ML20059F208

Self-Assessment Plan, Service Water Operational Performance Insp

ML20059F208
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	10/28/1993
From:	Parker A VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20059F205	List: BVY-93-121, Forwards Proposed Vermont Yankee Self-Assessment Plan, Service Water Operational Performance Insp, in Response to GL 89-13.Some Features of Plan Clarified or Specifically Stated,Since 931020 Presentation of Draft Plan to Region I ML20059F208
References
PROC-931028, NUDOCS 9311040177
Download: ML20059F208 (24)

Text

. .

VERMONT YANKEE SELF-ASSESSMENT PLAN TITLE:

Service Water Operational Performance Inspection (SWOPI)

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

Assess the licensee's planned and completed actions in response to GL 89-13

" Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment."

Verify that the Service Water System (SWS) is capable of fulfilling its thermal-hydraulic performance requirements and is operated consistent with its ,

design basis.

Assess the SWS operational controls, maintenance, surveillance, and other testing, and personnel training to ensure the SWS is operated and maintained so as to perform its safety-related functions.

RE0VIREMENTS:

Requested by management.

REFERENCES:

NRC Inspection Manual Temporary Instruction 2515/118 Revision 1. " Service Water Operations Performance Inspection (SWOPI)."

NRC Inspection Manual. Inspection Procedure 40501. " Licensee Self-Assessments ,

related to Area-of-Emphasis Inspections."

NSAC/121. " Guidelines for Performance Safety System Functional Inspections."

Prepared By: 4.[. A y Supervisor. Audit Group Approved By: .

If y'  ;

Director. Engineering Services amm '

9311040177 931028

• PDR ADOCK 05000271 G pyn

y ,. - v -

k s 4

4 ~l

.~

Technical Assessment Plan vermont Yankee; service Water System (SWS)  ;

-l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The following plan is intended to summarize the assessment scope,- f approa.ch and methodology, schedule, responsibilities, team qualifications, findings, and corrective action, t

2.0 SCOPE (Based on NRC Temporary Instruction TI 2515/118)

The assessment will be accomplished by performing a comprehensive review. -j of the SWS components and system performance including design requirements; operating, maintenance, surveillance and other testing  :

practices; maintenance and performance history; quality assurance and .;

implementation of corrective actions. To ensure thorough coverage of the NRC temporary instruction Attachment B (SWOPI checklist) will be-used to conduct the review.

3.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY This evaluation will be accomplished by performing a technical >

assessment of the Service Water System (SWS). The evaluation will start with the accumulation of baseline information in the form of a Design ,

Basis Document (DBD). An emphases will be placed on'the evaluation of-

, the modified system to the original design and licensing basis as well-as any impact on related systems and programs.

In addition, selected industry events / concerns which relate directly to the SWS will be assessed. The licensee's response to Generic Letter 89- ]

13 will be given attention in each of the subject areas. The assessment -j will be conducted using a team appri,_ch. The team will review NRC SWOPI results from othar plants and focus on areas receiving greatest NRC attention.

i The approach by subject area is summarized in the following sections. [

F i

I noen ~1-1

v .,-# -) -

4

,{

1 Ji 3.1 Desion Adecuacy Review .

s

~!

The design adequacy review will assess the technical adequacy of  !

the existing system focusing on essential safety and1 functional characteristics. The review will' consider items such as design ,

conditions and transients, component classification, equipment: .i qualification, single failure criteria, potential flooding, comnon. i mode failure, and a selection of other attributes that contribute  ?

to the effectiveness of the system. i The review will also include the Impact of modifications on items such as: ,

Design Basis Documents Pipe / equipment support design The Fire Hazards analysis program (10CFR50, Appendix R)  ;

Electrical.and mechanical equipment qualification Class lE controls and electrical system and electrical system analysis. ]

)

Plant Technical Specific'tions l

j Vendor documentation t

3.1.1 Mechanical System Review  ;

I The scope of the mechanical. evaluation will involve a  !

design review of system components that are required to-  !

satisfy the operational functions of the' system as  !

described in the design basis and licensing. commitments.

This evaluation will be.primarily based on review of  ;

design documents, Design Change Packages (DCPs),  ;

discussions with plant and project personnel in the  !

mechanical discipline, discussions with other team l members, and a site walkdown of the installed systems.

]

The overall evaluation approach will be conducted'in multiple phases as described below:

1. Review those sections of the FSAR and Licensing  !

Commitment List which provide the design'and regulatory commitments for thw system, This portion of the review will provide a basis for familiarization with the system's safety and operational functional  ;

requirements.

q meen  !

j i

1

~

e.$ 4 n 'i

. 1

)

2. Review the mechanical discipline calculations  ;

2 associated with the system to determine if the system design bases are supported by calculations or other ,

suitable documentation. Assess the design margin ]

provided.

