ML20076K095
| ML20076K095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1983 |
| From: | Earley A HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Brenner L, Carpenter J, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| TR-5633-3, NUDOCS 8307080184 | |
| Download: ML20076K095 (43) | |
Text
..
"% cc u
. mSPO.vnm.3 nn-nn t:u:.'.;E2 "Pk... ;h-
..--n, y,*.a.... c.. c.
o A
HUNTON & WILLIAMS 7o7 EAsf MAIN STREET R o. Box l535,
440 9
3 0 a t susto...
m O. som too R2cnxoNn, VIRGINIA 23212 eens ptssusvtv avtwut,N.w.
matzstM, nomTM camouma.,.oa
.4 xesas c,>.<......,
TELEPMONE 804-788 8200
- 7m ' **
."s
/
y,g' '...... ' j rec 87 venesseia aasen towan
.on2...
x,n, v..o.
.... s,.
f r.'E ao \\ 566.3 cc.-tas.ssoe July 5, 1983 M...te,...t.o..... 8 3 6 1
\\
i Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Dr.
Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
i 4
Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge f
Atomic Safety and Licensing a
Board Panel E
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 8;
t" Teledyne Report i*
Dear Judges Brenner,
Carpenter and Morris:
~
I E
=.
Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Summary of the r
Final Report of the Independent Design Review for Shoreham E
conducted by Teledyne Engineering Services.
E informed LILCO that the Final Report will b Teledyne has E
the end of July.
e available by
[
Respectfully submitted,
.I, f
IF d
=-
4 5
A hony F Ear
,I.
221/765 tr Enclosure I"
m ffJ cc:
All parties S..
.EI Erd r=
m 8307080184 830705 PDR ADOCK 05000322
[=
0 PDR
$p
!A....*
^jy303
6 5
h h
"d JUL 71983 $ FI g
':" :n l:
f/
~
f.,
"RTELEDYNE TELEDYNE ENGINEER 1NG SERVICES CONTROLLED DOCUMENT TES PROJ. NO..
% 33 DATE
[o-@ 84 TECHNICAL REPORT TR-%33-3 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
OF FINAL REPORT INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION JUNE 30,1983
s LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 175 EAST OLD COUNTRY ROAD HICKSVILLE, NEW YORK 11801 TECHNICAL REPORT TR-5633-3 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
OF FINAL REPORT INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION JUNE 30, 1983 i
WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254 f.17-890-3350
'WTA prVNE Technical Report TR-5633-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 APPROACH 1
3.0 DEFINITIONS 3
3.1 Open Item (TES Internal) 3 3.2 Closed Item 3
3.3 Potential Finding (TES Internal) 4 3.4 Finding 4
3.5 Observation 4
4.0 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 4
4.1 Task 1 - Design Process and Procedures 4
4.2 Task 2 - Review Design Requirements 5
4.3 Task 3 - Review As-Built Design Documents 6
4.4 Task 4 - Determine As-Built Plant Configuration 7
4.5 Task 5 - Compare As-Built Documentation to 7
Plant Configuration 4.6 Task 6 - Review LILC0 QA and SWEC QA/QC/EA 8
Process and Documentation 5.0 REPORTING PROCESS 8
6.0 LILC0/SWEC RESPONSE APPROACH 11 7.0 RESULTS 11 7.1 Phase 1 12 7.2 Phase 2 13 7.3 Phase 3 13 7.3.1 ICR No. 5633-1 14 7.3.2 ICR No. 5633-2 16 7.3.3 ICR No. 5633-10 18 7.3.4 ICR No. 5633-18 19 7.3.5 ICR No. 5633-19 20 7.3.6 ICR No. 5633-21 22 7.3.7 ICR No. 5633-27 23 7.3.8 ICR No. 5633-28 24
8.0 CONCLUSION
S 26
'MT51 prT(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an Independent Design Review (IDR) performed by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) at the request of Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO).
The IDR was performed on a portion of the Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) System at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
The IDR was structured to verify that the Design and Quality Assurance process imposed by documentation was successfully implemented and that the as-built configuration was in compliance with the comit-ment of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
2.0 APPROACH l
The IDR looked at a specific time frame in the design and construc-tion process which was ongoing at Shoreham.
In fact as TES was review-ing design, analysis and construction documentation, Stone & Webster (SWEC) was in the process of revising some of these.
TES was unaware of the revisions that were underway or planned.
Because of this, we opened items which, at the point in time we froze the process, appeared to be deficiencies.
In some cases after issuance of these items as pre-l liminary Findings, the LILC0 response indicated that the process in place at Shoreham had already found the same deficiency and had resolved it or, resolution was underway.
This enabled TES to review the Shoreham process which uncovered the deficiency, the subsequent design changes, 1
l the reconciliation process with other disciplines and the final con-struction.
This provided the review team with the opportunity to review the results of the total process as well as to review the ongoing design and construction activities over approximately thirteen months.
A
TPTn prh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 review of this type involves significantly more man-hours than a review dealing only with final documentation because:
(1)
Items found by the normal design process are found by the Reviewer.
For example, discrepancies which were found by the SWEC reconciliation process were also found by the Reviewer.
(2) All preliminary Findings and Observations were responded to in detail by LILCO and SWEC; even those that were already resolved by the SWEC reconciliation process.
(3) A complete re-review of the process was performed by TES after receiving responses to preliminary Findings.
In some cases the normal SWEC process resulted in a completely new analysis being performed while TES was reviewing that revision in existence at the time of the IDR initiation.
This required TES to review the new analysis in detail as well as the process which generated the need.
