ML20072E585
| ML20072E585 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1983 |
| From: | Tulodieski D TERA CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072E582 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306270069 | |
| Download: ML20072E585 (65) | |
Text
i MIDLAPO INDEPEFOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM MONTH _Y STATUS REPORT NUMBERI PERIOD INCEPTION TI-ROUGH MAY 27,1983
/
Prepared by: h.lMffdv hh as was 1
1 /'
Reviewed by: %- M r. d Project Manager Approved by: 8d).
Prinhol-in-charge 8306270069 830527 PDR ADOCK 05000329 R PDR
l r
MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDCV)
MONTI-LY STATUS REPORT NUMBERI PERIOD INCEPTION TI-ROUGH MAY 27,1983 l
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 initial report covers the period from project inception through May 27, 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 are presented in this initial report. Subsequent reports will include only those items discussed in section 3.0.
2.0 Midland IDCV Program Background The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter on July 9,1982 which requested that Consumers Power Company (CPC) provide for an independent assessment of the design odequacy of.the Midland plant. CPC responded to this request on October 5,1982 by submitting an outline of the scope of a proposed independent review program. A public meeting was held on October 25,1982 at the NRC's Bethesda, Maryland offices to discuss details of the proposed program, the scope of which included an evaluation of the Midland Unit 2 Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system. During this meeting, the NRC requested that the scope of the independent design assessment program be expanded, including on assessment of the quality of construction. The NRC requested that CPC identify three condidate systems for scope expansion based upon their contribution to plant risk, from which one system would be selected.
1
CPC responded to NRC by a letter dated December 3,1982 which identified the Standby Electric Power system (diesel generator), Safeguards Chilled Water system and Containment Isolation system os candidate systems. A public meeting was held on February 8,1983 at Midland, Michigan to discuss details of the program related to the evaluation of the AFW system and to provide status.
J On March 22, 1983 the NRC selected the Standby Electric Power system and the Control Room HVAC system for scope expansion. Proposed elements of the scope of evaluation for these systems as well as the AFW system were discussed at another public meeting held on April 13,1983 at the NRC's Bethesda, Maryland offices.
TERA Corporation has been selected by CPC to scope, manage, and implement the Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Program.
By a letter dated May 3,1983, the NRC approved the selection of TERA. The selection is based upon the firm's technical qualifications, experience, and independence from the Midland project. Such independerne includes all individuals who may contribute to the IDCV Program.
The Engineering Program Plan (EPP), Revision 2, dated May 18, 1983, has been established to - outline the scope, philosophy of review, methodology, r independence requirements, organization, control, documentation, reporting, and quality assurance requirements for the Midland IDCV Program. The Project j- Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP), Revision 3, dated May 18, 1983, has been established to define the documented, auditable, control measures necessary to ensure the quality of services provided by TERA.
3.0 Scope The following items are included in Monthly Status Reports:
e IDCV Program Status Summary e Tracking System Summary for Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports 2
1
-. . - - . m , . . .. _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ . , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . _ . , _ . , . _ - - - _ . _ - , . . - . .
i .
e Current Confirmed item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports e Financial Status Report (CPC only) 4.0 Reporting Period and issuance Dates The reporting period shall generally be on a calendar month basis with issuance of the corresponding Monthly Status Report around mid-month of the month
, following the end of the reporting period. The reporting period for this initial Monthly Status Report is from project inception through May 27,1983, the date of this report. The'second Monthly Status Report will be issued in mid-July, covering the period from May 27,1983 through June 30,1983.
S.0 IDCV Procram Status Summary i S.I Programmatic Activities Attachment I provides the chronology for major project milestones during the reporting period. This chronology will be maintained up-to-date and included in future reports.
Several milestones warrant special high:Ight. On March 22, 1983, the NRC selected the Standby Electric Power (SEP) system and the Control Room HVAC (CR-HVAC) system for inclusion within the IDCV program scope. This selection along with the previously identified Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system completes the scope identification process for the IDCV program. A public .
meeting was held on April 13, 1983 to discuss details of TERA's AFW system review and conceptual plans for the SEP system and CR-HVAC system reviews.
Comments were assimulated from CPC, NRC and interested members of the public. TERA responded to this direction by further development of the existing program to incorporate the revised scope. On May 18,1983, TERA issued Revision 2 of the Engineering Program Plan and Revision 3 of the Project Quality Assurance Plan, reflecting the full scope of the IDCV program.
3
, i During the period of March-April, TERA transmitted info:mation to the NRC relative to corporate and individual independence and professional qualifications.
The NRC reviewed this information and on May 3,1983 documented their formal acceptance of TERA to conduct the IDCV program and acceptance of the scope of the AFW system review. The NRC is currently reviewing TERA's proposed scope of review for the SEP system and CR-HVAC system as defined in Revision 2 of the Engineering Program Plan. .
5.2 Design Verification Activities 5.2.1 Introduction and Background Independent Design Verification (IDV) review octivities during the reporting period of this status report focused upon the development and establishment of resources, programs, and organizational interfaces necessary to execute the IDV review methodology and making substantial progress in the IDV review for the AFW system. The methodology, as described in the IDCV Engineering Program Plan, strives to establish a consistent set of review activities applicable to systems, components, structures, and materials subject to IDV review. These review activities have been categorized into five areas as follows:
e Review of Design Criteria and Commitments e Review of Implementing Documents e Check of Calculations or Evaluations e Confirmatory Calculation or Evaluation e Check of Drawings and Specifications The intent of this portion of the status report is to present and summarize important IDV activities undertaken during the reporting period relative to review progress made in the above five categories for each of the 45 design topics within the scope of the AFW system review. Future reports will be j limited to significant activities on topics which have been completed during the month or on which substcntial progress has been made.
l f
i
~
4
(
. r r
The programatic development was cornpleted for the Standby Electric Power
- (SEP) system and the Control Room HVAC (CR-HVAC) system during the reporting period. Preliminary review activities were also initiated and will be reported in the next Monthly Status Report.
It is estimated that the AFW system IDV review is 60-7S% complete relative to the initial scope defined in Revision 0 of the Engineering Program Plan. This estimate does not include any efforts required to resolve existing issues identified in section 6.0.
S.2.2 IDV Topic Summaries i The IDV Topics and summaries of the scope for the AFW system are presented in section 3.l.3 of Revision 2 of the Engineering Program Plan. The corresponding Initial Semple Review Matrices are presented in Figure I for convenience. The following sections provide a topic-by-topic summary of progress:
1.1-1 SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS Applicable operating limits for various components of the AFW system have been extracted from documents such as the FSAR and the Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) l Balance-of-Plant Criteria Document. The review includes a check for completeness of specified parameters and bounding values and a check for consistency from document to document.
A check of appropriate calculations and evaluations is being conducted to verify that the specified limits are either capable of being met or are used correctly as input to assure proper system or component operation.
The limits identified in this review are being utilized in the review of other topics related specifically to component operability.
l l
l S
s s i
l 1
INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR THE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAND 'NDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM I 1
f SCOPE OF REVIEW 6
es EL ,e se gs
!! i g N *O DESIGN AREA p bKg 8g!5 2! e si l y 8 6 '
I 1 f [ '9 E 5' g89 gs $
O AFw SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS l.11 SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS X X X l.2-1 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS X e 1,3-1 SINGLE FAILURE X X X e 1.4-1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS X X l.5-1 SYSTEM ALIGNMENT /SWITCHOVER X X l.6-1 REMOTE OPERATION APO SHUTDOWN X l.7-l SYSTEM ISOLATION /lNTERLOCKS X X l.8-l OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION X e e e 1.91 COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS X X X X l.10-1 SYSTEM HYDRAULIC DESIGN X X X
- l.11-1 SYSTEM HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY X X X e 1.12-1 COOLING REQUIREMENTS X l.13-1 WATER SUPPLIES X X l.14.l PRESERVICE TESTING / CAPABILITY FOR OPERATIONAL TESTING X e e 1.15-l POWER SUPPLIES X X e 1.16-1 ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS X e e 1.17-1 PROTECTIVE DEVICES / SETTINGS X X X l.18-1 INSTRUMENTATION X X X X l.19-1 CONTROL SYSTEMS X X X e 1.20 1 ACTUATION SYSTEMS X e 1.21-1 NDE COMMITMENTS X e .
L22-1 MATERIALS SELECTION X X l.23-1 FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS
- e
- KEY NOTE X -INITIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW
- l. INITIAL SAMPLE DOCUMENTED IN REV. O AND 1
- h. DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW OF THIS PLAN HAS BEEN MODIFIED EFFECTIVE e . ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW 4/13/83 FIGURE I -
-v,- + v:w--- y yww w- --m---m-----r+=-e ,---
. i INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR THE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (CONTINUED)I SCOPE OF REVIEW ix1!!
DESIGN AREA 8 5 e1 b?- 5~? bs b
r 9
l,$1b$,l' (" lh. O AFW SYSTEM PROTECTION FEATURES
- 11. 1 - 1 SEISMIC DESIGN X j
11.2 - 1 e PRESSURE BOUPOARY X X X X X
- 11. 3 1 e PIPE /EGUIPMENT SUPPORT X X X X X 11.4 - 1 e EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION X X X X
- 11. 5 - 1 HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK ACCIDENTS X
- 11. 6 1 e PIPE WHIP X X X X
- 11. 7 1 e JET IMPINCEMENT X
- 11. 8 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION X 11.9-1 e ENVIRONMENTAL ENVELOPES X X X X X 11.1 0 - 1 e EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION X X X X 11.11-1 e HVAC DESIGN X
- 11. 1 2 - 1 FIRE PROTECTION X X X l1.13-1 MISSILE PROTECTION X 11.14-1 SYSTEMS INTERACTION X X X STRUCTURES THAT HOUSE THE AFW SYSTEM 111. 1 - 1 SEISMIC DESIGN / INPUT TO EQUIPMENT X X X X lli.2 1 WIND & TORNADO DESIGN /M SSILE PROTECTION X I!!.3-1 FLOOD PROTECTION X 111. 4 - l HELBA LOADS X 111. 5 - 1 CIVIL / STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS X 111.6-1 e FOUNDATIONS X X X 111. 7 - 1 o CONCRETE / STEEL DESIGN X X X X 111. 8 1 e TAPES @ @ @
V.EY NOTE X - NITIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW l. INITIAL SAMPLE DOCUMENTED IN REV. O AND l OF THIS PLAN HAS BEEN MODIFIED EFFECTIVE h DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW a/13/83
< . . ADDeD SCOPE cv REViE.
