ML20024D018
| ML20024D018 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1983 |
| From: | Levin H, Tulodieski D TERA CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024D014 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307210296 | |
| Download: ML20024D018 (70) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:MIDLAFO INDEPENDENT DESIGN AtO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM MONTH _Y STATUS REPORT NUMBER 2 PERIOD MAY 28,1983 THROUGH JUTE 30,1983
/~ rl Prepared by: Ti.u Mw~~ . hM Manager, Design Verification [cgt//l%D DAll" O
e Manager, Construction Verification
/
Reviewed by: b .m e Project Monoger o Approved by: ' mm , [ -Lt ~ EC/L kncipol-in-Charge ~ T 0 el d M " 0307210296 030715 gDRADOCK05000g
MIDLAND INDEPEl'OENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDCV) MONTI-R.Y STATUS REPORT NUMBER 2 PERIOD MAY 28,1983 THROUGH JUNE 30,1983 1.0 Introduction and Purpose Monthly Status Reports have been instituted by agreement between the Consumers Power Company (CPC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and TERA to provide parties external to TERA's IDCV project team with up-to-date information relative to program progress and any important issues identified during the reporting period. This report covers the period from May 28,1983 through June 30,1983. A description of the scope, reporting periods and report issuance dates for Monthly Status Reports, as well as a summary of the background of the IDCV program were presented in the initial Monthly Status Report dated May 27,1983, 2.0 IDCV Program Status Summary 2.1 Programmatic Activities Attachment I provides on updated chronology of major project milestones. Several milestones worront special highlight. A meeting was held on June 3,1983 of Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices to obtain additional information related to Confirmed items identified in the first IDCV Program Monthly Status Report. Attending this meeting were representatives of TERA, Bechtel, CPC and Babcock and Wilcox (B&W). The purpose of the discussions was to promote on understanding and any clarification necessory so that CPC, Bechtel or B&W could either identify information that may not have been available to the IDCV review team or clarify information that was available and reviewed. Minutes documenting discussions at this meeting I
were issued to participants on June 13, 1983 and are included herein as Attachment 2. The objectives of the meeting were met and the information gained or identified has led to further review and disposition of OCRs. Changes in status to OCRs and newly identified Findings are documented in the following sections of this report. During on April 13,1983 public meeting ct the NRC's Bethesda offices, the IDCV protocol for communications was discussed. This protocol is documented in a March 22,1983 letter from J. Keppler, NRC to J. Cook, CPC. TERA indicated that " substantive" discussions would generally occur of the Findings stage of the IDCV process, at which time the opportunity for outside observation of meetings would be worronted in accordance with the IDCV protocol. On June 22, 1983, Dort Hood, NRC indicated that other meetings such as those associated with discussion of Confirmed items should be subject to the IDCV protocol provisions and thet a letter will be issued by the NRC documenting their position. Accordingly, TERA will notify the NRC Regional Administrator of future meetings of this nature. Interfacing of Ford Amendment activities took place during the reporting period. On June 8,1983, o meeting was held between TERA and representatives of the NRC I&E Headquarters staff to coordinate activities associated with the NRC's observation of TERA's IDCV review process. The NRC indicated that they plan to observe activities at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices and at the Midland site. The emphasis of NRC's involvement is to study the efficacy of TERA's IDCV program I methodology as well as other methodologies and report to Congress, recommending future initiatives to improve and verify the quality of plants under construction. A meeting between TERA and CPC was held on June 22,1983 at the Midland site to identify information that would be useful to TERA in proceeding with field verificotton activities and to clarify associated interfaces between the IDCV and the Construction Completion Program (CCP). It was concluded that TERA would remain obreast of CCP progress and schedule independent field verification activities of ter CPC has completed work in specific areas. 2 I
During the reporting period, effort was devoted to the revision of the Engineering Program Plan (EPP) and the Project Quality Assurance Plan (PQAP). Revision 3 of the EPP and revision 4 of the PGAP are being issued on this date. The changes reflect various improvements to administrative control procedures and the project organization. 2.2 Design Verification Activities 2.2.1 Summary During the month of June, design verification activity continued to focus on the AFW System. However, during the week of May 30, TERA's IDV team met with Bechtel personnel in Ann Arbor to identify documents applicable to the Standby Electric Power (SEP) and Control Room HVAC (CR-HVAC) systems. TERA obtained relevant design documents during those discussions and subsequently received more documents that had been requested. TERA personnel have initiated review of those documents and have begun preparation of design criterio and commitments checklists. Confirmed items resulting from the review of the AFW System were discussed at the June 3,1983 meeting in Ann Arbor. The related meeting summary, which is o'toched, provides a synopsis of the discussion of each item, any information identified and as appropriate, the resulting action to be taken. A specific discussion of Confirmed items for which the status has changed during the post month is included in Section 2.2.2 below. The oction items resulting from the June 3 meeting have, in some cases, meant on increase in the scope of TERA's review. For example, the IDCV team has identified that expanded review will be necessary in the areas of the station blockout event, the interface between seismic category I and non-category I piping, and the design interface between B&W ond Bechtel. 3
i 2.2.2 Auxiliary Feedwater System Progress The engineering evaluation for Topic l.8-l, Overpressure Protection, was completed during June. This evoluotion included checking one Bechtel calculation and the performance of two independent calculations, the first pertaining to selected portions of AFW system piping and the second involving drain line piping for the AFW steam-driven turbine. The calculations and evaluation are presently being checked. TERA was provided a copy of the latest (May 1983) revision to the B&W Balance of Plant Criterio Document. This revision, coupled with information gathered during the June 3 meeting regarding its development and usage, have resulted in the need to revise applicable in-progress engineering evaluations. These evaluations include those for System Operating Limits, Component Functional Requirements, System Hydraulic Design, and System Heat Removal Capability. Also, as noted in the Summary above, TERA has identified the need to increase the depth of review effort devoted to the interface between Bechtel and B&'N. The more detailed review of this interface will begin in July. Further progress in the mechanical review area included: (1) initiation of implementing document review for Water Supplies and Component Functional Requirements topics; (2) sample selection completion and checklist preparation initiation for Bechtel calculations to be reviewed for the System Hydraulic Design and System Heat Removal Capability topics, and; (3) completion of confirmatory calculations for the Environmental Envelopes topic. i in the AFW Electrical, instrumentation and Control review area, substantial l effort was expended during June in the review of information related to AFW system and subsystem control during normal and off-normal conditions. In l oddition, the following specific actions were taken: (1) in partnership with the I systems leod technical reviewer, commenced a single failure review of the AFW system utilizing applicable P&lD's, electricci schematic diagrams, plant single-line drawings, and available documentation regarding power supplies; (2) developed ICV raceway input for on-site cable troy and conduit review; (3) 4
completed compilation of design criteria for applicable topics, and; (4) completed draft engineering evoluotions for AFW topics Power Supplies, Electrical Characteristics, Protective Devices / Settings, Actuation Systems. The following brief comments concern the specific Confirmed items for which status changes were mode by the IDV team during the month of June. These comments are in addition to those of the attached June 13 summary of the June 3
- meeting, o Confirmed item C-001, concerning technical specification commitments, was resolved by reissuance as on Observation in occordance with Project instruction 3201-005. This Observation, which combines item 001 with an outstanding Open item regarding plant procedures, recognizes the draft nature of the specifications and procedures but recommends certain clarifications.
e Confirmed item C-002, concerning technical specification requirements, has been resolved. e Confirmed item C-010, regarding the seismic design of the AFW System piping, has been resolved. e Confirmed item C-012, regarding power supplies to critical volve logic relays and their loss during station blackout conditions, has become o Finding. 2.2.3 Standby E!ectric Power System Progress During the reporting period, the design verification program for the Standby Electric Power (SEP) System was initiated. Using the sample selection criterio in the EPP and discussions with Bechtel personnel, TERA identified and obtained relevant SEP documents. The design verification project team also initiated the identification of components which are to be the subject of reviews within the ICV. Specific progress in the IDV during the period primarily involved the review of design criteria and commitments activity on the review matrix for the SEP. To date, no open items have been identified. Implementing documents have been identified and requested for subsequent review. S
l 2.2.4 Control Room HVAC System Progress The Engineering Program Plan for the Control Room HVAC Design Review includes 104 review octivities as identified on the sample review matrix. To provide the project control for closure of all review activities, the review has been further defined in terms of work packages. The criteria review and assembly of documentation was initiated in June. Meetings were conducted during the first week of June to identify the first set of odditional documentation required for the system review. These document requests were based on the system information and criterio delineated in the FSAR, supplemented by the information from the drawings which had previously been transmitted. Industry codes, standards, and regulatory requirements and guidance for control room HVAC design and related design activities have been ossembled and are being reviewed to establish a basis for determining the adequacy of the Midland criteria. 2.3 CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES 2.3.1
SUMMARY
Activities undertaken and events which occurred during this reporting period which are important to the overall conduct of the construction verification review portion of the IDCV program are os follows. i l e A step increase in site activities on the part of ICV reviewers occurred on June 20,1983, with the establish-ment of a TERA office at the Midland construction site. ICV personnel immediately commenced establishing lines of communications with CPCo and Bechtel site personnel who are cognizant of, and responsible for, the preparation and retention of selected procedures and verification documentation. The selected procedures and verification documentation are those which direct and record the results of the construction / installation process. ICV personnel commenced identifying, collecting, and assimilating required procedrues and documentation -with the emphasis of these activities being focused upon components and commodities within the AFW system sample boundaries. 6
o On June 30,1983, TERA signed a letter of intent to contract with LAW Engineering Testing Company (LAW). LAW was selected by TERA to provide independent NDE/Moterials Testing services and also to assist in the review of selected site and vendor generated welding, NDE, and material testing procedures and verification documentation. LAW personnel will commence documen-totion review activities early in the next reporting period
- i.e., first week of July. The performance of l
NDE/Moterials testing, to be performed as an integral part of the physical verification review, will commence l
- 1. once CCP status within each of three selected IDCV review systems has been determined (see next item).
l e A meeting was held on June 22,1983, at the Midland site between lead ICV reviewers and CPCo personnel. The purpose of the meeting was to identify information that would be useful to TERA in proceeding with field verification octivities and to clarify the associated inter-faces between ICV review octivities and the CCP. The l
' principal understanding developed as a result of the meeting was that ICV physical verification review activities will commence once the status of the CCP is determined to be complete for affected portions of the selected IDCV systems. All other ICV reviews - i.e.,
those reviews other than physical verification - may proceed unaffected by CCP status, l i e Lead ICV personnel, in collaboration with the IDV LTR's, ' developed the listings of the specific components and l commodities within the SEP and CR HVAC systems which will be subject to ICV review. For those vendor-supplied l l components appearing on the listings, ICV reviewers com-i menced on extensive review of supplier documentation as indexed and retained in the Bechtel - Ann Arbor offices. This review commenced June 13,1983. e ICV reviewers held detailed discussions with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel concerning the processes l ond procedures used to control field modifications to pipe ! hanger and support drawings and the mechanism used to ensure that field modifications are factored into design calculations and the design finalization process. This effort was undertaken per direction established as a result of a meeting held in Bechtel offices between TERA, CPCo, and Bechtel personnel on June 3,1983, to discuss confirmed items specifically OCRs C-31 through C-36 concerning AFW piping hongers and supports. The discussions, and subsequent TERA evaluation, have resulted in TERA's revising the affected OCRs to reflect j octions underfol<en by Bechtel to rectify noted discrepancies and the continuance of the review of exist-ing processes and procedures used to control changes to t pipe honger design necessitated by the construction /- installation process (see Section 3.0). 7
I e ICV reviewers completed their review of that portion of the cable overinspection program applicable to the AFW system and commenced their review of the Piping System Design and implementation Verification (PSDIV) program. Observations were also made of certain ospects of the cable overinspection program which will be necessary to These chorocterize the program's effectiveness. observations have been recorded and will be combined with similar observations of the CR HVAC and SEP systems to enable ICV reviewers to extropolate the evoluoted results of the cable overinspection program to other systems. 2.3.2 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION REVIEW PROGRESS Construction documentation review relates to those (CV review categories which are principally concerned with the adequacy and completeness of available documentation as opposed to those ICV review categories which verify physical The following ICV configuration of installed components and commodities. review categories are considered as port of construction documentation review. e Review of Supplier Documentation e Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation e Review of Construction / Installation Documentation A description of progress made and principal activities undertaken in each of the above, highlighted review categories are os follows: Review of Supplier Documentation e Upon defining the specific components within the SEP and CR HVAC systems which will be subject to ICV review (see Section 2.3.1, Summary), ICV reviewers prepared the matrices which define the scope of supplier documento-tion review to be conducted for selected CR HVAC and SEP system components. The detailed review matrices were developed as a joint effort with IDV reviewers and serve to direct the activities of ICV reviewers performing the review of supplier documentation _ 8
e A review of all specifications for selected SEP and CR HVAC components, with the exception of certain com-modities, was conducted and completed. The purpose of this first review is to record all vendor documentation requirements noted in the body of the specifications and on the opplicable G-321-D forms. The documentation requirements were extracted from the specifications and G-321-D forms and recorded on the opplicable check-off sheets, e A review of vendor-supplied documents which satisfy the recorded requirements for selected CR HVAC and SEP system components was initiated on June 20,1983, by ICV reviewers working in the Bechtel - Ann Arbor offices. It is anticipated that ICV reviewers will complete the majority of their activities in the Bechtel - Ann Arbor offices during the first two weeks in July. Subsequent activities will be undertaken at the Midland site to identify and record vendor-supplied documentation forwarded and retained as port of the opplicable QA data packages. e With the exception of certain commodities, the review of supplier documentation for selected components within the AFW system is essentially complete. Remaining activities relate principolly to ensuring the occuracy of recorded information and the gathering of discrete pieces of dato necessary to complete the opplicable check-off sheets. An engineering evoluotion of the review of supplier documentation for selected AFW system com-ponents has been initiated with completion of the evalua-tion anticipated during the latter part of July or early ' part of August. Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation e Specific components within the CR HVAC and SEP system sample boundaries have been selected and the review of storage and maintenance documentation for the selected - components has been initiated. Activities undertaken during the reporting period relate principally to identify-ing and locating the opplicable storage and maintenance records and the recording of required check-list dato. It is anticipated that this review will be completed during , the month of July. e The engineering evoluotion associated with the review of storoge and maintenance documentation for selected AFW system components has been initiated ond, os of the writing of this report, is opproximately fifty percent complete. 9
l Review of Construction /Insto!!ation Documentation e Specific components and commodities within the AFW, CR HVAC, and SEP systems sample boundaries have been identified and designated as being subject to this review category. ICV reviewers, in collaboration with the IDV reviewers, prepared the review matrices which list selected components and the detailed construction /instol-lation documentation reviews to be conducted for the listed components. e On-site activities commenced with the establishment of the TERA site office on June 20,1983. ICV reviewers commenced the requisition and identification of required specifications, procedures and drawings which control and cause the recording of the construction / installation pro-cesses. Working relationships with cognizant and respon-sible CPCo and Bechtel personnel were initiated to ensure the efficient and reliable acquisitica of needed informo-tion. e Checklists were developed and are currently being reviewed for acceptability. These checklists guide and direct ICV reviewers in the acquisition of dato and information from procedures, specifications, and associated documentation which control the constuction process and which control tests / inspections of installed commodities and components. e The acquisition of dato necessary to complete the applic-oble checklists was initiated. The focus of activities to date have been directed toward selected components and commodities within the AFW system sample boundaries. 2.3.3 PHYSICAL VERIFICATION / SITE ACTIVITIES PROGRESS The activities described herein address those ICV review categories which require ICV reviewers to observe, witness, or verify field activities and/or the os-built configuration of installed commodities and components. Fbr the-most , part these activities require o strong site presence on the part of ICV' reviewers and include the following ICV review categories: i e Review of Selec.ted Verification Activities r e Verification of Physical Configuration
\
i
- 10 . 1 i
~
A description of progress made and principal activities undertake.1 in each of the above, highlighted review categories are os follows: Review of Selected Verification Activities e ICV reviewers completed their review of tF- cable over-inspection program os the program is applicable to the AFW System. The following activities were undertaken and completed.