Approximately 12,000 man-hours were expended in the performance of this IDR.
It is our opinion that reviews of this nature are more meaningful than those which review only the final documentation.
A Project Review Team was formed to conduct the review and members of the team were assigned specific areas of responsibility.
Each Reviewer reported directly to the Project and/or Assistant Project Manager.
A Project Review Internal Committee was formed whose sole function was to review all Potential Findings and Observations prior to their final classification and submittal to LILCO.
Items classified as Findings and Observations by the Internal Comittee were submitted in preliminary form to LILCO and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
LILCO and SWEC responded to these preliminary submittals, and a final review of Findings was performed by the individual TES Reviewer having
'eTF1 PTWNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 responsibility Tnd by the Project Manager and chairman of the Internal Connittee.
A final disposition of each Finding was made based on that l
review and required agreement of the Reviewer, the Project Manager and Connittee Chairman.
Responses to Observations were not reviewed by TES since they do not impact the adequacy of the QA or Design Process.
The IDR was performed under the requirements of the TES Quality Assurance Manual and was subject to audits by the assigned Project Quality Assurance Engineer (PQAE).
An additional assignment of the PQAE was to perform that portion of the IDR related to review of the LILC0 QA and SWEC QA/QC/EA process and documentation.
In both roles the PQAE reported through the Manager, Quality Assurance.
3.0 DEFINITIONS In any review process the definitions of terms used for reporting items by the individuals involved is important to understand since they form the basis of conclusions reached by all parties.
The following definitions are used in this IDR.
1 3.1 Open Item (TES Internal) l An item requiring further review or more information before a l
decision can be reached.
An Open Item can become a Finding, an Observa-I tion or a Closed Item but cannot remain an Open Item in the TES Final Report.
3.2 Closed Item An Open Item which after further review is found to be in com-pliance and can be Closed.
SPTri FrVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 3.3 Potential Finding (TES Internal)
An item which the Reviewer and Project Manager feel could have an impact on the adequacy of the Design or QA process.
All Potential Findings have been submitted to the Project Review Internal Comittee for disposition.
A Potential Finding can become a Finding, an Observa-tion or can be Closed but cannot remain a Potential Finding in the TES Final Report.
3.4 Finding An item which impacts the adequacy of the Design or QA process.
3.5 Observation An item that does not impact the adequacy of the Design or QA process but has significance relative to conservatism, design practice or applicable procedures.
4.0 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW The IDR was performed on one loop of the safety-related, seismic Category 1, Low Pressure Core Spray System (1E21).
The review program was separated into six tasks.
4.1 Task 1 - Design Process and Procedures This task was designed to determine if LILC0 and SWEC had design control procedures that provided an acceptable process for taking design requirements and developing construction drawings that complied with FSAR comitments.
Interfaces between internal organizations were determined in following the process of:
'eTF15Th'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3.
(1) specification of design requirements, (2) development of design, (3) piping analysis, (4) support location and selection, (5) support analysis, (6) effect on building structure, (7) equipment loading requirements, (8) development of construction drawings, and (9) revisions to design and construction.
Procedures, instructions and methods associated with the design process were made available to TES for review.
The major portion of this task review was performed early in the IDR to familiarize Reviewers with the design process.
However, this only provides evidence that a documented process exists.
A major result of the IDR is to provide assurance that the established process is followed.
Therefore, as items were opened by Reviewers, the design process was continually reviewed to determine whether or not procedures, instructions, and/or methods were available in the area of concern.
The l
final review effort in this area was not completed until resolution of the last outstanding item at TES.
l 4.2 Task 2 - Review Design Requirements This task involved a review of the adequacy of the design requirements as they applied to piping, supports and floor mounted equipment.
The major effort was to determine whether established I
specifications, standards and procedures complied with the FSAR, including applicable Codes, Standards and NRC design requirements.
The l
proper application of these requirements is the basis for the licensing process, therefore it is critical to assure that the specification, sta,ndards and procedures utilized are in compliance.
The engineer i
i
'RTF1 m(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 responsible for a design activity, rather than using the FSAR, relies on documents (i.e.,
specifications, etc.) which provide specific design input, criteria and details of implementation which are addressed more generally in the FSAR.
4.3 Task 3 - Review As-Built Design Documents An extensive review of design documents was performed.
The types of documents reviewed included drawings, analyses, test procedures and results, and design guides.
The review, as a minimum, verified the following attributes.
(1) the mathematical and/or computer model used, (2) the loading and load combinations (Normal and Upset Conditions),
(3) the use of applicable
- Codes, Standards, Regulatory
- Guides, (4) conformance with acceptance criteria, (5) resolution of interface requirements (allowable nozzle loads, accelerations,etc.),
(6) resolution of design change and field change requests, and (7) the final reports and drawings.
The initial scope of the review included 7 piping analyses, 70 support designs and analyses, and 12 items of mechanical or electrical equipment.
Four of the 12 equipment items were subjected to a full design review (pressure switch, loop level pump, motor operated valve and a relief valve) and 8 items were reviewed for satisfaction of interf ace requirements.
Any item which resulted in generic concern was not limited by this scope and was pursued to a conclusion.
In the completion of this task a number of calculations or analyses were performed by review team members in order to reach conclu-sions as to the adequacy of the submitted design documents.
These
1
'RTF1 prh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 calculations or analyses were not intended to be used as independent verification analyses.
They were performed to provide assurance to the Reviewer, to verify assumptions and to determine the adequacy of design guides.
All calculations or analyses which form the basis for conclusions reached by the IDR wert: subjected to the requirements of the TES QA Manual and are on file in TES Document Control.
