ML20063P825
| ML20063P825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1982 |
| From: | TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063P823 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-820913, NUDOCS 8210150353 | |
| Download: ML20063P825 (18) | |
Text
-- - -------- _ - - - - - - - - - - -
' ~
E I
'I PROGRAM PLAN I
fI INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW OF l WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM I
I I
I I LOUISIANA /142 DELARONCE STR POWER & LIGHT new ontExuS.tr.voin iso 4 3se.2345 l uTiuTies SYSTEM I AUGUST 1982 I
d owcv l !!J AB88R SE!878R
I I
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I.
SUMMARY
1 II. TASK DESCRIPTIONS 3 Task A - Design Procedure Review 3 Task B - Design Procedure Implementation Review 6 Task C - Technical Review 8 I i Task D - Physical Verification Walkdewn 11 l
A i Task E - Processing of Pctential Findings 13 Task F - Acministrative & Reporting 17 I
I I
I I Revi ion B 9/13/82
I.
SUMMARY
This program plan has been developed for an independent design review of the emergency feedwater system for the Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit No. 3 mis program will be performed by TerNy Pines Technology, a division of the General Atmic Ccmpany, for Louisiana Power & Light Cmpany. The program is divided into six tasks I as follcus:
Task A Design Procedure Review Task B Design Procedure Implmentation Review Task C Technical Review -
l Task D Physical Verification Walkdown AI Task E Processing of Potential Findings i Task F Administrative and Reporting I General Atmic Cmpany, through its Terrey Pines Technology Division, is eminently qualified to perform this evaluation for Louisiana Power & Light Company. We operate under the first NRC-approved quality assurance program. We have available the significant expertise in both quality assurance and design required to review in detail the Waterfcrd-3 mergency feedwater system, starting with a review of the design procedures and their impleentation through a review of the technical design aspects of this system.
i We, as a canpany , have not had significant invcivenent with Louisiana Pcwer & Light Ccrnoany in the imediate past. The individuals assigned to this program are free fran conflict of interest.
This independent review is schedule to be ccmpleted in December 1982. The cverall schedule is shcwn in Fig.1.
!I
!I I ,
Revision E 9/13/82
EM ME M M M M M M M TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY Q DBUISION Of GE Nt RAL ATOMIC L OMPANY Fig. 1 Proposed Schedule for LP&L Independent Design Review l SEPTEMBER OCT0!!ER NOVEMllER DECEMBER I. INITIAL EFFORT (Assemble people, clearances, training, program plan, prepare procedures, QA program, acquire data, etc.)
II. EFW SYSTEM DESIGil VERIFICATION A. Design Procedure Review *
" 11 Design Procedure Implementation Review C. Technical Review Al D. Phyalcal Verification Walkdown III. PFR PROCESSING IV. REPORTS (S - Status Reports) 17 78 78 7 9 '[" t Revision B 9/13/82 l
II. TASK DESCRIPTIONS I
The purpose of this progra is to conduct an independent review cf the Waterford 3 emergency feedwater (EFW) system frm NRC approved design basis to final design docurcents. The progra will not review the design Ai process performed by equipment fabricators other than Ccmbustion l Engineering Inc. (CE) and Dravo.
I The progr a is structured to verify that the design process converted the design basis specified in the F3AR into design doctinents.
I The detailed description of the tasks included in this progra are in the following subsections.
TASK A - DESIGN PROCEIXJRE REVIEW l Obiective To verify compliance of design procedures and controls with the NRC-approved QA section of the PSAR or to 10CFR-Part 50, Appendix B. The procedures and controls used by LP&L, Ebasco, and CE will be reviewed.
l The procedures and controls of Dravo and Bergen/Pattersen, two majcr A! piping and supports subcontractors to Ebasco, will also be reviewed.
'I Subtasks I A1 Prepare a procedure and checklist to acccmplish the evaluation described herein.
A2 Provide a detailed description of the complete structure of the design control procedures applicable to the EFW system design j
work performed by LP&L, Ebasco, Dravo, Bergen/Pattersen, and CE.
Ai This description will include a ccaprehensive list of all l relevant procedures.