FIGURE I
O l.2-1 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS The FSAR has been reviewed to determine those events for which the AFW system would be expected to play a rcle either in mitigation or recovery. The system was also reviewed to determine if there were any plausible means by which it could cause on accident or exacerbate an existing occident.
A meeting was held with Babcock and Wilcox to gather information related to the design requirements for the auxiliary fesdwater system. Further review of CPC/Bechtel actions in response to the B&W-developed Anticipcted Transient Operation Guidelines document has been deemed necessary and will be accom-plished.
The review scope also was expanded somewhat to review calculations regarding the required system heat removal capability under accident conditions. This subject is being considered further under Topic 1.11-1, System Heat Removal Capability.
l.3-1 SINGLE FAILURE Applicable criteria have been extracted from the FSAR, NRC Regulations, and the B&W Balance-of-Plant Criteria document. Applicable documents such as piping and instrumentation diagrams and electrical schematics have been reviewed to determine whether the system can meet these criteria.
It has been determined that two complementary actions are necessary to verify the design relative to the capability of the AFW system to withstand a single failure. First, a confirmatory evaluation of the system is being conducted to verify the design from a single-failure-proof standpoint, especially regarding power supplies. This effort will concentrate mainiy on the portions of the system comprising the pumps' suction and the steam discharge to the steam-driven turbine.
6
Concurrently, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis will be perfor>ned, as documented under Topic l.23-1.
l.4-1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The draft Midland Technical Specifications contained in the FSAR have been reviewed as they relate to the AFW system. The finalization of these specifications is on-going as well as the NRC's review. TERA is monitoring this process and when complete, the IDCV review will verify that the specifications are complete, consistent with NRC Standard Technical Specifications, and reflect commitments made in the FSAR.
l.S-1 SYSTEM ALIGNMENT /SWITCHOVER ,
Applicable criteria have been drawn from such sources as the NRC Regulations, FSAR, B&W Balance-of-Plant Criteria document and the NRC Standard Review Plan and applicable Branch Technical Position.
The pertinent Piping and Instrumentation Diogram was reviewed to ascertain whether the criteria had been implemented. In addition, a CPC letter regarding specific switchover design capabilities, and the process by .which they were derived, was reviewed. Finally, available procedures were reviewed to deter- -
mine what guidance will be available to operators regarding alignment and switchover. These procedures are in draft form; further review will be undertaken later in the IDCV process.
The switchover of AFW control from the main control room to the auxillary shutdown panel is under review as part of the control systems topic and also will be covered as part of the fire protection review.
i 1.6-1 REMOTE OPERATION AND SHUTDOWN
- Applicable criteria are included in the NRC Regulations, the FSAR, and the B&W Balance-of-Plant Criteria document. These criteria have been reviewed to i
7 i
- i. _.__.-.__._--________.-_J_.____.__.___. _ . _ . . - - _ . . .
a e determine their completeness and consistency. Results of the review also included several systems capabilities requiring further review under other topics.
For example, the capability to control the system and shut down the plant from the auxiliary shutdown panel, and the regulatory guidance for manual actuation and control, are under review as part of the applicable electrical, instrumenta-tion and control topics.
l.7-1 SYSTEM ISOLATION / INTERLOCKS Criteria for this topic are contained in the NRC Regulations, the FSAR, the B&W Balance-of-Plant -Criteria document, and the NRC Stendard Review Plan. .
The applicable piping and instrumentation diagram was reviewed to determine whether the criteria had been implemented into the design.
Further review is being devoted to specific aspects of the design process, including a Design Change Approval Request relating to AFW pump low suction pressure trips.
l.8-1 OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION The criteria for this topic review were drawn from the FSAR and applicable codes and standards. Independent confirmatory calculations were performed for selected sections of piping to determine whether overpressure protection devices were needed. Attention was given to resolution of Management Corrective i Action Report 6S and its related updates and submittals to the NRC. These deal with a potential AFW system suction piping overpressure problem discovered at l
l an operating plant and applicable to the Midland design. The IDCV team will continue to follow the corrective action taken.
Site-requested changes to piping design pressure ratings are under review. This is an active review topic.
l I
I i
l 8 t
m o .
1.9-1 COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS The component functional requirements review is progressing in parallel with reviews in several other topics as AFW system design criteria are translated into corres,>onding component specifications for parameters such as flow rates, allowable pressure drops, NPSH, voltage, device settings and similar characteristics. The review has also included IDV confirmation of functional requirement parameters. For example, the functional requirements for the AFW pumps are being independently confirmed as confirmatory calculations related to the topic reviews of System Hydraulic Design and System Heat Removal are completed. Reviews of test data are also in progress to confirm that specific components can meet their specified functional requirements. The components shown in Table I have been initially selected for this review. Because of its dependency on many topic reviews, this topic will be among the last to be completed.
l.10-1 SYSTEM HYDRAULIC DESIGN Significant progress has been made in the System Hydraulic Design review area.
The identification of design criteria and confirmatory calculations which are part of this review are essentially complete. Several Bechtel calculatinns have received preliminary reviews to date. Comnletion of the reviews of these calculations and selection of those calculations to complete the sample is currently in progress. An initial identification of implementing documents to be reviewed has been made.
1.1l-l SYSTEM HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY Progress in the System Heat Removal Capability review area parallels that of the System Hydraulic Design review area. Identification of design criteria and development of confirmatory calculations is essentially complete. A B&W calculation concerning heat removal requirements has been reviewed. An initial identification of implementing documents to be reviewed has been made.
1.12-1 COOLING REQUIREMENTS The criteria for cooling requirements have been identified and reviewed. This review has provided input to the selection of calculations and other documents to 9
a TABE I ~
~
M10LABO IDCV SLA'PLER DOCUMENTATION REVEW March 8,1983 Component ID Weld item Gen Fnct NDE Mot No. Type ID Na. P.O. No. Cmpi Dwgs Regs EO SORT OA Props Misc Comments
- 1. Pump 2P-005A M-14 X X X X X X X
- 4. Turbine 2G-005B M-14 X X X X X X
~
- 5. Volve 2LV-3975AIV J-255 X X X X X X X X
- 6. Operator 2LV-3975Al J-255 X X X X X X
- 7. Volve 2MO-3965AV M-117 X X X X X X X
- 8. Operator 2MO-3965A M-117 X X X X X
- 9. Volve 2MO-3993A2V M-398 X X X
- 10. Operator 2MO-3993A2 M-398 X X X i ll. Volve 2XV-3989 M-I l8 X X X
- 12. Operator 2XV-3989Al M-l 18 X X
- 13. Valve 25V-3969A J-256 X X X X X X
- 14. Volve 2MO-3226V M-117 X X X
- 15. Operator 2MO-3226 M-I l7 X X X
- 16. Valve 2MO-3277AV M-I l 7 X X X X X
- 17. Operator 2MO-3277A M-I l7 X X X X
- 18. Heat-X 2E-105A M-14 X X X DL-83-024-1 i
TABLE I (CONTHLED) -
Item Component ID Gm Fmt Mat No. Type ID No. P.O. No. Cmpi Dwgs Reqs EO SORT OA Props Misc Comments
- 19. Ponel 2C-I l4 J-202 X X X
- 21. SwGear 2A-05 E-205 X X X X X
- 22. Cable E-26A X X X X 600V
- 23. Transmitter 2PT39000BI J-245 X X X
- 24. Transmitter 2FT3969A J-245 X X X X
- 25. Transmitter 2FT3'/75AB J-245 X X X X
- 26. Transmitter 2LT3298 J-245 X X
- 27. Transmitter 2LT3975AA2 J-245 X X X X X X
- 28. Indicator 2LIK3975AA2 J-204 X X
, 29. Switch 2ZS3975Al J-255X X X X X X
- 30. Coble E-60 X X X Instru.
- 31. Air Cooler 2VM-54A M-149 X X X X X
- 32. Elec. Penet. E-20A X
- 33. Piping X X X
- 34. Pipe supports X X X
- 35. Coble Troy X X
- 36. Troy Supporis X X
- 37. Conduit X 9
DL-83-024-1
TABLE I (CONTHED) -
Canponent ID Weld item Gen Fnct NDE Mot No. Type ID No. P.O. No. Cmpi Dwgs Regs EQ SGRT OA Props Misc Comments
- 38. Conduit Supports X X
- 39. Instru. Piping X
- 40. HVAC Ducts (later)
- 41. HVAC Supports (later)
- 42. Rebor X
- 43. Str. Steel X X
- 44. Inserts X X 4
1 l
l i
1 1
DL-83-024-1 4
be reviewed in the Equipment Qualification and Component Functional Require-ments review areas. .
l.13-1 WATER SUPPLIES The criteria for the AFW water supplies have been identified and reviewed. This review hos provided input to the selection of calculations and other documents to be reviewed in the System Hydraulle Design and Component Functional Require-ments review areas. For example, the criteria for switchover from condensate a storoge to service water have been used as an input to reviewing calculations in the System Hydraulic Design area. Implementing documents for review of the Water Supply area have been identified.
, l.14-1 PRESERVICE TESTING / CAPABILITY FOR OPERATIONAL TESTING j Criteria for the review of preservice testing requirements and operational testing capability are being identified in conjunction with other review areas, including the Technical Specificotton Review Area. The scope of review in this area has been expanded to include a review of implementing documents and i- engineering evaluations supporting test programs. This will serve as input to the j ICV review. This expansion is based upon the desire to further verify system conformance with design criteria and commitments through an evaluation of tests that serve to establish the adequacy of the design and the copobility of the system to function as planned.
i 1.1S-I POWER SUPPLIES l The applicable design criteria for AFW power supplies have been identified from NSSS vendor, regulatory and industry requirements. The Midland FSAR is the primary implementing document design which has been checked to verify the proper consideration of the design criterio determined from the criteria review.
