ML20072R635

Independent Design Verification Program Semimonthly Rept,830311

ML20072R635
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/11/1983
From:	TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML16340D272	List: ML20072R631 ML20072R635
References
NUDOCS 8304060167
Download: ML20072R635 (189)

Text

.

o '

~

iPN ENGNEERING SSWICES 3

DIABLO CANYON NijCLEAR POWER PLANT INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRM SEMIMONTHLY REPORT TES - SM - MARCH MARCH 11, 1983

< EMCONTR0ll2D COTi PREPARED BY:

TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES IDVP PROGRAM MANAGER i (.

8304060167 830329 PDR ADOCK 05000275 j P PDR

~

TN .

ENGNEERING SBWICES )

TES SEMIMONTHLY REPORT MARCH 11, 1983 This document includes, in numerical order, all Open Item Report System Forms issued by TES since our Second Friday Semimonthly Report of February 11, 1983.

As required by DCNPP-IDVP-PP-005, individuals assigned by this organization to the IDVP have completed an acceptable Statement Regarding Potential or Apparent Conflicts of Interest.

f Appendix A to this document is a "Lookahead Report" as requested by the i

i Comission in its September 29, 1982 letter (Denton to Cooper). This Report is intended to provide a schedule (as presently known) of events occuring before the next Second Friday Semimonthly Report. These events J

include:

i' l. DCNPP site visits by the IDVP team.

2. Anticipated meetings where all IDVP participants and designated interested parties have been or will be notified.

lg 3. Significant IDVP events, such as the issuance of an ITR.

4 Also included in Appendix A is the IDVP schedule relative to DCNPP-1 3-Step Licensing. This schedule provides IDVP report dates for fuel load, low power, and full power.

l

's

(,

l l

m A

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 1002 l

1.

RLCA File Revision No. 6 i Date reported to PG&E and }ff? 830308 l 2. Scheduled for TEs (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable) -

4. Prepared as a result of:

I a. O QA Audit and Review Report of f

l

b. O cield Inspection Deficiency

c. O independent Calculation Deficiency

- d. O Seismic Input Deficiency ,

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. @ Other Qyfyyyyygy Downgrade of Error B

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

HVAC Components

6. Description of Concern:

E01 1002, Revision 0: Calculations for Supply Fans S67, 68, and 69 were found to have used incorrect and unconservative seismic inputs. In 0 addition, the forced draft shutter damper qualification showed incorrect seismic definition because gravity had not been added to the vertical acceleration.

. 7. Significance of Concern:

PG&E Completion Sheet (R. R. Fray en 7/15/83): No physical modifications required.

E0I 1002, Revision 3: RLCA has reviewed the qualification analyses and has verified that the Fans and Damper were not modified as a result of E01 1002 (Class B Error). Clos'ed Item.

, 8. Reconnendation :

Based on the PG&E response and the RLCA verification that no modification was required as a result of that E0I 1002, RLCA should consider issuing a Potential Program Resolution Report in which the Error B is downgraded to an Error C and the File closed out. Refer to Paragraph 5.1.?. uf the m

January 1983 IDVP Semimonthly Status Report for downgrading procedure.

]

l

9. Signature: /a,444 830308 (Or19inator/ Organization) 1 l

. s n

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 1028 File Revision No. 6

1. Date reported to PG&E and 830309

. c 2. Scheduled for /' (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to G E, Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit,and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency -

1

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency l

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency '

f. 00 Other /)tf/ihWM/ Information from PG&E

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Buildings, HVAC Ducts. Electrical Raceways, Mechanical Equipment, HVAC Equipment, and Piping.

6. Description of Concern:

Method of combining torsion in seismic analysis.

!C i

4

7. Significance of Concern:

L -

't3 8. Recomnendation :

RLCA to review DCP Cogletion Sheet, signed 830225, and provide- a recommendation for future disposition.

9. Signature: M(( 830309 (Originator / Organization)

. s .

s File No.1080 File Revision No. 3 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT .

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

C File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

b The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. _2__,

which recategorized this item as R110gRXR)OR@KkhQtX)DfX)pga Class C El H M lM Error. The PG&E document so informi.ng the IDVP is DCP Resolution & Completion Sheets - R.R. Fray 830211 .

2. Signature: htt/m 4 & J L . 8362/.s~

droved / Program kanager C

m d

-4'-

m

1 File No. 3 1 l File Revision No. 3 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effcrt related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

c File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 2 ,

which recategorized this item as etittletX)tKXItMst*btXRXH a Class C NKXtIHKXBXError. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is DCP Resolution & Comoletion Sheets - R.R. Fray 830211 .

2. Signature: f l u % a 4 sfp f. M $302.)y- ,

Ap[o(ed/ Program Manager l

O se e-

File No. 1084 File Revision No. 4

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT l

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

(

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications wil1 be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 3 ,

which recategorized this item as #MHnKM)0W0ttXIXxXX2Xu a Class C oNXERHEML Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is DCP Resolution & Completion Sheets - R.R. Fra.y 830211 {

2. Signature: [Wm 4 a f. / h /Jo2 g Ap[oved[ProgramManker t

}, ~6- .

l

_ _ - _ - - _ - - - - _ --- . _ l

.r%

p .

File No. 1085 File Revision No. 4' r,

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT 7

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to 1 the above File Number is complete.

4

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

C File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications i will be applied by PG&E in response to File. Revision No. 3 ,

which recategorized this item as RhdtRRXR) Clan 1M900googga class -

C arX)Diss6xPx Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is 7 DCP Resolution & Completion Sheets - R.R. Fray 830211 .

2. Signature: $(Um An. ty. /Q 63o2sf-Ap[ofed/ProgramManager C ,

l c

l l

e

,f g . .

~

File No. 1086

~ '

File Revision No. 3 l'

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT r The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

O

] File Revision No. is a Program Resolutloo Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

, O X The IDVP has been informed by PC&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 2 ,

which recategorized this item as MIG 0KXEDRMMMWa Class C RXDmXm Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is r DCP Resolution & Congletion Sheets - R.R. Fray 830211 .

2. Signature: W 6u &' /e fu./ % 83024 -

dr[ved/ProgramMadger L

-8

. , - , . - -e

~

. e c

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 1095 File Revision No. 5  !

1. Resolution of an: 00. Open Item: b Class Error l

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as: l

a. G Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task n 3. Date Reported to PG&E 830308

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E01 1095 Revision 4: The spectra associated with the input time history (TH) for the auxiliary building obtained from URS/Blume -

(P105-4-441-004) may not conservatively envelope the Hosgri ground design spectra at certain frequencies. This concern gives rise to the potential that the floor response spectra obtained from the input TH may not bc conservative at all frequencies.

O

.n

6. Program Resolution is:

B'ased on a study by RLCA, it was determined that the time history satisfies the intent of NRC Standard Review Plan (Section 3.7.1).

Therefore, the IDVP finds that the spectra from the input time history provides an acceptable fit to the design basis spectra. The file is closed, s

i

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) on 830224 A Type Name/0rganization Date

, 8. Signature: K!!! w/,r m./. 9 - 830308 (Approved / Program Manager)

[' .g. '

4 - ,

, File No. 1095 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program-(IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 5 is a Program Resolution Rep' ort which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

'O The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to Fil'e Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is t,

2. Signat'ure: [ A/ W Ie, 4le /. # - ~ 830308 hproved/ProgramMaiager it l

t n

File No. 1096 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT ,

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

.~

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

~~, X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as eW)t#N/WWAMAM/#/AA/a Class 4

C pt/gh4/5 Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is G DCP Comoletion Sheet by R. R. Fray February 15, 1983 .

L

. 2. Signature

M((e 830225 Approved /ProgfamManager 9

~- '11-

+

- . _ _ _ _ . --- - e - - - - . - . , , , ,e. - ,- y , ,  %,

a ~

ERROR' REPORT File No. 1098 Class: A or B File Revision No. 7 A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 7o2/o

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Coanittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830225

, 2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

CVCS Separai.or/ Stabilizer.

4. Description of Error:

, The design analysis 8-25 modeled the CVCS separator / stabilizer 1

support as an X and Y translational- restraint. RLCA field j, verification shows this support as an X and Y translational and X and Z rotational restraint.

1 f 5. Significance of Error:

The separator / stabilizer was qualified as an "in-line" piping component. Design analysis 8-25 does not record the correct anchor bolt loads on the separator / stabilizer.

l (,

} 6. Recommendation:

l Based on PGandE presentations of their technical program, this file 4

is combined with files 961,1021,1058,1059,1060, and 1104 as an

. Error Class A or B.

4 The inclusion of file 1060 and 1104 into this file was achiesad by Program Review Committee action. I All concerns of the above mentioned files will be reviewed under this 4

file.

Revision 6 was issued to reflect the inclusion of file 6001.

Revision 7 was issued to reflect the inclusion of files 1115 and 6002. l 1

7. Potential Error Report signed by NA E on Type Name/0rganizati n Date

8.1 Signatures

NA J Vf' , 830225

'For Program Review Committee Approved / Program Manager-g ,

- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ e- = v m D

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT /

File No. Inoo

, File Revision No. 5

^

1. Resolution of an: E Open Item: 0-Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

t

a. O Closed Item

b. 5 Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation: .

. PG&E drawing 463683 Revision 6 shows 3/4 inch stiffener plates on the north side of the fixed support. RLCA field verification shows that the north side of the fixed end support of the CCW HX 1-2 does not include these plates. CCW HX l-1 includes these supports.

The design analysis is not affected by this drawing deviation because-the simplified dynamic model does not include these stiffener plates.

The design stress analysis adequately considers the true configurations.

4

6. Program- Resolution .is :

Drawing 463683 has been revised - Deviation ,

l l

l l

s l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by nennon/RLCA c'n 830216 ype Name/0rganization Date

8. Signature: W/ 571 cu u - (Approved /ProgramManager).

u. I

(

1 File No. 1099 File Revision No. 6 a

a j IDVPCOMPLETIDNREPORT 4

l The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effor.t related to j the above Fi]e Number is complete.

i

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

i

) File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

, kb The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File hevision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as cither a Deviation er :: : Cl:::

C cr 01

:: D Ccrer. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is j, PG&E Completion sheet' dated 821018 .

2. Signature: h [ [m /

97sa c -

Approved / Program Manager 4

0 P

\

l l

, w

• P

^

,:^ ,

l File No.

1102 i File Revision No. 7 i-

,r IDVP COMPLETION REPORT c The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to

. the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

$' File havision No. is a Program Resolution Report which I

recategorized this item as .a Closed Item.

1 g The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications 4-will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 6 ,

which recategorized this item asgyt/)gr/NJ)ep/lAt/lgyp/yAA a Class

C pf/gJpJry/p Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is y DCP rnmnlation Sheet by R. R. Fray February 14. 1983 .

2. Signature: M,[ [m_ 830225 .

Approved /PrkramManager s i J

=ar l

I

.1 .

OPEN ITEM' REPORT Fi,le No. 1107

1. Date reported to PG&E and kA 830309

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly. Report-No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of: -

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. Q Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency *

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Piping Additional Sample 110

6. Descripti'on of Concern:

a. RLCA field verified and modeled two valves (including 1-8068A) attached to the 3/4 inch vent line from line 3488. The design analysis and schematic drawing (P and ID) 102007, Sheet 5, Revision 8 shows one valve in this vent line.

b. RLCA field verified two supports on line 4259 to be deadweight only. -

The design analysis shows these supports as rigid vertical supports (previously identified concern 79-14 program).

c. The verification analysis used a value of 2.1 for the socket weld connection SIF. The design analysis used 1.0.

7. Significance of Concern: ,

The stresses calculated in the verification analysis exceed the allowable values in two separate areas of piping.

! For Item b above, the reasons for the differences were identified as -

] generic concerns in ITR No.12, Revision 0.

i

+

8. Recomendation : ,

Based on PG&E Resolution Sheet for File 1107 Revision 2 dated R. R. Fray 830218, RLCA to review the new design analysis (7-103) which has superseded the previous design analysis 7-1. This new analysis (7-103) has addressed all three itens above.

9. Signature: [ [e" (Originator / Organization) l- .

+a e

> - . , -m -, m ,

4 . .

, OPEN ITEM REPORT File-No. 1108 RLCA File Revision No. 4

'i. 1. Date reported to PG&E and W/  :

2. Scheduled for _IES. (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March  !

j 3. Responsive to PGKE Technical Program: Task . (ifapplicable)  !

, 4. Prepared as a result of: l 1 a. O QA Audit and Review Report of j b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

!. c. El Independent Calculation, Deficiency,

- d. O Seismic Input Deficiency i e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency j 5. Structure (s), system (s) or cogonent(s) involved:

RLCA Piping Sagle 110

!. Design Analysis 7-1 Revision 5

t j 6. Description of Concern

l The design analysis of the RTD lines does not include the effects of the i;

attachment to the reactor coolant system at the following locations:

.O t Line 1141 node 515, line 1140 node 107, line 1137 node 27,

!; line 1136 node 12, and line 1138 node 1. -

i.

'i

, 3 ,

i i

l 7. Significance of Concern:

1

' . E0I 1107 notes an ' overstress in the verification analysis. This i, overstress is not caused by the inclusion of these SAM effects in the

!' verification analysis. The licensing criteria does not address small l.,

bore piping attached to the r,eactor coolant system.

Revision 3:

, Open Item with future action by PG&E - clarify the licensing criteria j with respect to small bore piping attached .to the RCS.

]

I i l

a 8. Reconnendation ,

i l Based on PG&E Resolution Sheet for File 1108, Revision 3 (revised copy)

! dated R. R. Fray 830218, RLCA to, review the new design analysis (7-103) 1-which has superseded the previous design analysis 7-1. This new analysis.

! (7-103) has included the appropriate anchor movements.

o f~

t'

9. Signature: k(( Ry4JO Y (Originator / Organization)

-17 .

~

' r

~

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 1110 File Revision No.

4 RLCA 3 4

1. Date reported to PG&E and XRXX 830225 i>m 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

)

c. O Independent' Calculation Deficiency  !

, d. O Seismic Input Deficiency  !

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency '

f. O Other Deficiency 5 ., Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Class 136" x 16" Rectangular HVAC duct from Fan S-69 to 4.16 KV switchgear.

6. Description of Concern:

New calculations provided with PGandE Resolution and Completon Sheets, Revision 2.

4 e

i

7. Significance of Concern:

Further file action by the IDVP may,be warranted.

, . 8 '. Recommendation:

RLCA to review ' DCP submittal and submit a file revision or recommendation to the IDVP Program Manager.

9. Signature: ,28[e 830225 (Originator / Organization)

(

v

l ERROR REPORT File No. 1110 Class: C File Revision No. 5 t -

A,B,C or 0 PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830311

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Class 1 36" X 16" Rectangular HVAC duct from Fan S-69 to 4.16KV Switchgear.

4. Description of Error:

Wall penetration described in PGandE drawing 59322 Revision 17, Detail Z/322 specifies 21/2 X 3/16 inch angle installed on top and two sides of duct on west side of wall.

Field inspection shows the angles not to be installed.

s

5. Significance of Error:

RLCA independent calculations show all stresses to be below' the allowables P105-4-560-001, Revision 1.

6. Recomendation:

. Error Class C.

1

, 7. Potential Error Report signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) on 830307

8. Signatures: Type Name/0rganization Date

~ 4 , o 4 to. M n 830311 s

NA' For Program Review Committee g# proved /Profram Manager

-18a-

4 0 0 o . .

l

,s 1 OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 1112 RLCA File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and /W/ 830215

2. Scheduled for TES (Origi.nator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of -

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency ,

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. (D Other /)W##ffy DCP Completion SWt (R. R. Fray) January 18, 1983

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Soils - Intake Structure

6. Description of Concern:

Borings 18 through 22 included in the May 1968 Harding-Miller-Lawson &

Associates Soils Report are shown on the site plan and subsurface section

. (Plate I-1) to be in the intake line area (Section A-A, Plate I-1). The boring logs included in the report note that these borings are in the discharge line area (Section B-B, Plate I-1).

7. Significance of Concern: -

8. Reconmendation :

RLCA and TES to review response in DCP Completion Sheet by R. R. Fray dated January 18, 1983 and disposition this file.

9. Signature: fdAndI w.dr M 830215 (Originator / Organization) fr

_. l

5 e

cs ,

T PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 1112 File Revision No. 5

- 1. Resolution of an

D Open Item: O Class Error -

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item b . K1 Deviation .

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830222

. 4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March i 5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

i i Borings 18 through 22 included in the May 1968 Harding-Miller-Lawson &

i Associates Soils Report are shown on the site plan and subsurface section

] (Plate I-1) to be in the intake line area (section A-A, Plate I-1). The boring logs included in the report note, that these borings are in the discharge line area (section B-B, Plate I-1). Based on the PGandE i

completion sheet (P105-4-lll2-003), .the boring logs included in the report are incorrectly labeled.

t

w 1

6. Program Resolution is:

4 Deviation.

5 i

4

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison '(RLCA) on 830215 T e ame/ Organization Date

8. Signature- j$[/'

830222 (Approved / Program Manager)

. l

'~

File No. 1112 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT r The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

(

file Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

c XX The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation RXX)tXXXEXHE EX&MXE H HX8X DER . The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is Completion Sheet by R. R. Fray 830118 in response to file revision 2.

2. Signature: M[m 830222 Approved /[rogramManager (l

l l

1 L~

1 l l

~

. ~

y*

ERROR REPORT File No. 1114 Class: c File Revision No. 2

, A,B,C or D PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Connittee N/A Program Review Committee Action Reported.to PG&E and Originator

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March C.' ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Saltwater Pump

4. Description of Error:

'- The design analysis for the auxiliary saltwater pump does not consider the virtual mass centribution of the water surrounding on the submerged pump casing.

c

5. Significance of Error:

The verification analysis considered the virtual water mass contribution and found all stresses to be below the allowable.

c

6. Recommendation :

Error Class C.

. C.

t:L

7. Potential Error Report signed by E. Denison/RLCA on 830215

8. Signatures: Type Nmne/0rganizatiop Date N/A For Program Review Committee M64d6*64s40.4/medau 4282/4" ApprofeU/ Program Mtnager -

i PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 1115

, File Revision No. 2

, 1. Resolution of an: U Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. U Closed Item

b. O Deviation -

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

,' 4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No, March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

Phase I Independ.ent Calculations - Pipe Supports.

The PGandE Phase I Report provides for a complete review of all design Class I large bore pipe supports by the DCP. Comparison of IDVP independent calculations for the initial sample to superseded DCP work will not provide meaningful results.

i .

1 t .- 6. Program Resolution is:

This item combines with E01 File 1098 as an Error Class A/8. The IDVP will review the DCP current activities as deta'iled in ITR #8, Revision O.

.i i0 4 7. Potential Program Resolution l

Report signed by Edward Denison (RLCA) on 830216  !

