'FORCE MANAGER T H BLODGETT COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC LEGEND EVP TASK FORCE MANAGER EVP = ENGINEERING D D MILLER VERIFICATION PROGRAM

E8ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED IKCCT~ OP~A t

ATTACHMELIT A2 CLICKT AAOICOT O C ~G LL82 IUsuccT e

I Rf vlfw I DOCUNBIT ICONNm6EI VERIF RATIouA VERIFY ITEM I APPROVAL C.E. fND OF Pf CFORIA ISBECTIOHI Ilo RCcflvfI 4 INSTALL ARCS Exlstlud ATION AT I PROSE SS ) IIJPIJT VfATION Rlsl Sl'A'RT-UP DOCUMENT OE J LClLCS g VERIFY NA E TloulLS DOCUMEN AHALYZE S

END OF FIELD 4 DES IGH INSTALL- DIPPER DIFFER-ENCES ENCES lO REVIEW ATION IDfNTIFY COMPILE PERFORM COMPARE IC PHASE IXCVN U ITEN FOR LATEST DXUME ANALYZE RAJAS INDEPEND WITk END OS EN&RG DfSIGN ENT ETISTINB DIFFER- DIFFER- START VP DIFF fR VfRIPI CATION INPUTS CALCS DESIGN ENCES EIJCE,S VPRI SI ChnON fNOES DOCVIASNT PIIASE lL SU MRSSOLV I TEII (DISCRE P- IF AIOT READILY IF ROAD LY ANCY) ACCf PTABLE ACCEPTAOLE ANALY26 TO IZEVIBVI COMNITT DIFFER-ENCES TASK SSECE ACTIIII TIES REVIEW COMMITTEE7PROJECT TEALS ACTIVITIES e

SVONIT DETfRNQI IOCFR lZECVCLE so.ss(c)

Tb TASK RfPORT ORTAOI 0 IT SI FORCE ABILITY PART 2I STACT+P C FOR RfPOIZT Cf ACREE-d KENT Ill Rf VIEW 4 O DOCVIIS SE OURSSOS Rf VIRUI ID DITI ITEN CONIIITTEE AS PROJECT TAKE DSKUN 6 4 (DISCREP- FINDING CORRR CT-ANCY) QATIONA AN'P TEAIII IVE ITEM

~S SS f

OocUII NT REVIEW ACTION CLOSE OQT ENGlNEERING

\e

~I (ATESORI 0BThll4~

I TASK I 4

R PDTR NTIA FoRCE I VERlFlCATloN PROCESS PROJECT caucvR-I FIND IN 6 I A6ucf I TEAM IDfNTIIEY AS PROJEC J DOCUIISNT FLOW CHART SIIPPOILT assERv TEAM CORRECT I'TEN Atl ON IVE AND REVIEW cLosf av DXUQEN T ACTION NIOI~ TE

EBASCO SERVICES IHCORPORATED IHECT I CIt I ATTACHIhENT'g CLICHT 0 rHOJCCT Luc I e urn- LI o, ~or 20 82.

404JCCT PL EN GIN Ef RIN G V FILIATION REV 07/30/S2.

SL 2 PRo5E'CT TEAM FPL EVP TASK FORCE MGR TAs FoR,c E, PREI ARE LISTING or TRAHsIULLT SpfcIFtc 'DETERMINE 'DESIGN INPVTS CONSIDER; CA tlD IRATE ITCHY A NP LlST FOR, INITIAI BD NECESSARY TO PERFORIIL LHDEPEND-PERFoRM RANDOM ssLecT- EHT EHGINEERIH G >ESIGH CALCVLATIOHS.

LCN oF'PBcLFIO ITe44s SVQMIT WRITTEN REEIV6,ST'OLL TRAI4SMIT SPECIFIC LIS LATEST DESIGN LHPVTS ASSEIvIBLE LATEST DeslGN TO PRohCCT 'PERFoRM, INDEPENDENT ENGINE.

LNPVT5'hISMLT INPDTS Pf IL RE@VEST. 'Df 5'IGN CAt.Cvt.ATLOIIS SKETCHES TRANSMII DESIGN '7RANSMLT TO TASIC FORC SUBMn WRITTEN 1ZECLuESI FoR RETRIEVE ELLLSTIN& 'DESI6H TRANSMIT TO %ROTE CT EXLSIING DESIGN CALCS DW65 CALCS DW6S FROMM FILES TRANSMIT CALCS DWGS TRAIISMLT ID FASK FORCE COMPARE LHDEPE NDEQT 'DESIGN TRANSMIT VfRIFIEI7 TRANSMIT To TASK FORCE WITH EXISTING Z)ESLGN C.E. INPVTI AS I <CLV>ING VERIFIE'D C.E. INPUT APPLICABLE FOR ITEMS SELECTED DocuHEIIT AHp ANALYzf DLFFaRSNce IF 'READILY ACCEPTh'BLE ~ DOCOMGNT RATIou ALE AND END DSSIC44 TLEVI6W PII4$ 6 IF NOT T4eADIL+ ACCCPTA'gLeiDOCUIISIIT ONRGSOLV6P LT644 (DISCREPANCY)