4.4 Task 4 - Determine As-Built Plant Configuration A detailed field walkdown of the portion of the LPCS system subject to the IDR was performed.
This walkdown developed the geometry of the as-built piping and supports for all accessible locations.
Clearances at penetrations, pipe whip restraints and other structures or components were determined.
Location, type of support, available movement on snubbers and
- springs, and nameplate information on equipment was obtained. A significant number of photographs were taken for use by the project team in the review process.
4.5 Task 5 - Compare As-Built Documentation to Plant Configeration The plant configuration data gathered in Task 4 was compared with the as-built documentation reviewed in Task 3 to determine if discrepancies existed.
As indicated, TES froze a specific time frame in the design process; because of this discrepancies between documentation and plant existed.
In some cases TES was then able to obtain later as-built design documentation and instructions to the field from SWEC which indicated that the process being utilized by SWEC had already uncovered these discrepancies and action to resolve them was underway.
TES project team members made three visits to the site to verify that the current documentation and plant configuration were compatible.
'RTri Frh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 4.6 Task 6 - Review LILCO QA and SWEC QA/QC/EA Process and Documentation This task was divided into three subtasks which involved a review of QA, Engineering Assurance (EA), and Quality Control (QC) activities associated with construction of the Shoreham facility.
(1) LILCO QA audit findings, schedules, implementation and follow-up on corrective actions related to activities at SWEC was reviewed.
(2) SWEC QA and EA audit findings, schedules, implementation and follow-up on corrective actions related to activities associated with the LPCS at Shoreham was reviewed.
(3) SWEC construction activities related to LPCS pipe field welds were subjected to a QA sampling review.
Documentation and records for the following items were reviewed:
a.
training and qualification records of personnel, l
b.
identification and control of material, parts and i
components, c.
control of special processes, i
d.
nonconformance and dispositioning report process, l
l e.
receiving inspection records, f.
material certification records, and g.
NDE records.
5.0 REPORTING PROCESS The following reporting process was utilized in the performance of this IDR.
"MTF1 prVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 5.1 Items developed by individual Reviewers were submitted to the Project Manager (PM) in writing using the Reviewer Report Form (RRF).
5.2 The PM reviewed each RRF with the individual responsible for its generation.
This process required the PM to review the documents which formed the basis for generation of the RRF.
A Project Manager Resolution Form (PMR) was generated and required signature of both the PM and the Reviewer to indicate agreement on item classification.
Items classified as Closed were forwarded to TES Document Control.
Items requiring more information were so noted and the Reviewer was instructed to obtain the same.
This required the Reviewer to search documentation available at TES for the required data or to prepare a Request For Information (RFI) form which was forwarded to LILC0/SWEC.
Items classified as Potential Findings and Observations and not requiring more review were forwarded to the Project Review Internal Committee for disposition.
All RRF, RFI and PMR forms are mintained in Document Control.
5.3 The Project Review Internal Committee reviewed items forwarded by the Project Manager.
The comittee reviewed the data which formed the basis for the item and interviewed the responsible Reviewer and Project Manager as required.
The comittee developed a position on the consequence of an item as it related to the adequacy of the Design or QA Process and completed an Internal Comittee Resolution Form (ICR).
The position presented in each ICR required a minimum of two signatures of comittee members and the PM.
Those items classified as Findings or Observations were forwarded to LILC0 and the NRC in preliminary form.
All ICRs are maintained in Document Control at TES.
5.4 LILC0 and SWEC responded to Findings and Observations with additional information, changes to existing documentation, and/or remedial action.
TES did not review responses to Observations since
'A'TF1 FrT(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 they do not effect Design or QA adequacy.
Findings were reviewed by the Chairman of the Internal Committee, the Reviewer responsible for generation of the item and the Project Manager.
Final classification of each item was based on this review and required agreement and signature of all three individuals.
5.5 Reports and correspondence resulting from this IDR were submitted concurrently to LILCO and the NRC.
The dates and identification of reports and correspondence submitted prior to this Final Report were as follows.
Identification Date Initial Status Report, TR-5633-2 July 9, 1982 Transmittal of ICR Forms, November 2, 1982 ICR Nos. 5633-1 through 5633-6 Transmittal of ICR No. 5633-9 November 30, 1982 through ICR No. 5633-12 Transmittal of ICR Nos. 5633-13, -14, December 8, 1982
-15, -17 and -18 Transmittal of ICR No. 5633-19 December 14, 1982 j
Transmittal of ICR Nos. 5633-20 and -21 January 11, 1983 Transmittal of ICR No. 5633-27 January 21, 1983 Transmittal of ICR No. 5633-28 January 31, 1983 Procedure for Phase 2 of Review February 11, 1983 Telephone Call Record (2/14/83)
February 17, 1983 Minutes of Meeting (2/15/83)
February 25, 1983 Transmittal of Phase 2 Review of March 4, 1983 ICR No. 5633-1 Transmittal of Phase 2 Review of March 11, 1983 ICR Nos. 5633-2, -9, -13, -14,
-15, -17, -18, -20 and -21
'MTri prh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 Identification Date Transmittal of Phase 2 Review of March 15, 1983 ICR Nos. 5633-10, -19, -27 and -28 Minutes of Meeting (3/16/83)
March 28, 1983 Telephone Call Record (3/22/83)
April 7, 1983 Minutes of Meeting (3/30/83)
April 6, 1983 Transmittal of Final Classification April 7, 1983 of ICR No. 5633-10 Minutes of Meeting (4/8/83)
April 21, 1983 Minutes of Meeting (4/21/83)
May 6, 1983 Transmittal of Final Classification May 20, 1983 of ICR No. 5633-18 Transmittal of Final Classification June 6, 1983 of ICR No. 5633-19 Transmittal of Final Classification June 29, 1983 of ICR Nos. 5633-1, -2,
-21, -27 and -28 6.0 LILCO/SWEC RESPONSE APPROACH The responses to preliminary Findings were very detailed and, where required, addressed items on a generic basis.