3. Provide a review and comparison of selected design, ,

purchase, installation, and equipment specifications i to ensure proper interpretation and consistent use of l specified system and component design conditions 'I associated with Design Change Packages. l t

1~

4. Review flow diagrams and piping drawings for consistency with design documents and licensing i commitments.

5. Review Design Change Packages for consistency with the j specification design conditions and adequacy of 50.59  !

evaluations. -l t

6. Evaluate single active failure vulnerabilities of the  ;

system (Reference Action IV to GL 89-13). ';

-t

7. Review interfacing systems with the Electrical and Structural / Mechanical team members for effect on SWS operability.

8. Determine if flow balancing has been conducted for various system operating modes. i

9. Review the original basis and the 1:3 pact of design  :

changes on the Flooding Analysis (Reference NUREG -

-l 1275, Vol. 3). .;

i

10. Review the effectiveness of any design features installed to minimize silting and biofouling of piping  ;

and components.

A site walkdown will be performed to facilitate evaluation of certain attributes such as interconnection and '

interactions, as-built cor. figuration, component layout, access for operations, inservice inspection, maintenance, ,

physical separation of components, where applicable, and adequate consideration from the effects of weather-(freezing of stagnant outdoor lines). a

?

meen  !

i,

.w.

4 4

' . 1.2 Electrical, Instrument and control Peview The scope of this evaluation involves a system design, review of the Electrical, Instrument and Control aspects of the SWS. The scope of the review includes the following areas:

4 Associated calculations, design margin and setpoints.

System electrical equipment and controls.

Power sources supplying power and controls to that equipment (including instrument power).

Consistency with interfacing systems.

Field verification as-built design and configuration relative to licensing requirements.

3.1.3 Structural /Mechanleal The evaluation will focus on the adequacy of the system as modified involving pipe stress analysis, pipe and equipment support and design, pipe rupture analysis, support of instruments and instrument tubing and seismic qualification of equipment. This evaluation will be made to examine the following attributes:

Consistency exists between the design and the licensing commitments (FSAR, licensing ccmmitment letters, and other applicable documents).

Calculations supporting design modifications are adequate.

Non-safety-Related portions of the SWS can be isolated in-accordance with the provisions specified in the design basis.

Performance of a field walkdown.

acen i l

m - ._

p i' '

5 i

4 3.2 peerations Peview The objective of the operations evaluations is to determine that .. ;

operators can perform the necessary activities to ensure that-the system fulfills its safety functions. 'This determination will be  !

made by assessing the adequacy of the instructions available to ,

the operator, and the availability of system status information, l such as instrumentation and alarms, at the time operator action is required.

The assessment of the operating instructions will consist-primarily of a review of the system procedures, emergency operating procedures, alarm response procedures, and ctanding [

orders which affect the system. These procedures will be reviewed 'l for adequacy (Reference GL 89-13, Action V), completeness, and consistency with the system as modified. The review will also '

assess the impact of modifications on the operator's ability to perform required functions. ,

The operator training program, lesson plans, and course materials will be reviewed for the system. The review will identify the level of detail the operators are provided in the system design, ,

safety functions, and operation methods. It will evaluate if 7 modifications are properly included in the training program.  ;

I other operational controls that ensure correct alignment of SWS ]

valves and proper functioning of traveling screens will'also be assessed.

Finally, an assessment of the availability of essential system status information to the operator will be made. This status information includes system flows, pressures, temperatures, j alarms, etc., which are required for initiation of operator  ;

'I responses, actions, and decisions. This assessment will be accomplished by reviewing desi.,o documents, reviewing the control station area, interviewing operating personnel, and an in-depth system walkdown (Reference Action IV to GL 89-13). Particular attention will be given to the availability of the system status information at the time when the system safety function will.be required and local operation of equipment.

.i unen ~5- i j

l 4

i W'

( . . .., .

_ . . .)

.- - ~ __ . - ._.

e' 9 1

)

i 3.3 Eaintenance Review 1

The objective of the maintenance evaluation is to verify that the I

maintenance performed on the system is adequate to ensure the system will perform its safety related function. i i

The evaluation will focus on the performance of maintenance as it relates to maintaining the functional capability of the system. '

Maintenance records will be reviewed to determine if all system-safety-related components are included in the maintenance program. j Additionally, the maintenance evaluation will supply and receive information from the other evaluation areas to ensure the actual interfaces used to communicate and document the maintenance _

l process is assessed. Examples of these interfaces are activities such as release of equipment for maintenance and evaluation of recurring problems, etc.

~

The approach used to reach the objectives will consist of assessment of the physical conditions observed during system ,

walkdown (Reference Appendix D of NRC TI 2515/118), review of i applicable documents, discussions with selected maintenance personnel and, if possible, witness maintenance performed on the system.