1 The AFW system logic and schematic diagrams have been reviewed to ensure
{ that requirements relative to the quality of pbwer supplies (diversity and redundancy) are met. In porticular the review included the assurance that the AFW system is operable in the event ~ of loss of offsite power and station 4
blockout.
10 i
., , - , _ - - -, , Q , .- _ _ .
l.16-1 ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS Design criteria relevant to the electrical characteristics of cable physical separation, system electrical separation, cable and raceway sizing and terminal voltage on power circuits have been identified. The Midland FSAR sections implementing these criteria have been reviewed to verify that the criteria have been considered in the design process. Cable sizing calculations have been reviewed as applied to seven power circuits in the AFW system. The cable routing design process is being reviewed to ensure consideration of cable separation criteria in that process.
1.17-1 PROTECTIVE DEVICES / SETTINGS Design criteria relevant to this topic have been identified. The Midland 'FSAR has been reviewed to ensure that the criteria have been documented and that commitments have been made to meet the criteria. The schematic diagrams for all motor-operated volves in the AFW system have been reviewed to ensure incorporation of thermal overload and opening torque swtich bypass features.
The AFW pump motor schematic is being reviewed against the committed design criteria. The evaluation of the electrical penetration assembly protection scheme are under review to ensure compliance with design criteria.
l.18-1 INSTRUMENTATION The instrumentation and clarms required to operate, monitor and protect the AFW system, as determined by design criteria, commitments and expected plant operations, have been reviewed against those specified for the AFW system to verify the adequacy of the instrumentation. Selected instrument accuracies under applicable plant operating conditions have been reviewed and evaluated.
Instrument loop diagrams for steam generator water level indication have been reviewed for proper circuit electrical design. The calculation for steam generator low water level setpoint has been reviewed for compliance with design criteria. Major instrument package procurement specifications have been reviewed to verify that the design criteria have been considered in the purchase of the instrument hardware.
II
.- - ._ _ _ _ _ - . _ . . = - _
1.19-1 CONTROL SYSTEMS Design criteria and commitments governing the steam generator water level and AFW turbine control systems have been checked to verify the inclusion of f necessary regulatory, industry, and system performance requirements. The Midland FSAR has been reviewed to verify that the necessary requirements were used as input to the control system design. An evaluation of control system characteristics such as time response, component characteristics, and separation from actuation systems has been performed. A very limited FMEA review has been made (See Topic 1.23-1, Failure Mode and Effects). Control system circuitry design (voltages, currents, polarity) has been reviewed to verify that selected components will function as intended in the steam generator water level control system. The circuitry design review has included instrument loop diagrams, logic diagrams, and valve and motor schematic diagrams. 1.20-1 ACTUATION SYSTEMS The auxiliary feedwater actuation system (AFWAS - which includes FOGG, " Feed Only Good Generator") design criteria and commitments have been reviewed to verify the proper considerati'on of regulatory requirements, industry codes and standards, and plant operational requirements. AFW system logic diagrams and schematic diagrams for all motor operated valves and the AFW pump motor have been reviewed against the design commitments. In addition, the AFWAS procurement specification is being reviewed against the design criteria and l
commitments.
l' l.21-1 NDE COMMITMENTS l
Design crii aria, commitments and implementing documents related to nondestructive examination have been identified and are under review against applicable industry codes and standards. A detailed checklist has been developed to assist in this activity. As commitments and proper translation into specifications and field procedures are verified, this input is being factored directly into the ICV review process to verify that these have been properly l 12 l
l I ,
Implemented. The review of implementing documents and specifications was added to the scope of the IDV to support the expanded NDE/ Material Testing program documented in section 5.3.1 of this report.
l.22-1 MATERIAL SELECTION This topic will be initiated in June,1983 and will be reported upon in future status reports.
I.23-1 FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS This topic has been:added to the scope of the IDV to verify conclusions reached about system and component failure modes and effects under various operating conditions.
The topic review will be initiated by continuing where the FSAR evaluation ended. it is intended, at the present time, that emphasis will be placed on components of the electrical, instrumentation and control systems. Criteria from other review areas will be consolidated as an initial step in preparing the planned confirmatory evaluation, ll.1-1 SEISMIC DESIGN l
The seismic design chain, criteria and commitments applicable to the design of the Midland plant were identified and reviewed with particular emphasis on specific aspects of the criteria applicable to AFW components and systems and structures that house these components and systems. In view of several major perturbations during the design process, a significant portion of time was l devoted to the identification and understanding of the seismic design chronology for the plant. The knowledge gained from this activity was utilized to assist IDV reviewers in the selection of issues and methodologies on which to concentrate
[
the review. The selection of specific structural elements / features, components and systems was also influenced by this activity.
13
11.2 -1 SEISMIC DESIGN - PRESSURE BOUNDARY Progress on this topic has been made in two principal areas. A confirmatory seismic stress analysis is ' nearing completion for a portion (i.e. one piping problem) of AFW piping and supports on the "B" train inside the Unit 2 containment building. The line evaluated runs from the containment penetration to the first anchor which is approximately midway along the "B" train line on its paths from the containment penetration to the steam generator ring header for the AFW discharge. IDV analysts will soon be in the process of comparing the results of their analyses with Bechtel's analyses to independently confirm the adequacy of implementation of the design methodology and results. The comparison includes the contribution of seismic stress at critical locations, predicted support loads for all supports along the line and a design verification for representative support types. The model was developed by the IDV analysts without prior benefit or knowledge of Bechtel's methodology and in particular, specific modeling assumptions. The IDV analysts utilized the dimensional as-built data that was independently compiled through the ICV field verification program related to the program activity, Verification of Physical Configuration (see sections 5.3.1 and S.3.6 of this report). In a separate activity, IDV reviewers identified and initiated a review of pertinent criteria, implementing documents, calculations and specifications applicable to ASME Code considerations associated with the pressure boundary integrity of a portion of the AFW discharge piping located in the auxiliary building. Future activities will include a review of Bechtel's recent configuration changes associated with the AFW piping and supperts inside containment as well as a review of field engineering for small bore piping.
11.3 -1 SEISMIC DESIGN - PIPE / EQUIPMENT SUPPORT l
This topic closely parallels that of Topic 11.2-1 which is associated with pressure boundary integrity and ASME Code considerations. As discussed, piping supports are chosen for evaluation consistent with the selection of piping lines to permit on integrated evaluation of the seismic design capabilities of the total system.
Progress to date has been discussed for piping supports. The anchorage and l
l I
14
o .
l l
support for AFW equipment is under evaluation as part of Topic II.4-1. For components selected for evaluation under this topic (see Table 1), selected calculations, drawings and specifications are being checked to verify adequate seismic capability in accordance with seismic design criteria and commitments.
II.4-1 SEISMIC DESIGN - EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION in addition to a review of seismic equipment qualification design criteria and commitments and implementing documents, the principal progress on this topic has been to select a sample of components for review (see Table 1) and to acquire existing SQRT qualification " packages" from Bechtel. ' Progress has been slo ned because Bechtel's seismic equipment qualification process is in early stages of completion. Complete SQRT packages are being reviewed along with the process for completing additional packages.
II.S-I HELB/ PIPE WHIP / JET IMPINGEMENT (including 11.6-1 and
- 11. 7 - l)
Criteria for this group of review area have been identified and preliminary reviews conducted. Implementing documents, calculations, and drawings will be reviewed upon completion of the confirmatory calculation in the Seismic Design review area, l
!!.8-l ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION / ENVIRONMENTAL ENVEL-(including OPES / EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION /HVAC DESIGN
- 11. 9 - 1, 11.1 0 - 1 &
11.11-1)
The criteria and commitments for this group of review areas have been identified and reviewed. A sample of equipment for the review of calculations and evaluations, primarily associated with the Equipment Qualification Report, has been made as shown in Table 1. Reviews of the selected equipment qualification packages have been initiated. A confirmatory calculation in the i
(
- IS l
environmental envelopes review area has been initiated. HVAC design criteria have been identified.
II.12' l-FIRE PROTECTION Steps have been completed to organize the review of fire protection for the AFW system into subtopics. These topics are:
e Safe shutdown analyses e Associated circuits analyses e Fire hazards analyses e Remote shutdown transfer switches / isolation devices e Fire barriers e Fire detection systems e Suppression systems e Emergency lighting FSAR commitments, documentation of the fire protection program, and CPC submittals to NRC related to a comparison to 10CFR50 Appendix R and to BTP
^
CMEB 9.S-l have been reviewed. Interactions with Bechtel personnel have taken place to identify and collect design documentation pertaining to the AFW fire protection features, and to discuss fire protection program status and approaches in key areas. Detailed design and analysis information has been received.
Verifications and reviews were initiated for two of the eight fire protection subtopics, namely fire barriers and emergency lighting. It is expected that these two subtopics and the remaining six will be completed in the next reporting period.
l 11. 1 3 - 1 MISSILE PROTECTION The review scope for the Missile Protection review area consists of a review of criteria and commitments. This review is currently in progress.
1 16 I
- fl.14-1 SYSTEMS INTERACTION Criteria for this review are defined in the Bechtel/CPC program for determina-tion and resolution of potential systems interactions. This program was obtained for review after discussion with key Bechtel personnel involved in the program.
The program will be reviewed for completeness and consistency. System walkdowns in selected areas will be observed, and selected data sheets and recommendations will be reviewed.
Ill.1-1 SEISMIC DESIGN / INPUT TO EQUIPMENT in parallel with discussions and reviews associated with the seismic design chronology, substantial progress has been made relative to the understanding and review of modeling procedures and techniques utilized to generate in-structure seismic input (e.g. floor response spectra). This activity has taken more effort than anticipated to identify the complex history _ associated with the seismic design chain and verify that the various perturbations were adequately handled by the project designers and analysts. Particular attention has been focused on the acquisition and review of information related to the effects of floor flexibility on predicted floor response spectra. Emphasis is being placed on the proper specification, use, and transfer of floor response spectra between interfacing groups both internal and external to Bechtel.