Type Name/0rganization Date l

,, 8. Signature: X/f#__a 830225 (Approved / Program Manager) l

File No. 1115 File Revision No. 3 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IOVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 2 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IOVP is

2. Signature: 2) 8 d 830225 Approved / Program Manager 5

~

~

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 1116 File Revision No. 2 ,

1. Resolution of an: D Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. El Closed Item

b. D Deviation

c. D Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830222

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the 'following documentation:

P105-4-530-001, Revision 0.

Results of Design Analysis and Verification Analysis for Main Steam Isolation Valve, FCV-41 differ by more than 15%. Design analysis determined acceptable acceleration to satisfy stress criteria. Verification analysis applied Hosgri qualification acceleration levels and compared stresses to stress criteria.

All calculated stresses are below the allowable values.

i

6. Program Resolution is:

Closed Item.

I I

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by E. Denison (RLCA) on 830218 Type Name

8. Signature: /, f g,__/0rganization 830222 Date (Approved / Program Manager) i .

/ ,w - -

~

File No. 1116 File' Revision No. 3 l IOVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which cogletes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 2 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

• The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Res asion No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

2. Signature: b[ [ - _- 830222 .

Approved [ProgrbManager O

- r

'l PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 6002 File Revision No. 2

1. Resolution of an: G Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. G Closed Item -

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E R10210

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Fahruar v * *

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:'

IDVP Phase II Initial Sample: Rupture Restraints Diablo Canyon letter DCVP-TES-748 describes a program for reanalysis of rupture restraints on a' sampling basis to assure conformance with the licensing criteria.

This DCP program provides for reanalysis of a sample of rupture restraints larger than the initial sample planned by the IDVP.

l

6. Program Resolution is:

This item combines with E01 1098 as an Error Class A or B. The IDVP will prepere a program similar to ITR-8, Revision 0, " Verification of DCP '

Corrective Action" for verification of Phase II rupture restraints through review of the DCP current activities.

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Faward Denison/RLCA on 830204 Ty Name/ Organization _

8. Signatuie: M[C, m_ UOu r Date (Approved /ProgramManager)

&t_. . 4 ~?,' . % N _ i,, ~ R .~ ~ - ?? lllW.$i N'5% #8l : S?

a O 4

File No. 6002 File Revision No. 3 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT 4

.The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. 9 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item. ,

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a, Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is I

2. Signature: M[ [.~ 93 dLt-r Approved / Pro [amManager 1

l

~

l

. 1

. . ~ - -

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 7003 RFR File Revision No. 3

. 1. Date reported to PG&E and IRS 830304 i n 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task 70320 (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:. .

a. II QA Audit and Review Report of PGandE

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency n d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency -

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Containment Isolation System.

6. Description of Concern:

See Revision 0.

f

7. Significance of Concern:

See Revision 0.

,J 8. Reconnendation:

RFR and TES on 3/2/83 reviewed the DCP Completion Sheet, signed 2/7/83, and ageed that TES would open the item, that RFR would submit a PPRR/CI to TES and that TES would issue a Completion Report.

j, 9. Signature: Mg _ 830304 (Originator / Organization)

' f t

,--w - _w V w

. o PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 7003 File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: E Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. 5 Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830309

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March, 1983 5 .' Resolution based on the following documentation:

a. E01 7003, R'ev. 4 as a PPRR/CI

b. DCP Completion Sheet signed Feb. 19, 1983 J

i j

i

6. Program Resolution is:

The OCP response resolves the concern t A

7. Potential Program Resolution  !

Report signed by- F. Greenwood on 830309 ,

T.ype Name

8. Signature: f/i*' f /0rganization Date f>vio, -(Approved / Program Manager) 1

.3 )

1 l

-n . e. + . - - - ~ +

i .

. File No. 7nn, File Revision No. g IDVP COMPLETION REPORT

, The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

@ File Revision No. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so infdrming the IDVP is -

2. Signature: M((m 7J->>o, Approved /PrograIManager t

4 5

b .)

~

.s l

c

. e 1

ERROR REPORT File No. 8001 Class: A/B Fild Revision No. 3 A,B,C or D PG&E Task No.

~

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA l

Program Review Committee Action NA l

Reported to PG&E and Origiaator 830225

't . Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Mar:h ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or ccmponent(s) involved:

Evaluation of Environment Outside Containment. -

4. Description of Error:

E0I files 7004, 7005, 8003, 8006, 8Q33, and 8034 uch addresses a specific aspect of this concern, i

5. Significance of Error:

The DCP is reevaluating the environment which results from post-ulated pipa breaks outside of containment. This work will be verified by the ITP in accordance with ITR-34.

! 6. Recomendation :

The file revision is issued to provide a generic title and to combirie E0I files 7004, 7005, 8003, 8006, 8033, and 8034 with 8001. These other files will be closed and all concerns tracked by 8001.

7. Potential Error Report signed by NA NA -

on Type Name/0rganization Date

8. Signatures: _ NA For Program Review Committee W f f _ _ 830225 g Approved / Program Manager w

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8002 SWEC File Revision No. 10

1. Date reported to PG&E and 1103 830225

.s 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

• a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

', d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. 2 Other X)0tXiU9W66K - See Below

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Evaluation of environment in Turbine Building.

6. Description ,of Concern:

Revision 2 and 5 classified this file as an ER/AB. Subsequent review indicated that this aspect was not a concern because at the time of the original work all NRC required break sizes were considered. If Revision 5 had been issued as a PRR/0IP, this inform-ation would have been developed and no error indicated.

7. Significance of Concern: -

Revision 8 and 9 to this file did not follow the proper procedures for indicating that this item was downgraded from an error to a closed item. That procedure requires issuance of a PRR/0IP, or a similiar form, before issuance of a PRR/CI or Completion Report. ,

-) 8. Reconinendation :

A. File revisions 8 and 9 are voided.

B. File revision 11 will be issued to indicate downgrading, then

)

the file will be closed. ,

7

9. Signature: N((_

u 830225 (Originator / Organization) l i 1

.)

4 PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT -

File No. 8002 Down rading .

File Revision No. 11 R44&M 4X&n of an: O' Open Item:

l. II Class A/8 Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. D Deviation

, c. 4% Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task 70221

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E0I File 8002, Revision 5 and Revision 7.

DCP Completion Sheet signed 830115.

s

6. Program Resolution is:

, This item is downgraded from an ER/AB to a Closed Item.

No DCP action is required.

s l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by - F. Sestak (SWEC) on 830131 Type Nene Date

8. Signature: f,x pg /0rganization 830225 (Approved / Program Manag 1

- - e

-s PROGRAM RES01.UTION REPORT

~~ --

File No. 8002 File Revision No. 12

- r.-

1. Resolutim1 of an: IX Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as: *

a. IX Closed Item

b. O Deviation- ,

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for. TES Semimonthly Report No. March .

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E01 File 8002, Revisions 5, 7, and 11.

Ie DCP Completion Sheet signed 830115.

1 i c:

6. Program Resolution is:

This file was downgraded from an ER/AB to a Closed Item because at the time the original analysis was performed all NRC required break sizes were considered. -

C.

G

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by l NA NA on  !

Tpe name/ Organization Date '

8. Signature: ~(s/. f (/, _ _ 830225 (Approved / Program Manager) l 35

- e

. .i i

i n ,

. File No. 8002 File Revision No. 13 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT a

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP c.ffort is:

C X File Revision No. 12 is a Program Resolution Report which I recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

2. Signature: W f g- 830225 Approved /ProgdmManager i

.O l

1, I

l s . . . . . _ - ._.

g .. . . - .n . . . - -_ . . _ _ . - _ _ _

~

in "- -

s i

• . f i

ERROR REPORT File No. 8003 Class: C File Revision No. 8 n A,B,C or 0

, PG&E Task No. I

l. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA e Reported to PG&E and Originator 830222

2. . Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No March t 3.

Structure Control Room (s), systemand Ventilation (s),Pressurization or component (s) involved

(CRVP) Ewuipment System i inside the Turbine Building which must function in a severe

environment.

! 4. Description of Error:  !

The Enthalpy Value of the long term blowdown resulting from a main i

steam line break in the Turbine building used by NSC was too low.

, C l .

5. Significance of Error:

Safety-related equipment inside the Turbine building affected by a main steam line break which must function in a severe environment may be exposed to greater temperatures than reported. -

c 6. Recomendation:

lhe response in DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8003, Rev. 5, .

signed January 24, 1983, is adequate because the DCP is performing a

, reanalysis which "will use appropriately chosen values of enthaply".

The concern described in this E0I File should be addressed in the DCP reanalysis performed in response to E0I File 8001. .6 This file should be downgraded from an Error ' Class. AB to an Error

, Class C to more accurately reflect the significance of this concern.  :

The basis for this downgrading is the fact that this concern is an isolated portion of the pressure and temperature analysis. '

It is therefore difficult to isolate that portion of the results that  !

can be attributed solely to the error described in this file.

'C -

i i

.(

7. John Krechting (SWEC)

Potential Error Report signed by on 830217-Type Name/ Organization Date.

t

8. Signatures: NA fvf g 830222 For Program Review Committee Approved /PPogram Manager

~

,n,, ,,, , w ----v-, - - - - , -,a,. -

, , , ~ , - .,-- ,y,- e , - .--, , , , - , - - , y e- , e - p-- ~~w

s- .

1 File No. 8003 File Revision No. 9 p, -

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Nunber is complete.

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 8 ,

which recategorized this item)etX)O$bhOtX)#(Det)l)02)lX2XNX as a Class C MXR1 m XR Error. The PG&E. doctrnent so informing the IDVP is DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8003 Rev. 5 signed 830221. .

2. Signature: M[ 8_ 830222 Approved / Program Manager t

a w'

38-

uren 1stn xtruni rise no. euu*

. SWEC File Revisicn No. 10

1. Data reported to PG&E and III 830225

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task 70223 (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

'c a. O QA Audit and Review Report of '

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. M Other Dg m idway -

See Below r 5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Evaluation of assumed init'ial temperature in GE/GW.

6. Description of Concern:

Revisions 2 and 5 classified this file as an ER/AB. Subsequent review indicates that this aspect was not a concern because the value used was consistent with one part of the licensing documents-and the subject analysis is subject to review based on E0I 8001.

7. Significance of Concern:

Revisions 8 and 9 to this file did not follow the proper procedure for indicating that this item was downgraded from an error tn a closed item. That procedure requires issuance of a PRR/01P, or a similar form, before issuance of a PRR/CI or Completion Report.

8. Recommendation: .

A. File revisions 8 and 9 are voide'd.

O B. File 11 will be issued to indicate downgrading, then the file will be closed.

D

9. Signature: 7,/ 8 830225 _ (Originator / Organization) 6#

3 s

l

(

l PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT l

- File No. 8004 l Down rading File Revision No. 11

(' l. R4X4kMXXMM of Oan: Open It'm: D Class A/B Error <

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item '

l

b. O Deviation l

c. IX Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task 70223

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. . Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E01 File 8004 Revis' ions 5 and 7.

DCP Completion Sheet dated 830115.

6. Program Resolution is:

This item is downgraded from an ER/A8 to a Close'd Item.

• No DCP action is required.

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by F. Sestak (SWEC) on 830131 Type Name Date

8. Signature: l//* $ m/ Organization

_ 830225 (Approved /ProgramManager)

-m

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8004 File Revision No. 12

1. R'esolution of an: 1% Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. tX Closed Item '

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E0I file Revisions 5, 7, and 11.

DCP Completion Sheet signed 830131.

1 -

i

, 6. Frogram Resolution is:

4 This file was downgraded from ER/AB to a Closed Item because initial

! compartment pressure, temperature, and refative humidity values assumed in the analysis are 14.7 psia, 70 F, and 60% respectively,

1. this being the licensing requirements for the specific combination of pipe breaks and initial conditions.

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by NA on NA

8. Signature: JL/ gpe Nane/ Organization Date l

.rg$,, 830225 (Approved / Program Manager) l l

~

~

i File No. 8004 File Revision No. 13 l'.

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT l The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

l t

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 12 is a Program Resolution Report which

] recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

I' j, The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications l will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

2. Signature: 2/ 8 [m 830225

> Approved /ProgradManager T

e C

' ~

?

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8007 i SWEC File Revision No. 3

, 1. Date reported to PG&E and IE3 830225 '

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

'. O QA Audit and Review Report of_

a

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency r

e. O Daign Methodology Deficier.cy

f. IX Other Deficiency ,

t

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Conduit K6844 - Control Rooai Ventilation System conduit containing Class 1 cable / wire to CRVP System Components.

,- Main Steam - 3 Safety Relief Header. ,

6. Description of Concern:

Pipe rupture restraint no. 1030-14RT does not appear to be properly located for a circumferential break at node 3510.

7. Significance of Concern:

This event may cause the header and relief discharge vent piping support structure to pivot about the restraint and damage conduit no. K6844.

8. Reconnendation :

TES requests SWEC to review the DCP response to file 8007-2, DCP Resolution and Completion Sheets, 830218, and provide a reconnendation for the future disposition of this file.

9. Signature: , [ 830225 (Originator / Organization)

" -^

~

. 1

' ; rw .

• PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8007

~

File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: 10 Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. 5 Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830310

. 4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

• DCP Resolution Sheet for File No. 8007, signed 830218.

N d

1 i

i

!i i '

l

6. Program Resolution is:

i The IDVP has reviewed the documentation submitted with the DCP Resolution Sheet, 830218 and recommends closing this file based on:

l 1. a review of AEC letter Giambusso to. Searls dated 721218

2. restraint 1030-14RT is not required to mitigate any main steam pipe break effects and,

3. the IDVP has performed a safety evaluation which shows that the cables in conduit K6d44 are not required for reactor shutdown for

, pipe break conditions postulated at node 3510.

J s

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John E. Krechting on 830304

8. Signature: M(( Type Name/0rganization Date ssmo (Approved /ProgramManager)

n -

File No. 8007 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT .

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete. -

1. The action which co@letes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 5 is. a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,.

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class

, C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is 4

2. Signature: M(( m -- ffsf/o ~

Approved / Program Manager 4

a ,

I l

^

l l

1

4 OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8008 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and IEI 830225

,, 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency -

f. EX Other Deficiency .

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Conduit K6844 - Control Room Ventilation System conduit containing Class 1 cable / wire to.CRVP System Components.

Main Steam - 4 Safety Relief Header.

6. Description of Concern:

Pipe Rupture Restraint 1031-11RT does not appear to be properly located for a circumferential break at node 4145.

e

7. Significance of Concern:

This event may cause the header and vent pipe support to pivot about the restraint and damage conduit K6844.

8. Recommendation:

TES requests that SWEC review DCP Resolution and Completion Sheets, 830218, and provide a recommendation for the future disposition of this file.

, i l

9. Signature: 7t/ ( [ % G 830225 (Originator / Organization)

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8008 File Revision No. 5.

r 1. Resolution of an: 10 Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. E Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830310

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

DCP Resolution Sheet for File NO. 8008, signed 830218.

6. Program Resolution is:

The IDVP has reviewed the documentation submitted with the DCP Resolution Sheet, 830218 and recomends closing this file based on:

, 1. a review of AEC letter Giambusso to Searls dated 721218

2. restraint 1031-11RT is not required to mitigate any main stea:o pipe 1 break effects, and l

3. the IDVP has performed a safety evaluation which shows that the l cables in conduit K6844 are not required for reactor shutdown for pipe break conditions postulated at node 4145.

l l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John E. Krechting on 830304 T3,e Name/0rganization Date

8. Signature:

'u '&l* Se r _47_

flau, (Approved /ProgramManager)

i File No. goog l

File Revision No. 6 i

i IDVP COMPLETION REPORT i

i The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to

~

the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which cogletes the IDVP effort is:

l X File Revision No. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which 4 recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications I

will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class

. C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is r

2. Signature: hV[~ '

f r.s y s.s Approved / Program Manager 4

e e

a I

I o a < r ,, me

ERROR REPORT File No. 8009

^

Class: A File Revision No. 5  ;

A.B.C or D PG&E Task No. -

l. Dates: Reported to Program Review Connittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA /

Reported to PG&E and Originator 830225 - *

- 2. Scheduled for.TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s). involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System Discharge Piping upstream of last manual isolation valve before the Feedwater System.

4. Description of Error:

Reference Item 6 of E01-8009 Rev. O. Under certain operating conditions Auxiliary Feedwater Pioing may be subjected to pressures in excess of code allowables. The design criteria of ANSI B31.7 were not met.

i

5. Significance of Error: i Reference Item 7 of E0I-8009 Rev. O. Code allowable stress levels may have been exceeded without the proposed modifications, however, no physical damage to equipment or components would be expected due to conservative f actors of safety contained in the applicable codes.

The Auxiliary Feedwater System had been operated at these higher thaa design pressure conditions for extended periods of t time, including the most severe turbine overspeed test condition for short .

intervals, with no physical damage.

6. Recommendation:

The DCP Resolution Sheet dated 830218 for . E01-BSO9 indicates physical modifications are required and that code allowables may be

~

exceeded. Therefore this E0I File is an Error A since the code design criteria is exceeded.

The DCP should evaluate all components, piping and valves for compatibility with the new design pressure. This revised design pressure should be factored into the existing stress analysis and all effected equipment, including, control valves should be reviewed  ;

9 for ccitpatibility with the new design pressure. ,

,+

7. Potential Error Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC)' 830214 on ,

8. Signatures:

Date NA TypeName/g/ganigion/Am 830225 For Program Revi_ew Committee ~ Approved / Program Manager w

. *,e * -r - m =  % ,

, ,, e,,. . _ .

ERROR REPORT File No. 8009 Class: 'A . File Revision No. 7

• A,B,C or 0 PG&E, Task No. 70228

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/A t Program Review Committee Action N/A I Reported to PG&E and Originator .

830310 t

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March .

. 3. Structure (s), system (s), or cogonent(s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System Discharge Piping upstream of last manual isolation valve before the Feedwater System.

4. Description of , Error:

See E0I File 8009, Revision 5, Item 4. ><

5. Significance of Error:

See E0I File 8009, Revision 5, Item 5.

6. Recomendation:

The IDVib has reviewed DCP Resolution Sheet dated February 18, 1983 and 2

-'; concludes that the proposed modifications and pressura valves are in cogliance with code requirements.

The physical modifications will be verified by the IOVP. Additional Verification for this item is described in the ITR-34.

7. Potential Error Report signed by John E. Krechting i on -

830309 i

8. Signatures: Type Name/Organi3ptjan Date L-NA For Program Review Committee

_ ME Y. fra <

, Approved /Pfogram Nanager

.a i

,- I

ERROR REPORT File No. 8010

. Class:

A File Revision No. 8 A,B,C or D PG&E Task No. 70229

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator 830310 2.

Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March .

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

AFW Turbine Bearing Coolers and Supply Piping

4. Description of Error:

- Item 6 of E01 File 8010, Revision 0 and Revision 1 describes the error.

The AFW Bearing Cooling Water System and AFW Pump 1-1 Recirculation System are subjected to, under certain conditions, pressures which are in excess of code allowables and the bearing coolers design pressure rating.