ANP TRANSMIT TO REYIEw CotttllTrse I

II10/~ TI INDEPENDENT. DESIGN RE'll/'I EW FlOW CHART

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED SIICCT~ OF f'I ATTACHMENTA4 ICNT F'LORID MVl I SHY'ot/IPAO FIIOJCCT SOC/COT IN EER. VISRICI AT OM ORETC ~O5'~GO R<V. O7/GO/SZ.

~

SL 2. PROJECT "CEAt/I FPL EVP 'TASK FORCE MGR TAS tc'O R C E I

I END OF 'DGSIGI4 12EVIGW PHASG Foe t SPECIFIC ITEM L

SUBMIT WfCITTGt4 REQUEST FOA.

jlSSGMQLE 'tZGQUGSTGD TRANSMIT 'To PRogGC CONTROLLED COPIGS OF LATGST I N5'rAI.LATlot4 DwGIS, DWGS A1JD OTHGR PGSIGN DOCUMGIITS QI4D OTHGA. +Gglett USGD 'TO INSTAI-L SPG'CIFIC ITEM DO GUM G IITS TRANSMIT COIITRow.Go TRAIISLIIT 'To TASIC PORING COP I 6> I LOCATE I t4STALLED I TGM, PERFoRM AN t t4- PLACE EXAMII4ATIOS4 AND

'IIEtLIFY'HE AS-GUILT It4STALLATIot4 gbAINST THE. PWGS AIID OTtIEIL

'DES'IGN ROC VIE t4TS-POCIIMENT ANP ANALYZE DIFFGRGt4CG IF 'READILY ACCGPTABLE, DOCIIt/IGNT S

e I RATIONALE AND Gl4D FIGI.D tt4STALL-ATION VERIV<CA~N PHASE IF LIOT RGADILY ACCGPTAQLG/ POOUNGIIT UNRGSOLVGD ITG'M (DISCRGPANCY) ASID TRANSMIT TO RGVIGW CON+a"rGG SSI O/I 71 INDEPENDENT FIELD INSTALLATION VERIFICATION FLOV/ CHART

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED SNCCT~ OP~

ATTACHMENT A5 ca.lc~v LOR POW IS T COMP N I'ho J c CT S LUC 6 LILII O EIZIF C ~lOM DATC ~~/pi Rev. 07/go//S2 SL 2 7ROSECT ~GAL SI 2 PLANT OPERATIONS FP(

j FVP TASIC FORCE VeR. GAS fC FOIZCE I

END OF EIEL.D lNS'TALLATIonl VG'RIFICATION I 'PHASE. Eorms 5 PECI FIC I TEA/I I

AOSEMUL6 APPLICABL QIIBI/IIT WRITTEN REoluesT FOR. ALL APPLICABLE Pf RFORMANCE, > aAIVSMn TO PRO~ ECT PERFORMANCE 'DocuMENTs Herr P'REvlousL'f DOCVMKNTS N aT PR,'E- PROVIDED FOR 'SPECIFlC $ >EM p SucH AS PIOUSLY'ROVIDED VENDOR sHoP T65T DA'TA.

TrcANtMlT PEQFO~ ASSFMtILE 'REGIVESTED ANC'Il DOCUMRNTS START-UP PROCEDURES TRANSIT(T tO OPERATIONS gugglT WWlTTQhl @&QUEST FOR START-'VP ND "COMPI.EIE'5 'TE'ST 'DATA PROCQDIIRES AND START-UP. TEST 'DATA TRA NSMIT PRoCEDURES COMPLETED TO DATE FOR SPECIFIC ITEM AND TEST DATh T R'AM S M1T TCI TASK ForcCE CohlPARE 'QGSIGt4 KKQQlg,RYEf4TS VS ACTVhl PERFORMAQC8 E3 j<>

START'P ASTI I4 0 CONPLKTEQ Tb WATS I

DOCUMENT AND ANALYZE >ISFGA.ENCE>

1F READILY ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENT RATIONALE AN> END START-UP oPEQATIoU VERIFICATloN PNASE IF NOT RGA'Pll:f ACCEPTABLE/'DOCIIMGNT UNRGMLvGT/

ITEM(DISCEGPANCY) AMb 'lAANSNIT 10 'RGVIGW ColhMITTBG tNDEPENDENT START-UP OPERATlON VERlFlCATION FLOW CHART