3.3.1 Physical conditions will be determined through.

observation and backed up by the review of documentation such as machinery history records, failure reports, and i maintenance _ work requests. From this effort the adequacy .j level of system / equipment maintenance will be determined. l The system / equipment observations considered in the i assessment include; but are not limited to the following:

Leaks / general conditions Cleanliness / labeling  !

t Environmental conditions where equipment is located Erosion / Corrosion (Reference GL 89-13, Action III) j Silting /biofouling (Reference GL 89-13, Action III) i F

umn, 1 1

i

a 3.3.2 Documents will be assessed through review of maintenance procedures and guidelines which affect selected components within the sys' tem. The procedures.will be reviewed for adequacy (Reitrence GL 89-13, Action V), completeness, and consistency with Vendor recommendations. Selected maintenance documents of the following types will be reviewed:

Preventative Maintenance Corrective Maintenance Maintenance Procedures Maintenance Work Requests Maintenance Training Maintenance History Maintaining Equipment Qualification 3.3.3 Maintenance training records will be reviewed to determine if maintenance personnel are being trained in maintenance' processes and procedures.

3.3.4 Maintenance evaluation will include critical components and/or equipment or components that have exhibited a high number of failures. The entire maintenance process beginning with the identification of a problem and ending with the closecut of the maintenance work request will be z

reviewed for selected maintenance activities.

I T

1 4

t t

I I

neun i i

)

. , _ , _ ________I

4 &

4 N

3.4 Surveillance and Testino Review _.

1 The objective of the testing review is to verify that testing  ;

performed on the system In sufficient to demonstrate that the .

system will perform the intended function during the most. severe ,

operating conditions.

The evaluation will focus on functional testing of the system (and components within the system). ';

.)

3.4.1 Testing evaluation will begin with the accumulation of design and testing baseline information for the system, including  !

. Initial preoperational test requirements and criteria l Technical specifications

?

FSAR ,

I Periodic and surveillance test criteria Response to GL 89-13 Action I & II  ;

i Plant drawings IST Program -!

3.4.2 Selected samples of test data results will be evaluated 3

.and compared to the functional requirements of the system. e These will include:

Samples of design change package test sections and test N data to determine if specific test requirements are appropriate for the scope of modification; and acceptance criteria is adequate to verify that modifications to -!

components / system are properly implemented and completed and intended function operation was adequately proven.  ;

Sample of maintenance work requests will be evaluated to determine if post maintenance retest requirements are  !

adequate to ensure components / system has been restored to e a fully operational mode. {

Implemontation and effectiveness of actions I & II to GL 89-13 will be assessed. ,

r

?

nanm ~8-i t

b w

3.4.3 The surveillance and testing <avaluation review will cover a selected sample of.the follcwing cooponents:

Pumps and Drivers HOVs, Check Valves, Relief Valves Safety-Related Heat Exchangers support systems 3.4.4 Interviews with certain operators, supervisors, maintenance, and engir.eering personnel will be required to complete the evaluation.

3.5 Ouality Assurance and Corrective Actions Review The objective of this evaluation is to verify implementation of the Quality Assurance program for activities such as; on-site and off-site review committees, corrective action, technical specification operability 6eu2rminations, trending and quality verification. The technif;al adequacy and resolution for SWS .

events and conditions idontified by the licensee *s self-assessments will be reviewed.

This evaluation will also evaluate whether the. licensee's quality verification organizations are looking for and finding substantial problems, un=1 4 4 l

- 4.0 SCHEDULE Week 1 Team Leader and Director-Engineering Services (12/13/93) completes assessment plan, assembles ,

documentation, arranges work location for team, conducts orientation and training with assessment team and assigns areas for review.

Week 2 Team meets to prepare individual assessment (12/20/93) plans, take GET, assemble and review DBD.

t Week 3 Entire team meets on-site for entrance meeting, '

(1/10/94) badging, walkdowns and personnel' interviews.-

Week 4 In-office review of assessment documentation and .

(1/17/94) planning for next week on-site. l Week 5 on-site assessment activities. resume. Follow up  !

(1/24/94) on questions / concerns from week #3.

Week 6 In-office review of assessment documentation and (1/31/94) planning for the final week on-site. Review all l oustanding concerns.

Week 7 On-site assessment activities resume. Follow up f (2/7/94) on questions /concerne from previous weeks.

Tentative exit meeting with plant management on Friday.  ;

Week 8 Team meets in office to compile assessment (2/14/94) results and prepare report. ,

Week 9 Team Leader edits report and presents to' ,;

(2/21/94) Director - Engineering Services for review.

Week 10 Final report is issued.

(2/28/94)

-t I

e mann '

l I'

. a 5.6 RESPONSIBILITIES .

5.1 Vice President of Enoineerino (VY)

Has overall responsibility for the SWS self assessment. 'Is l responsible for providing Vermont Yankee support for the e development, implementation and resolution of questions and-concerns as outlined by this assessment plan. .;

5.2 Princioal Encineer (VY) 1 Is responsible to provide plant / corporate cognizance and primary interface with the assessment team. j 5.3 gDeoartment Supervisor /Manacer (VY)

Are responsible to initiate compliance and reportability reviews ,

as required by station procedures when documented concerns are potentially safety significant. Also responsible to initiate appropriate corrective action to resolve the concern.