5. Significance of Error:

Code class piping and the bearing cooler heat exchanger could be overstressed. Failure of the bearing coolers and/or the AFWP l-1 recirculation piping could degrade the system function.

0

6. Recomnendation :

The DCP Resolution Sheet for E01 File 8010, Revision 6 dated February 18, 1983 proposed system modifications to comply with the applicable codes.

These modifications are described in the DCP DCR #DCl-04-5009, Revision 0 contained in the response. The IDVP has reviewed the ' proposed modifications and finds the changes are an acceptable method for meeting code requirements. The physical modifications will be verified by the IDVP. Additional verification for this item is described in ITR-34.

7. Potential Error Report signed by John E. Krechting

^ on. 830304

8. Type Name/0rianization Date Signatures: NA 2ffg. rfaf f ,

For Program _ Review Committee ..

Approved / Program Manager

n OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. __jagjj curc File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and' YE5 830219

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. Mar.ch

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical . Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. IX Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Indep:ndent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficien'cy

e. Q Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

AFW and CRVP system electrical cables.

6. Description of Concern:

Qualification of cables in place (but not listed in FSAR) for MSLB environment per FSAR Section 3.6A, Amendment f, Reference 5.

7. Significance of Concern: '

Possible failure of cables if not qualified for MSLB environment.

s s 8. Reconnendation :

SWEC to review DCP response.(REf. DCF Resolution Sheets. IDVP File No. 8011 Rev 2, dated 2/3 and 2/11/83) and provide recommendation for future disposition.

9. Signature: Mf[e "

1. J ot.1 s (Originator / Organization)

~

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8011 1

, , File Revision No. 5

~

1. Resolution of an: 6 Open Item: O Class -

Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. (5 Deviation .

c. O Oper Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Repo':ed to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March '

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

SWEC has reviewed DCP completion package dated 830203 and 830211 and has found them to be acceptable based on cable qualification test reports. PGandE documentation on equipment qualification and jet effects will be revised to reflect this information.

6. Program Resolution is:

This Open Item is resolved as a Deviation.

l l

l l l

7. Potential Program Resolution -

Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830225 TD e Name Date

8. Signature: M8Cm _ /0rganization 830225 .(Approved / Program Manager)

U 53

________.__m.- _- ------------- - - - - - - - ' -

l. ,

l

, File No. 8011 File Revision No. 6 t

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.-

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications j will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 6 ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class l C or Class D Error. The PG&E'. document so informing the IDVP is-PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File 8011, signed 830211 .

i l 2. Signature: N[w 830225

ApprovedfProgramManager 1

OPEN ITEM REPORY File No. 8013 SWEC File Revision No. 7

1. Date reported to PG&E and )DD6 830222 __

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No., March

3. Responsivs to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. X2 Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Emergency Diesel Generators Nos. 11, 12, and 13.

6. Description of Concern:

Ability of diesel generators to star.t and accelerate to rated speed in the required sequence of all the needed safety-related loads.

7. Significance of Concern: -

Diesel generators are required to supply power to establish safe shutdown in the event of certain failure conditions.

8. Reconnendation :

SWEC to review DCP response (Ref. DCP Resolution Sheet 8013, Revision 0 and Revision 1 signed 830208) and provide reconnendation for future disposition.

9. Signature: hf4 830222 (Originator / Organization)

A .

l OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8014 IWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and g - 830215

2. Scheduled fcr TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March.

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Tagk (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of: '

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. IX Field Inspection Deficiency .

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System Valves LCV-108, LCV-109, LCV-113, LCV-115, FCV-436, and FCV-437.

6. Description of Concern:

Modifications to protect these valves from the effects of a moderate energy line break spray were not made.

7. Significance of Concern:

The above valves may fail electrically due to inadequate spray protection in the event of a moderate energy line break.

8. Recomendation :

TES requests SWEC to review DCP Resolution Sheet, IDVP File No.

8014, signed 830210, and provide recomendations for future disposition.

9. Signature:

M[ [. f 830215 (Originator / Organization)

.m., ,

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT l File No. 8014 i File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: 'O Open Item: EX Class C Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. EX Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task 70233

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

(

('

t 4

3

6. Program Resolution is:

Based on the discussions over this file held at the meeting of February 23, 1983, at SWEC's offices, this file is issued to PGandE c for future disposition.

1 b

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830217 ype Name/0rganization Date

, .8. Signature- ,,

830225 ..(Approved / Program Manager)-

^^

57-

. - . . . . - ~ . . - . - - .

Y

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8014 SWEC File Revision No. 7

.l. Date reported to PG&E and N7 - 830310

, 2. , Scheduled for T;s (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PGhE Technical Program: fask (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. El Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System Valves FCV-436 and -437 - MELB Protection f

6. Description of Concern:

Modifications to protect these valves from the effects of a moderate energy line break spray were not made. A letter dated December 28, 1979 to the NRC from PG&E committed to provide this protection before fuel loading.

7. Significance of Concern:

1

' c. 8. Reconnendation : ,

File Revision 8014-6, was prematurely issued. SWEC is requested to issue Revision 8 as a Potential Error Report, Class C.

9. Signature: g(( yf, Jo *i (Originator / Organization)

. o .

(

ERROR REPORT File No. 8014

,., Class: c File Revision No. 9 A,B,C or D PG&E Task No. 70233

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator March 10. 1983

-- 2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

4 Auxiliary Feedwater System Valves FCV-436 and -437 - MELB Protection.

4. Description of Error:

Modifications to protect these valves from the effects of a moderate energy line break spray were not made. A letter dated December 28, 1979 to the NRC from PG&E comitted to provide this protection before fuel loading.

T

(

i 5. Significance of Error:

The above valves were originally postulated to fail electrically due to inadequate spray protection in the event of a moderate energy line break.

These valves are used for realignment to long term cooling water supplies af ter the condensate supply is exhausted. The IDVP believes adequate time will be available to manually align these sources after a low condensate alarm even if the motor operators are not functional. The DCP Resolution Sheet for this file dated March 4,1983 provides an analysis.

It states that the justification' for protecting these valves has been reevaluated and no shields need be installed. DCP comits to update

, their Decenber 28, 1979 Licensing Commitment letter to the NRC. The IDVP concurs with this reanalysis. This E01 file is therefore being downgraded to an Error C as incorrect installation was found but design criteria for cooling down was not exceeded. Revision 0 of this file identified additional concerns with details of barrier installation for LCVs 108, 109, 113, and 115. The DCP Completion Sheet dated October 18,

"' 1982 identified that these barriers were installed properly. _ Their installation will be field verified.

6. Recomendation :

1. The DCP will provide their completion package after revision to the I l December 28, 1979 letter has been sent.

3

2. The IDVP will' close this file after verification of the letter 7 Poten b r o PR ti signed by John E. Krechtino on 830309

8. Signatures: TypeName/0rganizapon Date Na A/fc_ n o.r:, ,

For Program Review Committee Approved / Program Manager 4g . .

l

- . - . z .- - - - - ~

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8015 File Revision No. 8

r. 1. lhhhf hh1 of an: O Open Item: 0D Class B Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. El Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task 70234

~

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E0I File 8015, Revision 4, PG&E Completion Sheet signed 821204.

c.

Revision 4 classified this file as an ER/B. -

Subsequent review indicated that this aspect was not a concern because failure to meet the surveillance requirements in Section 4.7.1.2 of the Technical Specification did not occur. If Revision 4 had been issued as a PRR/0IP, this information would have been developed and no errer indicated.

Because of an oversight, Revision 6 was never issued.

6. Program Resolution is:

This item is downgraded from an ER/B to a Closed Item.

No DCP action is required.

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by .1nhn rrachtino on 830210 e Jame/ Organization Date

8. Signature- ' '

F. F_

" (Approved / Program Manager) i

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8015 File Revision No. 9

1. Resolution of an: lb Open Item: O Class Error

, 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a.10 Closed Item

, b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Repori.d to PG&E 830225

, 4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. R3 solution based on the following documentation:

E0I File 8015, Revisions 4 and 8 and PG&E Cogletion Sheet signed 821204.

f a

6. Program Resolution is:

This file was downgraded from an ER/B to a Closed Item because failure to meet the surveillance requirements in Section 4.7.1.2 of the Technical Specification did not occur.

1

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by N/A on N/A lyp Jeame/0rganization Date

8. Signature: 'A A C G m' 830225 (Approved / Program Manager)

t File No. 8015 File Revision No. 10 IDVP COMPLETION ~ REPORT The DChPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to.

the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the-IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 9 is a Program Resolution . Report which

]

recategorized this item as a _ Closed Item.

g, The IDVP has been informed by.PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E-in response to File Revision No. .

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

!.C -

2. Signature: h f C= - 830225 l Approved / Program' Manager I

t 1

g , cem , w

• y 4

- g w,- e-  % a-,, =

. i

. :: l OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8016 SWEC File Revision No. 5

1. Date reported to PG&E and HE 830225-

. 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)-

4. Prepared as a result of: .

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

, d. O Seismic Input Deficiency .

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. )( Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or conponent(s) involved:

7_

Class I portions of the CRVP System.

6. Description of Concern: '

Evaluation of the various combinations of vital bus failures

. c for a postulated LOCA in either Unit 1 or Unit 2 indicated conditions in which the CRVP System does not meet its design basis as stated in licensing commitments.

g

7. Significance of Concern:

Potential failure of Control Room to isolate and pressurize, and potential failure of air conditioning system in. Safeguard Room.

8. Recommendation :

SWEC to review DCP Resolution Sheet (Ref. IDVP File No. 8016 Revision 4, dated 830210) - and ' provide a recomendation for future disposition.

l

9. Signature: ,'M [ [" % 830225 (Originator / Organization) l w

~62-

! 1 r__. _ ._

-r-

ERROR REPORT File No. 8017 Class: A File Revision No. 3 A,B,C or-0 PG&E Task No.

l. Dates: Reported to Program Review Co'mmittee NA Prngram Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and WXi@XR1mX SWEC 830225

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization (CRVP) System and Control Power for Safety-Related Equipment.

4. Description of Error:

See E0I 8017, Revision 0.

5. Significance of Error:

Based upon TES and SWEC review of DCP Resolution Sheet signed on 830118:

,. A. Modifications are required and this file is reclassified from ER/AB to ER/A.

B. The engineering resolution proposed by DCP is acceptable to the IDVP.

6. Reconnendation:

Upon completion of the required modifications, as indicated by a DCP Completion Sheet, this file will be opened for SWEC verification of the physical modifications.

7. Potential Error Report signed by NA NA

> on Type Name/0rganization Date

8. Signatures: NA For Program Review Committee A/#8m 830225 Approved /Frogram Manager

l 1

l l

i ERROR R_EPORT' File No. 8017 y Class: A File Revision No. 5 c A,B,C or D PG&E Task No.

' ~

l. Dates: Reported to Program Review Connittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA

~

Reported to PG&E and SMIgIMXNK SWEC 830309

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), ' system (s), or component (s) involved: .

Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization (CRVP) System and Control Power for Safety-Related Equipment.

4. Dascription of Error:

See E0I 8017, Revision 0.

f

5. Significance of Error:

j Based upon TES and SWEC review of.DCP Resolution Sheet signed on 830118:

1 A. Modifications are required and this file is reclassified from ER/AB to ER/A.

B. The engineering resolution proposed by DCP is acceptable to the IDVP.

6. Reconnendation:

Upon completion of the required modifications, as indicated by a DCP t Completion Sheet, this file will be opened for SWEC verification of the physical modifications.

I This Error Report reiterates File Revision 3 solely to conform to the IDVP process sequence.

7. Potential Error Report signed by NA on Type Name/ Organization Date

8. Signatures: NA

%gg_ 830309 For Program.. Review Committee Approved /Pp6 gram Manager.

_ j Nw . s me- -e. ml

jd .

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8018 SWEC File Revision No. 5

1. Date reported to PG&E and 18R 830302

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Aud.it and Review Report of

. b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. E Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System - Steam Supply Isolation Valves FCV-37 and FCV-38.

6. Description of Concern:

Refer to E0I 8018, Revision 0.- .

C

7. Signif'icance of Concern:

Refer to E0I 8018, Revision 0.

t

~'

8. Recomendation.

.1 SWEC to review DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File 8018, signed 830210, and prov.ide recomendation for future disposition.

l 1

~

l-l Signature: ~N((%

9. 83030{0riginator/ Organization)

~~

, ~ _ . - ._ ~ .. .

1E , .,

j7m .

i, , PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8018-File Revision'No. 7 l1 1. Resolution of an: 8 Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as

a. 3 Closed Item 4

b. -O Deviation 4

(. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

'- 3. Date Reported to PG&E 830309 f

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

. .g

The DCP Completion-Sheet for E0I 8018 dated March 1, 1983 is the latest.

t response to this file. FCV 37 and' 38 are Class I valves, but are Instrument

,- Class II. These valves are normally open and are located in mutually redund-l ' '? ant steam leads to the Auxiliary Feedpump Turbine. The DCP provided an analysisbyWestinghousedatedFebruary7,1p3, indicating'theflowfrom the postulated break of approximately 1 x 10 lbs/hr of main steam would

.' not trip the unit at power levels of 10%, 30%, 60%, and 100%. "Therefore, per the FSAR, off-site power is not required to be assumed lost and normal feedwater would be expected to be available. Westinghouse further stated-C that for this case blowdown from the two steam generators would be accept-

, able as long as the other two were intact. While it is desirable to isolate i the break, the licensing coffmitment to maintain safe shutdown capability. .

4 was shown by the analysis. The calculated inability of these valves to operate against the maximum expected differential pressure is addressed in E01 File 8062. The DCP response takes credit for the operation of several

,'" valves (FCV 440, 441, 439, 438, and LCV-113,115). These valves are present-ly identified as qualified to existing temperatures resulting from High 4

Energy Line Break. The DCP response has comitted to reevaluating the 4

equipment qualification of these valves after new environments are deter-mined due to re-analysis in response to E0I 8001.

6. Program Resolution is:

i .

l The DCP response for this E0I is adequate in that feedwater flow will be '

i maintained. The additional concern for equipment qualification will be addressed by the results of E0I 8001.

This file will be closed.

[

l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830304-Type Name/0rganization Date- a

8. Signature: -.

2/edj 7 830309 (Approved / Program Manager)- .)

l

- ,. .- x-.. . - . . . . - . . . . . ,  ;

' ~ ~ ~

File No. 8018 File Revision No. 8 __

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to

- the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

0 X File Revision No. 7 is a Program R,esolution Report which 4

recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PGLE document so informing the IDVP is

2. Signature: Mf[~_

Approved /Pr$5camManager 830309 4

O .

. . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ . _ . . _ . __ . - _ . _ ._._;

, -- +

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8019 File Revision No. 5 r- . 1. Resolution of an: II Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. IX Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task ~~

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

'~

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

DCP Resolution Sheet signed 830124 plus DCP Completion Sheet for IDVP File No. 8047 signed 830203.

6. Program Resolution is:

Based on the information in these documents the IDVP concludes that the concern has been adequately addressed.

w/

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830216 Type Name/0rganization Date

8. Signature: Mf*g _

830225 (Approved / Program Manager)

. m.

v 4

File No. 8019

. File Revision No. 6-

!^

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT ,

4

! i 1

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to -

1

the above File Number is complete.

j

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

I X File Revision No. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

i i

i The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications

) will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

] which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class-

! 'C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is i .

2. Signature: M( g% 830225 v

Approveu/ Program Manager s

l l

l

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

e .y y

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8020 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and TOS( 830310 .

2. _ Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. 00 Design Methodology Deficiency

5. f. O Other(s),

Structure Deficiency) system (s or component (s) involved:

CRVP System - Cable Separation. -

6. Description of Concern:

Refer to E0I 8020, Revision 0.

1 i

7. Significance of Concern:

i Refer to E01 8020, Revision 0.

1

8. Recommendation :

SWEC to review DCP response, IDVP File No. 8020, signed 830307 for future disposition.

9. Signature: .,

h- 830310 (Originator / Organization)

~70- \d E C d f4

e . -

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8022 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and 10s 830222 .

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. DO Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

~

Engineered Safeguards 4.16 KV Metal-Clad Switchgear.

6. Description of Concern:

Calculated worst ca,se short circuit current exceeds breaker nameplate rating.

4 a .

4 1

4 i

7. Significance of Concern:

, Possible failure of breaker resulting in forced outage of Buses F, G, and H.

+

j

8. Recommendation :

I SWEC to review DCP response (DCP Resolution Sheet, Revision 1, File 8022, signed 830207) and provide a recommendation for future disposition.

9.. Signature: M(( 830222 (Originator / Organization)

~ *

. n i ERROR REPORT File No. 8022

- es Class: C File Revision No. 5 A,B C or 0 PG&E Task No. j

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830310 m 2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

4160 Volt Circuit Breakers.

4. Description of Error:

The short circuit interrupting rating of 4160 volt circuit breakers is less than calculated short circuit currents.

4

5. Significance of Error:

The resolution package (signed 830302) with supporting additional test data from GE and a letter from GE indicates that the breakers can interrupt the calculated short circuit currents even though

<.c those currents exceed the circuit breaker nameplate rating.

However, a generic concern arises that other safety related breakers in the plant may be subject to short circuit current duty in excess of nameplate ratings.

6. Recommendation :

On the basis of the letter from GE indicating the adequacy of the circuit breakers this file is downgraded from ER/B to ER/C to more accurately reflect the significance of concern.

This file will be closed since no modifications are required.

m

7. Potential Error Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) 830310 on

8. Signatures: NA 83b$0 For Program Review Committee A h'p' proved kl.EC**l'# /Prbgram Manager

,--y w

O i n

File No. 8022 File Revision No. 6 __

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT F The DCNPP Independent Design Verification' Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

l '.

File Revision .No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

- X The IDVP has been informed by Pi&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. '5 ,

which recategorized this item 40X)0@hetX)RRTWW$NXTXg as'a Class C M XtlXttXR Error. The PG&E document so informing the IOVP is C DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8022. sioned 830302 .

2. Signature: ,

h((j,pe830310 Approved / Program Manager 5-r a

~-73 '

i

• e-- ._

. y

. . i

. -s OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8026 SWEC File Revision No. 3  ;

1. Date reported to PG&E and XXXX 830222 1

,. 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable) 4, Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review' Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. 01 Independent Calculation Deficiency

, d. O Seismic Input Defi iency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Engineered Safeguards 480 Volt System - Normal Full-Load Condition.

6. Description of Concern: '

During normal, steady-state, full-1 cad operation, with 230 KV supplying

~

power to station auxiliaries, voltage at the 480 V motor iterminal will be,below the minimum specified by NEMA standard MG-1.

7. Significance of Concern:

Continuous operation below minimum operating voltage may overheat motors, causing premature failures.

t

8. Recommendation

,

SWEC to review DCP response (DCP Resolution Sheet 8026 Revision 2, dated 830131) and provide recommendation for future disposition.