For example, if a TES concern was related to a specific valve, the LILC0/SWEC response addressed the specific valve as well as all other valves in the same category.
In many cases this allowed TES to resolve any generic concerns the Reviewer may have had without requesting further data.
7.0 RESULTS This IDR was performed in three phases.
The first phase was a complete review of the Design and QA process which resulted in the generation of items and resolution by the Internal Review Comittee.
Phase 1 was completed with the issuance of ICR No. 5633-28 by the Internal Review Comittee on January 31, 1983.
'RTFi prVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 Phase 2 involved a review of the initial LILC0 and SWEC responses to Findings issued by the TES Internal Review Committee in Phase 1.
This review resulted in the issuance by TES of detailed coments, which Closed items or resulted in Additional Concerns, on each item classified as a Finding in Phase 1.
Phase 2 was completed with the issuance of TES Additional Concern ICR No. 5633-28 on March 15, 1983.
Phase 3 involved a final review of each item for which Additional Concern was submitted to LILC0 by TES.
This review included detailed discussion which occurred at meetings between LILCO, SWEC and TES as well as the review by TES of formal responses submitted by LILC0 and SWEC.
Minutes of these interface meetings and notes of telephone conference calls were submitted to LILCO and the NRC.
Phase 3 is completed with the issuance of this report.
7.1 Phase 1 The Phase 1 review resulted in Reviewers opening 170 items.
In accordance with the reporting process, 74 of these items were Closed after review by the Project Manager.
In order to obtain more informa-tion concerning the remaining items 97 Requests for Information were prepared and submitted.
Upon receipt of responses to these RFIs and further review of existing data an additional 68 items were Closed.
The remaining items (28) were brought to the Project Review Internal Com-mittes as Potential Findings and Observations.
These items were pre-liminarily classified by the Internal Comittee as follows and Findings and Observations were submitted to LILCO and Findings to the NRC:
2 Closed 16 Findings 10 Observations
'RTA m(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 The intent of this submittal was to outline TES' preliminary ccncerns and generate response from LILC0.
A summary of the Phase 1 review is given in Table 1.
7.2 Phase 2 LILCO and SWEC responded to each of the preliminary Findings and Observations with additional information and/or reference to specific procedures, instructions and calculations currently available to TES.
A meeting was held at SWEC offices in Boston on February 15, 1983 to discuss some of the LILC0 and SWEC responses to Findings.
At that meeting further information was made available to TES and review of proprietary information was accomplished by TES Reviewers.
Individual TES project team members reviewed the LILC0 and SWEC responses to Findings and met with the fES Project Manager and Internal Committee Chairman to discuss individual items in detail.
This review resulted in the closing of some items and the generation of Additional Concern on others.
Submittals were made to LILC0 and the NRC outlining in detail the results of the TES review of each item.
These submittals were completed on March 15, 1983, and a summary of the Phase 2 review is given in Table 2.
7.3 Phase 3 The TES submittals outlining Additional Concerns at the completion of Phase 2 were specific in nature and provided sufficient detail to allow LILC0/SWEC to prepare final responses.
In addition, meetings were held to discuss each item so that there was a clear under-standing of the issues and concerns of TES.
It should be recognized that once an item reaches this Phase of the review process it usually has generic implications.
Further, the detailed responses by LILC0/SWEC that are required cover areas well beyond the scope of the initial review.
For example, concerns with small piping design criteria have
'RTF1 prh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 resulted in the review of most of the small piping at the Shoreham Plant.
This is well beyond the approximately 60 small piping systems covered by the original scope.
In the following subsections each item that was a Concern in Phase 3 is addressed in detail and a summary is given in Table 3.
7.3.1 ICR No. 5633-1 TES issued ICR No. 5633-1 on November 2, 1982 as a Finding on the use of chart methods to qualify a 2-inch branch line.
A disposition response was received from LILC0/SWEC on January 15, 1983.
This response including additional information supplied by SWEC and subsequent meetings to discuss the technical issues involved, have resolved the initial concern but raised a generic issue with respect to the adequacy and the application of the SWEC design procedure for small bore piping. The TES concern was in the following three areas:
(1)
Failure to consider tha full range of seismic anchor displacements as an alternative to thermal expansion plus one-half the range of seismic l
anchor displacement l
(2) Failure to consider two-directional horizontal seismic building displacements (3)
Failure to consider that horizontal building steel vertical displacements are out-of-phase with vertical displacement of the shield wall, reactor vessel and other large structures As a result of an interface meeting held at TES with LILC0/SWEC personnel and disposition response received on May 18, 1983, the above concerns were answered as follows:
1 (1) The full range of seismic anchor displacement, if considered as an alternative to thermal expansion
'RTFi mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 plus one-half the range of seismic anchor displacement, would be accommodated by the portion of allowable stress set aside'in the SWEC proce-dure for thermal expansion.
(2) A SWEC Interoffice Memo (SBM #6) was issued August 1982 to provide a uniform procedure for qualifying small bore piping when using Design Guide EMTG-5-A.
SBM #6 is clear in requiring con-sideration of two directional horizontal seismic displacement (X and Z) in qualifying small bore piping.