5.4 Resoonsible Deoartment iteoresentative (VY)

Are responsible to provide a written response to all documented l requests or concerns assigned to them during the assessment. The response should include corrective actions for all concerns 4 concurred discrepant.  ;

5.5 Director of Enoineerino Services (YAEC) ,

Is responsible for establishing program direction and oversight to the assessment team. >

5.6 Vermont Yankee Proiect Manacer fYAEC) o Is responsible for providing the project support necessary for the assessment development, implementation and resolution of questions.  ;

and concerns as outlined by this plan.

an:n  :

- . l 5.7 Assessment Team Leader (YAEC)

Is responsible to direct the course of the inspection and to keep, the inspection focused on the important issues. Is responsible to provide orientation and training to team members on the approach, .

methodology and overall expectations. Is. responsible for reviewing and approving checklists, supplements, individual review plans and plant responses to all documented concerns. Is i

responsible to promptly advise plant management personnel of <

potential safety / operability items.

5.8 Assessment Team Member (YAEC1 Is responsible to develop and implement a review plan to evaluate the subject area (s) assigned in the SWOPI checklist. Each team member will keep field notes and a list of documents reviewed and  ;

personnel interviewed during the assessment. Each team member will write a factual account of how each objective was satisfied whether or not problems or concerns are uncovered during the review. Each team member will document questions / concerns using Attachment A.

P NOTE: Key members of the team will be dedicated to the assessment by relieving them of their normal responsibilities. Key members include: Team Leader, Mechanical Design Reviewer,. Maintenance Reviewer, Operations Reviewer and the Surveillance and Testing ,

Reviewer.

t I

umm .

o 9

e

.i 4

' 6.0 TEAM QUALIFICATIONS ,

i Technical Self-Assessment Procram Oversicht - Director of Engineering Services. Past Project Manager for Seven (7) Safety System _ Functional Inspections (SSFI). BWR Systems and Simulator Training. ParticipantLin SWS assessment at another plant. ,

Team Leader - Audit Group Supervisor / Certified Lead Auditor. Project  !

Manager of the SWS Safety System Functional Audit (SSFA) at another ,

plant. Past Rowe Simulator Supervisor / Project Engineer.

t Mechanical Desian Reviewer - (consultant with extensive SWS design and evaluation experience)

_ Electrical Desian Reviewer - Lead Electrical Engineer for Northeast Utilities Project. Team member on MOV self-assessment and SWS self-assessment at other plants.

Mechanical / Structural Desian Reviewer - Senior Mechanical Engineer.

Registered Professional Engineer. Experience includes SWS design analysis.

Maintenance Reviewer - Manager Plant Support Department. Past Maintenance Director and Maintenance Support Supervisor at Yankee Rowe. j Development and implementation of SWS preventive and predictive -!

maintenance programs including (GL 89-13 Actions)

Operations Reviewer - Technical Director at Yankee Rowe. Experience in

• PWR and BWR Power Plant Design, Analysis, Operation and Management.

Past Outage Coordinator and Vermont Yankee Project Engineer. Project Manager for Rowe EOP Development, Verification and Validation.

Surveillance and Testina Reviewer - (consultant with extensive SWS I design and evaluation experience) 9 OA/OC Reviewer - QA Audit Division Manager for Boston Edison. BWR System Training, Certified Lead Auditor. i 1

1 l

l mimrn -l 1

1 1

'I

7.0 QUESTION / CONCERN PROCESSING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION During the assessment, questions or potential concerns shall be j documented (see Attachment A - Question / Response Form) and presented to l the responsiblo organization for response or reply. See Figure 1 for flowchart of the qu1stion/ concern resolution process and Figure 2 for the team organization and VY interface. The timeframe allowed for response will be determined by the Team Leader and shall be commensurate with the significance of the concern. The Team Leader screens all concerns to identify the significant concerns. Conditions and concerns that are potentially safety significant will be promptly brought to plant management's attention for their action including determination of operability and reporting / notification. Responses will be reviewed by the originator of the question / concern and the team leader for adequacy.

Where appropriate, the response should address the type of corrective ,

action taken and/or proposed. Where responses do not resolve potential concerns, discussion will continue until resolution is achieved. The "

Team Leader has access to all levels of management but if the concern cannot be resolved prior to the exit meeting it will be identified as a QA finding that requires response and disposition via the audit process. ,

All documented questions and responses will be kept as records of the assessment. -I 8.0 SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT All unresolved concerns will be identified in the assessment report as Quality Assurance (QA) findings. Strengths and opportunities for improvement will also be included in the report.

9.0 FOLLOW-UP VERIFICATION i

QA will track, follow-up and close out all identified concerns. <

L 4

h t

kOMM ~14"  !