- Documents (procedures, references, etc.) which control the cable overinspection program were obtained and reviewed and the opplicable document control checklist was completed.
- Selected personnel contributing to the program were interviewed, their qualifications and training verifed and the applicable training checklist completed.
Two inspectors were observed during the cable in-spection process.
- Test equipment usage and control were verified and the applicable checklist completed.
- The engineering evoluotion of the cable overinspec-tion program, as applicable to the AFW system, was initiated with completion of the avoluotion projected for the middle of July.
e ICV reviewers commenced their review of the PSDIV program by establishing the necessary liaison with cognizant and responsible CPCo and Bechtel personnel. The following activities relating to the ICV review of the PSDIV program were undertaken during this reporting period.
- Completed the collection and review of instructions and reference documents pertinent to the PSDIV program.
- Completed the personnel qualifications and training checklist.
- Completed the test and measuring equipment check-list.
4 11
- Witnessed inspection activities.
- ICV reviewers continue to monitor PSDIV program octivities as these activities relate to selected hangers and supports in the AFW system sample boundaries.
Vertification of Physical Configuration e As a result of the field measurement of selected pipe, hangers and supports within the "B" AFW train, ICV reviewers prepared OCR's identifying certain inconsis-tencies between design documents and the as-installed configuration. These OCR's were reported in the previous status report and were, among others, the subjec,t of a meeting held in Bechtel of fices on June 3,1983, among CPCo, Bechtel, and TERA personnel. During this report-ing period cognizant TERA and Bechtel personnel met for the purpose of more clearly defining the processes, past and present, used to control field modifications and design interfaces. TERA's review of these processes continues. An additional objective of the TERA - Bechtel meetings was to obtain the most current status of octivities undertaken by Bechtel to rectify the noted discrepancies, since the measurements and documentation taken and used by TERA, upon which TERA's evoluotion was based, were obtained in November of 1982, prior to the implementation of the CCP and PSDIV programs. The results of these meetings are reflected in revisions to OCRs C-31 thru C-36 and the preparation of Finding and Finding Resolution Reports contained in this status report (see Section 3.0). Based upon understandings developed as o result of a e i meeting on June 22,1983, betwen CPCo and TERA personnel (see Section 2.3.1), ICV review of selected, installed components and commodities within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries will commence once the status of the CCP is determined to be complete for l the affected items. Given this understanding, ICV reviewers limited their octivities to the selection of l components and commodities which will be subject to o i physical verification review and the preparation of checklists to be used in conducting tLe review. ICV reviewers continue to work with cognizant oad responsible CPCo and Bechtel personnel for the purpose of identifying and statusing CCP progress. 12
3.0 Summary of Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports provides TERA's Tracking System Summary for Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports. This tool assists TERA in tracking the disposition of issues os they progress through the review process. Items that have changed status or that have been added during the reporting period are noted with on osterisk. provides re-typed copies of Resolved item Reports that have closed out Confirmed items, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports. Confirmed Items C-012 and C-032 through C-036 have been re-classified as Findings. Finding Resolution Reports have been written for Findings F-032 through F-035 based upon on-going octions by CPC to correct the identified deficiencies. Of the identified Findings, Finding F-012 is potentially the most significant. In the relatively unlikely event of a station blackout (loss of all oc power) the steam isolation volves to the turbine driven AFW pump would close os a result of a loss of power to the FOGG relays which are not powered from o preferred power source. A loss of steam to the turbine prohibits the AFW system from providing feedwater flow until oc power is restored. The plant design criterio specify that the AFW system be operable for at least two hours under a station blackout event. CPC and Bechtel have acknowledged this condition and are in the process of taking remedial action. TERA will review CPC's plans for resolution when they are available. Findings F-032 through F-035 relate to specific out of tolerance discrepancies associated with field measured piping and supports. These measurements were taken in late November,1982 prior to the initiation of CPC's Construction Completion Program and Bechtel's Piping System Design and Installation Verification (PSDIV) Program. Integral to the CCP are programs which have been developed to identify and correct similar discreponcies. Future TERA field measurement octivities will only proceed offer the CCP has completed their activities in the area of interest. Finding Resolution Reports have been written for these Findings on the basis of specific CPC/Bechtel commitments to 13
evoluote and correct these discrepancies and the existence of CPC/Bechtel programs addressing these issues. Two related reports, Confirmed item Report C.031 ond Finding F-036 remain active os they relate to issues associated with the field change / design interfoce control process. TERA is in the process of reviewing this process as a direct result of the above Findings. Future field verificotton work by TERA will be undertaken to verify the quality of additional Installed piping and supports. 14.
ATTACHMENTI PROJECT CIPONOLOGY MIDLAbO INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM TERA PROJECT 3201 THROUGH 6/30/83 Date Milestone September 2,1982 TERA proposal to CPC for Midland Independent Design Verification (IDV) Program September 20,1982 CPC letter of intent to use TERA for Midland IDV September 24,1982 TERA identificotton of IDV goals, objectives, system selection criterio, methodology, tasks, and schedule (outline presented to CPC on 9/28/82) September 28,1982 Meeting of CPC, TERA, and MAC in Jackson to develop submittal to NRC addressing IDV and INPO evoluotion programs. TERA selects con-didate system for IDV program September 30,1982 TERA submittal of corporate Quality Assurance Plan to CPC for their review and acceptance October S,1982 CPC submittal of Midland Independent Review . Program to NRC October 12,1982 CPC opproval of TERA. corporate Quality Assurance Plan October 2S,1982 Presentation on Midland IDV and INPO pro-I grams to NRC of NRC's Bethesda offices October 27,1982 TERA conceptual development of IDV program modifications to further address the quality of construction (telecopy to CPC) ! ~ October 28,1982 CPC decision to separate IDV and INPO evolu-otion programs 1 i
AT SCHMENTl _i Date Milestone November 2,1982 Introductory meeting of the Midland site to initiate IDV and INPO programs
-E 1 November 3,1982 Midland site tour and wolkdown of the AFW system 1
November 4,1982 TERA project team meetings in Jackson to review Midland project experience (e.g., 50.55e
- reports, NRC inspection reports, etc.); identi-fication of information needs 7
A Nnvember 5,1982 Meeting of TERA, CPC and Bechtel manage-
- ment in Ann Arbor to discuss programmatic de- I tails of the IDV program, logistics for TERA-Bechtel interaction on the IDV; review of Bechtel organization, interfaces, etc.; identi-t fication of information needs
; November I1,1982 NRC issues meeting summary for October 25, 1982 meeting November 15, 1982 TERA issues Revision 0 of the Midland in-
_i dependent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Project Quality Assurance Plan November 23,1982 CPC approval of TERA Project Quality Assur-once Plan v
'T T November 29,1982 TERA issues draft Engineering Program Plan for interim use and comments November 29 - TERA field verification team is on-site conduc-December 3,1982 ting physical configuration verification of AFW system piping and supports inside containment December 3.1982 CPC submittal to NRC of response to NRC comments during October 25, 1982 meeting;
~
CPC commits to separate IDV and INPO evolu-
- otion, identifies condidate systems for adding
=
on additional system to the IDV scope, expansion of IDV program to include a u , r verification of the quality of construction of I
- the IDV systems; details of IDV interactions and INPO reporting w
S T - 2 5-- _- - - . . . . - . .
ATTACHMENTI Date Milestone December 6,1982 TERA project team meets individually with Bechtel group supervisors and group leaders to give o programmatic overview of the expanded IDCV; identify elements of the design process, interfaces, logistics for conducting the IDCV review; identify inforraation, etc. December 8-15, 1982 Lead technical reviewers interview Bechtel personnel as port of the IDCV review process; identification of information needs December 10,1982 Agreement reached with Bechtel on proprietary information December 16,1982 TERA completes Engineering Program Plan January 17-21, 1983 TERA design review team in Ann Arbor January 24,1983 TERA begins ICV program - review of supplier documentation, storage, and maintenance docu-mentation January 24-26, 1983 TERA construction review team on-site review-ing supplier documentation and storage and maintenance documentation January 25-27,1983 TERA design review team in Ann Arbor February 7-l I,1983 TERA construction review team on-site February 8,1983 Peblic meeting on Midland Construction Com-pletion Program and independent Design and Construction Verification Program February 9,1983 TERA transmits Engineering Program Plan (EPP) and Project Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP) to the NRC February 17,1983 TERA issues Revision I of the EPP ond Revision 2 of PGAP 3
l 1 ATTACHMENT I Date Milestone February 28 - TERA construction review team on-site and March 4,1983 design review team at Ann Arbor February 28,1983 TERA meeting with B&W in Lynchburg March I,1983 TERA meets with Bechtel management in Ann Arbor to clarify requests for information March 2,1983 Project team meeting, Ann Arbor March II,1983 Project quality assurance audit conducted by the Project Quality Assurance Engineer March 18,1983 TERA transmits information to NRC regarding corporate and individuo! independence, profes-sional qualifications, scope of review, reporting and auditobility, and program status March 21-25,1983 TERA construction review team on-site and TERA design review team at Ann Arbor March 22,1983 NRC selects Standby Electric Power System os the second system and the HVAC system assur-ing control room habitability as the third system for the IDCV program March 24,1983 NRC provides TERA with a service list for Midland IDCV program March 28,1983 NRC issues the protocol for the Midland IDCV program March 30,1983 TERA transmits supplemental information to NRC regarding offidavits of independence and professional qualifications, including additional offidavits by individuals previously employed by NRC l t 4
ATTACHMENTI Date Milestone
< April 8,1983 Project quality assurance audit report issued by the Project Quality Assurance Engineer April 9,1983 Senior Review Team meets to review project status, review OCRs, and develop recommenda-tions for the project team April 13,1983 Meeting at NRC, Bethesda, including TERA, CPC, GAP, and NRC. TERA presents synopsis of progress to date of AFW system review, plus discussion of topics to be reviewed for the two additional systems (Standby Electric Power; Control Room HVAC) selected by NRC. All porties discuss protocol for Midland IDCV Pro-gram April 21,1983 TERA transmits supplemental information to NRC regarding offidavits of independence for 4 individuals previously employed by NRC May 3,1983 NRC letter, Novak to Cook (CPC) stating acceptance of TERA Corporation to conduct IDCV Program and acceptance of Engineering Program Plan for the Auxiliary Feedwater System May 18,1983 TERA issues general Revision 2 of the EPP and Revision 3 of the PGAP to incorporate the addition of the Standby Electric Power System and Control Room HVAC System to t% IOCV scope, update personnel qualifications, add project instructions and reference new protocol for communications May 18,1983 TERA meets with NRC, l&E HQ management to discuss consideration of the Midland IDCV program within NRC's response to the Ford l Amendment legislation.