Ill.2-1 WIND AND TORNADO / MISSILE PROTECTION 111. 3 - 1 FLOOR PROTECTION 111. 4 -1 HELBA LOADS The criteria and commitments associated with these topics have been identified and the review commenced. Progress will be reported in future reports.
Ill.S-l CIVIL-STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Progress has been made on this topic in two principal areas. First efforts to identify design criteria such as that incorporated within Bechtel's 17
~
Civil / Structural Design Criteria document and the FSAR have been completed and the review is continuing. Secondly, efforts are continuing in a review of project experience within the civil / structural discipline to identify important issues that have surfaced during the project, review how these have been resolved and verify that these do not exist in the same or similar form elsewhere.
111. 6 -1 FOUNDATIONS The concentration of this topic is on structural aspects of foundation design verses soil mechanics aspects. Accordingly, a portion of the auxiliary building foundation has been selected for detailed structural review. Efforts to date have focused on an identification of foundation design criteria, a review of project experience to understand the design chronology and important loading conditions ,
and the. collection of pertinent calculations. The detailed structural review is just being initiated and will be reported upon in future reports.
Ill.7-1 CONCRETE / STEEL DESIGN Specific structural elements (e.g. shear walls, floor diaphram) have been selected for detailed review and evaluation. Emphasis is being placed upon an evaluation of the project's capability to transfer loading information both internally and externally from one organization (e.g. analytical groups) to another (e.g. design groups) and on the proper identification and interpretation of this information.
! Input from other IDV topics is important relative to information gained in the l
review of the various loading conditions that affect structural elements. The specific use and implementation of this information is being verified through a review of design calculations. These calculations are being reviewed to verify the design organization's capability to properly size and detail concrete and steel l structural elements.
18
~
5.3 Construction Verification Activities 5.3.1 Introduction and Background
, independent Construction Verification (ICV) review ocitvities during the report-ing period of this status report focused upon the development and establishment of resources, programs, and organizational interfaces necessary to execute the ICV review methodology and initiation of the ICV review. The methodology, as described in the IDCV Engineering Program Plan, strives to establish a consistent set of. review activities applicable to systems, components, structures, and materials subject to ICV review. These review activities have been categorized into five aieas as follows:
e Review of Supplier Documentation
- e. Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation e Review of Construction / Installation Documentation e Review of Selected Verification Activities e Verification of Physical Configuration The intent of this portion of the status report is to present and summarize important ICV activities undertaken during the reporting period and to categorize these activities using the above five review categories. Sections 5.3.2 through 5.3.6 oddress each of these review categories respectively. The ICV review categories and Topics for the AFW System are presented in section 3.2.3 of Revision 2 of the Engineering Program Plan. The corresponding Initial Sample Review Matrix is presented in Figure 2 for convenience.
i Events external to the ICV review program have had significant impact on the program. Accordingly, the following discussion summarizes the background of l
events which have had on influence on where the ICV review is today and where it is to be directed in the future.
In a letter to the NRC dated October 5,1982, CPC outlined a proposed scope for the planned Midland independent design review program. In addition to a design 1
19
~
INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR TFE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM I
MIDLAto INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM SCOPE OF REVIEW SYSTEM /COMPOPENT a,f ka-o' ddst es fc8 WJ T hT 89
~
id 6
f
- 1 191YllE s&w E E v ,l1 i
MECHANICAL ,
l.1-Ic e EQUPMENT X X X X X l.2-Ic e PIPING X X X X l.3-Ic e PIPE SUPPORTS X X X X ELECTRICAL ll.1-Ic e EOUPMENT X. X X X X ll.2-Ic e TRAYS APO SUPPORTS X *
- X e CONDUlT AND SUPPORTS X *
- X ll.3-le e CABLE X X X X X li.4-lc INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL lil.1-Ic e NSTRUMENTS X X X X X lli.2-Ic e PIPING / TUBING X X lli.3-Ic e CABLE X *
- X HVAC IV.1-Ic e EOUPMENT X X X X X IV.2-Ic e DUCTS AND SUPPORTS X X STRUCTURAL V.I-Ic e FOUPOATIONS X X V.2-Ic e CONCRETE X X X V.3-Ic e STRUCTURAL STEEL X X X VI.1-Ic NDE/MA1ERIAL TESTING PROGRAM e M NOTE X - HTIAL SCM W M l. INITIAL SAMPLE DOCUMENTED IN REV. O AND l OF THIS PLAN HAS BEEN MODIFIED EFFECTIVE
@. DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW */I3/83 f . . ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW FIGURE 2
verification component, this program included a verification of physical i configuration of selected structures and components for the AFW system. A public meeting was held on October 25, 1982 at NRC's Bethesda, Maryland l offices where the details of this program were discussed. The NRC indicated that they would like the proposed program to be expanded to include a review of an additional system with increased emphasis on the verification of the quality of construction including additional verification of physical configuration.
TERA responded to NRC and CPC direction by developing an expanded
. independent Construction Verification (ICV) program centered around the five previously discussed review categories. The scope of this revised program was documented in Revision 0 of the EPP dated November 29, 1982. Details of the ICV and IDV were discussed at public meetings held on February 8,1983 at Midland, Michigan and April 13,1983 at NRC's Bethesda, Maryland offices.
TERA's initial field verification activities were initiated the week of November
- 29,1982 with a physical configuration verification of the AFW system piping and supports inside containment. In early December 1982, CPC instituted their Construction Completion Program (CCP). Under direction from NRC and CPC, TERA was asked to hold certain portions (in particular, physical configuration verification) of the ICV review in obeyance pending resolution of critical interfaces with the CCP and other on-going construction related programs.
Accordingly, only reviews of supplier documentation, storage and maintenance documentation and selected verification octivities proceeded.
On March 22, 1983, the NRC selected the Standby Electric Power system and the HVAC system assuring control room habitability as additional systems for IDCV review. Revision 2 of the EPP dated May 18, 1983 incorporates these systems into the scope of the ICV as well as the IDV.
During the April 13, 1983 public meeting, the NRC, CPC and TERA agreed that the scope of ICV activities within the prescribed sample selection boundaries
, could proceed irrespective of the stage of construction completion. This direction enables the ICV review to obtain better insight into the quality of:
20
.- . . ~ . - -. - - . - .
~
~
e Completed construction activities e On-going construction processes from the standpoint of how these will impact future completed construction products e Remedial and corrective actions taken in response to on-going construction review efforts such as the CCP At the current time, the ICV scope has been fully defined and the review process is gearing up to full speed, consistent with critical interfaces with on-going construction related programs.
The events described above have enabled the initiation of all planned ICV review activities which are described below and in the following sections.
l e The sample selection boundaries for the ICV review of the AFW system were firmly established and implemented into the ICV review program. Development of the AFW System sample selection boundaries was performed through the joint efforts of IDV and ICV reviewers.
Additional, detailed discussions were undertaken by Lead IDV and ICV personnel to identify which components, structures, and material within the sample selection boundaries would be subject to detailed ICV review. The selection process employed the sample selection criteria as defined in the EPP and resulted in the designation of the items shown in Table I as being subject to initial ICV review.
e The ICV review activities associated with the AFW System were expanded in scope. The additional review activities and the reason these activities were factored into the ICV review program are as follows:
System / Component Scope of Review Added Reason (s)
- Electrical Cable - Review of Construc- - Project experience Trays & Supports tion / Installation - Monitor the outputs Conduit & Supports Documentation & of the on-going over I&C Cable Review of Selected inspection program Verification Activities for cable separation as directed by NRC
- NDE/ Material - Verification of - Project experience Testing Program Physical Configura- - NRC direction tion 2i
.-.,e,ab,-+-- ie . -e aa - , - - - - c ~,.- --*-
e O i
e As a result of adding the NDE/ Material Testing Program as an integral part of the AFW system ICV review, Lead ICV personnel commenced the development of this pro-gram. Program execution will involve first the selection of the sample and sample size, selection of the specific components and material to be tested, determinatien of the type (s) of testing to be performed, testing, and i evaluation and documentation of the test results. To assist in executing the NDE/ Material Testing Program, Lead ICV program personnel Initiated the solicitation and review of proposals from material testing firms who have exhibited the capability to accomplish required testing in a professional, objective manner. Selection of a material testing firm has not been completed; review of proposals and identification of material testing firm capabilities continues. ,
e important interfaces between the Leod ICV program per-sonnel and reviewers and IDV personnel have been tested and utilized to ensure their effectiveness and efficacy.
Additionally, critical interfaces with site-construction personnel have evolved to the point where ICV reviewers can acquire needed information and are afforded the flexibility and latitude necessary to be effective in the ,
ICV review program.
S.3.2 Review of Supplier Documentction The overwhelming majority of resources expended in executing the ICV review activities has been devoted to defining the detailed steps of the Supplier Documentation Review and performing the review steps. These activities are of I
substantial importance to the remaining portions of the ICV review, because they establish the documented resource which is used as initial input to evaluating remaining construction activities. Additionally issues and trends determined as a result of performing the review of supplier documentation have alerted, and will continue to alert, ICV reviewers to outputs in the construction process which require a greater degree of scrutiny. In essence, the results of the review of I supplier documentation establishes the reference for the effective continuance of the ICV review process.
i During the period of this status report the following important activities have been undertaken as part of the review of supplier documentation.
22
~
e Detailed review matrices for components within the AFW system sample selection boundary were developed as a joint effort with IDV reviewers and serve to direct the activities of the ICV reviewers performing the review of supplier documentation. The review of supplier <
documentation has been broken down into discrete review categories as follows:
General Completion -
Overall review of documentation to ensure that the supplier package is generally complete for Document Categories required by specification for the component.
Drawings - Review of suppIler drawings for conformance to specification requirements for the component, subcomponent or part.