'l 3 Revision B 9/13/82
, In carrying out this work item, it will be asstzned that the majcr A EFW design work was perfcrmed by LP&L, Ebasco, Dravo, Bergen/
~
l Patterson or CE. If this is not the case and other organizations also performed significant overall design work, then those organizations will be identified and their design control procedures will be identified and described.
I A3 Determine that the CE procedures used for Waterford-3 are essential.ly the same as the procedures used for either the San Onofre or Palo Verde plants.
I 1. If it is determined that the same procedures were used, then no further review of the CE procedures will be performed.
- 2. If the titles and revisions of any of the CE prccedures are different frcm those used either on San Onofre or Palo Verde, then the principal aspects, in terms of the "who," "what,"
I "when," and "how," and the controls described in each will be compared to identify differences, if any, in the approaches taken on the Waterfcrd-3 project versus the San Onofre or Palo Verde projects, a) If the principal aspects of the controls are basically the same, then no further review of the CE procedures will be I perfcrmed and the results of the previcus TPT reviews will be used as the basis for this review.
b) If the principal aspects of the controls described in the CE procedures for LP&L appear to contain basic differences frcm that described in either the ccmparable San Onofre er Palo Verde precedures, then the affected CE procedures will be reviewed in detail for compliance with PSAR cccmitments and NRC requirements.
I I
Revisicn B 9/13/82
I l A4 Obtain (or use on-site) copies of CE, LP&L, Dravo, Bergen/Patterson, AI and Ebasco procedures identified in A2.
Ai The initial collection of procedures frcm CE, LP&L, Dravo, Bergen/
l Patterson, and Ebasco will include only currently applicable
! revisions.
A5 Review all current procedures affecting the EFW system design work for confermance to the commitments in the latest PSAR.
A6 Review selected design control procedure revisions applicable in time periods other than those covered in A5 for ccmpliance to the applicable PSAR commitments, per A5 above.
I A7 Stomarize the design procedure review, including any Potential Findings. This information will be included in the reports of Task F.
I Milestones Dates A1 Procedure and Checklist 9/24/82 A2 Ccmplete Procedure Structure 10/8/82
, A3 Review CE Procedures 10/8/82 l
Access LP&L, Dravo, Bergen/Patterson, I Ai A4 i and Ebasco Procedures 10/29/82 l Ai A5 Review LP&L, Leavo, Bergen/Patterson, l l and Ebasco Procedures 10/29/82 A6 Review Selected Procedures frcm Previous Time Pericds 11/5/82 A7 Stomarize Results 11/12/82 I
l I
II 5
Revision B 9/13/82
I TASK B - DESIGN PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEN I Obiective To verify, through s tamr' e of EFW system design docunents, compliance with the design pr acedures and controls identified in Task A.
Subtasks I B1 Prepare procedure and checklist to acccmplish the evaluation described herein.
Select the design docunents to be reviewed for compliance with the I B2 procedures. The selection of docunents for review will be based on the following critieria:
- 1. All docunents reviewed in Task C will be included.
- 2. Additional design docunents for the EFW system shall be selected for other Quality Class I cr II items frcm the Equipnent Classification List in the FSAR.
I 3 The selection shall include work by LP&L, if any, Ebasco, Dravo, Ai Bergen/Pattersen and CE.
!! . The selection shall include design docunents such as calculations, drawings, specifications, memos, change notices, computer code verification reports.
I 5. The selection shall include work which spans the calendar pericd I of the design effort, and which covers all phases of the design process.
B3 Locate pertinent design docunents.
6 Revision B 9/13/82
I B4 Evaluate implementation of desiE n procedures identified in Task by A! revicwing LP&L, Ebasco, Dravo, Bergen/Patterson, and CE design i doctments for compliance with those procedures.
B5 Stearize the review werk for inclusion in the reports of Task F.
_ Milestones I B1 Procedure and Checklist Dates 10/1/82 B2 Selection of Design Doctments 10/1/82 B3 Location of Design Doctments 12/8/82 B4 Review Design Doctments 12/8/82 B5 Stmarize Results 12/17/82 I
I I .
I 7
I Revision B 9/13/82
I TASK C - TEQiNICAL REVIEN Obiectives The objective of this task is to review the structural, mechanical and electrical design of a selected portion of the energency feedwater system to assure that the system design is adequate to perfcrm its l intended function. The emergency FW pump rocm cooler (AH-Air Handler)
Bl which impacts the EFW system, will also be reviewed. This will include review to assure that the design is in compliance, with NRC approved design bases and methodologies as given in the FEAR.