All small bore qualifications prior to issuance of SBM #6 were reviewed by SWEC and randomly audited by TES to assure compliance with SBM #6.
Small bore qualifications after issuance of SMB #6 were also reviewed by SWEC and randomly audited by TES to assure compliance since a
qualification package dated after issuance of SBM
- 6 was found not to be in compliance by TES Reviewers.
(3) The frequencies of horizontal building steel were well above that for the building and therefore phase ' differences would essentially be negligible.
TES determined through analysis that frequencies of the horizontal building steel in the Reactor Building were above 18 Hz.
The significant building frequencies supplied by LILC0/SWEC occur in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 Hz.
Accepting these building spectra as provided would indicate that phasing of the horizontal steel ver-tical displacements relative to the shield wall, reactor vessel and other large structures in the reactor building would not occur.
'RTF1 FIWNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-563'-3 This issue was generic in nature and required signifi-cant review of existing designs and analyses by SWEC to validate the acceptability of small bore piping.
Essentially all of the small bore piping was reviewed by SWEC to assure compliance with procedures deemed acceptable by TES.
Further, significant review and analysis of Reactor Building horizontal steel was performed by TES to determine fundamental frequencies.
This was done in order to assure that these frequencies were well above the first building vertical frequencies contained in spectra published in Volume 5 of the FSAR.
Based on the extensive review and modification of cal-culations performed by SWEC and the sample review and analysis performed by TES, the small bore piping is determined to be in compliance with the requirments of the FSAR and this item was Closed.
7.3.2 ICR No. 5633-2 TES issued ICR No. 5633-2 on November 2, 1982 as a Finding on the selection and use of pads on large bore piping.
A Disposition Response was received from LILC0/SWEC on January 15, 1983.
At a meeting held at SWEC on February 15, 1983, TES requested, and was l
supplied with, three additional calculations for review which repre-sented the highest stressed locations of all pads reviewed by SWEC.
In l
reviewing these additional calculations TES still had concerns with j
respect to adequacy and application of the design procedure for pads on small bore piping. These concerns were in the following areas:
i l
I (1) Single axial type supports which are designed and constructed offset from the pipe centerline are not modelled as offsets in the piping analysis.
(2) The attachments of pads and/or trunnions directly to elbows changes the flexibility and stress l
'R TF1FnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 distribution in the elbow.
SWEC did not account for these effects in their piping analysis.
(3) The allowable stresses in welds attaching pads to the pipe did not satisfy the requirements of ANSI B31.1-1967 which is the governing Code.
(4) The design basis used when a trunnion is welded to a pad assumes zero pressure stress.
TES did not understand the basis for this assumption.
In response to the concerns outlined above, LILC0/SWEC submitted further disposition as follows:
(1) All Category I supports were reviewed and addi-tional calculations performed to determine if offsets in supports affected the piping and support analysis.
(2) The analytical technique used by SWEC for pads attached directly to elbows was made available for TES review.
(3) SWEC revised calculations as appropriate to satisfy the reduced allowable stresses required by ANSI B31.1-1967.
(4) The detailed design basis for pads and trunnions and the resulting calculations were made available for TES review.
TES reviewed the disposition response to each item and, where new calculations were required, performed a detailed audit of a sample number.
The results of the TES review indicate the following:
(1)
SWEC reanalyzed 13 piping stress calculations and reviewed and/or revised 60 support calculations.
'MTA mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 The results of the review and reanalysis indicate a change in stress of less than 10%.
(2) The analytical technique used by SWEC for pads welded to elbows is conservative.
(3) SWEC revised 7 calculations to accomodate the requirements of ANSI B31.1-1967.
All calculations reduced the allowable stress by 40%, as required, and the designs were acceptable.
(4) TES reviewed the detailed design basis as well as the calculations for any pads whose geometry was outside the limits of the SWEC procedure and found the designs were acceptable.
Based on the data supplied by LILC0/SWEC and the sample review and audit performed by TES personnel this item was Closed.
7.3.3 ICR No. 5633-10 TES issued ICR No. 5633-10 on November 24, 1982 as a Finding on the SWEC procedures establishing review methods of vendor calculations and the implementation of these procedures.
A disposition response was received from LILC0/SWEC on February 10, 1983.
The major issue raised by TES was failure by the vendor to consider the cantilever bending mode in determining acceptability of the fundamental frequency design of valves.
This concern was raised during review of a specific valve (1E21-M0V-035) design report.
The LILC0/SWEC response indicated that a procedure was in place at SWEC to review valve vendor reports and designs and that the Reviewer could have accepted the specific valve under question without having a vendor analysis for cantilever bending.
This acceptance could
'RTF1 Frh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 be based on engineering judgement and/or calculations performed by the Reviewer.
SWEC computed the cantilever mode for all 27 Category 1 valves supplied by the vendor responsible for supplying the valve in question. All valves had frequencies above 33 Hz.
TES Reviewers went to the 3WEC offices on March 22, 1983 to review all procedures and sign-off sheets related to acceptance of valve vendor design documents.
Further, valve design documents were reviewed.
The purpose of this review was to determine whether a deficiency in the design process existed which could have resulted in failure to demonstrate valve frequency design adequacy.
This subsequent review by TES personral indicated that such a deficiency did not exist and the process in place at SWEC was acceptable and this item was Closed.
7.3.4 ICR No. 5633-18 TES issued ICR No. 5633-18 on December 18, 1983 as a Findir.g on the failure to include time-history loads in the Upset Operating Condition category for support analysis.
A disposition response was received from LILC0/SWEC on February 2, 1983.