- Functional Requirements - Review of supplier documentation for conformance of major functional requirements to specifications.
- Enviro'nmental Qualification - Review of supplier documentation for conformance to specification requirements.
Seismic ' Qualification - Review of supplier .
documentation for conformance to specification requirements.
Welding, NDE, OA - Review of supplier documentation for conformance to specification requirements for the component, subcomponent or part.
Material Properties - Review of supplier certified material property reports for conformance to specification requirements for the component, subcomponent or part.
Miscellaneous - Review of instruction manuals, cleaning and coating procedures, storage and handling instructions and shipping procedures for conformance to specification requirements for the component, subcomponent or part.
In proctice, on ICV or IDV reviewer is assigned one or more of these review categories for a specific component or group of components identified for ICV review.
As of the writing of this report, the majority of the activities necessary to perform the following documenta-tion reviews for the AFW system have been completed:
23
- General Completion Drawings
- Functional Requirements
- Miscellaneous As a result of conducting the above reviews, approxi-mately 1,000 documents have been reviewed for applic-ability, catalogued, and categorized as to the type of document - i.e., drawing, welding procedure, seismic qualification report, etc.
The " Environmental" and " Seismic Qualification" reviews are tied closely to the IDV review process and have progressed to the stage of completion identified for selected components in the IDV review portion of this status report.
The " Welding, NDE, GA" documentation review has focused upon identifying the derivation of the require-ments, the completeness and consistency of the require-ments and the cataloguing of vendor-supplied documenta-tion which satisfies the requirements for welding, NDE, and QA aspects of selected fabricated components.
Further, more detailed review of the vendor-supplied documentation has not been aggressively . pursued pending finalization of the degree of involvement of an outside material testing firm (see Section S.3.1 of this status report) in the ICV review program.
The review necessary to verify the adequacy of Material Properties by reviewing certified material property reports has most recently been initiated and, as a result, not much progress has been made toward completing this review during the current reporting period.
e To ensure that a consistent method and set of data are used and collected during the review of supplier documen-tation, detailed checklists were prepared and imple-mented. The checklists, and associated implementing Project Instruction (PI-3201-007), direct the ICV reviewer to sources of Information and direct the recording of required information onto a standardized form. As of the writing of this report, five checklists have been prepared and used to conduct the review of vendor supplied docu-mentation. The title and a brief description of each checklist used in this protion of the ICV review are as follows:
l Documentation Verification Form (DVF) l l
24
Checkoff list utilized to record those requirements imposed upon suppliers and vendors which define the specific documents to be submitted to fulfill and satsify procurement and specification requirements;
- Documentation Avallobility Checklist (DAC)
The DAC is used to document the process and sources of information used to complete the Documentation Verification Form and to provide a consistent, standard format for documenting the results of evaluating the completeness of vendor documentation submittals;
- Supplier Documentation Functional Review (SDFR)
Form The SDFR provides the format and directs the recording of data relevant to the following of specific categories of vendor-supplied documentation:
a) Instructions (operating, maintenance, etc.)
b) Cleaning & Coating Procedures c) Certified Material Reports d) Supplie- Shipping Procedures;
- Supplier Documentation Adequacy (SDA)
Verificotton Form This form is used in conjunction with the SDFR to evaluate the adequacy of the vendor's documentation submittal; and Time-Base Evaluation (TBE) Form for Vendor Documentation Submittals This form provides the format for establishing a method to evaluate the timeliness of certain vendor documenta-l tion submittals associated with a specific component.
l Vendor documentation submittals are compared on a time-base against two key events in the construction j process:
a) Date component is received at the site b) Date component is withdrawn from storage for installation.
l l
Commencement of the supplier documentation review e
required a greater-than-anticipated scope of task initi-ation activities. These activities were necessary to develop an understanding of the following:
1 2S
\
l , . _ .
- Relationship of site vendor files to vendor files retained in Ann Arbor;
- Distinctions made between supplier documentation included as part of a OA data package and that documentation included as part of the vendor docu-ment control system; Location of different document control centers and their principal file holdings and scope of responsi-bilities;
- Information required to access needed documents and records; and .
- Location and operation of systems utilized to index needed .information.
J e As of the writing of this report, octivities undertaken with regard to supplier documentaiion reviews, have been focused upon the' collection and assimilation of vendor-supplied information. Current and near term activities of .
the ICV reviewers are and will be directed toward a thorough evaluation and assessment of the significance of findings resulting from the review of supplier documento-tion.
5.3.3 Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation This review is intended to ascertain the stored and as-installed condition of selected components of the systems selected as part of the IDCV program.
Discrete activities which constitute this review include the following:
- Documentation Review and Observation of Receipt in-spections; I -
Documentation Review and Observation of Warehouse Storage Practices;
- Documentation Review and Observation of in-place Main-tenance Practices; and Visual Inspection of Installed / Stored Components.
26 l
The progress made to date in conducting this review has all been associated with the components selected in the AFW System. Activities undertaken to date include the following:
e Checklists have been prepared and implemented which direct the acquisition and recording of information and data which chcracterize the receipt inspection, storage and maintenance activities. Detailed Project Instructions (PI-3201-007) have been prepared which provide ICV reviewers with an explanation in the use of the following
' checklists:
. - Receipt inspection Checklist; and
- Storage and Maintenance Checklist.
e Data required by the checklists have been' collected and completed for thm components selected with the AFW System ample s-lection boundaries. The components selected for this review are shown in Table I.
Current and near-term activities involve the evaluation of the collected dato and an assessment and recording of the significance of any issues resulting from the evaluation.
e ICV reviewers, in a joint effort with the IDV reviewers, prepared the review matrices for the Control Room HVAC and Standby Electric Power Systems. The matrices require a review of storage and maintenance documenta-tion applicable to the following categories of components within the sample boundaries of the indicated systems.
Standby Electric Power System
- Mechanical Equipment
- Electrical Equipment and Cable Instruments and instrument Cable i
Control Room HVAC System
- Mechanical Equipment t -
Instruments
- HVAC Ducts & Supports Specific components within each of the above categories are currently being identified.
l 27
t 5.3.4 Review of Construction / Installation Documentation As of the writing of this report, no resources have been expended in performing the octual review of construction / installation documentation. Activities undertaken to date have been directed toward the selection of specific com-ponents within the AFW System sample selection boundaries which will be subject to this review.
5.3.5 Review of Selected Verification Activities During this reporting period ICV reviewers commenced the review of selected outputs from the cable separation and pipe support over-inspection program which relate directly to cables and pipe supports within the ICV review sample selection boundaries of the AFW System. These activities were conducted at the site and focused upon the collection of required documentation, including procedures and drawings, and the evaluation of the procedures to discern the methodology employed by the over-inspection programs. This evaluation is necessary to identify those outputs of the program which are most
- representative of the final products of the over-inspection process and therefore those products which should be subject to ICV review. Evaluation of selected outputs was initiated and continues. Near term activities relate to continued detailed evaluation of selected outputs from the program that relate to the AFW system and the extension of these evaluations to include the Control Room HVAC and Standby Electric Power Systems.
5.3.6 Verification of Physical Configuration As a first and important review associated with the verification of the physical configuration of selected components within the sample selection boundaries of the AFW system, ICV reviewers conducted a review of selected AFW System pipe, hangers, and supports. This review involved not only the careful selection of those pipes, hangers and supports to ensure a comparative basis for other, similar reviews and extrapolation to similar items, but also extensive field verification and measurement.
l 28 l
l l
The review involved the field measurement of pipe, hangers, and supports of the "B" Auxiliary Feedvfater train, inside the Midland Unit 2 containment building.
Subsequent to ocquisition of field measurements and verification of identity and orientation, the collected data were compared against design documentation and documentation used as input to representative stress and seismic design calculat ons. The results of these efforts have been summarized into an engineering evaluation report which highlights the salient findings of the review and evaluation and documents the methodology utilized in conducting the physical configuration verification.
Near term activities relate to completing the review of issues arising from the physical configuration verification of selected AFW System pipe, hangers, and supports and selecting similar sampies associated with the Control Room HVAC and Standby Electric Power systems.
6.0 Summary of Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports Attachment 2 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 as they progress through the review process. Attachment 3 provides re-typed copies of all existing Confirmed item Reports. To date no items have progressed to the Findings stage of the reporting process which is documented in Project Instruction PI-3201-008 and can be found as part of Appendix B of the Project Quality Assurance Plan.
A meeting will be held on June 3,1983 at Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices to obtain additional information reltalve to the Confirmed items presented in Attachment 3.
29
.~s ATTACHMENTI PROECT CmONOLOGY MIDLAFO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN AIO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM TERA PROECT 3201 TNOUGH 5/27/83 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 identification of IDV goals, objectives, system selection criteria, 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 evoluation programs. TERA selects con-didate system for IDV program i 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 approval of TERA corporate Quality Assurance Plan October 2S,1982 Presentation on Midland IDV and INPO pro-grams to NRC at NRC's Bethesda offices October 27,1982 TERA conceptual development of IDV program l
modifications to further address the quality of construction (telecopy to CPC)
October 28,1982 CPC decision to separate IDV and INPO evolu-ation programs I
L )
ATTACHMENTI Date Milestone November 2,1982 Introductory meeting at the Midland site to initiate IDV and INPO programs November 3,1982 Midland site tour and walkdown of the AFW system 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 November 5,1982 Meeting of TERA, CPC and Bechtel manage-ment in Ann Arbor to discuss programmatic de-tails of the IDV program, logistics for TERA-Bechtel interaction on the IDV; revie v of Bechtel organization, interfaces, etc.; identi-fication of information needs November II,1982 NRC issues meeting summary for October 25, 1982 meeting November 15,1982 TERA issues Revision 0 of the Midlano In-dependent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Project Quality Assurance Plan November 23,1982 CPC approval of TERA Project Quality Assur-ance Plan 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 evalu-ation, identifies candidate systems for adding an additional system to the IDV scope, expansion of IDV program to include a verification of the quality of construction of the IDV systems; details of IDV interactions and INPO reporting 2
ATTACHMENT I Date Milestone December 6,1982 TERA project team meets individually with Bechtel group supervisors and group leaders to give a programmatic overview of the expanded IDCV; identify elements of the design process, interfaces, logistics for conducting the IDCV review; identify information, etc.