., )

9. Signature: Mj" h,y 830222(Originator / Organization)  !

C)

~ .74 #

.l 1

--.s ,__

~

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8028 File Revision No. 5-

l. Resolution of an: 01 Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. di Deviation

c. D Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

_ 3. D. ate Reported to PG&E 830309

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No.- March

5. Resolution based.on the following documentation:

A. E01 8028, Revision 4 as a PPRR/Dev.

B. DCP Completion Sheet dated 3/3/83 transmitting PSRC approval of FSAR Update Change Notice and stating no physical modifications.-

Q

6. Program Resolution is:

Deviation requiring FSAR changes to correct inconsistencies regarding applicability of HELB and HELC to line 760.

No additional DCP action required.

C M

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on' 830208 Tme timne/ Organization Date.

8. Signature:

32L'tf f 7 830309 (Approved / Program Manager) t

n. .

r%.

File No. 8028 File Revision No. 6 IOVP COMPLETION REPORT F The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete. ,

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

C File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

.2 XX The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revi,sion No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as GhetX a Deviation XtXMXXXEHH EXRXEX H XXBX RrR . The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is DCP Completion Sheet dated 830303 .

2. Signature: // f" [_ 830309 Approved / Program # Manager

-G I

'~

s

~ . , , . . .

1 PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8029 File Revision No. 5

l. Resolution of an: di Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independant Design Vecification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

t. di Deviation

c. D Open Item with future action by PG&E:. Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830309 4 .. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolutio.1 based on the following documentation:

J\. E01 8029, Revision 4 as a PPRR/Dev.

B. DCP Completion Sheet dated 3/3/83 transmitting PSRC approval of FSAR Update Change Notice and stating no physical modifications.

6. Program Resolution is:

Deviaticn requiring FSAR changes to correct inconsistencies regarding applicability of HELB and HELC to line 760.

No additional DCP action required.

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830208 Type Nune/0rganization Date

~

8. Signature: h r #_ _ 830309 (Approved / Program Manager)

~77-

/

File No. 8029 File Revision No. 6 e

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP :ndependent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number,is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as #1134r a Deviation M)tetXMDM EMXDMXD00t#%t. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is DCP Completion Sheet dated 830303. .

2. Signature: M. f [- 830309 Approved /Pr[gramManager

-i .

t ,

I ,

, f

,1 $ * '

>s s' .b

(

g  %

4 ,

- ,. ,s.. , . _ . , - _. . .

. _ _IFE'

e o s' -

[ .

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8030 File Revision No. 5 J

l. Resolution of an: G Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. d Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

- 3. D' ate Reported to PG&E 830309

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

A. E0I 8030, Revision 4 as a PPRR/Dev.

B. DCP Completion Sheet dated 3/3/83 transmitting PSRC approval of FSAR Update Change Notice and stating no physical modifications.

I, g t

I

6. Program Resolution is:

Deviation requiring FSAR changes to correct inconsistencies, regarding applicability of HELB and HELC to line 760.

No additional DCP action required.

,o L

7. Potential Program Resolution .

Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830208 T Date

8. Signature: We #ype Name/~ Organization 830309 (Approved /ProgramManager)

~

1

' ~ ~ ~

~!

~

_ _ _ . . . . Z l.. -

_i_

o . .

File No. 8030 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as NIH4K a Deviation DHOW 0tifX)Rt)tX 20(RXUlW6)LXD(XMH&. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is DCP' Completion Sheet dated 830303 .

2. Signature: Mf[~ 830309 Approved /ProgYamManager s

9 d

PR0' GRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8031 File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: D Open Item: d Class Error .

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. U Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open ftem with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830309

4. Scheduleo for TES Semimonthly Report No. _ March

5. Resolution based.on the following documentation:

A. E0I 8031, Revision 4 as a PPRR/CI.

B. DCP Completion Sheet signed 3/3/83 transmitting PSRC approval of FSAR Update Change Notice.

6. Program Resolution is:

The licensing change provides for in alternative method of temperature calculatton. The remaining concerns of this E01 are addressed by 8001 and 8064.

e i

7. Potential Program Resolution i Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830222 t

tee Namo/ Organization Date

8. Signature: br C_ _ _ 830309 (Approved / Program Manager)

/  !

1

s File No. 8031 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

2. Signature: -M f 8__ r 830309 Approved / Program Manager 40 s

a o

- * , . . ,,- =

-.[- , %

rr OPEN ITEM REPORT , File No. 8032 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and )LDS 830225

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report. No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency j c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency -

i d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency ,

f. di Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved )

Auxiliary FeedWater System - Level Control Valves: LCV 110, 111, 113, and 115. .

i l

6. Description of Concern: l l

See E01 8032, Revision 2.

t I

7. Significance of Concern:

See E0I 8032, Revision 2.

4 7 8. Recommendation :

SWEC to review PGandE response (Ref. DGP Resolution Sheet, IDVP File No. 8032, Revision 1) and recommend disposition.

9. Signature: MfC_ 830225 (Originator / Organization)

' / I -83 .

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

_~ _

h

• l -

i ERROR REPOR File No. 8032

!' Class: 5-C file Revision No.

, A,8,C or D~

PG&E Task No.

L j 1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA

? Program Review Committee Action NA

Reported to PG&E and Originator 830309 i 2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

i 3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

!- Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW).-

l 4. Description of Error:

PGandE letter of November 13, 1978 from Mr. Phillip Crane to Mr. John

Stolz of NRC, (Q.51 Revised Response to question of alternate emergency l' control) comits to control of auxiliary feedwater level control valves at hot shuMown panel. But wiring schematic 437507 Rev. 11 shows that

! valve power "on-off" control switch and associated wiring at main control

panel are essential to this function.

l Isolation of Control Room circuits is not provided.

i 5. Significance of Error:

A fire in the control room could prevent remote control of the level control valves from the hot shutdown panel. Power to energize valve motor starters  !

i to supply electrohydraulic actuators may not be available at shutdwon panel

! as a result of such a fire.

l 6. Recommendation:

DCP's respor.se (Resolution Sheet dated February 7,1983) has been reviewed

{ and found to address the concern. The DCP response identified the discrep-l ancy between the FSAR comitment and the actual design. The proposed mod- .

-( ification to the electrical control circuits will provide adequate isola-i' 1,

tion of circuitry froin the potential effects 'of a control room fire.

i The physical modifications described will be in compliance with the DCP

} licensing comitments. Field verification of_the modification will be

[ required.

i This file is being downgraded from Error Class A to Class C to more accur-

! ately reflect the significance of the concern. The basis for this down-

, grading is that although the licensing comitment was not met, local manual-control of the subject valves was always possible, as a last resort.

I '

Local Manual Control .is deemed acceptable based on' the NRC' approval.of Local Manual operation of these valves (LCV-110,111,113,115) for a fire.

. in the hot shutdown panel which similarly causes loss.of remote control

j. of these valves from both the Control Room and hot shutdwon panel. (See~

j PGandE letter referenced in Item 4 above, Q.51, page 4).

1

7.

' Potential Error Report ' signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on' 830308' Type Name/Or ijz tD n- Date

!- 8. Signatures: NA

. A Gm - '830309 For Progr,am Review Committee _

Approved /Pfogram Manager

a -84

, . . . . , ~. . _ . . _ __. , , . _ . _ _ ._ . - . ---.i

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

.e ERROR REPORT File No; 8033 Class: C File Revision No. '5 A,B,C or 0 PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830225 2.' Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

AFW and CRVP ' Systems , equipment outside the containment which must function in a severe environment.

4. Description of Error:

The steam generators were each modeled by NSC as one control volume.

This technique does not model the steam separator located in the steam generator. The effect of neglecting the steam separator will significantly affect the amount of entrained liquid that is ,

calculated in the steam generator effluent.

O 5. Significance of Error:

Safety-related equipment located outside containment affected by a main steam line break which must function in a severe environment may be exposed to greater temperatures than reported.

6. Recomendation:

C The response in DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8033, Revision 2, signed 830121 states that "the entire analysis is being re-done in response to E0I 8001" and the DCP letter, DCVP-TES-729, dated 830124 indicates that Westinghouse blowdown data will be used in the reanalysis. The above responses are adequate.

L The concerns described in this E0I File will be considered in the DCP reanalysis performed in response to E0I File 8001.

This file is being downgraded from an Error Class B to an Error Class C to more accurately reflect the significance of this concern. The basis for this downgrading is the fact that this concern .is an O isolated portion of the pressure and temperature anlysis. It is therefore, difficult to isolate. portion of the results that can be attributed solely to the error, described in this file.

v j l 7. Potential Error Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC)

!. on 830217

. Type Name/Or aniz tion Date l 8. Signatures:

l NA For Program Review _ Committee-C 830225 Approved /Phgram Manager

! v l l

. ~ - -

File No. 8033 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No, is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that ne physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item 25X2Mb2XXXXRRXXXXiRRX9PX as a Class C otXXXDetX)0( Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8033. sioned 830121 .

2. Signature: hfC _

830225 -

ApprovedkrogramManager '

s

~w =w

• e

• w

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8034

~

SWEC File Revision No. 5

1. Date reported to PG&E and XEEX 830216

- '2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report Nc'. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of: ,

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. 3 Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System Equipment.

6. Description of Concern:

Review of the methods utilized, by Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC), to calculate the pressure and. temperature transients in area.

GE at elevation 115'-0", due to a main steam line rupture in area GW at elevation 115'-0", revealed that enthalpy values were too low and the effects of adjacent compartments were neglected.

7. Significance of Concern:

Safety-related equipment outside containment may experience higher temperature and pressure environments than reported.

8. Reconmendation :

TES requests SWEC to resubmit this file as a Potential Error C.

9. Signature: M(fm # ~~

830216 (Originator / Organization)

6- 6 '- -

v

^ " '"

l ,

ERROR REPORT Fil'e No. 8034 Class: C File Revision No. 7 A.B.C or D PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to' Program Review Comittee NA Program Review Committee Action PA Reported to PG&E and Originator E30225

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: '.

Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System Equipment. -

4. Description of Error:

Review of the methods utilized, by Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC), to calculate the pressure and temperature transients in area GE at elevation -

115'-0", due to a main steam line rupture in area GW at elevation 115'-0",

revealed the following:

1. Enthalpy values utilized to determine the energy rates into area GE were developed from the CONTEMPT computer program output that calculated the environments in area GW at elevation 115'-G". The enthalpy values developed from the CONTEMPT computer program output were too low due to the accumulation of air in area GW (Refer to Error Report 8001). ,

2. The method utilized to calculate the mass discharge data into area GE and -

the one node model developed to analyze the environment in area GE will result in the calculation of pressure and temperature transients which are too low. The NSC method of calculating the mass discharge data into area GW elevation 115'-0" and the model developed to calculate the environments for area GE elevation 115'-0" assumed all vents out of the area exhausted to atmosphere except the vent into area GW. The effects of adjacent compartments on the environments in area GE elevation 115'-0" were neglected.

5. Significance of Error:

Safety-related equipment outside c'ontainment may experience higher temperature and pressure environments than reported.

6. Recommendation: -

The response in the DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8034, Rev. 2, signed 830124, is adequate because the DCP reanalysis will use a multi-node computer program. The program can adequately address the concerns of energy rates into and effect of adjacent compartments on calculated pressure and temperature transients. i The concerns described in this E0I File will be considered in the DCP i reanalysis performed in response to E0I File 8001.

This file is downgraded from Error Report Class B to Error Report Class C to mere accurately reflect the significance of this concern. The basis for this downgrading is the fact that thi:; concern is-.an isolated portion of the pressure and temperature analysis. It is therefore difficult to isolate that portion of the results that can be attributed solely to the error described in '

this file.

7. Potential Error Report signed'by John Krechting '(SWEC) on 830218 1

i Type Name/Org3ni,zajion Date

8. Signatures: NA For Program Review Committee 7# f.'dP m 830225 l

. Approved /PrSgram Manager l

i

_ _._ . _ . - - . - - - . ~ . - - - - --~ - , - - - - - 4 --

s File No. 8034 File Revision No. 8 IDVP C'0MPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report, which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in respense to File Revision No. _7__,,

which recategorized this item HMimbtMR)00 Met 2tsXr as a Class C BMXEXHXX8 Error. The PG&E document ~so informing the IDVP is DCP Completion Sheet. IDVP File NO. 8034 sianed 830124.

2. Signature: m._ 830225 Approved /PdgramManager e

l

. . . . - -+y-.-- - , .ss- ,. ,

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8035

. SWEC File Revision No. 5  !

1. Date reported to PG&E and )]gS 830225 '

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March 1 Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency i

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. El Other Deficiency - PGandE Task Completion on Error A.

5. Structure (s), system (s) or coroponent(s) involved: -

CRVP Fire Protection.

6. Description of Concern:

Smoke detectors in CRVP normal outside air intake ducts have not been t provided as per commitments made in Amendment 51 (page 5-51). This commitment was made in response to BTP-9.5-1 Position F.2.

7. Significance of Concern:

Control room operators would not be automatically alerted in case of smoke '

entering the control room. A significant amount of smoke could enter the control room prior to detection by ' operators .which could affect control room habitability.

8. Reconmendation :

TES requests SWEC to resubmit this file as a Potential Error C.

9. Signature: M((m '

'f' 830225 (Originator / Organization)

.l

\

ERROR REPORT File No. 8035 Class: C File Revision No. 7 A,B,C or D PG&E Task No. 70257 l

1. Dates: Reported to Feogram Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830225

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

CRVP Fire Protection. ~

4. Description of Error:

PGandE did not meet their licensing commitment, Amendment 51, dated 770727.

5. Significance of Error:

Per DCP Resolution Sheet, signed 830124, smoke detectors will be installed in the CRVP Intake in order to meet the licensing commitment. DCN's No. DC1-E-E-3325 and DC2-E-E4325 were issued to implement the physical modificatior,s.

6. Recommendation:

The IDVP concurs with the DCP action (per DCP Resolution Sheet signed 829124) to resolve the original concern. This file will be closed upon IDVP verification of the physical modifications.

1 l

This file is being downgraded from ER/A to ER/C to more accurately )

reflect the significance of the concern. The basis for this  ;

downgrading is'that although the licensing comnitment was not met, l the lack of these specific smoke detectors would pose no significant I safety concern. 1

7. Potential Error Report signed by John Krechting I (SWEC) on 830224

8. Signatures:

Type Name/0rg iz in Date NA 830225 For Program Review Committee Approved /Pf6 gram Manager

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8036 File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: O Open Item: E Class A Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

i

a. O Closed Item

b. E Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. Mar'ch .

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8036, signed 830210.

t .

i i

4

6. Program Resolution is:

The IDVP has reviewed this Completion Sheet. The response is acceptable to assure the system integrity in accordance with licensing commitments. This E0I File identified a concern that is j not an error in analysis, design, or construction as the system was not operational at the time of review. The file is being downgraded from a Class A Error to a Deviation to more accurately reflect the significance of concern.

l l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830209 JTe Mene

8. Signature: Date Wf Q /0rganization830225_(Approved /ProgramManager)

. l

~

l i

File No. 8036 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT

, The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to ,

the above File Number is , complete. -

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is, a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as)estuftX a Deviation MXHXXXgMH RXRKXRIRXXXRXRXXpK. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No.' 8036, signed 830210 ,

2. Signature: [_ - 830225 Approved / Prog' ram Manager i

l ,

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8038 File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: 1% Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item b dX Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task __

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the fol' lowing documentation:

The DCP completion sheet identified as 8038 revision 2 dated January 3,1983 45dfenclosed an evaluation demonstrating that no credible fire will propagate through the 4 feet x 13 feet ventilation opening in,the ceiling of fire zone 3 - Q - 2. This evaluation was based on low combustible loadings in the immediate vicinity of the opening and the air flow characteristics through the opening.

6. Program Resolution is:

The IDVP has reviewed the documentation referenced and described above and concurs that a fire is unlikely to propagate through the opening. Therefore, the intent of the licensing- comitment to contain a fire in its own fire zone has been met.

This E0I is being downgraded from an Error Class A/B to a Deviation to more adequately reflect the significance of this concern. ,

1 7 '. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830210 Type Name/ Organization Date

8. Signature: M &, 830225 (Approved /ProgramManecer)

File No. 8038 File Revision No. 6

. IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is comp'lete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

, X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5',

which recategorized this item as)tkitHM a Deviation DXHXXX5IHE EXMMXEIXXXXBXH H N. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

(, PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8038, signed 830103 .

2. Signature: N E~ __ --

830225

• Approved / Prog, ram Manager f ..

c. .

4 1

I

, J

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT -

File No. 8039

~

File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: O Open Item: XI Class A'/B Error

2. Independent Design Verifi. cation Program Resolution is as: -

a. O Closed Item

b. XX Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task '

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225 .

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8039 signed 830115.

t. -

C 6. Program Resolution is:

Based on this Completion Sheet, the IDVP has* concluded that the intent of the licensing comitments has been met because a fire in any of the 4KV switchgear rooms or associated cable spreading rooms will affect no more than one vital bs and that a fire in zone 13-E is unlikely to propagate through the ventilation ducts to the cable spreading rooms (fire zones 12-A, 12-B, and 12-C).

This E0I file is being downgraded from a Class A/B Error to a Deviation to more clearly reflect the significance of the concern.

c i

l l

l

7. Potential Program Resolution 1

Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830209 T e Name/ Organization Date

8. Signature: L f*

_ 830225 (Approved / Program Manager) y  :

i

1 5

l l

File No. 8039 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

C File . Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

. h The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as g)(Migg a Deviation 9tX)03)p00tW5

)000tX)C@eem]DOEenor. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is a DCP Completion Sheet. IDVP File No. 8039. sianed 830115 .

2. Signature: M[&- 830225 hproved[ Program Manager s

J m

4

,%m. g - p -ms a****T'# W i"*dP

, o 4 OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8040 1.

SWEC Date reported to PG&E and 206 File Revision No. 5 830217

2. Scheduled' for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methocology Deficiency

f. X2 Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Safety-related equipment outside containment which must be located above flood levels or protected against submergence.

6. Description of Concern:

Review of the flooding in area GW due to a feedwater line rupture revealed the assumed water inventory available for release from the steam generator was nonconservative. ,

7. Significance of Concern:

Assumptions concerning steam generator water inventory and auxiliary feedwater addition could affect calculation of flooding heights.

8. Recommendation :

TES requests SWEC to resubmit this file as a Potential Error C.

~

9. Signature: (( 830217

-(Originator / Organization)

+

_ ~ _ _ , ___ ,, _ . _. _ __ . _ . . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

.. s l .

ERROR REPORT File No. 8040

. . Class: C File Revision No. 7 A,B,C or D

.- PG&E Task No.

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA

, Program Review Committee Action NA 4 , Reported to PG&E and Originator 830222

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March , ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: '

Safety-related equipment outside containment which must be located above flood levels or protected against submergence. ,

4. Description of Error:

l Review of the flooding in area GW due to a feedwater line rupture revealed 4 the following nonconservative assumptions:

4

1. The inventory available for release from the steam generator considered only the liquid mass above the feedwater sparger ring (inletpipe). Therefore only approximately 25,000 lbm from the steam generator that contains 153,000 lbm was considered for calculation of the maximum flood height.