The LILC0/SWEC response indicated that a conservative
" umbrella" load combination was used and resulting stresses ccmpared with the Normal Operating Condition allowable stresses.
The initial Finding was based on the analysis package for one particular support.
After receiving the LILC0/SWEC response TES initiated a review of the method of load combination for each support analysis package on the LPCS system.
The results of this review indicated that more than 50% of the snubbers, rigid supports and anchors did not consider time-history loads in the upset category and in some of these cases the " umbrella" load procedure was not used.
Even though the magnitude of the time-history loads are
~
'MTF1 prh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5623-3 small and should not effect adequacy of the supports, TES was concerned that a breakdown in the implementation of the SWEC design process was occurring.
Based on this further TES review SWEC revised calcula-tion for the supports in question.
All 12 supports were associated with one piping analysis package (AX-10B) and this resulted from failure to follow the established SWEC requirements on transmittal of information for this specific package.
In addition to revising the 12 support cal-culations for this analysis package SWEC reviewed selected supports on each Category I piping model that involved time-history loads.
No other calculations were found with inappropriately combined time-history loads.
TES reviewed all 12 support calculations associated with analysis package AX-10B as well as randomly selecting and reviewing supports from approximately 20 of the additional piping, models that involved time-history load.
All supports reviewed included the time-history loading as required.
Based on this it was apparent that the problems associated with analysis package AX-10B were specific and not generic and this item was Closed.
7.3,5 ICR No. 5633-19 TES issued ICR No. 5633-19 on December 9, 1982 as a Finding against the SWEC design process with respect to the omission of fluid transient loads on a portion of the Core Spray test piping.
A disposition response was received from LILC0/SWEC on February 17, 1983.
As a result of reviewing the LILC0/SWEC response, TES closed a portion of the Finding but raised Additional Concerns on March 15, 1983 with respect to the following:
(1)
Consideration of a reflected decompression wave case due to exit of water from the submerged pipe.
W TF1FMYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 (2)
Consideration of steady-state conditions.
(3)
Documentation not available to permit exclusion of the CS test mode loading from acting in combina-tion with other dynamic loads.
(4) Pump start times used in the analysis are. less than in the Design Specification.
Although this is conservative, the times used in the two analyses are different (one second for test mode and two seconds for rapid pump start /stop) and TES needed clarification of what time was appropriate.
LILC0/SWEC responded to these Additional Concerns on April 20, 1983 as follows:
(1) A revised waterhammer analysis considering blow-down forces on the last segment of piping was performed and indicates this loading is insignifi-cant.
TES agrees with this.
(2) The steady state thrust load has been calculated as 125 lbs. applied to the last segment of pipe and is judged to be an insignificant load.
TES agrees with this.
(3) Appendix J-12 of the Design Specification allows for the Core Spray test mode to not be combined with other dynamic loading.
Appendix J-20 of the Design Specification, which is applicable to the LPCS system, has been amended to provide the same guidance.
The intent was not to require combina-tion of test conditions and other dynamic loads
'M TFI W NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 (as indicated by Appendix J-12) and it was an oversight that this guidance was not included in Appendix J-20.
(4) SWEC obtained confirmation that Core Spray pump start times is 2 to 4 seconds.
TES has reviewed the LILC0/SWEC responses to the original Finding and Additional Concerns and agrees that all items are now acceptable and this item was Closed.
7.3.6 ICRNo.5633-71 TES issued ICR No. 5633-21 on January 6, 1983 as a Finding against the SWEC design process with respect to the comparison of analytically determined accelerations applied to valve motor operators against the allowable values obtained from the dynamic quali-fication testing.
A disposition response was received on February 17, 1983 from LILC0/SWEC which addressed a number of minor TES concerns but still left the major concern of analytically determined values exceeding allowable values.
This concern was based on the fact that SWEC used global coordinate analytical values for comparison with allowable values and TES considered that the use of local coordinates was the appropriate approach.
Use of the local coordinate approach by TES indicated that valve 1E41-M0V-031 motor operator had analytically determined accelera-tiens higher than allowable values.
Based on this, TES requested that all motor operated valves be reviewed using the local coordinate acceleration values to determine acceptability.
SWEC reviewed approximately 300 previously qualified valves and found 2 that had local coordinate accelerations which l
l l
l
'RTri Frh'NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 exceeded allowable values.
For these 2 valves the piping models were refined using more appropriate representation of the stiffness of the valve in the valve-yoke region for valve 1T48-MOV-040A and also increasing damping to 2% for faulted condition dynamic loading for valve 1E11-M0V-036B.
The new analyses resulted in calculated local coordinate accelerations less than allowable values.
Valve 1E41-MOV-031, which was the basis for the original finding, was not qualified at the time of the TES finding and was part of a group of valves in the process of qualification.
TES reviewed a reanalysis of the piping system containing this valve and found that the local coordinate accelerations were less than allowable using a mode-by-mode analysis considering actual force value (i.e., + or
-)
for each mode in the global to local transformation prior to combining modes.
This analysis used 1% damping.
LILC0/SWEC have performed an extensive generic recon-firmation program to insure that all motor operated valves meet test qualification levels.
TES has conducted a detailed review of the methods and results of this generic reconfirmation program and have j
determined that our concerns have been satisfied and this item was i
Closed.
l l
l 7.3.7 ICR No. 5633-27 l
TES issued ICR No. 5633-27 on January 21, 1983 as a Finding on the use of stress intensification factors (SIF) for all branch connections within the TES scope.
A disposition response was received from LILC0/SWEC on February 25, 1983.