Subtasks C1 Prepare specific procedures and evaluation criteria for the design review using ANSI N.45.2.11, Section 6.3.1 criteria for guidance.
I The procedures will selectively address the following as they apply to each subtask:
Adequacy of design specification.
I o o Applied loads, o Mathematical model used for analysis, o Input to analysis, o Validation of computer code used, o Output of analysis.
o Calculations shcwing compliance with approved standards.
I C2 Prepare a design chain for majcr structures and ecmponents to I identify majcr design organizations and interfaces.
C3 Select the system features to be reviewed based on the follcwing criteria:
I Revision B 9/13/82
(
o The system featurea shall include safety-related mechanical components, controls, electrical, and piping.
l l
o Features which have design interfaces between the varicus major design organizations shall be included.
o Features selected shall be representative of safety-related portions of the system.
Bl o The design of the emergency feedwater pmp rocm cooler (AH-Air
[ Cooler) for one rocm containing motcr driven EFW equipment shall l be reviewed.
I o A range of design methods shall be covered.
AI o Condition Identification Work Authorizations (CIWA's) which have
! engineerir; design implications for the EFW system will be included.
Al C4 Obtain current design doctreentation frcm LP&L, Dravo, Bergen/
I Patterson, Ebasco and CE and perform review.
The review will be conducted in five major disciplines,
- a. Structural Review The structural review will address the structural adequacy of the piping, pipe supports and pump support. One ptrnp support and one representative pipe hanger will be reviewed in detail to determine their adequacy to properly restrain the equipment fcr all appropriate FSAR criteria. In addition, a sample area cf the system piping will be selected and evaluated fcr adequate Bl damage protection against the effects of high energy line breaks I and/or foreign missiles within the proximity.
9 Revisien B 9/13/82
- b. Instrumentation and Centrols Review I Instrumentation and controls, including control logic diagrams, will be reviewed to confirm that the EFW system can be configured to operate properly in both normal and accident modes of operation.
- c. Mechanical Review
'Ihe design of the EFW system will be reviewed to confim operational capability to function appropriately under both nomal and accident conditions. The review will consider both the mechanical and hydraulic characteristics / capabilities to provide assurance of the system adequacy. In addition, the i steam supply path to the turbine driven punp will be reviewed Ai for potential condensate buildup or water slugging which would l adversely affect the turbine drive operability.
- d. Electrical Review The electrical design of the EFW system will be reviewed to confirm that the supply of electrical power, under both normal and accident conditions, will permit proper operation of the system.
I Fluid System Review e.
l The EFW fluid system review will address the adegracy cf the j verall system to moet the basic functional requirements for the Bi system. Capacities, temperatures and pressures will be i reviewed. Review of the air cooler system will determine heat i removal requirements and verify that the design air is adequate i for safety-related operations.
10 Revision B 9/13/82
C5 Id:rtify r.eed for independent analysis with different analytical i models and computer codes than those used by LP&L, if any, and by AI Dravo, Bergen/Patterson Ebasco, or CE. Independent analysis shall i be done if one cf the following situations arises:
o The analytical output cannot be adequately judged based on ANSI N 45.2.11, Section 6.3.1.
o The method of analysis does not appear reasonable.
o The impact of Potential Finding cannot be ascertained.
C6 Sumnarize the technical review work for inclusion in the reports of Task F.
Milestones Dates C1 Review Procedures and Criteria 9/13/82 C2 Prepare Design Chain 9/13/82 C3 Feature Selections On-Going C4 Design Review 11/15/82 C5 Identify Need for Independent Analysis 11/8/fs2 C6 Sunmarize Results 12/3/82 I
11 Revision B 9/13/82
TASK D - PHYSICAL VERIFICATION WALKDOWN Obiective The objectives of this task are to determine that (1) the physical installation of the EFW system conforms to the requirenents of design l drawings and specifications, and (2) to identify heat-load contributors in the portion of the HVAC system selected in Task C.
Subtasks D1 Prepare procedures for each unique type cf walkdown or inspection.