May 27,1983 TERA issues first Monthly Status Report. 5
ATTACHMENT I Date Milestone May 31 - June I,1983 TERA construction review team on-site. May 31 - June 3,1983 TERA construction and design review teams at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices. June 3,1983 Meeting at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices to discuss Confirmed items documented in the first Monthly Status Report dated May 27,1983. June 6-9,1983 TERA construction review team on-site. June 8,1983 Meeting with NRC l&E Headquarters staff at TERA's Bethesda offices to coordinate Ford Amendment activities. June 13,1983 Meeting minutes issued documenting discussions during the 6/3/83 meeting on Confirmed items. June 13-17,1983 and TERA construction review teams on-site and at June 20-24,1983 Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices. June 22,1983 Meeting between TERA and CPC at the Midland site to identify information that would be useful to TERA in proceeding with field verification activities and to clarify associated interfaces between the IDCV and CCP. June 22,1983 Meeting with NRC, NRR and I&E staff at TERA's Bethesda offices. NRC observation of the IDCV filing system and review of selected documents. June 27,1983 Senior Review Team meets to review project status, review OCRs and Findings and develop recommendations for the project team with emphasis in the crea of root cause determination. June 27 - July 1,1983 TERA construction review team at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices. June 30,1983 TERA forwards letter of intent to use Low Engineering Testing Company professional services in support of IDCV octivities related to NDE, welding and materials testing /evoluation. 6 i
~?_, ) ,
..,,,.e :. * ^^ g C' ' * '-
, ^.s' y .I ,._..,;+'~ .=,,r.: ; ., . _y
ATTACHMENT 2 O MEMORANDUM To: Distribution DATE: June 13, W83 mOu H. Levin, Project Monoger, g/ CORES TO: Midland IDCV Program
SUBJECT:
Meeting Minutes - First Meeting on Confirmed items, June 3,1983 A meeting summary for the first meeting on Confirmed items for the Midland IDCV Program is attached for your information. Attachment Distribution: File 3201-007 J. A. Clements, Bechtel File 3201-010 E.H. Smith, Bechtel D.F. Lewis, Bechtel Patrick Corcoron, Bechtel T.E. Johnson, Bechtel S.L. Sobkowski, Bechtel S. Roo, Bechtel R. Tulloch, Bechtel D.S. Riot, Bechtel R.C. Hollar, Bechtel G. Borsteins, Bechtel Dennis Kelly, Bechtel Mark Mou, Bechtel Donald Tulodieski, TERA Frank Levandoski, B&W Jim Agor, B&W Linc.el Bates, TERA Robert Snyder, TERA Martin Jones, TERA F.A. Dougherty, TERA R.P. Snaider, TERA H.A. Levin, TERA G. Eagle, CPC L. Gibson, CPC J. Knight, CPC T. Bollweg, Bechtel W. Neilson, Bechtel E.M. Hughes, Bechtel J. Beck, TERA D.D. Simpson, Bechtel D. Davis, TERA J. Mortore, TERA R. Wilson, TERA D. Witt, TERA R. Cleland, TERA F. Pellerin, TERA M. Polit, TERA W. Hall, U of I l l HAL/djb
SUMMARY
OF FIRST MEETING ON COfflRMED ITEMS JUPE 3,1983 MIDLAf0 IDCV PROGRAM r I A meeting was held on June 3,1983 of Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices to obtain additional information related to Confirmed items identified in the first IDCV Monthly Status Report, dated May 27, 1983. Attachment I identifies the participants of the meeting which included representatives from TERA, CPC, Bechtel and B&W. Attachment 2 presents the agendo for the meeting. The meeting was opened by Jerry Clements, Bechtel with on introduction of porticipants. Lou Gibson, CPC provided a statement of the purpose of the meeting and more generally the IDCV program. Howard Levin, TERA followed with a discussion of important features and objectives of on "lDV type" review, a summary of the status of the IDCV program to date os documented in the first Monthly Status Report and a presentation of details related to the IDCV program reporting process os shown in Attachment 3. The discussion on the reporting process focused on a definition of the various types of reports to be generated within the IDCV program and the circumstances under which these reports are generated.
..Leod TERA personnel then led a discussion of Confirmed items identified in the AFW system review. The purpose of the discussion was to promote on understanding and any clorification necessary so that CPC, Bechtel or B&W could either identify informatinn that may not have been available to the IDCV review team or clarify information that was available and reviewed. The Confirmed items were discussed in the order shown on the attached agendo.
CPC, Bechtel and B&W personnel generally participated in discussions of Confirmed items by discipline, consistent with the responsibilities shown on the ogendo. The following description, by Confirmed' Item, highlights important issues discussed and any course of oction identified during the meeting. l
3201-008-C-037 Discussion: Bechtel pointed ou. that Revision 47 of the FSAR put the subject figures in congruence with the descriptive portion of the FSAR. They indicated that the delay was caused by on effort to catch-up resulting from the I massiveness of the FSAR revision process associated with soil-related activities. I The civil discipline indicated that project specs serve os their design input versus the FSAR and therefore there is no irapact due to the delay. TERA asked whether there could be o potential impact in other disciplines where the FSAR serves os the primary design input document. Bechtel replied that the responsibility for FSAR revisions rests with the group supervisors who keep their personnel informed of changes. They also pointed out that the SAR Change Notice was on important milestone that keyed attention to these issues. Action: The status of the item will remain unchanged subject to TERA's review of the SAR Change process. TERA indicated that specific changes would be trocked to verify the odequacy of the process. 3201-008-C-Oll Discussion: CPC pointed out that the auxiliary shutdown panel did not serve on emergency function and therefore FOGG override control was not provided at this location. TERA asked B&W to describe their rationale for the BOP criterio document (section 3.12) specifying FOGG override control at both the main control and ouxiliary shutdown panels. B&W pointed out that certain BOP criterio document information is considered critical from on interface standpoint and should be treated as a specific design requirement to permit interface compatibility between the NSSS and BOP as opposed to general design criterio. This information is identified by a double osterisk and B&W must concur in deviations. TERA had reviewed a draft of Revision i of the BOP criterio document, dated June 25,1982 which did not include the double asterisk notation. The final version of Revision I was opproved on May 31, 1983. The first BOP criterio document (Revision 0) was issued in 1978. Prior to this time, criteria were identified in design or guide specs. CPC indicated that they are 2
contemplating revision of the FOGG logic to improve certain human factors considerations. Action: The status of the item will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review issues related to the B&W deviation concurrence process for h this specific issue and the rationale for deviation from o double asterisk item. TERA will review the BOP /NSSS interface in greater detail with particular emphasis on the period prior to 1978 (guide specs) and operability of the " double osterisk system" thereaf ter. TERA will factor CPC's revised FOGG thinking into the IDCV design review process including a review of the ATOG document. 3201-008-C-012 Discussion: Bechtel indicated that their preliminary evoluotion verified TERA's conclusion that during a loss of all AC power, the power to the FOGG interlock relays for channels AA and BA would be cut, causing volves 2MO-3277A and B to shut, cutting off steam to the AFW turbine. Action: Subject to any further clarification received from Bechtel as part of their final evaluation, TERA will process the item in accordance with Project Instruction PI-3201-008 and issue o Finding. TERA will factor this information into the IDCV review of Topics 1.23-1, -2 and -3, FMEA and consider enlarging the sample size to verify that this issue is not a systematic problem. 3201-008-C-025 Discussion: CPC pointed out that a steam generator tube rupture is a limiting fault versus the more proboble leaking scenario. Bechtel indicated that they had determined through discussions with the manufacturer that the Terry turbine would run on water and not be domoged under such conditions. The scenario was identified as being controlled by timing and the ability of the operator to identify the event and take oppropriate action. TERA questioned the bases for tne FSAR conclusion that the operator would override FOGG in time. l l 3
Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review information supporting the FSAR conclusion relative to operator oction. TERA will review the Terry tests supporting operation when subjected to water. I 3201-008-C-038 I i l Discussion: Bechtel indicated that the minimum flow scenario would be ! obout 100 gpm. Under this condition, Bechtel determined that damage would not occur to the pump during the 2-hour period of service that may be required. They received a telex from the manufacturer of testing to this assertion. Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review Bechte 's 100 gpm minimum flow calculation and the pump manufacturer's minimum flow evoluotion or test dato supporting the pumps performance under this condition. l 3201-008-C-005 Discussion: TERA pointed out that this item was o " process" oriented OCR r that served as on umbrella to identify a more generic issue that has crisen as a direct result of several specific OCRs (i.e. C-017, -018, -020, -027 and -028). l Action: The status of this issue will remain unchanged pending further review 1 I of Confirmed items C-017, -018, -020, -027 and -028. CPC/Bechtel/B&W will j provide clarification resolving potentially conflicting data relative to AFW l system design parameters. 3201-008-C-018 Discussion: B&W indicated that they originally utilized a proprietary decay I heat curve that is less conservative than the ANS 5.1 curve, assuming required AFW flow at 30 sec.; however, 40 sec. is the earliest that requi:M AFW is available. ' CPC indicated that it was their intent to meet the BTP APCSB 9.2 position which requires opproximately a 20% margin over the ANS 5.1 curve. B&W stated that 1035 gpm AFW flow was required to meet 1.2 times ANS 5.1 at 4
)
40 sec. of a 2552 Mw ultimate power level plus 16 Mw for the RCPs. They otso indicated that the 850 gpm design flow would be adequate for 1.0 times ANS at 40 sec. of 2552 Mw plus 16 Mw level. TERA pointed out that the BOP criterio document is unclear relative to the required time for AFW in that 30 sec. and 40 sec. are both specified. Also, TERA indicated that the acceptobility of AFW I sizing was contingent upon the power level specified (i.e. 2452 Mw (license), 2552 f (ultimate) or 1.02 times these values to account for instrument drifB&W t). ogreed with TERA's C-018 write-up that statements in the FSAR relative to the use and opplication of decoy heat curves were conflicting. Action: The status of this issue will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review the rationale for criterio related to decay heat removal capability with emphasis on performance criteria necessary for maintaining primary pressure within required limits. In conjunction with the review of other Confirmed items associated with the specification of AFW system parameters (e.g. power level, margin for instrument error, timing, etc.), TERA will conduct another independent analysis to verify AFW system flow capacity utilizing appropriate parameters. Bechtel/CPC will review the FSAR to determine the need to correct conflicting information. 3201-008-C-20 Discussion: Bechtel indicated that the 1080F service water temperature was a conservative value used in the stress analysis colcs and not on expected temperature of the point where AFW is required in response to o transient. The 1050F service water temperature was based upon a calculation which conservatively modeled the cooling pond during a LOCA for purposes of determining the maximum service water temperature. Bechtel indicated that the 900F was a reasonable design temperature for evoluoting AFW in consideration of the timing of demands on AFW and the expected temperatures of the cooling pond and condensate storage tank. Action: The status of this issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of Bechtel's evoluotion supporting the 900F criteria. S
1 1 3201-008-C-027 Discussion: CPC indicated that the design basis or licensed power level (2452 Mw) of the plant represents their licensing basis and commitment relative to safety analyses. They have exercised the option of conducting various analyses such as dose colcs assuming higher power levels for conservatism and to avoid future work by conducting bounding evoluotions. Action: The status of this issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of the Bechtel/CPC/B&W bases for the specification of various other AFW system parameters in conjunction with the review of other Confirmed items (i.e. C-005,
-017, -018, -020, -028). Bechtel/CPC will review FSAR App. 3A and 10A for consistency and clarity.
3201-008-C-028 Discussion: B&W indicated that their stress analyses were based upon a 400F AFW inlet temperature. The normal line-up to the CST assures meeting this criterion since the CST is heated to maintain at least 400F. B&W and CPC maintain that in the unlikely event that AFW draws service water of temperatures between 320 nnd 400F, on evoluotion would follow. Notwithstanding this, B&W asserts that the fatigue usage factor associated with a one time occurrence of this nature would not invalidate the plant design. Action: This status of this issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of the bases for the specification of other AFW system parameters in conjunction with other Confirmed items (i.e. C-005, -017, -018, -020, -027). 3201-008-C-010 Discussion: Bechtel indicated ihot certain segments of non-Cotegory I pipe had been seismically evoluoted. There are three categories of items: I. S-1: seismic, Q-listed, full QA; 2. seismic designed and supported; 3. non-seismic. The portion of pipe in question was seismically designed; however, without ASME 6 J
lli certification. The systems interaction review for seismic 11/1 identified lines in category 2; however, these are not identified on P&lDs. Action: This specific item is resolved. TERA will review the bases for the seismic /non-seismic interface considerations and classification as part of other I g topics within the IDCV program. 3201-008-C-001 Discussion: CPC indicated that independent valve line-up verification is accomplished offer maintenance by a signoffs of the responsible maintenance personnel prior to return and by logging in the control room in occordance with the tech specs. Action: The status of this issue is unchanged pending TERA's review of the tech spec language to verify clear specification of verification of line-up subsequent to maintenance. 3201-008-C-002 Discussion: CPC indicated that the Midland tech specs are consistent with the B&W Standard Tech Specs as applied to a 2 pump plant. Action: The status of this issue is unchanged pending TERA's review of the tech spec language to verify clear specification of oction requirements if both trains of AFW ore inoperable. 3201-008-C-036 Discussion: Bechtel conceded that offset dimensions to the reactor building certerline may be off because these drawing dimensions are not always corrected as part of the Field Change Request process; however, these dimensions are not very important af ter the line is originally located. Bechtel
- stated that placement tolerance is plus or minus 2 inches in any direction.