6

.=_ ,_ = _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ , . _ . _ _ __ .._ _

FIGURE 1 - QUESTION / CONCERN RESOLUTION ]

~

TECH. PROGRAM VY~ INTERFACE - - - - - - - TEAM LEADER OVERSIGHT _i i

i AUDIT TEAM Question .!

QUESTION /CONCERM ----------> Notebook Resolved RESPONSIBLE DEPT.

REPRESENTATIVE J

DEPT REPORTABILITY SUPERVISOR OPERABILITY >

EVALUATION MANAGER EVALUATION.

VY CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS OCCURRENCE REPORTS AP 0010 COMMITMENT TRACKING AP 0028 NON CONFORMANCE AP 6021 MAINTENANCE REQUEST AP 0021 CORRECT. ACTION REQ. AP 0007 o

~

3 4

.. i w

FIGURE 2 TEAM ORGANIZATION '

AND INTERFACE 6

Tech Program Vermont Yankee Oversight Team Leader _ _ _ ______

' Interface 4

Design -Maintenance Operations QA and CA Surv/ Testing- ,

-l l l l  !

! -l l l l l l l l l l- l l l l Plant' Plant Plant Plant' Plant

,: Representative Representative Representative Representative Representative

n "

..m., -

_ . _ - . . . . . . - . . - . . _ . . . . , . ..m.. --..,.-..2- . . . . . . . . . . -.....~..--_.m.,.

. . _ . . . _ . . m... , . - . . . . . . . - . _ _ _ _ , . . _ . . . . .

4 ATTACHMENT A - SERVICE WATER SYSTEM SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTION / RESPONSE FORM QUESTION NO.

DATE/ TIME:

AUDITOR:

TEAM LEADER:

SUBJECT:

QUESTION / REQUEST:

VY RESPONSE ASSIGNED TO: VY RESPONSE DATE:

VY RESPONSE:

R!rN"1

. _ _ .. ~ _ ,. ._. _. -

. ~ , ,

,p. ... .

3.=achmen: B. e v O7.1 R, n ,, it w U- n tC y..n. Lie i e

l ASS;GNED TC: j j lm!:e!41 i C3JECTiVE5

;1.01 Assess

ne ticensee s ::anre cr ccm::etec s:=ns ;n res:ense :

l a Genenc Lener eg-13, .

e.

1.;2 Venfy that

ne SWS ;s era:.e of futSng i:s :nermai anc nycrau:!c  ;

,i performance recu:remen s anc is c; era:ec c:ns: stent we its ces:gn j

. ;k bases. i n

r 01.03 Assess the SWS c era icnai cen:rc s. main:enance, survenlance. anc ,

c:ner testng, anc personnei training to ensure ce SWS is c: era:ed anc l k '

mamta:nec se as to cetrn its safew re!atea fune cns.

}d m!!v.s.02 EACKGROUND Preytcusty iden:rf;ec SWS crc::l ems inciude: Inacecuate hes removal

'h capacility, bicfculing, :itng, singie failure c ncems. ercsren. c rresion.

p_

insufficent ong:nal ces gn marg:n, lacses in caniigura:ica cen:rci er d

-J imcrecer 10 CFR 50.59 saferv evaluatens. and inadecuate tes:inc. .

q E

m.

2515ma413 l INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS i p 03.01 l Meenanical Systems *Encineenng Desien Review *Ccnficura:cn Control l j

'l'  !

a.(1) Review the cesign-tas:s anc cther ces:gn cccuments sucn as calcula-

' tiens and analyses for the SWS, and determine the func:enal recu re-i ments fcr SWS ano eacn ac:ve component cunng acacent er acncrmai concitict:s. Inc!xe the accreenateness of the cesign assumctons, Q .

bouncarv concitons. and maceis. f l.3

~  !.

Q; STATUS:

1

, tj i q j a.(2] Determ:ne tf the syste"n ces:gn is in ac:Orcance we fachty's licensing C0mmitments anc regulatory recuirements.

,1 STA TUS:

C, N  ; a.[2] Cetermine if the system wn! meet the thermal anc hycrau!:c ;er rmance l N l recuirements. I 5i STA TUS.

tj 0

i -s a.[4] Determ:ne if asscea:ed design cutout cccuments sucn as faciity draw- . , ,

b ings and procurement spdca:iens are consistent with the design bases and eng:neering anaivses.

f M

STATUS:

.[ b. Rev ew the SWS ccnf!gura:On crawings for cons:stency witn applica:!e desica cocuments. NRC recuirements. and licensinc commitments.

'da i STATU*

I M,

c. Review the SWS cceraten as ccmcared to the design cocuments. 1 STATUS:

M[

& d.[1] Evatuate sing:e ac:ve fa:!ure vulnerac:iities cf the sys:em anc the resuit-

!% ing impact en interfacng sys:em ccmcenents such as emergency ciesel

$e  ;

generaters. .

q -

V STA TuS.

j c.(2] Evalua:e the erfect on SWS cperacility cf failures to interfaeng systems.

b,1 2., sucn as instrument air.

i p

j d.{3] Examine pc

en::21 c:r . men mece failures frcm fcuting cf ccmrt:ca l

ntakes or :ravenne s:reens.

