ML20024F314
| ML20024F314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1983 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Brenner L, Ferguson G, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309090265 | |
| Download: ML20024F314 (7) | |
Text
r September 6,1983 Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge School of Engineering Howard University 2300 - 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20059 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (0L)
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed is a copy of a Staff Memorandum dated September 1, 1983. The subject of the Memorandum is " Input to Shoreham SER Supplement - Independent Design Review." (
Reference:
TES Technical Report Tr-5633-4, " Final Report
- Independent Design Review for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station",
July 22, 1983).
I am advised that the enclosed " input" will be included in SER Supplement 5.
I am further advised that it is anticipated that SER Supplement 4 will be issued during the month of September,1983.
I have not been advised as to a potential issuance date for Supplement 5.
In any event, the enclosed document'is enclosed for your current information.
Sincerely, Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
(w/ enclosure)
See Page 2
- k 0309090265 930906 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
2 cc:
(w/ enclosure)
Jonathan D. Feinberg,Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Howard L. Blau, Esq.
W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Cherif Sedkey, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Ms. Nora Bredes Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board Panel Karla Letsche, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Mr. Brian McCaffrey Marc W. Goldsmith David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Mr. Jeff Smith MHB Technical Associates Hon. Peter Cohalan Mr. Jay Dunkleberger
' John F. Shea, III, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
DISTRIBUTION Bordenick Repka Dewey Rawson Reis Christenbury Murray Olmstead Lieberman OELD FF (2)
Chron(2)
NRC Docket File: PDR/LPDR R.Caruso 144 J.Norris AR5008 A.Schwencer 330 J.Higgins (Res. Inspector) l Mo, OFC :0 ELD
- 0 ELD 7____:_________________.__________________.________________
NAME :BBordenick/dkw
- EReis
(
DATE:09/46/83.
- 09/p/83
[
'o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\,*****/
~
SEP 1 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director for -
Components & Structures Engineering, DE
SUBJECT:
INPUT TO SH0REHAM SER SUPPLEMENT -
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW
Reference:
TES Technical Report TR-5633-4, " Final Report -
Independent Design Review for the Shoreham Nticlear Power Station," July 22, 1983 We have reviewed the Independent Design Review report performed by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) for the Shoreham facility.
It should be noted that in the IDR report, TES provides a recommendation that the applicant formally document certain studies and evaluations that were performed as a result of this IDR and were necessary for TES to reach their final conclusions. We believe that the applicant should provide a commitment to implement the TES recommendation. This recommendation is also addressed in the text of our SER input.
Attached is our evaluation of the IDR to @c included in the Shoreham SER supplement.
Y n
James. '.
or for
&[ineering Compnent tructures Engineering Divisi6n of g
cc:
R. Vollmer, DE
')'
E. Sullivan, DE R. Bosnak, DE A. Schwencer, DL R. Caruso, DL H. Brammer, DE D. Terao, DE O
Shoreham Independent Design Review An Independent Design Review (IDR) was performed by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) on a portion of the Low Pressure Core Spray System at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. The purpose of the program was to verify that the design and quality assurance process imposed by documentation was adequately implemented and that the as-built configuration was in compliance with the commitments in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
In a letter from D. F. Landers to H. R. Denton dated June 30, 1983, TES transmitted their Technical Report TR-5633-3, " Executive Summary of Final Report.- Independent Design Review for..the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," dated June 30, 1983 to the staff. Th" final report trans-mitted to the staff was TES. Technical Report TR-5633-4 entitled, " Final Report - Independent Design Review for the Shoreham Nuclear Power, Station,";da~ted~ July-22, 1983 consisting of three books. The Final
. Report included the results outlined in the executive summary, all Internal Committee Review forms, TES Additional Concerns, Disposition Responses from the applicant, and Final TES disposition reports.
Program Scope
~
The major areas of review were performed under the following tasks:
Task 1) design process and procedures, Task 2) review design requirements, Task 3 review as-built design documents, Task 4 determine as-built plant configuration, Task 5 compare as-built documentation to plant configuration, and Task 6) review quality assurance process and documentation.
Although the initial scope of the program was to review a portion of the Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) system, in the process of performing the IDR, the scope of review expanded to address a number of findings on a generic basis. The generic review covered the following areas:
- 1) small bore piping,
- 2) attachment of supports to pipe,
- 3) consideration of time-history dynamic loading in piping and support
- design,
- 4) determination of applied accelerations on valve operators and comparison with allowables,
- 5) branch line stress intensification factors,
- 6) thermal attenuation modelling of tie-back supports, and
- 7) adequacy of vibra check baseplates in a radiation environment.
l The IDR focused on a specific time frame in the design and construction process which was ongoing at Shoreham. This enabled TES to review the Shoreham process which identified deficiencies, the subsequent design changes, the reconciliation process with other disciplines, and the l
,. ~
-i.s
+-
=>+ a
.n
.:---naa-
- ~*-s L---~
~: -
I.
i final construction. As a result, TES was able to review the results of i
the total process as well as to review the ongoing design md construction process over approximately thirteen months. Approximately 12,000 man-hours were expended by TES in the performance of this IDR.