December 8-15,1982 Lead technical reviewers interview Bechtel personnel as part 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
.lanuary 24,1983 TERA begins ICV program - review of supplier documentation, storage, and maintenance docu-mentation Januar9 24-26,1983 TERA construction review team on-site review-ing supplier documentation and stcrage and maintenance documentation January 25-27,1983 TERA design review team in Ann Arbor February 7-l 1,1983 TERA construction review team on-site February 8,1983 Public meeting on Midland Construction Com-pletion Program and independent Design and Construction Verification Program February 9,1983 TERA transmits Engineering Progrcm Plan (EPP) and Project Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP) to the NRC February 17,1983 TERA issues Revision I of the EPP and Revision 2 of POAP 3
ATTACHMENTI 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 11,1983 Project quality assurance audit conducted by the Project Quality Assurance Engineer March 18,1983 TERA transmits information to NRC regarding corporate and individual independence, profes-sional qualifications, scope of review, reporting and auditability, 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 as 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 affidavits of independence and professional qualifications, including additional affidavits by individuals previously employed by NRC .
1 t
4
a ATTACHMENTI
'Date Milestone April 8,1983 Project quality assurance audit renort 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 infoemation to NRC regarding offidavits of independence for individuals previously employed by NRC May 3,1983 NRC letter, Novak to Cook (CPC) stating occeptance of TERA Corporation to conduct IDCV Program and acceptance of Engineering Progrcm Plan for the - Auxiliary Feedwater System i
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 the IDCV scope, update personnel qualifications, add project instructions and reference new protocol for ccmmunications 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 Amendment legislation.
May 27,1983 TERA issues first Monthly Status Report.
l l
1 5
e Attachment 2 OCR, FilOING REPORT, AFD FifelNG RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLA>D DOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM OCR Ho. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved aFindi Findi Topic Comments Open item item item item Report eso utio_n Report 001 RPS 12/21/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.4-1 Tech Specs 002 RPS 12/21/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.4-1 Tech Specs 003 RPS I/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.8-1 Overpressure Protection 004 RPS 1/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.8-1 Overpressure Protection 005 RPS 1/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.I-l System Operating Limits 006 RPS I/12/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 L2-1 Accident Analysis Considerations 007 RPS 1/12/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.2-1 Accident Analysis Considerations 008 LB 1/19/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control Systems 009 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 11.1-1 Seismic Design 010 FAD 1/20/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 Hydraulic Design Oil LB 1/27/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control Systems 012 LB 2/7/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 013 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 1.5-1 Syst. Align./Switchover
OCR, FIPOING REPORT, ADO FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM i
MIDLAto NOEPEPOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Cantinued) -
OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Finding Fivxting . Topic Comments Open Item item item item Fe~ port- Resolut:e Report 014 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 1.5-1 Syst. Align./Switchover l 015 CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 111.1-1 Seismic Design / Input to Equipment 016 CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 l11.5-1 Civil /Stu Design Consid.
017 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.!!-l Heat Removal Cap 1.10-1 , Hydraulic Design 018 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Heat Removal Cap.
019 LB 2/21/8 3 3/4/83 1.I8-1 Instrumentation 020 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Heat Removal Cap.
1.9-l Comp. Func. Req.
0 21 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 11.1 0 -1 Eq. Qual. Rev. I,4/14/83 022 LB 2/24/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control Syst.
023 LB 2/28/83 3/4/83 1.18-1 Instrumentation 1.19-1 Control
OCR, FIPOING REPORT, ADO FlfOlNG RESOLtJTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO itOEPEPOENT DESIGN AbD CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (CantWmd)
OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved i
,F_in_d_ng Findisq Topic Comments Open item item item item Repor t, Resoiotion O'BO!.!
024 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 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-I Overpress. Prof.
027 FAD 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.9-1 Comp. Func. Req.
11.9-l Env.Eng.
028 FAD 3/2/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 I.9-1 Comp. Func. Req.
029 LB 2/22/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.18-1 Ir.strumentation 1.19-1 Control System 030 LB I/19/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control System 03l CS 2/ll/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports l 032 CS 2/11/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3.ie Pipe Supports I
i l
l
OCR, FilOING REPORT, AND Fl>OING HESOLUilON REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLA>0 DOEPEPOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION YdRIFICATION PROGRAM (Continuad)
OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Finding Firafing ,Tgpi,c. Comments Open item item item item Hepor Eution Repnrt 033 CS 2/!l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports 034 CS 2 / 11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports 035 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-le Pipe Supporis Rev. I, 5/25/83 036 CS 2/II/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 11.2 -1 Pressure Boundary Rev. I, S/25/83 037 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 111.1-1 Seismic Design / 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 11. 1 0 - 1 Env.Eq.Oual.
040 LB 3/8/83 4/14/83 1.16-1 Elec. Characteristics 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. Qual.
043 FAD 3/15/83 4/14/83 1a 0-1 System Hydraulic Design 044 FAD 3/15/83 4/l4/83 I;.80-1 Env. Eq. Qual.
045 Tulo 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 11.1-1C Electrical Equipment /
Storage & Maintenance 046 Tulo 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 1.1- lC Mechanical Equipment /
Storage & Maintenance
4 D e
ATTACHMENT 3 CWRENT COWIRMED ITEM REPORTS 1
i
MIDLAbO INDEPEbOENT DESIGN ABO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED AbD RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT F'
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X DO . 8-C 001 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 4///dd CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW system operability and surveillance requirements in Technical Specifications IDCV P.ROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.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, '
recomendation GS-6 regarding verification of proper AFW system valve lineup. It is not clear that the Technical Specifications do incorporate the rneans to assure dual valve lineup after maintenance. Also, the associated draft procedure does not incorporate a requiremerit for valve lineup verificct.lon (See OCR-014).
SIGNIFICANCE OF COfCERN:
Valve lineup after maintenance or testing may not be correct.
RECOMMENDATION ^ OR RESOLUTION :
Process in accordance with Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
FSAR, REV. 47 SIGNATURE (S):
RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/8.3 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAPO ltOEPEIOENT DESIGN AFO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT J N TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X N O C.002 RESOLVED ITEM RE!.NO. O DA1ES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT -
PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN. CHARGE J///5J CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOtENT(S) INVOLVED:
AFW system operability and surveillance :equirements in Technical Specifications.
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.4-1, Technical Specifications DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Midland Technical Specifications do not meet NRC B&W Standard Technical Specifications in that:
An action statement is needed to require immediate actic9 if both AFW
~
systems are inoperable.
'e
$1GNIHCANCE OF CCe<D?N-
'l Lack of action statement may result in inadequate plant protection.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process in accordance with Project Quality Assurance Plan, t
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Midland Technical Specifications (Rev.33) in FSAR; NUREG-0103, REV. 4, FALL 1980 SIGNATURE (S):
RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- sRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 _
3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
___ ._. _ _._ _ . ~ - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - . -
MIDLAbo itOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION l OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT F
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X D O. I- 8-C - 005 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 3/3/83 4 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 3/ //83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOtENT(S) INVOLVED:
Entire AFW system IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.1-1, System Operating Limits DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Balance of plant criteria are inconsistent with regard to AFW system flowrate requirements and other design parameters. OCRs C-017, C-018, C-020, C-027 and 0-028 also apply.
$1CNIFICANCE OF CD'r.ER!h Nuclear steam supply systein performarice requirements for tFe AFW system may not be adequately or consistently reflected in the hiiance of plaat desion.
l
[
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process in accordance with Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS SY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
i REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): ,
FSAR, REV. 47; B&W BOP Criteria Document 36-1004477, REV. 01 (6/25/82)
OCRS SIGNATURE (S):
l RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB l OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARCE l
3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAPO IPOEPEFOENT DESIGN Al{) CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X a.C_010 ,
RESOLVED EM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR J/ c/UJ SRT PROJECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3 /3, 11 3 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE +1s K i s'3 CPC/DEslCN ORG.
l STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW - piping and valves i
l 3DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Hydraulic Design (I.10-1)
DESCRIPTION OF COpERN:
In calculat storageMserviceb ,ionethe water volume of water suction source available it was assumedduring the transfer that all Category from the co I piping was full of water. However, the water might leak out prior to the service water be-coming available because of the lack of Category I check valves.
The recommendation of OCR.320!-006-0-010 wss imnlemented. It was determined that the AFW pumps ;ould aave e loss of syr. tion during switchaver to service water.
SIGN!FICANCE OF CONCERNr
, Although unstated, except by inference in calculations, the AFW design criteria ;
call for prevention of any occurrance of the pump rur,ning dry. Under some sequences ,
of events it may be possible for the AF14 pu1p to lose suction.
The AFW pumps could be dar. aged by running dry.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Process per PQAP.
- 2. Review seismic analysis of suction piping to evaluate assumption in Bechtel's analysis of the switchover to service water that credit can be taken for piping upstream of Category I/non-Category I interface.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
SIGNATURE (S):
FAD OCR ITEM REPORT FAD LTR VD PROECT MANAGER
@h
' PRINCIPAL. SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN CHARGE 3/29/83 3/29/83 4l 4dg3 r//./t3 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE 1
i e MIDLAPO If0EPEPOENT DESIGN Af0 CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
. OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT F 3 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X 0 . 3 8C 011 RESR E ITEM REV.NO. 0
' DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/4/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/4/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 3///83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW " Feed Only Good Generator" (F0GG) Control IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.19-1, Control Systems DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
The B&W B0P criteria document (36-1004477 Draft) section 3.12 requires that control for F0GG be available at both the MCR and the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel.
The F0GG ' interlocks are controllable (invertable) from the fiCR but are not centrollable frcm the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel.
S'GNIFIC#EE OF CsWN:
S&W BOD criteria regarding coiltrol of F03G fr.3:n Auxiliary Shutdowi1 Parel are ;
not met.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Project team confirms concern and has determined that design interface between B&W and Bechtel should be reviewed further.
I COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
SIGNATURE (5):
RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB RPS OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN. CHARGE 3/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
i O MIDLAPO ltOEPEPOENT DESIGN AlO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT Fl TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X 0O N 20 C.012 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 2/7/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
F0GG Interlock IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.15-1, Power Supplies DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
The Midland FSAR and the B&W balance of plant criteria document (36-1004477-01) require that the AFW system be capable.of operating for.two hours in a station blackout condition (loss of all AC). The FOGG interlock relays for channel AA and BA are powered from Class 1E AC (lost during blackout). This wculd cause valver. 2M0-3?.77A and B to shut, cutting off steam to the AFW turbine and causing loss of AFW function during blackout.
SICAIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
, The AFW system my nct be fur.ctiancl during stat;ica blackout conditions. .
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Although limited Failure Modes Effects Analyses (FMEAs) have been performed on AFW, a systematic analysis should be done which considers all applicable plant conditions.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
OCR 3201-008-0-038 & C-038 Drawings E-158Q SH41, 42, 24, 25 SIGNATURE (S):
LB LB HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN. CHARGE
- 2/7/83 2/9/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 l DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAfO If0EPEf0ENT DESIGN AlO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COWIRMED AfO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X [, ((,;h 017 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW Pumps IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1) System Hydraulic Design (I.10-1)
System Heat Removal Capability (I.ll-1) (Criteria & Commitments / Review of Cales)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
There are inconsistencies in the minimum required AFW flow. B&W document BAW 1612, r
Rev.1, (Ref.1) lists values of 500 gpm and 720 gpm. The B&W B0P Criteria Docue nt (Ref. 2) requires 850 gpm and a S&W calculation (Ref. 3) is consistent with this
, value, although (as reported in other OCRs) th!s calculation may not be censistent
! with appropriate desigil parameters. The 850 grm figure may not provide enough water tc ren.cVe the heat being ge'ierated at the tims specified in the B&W Criteria Document (i.e. 30 sec after reactor trip).
4 '
l CION'F!CAtKE OF CONCERft This wculd re, ult in a te.mperature increase in the primary system until the (ecay heat rate falls to the point where 850 gpm is adequate. ;
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
.~
, COMMENTS SY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): (1) Conceptual Design Study for Auxi1iary Feedwater System Feed Rate Control for B&W 177-Fuel Assembly Plant, BAW 1612, Rev.1.
hlo$$,Mfh,- Aux Feedwater $s WOM77, Red b W BW W CalcMadon SIGNATURE (S):
FD FD HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
, o MIDLAPO If0EPEf0ENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT X FI TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED DOC 3 018 ESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O i DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE J///DJ CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: l AFWSystem(general) i 3DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
System heat removal capability (I.ll-1) i DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
There are inconsistencies in the information. presented in the listed references concerning the decay heat curve u. sed to determine the heat load which the AFW must be capable of removing. The AFW calculation performed by B&W (Ref.1) uses a B&W l decay heat curve. FSAR page 10A-17 item (e) states that 1.0 x ANS 5.1 (Ref. 2) <
l heat curve whereas FSAR page 10.4-37 states that the design is in conforaance with the method of tne ItRC's Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.2 (Ref. 3). B&W Docu-neat BAk 1612 (Pef. 4) uses tha ANS curve plus 20% which is consistent witn l Rsference J. Ref ? requires E 20% inargin to be added to the ANS curve. The actual 3:GN:OCANCE OF CONCErm, dcS19B asis is not clearly identitieo. 1 l
If the heat load used for analysis is less than t.1e ANS curve (Ref 2) plus 20% the calculated neat removal reouirement will be too low and could conse-
- l oaently result in upoersizing the AFW pumps.
l
{
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
l (2) American Nuclear Society Standard 5.1-1979. (3) NRC Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.2. (4) B&W 1612(Rev.1), Conceptual Design Study.
SIGNATURE (S):
FAD FAD HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
a MIDLAbo ROEPEPOENT DESIGN AIO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
. OPEN, COeFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT F N TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X 0 NO. 3 1-008. C. 020 '
RESOLVED ITEM REY.NO. 0 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL lMHARGE 3/7/R3 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURFC), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW Sys'cem (general)
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE): System Hydraulic Design (I.10-1)
System Heat Removal Capability (I.ll-1)
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: There are inconsistencies in inlet water temperatures used in AFW analyses. The B&W criteria * (section 2.14) require the use of 90 F inlet water temperature for AFW system design. B&W's " Specific Design Criteria for Safety Grade AFW Control System" document (4100) describes 90*f as " typical". BAW 1612, Rev.1 (section 2.1) makes use of a 100*F value in calculating minimum ficN requirecients. The FSAR contains analyses indicating a' maximum service water terrperature of 105'F. ,
Sechtel calculation FM 4117-28 uses a max. Si temperatore of 108'F,
- (Derument J36-1004477, Rev.1)
~
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCGAN:
Use of a 90*F temperaturewhen 105*F can occur results in an ur:dsrestir.mte of the quantity c,f water required to ren:ove the heat being generated in the pririary system. .
This in turn affects the AFW ' system heat retcoval capability, its hydraulic design basis and the sizing of components. :
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan
, COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
l 1
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): (1) Bechtel Calculation FM4117-28 (Rev.0).
(2) B&W Balance of Plant Criteria for AFW (36-1004477,Rev.01). (3) B&W Conceptual Design Study (BAW-1612,Rev.1 control Svstem (86-1119130. .te(4)4/80)B&W Specific Design Criteria for Safety Grade AFW SIGNATURE (S):
FAD FAD HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
4 O MIDLAbO l>OEPEFOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT M & REPORT: N CW ED X O N 320I 8.C 025 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/d/03 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOtENT(S) INVOLVED:
AFW system operability under postulated accident conditions "FOGG" system may function in detrimental manner _
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Topic I.2-1, Accident Analysis Considerations DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The " Feed Only Good Generator" system may perform in a detri-mental manner under conditions of steam generator tube failure followed by loss of offsite power. Its design would force it to direct feed to the " bad" steam generator
'only because F0GG logic directs feed to the steam generator with the higher pressure i based upon a delta pressure measurement between thw two SGs. Without prompt operator action, the steam-driven pump could be flooded ar.d rendered inoperable as a result of l
laaking primary coolant. The FSAR an31ysis a:sstws operator action (no tima delay ;
ir,uitioned) to " invert" FOGG and send flow to good generator such that the SS tube rup-ture 1: recognized & mitigated in sufficient time. The basis for f.his asstrption is J i siGNrlCmCE OF CONCERfd no't Clear. With a'singIe faM ure of the motor driven AFW punp,'
Iall AFW may be rendered inoperatie. .
i Failure of operator to take action quickly could result in total loss of Arw
('taking into account single failure).
I RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process in accordance with Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM PEPORT NO.):
Topic 1.2-1 Engineering Evaluation; FSAR Revision 47.
SIGNATURE (S):
RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
a v .
MIDLAIO ltOEPEIOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED AlO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X NO. 3 oos. C. 027 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.IN. CHARGE 3/7 /g3 CPC/DEslGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOPENT(S) INVOLVED:
AFW (general)
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK ilF APPLICABLE):
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)
Environmental Envelopes (II.9-1)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The FSAR contains references to the following power leve:s:
(a) 2452 MWt - license power level, (b) 2552 MWt - power level for calculation of core inventories for accident analyses, (c) 2603 MWt - power level for containment
- analysis.
The 2552 MWt power was used in the B&W AFW calculation (Ref.1). The 2603 PWt is 102% of 2552. FSAR page 10A-17 (Itam h) states that 102% of maximum pewer level is used for AFW analysis. Thus the power level for AFW analysis sbcuid be 2603 MWt.
S;GNIFICANCE OF CObCERtk If 2552 MWt wts used, the heat load which must be re m ed by the AFW will be underestimated conpared to the heat load associated with operation at 2603 IWt resulting in undersizing of AFV components. Furthermore, other analyses may need to be performed at 2503 MWt.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
PIC COMMENTS BY 4RE (IF REQUIRED):
Before doing any confirmatory AFW flow requirements analyses,' determine the t rationale for the use of 2552 MWt by B&W, and discuss core power level to be used with project manager and PIC.
JWB REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Ref 1: B&W AFW Calculation 32-0525, Rev. 00 SIGNATURE (S):
FAD FAD HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGEst PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAPO lbOEPEbOENT DESIGN AbD CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT RE NO. 3201-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X RESOLVED ITEM . NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/29/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3lN lt1 PRINCIPAL -lN-CHARGE 411X is 5 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S) OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW System IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)
(Review of Criteria and Commitments)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
The AFW system design may not meet a B&W interface requirement that auxiliary feed-water temperature be at least 40 F. B&W's B0P criteria for AFW (Ref. 1) requires a 40*F minimum AFW temperature. This criterion is consistent with the B&W document I for reactcr ccolant system analysis (Ref. 2) which is used in analysis of reactor coolant system components. Bachtel calcluation FM-4117-28 (Ref. 3) uses a 52 F temferc.ture as a worst case winter temperature. The recommendation contained in the orig!ai was implemented, but no addition analyses were identified.
$1GNirlCtJCE OF CONCERNS i
If che interface requirement is not met, analyses of the reactor coolant systen
- compenents could become invalid.
RECOMMENDATION A OR RESOLUTION :
Process per PQAP.
l COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
l (1f E [rNoNNNME DN.l)
(2) B&W Functional Contract Specification for Reactor Coolant System (18-1092000012-04) l (3) Bechtel Calculation FM-4117-28 SIGNATURE (S):
j FAD FAD ht., @M i OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER ' PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) i ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/29/83 3/29/83 4-\14lg3 M/ /rj DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAfC INDEPEPOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
. OPEN, COfflRMED AM) RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X N 8.C.031 D 3 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3 /3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOffNT(S) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABL L.