• 1. ' I 37A T ;S. l 4

~

B-1 9

7

. Attachmem B. SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST Review the e*feceveness ciany cesign fea:ures instarted to minim:ze i 03 01 e.[1] i i

I siltinc and bicfcutinc cf tne a:c:n; ano ccmconents

.$ 5 TATUS:

j* e.[2] Venfy il features are provicea for tne emely ceteccon of *,cw cegraca-ten.

A STA TUL f

j e.[3] Venfy rf flew catancng has ceen concucted cunng vances system cperatng mooes. Flow ba:ancng ven5caten snould be cone for worst

(- case carne:natens cf cumo coeraten.

Q

\ STATUS: -

Q h

e.[4] Venfy mat pump runcut cend: tons are not present with min: mum num-({, ber cf pumps operstng with worst case alignment of non-safety related

? loads.

L STATUS:

s Evaluate min: mum and maximum kmrts for varve positons and ensure h e.[5]

' these hmits are crecerly translated into cceratonal controis.

b - STA NL. - ...s.

q Iy Venfy thatl ystem f!aw talance is consistent with key design assump-e.[o]

trons, when ava:lable, for flow coeffic:ents, ra:ed pressure crops across 3

components and piping, rated heat removal, heat excnanger fouling, and 4

b total system flew for coeratnc meces.

s

+ STATUS.

L.'

is Check whetner cesign features are prov:ded to mitgate tne etiects of

$ f.

f Q

floooino caused by SWS leaks.

STA W L W

g. Review the safety-retated person of the system for seismic qual:5caton h v and venty that non-safety-related portons can be isolated in accordance

[ with the crovisions scec:fied in the system design bases.

a .

Y STATUS:

f. '

.I E h. Review all mcc:5caton to the SWS. Inc ude 50.59 eva!uatens and en.

E sure that the changes have net ecmcromised the system design basis pi and have included revised ma:ntenance requirements and procecures.

H cceratino crocedures, training. and cenodic testing as necessarv.

^

b S TA TUS'

+

IJ

t. Evaluate the assessment to Acton IV cf GL 89-13. Scecal note cn b- system alignment.

S TA TUS.

ll J.

Review the program for man::cnng sys:cm ce;:acaton. Evaluate performance trenc:ng, and acequacy of engineenng evalua::en and f 4 ccerabihty determinatens.

STA TUS

_4

k. Review the se::;c;nts fer ataar.s anc a::n.:atons to ensure tney are

' CenS: stent Wdh Ine cesic", cas:S anc a!Sumecer'!.

{

STA'US .

I B-2

. i,

.Anach:nent B; W-. ..O PI t 1. . n R,.\.--... ~.nr.CIu.. id L .T j 1

, C: era =ns i I

- 101C2 1

! a. . I Red:rm an :n.ce:tn sys:em wamcwn. Rev:ew me F V5 c:nd;urat;cn  ! l

!  ! f:t :ns:stency witn ces n crawm:3.  !  !

STAivs )' \

l h.,l Review Ine SWS alarm res:ense Or:cecures anc c: era ng pr:cecures i ,

c <

c.[1] 4

' i

.,  ; for nom al, a:ncrmai. anc emegency system c: era::ns to assure ce i

+  !

i system is creratec witnin tne ces:gn enverece. ,

m.9 STATUS:

a c Review me im::t:menta=n ci c:ers: ; ano a: arm res=nse cr::a- .  ;

7,  : 51 dures. Assess acecua:y cif:w mstruments:en renec c:en cunng ace: cent c DC: tens. l

j. ., ~ h y S7pms

.L.

p Review avaiiacle operatng logs to determine ace:;uacy of temperature f:; b.[3]

g

%1 and flcw monitenne.

STArds: l 7

b.p  !

Review coeratcr training for the SWS. focus:ng cn the tecnn: cal c0m- j c.

kJ 1 pleteness and accuracy cf the training manual anc lessen ptans. Snsure

.71 i that me lessen c!ans refett me system mocificatons anc that the

'M w licensed cceratcr: have been tramec cn these moc:ficatens.

• 1a .1 t ti i STATUS. i ,.

1%

e.w Review Ine procer imp:ements:cn cf procecures for ventying penec:c  ;

ag j d.(1) '

ff, ' and pest-maintenance alignments cf valves in the SWS es:ec:sdy mcse il i vatves that isciate f!cw to safetv-re!sted ccmcenents.

we s,, i STAWS: l ra  !

a'.*

• T d.(2) Venfy that recuired at:: cent conc:t:en now is not cegraced dunng ncrmal systen* cceraten valve alignments.

,J '

STAWS:  !

t b

! a '

I I d.I31 Review the memod used te vent < crc er SWS thrette valve cost::en.