Collectively these procedures will address the following as they apply to each feature:
o Installation of components in acccrdance with design documents.
o Installaticn of the EFW in accordance with P&I diagrams, o Installation of piping in accordance with drawings and isometrics.
A o Agreement between component functional rating, as given on nameplates, with design requirements, as given in corresponding specification, o Inspection of selected features for compliance with design details, o Equipnent part nunters/ tag nunbes o agree with drawings.
D2 Choose items for physical verification frcm those features selected for design review under Task 3. These will include majcr components, piping, and pipe supports. Item selection may consider design margin as detennined frcm the design review, to the extent allcwed by the schedule.
12 Revision B 9/13/82
- - J
I D3 Obtain an inventory cf the heat load sources affecting the selected portion of the hYAC system by performing a walkdown of the area containing the selected portion.
D4 Perform walkdown to verify the adequacy of the installation. 'Ihe walkdown will visually verify that the selected components, and piping have been installed in proper relative positions. 'Ihe piping isometric walkdown will dimensionally verify routing and support locations as well as general support arrangement. Selected components and supports will also be inspected to dimensionally verify such details as material sizes, weld types, fasteners, and attachments to the struct,re.
I A D5 Sumarize results of the work in Task D for inclusion in firal report.
Milestones Dates D1 Prepare walkdcwn procedures 10/22/82 D2 Choose itens for physical verification 10/22/82 D3 Canplete heat load source inventory 10/25/82 D4 Ccmplete walkdowns 11/19/82 D5 Summarize Results 12/3/82
.I I
13 Revision B 9/13/82
TASK E - PROCESSING OF POTENTIAL FINDINGS I Obiective To review and doctznent all Potential Findings identified during the review; to provide for evaluation and classification of the significance of Potential Findings; and to transit Findings to LP&L, Ebasco, and CE.
Descriotion Tasks A, B, C, or D may identify potential differences between the EFW system design and the design requirements. These differences will be doctanented in Potential Finding Reports. Follcwing the filing of a PFR it is reviewed by the appropriate task leader. The purpose of this review is to determine if the PER is valid, that is, if it is accurate, well defined and traceable to a specific requirement.
I 'Ihe original design organization constitutes the next level of review. The PFR is sent to the appropriate organization for the same type of accuracy and definition review as was conducted by the task leader. At the same time a copy of the PFR is sent to the LP&L representative.
When the PFR is returned fran the original design organization, it is sent back to the initiator and the task leader. Based on the infcrmation supplied by this organization, the initiator may modify the lg B PFR cr just comment on the crganization's response. The task leader can only add his comments. Follcwing this review, the PER is sent to the f
i Findings Review Committee.
An impact assesment for the Potential Finding is prepared to define the potential for impact on the safety of the plant. Tne impact assesment and the PER are then sutmitted to the Findings Review l
Ccmmittee fcr evaluation.
14 Revision B 9/13/82
This committa is comprised of five senicr technical people at GA who have extensive experience and broad knowledge of the design and construction of nuclear power plants. It is the purpose of this committee to evaluate each PFR and classify it according to an established criteria.
A Potential Finding is classified as invalid if after the above-described review, the initiator, the task leader, and the original design organization agree that the Potential Finding is inaccurate. In addition, Potential Findings can be classified as invalid if two of the above-identified three reviewers conclude that the Potential Finding is invalid and the Findings Review Comittee also decide it lacks validity.
I The review procedure will contain criteria for classifying a valid Potential Finding as either a Finding or an Observation. Basically, if a Potential Finding is a deviation that could result in a substantial safety hazard, or if there is an indication of a repetitive or generic deviation that could create a substantial safety hazard, the Potential Finding is classified as a Finding. Potential Findings that are valid, but that do not satisfy the above criteria for a Finding, are classified as Observations.
The classification of the Potential Finding is reviewed by the Project Manager to detennine if the correct procedures have been follcwed. Subsequently, the Observations and Findings are sent to the LP&L representative for resolution. In the case of Findings, a Corrective Action Plan is prepared by LP&L and returned for review. This review is to determine if the Corrective Action Plan satisfies the concern expressed in the Finding. Each Corrective Action Plan is reviewed by the initiator of the Finding, the task leader, the Findings Review Ccmittee and the GA project manager.