7
Action: This issue will be considered for re-classification as a Finding. TERA will conduct further review to verify the frequency of drawing errors of this type and determine the impact. I 3201-008-C-035 I Discussion: Bechtel indicated that they had revised hanger iso H-639 sh. 14(O), rev. ll on May 26, 1983 reflecting the os-built dimensions and that the stress group had re-evoluoted the line. TERA indicated that they had secured red lines from Bechtel (Zenovy) of the site. Bechtel and TERA were unable to reach full agreement on all dimensions. Action: The status of the issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of Bechtel's latest information which was unavailable to TERA. TERA will review the red-line and FCR process to verify that it was operable. TERA will continue , o review and resolution of the field data collected in November 1982 against Bechtel information available then and now. 3201-008-C-032, -033, -03! Discussion: Bechtel discussed the FCR process and indicated that they had instituted a new program, the PSDIVP (Piping System Design and Installation Verification Program) which would apply to all O piping and supports, superceding the red-line process. Specific ogreement was not reached on the l deviations noted on these Confirmed items. l l Action: The status of these items remains unchanged pending TERA's review of the chronology of various primary verification programs and a determination of a course of oction necessary for TERA's verification that the process (new l ond/or old)is operable. A review of the appropriate process will be undertaken along with specific closeout of these Confirmed items. 8
3201-008-C-045 Discussion: TERA indicated that C-045 should be revised reflecting a 30 day shaft rotation period rather than a 90 day period. TERA provided clarification that maintenance octivities had taken place; however, Bechtel's h procedures were in conflict with the manufacturer's recommendation. Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending the identification and review of any generic superceeding guidance that may justify a refoxation of requirements. 3201-008-C-046 Discussion: TERA provided details related to the Confirmed item and clarification of the concern. Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending TERA's observation of the pump and turbine disassembly and inspection and review of results.
Attachment 1 xvev ryyaug - s/stra xus 4 wA o r ' r Nhn1E COMMUY MknE _ C.a u 9M Y
.0. M Bukt.d , i OA b b hek i h c.
$ l dw t$ O gc. r4 p.g z f)) % 7/e aC r e a e v Bana D. D Sep.stx Barret 7~c. JottJJul Beure;c S.N $ob Uow.1MI ht CI YL 5 RAO tb E C V TE L.
R T ULLoub B e c% ral. U K / G Sr.c/cin.s /keAltf
. . . Dr.cek <b2& :*.' . bccwrcL. . . . . . - - . . .. . . _ . . - - . - . - - - - . .
/Ystk-
/14u Cccirrci.
ew.p iut. coins,w.1 TERA ., -- -- - . - . [Akx ley/&::K 'Old , f
- .--.Ti m ... / q a t . ...-.. . B . . .
l 'e/ SrIt 5
. i@,F W
$. /V Yp;E;4
/7]orrir? Uouc rrab
_- $Yeb001tt "IER h l - . . - - . . .- - - - - -. . s e san %n re a . . . . H. fl. LEVit) Trrn
- 6. W W Of " . . .
L . 61 C)SCd . . _ 7,lcaieH T T , 7.pd LL.u CL;'~ b f tc . <0, et s t,J B j
t Attachment 2 IDCV MEETING Friday, June 3, 1983 Conference Room 3DS Initial Discussion on Results of Review of AFWS f AGENDA I -
- 1. Summary review of status of IDCV for AFW system. TERA II. Review / discussion of confirmed items:
Responsible Party No. Subject Bechtel B6W CPCo 37 Seismic Design Criteria Civil 11 Control for FDGG CS X 12 Power Supply - FOGG CS/E 25 Accident Analysis - FOGG CS/M 38 Power Supply - Min. Flow M/E 5 System Operating Limits M X 17 Heat Removal Capability X 18 Heat Removal Capability X 20_ Heat Removal Capability M X 27 Power Level for AFW Anal. X 28 Min. Temp. for AFW Anal. M X 10 Water Volume in AFW Pipes H 1 Technical Specifications M X 2 Technical Specifications M X 31 Physical Config. .Suppports PD/Const. 32 Physical Config. - Supports PD/Const. 33 Physical Config. - Supports PD/Const. 34 Physical Config. - Supports PD/Const. 35 Physical Config. - Supports PD/Const. 36 Physcial Config. - Pipes PD/Const. 45 Storage & Maintenance Constr. 46 Storage & Maintenance Constr. , III. Establish plan, format and schedule for responding to the confirmed items. B/CPCo/B&W/ TERA
~
Attachment 3 A TE0WC AL PEVIEetv REvita TE AM 1r
- E '."E
- A "ISOL C Cg Ass r.Ca'ro .
BY- ' *5-POTENTIAL '" OFEN STEu f v f 1r I 1 r F P.ONC mEposT Review & Y ',4D CL AS5IFIC ATION Ov LTR'$. U y* 1r 1r
- 0 5PC5'T10N 0*ENITEu
/
1P 1r 1r 1r rLATHER REvlEW ACTION P.AN sy Review TEAM 8 Y ,RE*AR ATION ey ga,* CPCO/08tiCINAL REPORT.. DE5ICN ORGANi:ATCN qp A 10N "Ik[ CLAS SY LTR'$. ,g7,oy p.,,y
'" FOst RESOLUTION 1r v
- 1 r CONriR mE3 ITEw 10*. U( r CL C tv LTa'!. 1 r v 20NT>t.Y 1 r 1 r
!TATUS DISPC$lTION REPOR1*
- Sy Pic
- umy I '<
[# . i r v U i r PRE *AR ATION OF PE5PONSE 9Y CPC/OR!CNAL DESICN - FINAL REVIEm ORGAN!2ATON BY Plc.$RT 1 r 1 r REl*0NSE INTERIM TECm!C AL - g REPORT OR v reuLREPORT*+ 9 r A KEY: PM . patOJECT MANACER LTR . LE AD TECPNIC A. DEVIEWER P6C PRINCIPAL.Mh&RCE
$4T . SENIOR Review TE Av NOTE:
- PIC TO DETEmmNE F SRT Review APO CONCVRRENCE 15 REQUIRED CPC - CON 5va4R5 P0mER C0"'ANY
** D457RisvTED TO OCY SERWCE UST FIGURE I q,
REPORT FLOW CHART MIDLAFO INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT 3 OCR, FitOING REPORT, APO FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM 7/IS/83 OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Finding Findi Topic Comments
' Open item Item item Item Heport eso ution Report 0 01 RPS 12/21/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.4-1 Tech Specs
- 002 RPS 12/21/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 1.4-1 Tech Specs
- 003 RPS 1/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.8-1 Overpressure Protection 004 RPS ,1/3/83 , 3/4/83 3/4/83 I.8-1 Overpressure Protection
-005 RPS 1/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.1-I System Operating Limits 006 RPS 1/12/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Accident Analysis Considerations 007 'RPS I/12/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 I.2-1 Accident Analysis Considerations 006 LB 1/19/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 1.19-1 Control Systems
- 009 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 II.I-I Seismic Design 010 FAD l/20/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 7/12/83 1.10-1 Hydraulic Design
- 0 11 ' LB l/27/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-I Control Systems 012 LB 2/7/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 013 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.5-1 Syst. Align./Switchover *
* - Change in Status During Reporting Period
OCR, FIPOING REPORT, AfO FitOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM
. MIDLAPO IPOEPEROENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Continuec0 OCR No. Resp. LTR Potentiol Open Confirmed Resolved gFindi Findi Topic Comments Open item item item item Heport eso ution Repori Ol4 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 LS-l Syst. Align./Switchover
- CS CS 2/10/83 3/4/83 Ill.1-1 Seismic Design / Input to Equipment 016' CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 111. 5 - 1 Civil /Stu Design Consid.
017 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Heat Removal Cop l.10-1 Hydraulic Design 018 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.ll-l Heat Removal Cap. 019 LB 2/21/8 3 3/4/83 1.18-l Instrumentation 020 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Heat Removal Cap. l.9-1 Comp. Fune. Req. 0 21 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 li.IO-I Eq. Qual. 0-21, Rev. I, 4/l4/83 022 LB 2/24/83 3/4/83 1.19 1 Control Syst. 023- LB 2/28/83 3/4/83 1.18 1 Instronentation 1.19-1 Control
OCR, FIrelNG REPORT, APO FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Continued) OCR No. ' Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Finding Topic Open item item - ltem aFindi Comments item Report Resolution Report 024 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 f.2-1 Acc. Anal. Consid. 025 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Acc. Anal. Consid. 026 RPS 3/1/83 3/4/83 1.8-1 Overpress Prot. 027' FAD 3/l/83' 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.9-I Comp. Func. Req.
- 11. 9 -1 Env.Eng.
028 FAD 3/2/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 1.9-1 Comp. Func. Req. 029 LB .2/22/83 3/4/83. 3/4/83 1.18-1 instrumentation 1.19-1 Control System 030 LB 1/19/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control System 0 31 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supporis C-31, Rev.1, 7/12/83
- 032 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 7/12/8 3 I.3-Ic Pipe Supports C-32, Rev. I, 7/12/83
- 4 OCR, FIPOING REPORT, APO FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO DOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Continued)
OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Finding Findi Topic Ccmments Open item item item item Report eso ution Report 033 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports C-33, Rev. I, 7/12/83
- 034- CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 1.3 Ic Pipe Supports C-34, Rev. I, 7/I2/83*
035 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 7/12/8 3 L3 Ic Pipe Supports C-35, Rev. 2, 7/12/83* 036 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 II.2-1 Pressure Boundary C-36, Rev. 2, 7/12/83' 037 CS I/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 111.1 1 Seismic Desiv/ input to Equipment 038 LB 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 039 .LB 3/30/83 4/14/83 II.10-1 Env. Eq. Gool. 040 LB 3/8/83 4/14/83 1.16-l Elec. Chorocteristics 041 LB 3/25/83 4/14/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 042 LB 3/31/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 Env.Eq. Oval. 043 FAD 3/15/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 System Hydroolic Design 044 FAD 3/15/83 4/I4/83 II.10-I Env. Eq. Qual. 045 Tulo 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 fl.I-IC Electrical Equipment / C 45, Rev. I,7/12/83* Storone & Maintenance 046 Tulo 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 . 1.1 -1 C Mechanical Equipment / Storage & Mointenance
1 ATTACHMENT 4 CURRENT PERIOD CONFIRMED APO RESOLVED ITEM REPORTS, FINDING REPORTS AND FINDING RESOLUTION REPORTS 4 l
,L l-w - , ,
I MIDLAto INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED DOC NO. 3201-008 R 001 RESOLVED _ X ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/12/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR 7/12/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System operability and surveillance requirements in Technical Specifications IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic 1.4-1, Technical Specifications DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: A commitment made in response to NRC requests has not been incorporated into the Midland Technical Specifications. That commitment involved NUREG-0611, Appendix III, recommendation GS-6 regarding verification of proper AFW system valve lineup. It is not clear that the Technical Specifications do incorporate the means to assure dual valve lineup after maintenance. Also, the associated draft procedure does not incorporate a requirement for valve lineup verification (see OCR-014). SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Valve lineup after maintenance or testing may not be correct. X RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION : This item is resolved by classification as an Observation (B-001) COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REGOIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): SIGNATURE (S): RPS RPS HAL JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE I
MIDLAtO INDEPEtOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201 008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFlRMED DOC NO. 3201008 B 001 Observation RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/12/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MCR. 7/I2/83 PRINCIPAL.lN-CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORC. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: Procedures and Technical Specifications regarding AFW System valve alignment IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic 1.4-1, Technical Specifications Topic l.5-1, AFW System Alignment /Switchover DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- 1. Review of Technical Specifications has shown that there is no requirement expressly stated for a second valve lineup check af ter AFW system maintenance, contrary to a commitment made in FSAR App. 10A.3 in response to recommendation G3-6 of NUREG-0611, App. 111. 11. Review of draft procedure OPS Surv 3395.1 (Unit 2), dated January 14, 1982, has also raised questions regarding valve align-ment after maintenance and/or testing. Although each valve lineap enclosure includes
" position required", it then calls for Ic a ging the " original position" & signing for
" returned to original position", thus potentially resulting in assumptions that ori-SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: ginal positions are correct. Also there is no requirement that the plant / shift supervisor review the valve lineup sheets to assure AFW system readiness.