2. Auxiliary feedwater flow out of the rupture pipe was not considered.

5. Significance of Error:

Assumptions concerning steam generator water inventory and auxiliary feedwater addition could affect calculation of flooding heights.

6. Recommendation:

The response in the DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8040, Rev. 2, 1

. signed 830124, is adequate.

Review of the response revealed the maximum flood heights calculated in the original analysis for areas GE/GW at el 115 ft-0 in. to be conservative.

This is based on the identification by DCP of assumptions and methods which overpredicted the water available for flooding. The water volume that was overpredicted is larger than the steam generator water volume that was neglected. The concerns identified in the E0I File have been adequately addressed. No physical modifications are required as ~ a result of this ]

file. This file should be downgraded from an Error Class 8 to 'an Error -

Class C to more accurately reflect the significance of this concern. .The.

basis for this downgrading is the fact the flooding heights originally ,

calculated would not be significantly affected. l l

1

7. Potential Error Report signed by John Krechting . (SWEC) ' on 830218 i; Type Name/Or an ion Date

8. Signatures: M' .

,._ _ 830222=

For Program Review Committee Approves / Program Manager

. 1 c-- . . . . _....,a_;-.._ . . , . _,

File No. 8040 File Revision No. 8 IDVP COMPLETION RFPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

c-File ' Revision No.- is a Program Resolution Report which ,

recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

XX The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 7 .

which recategorized this itemmgxi@#IXXX#RXiRAARMXRR as a Class CMXXIMXX Error. The PG&E docu' ment so informing the IDVP is DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8040. Rey, 2. sianed 830124..

2. Signature: M[ [_ - 830222 Approved /PIogramManager

(

-100;

-~

~

,o e PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8043 File Revision No. 7

1. Resolution of an: U Open Item: O Class Error .

2. Independent' Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. EX Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with fQture action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8043 signed January 24, 1983, transmitted via DCVP-SWEC-294, dated January 25, 1983, addressing separation of redundant safety-related. trains in terminal boxes.

The PGandE response is acceptable based on the following. The monitor lights and the main annunciator are not safety-related and therefore, their cables are not safety-related. Because separation is required only for redundant safety-related systems in accordance with the FSAR, we consider this acceptable. However, Class IE color coded cables were used for portions of the systems. Both systems receive vital power (orange for the annunciator; purple for the monitor lights) which is then routed as orange, purple, and gray cable, depending on the destination, along with the redundant vital circuits in Class IE raceway. This E0I concern of miscoloring of

'. cables, conductors powered from different emergency sources routed in comon raceways, and the resultant safety concern is also addressed in E0I 8054 and E0I 8059.

6. Program Resolution is:

This E0I will be classified as a Closed Item and the concern of cable' miscoloring will be addressed in the resolution of E0I 8054 and E0I 8059.

l l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830214 T3e Name/0rganitation l Date

8. Signature: 7/[C- #

830225 (Approved / Program Manager)

-101-g=-

. a 1 .

File No. 8043 File Revision No. 8 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which coupletes the IDVP effort is:

. X File Revision No. 7 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item. ,

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is w

2. Signature: 7d. [ fm- -

830225 Approved /Progra[ Manager 2

i

-102- ~

--n +-- - -s,~. . . . .

,9_,.. ..w

~

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8044 SWEC File Revision No. 5

1. Date reported to PG&E and #12( 830309

2. Scheduled for TES . (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March l

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared a. a result of:

. a. O QA Audit and Review Report of E. 01 Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. G Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or conponent(s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System, cable splices in control circuits.

6. Description of Concern:

Possible use of unqualified cable splices in area affected by pipe crack environment.

7. Significance of Concern:

Possible failure of splices and loss of control circuit function.

8. Recomendation: -

SWEC to review DCP responses (DCP Completion Sheet, IDVP File No.-

8044, Revision 3, dated 821215, and DCP Resolution Sheet,' Revision 1, IDVP File No. 8044, dated 830301),and provide a recomendation for future disposition.

9. Signature: y 830309 (Originator / Organization)

-103- .

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8046

! SWEC File Revision No. 3 l- 1. Date reported to PG&E and XE6 830309

. 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No, March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

! 4. Prepared as a result of:

i a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency '

i d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency l f. di Other Deficiency j 5. Structure (s), system (s) or conponent(s) involved: .

i l CRVP System Controls for Fans 96, 97, 98 & 99.

6. Description of Concern

i i . *

,, f i See E0I File 8046, Revision 0. -

t ,

(. ,  ;'

{ . i . i

. . i e .

~\ s

\

4 5  %

i i s a'

t \

7. Significance of Concern: i a

l ,

)

1 I'j 1 j See E0I File 8046, Revision 0. , i .

1' ,~ ,' 'r' a .i

.i A

+

.t (

~

l.

r

) ,

, 8 u .;

J i

( ,j

~

! } ,/

q t r'

+ jl a /

o y . >

8. Reconnendation:

s

'j.

_/

'tl ^

( ,,,' .,.,, .

, SWECtoreviewPGandEresponse(Ref.DCPCompletionSheet;Revis' ion j #

2,. IDVP File No. 8046 dated 830225) and reconmend' disposition.'

E i

, j 'a _

);

4 .

..e

/

l

- -2 '

{

1, <

>u /- .p .

r

9. Signature: Mg g __

830309 5(Origiriathr/Organiz$ tion)1^

- - - - - = y. * *

-104- '

,. rp s-2

.,.i .

I

, . , .  ;- ~

_ __ _ , ,_ . .. .- ,

• 4 - -+ 1*

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8047  ;

SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and MXXX 830225

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

. 3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program:. Task (ifap.olicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. X3 Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater - Steam Generator Blowdown Valves FCV 151, 154, 157, 160, 244, 246, 248, and 250.

6. Description of Concern:

!' See E01 8047 Revision 0.

7. Significance of Concern:

.i See E0I 8047, Revision O.

t

! i

8. Recommendation :

s SWEC to review PGandE response (Ref. DCP Resolution Sheet, IDVP File No. 8047, Revision 2, dated 830203) and recommend disposition.

Y s

it i

8

9. Signature: g(g% 830225 (Originator / Organization) y .- . - - - - . .

-105-

.__9

,p_

} ;g >

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8049 File Revision No. 8 e' 1. Resolution of an: m Open Item: D Class Error i 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. EN Closed Item

b. O Deviation l

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830309

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March j' - 5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

i A. E01 8049, Revision 7 as a PPRR/CI.

B. DCP Conipletion Sheet signed 3/3/83 transmitting PSRC approval of .

4 FSAR Update Change Notice.

C. DCP Completion Sheet signed 1/25/83.

i.(

i i

l .(;

l

6. Program Resolution is:

The technical informat, ion provided by the earlier DCP Completion j Sheet and the FSAR Change provide an acceptable answer to the concern '

.,. of this E01.

' )

j l

1 i -

t l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Frank Sestak (SWEC) on' 83d207 l T

8. -Signature: f v'f # ype Name/0rganization Date- j 830309 (Approved / Program Manager)

~'

-106-

_ - - i_ .a

s 8 i File No. 8049-File Revision No. 9 c

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT 1

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to

, the above File Nuniber is complete.

4

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No. 8 is a Program Resolution Report which .

recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

,. The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical-modifications.

will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class ,

C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP-is

'i .

2. Signature: M((_ 830309 Approved [ProgramManager L

f

-107-V

. . . - . , .,:,...n. ,.;.,--,.

_____.)___.___..__.. ~ ,

-- -~ - - - -

7 , ,- .

o .

CPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8050 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and WT 830310 .

,- 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. um.ch

, 3. Responsive to PG&E fechnical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of: -

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of-

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency ,

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency -

, e. O Design Methodology Deficiency i

f. El Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

CRVP System - Moderate' Energy Line Breaks ,

6. Description of Concern:

In PG&E's September .1978 and Decenber 28, 1978 submittals to the MtC, they committed to evaluating the Diablo Canyon Plant Design for the

- effects of moderate energy line breaks on equipment required for safe shutdown. The CRVP system is required to. maintain Control Room habitability for safe shutdown but was not included in the PG&E evaluation.

c

7. Significance.of Concern:

, ~U The DCP has evaluated the above concern and reported their findings -in DCP Completion Sheet signed 830217.

3

^

8. Reconnendation :

TES reconnends- that SWEC review DCP Congletion Sheet signed 830217 and

reconnend future disposition of this file.

G

9. Signature: y/pf.4 (Originator / Organization)

-108-

.. - . . . . z ,- . - - - -

~,,--%. .- , ., -, , - - - . . - - - , , . + . ,

i .9- %

j= f PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8051 File Revision No. 5

l. Resolution of an: W Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is ,as

a. O Closed Item

b. G Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task ~

l, 3. Date -Reported to PG&E 830309 ,

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation: .

A. E0I 8051, Revision 4 as a'PPRR/Dev.

~ B. DCP Completion Sheet signed 3/3/83 transmitting PSRC approval of FSAR Update Change Notice and stating no physic.al modifications.

4

6. Program Resolution is:

Deviation requiring change in FSAR HELB analysis to delete PT-432 which had been wrongly indentified as " essential".

l No additional OCP action requimd.

I

7. Potential Program Resolution .

l Report signed by Frank Sastak (SWEC) on 830207 e Name Date s- 8. Signature: 1/ f _ __/OrganigLJ (Approved / Program Manage 9

-109- -

i

. . , , . _- =# . ._ _; .

-- -- ~ . . , , , n

,? .

File No. 8051 File Revision No. 6 o

I IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort relate ( f,o

the above File Number is complete. -

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:  ;

\

, File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which '

recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5 ,

which recategorized this item as HIMH a Deviation MXMM)00m2X UNUMMMXUWetH. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

~

DCP Completion Sheet signed 830303 .

2. Signature: Mf 8_ 830309 Approved / Program Manager e

~ . - . . .

l -110-l' I '

,_ - i OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8052 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and 123 830223

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task C-1-3 (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared a,s a result of: -

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of ,

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency -

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. EX Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved: '

Auxiliary Feedwater System Class IE Instruments. i

6. Description of Concern:

See EDI 8052, Revision 0. ,

i 1

0

7. Significance of Concern:

See E0I 8052, Revision 0.

t 8. Recommendation : -

SWEC to review PGandE response (Ref. PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8052, Revision 1) and recommend disposition.

9. Signature: Mt"( 830223 (Originator / Organization)

-111-  !

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT -

File No. 8052 1

~

File Revisien No. 5

1. Resolution of an: X3 Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. U Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225 .

i

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March  ;

5., Resolution based on the following documentation: )

PGandE Completion Sheet, IOVP File No. 8052, dated 821122, and other PGandE submitted supporting documentation - for the environmental qualification (EQ) of the Flow Control valves. (FCV) and Flow Transmitters (FT) in the' Auxiliary Feedwater System show FCV 95 to be ,

erroneously listed as being in an area not subject to a harsh environment, but actually to be qualified and FT 78 to be qualified under a different designation. The pressure transmitters, however, are being used under a limited qualification along with a surveillance program to detect aging mechanisms in this device.

%4

6. Program Resolution is:

Since the Flow Control Valves were erroneously listed in a table for items not subject to a harsh environment but are actually qualified for the service environment, this file is classified as a deviation.

The pressure transmitters, although not completely qualified, are subject to a surveillance program and the NRC is aware of this status, their qualification is no longer a concern of this E0I.- No further verification is required.

I ' ,

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by ' John Krechting (SWEC) -on. 830225~

e Name/ Organization

8. Signature: @f _ _ 830225 Date

'(Approved /ProgramManager)-

.V

_ggg7 - y l _ _

I c .

1 1

I

. File No. 8052 4

File Revision-No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT i

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to j 'the above File Number is complete. ,

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

4 File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

j X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 5

which recategorized this item as ettHHa Deviation RXHXXXg!HE EXMMXEIXMMX5XINN8N. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File 8052, dated 821122 .

4

2. Signature: $ f g . .. . 830225 v

( Approved / Program Manager i

i l

-113 I

c .

File No. 8053 File Revision No. 7

,IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

l. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

1 File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

X The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. 6 ,

which recategorized this item as XXIMH a Deviation.dRX8EXK)0@tmeX UWUKMsKV4MMX. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is Completion Sheet dated 821119.

4. .

2. Signature: M((m '

830225 Approved / Program Manager f

-114

- -- .e.~

.t. .

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8054 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and IRS 830309 '

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of b.1% Field Inspection Deficiency c: O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater Controls 6, Description of Concern:

c See E0I File 8054, Revision O. -

7. Significance'of Concern:

See E0I File 8054, Revision 0.

l l

8. Reconnendation: ,

SWEC to aview DCP response (Ref. DCP Resolution and Completion i

Sheets, IDVP File No. 8054 dated 830304) and recossend disposition.

c.

9. Signature: @f[+- 830309 (Originator / Organization)

. -115- #

~

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8055 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and Xp05 830222

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report do. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit ar:d Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

,, d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency -

f. 00 Other Deffciency .

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Discharge Pressure Indicators Pl-52A and P1-53A.

6. Description of Concern:

Class I pressure indicators located on the main control board do not have the minimum 5" separation committed to in FSAR 8.3.3 for Class I electrical devices located in the main control board.

7. Significance of Concern:

The indicators do not conform to the separation criteria described-in the FSAR.

8. Recomendation :

SWEC to review PGandE response (Ref. PGandE Resolution Sheet, IDVP File No. 8055, Revision 2) and recomend disposition.

s

9. Signature:

11.

((%- -

83022biginator/ Organization)

)4

.-.l

e OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8056 SWEC 830223 File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and 5D06

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E. Technital Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a.. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Inaependent Calculation Deficiency .

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency f.201 Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization.

6. Description of Concern:

See E0I 8056, Revision 0.

7. Significance of Concern:

See ECI 8056, Revision 0.

5

8. Recommendation :

SWEC to review PGandE response- (Ref. PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP .

File No. 8056, Revision 2) and reconnend disposition.

l

9. Signature: Mf d _; 830223 (Originator / Organization)

~ ~

_117-i

, 4 -

-A o

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8056

+

File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: CD Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Progra'm Resolution is hs:  ;

a. E Closed Item l

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225 -

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation: .

PGandE Completion Sheet,. IDVP File 8056 Revision 2 which indicates that the compilation of Class IE equipment predates the final drawing of the Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization (CRVP)

System and, therefore, does not include items appearing on those drawings.

i 6. Program Resolution is:

i Since there was no schedule requirement to update the Environmental Qaulification Report submitted in response to Comission Order CLI-80-21, this file is reclassified as a Closed Item. No further verification is required.

4 l

t l

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by -John Krechting (SWEC) on 830225 Type Name/0rganization Date i

8. Signature:  %/f6 _

830225 (Approved / Program Manager)

-118- l l

~

• e File No. 8056

File Revision No. 6 _

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT' .

i

!' The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

i j 1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

1 X File Revision No. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item cs a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications 3

will be applied by PG&E in response to Eile Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

2. Signature: /[ [mu '

830225 Approved / Program Manager i

s I

er 6

-119-

l

. 1 0FdN ITEM REPORT File No. 8058

. 1 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and KI6X 830223 ,

r- 2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March l i

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency .

e. XI Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency-

5. Structure (s), system (s) or comp'onent(s) involved:

, Level Control Valves LCV 110,111,113, and 115 for Auxiliary Feedwater System.

6. Description of Concern:

See E0I 8058, Revision 0.

7. Significance of Concern:

See E0I 8058, Revision 0.

1 s 8. Recomnendation: '

SWEC to revjew PGandE response (Ref. PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8058, Revision 2, dated 830207) and recommend disposition.

9. Signature: 2/fC 830223

~ ~ - ~

(Originator / Organization)'

-120-

1

' PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8058 File Revision No. 5 l"

1. Resolution of an: II Open Ite[n: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as: ,

a. IX Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. D Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830309 i'

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

The DCP response, dated 830207, addressed the two concerns raised by the Open Item Report E0I 8058, Revision 0. The concern of an i unqualified motor capacitator was identified in the DCP environmental qualification report (CERilH14) as an outstanding item to be completed later. CERfIH14 contains a justification for

! interim operation without qualification o: replacement for 20,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />. An analysis to determine the qualified life is being conducted by Wyle Labs. DCP stated that the EC is aware of the status of the outstanding items identified in CERfIH14 as a result of a 100% audit of the DCP environmental qualification files by the EC

in 1981.

! The second concern involved the fail-safe mechanism failure. -DCP stated that the fail-safe mechanism is not required during remote

,c valve operation because it functions only when the power or control j circuits are de-energized. Additionally, the fail-safe mechanism was modified and retested successfully as documented on page 16 of

ITT Engineering Report No. 721.77.095.

6. Program Resolution is:

The DCP response satisfies the concerns of this E01. ' DCP has committed to resolving the outstanding items previously identified to the NRC. No physical modifications or additional verification is required as a result of this file. File will be closed.

3 1

- 7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by ' John Krechting (SWEC) on '830304 TJpe Name/ Organization Date

8. Signature:

f/ f ~ 830309 (Approved / Program Manager)

-121-

4 File No. 8058 File Revision No. 6 1 .

< l l

i IDVP COMPLETION REPORT

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

1 X File Revision No. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is 4 .

j M((--

! 2. Signature: 830309 ApprovedProgramManager i

t.

f f

-122-i

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8060 SWEC File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and Efx 830302

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of: '

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of .

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

e. 8 Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s),. system (s) or cogonent(s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System controls for limiting flow . to a depressurized steam generator. -

6. Description of Concern:

Refer to E01 8060, Revision 0.

i i

7. Significance of Concern:

4 Refer to E0I.8060, Revision 0.

1

} 8. Recomendation: l SWEC to review DCP Resolution Sheet, IDVP File 8060, signed 830217,

, and provide recomendations for future disposition. J 4 -

9. Signature: Y((_ '

830302 (Originator /Organizatlon)

-123-

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8061

] , ,

! SWEC File Revision No. 7 -

l

! 1. Date reported to PG&E and M 830310

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)  ;

4. Prepared as a result of:

1- a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

, c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

', c. O Design $@'.hodology Deficiency

f. B Other Deficiency l S. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

1 Motor Ratings - AFW and CRVP Systems.

i

! 6. Description of Concern:

i

}. Refer to E0I 8061, Revision O.

1 d

i i

! 7. Significance of Concern:

l J

Refer to E0I 8061, Revision 0.

i i

't i ' 8. Reconmendation:

SWEC to review DCP response, IDVP File No. 8061, signed 830307 for i

future disposition. .

. Q c

. w ,-

OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 8062 File Revision No.

SWEC 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and 114 830218

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (ifapplicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency i

c. O Independent Calculaticn Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency

.)

e. Il Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency .

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

4 AFW Control Valves FCV 37, FCV 38, and FCV 95.

6. Description of Concern:

] 7. Significance of Concern:

I i

I

8. Reconnendation:

TES requests SWEC to review DCP Resolution Sheet, IDVP File No. 8062 signed 830210 and provide recommendations for future disposition.

t 9. Signature: M((e e fypzf,

ggg_ --

(Originator / Organization) l

o .

,0 ERROR REPORT File No. 8062 Class: A File Revision No. 5 A,8,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70314

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee

~ N/A Program Review Committee Action N/A Reported to PG&E and Originator 830310

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

AFW Control Valves FCV37, FCV38, and FCV95. *

4. Description of Error:

The above three valves were purchased to ope' rate against a maximum differential pressure of 805 psi. The valves are located in the main -

steam system and could be exposed to a differential pressure in excess of 1100 psi.

5. Significance of Error:

The concern for FCV37 and FCV38 is resolved by the DCP response to E0I 8062 of February 10, 1983 and to E01 8018 dated March 1, 1983.

FCV95 failure to close would prohibit steam from being admitted to the AFW pump turbine. ,

6. Reconmendation :

The remaining concern regarding FCV95 will be resolved by modification of the DC actuator. The IDVP will verify this modification.

The generic concern regarding valve differential pressure is addressed in ITR-34.

's

7. Potential Error Report signed by John E. Krechting on 8303M

8. Signatures: Type Name/0rganizati Date N/A 2 g ,, _ f/o,rie.

For Program Review Committee Approved /ProgPam Manager

-126-

~*

. .1,

~

t PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT

. File No. 8063

, File Revision No. 7-

1. Resolution of an: 05 Open Item: O Class Error

, 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

l a. O Closed Item

! b. W Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830309 i 4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based-on the following documentation

-

i A. E0I 8063, Revision 6 as a PPRR/Dev.

l B. DCP Completion Sheet signed January 27, 1983. '

i i

i L,

i-

~

! ~

j- 6. Program Resolution is:

I

Deviation requiring field verification of relay settings for l Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Motors.

j Final closure pending IDVP verification.

i a

4 O

F i

}

i l

1- 7.

~

Potential Program Resolution '

Report signed by John Krechting (SWEC) on 830304 i Type Name/ Organization . Date

! .s 8. Signature: 1/j* r., _ _ l

r. - 830309 (Approved / Program Manager)

-127- .

_- ,_ .-; -~_.

nr -- - , ,, - -- - w ,

' ~

e .

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 8064 File Revision No. 2

1. Resolution of an: EX Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. KX Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 830225

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

i Open Item Report 8064 Revision 0 describes the concerns and their significance (Items 6 and 7). -

6. Program Resolution is: .

PGandE to provide documentation to demonstrate that the failure of P0Ms 113 and 115 will not inhibit operation of LCV 113 and 115 or that POMs 113 and 115 are qualified to the environment to which they will be exposed in accordance with DCNPP-1 licensing requirements for equipment qualification such that operation of LCV 113 and 115 is not affected.

I

7.  !

Potential Program Resolution Report signed by i John Krechting (SWEC) on 830215 l

tee Name/0rganization Date

8. Signature: 2)PC_ 830225 (Approved /ProgramManager) i 128

,~

OPEN / TEM REPORT File No. 8064 SWEC File R? vision No. 3

~

1. Date reported to PG&E and III 830309

2. Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

.a. O QA Audit and Review Report of

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Deficiency .

e. O Design Methodology Deficieracy

f. U Other' Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:

Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW) Components P0M 110,111,113,115. ,

6. Description of Concern:

See OIR File 8064, Revision 0.

7. Significance of Concern:

See OIR File 8064, Revision O.

8. Recomendation:

SWEC to review PGandE response (Ref. PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 8064 dated 830301) and recomend disposition.

9. _ Signature:- M((w -

r 830309 (Originator / Organization)

-129.

ERROR REPORT File No. 9001

' Class: C File Revision No. 2 "

A,B,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70286

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830222

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Bottom Mounted Instrumentation (BMI) Supports #9, 10, and 11.

4. Description of Error:

An ovc. stress condition could exist on the weld on BMI supports because of the poor workmanship.

5. Significance of Error:

Additional information shown as an attachment A to PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 9025, Revision 0, signed 830109, plus toe results of the visual inspection by the members of the Findings Review Committee reveal that there is no safety significance regarding this item.

6. Reconnendation:

l To close this file and issue an IDVP Completion Report. -

i

7. Potential Error Report signed by Frank Sestak (SWEC) _830211 1 on .

8. Signatures: Type Name/ Organization Date NA For Program Review Committee Nf"8_ 830222 Approved /Prd9 ram Manager

-130-w

j . .

l File No. 9001 l File Revision No. 3 I

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT i .

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes'the IDVP effort is

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closei Item.

[X] Based on additional information provided hy PGandE PGandE Completion Sheet IDVP File No. 0025, Rev. O, signed 830109 the Findings Review Committee has recommended and the IDVP has

}

considered that the resolution is in compliance with established criteria. No physical modifications are required.

2. Signature: M f g_ - 830222 u .

Approval / Program Manager-e u

i

-131-

• • ,,7.e i

e n

7 k 1

', 7 >  ;

e

_ i 'n ERROR REPORT i File No.., 9006 s ,

" Class: C' -

File Re91sion No'. i 2, e' A,B.C or-0' .

PG&E Task No. 70291

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Conaittee "

NA Program Review Committee Action NA ' '

Reported to PG&E and Originator 830222 &

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

- ' [;l I

Seal Leak Detection Tubing ), #

4. Description of Error: '

'I E

/ '

Information on CMTR differs from specification requirements._ The i material description listed on the ASME Code Data Report does not agres ,

with CMTR HT #53083. The CMTR does r.ot identify the material as being soft annealed. The unidentified materials might not structural performances for which they-were specified. achieve,/, lthe , '/

g ,5. e I c)

( ,

{ +

5. Significance of Error: i 4 ,

}

r

• p

. c p I i Based on additional information shown on DCP Completion Shee't, IDVP File ( i No. 9006 signed 830121, the!IDVP has concluded that,the original concern p '

has been addressed. There is no safety. significance regarding' this item.

', .i -

f' ,

. ,/ ,.

c

8

'_a

$ { '

I r

\ ~; >

r ' - \

, ,- +

6. Reconmendation:

~

' ~" '

V e

p ,y '

/,  ;.

t To close this file and issue and IDVP Completion.Repoft. ~ r U <

t (Ij j y]

i , ,

1. <j /,i h

<". lp \j

'[ . {'

', i t

b - j]!} ,' /- (\f

7. Potential Error Report sigrad by Frank Sestak (SWEd) n'/83d2 ,

8. Signatures: NA Type Name/0r ization pggi n - 830222W "I T Data - J!

-A For Program Review _ Committee Appr "gl pyed/P$gtam

-132- 4:

,;. 4 V/l ,

7" uf N

(J dpl[1

- 1 a

= -

3 .

4 \ .- .

,.c. ,

1 s

l t-( t.

l File No. 9006

)

I- -

File Revision No. 3 1 i,

(* .

j ~f (

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT

• i' , .

The DONPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

/

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

is a Program Resolution Report which C File Revision No. ,

. -recategorized this item as a closed Item.-

1

' ,' f 7

~

Based on additional information provided by'PGandE

]i i

0CP External Action Sheet,IQVP File.No 9006 signed M0.121 the Findings Review Comittee has recomended and the IDVP. has considered that the resolution is in compliance with established criteria. No physical modifications are required. ,

,( .

l 2. Signature: N N [..

830222 Approval /P Manager i .

= (. s cr.

If ]

i  :

t i ^l

~' r ,

) ,, .

l

_.. 1 '

-133-

-- a ,

l Y^ y . .-,

ERROR REPORT File No. 9007  ;

Class: C File Revision No. 2 i l ,.

A,B.C or D PG&E Task No.

4

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA ,

5 Program Review Committee Action M I

. Reported to PG&E and Originator 830226

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

BMI Couplings.

4. Description of Error: '

i 4

Most fillet welds at couplings do not meet the dimension requirements of Wismer' and Becker weld procedure or Westinghouse f drawing.

i 1 .

1 i

i 5. Significance of Error:

4 I

Based nn information provided by PGandE, including evaluation by -

j ,

Westinghouse, the welds are acceptable as is. There is no safety i significance regarding this item.

}

l

6. Reconnendation:

4 j Tc close this file and issue an IDVP Completion Sheet.

%f i 7. Potential Error Report signed by Frank Sestak- (SWEC) ~830225 Type Name/Oraanizat Date

8. Signatures: NA For Program Review Committee Z/f 830225.

Approved / % gram Manager -

-134- ^

l

- 1

. i

. o File No. 9007 l-j File Revision No. 3 t .

O t

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

j File Revision No. . is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

1 Based on additional information provided by PGandE DCP Completion Sheet. IDVP File No. 9007. sianed 830217 the Findings Review Comittee has recommended and the IDVP has considered that the resolution is in compliance with established criteria. No physical modifications are required.

i i' 2. Signature: M((~ 830225 Approval /ProgIamManager i

e e e

'l

v .

ERROR REPORT File No. 9013 Class: C File Revision No. 2 A,B,C or D '

PG&E Task No. 70298

l. Dates: Reported to Program Review Comittee NA Program Review Committe'e Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830222 2.

Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or conponent(s) involved:

Bottom Mounted Ir,strumentation (BMI) Supports

4. Description of Error:

Discrepancies between installation and drawing requirements. The .

structural components might not perform within the parameters for which they were designed.

5. Significance of Error:

Additional information s'hown as an Attachment A to PG&E Cenpletion Sheet, IDVP File No. 9025 signed 830109 reveal that low stresses are developed when applicable loads are used. There is no safety significance regarding this item.

6. Reconnendation :

To close this file and issue an IDVP Completion Report.

1 l' ,

i

7. P,otential Error Report signed by 830211 Frank Sestak (SWEC) on l'

Type Name/ Organization Date

8. Signatures: NA R/r /*_ -

830222 l For Program Review Committee Approved /Pfogram Manager l'

-136- R q

^

l

~

_ ~_ . _ . l

a

. r-

• File No. 9013 ,

File Revision No. 3 i i l'DVP COMPLETION REPORT P

The OCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:  !

File Revision No.. _ is a Program Resolution Report which '

recategorized this item as a Closed Item.  :

[ Based on additional information provided by PGandE PGandE Completion Sheet, IDVP File No. 9025, Rev. O, signed 830109 ,

the Findings Review Committee has reconenended and the IDVP has considered that the resolution is in compliance with established criteria. No physical modifications are required.  ;

2. Signature: MC Ow-- v 830222  !

Approval / Program Manager -

l l

t, 5

(.

! t f

! -137-l w.

. i ERROR REPORT File No. 9019 Class: C File Revision'No. 2

. A.B.C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70304

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830225 t

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

In Core Instrumentation Tubing Support.

4. Description of Error:

i Operation Process Sheet Travelers covering BMI supports do not show

" operation description" for some welds.

5. Significance of Error:

Based on information in DCP Completion Sheet, IOVP File No. 9019, signed 830211 plus the visual inspection by the members of the Findings Review Committee, is concluded that there is no safety significance regarding this item.

6

6. Recommendation:

To close this file and issue an IDVP Completion Report.

t.

7. Potential Error Report signed by Frank Sestak (SWEC) on 830218 Type Name/ Organization  :) ate

8. Signatures: NA For Program Refiew Committee ~MF _ 830225 v

Approvef/ Program Manager

-138-

~~

n .

File No. 9019 File Revision No. 3 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT The DCNPP Independent Design Ver'ification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which cogletes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item..

b Based on additional information provided by PGandE PGandE Completion She'et, IDVP File NO. 9019. signed 830218 the Findings Review Comittee has recomended and the IDVP has considered that the resolution is in compliance with established criteria. No physical modifications are required.

2. Signature: M((- 830225 Approval /Pr$gramManager -

/

1

• -*-%.1  %

-139- '

ERROR REPORT File No. 9024

. Class: C File Revision No. 2 A,B,C or 0.

PG&E Task No. 70310 '

l. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Otifginator 830222

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Reactor Coolant System and A<sociated Piping -

4. Description of Error: '

Ferrite readings (of 5% minimum) for welds were not recorded in all . cases as required per specification 8752. Weld cracking could develop in those areas where the ferrite tadings were not recorded. -

)

i

5. Significance of Error:

l Information provided by the Findings Review Comittee reveal that tr.ere were other checks performed and procedures existed to conclude that

there is no safety significance regarding this item.

i

6. Recomendation:

l To close this file and issue an IDVP Completion Report.

..> j

7. Potential Error Report signed by Frank Sestak -(SWEC) on ~830211-Type Name/ Organization- Date

8. Signatures: NA-For Program _ Review Comittee fi/fC _ n830222 Approved /Pfogram Manager

-140-

_m u -- * .e%- , , , , , , . . +, s , - , , - - - - , ,-

, e File No. 9024 File Revision No. 3 i IDVP COMPLETION REPORT i

The DCNPP Independent Design Verification P.ogram (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

1. The action which completes the IDVP effort is:

File Revision No. is a Program Resolution Report which

. recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

i

][] Based on XMMXXIBMX1 information provided by R6HN5E the Findings Review Committee NEXXNHMERMHMMHHXEN# the IDVP has considered that the resolution is in compliance with established criteria. No physical modifications are require'd.

2. Signature: M C__- 830222 Approval /ProgradfManager .

e i

~

-141-

, 7.

= v ERROR REPORT File No. 9026 Class: A File Revision No. 2

. A,B,C or D PG&E Task No. 70312

1. Dates: . Reported to Program Review Comittee NA Program Review Committee Action NA l Reported to PG&E and Originator 830222

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March l

, 1

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:

Reactor Coolant System Piping

4. Description of Error: .

No documentation available that liquid penetration examination was performed as required for some temporary attachments to RCS piping.

l

5. Significance of Error:

Visual examination reveals a linear indication. For the removed lugs, there is no indication of LP examination.

6. Recomendation:

PG&E to implement an NDE of the defined areas.

The IDVP/ Findings Review Comittee will review the results of the performed tests to further process this file.

i I

7. Potential Error Report signed by Frank Sestak (SWEC) on 830211

8. Signatures: NA Type Name/0rganization Date - '

,;;{Af*(_ _ _ 830222 For Program Review Committee Approved /PMgram Manager

-142-l

a OPE'; ITEM REPORT , File No. 9026 SW C File Revision No. 3

1. Date reported to PG&E and 7E 8?0??5 -

. c. 2. Scheduled for TES Originator) Semimonthly Report No. March t - -

3. Responsive to PG&E Technical Program: Task (if applicable)

4. Prepared as a result of:

a. D QA Aadit and Review Report. of Const. 0A

b. O Field Inspection Deficiency

c. O Independent Calculation Deficiency

d. O Seismic Input Defichncy

e. O Design Methodology Deficiency

f. O Other Deficiency

5. Structure (s), system (s) or cog onent(s) involved:

Reactor Coolant System Piping ,

6. Description of Concern:

No documentation available that liquid penetrant examination was performed for some temporary attachments to RCS piping.

4 C

7. Significance of Concern:

To be determined by the Findings Review Comittee.

f c 8. Recomendatics:

TES -requests SWEC to review DCP Cogletion Sheet signed 830224. and provide recomendation for future disposition.

i 2 l

9. ' Signature: eff d22I (Originator / Organization)

.-143-J i

. -r -

O PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 9026 File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: O Open Item: E Class A Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. C Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reportet to PG&E 830309

4. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March -

5. Resolution based on the following. documentation:

Preliminary information from PG&E. dated February 23, 1983, PG&E Complation Report dated February 24, 1982, and additional information from PG&E dated' March 7, 1983. SWEC independently performed L.P.

examination of lug removal area 14 on loop 1-4 on March 3,1983 as documented in SWEC Trip Report dated March 7,1983.

Results of the activities discussed in these documents indicate that there is no safety significance regarding this item.

6. Program R'esolution is:

To close this file and issue and IDVP Completion Report.

u

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Frank Sestak. Jr./SWEC- o'n _830308 Tmg,,Name/ Organization

8. Signature: Xff vrevo .,

Date (Approved / Program Manager)

-144-

9 w r-File No. 9026 File Revision No. 6 IDVP COMPLETION REPORT

~

The DCNFP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to the above File Number is complete.

4

1. The action which conpletes the IDVP effort is:

X File Revision No., 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

The IDVP has been informed by PG&E that no physical modifications will be applied by PG&E in response to File Revision No. ,

which recategorized this item as either a Deviation or as a Class C or Class D Error. The PG&E document so informing the IDVP is

2. Signature: h l'.Approvb/ProgramManager

[m rs,u o

. -145-

S ERROR REPORT File No. 9029 Class: C File Revision No. 2 A,B,C or 0 PG&E Task No. 70316

1. Dates: Reported to Program Review Committee NA Program Review Committee Action NA Reported to PG&E and Originator 830225

2. Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. March ,

3. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: '

Reactor Coolant System.

4. Description of Error:

Numerous instances of arc strikes, weld spatter, rusting, pitting, overgrinding, paint spatter on RCS loops and surge lines. ' -

i

5. Significance of Error:

Based on information in DCP Resolution Sheet, IDVP File No. 9029, signed 830211, is concluded that the concerns will not compromise the safe operation of the plant.

6. decommendation:

( To close this file and issue an IDVP. Completion Report.

7. Potential Error Report signed by Frank Sestak (SWEC) 830218 Type Name/0raanization

8. Signatures: NA Date R tf5,,,,__ 830225-( For Program Review Committee

' Approved / Program Manager

-146-m -

e

2 File No. 9029

. File Revision No. 3 i

IDVP COMPLETION REPORT.

J The DCNPP Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) effort related to

] the above File Number is complete.

l. The action which completes the IOVP effort is:

i File' Revision. No'. is a Program Resolution Report which 5

recategorized this item as a Closed Item.

l

[ Based on additional information-provided by PGandE PGandE Completon Sheet. IOVP File No. 9029. sianed 830211 the Findings Review Comittee has recomended and the IDVP has considered th'at the resolution is in compliance with I

established criteria. No physical modifications are required.

i

2. Signature: M[ ~

r 830225

Approval / Program Manager .

f 5

4 i

'~

, == e

-147-f *

• + -

y - , _ _ . _ ___ _ _ _

s y N'

\ _ ,~ .

I.

i

- WTELED(NE

( ENGNEERINGSEMCES l

l i

4 e

S l

i APPENDIX A LOOKAHEAD 1

O e

1 s

e i

v

. TN ENGNEERINGSBNICES TABLE A-1 l

LOOKAHEAD REPORT MARCH 11, 1983 THROUGH APRIL 8,1983 l O

DATE(S) LOCATION SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS 3/14/83 San Francisco Review Piping TES/RLCA/DCP -

Internal Technical Program .