This response indicated that 3 SIF were improper and as a preventive action all SIF values will be reviewed.
Included in this response was technical justification for the use of SIF values of 1.0.
'RTF1 mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 <
On March 15, 1983, TES issued Additional Concerns on this item requesting a review of the preventive action proposed by LILC0/SWEC.
Also the technical justification presented by LILC0/SWEC was commented on and TES requested that all branch connections using Class 1 indices (SIF = 1.0) must be justified on a dimensional basis.
LILC0/SWEC submitted responses to the Additional Concerns of TES on May 26, 1983.
This response indicated that the only dimensional requirement not met was the radii control.
The 1980 ASME, BPVC indicates that lack of radii control requires the use of an SIF of 2.1.
SWEC performed a review of over 500 branch connections using an SIF of 2.1 and no allowable stresses were exceeded.
TES has reviewed this LILC0/SWEC response and the results of the SWEC stress sumary.
The fact, that SWEC reviewed over 500 branch connections, which TES audited, using an SIF of 2.1 (which is the largest value imposed by todays Code on this type of intersection and more conservative than the FSAR requirement) and demonstrated that allowable stresses were not exceeded is a major point and demonstrates that the design is in compliance.
Based on the above submittals and TES review this item was Closed.
7.3.8 ICR No. 5633-28 TES issued ICR No. 5633-28 on January 21, 1983 as a Finding against the operating values (temperature, coefficients of thermal expansion, etc.) and geometry input for pipe stress calculation package AX-10A).
Additional concerns on this subject were issued by TES on March 15, 1983 related to the following:
l l
SPTri m(NE ENGINEERING SERVCES Technical Repart TR-5633-3 (1) Thermal attenuation procedures for tieback supports between the main pipe and branch line required review (2) Supports PSR-041 and 065 were modeled improperly and the water hamer case for this system should be recalculated (3) Support load changes resulting from (1) and (2) above should be reconciled.with existing support design packages A disposition response was received from LILC0/SWEC on May 9, 1983.
That response included a complete reanalysis of pipe stress calculation package AX-10A including all TES concerns outlined in the original issue of ICR No. 5633-28 and in the Additional Concerns.
Further, LILCO/SWEC reviewed the temperature modeling of all branches with tieback supports that are included in large bore piping computer models to assure that thermal attenuation procedures were appropriate and that modeling was acceptable.
l TES personnel have determined through review of all large bore computer models available that the modeling errors (operational l
values and geometry) found in AX-10A were not generic in nature with the exception of the temperature modeling of branch line tieback supports.
This generic issue was resolved by the LILC0/SWEC review of 59 branch line tieback supports and subsequent audit by TES personnel.
TES per-sonnel also performed a detailed review of the revised submittal of pipe stress calculation package AX-10A and have concluded that the concerns raised in ICR No. 5633-28 and Additional Concerns of March 15, 1983 have been resolved and this item was Closed.
l
'RTF1 FnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3,
8.0 CONCLUSION
S The Independent Design Review conducted by TES of the design and QA process at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station was initiated as a review of a portion of the LPCS System.
Based on the Findings and Additional Concerns issued during the implementation of this effort the scope of the review broadened into a generic review in the following areas:
(1) small bore piping, (2) attachment of supports to pipe, (3) consideration of time-history dynamic loading in piping and support
- design, (4) determination of applied accelerations on valve operators and comparison with allowables, (5) branch line stress intensification factors, (6) thermal attenuation modeling of tieback supports, and (7) adequacy of vibra check baseplates in a radiation environment.
Based on the above list, it is apparent that a significant portion of the design at the Shoreham Plant has been subject to review and that the original scope was expanded greatly as a result of the initial review effort.
Further, since the design and construction process was ongoing at Shoreham at the time TES initiated the IDR, we were able to review the LILC0/SWEC process for discovering deficiencies, subsequent design changes, reconciliation with other disciplines and the final construc-tion.
This provided the review team with the opportunity to review the results of the total process as well as to review the ongoing design and construction activities.
SPTF1 prWNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 The responses by SWEC to a number of the generic items were in the form of Engineering Studies or Evaluations which differ from Calcula-tions in the SWEC Design Process.
The term Calculation denotes an engineering / design technical report that provides the basis for an engineered design or conclusion and provides the full and formal docu-mentation of the engineering process.
A Study or Evaluation serves to verify the conclusions of previously established calculations rather than replace them.
For example, SWEC performed an Evaluation to determine the adequacy of valve operators to meet acceptable accelera-tion levels.
Part of this study involved reanalysis of 3 piping systems using different modeling techniques, damping values and/or acceleration summation.
It is the recomendation of TES that these analyses should eventually become part of the formal documentation for Shoreham.
That is, they should be modified accordingly to be classified as Calcula-tions.
Further, TES recomends that LILC0 review all of the Studies and Evaluations performed as a result of this IDR to determine what existing Calculations require modification to bring the formal documentation in line with the conclusions of this IDR.
It is recognized that not all of the Calculations impacted by Studies and Evaluctions will require modification and that reference to, or attachment of, the appropriate l
Study or Evaluation in the Calculation may be appropriate.
Completion of this effort by LILC0 has no impact on the conclusions of this IDR and is recommended only to provide an appropriate set of records that can be 1
l utilized in the future for maintenance, replacement, repair and modi-fication work by the utility.