Potential misalignment of AFW system valves after maintenance and/or testing. RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X : This observetion is a combination of related items: confirmed item 001 and open item 014. It is recommended that the procedure be reviewed to remove any ambiguity and that the Tecnical Specifications specifically incorporate the requirement for a second valve alignment check after either maintenance or testing. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): SIGNATURE (S): RPS RPS HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN. CHARGE l 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE 4
MIDLAND 1&3-FSAR 10A.3 COMPARISON OF NUREG-0611. OF THE MIDLAND APPENDIX AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM DESIGN WITH THE REccNMEND lli (continued) Recommendation Response (1) Procedures should be implemented to require an Maintenance and technical saecification surveillance operator to determine that the AIN system test procedures require that valves be returned to valves are properly aligned and a second their original position after the completion of operator to independently verify that the maintenance or surveillance testing. In addition, valves *are properly aligned. Subsection 16.4.7.1.2.A.3 requires a valve lineup verification following maintenance or testing of the AFW system. The combination of these vertfacatlons constitutes two, independent valve lineup checks. (3) The licensee should propose Technical Subsection 16.3/4.7.1.2 requires a flowpath test every Specifications to assure that, prior to plant 18 months or after an extended cold shutdown. Extended stattup following an extended cold shutdown, a cold shutdown is defined as a cold shutdown of 30 days flow test would be performed to verify the or longer. The technical specification also specifies normal flow path from the primary AFV system the flowpath ast motor driven pump with suction lined water source to the steam generators. The flow up to the condensate storage tank and discharging to test should be conducted with Alv system Poth steam generators through the aux 111ary feed valves in their normal alignment. nozzles. 16.4.7.1.2 Each auxiliary feedwater system shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:
- a. At least once per 31 days on a STAGGERED TEST BASIS by:
- 1. Verifying that the steam turbine driven pump develops a discharge pressure of 21,160 psig above suction pressure at a flow of 2850 gpm when the secondary steam supply pressure is greater than 885 psig when tested as required by the specification in Subsection 16.4.0.5.
- 2. Verifying that the motor driven pump develops a discharge pressure of 1(by amendment) psig at a flow of 2 (by amen zu -i r;pm when tested as required by the spec 10 M ion in Subsection 16.4.0.5.
- 3. Verifying that each valve (manual, power i operated, or automatic) in the flowpath that is not locked, sealed or otherwise secured in position, is in its correct position.
i 4. Entry into Mode 3 is allowed for the purpose l of performing the surveillance testing requirement in Subsection 16.4.7.1.2.a.l. i l 1
MIDLAto INDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCr1 ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED D O. 320 t.008.R .002 RESOLVED X ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/6/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/12/83 PRINCIPAL.lN. CHARGE 7/12/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Operability and Surveillance Requirements in Technical Specifications IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic 1.4-1, Technical Specifications DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Midland Technical Specifications do not meet NRC B&W Standard Technical Specifica-tions in that: An action statement is needed to require immediate action if both AFW systems are inoperable, c SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Lack of action statement may result in inadequate plant protection. RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X : The concern was that the T.S. lack a speci - fic statement delineating action to be taken in the event both AFW trains are out of commission; the T.S. do require action within an allotted time period if one train is inoperable. CPCo contends, and we concur, that the addition of a statement similar to that contained in the NRC's standard Technical Specifications ("...immediately initiate corrective action to restore at least one auxiliary feedwater pump to operable status as soon as possible") adds no real substance to the Technical Specifications and is therefore unnecessary. This issue is resolved. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): SIGNATURE (S): RPS RPS HAu JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN. CHARGE 7/6/83 7/6/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 - DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
1 l MIDLAND 1&2-F3AR PLANT SYSTEMS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 16.3.7.1.2 Two independent steam generator auxiliary feedwater l33 pumps and associated flowpaths shall be OPERABLE with:
- a. One auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from an OPERABLE emergency bus,
- b. One auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from an OPERABLE steam supply system.
- c. Operation of the steam driven auxiliary feedwater pump for MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4, except for surveillance and testing requirements and when actuated by station emergency conditions, is prohibited unless the electric driven feedwater pump is inoperable.
APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, and 3. ACTION:
- a. With one auxiliary feedwater system inoperable, restore the inoperable system to OPERABLE status within 72 hours or be in HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 hours.
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 16.4.7.1.2 Each auxiliary feedwater system shall be demonstrated l33 OPERABLE:
- a. At least once per 31 days on a STAGGERED TEST BASIS by:
- 1. Verifying that the steam turbine drivep pump develops a discharge pressure of 21,160 psig above suction pressure at a flow of 2 850 gpm when the secondary steam supply pressure is greater than 885 psig when tested as required by the specification in Subsection 16.4.0.5. l 33 i
16.3/4.7-4 Revision 33 4/81 l 1
- , - ~
PLANT SYSTEMS AUXI(IARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.7.1.2 At least three independent steam generator auxiliary feedwater pumps and associated flow paths shall be OPERABLE with:
- a. Two motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pumps, each capable of being powered from separate emergency busses, and i b. One steam turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from an OPERABLE steam supply system.
APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, and 3. ACTION:
- a. With one auxiliary feedwater pump inoperable, restore the required auxiliary feedwater pumps to OPERABLE status within 72 hours or be in at least HOT STANOBY within the next 6 hours and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours.
- b. With two auxiliary feedwater pumps inoperable, be in at least HOT STANDBY within 6 hours and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following
, 6 hours.
- c. With three auxiliary feedwater pumps inoperable, immediately initiate corrective action to restore at least one auxiliary feedwater pump to OPERABLE status as soon as possible.
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.7.1.2 Each auxiliary feedwater system shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:
- a. At least once per 31 days by: -
- 1. Verifying that each motor-driven pump develops a discharge pressure of greater than or equal to psig at a flow of greater than or equal to gpe.
- 2. Verifying that the steam turbine-driven pump develops a discharge pressure of greater than or equal to psig at a flow of greater than or equal to .gpm when the secondary steam supply pressure is greater than psig. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable for entry into MODE 3.
i B&W-STS- 3/4 7-4 SEP 171980
l MDLMO POEPEFOENT DESIGN MO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED MO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FM m. mW TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COWIRMED R'010 RESOLVED X REM , go, SRT PROECT TEAM /PROKCT MCR. 7/12/d3 DATES REPORTED TO: . LTR 7 /5 /83 PFuNCPAL.N.CNARGE 7 / 4 Z / O $ CPC/DEslGN ORC. . i STRUCTURE!S), SYSTEM (5). OR COMPOtENT(5) NVOLVED: AFW - Piping and valves DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLD: Hydraulic design (I.10-1) DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The original open item was concerned with the volume of water available after a seismic event. Bechtel had taken credit for piping not designated as Section III and not designated as Seismic Cat I as being capable of retaining a minimum volume of water after an SSE. SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN: Failure of the section of pipe shown on the P&ID (M 439) as being non-Cat I would result in damage to the AFW pumps and prevention of the achievement of their safety function. RECOMMEPOATION OR RE5OLUTION X : Althouah not designated as seismic on the P&ID, a review of Bechtel calculations showed that the piping in question was analyzed for seismic events. 1 COMMENTS SY SRT (F REQURED): fEFERENCES (NCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJ: (1) See OCR 3201-008-C-010 (3) Bechtel Calculation (2) P&ID M439 Sheets 3A (Rev 9) and 3B (Rev 10) SC-2-634-3(Q)H h% JB g pgPONT '\LTR i PROKCT MANAGER PRINCPAL. SRT (F REQUIRED) TOR /
, FOR PROKCT TEAM N-CHARGE O T) 30k) ? 'lb k 3 7/14/83 oAn oAn *n oAn DATE
MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTICN VERIFICATION FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-o08 CLAS5: SAFETY X NON.5AFETY DOC NO. 370s o0a.F.012 REV.NO. DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROECT MCR. 6/30/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/CESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM 5(5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: Steam isolation valves 2 BD-3277A and B and FOGG Relays 3x-1, 3x-2, 3x-4, 3x-5 DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: The FOGG relays 3x-1, 3x-2, 3x-4 and 3x-5 located in panel 2C14 are powered from 120 VAC power (not preferred power). During a station blackout ( loss of all ac) these relays would deenergize causing the steam isolation valves 2',0-3277A and B to close. This would result in the inability of the turbine driven AFM pump to function. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: The loss of power to the FOGG relays during a station blackout prohibits the AFN system fron providing feedwater flow until ac power is restored. The AFU system does not meet the design requirement to be operable for two (2) hours under station blackout conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Corrective action be taken to power the F0GG relays from preferred power. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQU! RED): l l l REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h OCR 3201-008-C-012; Schematic Diagrams E-158 S1124,25,41,42 Midland FSAR Section 10.4.9.1.1. dL JB DKD FINDING REPORT PRORCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARCE SRT (IF REGutRED) ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROKCT TEAM 6/29/83 7/5)BS 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE 'DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAto INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COrEIRMED X DOC NO. 3201-008. C -031 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/27/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3.lc - Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Refer to OCR's C-32 thru 36, same program area as above, for description of concerns related to inconsistencies in dimensions and orientation noted during the field verification of AFW system piping, pipe supports and hangers. The five OCR's, when taken as a group, establish a trend potentially affecting the design finalization progress - i.e., that process used to ensure that changes to the original design, warranted by construction / installation activities, are accurately and consistently incorporated into the original design documents. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Changes to design caused by construction / Installation activities may not be accurately and consistently factored into the original design resulting in situations whereby the as-installed condition may not be analyzed nor evaluated to determine that original design criteria are satisfied by the as-installed configuration. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : ICV reviewers have initiated a review of the processes used to control field modi-fications to piping and pipe hanger drawings. It is recommended that this review continue in order to confirm that the existing processes used to control field changes to piping and pipe hanger and support drawings are effective in ensuring that original design documentation accurately and consistently reflects the as-Installed configuration. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q) , Rev. 11 Spec. 7220-M-326(Q), Rev. 8 " Installation, inspect. & Doc of Pipe Supports)" SIGNATURE (S): DT DT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
l l MIDLAto INDEPEtOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CONFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN _ CONFIRMED y DOC NO. 3201-00s.C 032 RESOLVED TEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/8'4 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/27/83 PRINCIPAL.lN. CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3-Ic- Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Hanger H-10, a horizontal snubber, is properly installed in accordance with the red-lined detail hanger drawing. Changes indicated on the drawings were approved by the site resident engineer.
- Hanger location for hanger H-10 was field measured to be approximately 3' from its desig, location (along the direction of the pipe axis) as shown on the piping isometric drawing.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not neces-sarily be fed back into the design finalization process in an accurate and consistent manner. Since the piping Isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- Confirm that as-installed dimensions are indicated on the piping isometric drawing - the document controlling input to the piping stress analysis.
- Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that field changes are consistently and accurately reflected in design documentation.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): l REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q) , Rev. 11, attached redline for H-10 Spec. 7220-M-326, Rev. 8 " Installation, inspect. t, Doc. of Pipe Supports" SIGNATURE (S): DT DT , HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROXCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) l ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN-CHARGE ! 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
fK.4JA1- e M or WF l 'M ; , 7.. ,
, lk ;.;
'I.N?M t -,., s
. 7%
=. , m
-,. c.~ o m
, u s
-_w. isrn r l g ,
.. . w
$JNq g;gr 4-
*- i= =
es
\ m _ '# ) ;< ,c .c w x = .c = t'Mme gg' a -
,g -
g og ' ' l T3 i U im m 2 1318 : i: 't ;. er ,-
, x g y i % .c - 4 ..c -- - -
-_t ' 'l. <
c.is i 3 .$ a 0a
... t s - < 9 .< am
- E k' j ;;
b
'o g - i assimi ID [i:'.!y j3dt-5 4 :,o , 21 2:
j g x . L -
- 2 -
3 4 E 5 k 1;- 0 [ - ' 6 l g - 3 g gs ; y T. ., p
~
J 0., [8lf s i ,- ,
- f -
h b [ It!
.j E/ i i. 3 ; i f S ggg l l
. y gg s ,,
E y b ;k 'g . 5 ; E n -- l l ! p.d ;* J h y dJ qa G 4M 4 1 Ml ! %qa
' " ~
N p h; I 3d s tW ] #
- l. 0 t -
u - 1 gq < 4A c m a ..a j M k i ni A d d 1
]= % ml 5 N h -i i ht s I l-j.;.
8 3 O g a l ( p4,%rg i e
@ : DW9 idh D83/
y . s h. i -- t E d ig an o w i j j e g - g
-[ a E f N f [ddd d f 'l d b u b 4 E w l j g; ! i5
?
J a >- , e 2 3 h (f3 a I J' 9tc S ij .L 1 7 g ga h If '
) Qt e -' WK J.. 18 I L sA5%dE ! '
4 l (;o.r.c, . . . : V -p';) y" ~;,,) "'. , qQ:. 7 .F?/,0 *-f .
& _ _ { hi L0) ( fj [ [ C M - O . - T ['%If }). )_. T l' 1 9f ",
st- etL -e ! p hl y /..'_; h p%.kIkih,N f W'
$ h h
.i .Ey/g.';. d
$' p j
;l.-- b W.
y' y .f ?-
, v a A .