G d4 STANS:

M' Review control of SWS heat excnanger flcw vanatens cue to enang:ng pl].* d.@j hv c'imate (temcerature) conditions.

r STATUS:

w.

T') e. Wa:k througn the system cpera:ng prececures anc the system P& ids.

Venfy that the precedures can te performed and that components &

ecuicment are accesstte for normal and emergency cperaten. If any -

b g scec:al equipment is recuired to cerfcrm these procedures. determ:ne if the ecuipment is avadable and in good working order. Venfy that the tg ,

coeraters knowiecpe of ecu:::rnent locaten and ccera10n is acecuate. ,

r s o.: ,

STArus.

f. Intennew the cperators to cetemi:ne Ine acecuacy of the:r tecnn::al

• O  ;

knowledge of sucn items as the cceranen cf the system, its rate in h i ace: cent mdgation. tec'in: cal scec:5 cane survetilance recuirements. '

IS l and detemiinaten of ccerability.

O' u

Siams: l, e

B-3 a  :

3 )

r i*

O e

• . Attachment B. SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST s

N

• Q 03 C2 g.

Review ine local coersten of e:ucment. Determine if the incica::en ava;iade to cperate the ecuement is in a=:rcance w::n at:!cacle

, l '

fj  ! c:eratng pr:cedures anc insructens. Venfy that the environmental c0nadons, su:n as excec:ec icom temocrature, emergency lightng, 3 and steam, assumed uncer accident conc! tens are adequate for remote Q3 creration of ecuement.

. i

>d yJ STA TU5:

l 9.g t

h. Assess operatonal contrets for traveling screens and c:rculatng water Q S-pumps to predude excessive crawcown of the intake bay, with associ-ated less of SWS pumo su :en head, as a result of ciegging the travel-

-b ing s::reens.

& STAmt c 7b 1 l f

f 03.03 l Maintenance Conduct an indepth system wa!kdown to review the as-configured

& a.

system for matenal condition. (Pefemnce Accendix D cf TI 2515/118.)

( STATUS:

.y 7' If pcssitte, weess ma:ntenance performed en SWS. Review package t b.

[ crec and ceserve CC invcivement. ..

f:j S TAWS: ,

-C1 Review maintenance procecures for tecnncal adecuacy. Compare to f1( c.

'y vendor manuais to identfy any vencer recommendatons not incorpo-rated. Verify thatimocriant manua!s are ccmolete and uo to date.

'M O STATUS:

a

. %;t Review tne rnanntenance program for removal and repair of SWS pip:ng

.. p j d.

h and interface system components due to siiting, bicicuhng, corrosion, D erosion. and failure of cretectve coatnc.

2. ~

STATUS:

.d! "

Determine if the SWS components are being adequately maintained to p e.

y ensure their operability under all a::ddent concitions. Review informa; , _

!! n regarding unavailacility due to planned maintenance as an indicator f.a C

u of maintenance adecuacy. -

STATUS:

Q M M f. Remew the maintenance history for the selected components of the SWS for the past two cperating cydes (minimum of 2 years) er longer if hd necessary. Lock for recurring eculpment problems and detennine if any g.j trends ex:st Eva!uate the acecuacy of the root cause analysis and i

gi correctve a :cns implemented in response to adverse trends. Redw f for tech adecuacy, performance of apprognate post maintenance

{d; lest:nc. and sat:sf= cry cemonstration of ecuicment coeracility. l

[*

L; STATUS: ,..

b g. Concuct cetailed interviews wan tne maintenance personnei to ceter-mrne tneir tecnncat knowiedge of how comconents are ma;ntaine1 suen k[i L

as the se:tng Of hm:t swn::nes. the alignment of pump cou !ings. c'ean-ino and re::tacmo Eters. and the maintenance of dr:u:t breakers.

f l STA TUS:

a i j M

i hh i k

A c . r . n_ 2 :-

.....,_.c...

. . ~ . .

3. ~ s. . ,v; O.. _r 3 m; . _ . r. T ~a .

2 e: erne :f ma.n: ens =a :ers=ner receive a:e::s:e tar n;;er.a n. I

, ';2 :2 -

9;:: re SWS an :f re ce; se :t trar ng mwce: 2 =ns:s:en wnn ,

re am:un: d tec=ca :e:22 n e :mee:ures ,

i i :T;;.;S. j i, -

I-

' f I i

L l Review tre cenec:c ms:sc=n mgram tsee t: cetec: c:nts:cn. era- >

1 s:en. c=tec:ve c:acnc fa!!ure. s:itne anc cidcutinc.

STATLS:

I C2 C4 i Sunen! anes anc Test:nc I F .

• a.  ! :ev ew anc evaluate me ta=n: cat 2:ecuacy anc a=ura:y t te tecnm !i  ?

i ,

car s ecticaten surveuia .ca em:ecures anc interr.ce :est:mtecures '  ;

ericrmec in me :ast two c: era:ng cyc:es (m:n: mum of 2 years) fcr me l SWS.