Topic I.3.lc - Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Refer to OCR's C-32 thru 35,.same program area as above, for description of four hangers field measured by TERA to be out of installation tolerance limits.
r I
$1CNiclCANCE GF CONCFRa
- I lhe construction deviation control process is not functional. ,
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Review further the construction deviation control process to determine extent of breakdown.
- 2. Process per Pioject Quality Assurance Plan.
l l
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
l REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Dwg 7220-H-639 SH 14 (Q), Rev 11 Spec 7220-M-326 (Q) Rev 8 " Install . , Inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports" SIGNATURE (S):
CS CS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAPO llOEPEPOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT F N TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN_ CONFIRMED X 0 NO. 32 I C 032 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports 3DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic 1.3-lc - Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Hanger H-10, a horizontal snubber, was field measured by TERA to be about 3'-0" from its design location (along the direction of the pipe axis) which exceeds the allowable tolerance for snubi;ers of 0'-6". Construction deviation information was not fontarded for approval and processing by engineering as required by procedures.
i ISIGNTICNEI CF COtCERN.
! 1. The pipfng ar.alysiS for this portion of the system may be affected as a result
! af this changt leading to highar suppcrt loaiis and piping strestes then )
- calculattd.
- 2. The construction deviation control process does not appear to be functioning for this case (refer to separate OCR for reconmiendation).
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Input this information to the TERA confirmatory piping analysis for further evaluation.
! 2. Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan l
l l
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
l l
~
REFERENCES (INCL RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Dwg 7220-H-639 SH 14 (Q), Rev.11 Spec- 7220-M-326 (Q), Rev. 8 " Install . , Inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports" SIGNATURE (S):
l 'CS CS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
' D MIDLAPO ltOEPE}OENT DESIGN Af0 CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT N
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN- CONFIRMED X N. 3 1-0 C-033 ,
RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O l DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 I PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 1/7 /R3 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. I STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOtENT(S) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports
~
M E N c N pe T fp N s
- Verification of Physical Configuration .
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Hanger H-7, a vertical rigid hanger, was field measured by TERA to be about 3'-0" from its' design location (along the direction of the pipe. axis) which exceeds the allowable tolerance of l'-0". Construction deviation information was not forwarded for approval and processing by engineering as required by procedures.
i d
1
~ ~ ~
SIGNFICANbi OF CONCERN
- 1. "le piping analysis for this portion of the systen1 may be affected as a result i of this change leading to nigher support loads and piping st.*esscs than ;
calculated.
- 2. The construction deviation control process does not appear to t,e functicntng C for this case (refer to separate OCR for recomeniation). ,
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Input to TERA confirmatory piping analysis for further evaluation.
'2. Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):
DY7YN hSb kQ ReNE Spec 7220-M-326 (Q), Rev. 8 " Install . , Inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports.. ."
SIGNATURE (S):
CS CS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) 1 ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE y--- - - - + - --,-g.-.u.---,g.n- -
w- , y . -- , - - - - - - - m. _- e-- -w -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.* s MIDLAFO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN AtO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X D NO. 3o s.C 034 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 1/7 /R3 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.3 Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Hanger H-4, a vertical spring hanger, was field measured by TERA to be located on the opposite side of a 90 elbow (along the axis of the pipe) which exceeds the allowable tolerance. Construction deviation information was not forwarded for approval and processing by engineering as required by procedures.
slCNIF;CANCE OF CON %RN:
- 1. The piping a talysis fer this portic:1 of the system may be affected as a result of this change leading to a higner rupport leads and piping stresses than calculated.
- 2. The ccastruction deviation control process does not appear to be functioning
' for this case (refer to separate OCR for recomendation).
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Input to TERA confirmatory piping analysis for further evaluation.
- 2. Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
k kNNN fQNNO Spec 7220-M-326 (Q), Rev 8 " Install . , Inspect. , & Doc. of Pipe Supports. . ."
SIGNATURE (S):
CS CS HAL JWB JWB N/A OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL. SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAbo il{)EPEbOENT DESIGN abo 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 5 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. (1) One DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 5/10/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 5/20/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 5/26/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. )
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports 1
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): .
Topic l.3-Ic Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Hanger H-ll, a vertical rigid hanger was field measured by TERA to be at the proper elevation but mis-located by l'-3" according to drawing dimensions from DP~260.
Further measurements show DP-260 at proper elevation, but dimensions do not match elevations shown for DP-260 or 265. Steel locations and penetration locations support elevations as measured.
I i
1 SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
Drawing errors of this nature are not consistent with pipe analysis and may l.
- ndicate the probability of other drawing errors tnat would develops loading highc- than design levels.
- 2. The construction deviation control process and drawing checkirg process does not appear to be functioning.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Investigate quality paperwork to determine effectiveness of acceptance procedures and feed back of results of design group for determination l of acceptance resolution.
- 2. Investigate shop drawing approval and establish feed back to design and drawing of dimension / elevation nonconformance.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
l l REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
I Drawing 7220-H639 Sh.14(Q), Rev. 11 & Engineering Evaluation 3201-001-001, Pgs 7 & 8 l
SIGNATURE (S):
RCS DBT hat JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 5/10/83 5/20/83 6/25/81 g /? 7 /fh
- DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
' ~
MIDLAIO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X O. 3 i C.036 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. (1) One DATES REPORTED TO: LTR :;/11/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. $/20/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 5/26/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW System Piping IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Topic 11.2-1 Pressure Boundary Drawing Review DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
The offset dimensions to the reactor centerline are not consistent with dimensions given along pipe centerline as follows. Distances between DP 270 and 280, 280 and 285, 300 and 306. Differences range from 5/16 and 7/16. Drawings that have been ,
signed have not been adequately checked.
i SIGN'FICANCE OF CCWCERM Inconsistencies in design drawings could lead to deviation of constructed structures, systems and components f rorr, design assumptions.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Investigate shop drawing approval system to establish method of resolution and feed back to design and drafting.
COMMENTS BY SRT (F 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 (S):
RCS DBT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 5/10/83 5/20/83 5/25/83 5/27/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
- ~ ,
MIDLAbO If0EPEf0ENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT I
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X *; 3 gg 3 i C.037 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 1/7/R1 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOPENT(S) INVOLVED:
AFW System - All
'l IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic III.1 Seismic Design Review of Design Criteria DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
FSAR Figures 3.7-2 through 3.7-53 are not current as they are not consistent.with FSAR text nor the models and response spectra for the containment anda~ uxiliary building. The FSAR updating, process is not consistent nor timely.
~
SIGNFICANCE Or CONCEfM l FSAR errors could lead to the utilization of impro;:er input to the design process.
.)
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
- 1. Review further information regarding the FSAR updating process.
- 2. Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
FSAR, Rev. 46, Section 3.7 Spec. 7220-G-6, Rev. 7 and G-7, Rev. 9, Containment & Aux. Bldg. Response Spectra SIGNATURE (S):
CS CS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAIO itOEPEtOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATICN OPEN, COtflRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT -
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFlRMED X y gl-j g C 038 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. Oa DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/1/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. J/3/83 PRINCIPAL.lN. CHARGE 1/7/R1 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW Pump Turbine Minimum Flow Valve IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.15-1, Control / Power Supplies DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Under condition of loss of all AC (station blackout), the AFW pump minimum flow valve 2SV-3969B would not be operable because it is powered from Class,1E AC power. The Midland FSAR and B&W BOP criteria document (36-1004477) both require that AFW be operable for two hours under station blackout. During this period of time flow through the minimum flow line may be necessary to prevent damage to the pump.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
Failure to provide minimum flow would cause consequential damage to the AFW i
turbine driven pump during station blackout.
l RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
OCR 3201-008-0-012 & C-012 ; Drawing E-158(Q) SH 29, 29A, 29B, 29C SIGNATURE (5):
LB HAL JWB N/A JWB LB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/1/83 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE 1
s, ea MIDLAPO IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED Y NO. 3 10 C.045 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/17/b3 SRT PROECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 5/20/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 5/26/81 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S) OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
Auxiliary Feedwater System: AFW Pump Motor 2P005A IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
ICV: Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation 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 shaft every 90 days, exceeding the maximum duration between shaft rotations, as recommended by the vendor, by a factor cf 6.
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, shaf t bearings, and rotating elements of the motor.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Recommend motor inspection by manufacturer's rep and ICV reviewer of motor bearing surfaces.
l l
l COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Bechtel Storage Procedure F-10-247 Vendor Document No. 7220-M14-68 SIGNATURE (S):
MBJ DBT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/17/83 5/20/83 5/25/83 5/27/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
, . < 6, MIDLAPO itOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
, OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORTS. OPEN CONFIRMED X C.046 0 3201 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/I7/83 SRT PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 83/20/83
- PRINCIPAL-IN CHARGE 5/26/d3 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOtENT(S) INVOLVED:
Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps = 2P005A & 2P005B IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
ICV: Review of Storage & Maintenance Documentation DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- l. Pump manufacturer's. recommended storage instructions require pump to be stored under vacuum with VPI crystals (dessicant) to maintain Relative Humidity at 1.ess than 50%.
- 2. Bechtel Procedure for storage of pumps, Proc. #F-10-Il8, does not require vacuum nor humidity check per item #1 above.
3 Further to concern, review of records Indicates pump have been open, subject to 4 flooding & other damage, & several NCR's remain open against the AFW pump turbine SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERNeindicating maintenance problems which have not been addressed nor closed out.
Failure to comply with the vendor's recommended storage instructions coupled with the long time (since 1978) the pumps and turbine have been in storage (both in the warehouse and in place) raise concerns as to the existence of internal damage to the pumps and turbine resulting from rust, corrosion, and foreign materials.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION :
Recommend pumps and turbine disassembly and inspection.
Disassembly and inspection should be witnessed by manufacturer's rep. and ICV reviet:c r.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
l i
Bechtel Procedure F-10-Il8 and Storage and Maintenarice Checklist GN-3-Il8 i
SIGNATURE (S):
l MBJ DBT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM , IN CHARGE
! 3/17/83 5/20/83 5/25/83 5/27/83 l DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
.. - -. -- -- .. -- - .- _