. p~ . , .
T: g n ;
.n ; 4,
- .\-}
g . j<rw h 4
~O 7 T, _ ,e[ h_j F _ _
l . . r.. . F-____ ' -. s k 4
.u . './..;N; icv-
.. 4 g l l $ '
} jl
,, ~ .'& +
(j
- k. -u* e.qy i --
. h '2 /. k '-'
i~ '" (- I V , l h,43), $ b }' ~
'~k I { H l ,
./ '
**f -)] '
$ 4 -$ e
, ., $ n ., -
y '; b ' - g; 3 3- $ f -l. , w.g. .g j ,
; e- ,,
)
7 , 5' . y 3 9*- '
) , g C & s f 1
g v
- r. <,"
g4 r. Sg i
- - n.
J a . E'1 s a u - py . l f k W Y E !c5 . . . j y ., f ' 0.. ,'%. h .U. .
""~
g 05 h k E y7 g lj ' j
\' . h}c -{ ' - -.' - - -
e ,
,$. ..r.a.*-- ** '
'A' ..# *-
g s e W a L er I gq;g,I .J.; *. ",M-[h* d* l # E I # L
. ,. _... . . m..a,
.. .. y w- #+> _.m .m.m_ .".m w=~m '
--m mm-. _ _ _ . - _ _ -
^,'
~ '
,p '
_7 Y '
!. ,' (_________-___.-
.u a -. -a .-_ _ _
! " 1)' ' J .-O'-f7'
, .3 k *
, gr t g. :. .. ;; . .
t *
. .... . . . - ig % .:~.-' '- % ;
.T. . g l $ U,)
mR ' O .jff1w e D % g; b
- s3 ~
o 1 e 3 a,
<-e o.-
E 5V h f ,o o
$ pi f :t g
g i.
=5 -
.- ...< 'W R
'E cd t- *-
v y hd J g l'*1 h - _ + " g
. v- -
e a .
.l- n ;- .,<#
- a. u .u2 3
,o a g g g '-.
> E1 ,
l svi Tw y ,
- c. N e
.M t-J g
os
; q oj y.et q s
w$
- j. 1
.l v s E Re s wt d h ef l .
g s'
- I4 d - k 8a i
.% a
.T.
/"\ D hk f '
6 e. % s e c 1 m . )
#t- #
3 I t e - 4.. . . r 1.: r v' y. n* < a '
..:gS"Pf 9 --,
)... . L
.. . k ,*q. . ,. :.U.r>r .O. A'. M.u, u fy $, 3C
- .. k%. :.
. :?s; , \R b d, i' . .:-
t; QE1.. g e. I %. a.:TFS!Feas?;gllg .;1141
'.y r[
' n;i ;
1p - '- pg r u, . . a'iv. ... 3r e... , c av a :\ .- g . a
,b s ..
\g w'QtM .41- u .]f
, h %
4 .. s 1
. :n(? - W [' ,'g=m
. l i 3; 2. M. z.,. ,
, e u Sh n p' s v Y YQ
-~
A l za ' g.f Q; ; Q f t} Q L c. r.y ;-. . / .
.. ! ;g,. . ..
ghp _. l.$ . .. n{'hf w . f, , 'g.- f -k ..r j.E .\ . kh?'\ s- . ,-
- a. .\
,y,,
n g, q, ,g . A y'
- a-bf s g \, . 3 gg i
A
.f. r- b y >
/y, 3y*1 C ,, ~.i t;- V
*a. @ -
e d ; I,i h #'
... _._-S 55 s < a 1m .4. 4
~
-. y . .J ,
a- n . ;
%.4EE 4g
'i :.. .'
[ ^ ' # '. # N+.:' n .
., 6N t.u, .)h. , . T .. v .5?F/ '
- r. .- , m.r}; ; -
, \.
. ..p k Om~W ' ,'.
._.- ag , .. . 't. . . ;ss: f \ ,
.w
. _4 R_/. :_<'. _,. .
. ;: . . xx . .:, y;. g
- . g . .. 7.,
.gge ,-- 3 , ;
MIDLAPO INDEPEtOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FibOING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008F 4 32 REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/i/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/l2/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Hangcr location for hanger H-10 was field measured to be approximately 3' from its design location (along the direction of the pipe axis) as shown on the piping Isometric drawing. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel and ensure that processes are in place which would ensure that field modifications to the design are accurately and consistently reflected in the design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): REFERENCES UNCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14(Q) , Rev. 13, & Rev. 14 - OCR 3201-008-C-032 Spec. 7220-M-326, Rev. 8 " Installation, inspection & Doc. of Pipe Suports" SIGNATURE (5): DT HAL JB DKD FINDING REPORT PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROJECT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE
-- _ - - __- __ - _a
MIDLAtO INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN AFO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008-Z -032 CLASS: REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/I/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/l2/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING (OR REFERENCE DOC.NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Hanger location for Manger H-10 was field measured to be approximately 3' from its design location (along the direction of the pipe axis) as shown on tne piping isometric drawing. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION: The dimensions appearing on the piping isometric drawing utilized to locate pipe hanger H-10 have been changed to reflect the as-measured and as-installed location. Since the piping isometric drawing is being revised to accurately locate hanger H-10, the piping stress analysis will be revised to analyze the as-installed loca-tion for hanger H-10. TERA will review the revised piping isometric drawing and piping stress analysis. (The piping isometric drawing is the controlling design Procedures and processes have document for input to the piping stress analysis). been revised and implemented which are designed to ensure that field generated modi-ficatinns to hanger locations are compared against the piping isometric drawing. RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION: Bechte1 Procedure FPD-2.000, FCR/FCN Procedure, has been implemented as the procedures controlling the revisions to Marked-up Dwg. 7220-H-639, detail hanger dwgs., replacing the pre-Sh. 14 (Q), Rev. 14 viously used red-line procedure. The above actions, when coupled with the CCP & PSDIV programs, indicate that CPCo & Bechtel have implemented significant progr am modifications to control & verify field-generated changes to design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): TERA continues to evaluate the implementa-tion and outputs of these programs (refer to " Recommendation" section of OCR-C031) as they specifically relate to piping sys-tems within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries. SIGNATURE (5): JB DKD DT HAL FINDING RESOLUTION PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROJECT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/i4/83 l DATE DATE DATE DATE 1
MIDLAfO INDEPEtOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED AtO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X DOC NO. 3201-008. C. 03 3 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/12/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/l 2/03 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/63 CPCIDESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic 1 3-Ic Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Hanger H-7, a vertical and horizontal restraint type hanger is not installed per redline dwg. nor per hanger isometric. E/W - redline dim. 24-51" west of centerline, H-639 Sh. 14 calc'd dim. 31'-0", measured 28'-10 19/32" N/S - redline dim. 37'- 8 15/16 south of centerline, H-639, Sh. 14 calc'd dim. 38' - 1 1/8", measured 40' - 2 17/32" SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
. Change to design caused by construction / installation activities may not neces-sarily be fed back into design finalization process in an accurate and consistent manner.
Updating the isometric with erroneous redline data for stress analysis may lead to higher support loads and piping stress than calculated. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : Confirm that as-installed dimnsions are indlcated on the pipe isometric dwgs. - the document controlling input to the pipe stress analysis. Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that field changes are consistently and accurately reflected in design documentation. Quality review against ECR, ECN, rediine or other change documentation prior to in-corporation may help. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14(Q), Rev. 11, Rev. 13 & Rev. 14 & attached redline for H-7 Spec. 7220-M-326, Rev. B installation inspection & doc. of pipe supports SIGNATURE (5): RCS DT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL. SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE ( 7/11/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 i DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MUA.Shn W kne. .u.Gr:n m.r~e....N~-:.- - l r --, suneem .. cj m ~~ .7,;..
, g r . ,,
.)3 . . , .
- 3. ,,, - ..
- u . .
I 8Lr
- i. . r. ~
.F 1%
em A o g .. a y, 3.
.p .
.; ; .. y 3
e f I b M' L I; . . i ., .
,/ u ng
; ,# a
. . . - , m v .,
o , ,
*e .
fi- Ik 48 ;
, !) r:
- e %$ $ g p ., j,3g g . I p.y q
*l g ,ah.;.
3 q .< D '. fl, ' ,'i l: - 1- ' j jcg '. - : 1 s+ x.s
, PN- _, -
- . c .n ,
. ., r- -
4 I; 3 4
? E sp [
,a p ,
, I , ,
4 0 I- M i I"b. t :.w i- , , -m . g ps. -~. H. m.
. ,t
. , \
r y a, ? t'
,'d -< o m n ,s yhdf i c o j }
i g.. [ . i ~l
; M .y e g .-
rq ;; y a , spin. lu . : IgIg w 3 g.k M'
~
$-k k% [:W
--. 2 "' -
; f
! 8 3 35I )
p
""*" I C I I
~
- c e
n
$~5 c 1 m- .
. f .
! *.2 t . .. . ' ' - '
1 Le t ' 4 u<* f, L.l t , e
][
' 8 -
S
- =
o . - ,
- -o -+
a : o ... + u - . n as . p p,0 n. m ,.
;M' .a' 3
E E E k l j
;; ;. ; 4:J o 4 *. c ;_
0% , t
- ' o ;<. :*;
e s g .., Qq
- s. - . .
3,; i ,yj g[ ]
};-
} y Q ." ),3 ,
at .
.g ,
I ' m i,s i - E
- i. '}
t
' m4
't < I o- *
*g c
- 6. 4,a
-.. '3 i J
S i! w w ". i.' g",, . ., g g.
- g. : .
\o na - :'
r 8 -
.T.
- vi E . 2 a
e, 4 o .
=
1 , lc j 6 3
<w5 1
g '.- a 5 ' J-i 3ie, * * *
- t' j
{ b .l j A l t, h kh-B' }J [
'.;l. .4 7 j5 -
t', si ,-
}a - - . I .,
1 ,$ $.
,. ~,-
,. -, p. ,
s 3
..g I 1 d 1 s
- c 1 . .
i-5, y. g g ss: W: 4 i: M
- i g -
g 4,, g 4 5q , l ,, o 6: w .
\ , .
l$b
~
!fM lf E ! 5i - N
)
I j
.U. k i . ,
E , p ' ~0 jgj . -' j 14E-3iK5fE!6lNN$$"SP^'bWf[N[@'.d. gg g 1r
- -e c-p.- -wn n'pgr ..
] .p .-a - ?
D h ,;' 3 f
* *a qk. ;*. ,. ";' *: 3 =.1 hMN.N.'. ' I,8
- P.
$'. Q.u>!![go a .M
." )
i
, d,, 4 ,. m .. . - ... , r. .
- ym,
~ ~
w -e u , ' A .:.,w .. .
; g; C ..s ..
~N NT 9 r,
- 7,j' r r. l i R x
. . + 7/ Q: p p =,,t,O W C Y .' sg
' e n.y, -
g - .- ; ([i , M_ - 1 3,
;?, . . , s S f ..
1 t , .. ,
.[.f, $ 0 h .(
I 3 '.f,. ' t-
$. V
~
5 ?, ..y $y.,,, - .k*m.' %
,, -- ;-{- k, '. e.
~-
..M . . a b .
. . s.
w
- r. .s-u, ; a P5a ,E : , .'
ge. *, ~;
.> ).::
c-
- 1. : . . . . .
. . $-:. =1 . : t -
- g. c 3. .
g ..
~
' . .( , .c ?,O:p g3, .,j>,j, j, 2 f
. er -- w _ . - -- , ., ; gig r e p ,
m
.L-r.E3
, l ;,9 ) N * ' - '
,. .{ h. %.,. . -
3 -..pt.f&l, L y e G L
>:'-l l g \ %
l' ). - s.'Q . ',.\ . - .
$@ ww
- , 5 - g z N f, Q
- r* Pr- *
.. l 4 . -
4. 9 M,-g w . ( r ~i. ,2 + o . 7, i. ( t.
,1 .. .,, , ... g- ,
l
- i. NN.y,
\ ,~f .%' .1. .V, .
. , y ...
- h. .*1E f _..
. r. . .
. A< ~k h .
j$ '.'e- p,
;.E.
q t. i a Lt .. -- g 9 .
+ 1- -+. .
i 7 / 3 r ' ,'
. ,, {'e og.~,
.'*'..,n
,,::i* . , ,
., w n .. - s?t.p! '* - i
,y, )., .c .
'r
' 7. .- s . . . w. . .
&..,,n ,.
v
' .......: 43cs f.7-e . . ,. r .s. . . ide. co .s.. ';3 ;
- **7 -'K.*4K?.%0$g .-
)
Wr .1i.w.-
. i : Q - ..- . . '
- C.v,,.,f , .