3/14/83 San Francisco Review Civil TES/RLCA/DCP Internal Technical Program 3/17/83 SWEC Phase II E0I TES/SWEC/DCP Status 3/28/83 DCNPP Site Review of Jet TES/SWEC/DCP Impingement Areas 3/29-30/83 San Francisco Civil Structure TES/RLCA/DCP (Tentative) Review Meeting e

1 of 1 j l

y *-

. TN ENGINEERING SENICES t

TABLE A-2 IDVP SCHEDULE RELATIVE TO -

DCNPP-1 3-STEP LICENSING IDVP REPORTS ACTIVITY _ FUEL LO D LOW POWER FULL POWER Phase I Status Final -

4-8-83 6-15-83 Phase II Status Status Final 4-8-83 5-6-83 6-15-83 ITP-QA Final - -

4-15-83 Construction QA Final - -

3-10-83 PG&E/W Interface

~

Final - -

3-18-83

(

Hosgri Spectra Final - -

4-1-83 Non-Hosgri Spectra Final - -

4-1-83 Supplement for Status Status Status As-Built Verification 6-15-83 6-30-83 6-30-83 i

e I

e 1-of 1

a rp) 7() -.

\

R. F. REEDY, INCORPORATED 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue

. Los Gatos, California 95030 * (408) 354 9110 March 16, 1983 ,

Mr. G. A. Maneatis 014-100-014 Senior Vice President Facilities Development PACIFIC GAS &. ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94106

- Mr . H . R . Denton Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20555-Mr. R. H. Engelken Regional Administrator Region V U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94956 Dr. W. E. Cooper TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 Second Avenue Waltham, MA 02254 Docket No. 50-275

~Diablo Canyon Unit 1 License No. DPR-76

Subject:

Semimonthly Report Progress Report #25 Gentlemen:

R. F. REEDY, INC.'did not issue any Open Item reports.during the' reporting period February 24, 1983 to March 11, 1983.

As required by DCNPP-IDVPP-PP-05 and RFR-002, individuals assigned by this organization to the IDVP have completed an acceptable State-ment Regarding Potential or Apparent Conflicts of Interest.

Very ly your ,

Ro er . Reedy, P.E R .. REEDY, INC.

RPR:fh Disbursement List Attached (alf m LIOth dy Hugcr F. Reedv. P.E. - Enginerring run-n etng s *

- ~

, Mnrch 16, 19,83 '

Semimonthly Report .

Disbursement List ,

cc: H. Schierling (2)

• Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20114 R'. Fray BECHTEL P'OWER CORPORATION '

45 Fremont Street 23rd Floor, Section A17 ,

San Francisco, CA 94105 .

F. Sestak, Jr.

Chief Power Engineer- .

^

STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 Summer Street -

Boston, MA 02107 R. L. Cloud

.R. L. CLOUD & ASSOCIATES 125 University Avenue .

Berkeley, CA 94710 E. Denison R. L. CLOUD & ASSOCIATES 125 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 H. H. Brown KIRKPATRICK; LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER &.PHILLIPS 1900 M. Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20035 D. F. Fleischaker P.O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 9

J. Raynolds -

CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

• 10951 West Pico Boulevard suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90064 B. Norton NORTON,-BURKE, BERRY & FRENCH, P'.C. ,

3216 N. 3rd Street Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85012 A. C. Gehr SNELL & WILMER 3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, AZ'95073 2 .

l STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 UUMMER STREET. BOSTON. M ASSACHUSETTS I

aoonESS Au. connESPONoENCE TO P.O. S04 2325. SOSTON. M ASS. 02907 W U TELEA 94 0001 onN C NSTRUCTioN

"'"","'""* "': "L,o,.

'"'o'."To "10!'.".*,..

"..".'dit".Io ."E*e "

Mr. G.A. Maneatis, Executive Vice President '

March 18, 1983 Facilities Development Pacific Gas and Electric Company J.O. No. 14296,10 77 Beale Street DCS-351Q San Francisco, CA 94106 Mr. H.R. Denton, Director Offic2 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. h.H. Engelken, Regional Administrator Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Docket No. 50-275 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 License No. DPR-76 SWEC INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT Gentlemen:

Attached is Interim Technical Report, Number 38 Revision 1 entitled " Final Report on Construction Quality Assurance Evaluation of Wisner & Becker."

Very truly yours, F. Sestak, Jr.

Project Manager. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Enclosure cca RRFray (45) MJStruantasser RFReedy DFFleischaker ETsemisen Jameyneide Wucooper (10) Sporton l E8chierling (40) ACGehr l

RBubbard s

[%. I ..A -

gw sA sw s t L

1 e.

s I

I

-l PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT r

INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION-PROGRAM INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 38 REVISION 1 FINAL REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION 0F WISMER & BECKER

~

PERFORMED BY STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION

_ DOCKET NO. 50-275

. LICENSE NO. DPR-76

, u PROJECT MANAGER: k .. . :DATE ,7-/4"8J F. 'SEstiak, Jr. # -

)

~

PROGRAM MANAGER'S PREFACE

! DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT I INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM w

INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT FINAL REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION 0?

~

WISMER & BECKER

_ This is the thirty-eighth of a series of Interim Technical Reports prepared by the DCNPP-IDVP for the purpose of providing a status report of -

the program.

This reports. the recommendations and conclusions of the IDVP with respect to the initial sample.

As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services, . (TES), has approved this ITR including the conclusions and recommendations presented.

,, The methodology followed by.TES in performing th.is review and evaluation is described by Appendix B to this report.

ITR Reviewed and Approved IDVP Program Manager T E edyne bn ineering] Services D. C. tratouly Assistant Project Manager l

m, b; -

L

' TABLE OF CONTENTS i

!._ . Section Title Pay -

)

~l lL. 1 INTRODUCTION...................... ........................ 1-1 i

L_

2 DEFINITION OF ITEMS REVIEWED............................... 2-1

. L, 2.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 2-1 i

2.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION...................... 2-2 4 --

3 DESCRIPTION OF REVIEW...................................... 3-1 3.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 3-1 4

3.2 VERIFICATION OF' PHYSICAL INSTALLATION...................... 3-1 4

i 4

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW RESULTS.................................. 4-1 4.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 4-1 4 ._ g4. 2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION...................... 4-3 1

annap

, 5 E01 REPORTS ISSUED......................................... 5-1.

J 6 EVALUATION OF REVIEW RESULTS............................... 1-

~~

, 6.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM....... 6-1 6.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL Ih3TALLATION...................... 6-1 4

__ 7 ' CONCLUSIONS................................................ 7-1

^

t 9

em

-s'r -

V +'

I l 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

L. APPENDIXES

~~

A E01 FILES B PROGRAM MANAGER'S ASSESSMENT.

Ehmum 9 9

ene M

mese toesp W

4 Me*

w Enemo

' esume emme ii

1 P

- SECTION 1 .

INTRODUCTION 4

Stone & Webrter Engineering Corporation (SWEC) was engaged by Teledyne

~

Engineering Services (TES) to perform evaluations and verifications of the quality related activities of Wismer & Becker (W&B) who performed installa-tion of NSSS piping, and G.F. Atkinson (GFA) who performed civil / structural work in the containment building at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant-(DCNPP) - Unit 1.

i SWEC has performed the evaluation and verification in accordance with the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP), Program Plan, Revision 1, Adjunct Program for Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance, Edated October 1,1982, issued by TES as IDVP Program Manager. ,

This report concentrates on the work performed by W&B which consisted.pri-marily of (1) final setting of the major NSSS components (reactor vessel, steam generators, etc), and (2) installation of the reactor coolant piping, pressurizer surge line piping, bottom mounted instrumentation (BMI) tubing, piping and tubing supports, and reactor vessel flange seal leak detection tubing. A separate report has been issued with respect to GFA.

't

._ The review was conducted at the site from September 28, _1982, through November 5, 1982,: according to' the objectives of the evaluation defined in Section 2.0, Paragraph 2.1 of the IDVP Plan. The subsequent evaluation was s

1-1 ..

,b -

L structured to assess whether the construction of the DCNPP was performed in t

accordance with quality requirements appropriate for the time of plant con-L struction.

The Quality Assurance Program Evaluation was performed by a team of engineers experienced in various aspects of nuclear power plant construction quality assurance and inspection and was led by a Senior Field Quality Con- .

_ trol Representative.

The Quality Assurance Program Evaluation was performed by individuals certified as Auditors by SWEC in accordance with approved procedures and ANSI-N45.2.23. The construction verification was performed by individuals

_ certified as Inspectors in the appropriate discipline by SWEC in 'accordance with approved procedures and ANSI-N45.2.6.

The review started with an evaluation to determine if the construction docu-mentation provided evidence that the construction work correctly incorpora ted essential design features. To ascertain this, the areas of W&B's responsibilities were physically verified for compliance to PG&E Specification 8752, the W&B QA/QC Hanual, and applicable. drawings.

h eman 6

e

! U tum.

1-2 W .

e

,. 7 .)., - , ,

1

} }9 . .

pp

, 9; .

A u , J _Jj,/

' job

.r o O s

' y/j)v .(

g

,j s , t i,n f ., y u' SECTION 2

./' c

l ll,l1 s^

, j\

DEFINITION OF ITEMS'REVIEWEDf T t t ' ' , .,

L'.  :\II, '

) j! 1':

\ -

y N, ,

Y .

An appropriate sample for evaluation was .nelected i from 'the work of N.hi, p

(

l \. s- -

i contractor to provide evidence of his quality practices in each /aq'a of , g 3

! l <

11' activity. 4$ '

\

Y. <

i / ,,,' -

- , x Y i, .

s 4, l '

{>

1 4 ,

s- s .-

2.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM s

i { i t,

/

~

.y \

'~ ,

. g-. \?

Task A Consisted of a review of contractor's quality assurancespro8 rams b, l; to determine if adequate controls and practices were e'v ident to

(

assure the quality of construction apd the incorporation of j s , ,.

_ essential design features into the complelted plant 'and to '

s

'i

's

, \

determine if controls were consistent with applicabla regulatory h, requirements at the time the work was performed.

, 2.2 VERIFICITION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION Task B Consisted of an evaluation to determine if the physical installa-tion of selected components of safety systems and structures

conform to the requirements of design drawings and specifications and whether required inspections were performed.

4

'n._

l-l

~

~

~

2-1 ,

l-

. g

.A ' . d ' .? 7, . . - -

1

<: V j 1

, L. ;: " ' b t

e d, + ' _ ) SECTION 3 r DESCRIPTION OF REVIEW

! \

) ) >

3.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY' ASSURANCE PROGRAM L

}*

1 i The evaluation was conducted using a prepared checklist consisting of 82 9

, < attributes that were derived from requirements contained in the following L documents:

o

/

L/

• PG&E ' Specification 8752, " Installation of the Nuclear Steam Supply Systems for Units 1 and 2 -

Diablo Canyon Site," May 3, 1972 Wismer & Becker QA/QC Manual, June 6, 1973 i

• Applicable drawings.

Records obtained from the permanent plant file were reviewed, ' on a . random

_ basis, for objective evidence that . requirc.nents were met in a satisfactory manner. The type of records reviewed included ASME III' Certificates. of Authorization, certified Haterial Test Reports (CMTRs),-Code Data Reports, Operation Process Sheet Travelers (installation and inspection 'documenta-c tion), drawings, welding procedures, welder qualification records, weld data

~ sheets, welding electrode control records, nondestructive examinatiionL(NDE) procedures, personnel qualifications 'and reports, hydrosta tic .. test-procedures reports, audit reports, and nonconformance reports'(NCRs).

' 6ee 3 _- .

6

f;

, '3.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION L.

Checklists were prepared based on design drawings, specification require-ments, reported as-built conditions, and other appropriate design data

~

(i.e., flow diagrams) for conducting the physical verification of,construc-tion practices of the following systems:

.y

• Reactor coolant piping

• Pressurizer surge line piping 1 Bottom mounted instrumentation tubing h

! e Reactor vessel leak detection line

• Pipe and tubing supports for the four items above 4

A 7 Inspections were performed utilizing prepared checklists consisting of 53 p m-selected attributes extracted from specifications, drawings, and quality assurance / quality control procedures.

_ All accessible welds in systems described above were visually examined to verify that fabrication, examination and documentation were performed to approved procedures. All insulation was removed for the inspection.

Each piping system was examined by individual spool and welds. Welds were 1

visually examined for evidence of undercut,. slag, porosity, weld profile, weld identification, radiographic markers, and welder's symbol.

1 i

I team 3-2

Piping was verified against PG&E drawings and W&B fabrication records. The W&B Quality Assurance Manual, PG&E drawings, Southwest Fabricating and Weld-ing Company drawings, Westinghouse drawings, and ASME and ANSI codes and standards were referred to as necessary.

Welding was verified utilizing W&B weld procedures (approved by PG&E), W&B fabrication records, welder qualification records and weld rod issue

,_ records. Radiograph interpretation sheets ' were examined, but no film was reviewed as part of the physical verification.

k._

Reactor coolant piping weld records consisted of fabrication processes iL sheets broken down by loop, weld, and quadrant (4 loops, 8 welds per loop, 4 quadrants per weld) and included documentation of preheat, interpass temperatures, ferrite content, filler material, current and voltage used i-j- during welding, visual inspection results, NDE reports, and PG&E representa-tive signoff at pre-selected hold points.