STA TUS:

b. Review the SWS design E Ming basis. Verdy that test acceptance ,

! cn+eria are consistent witt, % e agn tas:s to ensure me SWS testng i adequately demons

• rates that tne SWS will ccerate as des!gnec. Re-v:ew incicaters cf SWS peretmance to icentfy if any test:ng inacecua-  ;

. :es ex::t er if test frecuency is a::::=:nate. De: ermine if surveni!ance l

l test crocecures ccmcrenenstve:v adcress recu: red SWS resecnnes. '

STATUS.

(* l

, l i .

Review resuits trem pre <:: era::nal tesung to cetermine wnether me j SWS ca::a::ilites anc limitauens were acpre nately cemenstrated. l ,

l '

Petermme wnether acom:na:e c:ntm:s were esta:fisnea to avcic .

2 unacceptacle system er ccmcenent c:eraung reg:mes sucn as 1:mmng

• 1 -

l. . valve travel to avc: curno runcut c ncdcns.

' STA TUS:

l

l. -

1

d. Svaluate the support systems and clant mcc 5catons to ensure that ,

surveihnce and testnc has been crecerty cerfctmed.

I STATt!S:

9

. e. Review the inservice test rec::r:s for pumcs anc valves in the SWS. with ,

i.

j an empnasis on the technical adequacy cf procedures, trencing cf test results and recurrent failures. Review the IST program for c:mplete-a

,1 ness.

$ STATUS: ,

5

i. -

f. Review now scec5c SWS instn:ments are calibrated and tested. how 1

i valve streke tme testng is ped:rmec. and how and whe'e temccrary test eculcment is instafled to venfy ccm::liance with tecnnical scec5ca-T.i i

. tien cperacility requirements. Venfy the tolerance used forinstrument i

a=uracyis accectacle.

j STATUS. .

t  !

n-l- 9 !f poss:c!e. witness pcst-maintenance. surverdance, anc inservice tests a , ericrrred en the SWS. .

h. '

I l ,

?

y l l STATUS:

Review prececures for cen c:c tes::ng ci safety-relatec neat exenanger i

-  ! h.

I heat transfer cocar;lity and the tren.cinc cf sucn results.  !

I I STATUS.

l l

• 1 B-5 4 i v - _

. . i t -

^

I , Attachmem B. SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST ,

J ,

For me ac ;tewous ccera:ng cyces (2 years min: mum) pre:ec:ng me ,

, j C3.04 i.

ins;ecten, ascenain tne system train, pum:s. er s:gn:ficant cemeenent i unavailacility cunng power and snutc0wn conc: tens. C m:are :ne 4 l a:*ual unavailacility data to that assumed by the iPE.

j

, STATUS:

3 j.* j. Venfy mat me instal!ed SWS componen:s are tested to ensure Ine I ccmcenens wtil cericrm in acecrdance with their cesicn bases.

STATUS:

O

k. Review tne imciementanen of tne penccic ms:e=en program to cetect

.j >

flcw blocxage from ticiculing in cther systems. This incuces the f.re g.

cro:ecten systern that uses the same scurce cf water as the SWS.

q STAWS:

-Q N

4 L Review testng en one air-to-water heat ex:nanger served by me SWS l to ensure crecer heat transfer. Examine the air side for fouling.

N STATUS:

~u f i i Cuality Assurance anc Correc::ve Actons f 03.05 Review the meetng minutes of the p: ant ons:te safety review committee, j a.

ij and the,cffsite safety review committee for the past six months for items F certainine to the SWS.

k STATUS: ' -

t Review the operatonal h: story of the SWS. incudmg LERs. NFRDS, T b.

10CFR5012 re:crs ent:r:ement ac:cns. NCR's. TIS c eracility ce:e.~ninatens. ma:ntenance werx re:uests, and adverse test results or Q recurrent test fa:iures. Em:nasize the acecua:y of rect-cause evalu-1 ations.

h

? STATUS:

Compare the resutts of the (NRC) team's assessment of the areas h c.

j inspected for the SWS with the results cf applicable licensee qua!!!y ven5catens ac:: vites in the same areas (i.e. operanens maintenance,

[

i surveillance and testng. engineenng cesign, and design controi).-

f Determine wny the licensee s actvities did not un cver s:gnificant issues identfied by the (NRC) team.

f I STATUS:

v Y

d. Review the tmeitness and tecnnical adequacy of licensee resciuten of

.h il findings from its se!f-assessments. Review the c0en item traing system items pertaining to the SWS for adecuate traing and ct:sure of 2

y ident5ed defeiences.

h STATUS:

7.<

d

e. tvaluate the in:eria:e tenveen eng:neenng and tecnnical su::crt l n

(ESTS) and plant coerations. regare:n; ccrre=ve acons :c resolve l g;.  ;

I c eratonat crecems.

j d Statue. i O l c1 J l

I B6 i l

.