-- i: :r - .~ Jiu .
b-i x '. r h wj. . . --- E
.M -
.,. _-- i _ w - _ -
_. [
MIDLAbO ltOEPEtOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-00a. F. 033 REV. NO. _ DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 7/I/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEMS (S). OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Hanger 7 location field measured to be 2' to 3' from redline dimensions. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Incorporation of redline data did not match fleid condidions stress analysis of erroneous data will not establish loading conditions representative of "as built" conditions. I RECOMMENDATION: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel and insure that processes are in place which would ensure that field modifications to design are accurately and consistently reflected in design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639-Sh. 14 (Q), Rev. II, 13 & 14 - attached redline M-2-639-14(Q)7,Sh. 9of 45 Spec. 7220-M-326, Rev. 8 Installation, inspection & doc. of pipe supports SIGNATURE (S): DT HAL JB DKD FINDING REPORT PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) ' ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 7/1/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAtO lbOEPEtOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION I FitOING RESOLUTION REPORT l l l FILE NO. 3201-008 NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008 2 033 , CLASS: SAFETY X O ' REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: PROECT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 7/1/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Support DESCRIPTION OF FINDING (OR REFERENCE DOC. NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Hanger 7 location fleid measured to be 2' to 3' from redline dimensions. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION: Bechtel personnel have become aware of the dimensional errors and are in the process of revising H-639, Sh. 14 hanger isometric and related stress analysis to conform to "as built" conditions. RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION: Discontinued use of redline procedure, replacement with FCR/FCN procedures and implementation of the CCP and PSDIV programs. TERA continues to evaluate the implementation and outputs of these programs (refer to " recommendations" of OCR C-031) as they specifically relate to piping systems within the IDCV system sample selection boundaries. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): l I l l SIGNATURE (S): JR DKD DT HAL PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) FINDING RESOLUTION REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROKCT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/81 DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAto INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN AfO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201 008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X DOC NO. 3201-008-C -03 4 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/30/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/30/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/I2/03 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3 Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- Red-lined detail hanger drawing shows hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90 elbow than the actual, as-installed location. Red-lined hanger drawing depicts hanger installat!on on the N-S run of pipe; actual installation is on the E-W run of pipe.
Piping isometric drawing shows hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90 elbow than the actual, as-installed location.
- Dimensionally the red-lined detail hanger drawing is correct - i.e., dimensions SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
for locating hanger H-4 are correct but the orientation of the hanger relative to E-W and N-S is incorrect. Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not neces-sarily be fed back into the design finalization process in an accurate and consistant manner. Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping stress analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : leading to higher support loads & piping stresses than calculated.
. Confirm with cognizant Bechtel engineers that the as-installed configuration of Hanger H-4 is incorporated into the Jetail hanger drawing and the piping isometric drawing. - Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that the as-installed configuration is consistently and accurately reflected in design documentation.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q) Rev. 11, attached redline for H-4 Spec. 7220-M-326(Q), Rev. 8 " Installation, inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports" SIGNATURE (S): DT DT HL JB LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) OCR ITEM REPORT ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
=
.p . .. r pui ..-y..
7 .. .
. 4 . .. ; ,....
., 5 i. .,., , y ,,,,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,,,, , .
q
<,QQ d r W..
__....- i. N~I. 4r 4 1 h.:..>m 4 4. >;' ;*:..:./.2"l1,t.".A.... . ... . . . sfrw .a.
.i .... - w .. . - i s - i.-i. e e ~
> =
- $ff KTM(M .[f, f 3J t f * .ce.e . .ith BrL F11. u.. I \2 % ". b.!:[f h")1 a ./ beer. tMSA 3e16st.S } }2 g o.' e:
. ( . :. . . . . e.* c. W. n.- '.i .. .:. .'"* > r" .s?" "~~~ 7. 1- !s ssu . IB . Fess-a . a. m. rake #'
I.. r
, - . . .. x g
****'I "'" ****** '*'
- seat. s
-* ~ ~ '
l ,*
'.2- . W 2d k /40 , * -s.
.s -
EJ/STS -
.* I
. .tret. . re., t - 5478 e a' a'1**- '
r-- r -- --' *. . 2 '. t '4/ ,, l ) f( ;. ..r . .42[f.
"Id ** *** "***' " M. i
{
?s
. S
-l . , - r
.[ * ,
**'.1 trs=1 - th- ein JM<- :
Mr.r - - 71 ' 6 g g ,,_ , , , g. g - g
, ,,,, , ,, ,,,, , 7
- N, . ' ["[".
,o t/ Li v2 -. Jrse soi easn x
. , / . --
.'. -afn & * .
} /e W -.. n . no C -a.i . -
.- 4- -
s.o ' It ,ms-= m qi. .
,, , c -.. n.. m. .i o .
7 c
- i
. . u, -
m x is. e. Sw toum .. w - y , H p..
"i~ - .*
]_g ", -
i -
,[,(. j,.! ). -.-
I p r-- w. - n
<0 (To
~~
r Tsr-sc i - 7 _ tu .. _. ia 2: ;. .~.
- m. _ .-
Ty 7 -
- - __ N . . - - - .. .:. -.
nil _% n. s.ss:o- , ,'., - _ ,,- . . ;-- E.no ra-x 2-12 x o ious mr am.m 1-+- f P ," .
'I fikl* '., #, , ..gffgg, A.A ,
~
M 7* q
, l; , f . t
'- 8 . . 7 ,e ' ---
t
.' Row DLE I. TA G g , g . ., g
***" i l V"'"'
y,
.- ?
, g MDd I .'
P
~
EPt.Y ONE CdAT'OF CAftBO ZING a 4.70 4t& M AT *1.4.asTEE 1*****"*~~
' ' - '~
' { N.
' ~
/ ggggf EXCEPTTH'D5 TO BE COATED M
[g kV T.77g 3 fggg, *
- Wl A R L887 PREVENTATfyg .
5m= E EEE hh5 Fon taATE=_. A.su s.. - ..m - apeggy op N. y {I[h' ,' i ST L306 IN .., o00 ENDOW F. . Fy - Fi ~' h ser as. pE 00"D^Neg BOE.TM,f/'~':3> so, r 4de
' < . t g.
. , /sF522/- ?- cessen .<... .' c .
,w,-j f.
) [- ' ',h., g
' -Mk N8% ~
M
- C- "*"#' << W.T
,p
' ~ ' g.
,. . g, ]g ,YP.
T
., - .E'N .- . ,:u -~ .CM;g; . c . .;
r
.l[' ,
.{ l { ,,,,,,,~, l.$ ' ..
. E'
*} Md}[
3 , ,,,,,,,
, , y j
k c. L REF.DMAWWIS IIURINng . '4p sacan naa'O fi ' * ^ : " - ' "'v.2
'. 9 - ! (sear um.e so.
un.o reocassen l sum. e.ar ==T}'
' - "e& 2 3 6.1 stv_a e . S .-Ns M RNA suset: i a =a e 5 x 5
}.,
,y
.y o ok m issoea seeat e pop MWi*;'7.'".W,y* LH7,",7Jr:L e ackTiost uAH 83D or y M s4f TT '
cusvensenanuseums rams cenar oncea on mass. neo. 4
+
N,;p1 2 b.5 f }.T ),] ', ansa nunn t > H-639 sH 14 Revi1,v
- ~ 2W3-W/ >#17 A
,- r..
M '- s !. . .~. ,-s, t i . . .
'.M W TVa@d O d! rug . 4 , s . ..,
.ooesAur ur-- a a um. mar *t. k
>,.4 ' i War : ~
asanst sea, c- 2 e e s-s- H + . -!ar. ig. : - m =.s % wisse as. %- ma-e.re.. s . +,. + : ' . A ,.# . - owe. 42-u ,-4< i MA..'gdjp1,}-zusurpius4: $*M 44'4T4McR i 88V .IIiB MMis'Fl# agyspee(/s .,4h6..Q, . yr === J'= p esipEET 6 oF 4 5 fr.. 'f;, ftEW. O//2 _ y
MIDLAto INDEPEtoENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLAS$3 SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3701-00&F . 034 REV.NO. DATES REPORTED TO: PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/I/03 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S). SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT ($) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Detail hanger drawing and piping isometric drawing show hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90* elbow than the actual, as-installed location. The drawings depict hanger installation on the N-S run of pipe-actual installation is on the E-W run of pipe. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel and ensure that processes are in place which would ensure that the as-installed configuration is accurately and consistently reflected in the design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q), Rev. 14 OCR 3201-008-C-034 SIGNATURE (5): DKD HAL JB CT PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED)
. FINDING REPORT ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 7/1/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAFO ltOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008 Z 034 REV.NO. DATE! REPORTED TO: PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 771/83 PRINCIPAL.lN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTL MS(S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING (OR REFERENCE DOC. NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Detail hanger drawing and piping isometric drawing show hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90* elbow than the actual, as-installed location, the drawings depict hanger in-stallation on the N-S run of pipe-actual installation is on the E-W run of pipe. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION:
. The orientation of Hanger H-4 as depicted on the detail hanger drawing & the piping isometric dwg. has been marked to indicate that the as-installed location of the han-ger on the E-W run of pipe next to the 90* elbow. The detailed hanger dwg. & piping isometric are being revised & will be reviewed by TERA upon completion of the revision .
Since the piping isometric dwg. Is being revised, the piping stress analysis will also undergo revision to analyze for the as-installed location. TERA will review the re-vised piping stress analysis. Procedures & processes have been revised & implemented which are designed to ensure that the as-installed configuration of piping hangers & supports are accurately and consistently compared against the piping isometric drawing. The above action, when coupled with the CCP and PSDIV programs, indicate that CPCo & Bechtel have imple-mented significant program modifications to control & verify as-installed configura-tion to design documentation. TERA continues to evaluate the implementation & outputs of these programs (refer to " Recommendation" section of OCR C-031) as they specifi-cally relate to piping systems within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries. RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION: Marked-up drawing 7220-H-639, Sh. 14(Q), Rev. 13 COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): SIGNATURE (5): l FINDING RESOLUTION PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) j REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROJECT TEAM DATE DATE DATE DATE l l
MIDLAtO INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN AfO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT F TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X D . 320100Bf . 035 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. 2 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/27/83 i PRINCIPAL IN. CHARGE 7/I2/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Saipports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic 1.3-ic Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Hanger H-Il is correctly shown on the detailed red-lined hanger drawing, approved by the cognizant resident engineer. Changes depicted on the detailed red-lined hanger drawing were not factored into the piping isometric drawing. When changes on the detailed hanger drawing are factored into the piping isometric drawing, a change of l'2" in the locating dimensions for Hanger H-Il will occur. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: l Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not necessarily be fed back into the design finalization process in an accurate and consistent manner. Since the piping isometric drawing is used as the input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- Confirm that as-installed dimensions are indicated on the piping isometric drawing -
the document controlling input the the piping stress analysis. ! Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that field changes are l consistently and accurately reflected in the design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (lNCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Drawing 7220-H639, Sh.14 (Q), Rev. II, attached redline foil H-11 Engineering Evaluation 3201-001-001, pages 7 & 8 SIGNATURE (5): DBT DBT HAL JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN. CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
i M'/ ' I/ M
'. . 4 . - ;.
& . ,a. . :,, . -
7;f ;";yi.~.-jp16~5_W~ i 7 h 3% :^i& 5 . - < t _ . 5E"W.n,.~>
--m .., cwc = .
,,. ,., s o = =-
g a , .
. 4, m e - 4 - n>u.. .
< x e 2 ? f
'. y ( tM
. . , x -
r -
>p./ g 5 ,., ;1 3
, x - -
, d -
_ g
,,. - - 3 '
6 i s-p v . - I d nl
- z, la G s- i e s 5-
-.;d:
.'3 a 2 '
- p. 4,a :i rl.
.- - t l tp i .. -_
,a w . m a
g > -
? /' a .
w . l I " -
- i j 9 s>, i
~ '
g *
'd 4 r i i
- g " c
's g - .
n~
- l Ec.
P a i o
- C s.
N'
' et S t." k 7%
hu g N l d5 (f E I( w ~ , .
' N
'
- s
} 'e.= '
.;y .
) g r ,
a -
,R. '. 3 -
i i %. n -
. .t
.a , ,:. u o -
T
. 4 i
,s.,p
- w 4
m as S
=
,g t
.a.
,, i ,
.r a.
rs c *e.
- r. ,
, . ~n .a n e.
m u
~ .
i
,'1 n.r Y
3 ..*' . I Y L ;. h.
.s a 1
~. $55
~. '
g l .. ;
'p }: } 4 n..,,
.s e 4 s )'
, .i t 1, .
. 4 . .
. u -
N / @lh i k 1 1 ; ! s -H T ., - s w s!(1-BV i j p
. Is d i .i J ii _
. !) ]e ..
i c . ... i gg g.t. . - o E P - H! 1 ! s I h s M.. 3 k if 4 - ... .s 't :v 5.g ' . - k h_ +* j - ,
- . w ,'- {- ,g ;' s. 3 w.y.c o : y,4
\.
- g. .
u3 y fhl.1y :Mi
- Yi$:;g.... .7pa 1
. w..x./;j. h $h .N
;.ya;e.s.. 2,N.:.. Nh.(n.?b
. .c
&.e.$ l ?*%ibt.0$&.7.[.r.s.,.h.3 :$,.h.) &e.- e. . &: .),
- u. ,gy
,. 3,' g
. t;;. .
pa.. . g .s 'l
=, y.-
..tc. u, .. . . . . , . .
3 ;.
.fi. r-' .'v.. ,t 3.- .n:z- .,&d. 'i ...g
..y,:..; :, . "
;..:. 4
<a .