Weld maps included in the documentation packages indicated welders assigned ,

to each weld or part of a weld, a record of arc strike repairs and lug re-moval. NDE records were also part of the weld documentation package.

~~~

The records were reviewed to determine whether the results recorded 'were in accordance with program and procedure requirements.

W N

6 3-3 I

eme An inspection' of internal surfaces of reactor coolant piping was one

' attribute on the checklist. Due to clean conditions restrictions in the reactor cavity area and the vessel being partly flooded, 'it was only pos-4 i

sible te perform internal inspection of- the hot . and cold ~ legs of loop 3.

a Internal surfaces of pipe and welds on loop 3 were visually inspected for cleanliness, surface condition, weld spatter, arc. strikes, weld profile,

[ undercut, correct. reinforcement, correct grinding, . porosity, slag, and, correct root preparation.

BMI tubing records consisted of two packages. which contained the i

documentation of all 350 welds. These~ records were examinsd for evidence of j correct documentation of:

Correct. weld identification

• Assignment of qualified welder

• Correct preheat .

l_

• Correct electrical characteristics

• Visual inspections

-

• NDE

• Repair data.

Since the Reactor Vessel was partly flooded and subject to restricted

.-. .4 cess due to cleanliness restrictions, the reactor vessel leek detection system ^

could not be completely physically examined. The accessible - portion was

- verified using PG&E drawings for orientation, identification, location, pip-

~

ing configuration, and correct material.

2 J

3-4 4 n 4 I

Supports in each system were visually examined for weld quality, and that

, location, orientation, and installation conformed to specification and draw-

'=

ing requirements. .

I

~

PG&E and Westinghouse drawings, W&B weld procedures, weld rod issue' records -

3 and W&B fabrication process sheets were reviewed.

L L Welds on supports were examined for evidence' of slag, porosity, undercut, weld spatter, and correct weld profile.

All bolts -were examined for correct material identification , location, orientation, bolt and nut seating, and thread engagement.

I __

Support components were examined for evidence of correct identification ,

,- locs. tion, orientation, fabrication, installation,and repair records.

l Steam generator snubbers were examined to determine if' location and orienta-tion agreed with PG&E drawings. Pin-to pin measurements were ' recorded -for -

all 16 snubbers, and any deviations from PG&E drawings were noted.

4 l

4 Visual inspections were performed.using PG&E drawings to verify that.compon-

[ ents (i.e., reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizer, etc) were correctly identified and properly: oriented.

i i

j- 1 1 .I

! I I

i 3-5 '

r ,-

e m 9 e - w -r-- ,

J i

.In . conjunction with the physical verification, supporting ~ documentation (i.e.', - welder qualification,' weld procedure approvals, NDE qualifications, l .

L. and other inspection reports) were reviewed for compliance to specification and program requirements for the. time of construction.

i-W

~h

.a!t.

w 4 6 t

i h-4' L

p I

d

'l

w 1

i w

.mp b-4 s

i 3-6 i

.n - ., '-f

3

'SECTION 4 t

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW RESULTS 1,

1 -

l 4 -

4.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM t

It was fcund that W&B was in compliance with requirements for 65 of 80 -

!~

attributes that were evaluated (two attributes were determined to be not applicable during the course of the evaluation). In accordance with speci-

fication requirements, the contractor's Quality Assurance Program was .sub-mitted to and approved by PG&E. In addition, the contractor was a holder ,of 1 the ASME,Section III, Certification of Authorization - for installation of nuclear piping. The required Code Data Reports were properly signed

and-

- certified by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI). Travelers, specifica-

,i tions, drawings, and procedures were approved by PG&E prior to- work being 4

performed; the travelers, which included inspection and test . requirements,'

j- were completed as work was performed including the signoff at designat'ed.

hold points by the contractor's inspector and the ANI. Further examples of

_ activities which were found to be in compliance with the source' documents

, _ . and associated codes and standards are as follows:

i<

' was

>

• Installation operations (setting, 'shinuning', alignment o etc) of.

NSSS major components

(-

t

• Cleanliness and cleaning and flushing operations -in accordance-1 with procedures approved by PG&E

6; i

I

.s l 4-1 .

.-l 4 l eusse -

a

, .l l

_ l L

• Qualification of welding

• procedures and approval by PG&E and the

, ANI l l

l

• Selection of proper welding process (GTAW, SMAW) 4 Control of welding electrodes

-

• Control of interpass temperatures 6

• Repair of reported weld defects in accordance with procedures approved by PG&E

.u

- Approval of NDE procedures and NDE personnel qualifications - by

. PG&E and the ANI i

• Performance of required D,E 4 _

• Performance of audits 4

'~

Control of reported nonconformances, including the approval of dispositions by PG&E.

1

.__ A total of 3,528 documents was reviewed. As a result of tne review, 16 Open Item Reports were issued to document findings which required resolution.

Most of these items can be characterized as omissions' or, as an inspection activity which had to be evaluated to determine its impact on the physical installation.

4-2

- i

~

. . - . - , ,, -. 9 - ,.

4.2. VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION .

It was found that W&B was in compliance with program - requirements for the majority of the attributes that were. verified. The configuration, cleanli-ness, surface finish of welds, and overall' workmanship were in compliance with drawings and specifications with some exceptions noted in the report.

Of 2,298 items inspected, 9 Open Item Reports were issued. The items iden -

_ tified primarily demonstrate either a conflict between a drawing requirement and the installation or apparent field changes that may not -have. been pro-

~~

~ perly documented.

m 9 4D I

1 mes 1

l '- ,

l.

i I

f I I  !

l

l. 4-3 t

a;

+

.\

l

L- SECTION 5 E0I REPORTS ISSUED I Twenty-five E0I files were opened . for the Construction Quality Assurance evaluation of the work performed by W&B on NSSS piping at' the Diablo Canyon -

4 Nuclear Power . Plant - Unit 1. The status of these files is summarized in Append'x i A.

j EOI 9001 was issued because the majority of welds 'on supports 9, _10, and 11 (PG&E Drawing Nos. 443247 and 443248) exhibited incomplete fillet,'short weld length, undercut weld, spatter, arc strikes, slag, and poor workman-ship. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional informatio, n ,

,_ provided - by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) : in -

accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were, required.

An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

EDI 9002 was issued because the geometry of the welds covering BMI system-supports did not comply with the requirements as : shown in PG&E Drawing No.

j- 443248.

This file was reviewed and analyzed with the. additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and~the IDVP-concluded that the. file is resolved as an Error Class' C (Observation) in ,

( accordance with program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP. Completion Report has been issued.

4

+

mee -

1- I L.

er n .- .- ,3-y -- - .

I 3 ..---!

1

[ E01-9003 was issued because the geometry _ of the welds covering BMI tubing l did not comply with the reqsirements of - W&B Weld Procedure 3500-2. This

-file was reviewed and analyzed with t additional-information provided,by

_ PG&E. The Findings Review Cosmittee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with-the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An - IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

" L.

E0I 9004 was issued because Certified Material Test. Reportsidid notJ comply -

with the requirements specified in Westinghouse Drawing No. 685J702, Revi-l',w- sion 4. This file was reviewed and analyzed with..the additional'information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended.and the IDVP g_ concluded that the file is resolved as an. Error Class C (Observation) in

accordance with the program plan. No physied1' modifications were required.

An IVDP Completion Report.has been issued.

E0I 9005 was issued because review of' welding procedures apparently'did'not comply with P6&E Specification 8752 requirements. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. -The Findings Review Committee recommended and -the IDVP concluded that the : file <is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, Closed ; Item' (Invalid) in accordance -

~

with the program plan. No physical m'odifications .were . required. An.IDVP'

_. Completion Report'has been issued.

4 "

• 'W n--

'E

~

w t s

n --

5 _

i4. 1 E h g) tf a y <- , p 4 <4 r,w, t e q --F -

1 v,

-, ,t y -

t E0I 9006 was issued because CMTRs did .not comply with PG&E Specification 8752 requirements. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional

_ . information provided by PG&E. The Findings. Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observa-

~

tion) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

_ E01 9007 was issued because the geometry of the welds at BMI couplings did not comply with the requirements of Westinghouse Drawing No. W-685J702 or W&B Weld Procedure 3500-2. This file was reviewed and analyzed with'the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that. the file .is resolved as an Error

_ Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report 'has' been issued.

E0I 9009 was issued because documentation on one weld radiographic report did not ecmply with the requirements of Westinghouse Drawing No. 685J702.

i This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and .the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, Closed' Item (Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. ~

No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

~.

E01 9010 was issued because records of weld procedures apparently 'did not show compliance with the requirements of PG&E Specification 8752. This file-was reviewed 'and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E.

l~ The Findings Review . Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that' the

( 5-3

%- e

1 file is resolved as- a Program Resolution Report, Closed Item _(Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required.

i An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

E0I 9011 was issued because the welding recor'ds did not show compliance with

~

the requirements of PG&E Specification 8752. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings

_ Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

u E0I 9012 was issued because deficiencies were - found in the welding proced-ures required by PG&E Specification 8752. This file was reviewed and P

analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP. concluded that the file is-

~

resolvId as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

t E01 9013 - was issued because of' various discrepancies between installation and drawing requirements. .This file was reviewed and analyzed with the I

additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee re-commended and the IDVP concluded that the' file is resolved as an Err'or Class L C (Observation): in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required. An' IDVP Completion Report ~has been issued.

u 5'-4

J' .

E0I 9014 was ' issued because of apparent lack of documentiation' certifying the

? halogen content as required by PG&E Specification 8752. This file was

_. reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The

- Findings Review Committee recommended _and the IDVP concluded. that the- file.

e is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, Closed Item (Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. No. physical modifications were required.

An'IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

E0I 9027 was issued because bolt material requirements ' as per Drawing No.

438271 were not met. This - file was reviewed and analyzed with .the addi-

. [ tional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recom-u mended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class

C.

=_

(Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifica-tions were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

t:i E0I 9018 was issued because the manufacturer's record of welder performance

-did not meet ASME IX requirements. ~ This file was reviewed and analyzed with' j the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee ,

recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error it -

'_ Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No' physical. mod-~

ifications were required. .An IDVP Completion Report has been~ issued.

l_ 4

!; E01 9019 was issued because welding documentation did not - comply with PG&E

v -

l _ Specification 8752 requirements. This file was reviewed and ' analyzed with.

_ , the additional information provided by PG&E. The rindings' Review Committee i

l- recommended and the IDVP. concluded thatL the file . is ' resolved as an Error Jt i

l-( '5-5 w ,

v ,m _. m . , _ . , . _

-t Class C (Observation) in - accordance with the p rogram plan. No physical modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

?

l E0I 9020 was issued because records of radiographic inspection may be inac-

' ~ ~

curate. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in

_ accoruance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required.

An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

E0I 9022 was issued because voltage / amperage requirements of Weld Procedure 3500-2 were not met. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the 'addi-tional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee ' recom-mended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan.

~

No physical modifica-tions were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

E0I 9023 was issued because voltage / amperage requirements of Weld Procedure 3500-1 were not met. This fila was reviewed - and analyzed ' with the addi-tional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review. Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as .an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No- physical -

, modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

E0I 9024 was issued because . ferrite readings for welds were not recorded 'as j required. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional informa- i l

' tion provided by PG&E. The, Findings Review Committee recommended and the -l t

5 l

4 IDVP concluded that~ the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation)

, in accordance with ' the program plan. No physical modifications were re-quired. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

E0I 9025 wac issued because drilled holes on one tubing support did not l_ appear on engineering drawings.

This file was reviewed and analyzed with i the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee

recommended and the IDVP concluded that the ~ file is resolve'd as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical

~

modifications were required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

E0I 9026 was issued because there are no records- of nondestructive examina-

,. tion performed on the areas of removal of some temporary attachments 'to RCS piping. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee initially determined that this file was an Error Class A (Finding). PG&E performed corrective action as documented in the Completion Report submitted regarding this item. TES.

}

'_ issued an Open Item Report, and the Findings Review Committee performed verification of PG&E's corrective action. The Findings Review . Committee determined that PG&E's. corrective action is acceptable. -The Findings Review-

~

Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as m

a Prog ram Resolution Report, Closed Item, in accordance with; the program plan. No physical modifications 'were requiredi An IDVP' Completion Report has been issued.

4 -

N .

J

'--  :)

l d

'5-7 l

1

- t

a E0I 9027 was issued because there were no records of nondestructive examina-tion performed on tube-to-scal table welds as required by PG&E Specification i

a 8752. This file was reviewed and : analyzed with the additional information

?

provided by PG&E. The rindings _ Review Committee recommended and the IDVP.

~

concluded that the file is resolved as an Error Class C (Observation) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were required.

An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

, E0I 9028 was issued because weld documentation apparently did not identi fy --

the welder to specific welds as required by PG&E Specification 8752.- This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional information provided~by

,L 4

PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and the IDVP concluded that the file is resolved as a Program Resolution Report, Close'd Item (Invalid) in accordance with the program plan. No physical . modifications _ were 3

required. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

9 1

E0I 9029 was issued because of several instances of arc. strikes, weld

~

splatter, rusting, pitting, overgrinding, 'and paint . splatter on RCS loops and surge lines. This file was reviewed and analyzed with the additional

!- information provided by PG&E. The Findings Review Committee recommended and j

_the IDVP concluded that the file.is resolved as an Error Class C (Observa . -

tion) in accordance with the program plan. No physical modifications were.

reil uired. An IDVP Completion Report has been issued.

r

.. 'l D

8 ,

I

--r & F 4 y

L.

SECTION 6 EVALUATION OF REVIEW RESULTS 6.1 EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION QUALITY' ASSURANCE PROGRAM The documentation reviewed indicates that the contractor performed his work .

in compliance with PG&E Specification 8752, the approved Quality Assurance Manual, and applicable drawings.

As a result of the documentation reviewed during this evaluation and based

.j on the Quality Assurance Program for construction of the NSSS piping systems.

, and supports which is judged to be adequate, it is concluded that the work

_ performed met the applicable standards ~ for the time of plant construction.

6.2 VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL INSTALLATION Results of the physical verification indicated that the contractor did

,_ comply with the design criteria of PG&E Specification 8752, applicable drawings and their Quality Assurance Manual and, to the extent verified, resulted in adequate installation.of the Reactor Coolant System.

t

.mun.

i y 4.ns-6-1

+

SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS 1: The Review Team = considers that, in ~ the areas reviewed, the controls and'

~

g practices in place during construction were ' adequate to assure the. quality l . .

of construction. Further, to the -extent reviewed, th'e as-constructed l physical installation conforms to the requirements of design drawings and L. specifications, and the required inspections were performed and appropriate-ly documented.

.m

Based on the results of the reviews conducted of both G. ~ F. . Atkinson and

Wismer & Becker, it is considered that PG&E adequately controlled i

_ construction contractors selected as well as the = actual- construction activities performed at DCNPP-Unit-1. . No additional verification' is recommended.

i-Iil i ==

1 f

4

, a

~

l \

l 3

i

!e e-7-1~

I' b

9 4

W APPENDIX A-EDI FIIIS 4

w gene m

W 6

W em W

.W e

T h M j'. .

s . _ _ - e

APPENDIX A DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT 4

REV.0 LATEST REVISION ACTION.

FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE BY STATUS MODS SUBJECT 9001 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Workmanship on welds on BMI-supports j- 9001 821102 830211 1

SWEC PER/C Workmanship on welds on'BMI

~~

supports 9001. 821102 2 830222 TES ER/C Workmanship on welds'on BMI' t supports

! 9001 821102 3 830222

~~ TES CR NO Workmanship on welds on BMI supports 9002 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR 9002 Weld. lengths on BMI supports 821102 1 830204 SWEC PER/C Weld lengths on BMI supports 9002 821102 2 830209 TES-9002 ER/C Weld lengths on BMI supports i 821102 3 830209 TES CR NO Weld lengths on BMI supports 9003 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR. Bottom mounted instrument tubing 4

9003 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C 9003 Bottom mounted instrument tubing 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C 9003 821102 Bottom mounted instrument tubing j 3 830117 TES CR NO Bottom mounted instrument tubing

~ __ 9004 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR 9004 UT inspection of BMI tubes

821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C UT inspection of-BMI tubes j 9004 821102 2 830117 TES 9004 ER/C UT inspection of BMI tubes

!- 9005 821102 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO UT inspection of BMI.-tubes 0 821102 SWEC OIR

9005 821102 Reactor coolant' weld procedures

' 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Reactor coolant weld procedures 9005 821102 2 830117 TES 9005 821102 PRR/CI Reactor coolant weld procedures 3 830117 TES CR NO Reactor coolant weld procedures-9006 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR 9006 821102 Seal leak detection: tubing 1 830211 SWEC PER/C Seal leak detection tubing

__ 9006 821102 2 830222 TES ER/C. Seal leak detection tubing 9006 821102 3 830222 TES CR j 9007 821102 0 ENO Seal leak detection tubing 821102 SWEC OIR BMI couplings

{_ 9007 821102 1 830225 SWEC PER/C

~

BMI couplings-i 9007 821102 2 830226 TES 9007 ER/C BMI souplings l 821102 3 830226 TES CR .NO BMI couplings 9009 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR 1- Radiograph-reactor-coolant 9009 .sys.(Thimble Guide Tubes) 821102 1 830112 SWEC. PPRR/CI Radiograph-reactor coolant

?009 sys.(Thimble Guide Tubes) 821102 2 830117 'TES PRR/CI ' Radiograph-reactor. coolant 9009 821102 fsys.(Thimble Caide Tubes);

3 830117 TES CR NO Radiograph-reactor coolant i _.

sys'.(Thimble Guide. Tubes 9010 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR. Welding procedures-reactor 9010 coolant system-

._, 821102 1 830112 SWEC, PPRR/CI . Welding procedures-reactor l

coolant-system

A-1 i .,

? **

__- . _. . s. _

e .

~

APPENDIX A (CONT) 1 DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT l REV.0 LATEST REVISION ACTION i FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE BY STATUS MODS SUBJECT

] 9010 821102 2 830117 TES PRR/CI Welding procedures-reactor coolant system 9010 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Welding procedures-reactor

. coolant system 9011 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR NSSS piping traveler review 9011 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C NSSS piping traveler review 9011 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C NSSS piping traveler review 9011 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO NSSS piping traveler review

__ 9012 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR NSSS-weld procedured 9012 821102 1 830112 SWEC PER/C NSSS-weld procedures.

9012 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C NSSS-weld procedures 9012 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO NSSS-weld procedures 9013 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Installation of BMI supports 9013 821102 1 830211 SWEC PER/C Installation of BMI supports 9013 821102 2 830222 TES ER/C Installation of BMI supports-9013 821102 3 830222 TES CR NO Installation of BMI- supports 9014 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Halogen content-reactor coolinE piping welding 4 - 9014 821102 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Halogen content-reactor

cooling piping welding

, 9014 821102 2 830117 TES PRR/CI . Halogen content-reactor j __

cooling piping welding 9014 821102 3 830117 TES CR NO Halogen content-reactor cooling piping welding 9017 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR

_ Bolt material-reactor coolant system 9017 821102 830112 1

SWEC PER/CI Bolt material-reactor coolant system-9017 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Bolt material'-reactor coolant system 9017 821102 3 833117 TES CR NO Bolt material-reactor coolant system-9018 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Welder's qualification 1

9018 821102 1 830112- SWEC PER/C Velder's qualification 9018 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Welder's qualification 9018 821102 3 830117 9019 TES CR NO Welder's qualification 821102 0 821102 SWEC OIR Operation description for

- welds 9019 821102 830218 1

SWEC PER/C . Operation description for welds 9019 821102 2 830225 TES ER/C Operation. description for welds 9019 821102 3 830225 TES CR NO

. Operation-description for welds l_ , A -

y APPENDIX A I (CONT) i e --

DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT

. . . .REV.O LATEST REVISION ACTION FILE NO. .DATE -REV. DATE BY STATUS MODS SUBJECT - -

='-

9020 821102 0 821102- SWEC OIR Radiographic inspection

' report information- -

9020 821102 1 830112.

~

SWEC PER/C Radiographic _ inspection l report,information

[ 9020 821102 2 830117 TES ER/C Radiographic inspection- i report information

'9020 3

.. 821102 3 830117 TES 'CR NO Radiographic inspection reportfinformation '

9022 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR 9022 Weld procedure-BMI tubing 821110 1 830204 SWEC PER/C

~~

9022 Weld procedure-BMI tubing 821110 2 830210 TES' ER/C 90221 821110 Weld procedure-BMI tubing 3 830210- TES CR NO Weld procedure-BMIjtubing 9023 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR

. Weld procedure-reactor 9023 coolant system 821110 1 830112 SWEC PER/C- Weld procedure-reactor 9023 coolant system '

821110 2 830117 TES ER/C Weld-procedure ~-reactor 9023 coolant system-

} 821110 3 830117 TES CR NO Weld procedure-reactor 1 coolant _ system

. 9024. 821110 0 821110 SWEC- OIR . Ferrite readings-reactor:

[ ,, 9024 coolant system 821110- 1 830211 SWEC PER/C Ferrite readings-reactor '

9024 821110 coolant system 2 830222 TES ER/C Ferrite readings-reactor' 9024 821110 coolant system -

3 830222 TES CR NO Ferrite _ readings-reactor -

, ~

9025 _ coolant _ system +

821110. 0 821110 SWEC- OIR 9025- BMI' t'ubing fsupports = '

~

821110 1, 830204 SWEC- PER/C

9025 821110 BMI tubing 2 supports. '

2 830211 TES 9025 821110-ER/C BMI. tubing supports '

3 830211 TES CR 9026 821110 NO BMI tubing ~ supports i

__ 0 821110 SWEC OIR Attachments-reactor? coolant'.

9026 821110 system piping l '

1 '830211 SWEC PER/A

l. Attachments-reactor-coolan.t-9026 system piping 4

821110 '2 830222 TES ER/A Atta'chments-reactor; coolant- '

9026-821110.

system. piping 3 830225 TES OIR . _

_. Attachments-reactor 1 coolant ,

I 9026 821110- 4-system piping- .

830308 -SWEC PPRR/CI

Attachments-rea'ctor coolant.

~. system. piping . - . . ,

i- - 1 4-

. '[A-3 , - -

P'

• + + - , O --w -& 4-w< e- -, , ,-

W APPENDIX A '(CONT) v DCNPP IDVP STATUS REPORT REV.0 LATEST REVISION ACTION

~

FILE NO. DATE REV. DATE B_Y, STATUS MODS SUBJECT.

~

9026 821110 5 830309 TES PRR/CI Attachments-reactor coolant system piping 9026 821110 6 830309 TES

' CR NO Attachments-reactor coolant system piping 9027 821110 0 821110 SWEC OIR Welds-BMI tubing 9027 821110 830112 1

SWEC PER/C Welds-BMI tubing 9027 821110 2 830117 9027 TES ER/C Welds-BMI tubing 821110 3 830117 TES CR NO Welds-BMI tubing 9028 821119 0 821119 SWEC OIR 9028 Weld documentation-BMI supports-

__. 821119 1 830112 SWEC PPRR/CI Weld documentation-BMI supports 9028 821119 2 830117 TES PRR/CI -Weld documentation-BMI supports 9028 821119 3 830117 TES CR 9029 NO Weld documentation-BMI supports

, 821119 0 821119 SWEC OIR Reactor coolant system-9029 821119 weld deficiencies 1 830218 SWEC PER/C Reactor coolant system-9029 821119 weld deficiencies 2 830225 TES ER/C Reactor coolant system-9029 821119 weld deficiencies 3 830225 TES CR NO iteactor coolant system-weld deficiencies

~.

• g MM N

$4 h'

~A-4

i l

1

-1

~

4 I

j APPENDIX B PROGRAM MANAGER'S ASSESSMENT I

N 2

b  %,

i aum.e>

r U M e

M 6

s. .

Appendix B 1

l PROGRAM MANAGER'S ASSESSMENT Independent review by TES of the tasks ' considered to evaluate :the Construction Quality Assurance of the work performed by Wismer & Becker on

_ the Installation of NSSS Piping at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Unit

• I, was performed in accordance with IDVP Program Plan, Revision 1, Adjunct Program for Evaluation of Construction Quality Assurance dated October 1,:

1982.

The review involved a visit to the site to consnent on the procedures

_ and checklists draf ted by SWEC's engineers and -~an analys is of the recommendations by the Findings Review Committee.

i The files issued by SWEC were reviewed thoroughly and specific.

recommendations were made to the IDVP Program & nager delineating appropriate resolution.

As a result of the verification of the selected samples and the ,

assessment of the impact of SWEC's findings, TES, as Program Manager,-is of the opinion that no additional verification is required.

1 i

f W e

d w em 4

w.

4 6

, - , _ .