In each step of this review process the comments and information that are added become a permanent part of the PER. All PFRs will be included in the final progrem repcrt that is transnitted to LP&L and to the NRC.
I 15 Revision B 9/13/82
Subtasks El Establish a Findings Review Committee. This committee will be ccmposed of senior technical people with broad experience in engineering management.
E2 The Ccamittee will identify specific criteria for determining the degree of impact that Potential Findings have on the design adequacy of the Waterfcrd-3 ERI system.
E3 Establish a detailed procedure to prccess Potential Findings. This procedure will assure that LP&L and Ebasco, or CE have verified the definition and accuracy cf the Potential Finding. The basic process is shown in Fig. 2.
I Milestones Dates El Establish Ccmmittee 9/17/82 E2 Define Criteria .. 10/1/82 E3 Establish Specific Procedure 10/1/82 1
I iI l
I I
.I 16 Revision B 9/13/82
TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY A OMGOr J CF GINFML ATEWBC CIMMfW Fig.2 Pn0CinunE f 0n ranCESSING flNulNGS .
I I l tut.
g l OlliGtNAL DESIGli isAsto, l GA 8tJill A100 GA I ASK il AllIll l OllGANilAll0N ff l flNDINGSil[VitW COMMIIIIE l G A ril0JICI MANAGill g tha tuttbilvts l
l l ; @-* te6L -
l l l
I itNAL '
," lli Vil W > -> COPY 10 LP6L lit CYCLE IOH MOHE jl[CI g, t,th gg , : -* LP&L l g INf ullMAll0N l
Hf0HISI llIL R[Vilw l
INCOMPL ET E l d'
f e l
-F NltC A HIE EVAlHAIL l flNAL It[ Vil WI ItEV!LWI flEVIEW/ AGHEE ll lil VISE COMMINI
+ M00lly U ""U A0f 0l.CY -> CORHil.IIVf ADLOUACY l stall Mi tel
AC ll0!l PL At:
DISAGIlEE 083MPIIIf *
lllSAGHf E l - INVAtt0
> Olt *r l I Mulltf(CA18074 l g yg, ,,4, g MAUD IINDINM l lit vilWI ,
ir HL VISE l l VAlllillY l l 'V Al lD l l l 4 > I;nultlGS + 08SEltVAllON l; I l l v l "
l fl[VilW/ PROC [ UUll AL VAtlD g p e l g ,g y '
COMMLNI I f!EVIEW s, Pit 0 POSE O l
l l g
+ flN0 LNG 00ftH1CIIVE lilL Nilf Y 10[ N11f Y , Pil0EIblHt AL 2 ACIl0NPLAN IMPACI IMPACI l l lit.Vit W I I I l i l > lit vit W -
l l l 1
H t vit W I l l ei v i i i l T
> ntviEW PEviEw OEVIEW l i I I I Revision B 9/13/82
TASK F - ADMINISTRATIVE AND REFORTING Obiective Provide administrative and management support for the project.
Prepare biweekly status reports, and a final evaluation report on I Findings and conclusions with respect to adequacy of the design of the Waterford-3 Emergency Feedwater System.
Subtasks F1 Provide management of the design review program and accmulate cost and schedule data.
I F2 Prepare biweekly status reports on progress of the review effort.
F3 Cmpile all Potential Findings, results of the Findings Review Cmmittee, Observations and Findings. Assess the adequacy of the l EBf system design.
I B F4 Prepare a final report compiling all Potential Findings, Obcervations, and Findings, including their description, cmments, l assesment of impact, the results of the Findings Review Committee, the resc' ts of the review of LP&L Corrective Action Plans, and the final assesment of the adequacy of the design of the Waterford-3 EFW systs.
F5 Issue Final Report Milestones Dates F1 P.anagement/ Cost Continuous F2 Cmplete biweekly status reports Bi-weekly F3 Cmplete empilation of Information 12/3/82 F4 Cmplete final report draft 12/15/82 F5 Issue final report 12/22/82 I
l l
18 Revision B 9/13/82
i I
I 1
I I
1 I I
I I
I muev I J PINES TECHNOLOGY A Divts.on of General Atomic Company PO Pos 81608 San Dego. CA 92138 l
_