Results of the IDR The IDR was performed in three phases. The first phase included a complete review of the design and quality assurance process. This resulted in the generation of 170 open items. After review by the TES Project. Manager and further review of-the applicant's responses and existing data, 142 items were closed. The remaining 28 items were
. brought to the TES Project Internal Review Committee and classified as follows:.
~
2 t
Y' 2 Closed 16 Findings 10 Observations
~'
The Findings were submitted to the staff in a letter from D. F. Landers to H. R. Denton dated February 11, 1983.
I Phase 2 involved a review by TES of the responses prepared by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) to the 16 findings issued by TES in Phase 1.
This review resulted in the issuance of detailed co.mments by TES.
4 l
Consequently, eight Findings we're closed and eight Additional Concerns L
were identified. The eight Additional Concerns were sent to the staff in three letters from D. F. Landers to H. R. Denton dated March 11, 1983, March 15, 1983 and March 28, 1983.
Phase 3 involved a final review of each item for which an Additional Concern was submitted to LILC0 and the staff by TES. This review included several meetings between LILCO, SWEC, and TES as well as the review of TES of formal responses submitted by LILCO and SWEC. The
[
summary of the meeting minutes were transmitted from TES to the staff in three. letters from J. King to H. Denton dated April 6,1983, April 21, i
1983 and May 6,~1983.
Phase 3 was completed when these eight Additional Concerns were closed and resulted in the issuance of the Executive j
Summary Report. dated June'30, 1983 (TES Technical Report TR-5633-3).
Conclusions by TES In the area of Quality Assurance the TES Reviewers in their summary Trip.
Report indicate the the LILC0 QA Program as applied to construction activhy un the LPCS System at Shorcham demonstrates: management av!ayeress and participation, a high level of proficiency and efficiency
~
in the Quality Assurance organization, and exceeds the minimum in application and performance of the Quality Assurance Program j
requirements.
i 0
.......--.....:--..~-...
Based on.the results of the Independent Design Review it is TES' opinion
.that the commitments of the FSAR with respect to Design and Quality Assurance have been complied with by LILC0 and SWEC for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Recommendation by TES The responses by SWEC to a number of the generic items were in the form of Engineering Studies or Evaluations which differ from Calculations in the SWEC Design Process. The term Calculation denotes an engineering /
design technical report that provides the basis for an engineered design or conclusion and provides the full and formal documentation. of the engineering process. A Study or Evaluation serves to verify the conclusions of previously established calculations rather then replace them. For example, SWEC performed an Evaluation to determine the adequacy of valve operators to meet acceptable acceleration levels.
Part of this study involved reanalysis of three piping systems using different modelling techniques, damping values and/or acceleration summation.
It is the recommendation of TES that these analyses should eventually become part of the formal documentation for Shoreham. That-is, they should be modified accordingly to be classified as Calculations.
Further, TES. recommends that LILCO review all of the Studies and Evaluations performed as a result of this IDR to determine what existing Calculations require modification to bring the formal
-documentation in line with the conclusions of this IDR.
It is recognized that not all of the Calculations impacted by Studies and Evaluations will required modification and that reference to, or attachment of, the appropriate Study or Evaluation in the Calculation may be appropriate. 'It is TES's belief that completion of this effort
.by LILC0 has no impact on the conclusions of the IDR and is recommended only to provide an appropriate set of records that can be utilized in the future for maintenance, replacement, repair and modification work by the utility.
Staff Evaluation of IDR The staff reviewed the 16 Findings identified in the IDR process to determine whether we could reasonably be expected to reach similar conclusions as TES and whether the generic conclusion reached by TES were appropriate. The staff found that the'IDR was a well-organized and technically extensive report which provided an in-depth review of the
-design process, analysis methods, and construction activities for the Shoreham facility. The staff believes that the conclusions reached by
. TES were reasonably justified and that the generic aspects were resolved in an appropriate manner. Based on the conclusion by TES, the staff
concludes that the IDR provides further assurance that the piping systems in the Shoreham facility have been adequately designed to satisfy the applicable codes, standards, and staff requirements.
9 Y,
1 h
t
Furthermore, the staff believes that the recommendation by TES as stated above, should be implemented by the applicant. The studies and evaluations performed by the applicant as a result of this IDR that were required to bring the existing calculations in line with the conclusions of the IDR should be formally documented in accordance with the proper QA procedures for Shoreham.
The formal documentation should be complete by April 1, 1984.
S I
i 1
I i
4 i
!