- R di y.. u, a.. .; ;, e i. .
r . . . . k- W:',:.ii.;;w.b.,.::
.i-t,.cS :'J.N. ; ,i-p . .
..;f at 3 c
.. ;: yq',.
e .: , 5
-1
. ri n -
y : p :- :L ..e..
- .q ..r.. n u l w.t .g .
- c
*E= :. -. <G s,;;, o..;gc m,;; -
s -
./
n.. g tp.r %. ..E W.r.3
% ' Qx 5, 4;5 f "k,h1: p:g!c -'4? ?-
'M k *
$ $P .(,'<' ,.
N$ Y,~ ,,, N
.. ~ ) f -
2 n--
. .w. .*. . , s .- . . .m wt . . . . .
w w w. Iq .t,.V- - - ~ o v.$t .:,8tr;t-y.fe%%MM*'W.af9EugrW / - v M 8" dtc *_ )
. , - v It kj '.f -y -
t. k b . M. . 4 t j au ~ __ . .. - . .
.., .: .p .3y:53; .
,.c , a. .. .. ,,5;.g
+,'e.
,e . s. .ea "
.o. * . ' .-
< +~ -
> .. m;,p,..
sa. -
] g y t
'.: ejg. .r.e, -
. . jj>=! u=m E. .:gQjJi .e. : s,, .
y 8 . i.
. .-.v; ,c- <
. < 5 = c: e. c', - .. ,
~: > 3 v
.u, = .-..>i
~,;. ...:.a. . . . .
< *m
.. . . 3 y c=., e =4c m t> /, w,3 d "
+ ,. : 2,3. n' ' '=
& .rp;. e g w.: .a, . . . -
= .:;w;aa r;.0
'Linsj g
- . . . g c. 4' y ..s
'. ,.;.N '. .
a ;i, a.,. R.c s .W - l. y.
,: ,:.::,c .:. .
. n v.,1 ;=
r,-
, _ , . o. . . .
c ., . , v ..:.: y a v.n -
. o 11 .. ..;t,,n .u
. 7 e. = a :.>.uu, . .. - -
m- p-o , ll-lt g
.c .a w .:. , o b;;
ge< . i ju is. e..J.0.->,,(
. g ~
, 2ll.k. :g.. ~. f.-..if h? i? '.*in Q !Plidl' l .": >.F:..'j
-E.-
~~
,1 4.. :
- e: -",
EP
.q L.i.rL.M.s. 3.6w . d,;e M. 1.. .
-. 1
.c., A l
. p . - e .,
4 ., . ..
" ,.j , , ...:y g ;
s- .r l.: ..
- s. :: g ,,. r; .
. ,T h-. : Et.h? er . k. .,p.j T' li. lgE . .) {y 2
l ,d y i k vlg*- W . 4$, -;; . g] [5
.t
.f p f y @.Sh, ',.$
.;p: ., ; . p 3 h .
~
.M 2
=
E
- . r'$ p ,
4 B
. : * 3 5 .;$I'y' , .y . .",,, k ,
~
. . ,,. ' M
,h. ) ' '..*. y' _ E g U
.- 2 gi 4
'~
- st b:
e n. f;.2:,. A .< .,..v-
, ~.
.w:ew.n..c,. u :
- 2. =,: *. = - !
w m 5y i.
---mmewp& f ( C,,E. %,.
.a t..Tk
.v .
C'.., ^
.,1 c . . . < : . .wc:. .
nWbt.. ,. -M,s . V.. G.,.
-i .y. ._,_ ,: .; M .'..;. 9' ' . , - -
- i l
. ., b' \ .~,:
Qr ,,..I.. M . ,
' ' ' o,,.
ID. .. .J .
- o
,, 4 .
. w. g,g. : . ;. , $s w.;; c x.n .,a s ,..g
.~,
,C -
c -
.JJ .g., 1_ m
\- s.P. $ U C
~
r
' E
- c. .m. . .o ,e _.
\s .
7., . v -
. ,. [,
i ' ; y- . }, P
- " . .,;, .. . - .- h.,s s ~ , - ~i .
- 3.. .# - ,
4- ,
$ " . . ' \, . g' t
#= 8 ,. *
, i .g,- f ,
l
* ?; %*N .h , p g ~
E I l N(. .- *g g. ' $ . e p' .e . z - d v l . s [ .
'd ila i.i v
s
. L -
l g.g y
'.- i
. A. .
3 .vi: . gj.. 4
-?.'
y..,
....)'*, ,s
.Y '4 m. .?
Y - -
, is.; ,?; f- ,
J . 1] )
- V, ,.- . . . . .. . . - . : s 6 . . . ' .- .
. l'?.;.. ,n .,* ;
Y-l.; ' v } ,- _ *
- . .- 4).- ;s.~: - S *).+. '.(
r* .. . ;-
.} _'
x . -. .._,.:..., ,.. . ; . .;i. % ..,
.~,-.'.1 o , . .
,-M-- -
- m. ,,s,. %. . . cjun,y_ --
i
. .I
...:....-...--.-...- Aup.t , f.; iv-p
, . . . . -,,_.m-.
'[ h
.J. -
L
- !. lQs h.. il T.l :- ?
8$ .$'s gg Q
- ',
- -,'.s a
8 O N Nm ?. N = : .
.I., 4lm i E o N l' s g
% N *i r ':5;? LI -
. M( . .; 3s -
o< -
*:s .- .- [@ -
- a) e ..
a y ' , . =o 3-
,$ c -
v
.ri t
- 5. *,; i Sci .: a" si; o;6 % .9. ' 9
'g L:J 7 -
; U lg -
, -c ens %
f db f_ 'd L* t '?, *; !l
% e M
$ed i. 44 ;l I g 3r L. -
,' _ Q :
si ij l l E. q -r
~ O.
a v 2v I
" Y '
% $ ,", ~
l- t ,,e r i i 6
.0 f I N -l .
% .i . ! *
.a k
5.2
,R a 0
ec T %w 2 .N of M ',
%9 m. da '-
' * *% { ja ,a I l
-k. dw mg d u{
( ll 3 l U m ow #M , 5 i a y b W y
*g M3 *==> 3 g
{
+ "J g
oiPI . ch. g 4 .M
, M f.
r- r-- 4 <7 rW$ Q ( g4
,,7 6
\ 6- d g== g y - -; .
w
. .c .,
g g , u. v- 5 --
~
L
$&p O k
- l M
2^ 4.?-y s
+ t066 ,& *f oi- l Mn'
- oc o
'o . n~r31 c
na , w 4 <Q $ u< o a W W. 8 6[ , u 4,n +
.' < xN ~
o
,.J g s. ;
*y 'J > .3 up O
<- r2 Q o
r5<3 1 o e -- p5 o 3 &M
-EE *
- 404s 573 II l 3 *dd VOW 5-T .W -
A 9 ~1 , l e
~
sd ( T, ) s e t$w
' l'J V
.e
- Y G J a.,.,-
..u. . -- m ,..- -
-7"W* * '*" * *V'3~ ~
i , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
MIDLAfO ltOEPEtOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON. SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008- F- OM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: PROICT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 7/I/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF F:NDING: Hanger location for Hanger H-il was field measured to be l'2" from its design location as shown on the piping isometric drawing. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected lead-ing to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineers and ensure that processes are in place which would ensure that fleid modifications to the design are accurately and consistently reflected in the design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REGUIRED): REFERENCES ONCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Drawing 7220-H639, Sh.14 (Q), Rev.14 OCR 3201-008-c-035 Engineering Evaluation 3201-001-001 SIGNATURE (S): DT HAL JB DKD j l FINDING REPORT PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT OF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE f
MIDLAto IPOEPEtOENT DESIGN Af0 CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 SAFETY X NON-SAFETY ' DOC NO. 3201-008 Z_035 CLASS: REV.NO. ~ DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROXCT MCR. 7/1/83 PRINCIPAL-W-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5) SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING (OR REFERENCE DOC. NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Hanger location for Hanger H-11 was field measured to be l'2" f rom its design location as shown on the piping isometric drawing. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION:
- The dimensions appearing on the piping isometric drawing utilized to locate pipe hanger H-11 have been marked & the drawing is being revised to reflect the as-measured and as-installed location. TERA will review the piping isometric drawing upon completion of the revision.
- Since the piping isometric drawing is being revised, the piping stress analysis will also undergo revision to analyze for the as-installed location of hanger H-II. TERA will review the revised piping stress analysi.s. Procedures & processes have been revised & implemented which are designed to ensure that field generated nodifications to hanger locations are compared against the piping isometric drawing, Bechtel procedure FPD-2.000, FCR/FCN Procedure, has been imple-mented as the procedure controlling the' revisions to detail hanger drawings, replacing the previously-used red-line procedure. The above actions, when coupled with the CCP'
& PSDIV programs, Indicate that CPCo & Bechtel have implemented significant program modifications to control & verify fie,d genernted l changes to design documentation.
TERA continues to evaluate the implementation and outputs of these programs (refer to
" Recommendation" section of OCR C-031) as they specifically relate to piping systems within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries.
RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOVING DOCUMENTATION: Ma rked-up .Dwg. 7220-H639,Sh.14 (Q) .Rev. 1 COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): 5 3 SIGNATURE (5): DT - HAL FINDING RESOLUTION PROECT MANAGER a PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 3RT (lF REQUIRED) FOR PROECT TEAM REPORT ORGIN.(LTR) ' ' C 6/30/83 - 7/12/83 - , DATE DATE DATE q DATE
\
h
MIDLAto INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN AiO CONSTRi>CTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED AtO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT X TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED DO 2 .036 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. 2 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/30/83 PRINCIPAL.lN. CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Piping IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR 1 ASK ('F APPLICABLE): Topic 11.2-1 Pressure Boundary Drawing Review DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The offset dimensions to the reactor centerline are not consistent DP 270 with dimensions given along pipe centerline as follows: Distances between Drawings and 280, that have 280 and been signed 285, 300 and 306. Differences range from 5/16 & 7/16. have not been adequately checked. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Inconsistencies in design drawings could lead to deviation of constructed structures, systems & components from design assumptions; however, in this specific case the noted discrepancies would have no impact upon the piping installation or design and are primarily due to inattention to detail during the dwg. checking proces i. Reference dimensions, as indicated above, are typically not used as input data to piping stress analyses. RECOMMENDATlON X OR RESOLUTION : This OCR relates principally to more attention to detail being exercised during the drawing-checking process. A Finding should be issued and resolution should proceed in conjunction with C-031 to assess process oriented issues and the potential that similar errors could have adverse impact in other situations. COM.AtENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Drawing 7220-H-639 (Q), Sh. 14, Rev. 11 & Eng. Eval. 3201-001-001, page 9 SIGNATURE (5): DBT DBT AL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN. CHARGE l 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
l MIDLAto INDEPEtOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION l FINDING REPORT F!LE NO. 3201-008
$AFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 320100nf . 036 CLASS:
REV.NO. DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROXCT MGR. 6/27/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System, Piping DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Approved drawings (7220-H-639(q), Sh. 14, Rev. II, 12, 13, 14) have not been adequately checked. Dimensional errors on hanger isometric drawings were confirmed through dis-cussions with cognizant Bechtel engineers. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Inconsistencies in design drawings could lead to deviations of constructed structures, systems and components from design assumptions; however, in this specific case, the noted discrepancies would have no impact upon the piping installation or design and are primarily due to inattention to detail during the drawing checking process. RECOMMENDATION: Bechtel personnel have become aware of the identified drawing errors and have initiated steps to establish corrective action. This activity should be monitored by the review team and selected drawings checked for similar errors. Resolution should be considered in conjunction with activities associated with C-031. ! COMMENTS BY SRT (lF REQUIRED): i REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
- OCR 3201-008-C-036, Rev. 2 Drawing 7220-H-639(Q), Sh.14, Rev. 11,12,13614 Eng'g Eval. 3201-001-001, page 9 SIGNATURE (S):
HAL JB DKD DT FINDING REPORT PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM 6/27/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE 7 ATE DATE
MIDLAFO INDEPEM)ENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COWIRMED AM) RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CONFIRMED X TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN DOC NO. 3201-008-C - nhg ~ RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/10/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/15/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: AFW System: AFW Pump Motor 2P005A IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- 1. Manufacturer's recommended storage instructions require motor shaft rotation every two weeks while motor is in storage (Ref: Vendor Doc. No. 7220-M14-68).
- 2. Bechtel procedure governing in place maintenance (F-10-247) requires rotation of motor shaf t every 30 days (which has been accomplished). Warehouse storage
' procedure F-1-435 only required rotation every 90 days. The vendor recommends rotation every two (L) weeks. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Failure to comply with manufacturer's recommended shaft rotation schedule for the motor may have a deleterious effort upon the shaft bearing surfaces, shaft bearings, and rotating elements of the motor. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : Recommended motor inspection by manufacturer's rep. and ICV reviewer of motor bearirq surfaces. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): ( i REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Bechtel Storage Procedure F-10-247 Vendor Document No. 7220-M14-68 SIGNATURE (5): MBJ DBT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL. SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 6/9/83 6/14/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE}}