1 In the area of Quality Assurance the TES Reviewers in their summary Trip Report indicate that the LILC0 QA Program as applied to construc-tion activity on the LPCS System at Shoreham demonstrates:
management l
awareness and participation, a high level of proficiency and efficiency in the Quality Assurance organization, and exceeds the minimum in appli-cation and performance of the Quality Assurance Program requirements.
l
'RTF1FnVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 Based on the results of our Independent Design Review it is TES' opinion that the comitments of the FSAR with respect to Design and Quality Assurance have been complied with by LILC0 and SWEC for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
t l
l
c
'#PTF1 prVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report TR-5633-3 Table 1
e TE? F F0 'Fri %? ?
I:4F F Ei!DF!a T BFSTSH RF"tEP
'? - Itit' 8 3 13:10:03 F.* G E 1 SHohEHoli Nllit E AR F DWEF: S T A T T 0l! til!I T t 1.F C S SYSTFi:
REV f fl4 : OG ITEN EFVIFWER DFSCRIP!LON RRF RF9 RRF PNR RF" Pl1R RFI Rr9 ICR ICR FINAL
-REV TNITIAL NO I40 CATEGORY
!!O I!O CATEGORY NO NO (10 CATEGORY RESOLt! TION I 1 FAS IllEFFECTIVE SittlRFER 1
1 CIOSFD 1 1 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 E AS tit SSING MANE PLATE 2 1 OPEN 2 1 OBSERVATION O O O 5 FINDING CLOSED 3 83 3 1 FAS MISSIllG SNUBPFRS 3 1 CLOSED 3 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 FAS WNONG SPRING SIZFS 4 1 Ct0eED 4 1 Cl.0cED 0 0 0 0 0
5 2 FAS IATERAL CLEARANCF 5 2 OPEN 5 2 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 EAS VAL.VF VGW 15A2 6 1 POT. FIND 4 1 POT. FIND 0 0 0 15 FTHDING Ct.0 SED 3-11-83 7 1 FAS CLASS 1 PIPE StiPPOR T GRATING 7 1 CLOSED 7 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
8 2 FAS SMAI.L. BORF PIPE NOT SHOWN tl 2 C1.0 SED 8 1 Ct.0 SED 95 0 0 0 0
9 1 FAS PSSHO?6 WARPFD CHANNEL 9 1 Cl.OSED 9 1 Cl.0S E D 0 0 0 0 0
10 1 EAS INCORRFCT RFT ON DWG 10 1 OPEN 10 1 Ct.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
11 1 FAS ti!SSING SilPPORT IC-7 11 1 CLOSED 11 1 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
12 t E AS L OOSE l.0CKNUT 12 1 OPEN 12 1 OBSERVATION 0 0 0 4 OBSERVATION 0
13 2 EAS ATTACH'D Si!PP NOT SHOWN 13 2 CLOSED 13 I Cl0 SED 95 0 0 0 0
14 1 EAS DIt1ENSION DIFFERENCE 14 1 CLOSED li 1 Ct.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
15 1 EAS ATTACHED SilPP NOT SHOWN 15 1 GPEH 15 1 Cloegn o o o o o
16 1 FAS DIMENSIOilS DIFFERENT 16 1 CLOSED 16 1 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
17 1 GSB SOURCE OF TT.P CONDITIONS 17 1 CLOSED 17 0 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
18 t GSH S?.W NUPIPF HPCI 1-11A 18 1 CLOSED 18 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
19 1 MSA AX-BAA-3 AXt0G-t 19 1 Cl.C3ED 19 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
20 1 NSA DFSIGN SF EC 20 1 CLOSED 20 0 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
21 2 tiSA DEADWFIGHT ANALYSIS 21 ? Cl0 SED 21 1 CLOSFD 0 0 0 0 0
22 1 ilSA FORiltit A THCORRFCT 22 t ClOcED
?? 1 CtOSED 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 flS A PIPF WFIGHT 23 0 OPER 23 0 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
24 1 MSA Wol l.
DFFIFCTION/ STRFSS 21 1 CLOSED
'* 4 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
25 0 GSR S!W NtlPIPF 25 0 OBSERVATIOl! 25 0 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
Y ENGBEEIWGN
T F C, F RO.lFC T 5433 I N D* P r H D E;li DFSIGN PFVtEW 27.lHM-94 13:15:01 PAGF 2
.--....------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~~-----~~---------~~ -
SHOREHAM MHCf.FAR PO4FP ', T A T f 0 H H.'l! T 1 L PCS 'YSTEM RF9f EW 10G
~~---------------------- -
ITFM REVIFWER DF9CRIPTION RRF RFV RRF PMR RFV PMR RFI REV ICR TCR FINAL
-REV INITIAL NO HO CATEGORY NO NO CATEGORY H0 NO NO CATEGORY RESOLUTION 26 1 OSD St.W NtiPIPF 26 1 CLORFD 26 1 Cl0 SED 0 0 0 0 C
27 0 JCT S?.W SPFC SH1 RR-AD REV 1 27 0 OBSERVATICH 27 0 GBSERVATION O O O 10 FINDING Cl.0 SED
+ 83 28 1 LEB 11600.02-AX-10D-?
28 1 010*FD 28 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 C-29 0 MSA PEN t.0 ADS 29 0 OPEN 29 0 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 MSA RESTRAINT STIFFRFSS 30 0 OPER 30 1 CtOSED 0 0 0 0 o
31 1 HSA VAI.VE MODEL.ING 31 1 CLOSED 31 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 MSA PEN X 21A 32 0 DPEN 32 0 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
33 1 GS8 R S CURVES 3J 1 OBSERVATIDH 33 0 Ct.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
34 1 LEB 11600.02 AX 10D-2 34 1 CLOSED 34 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
35 1
- f. E B 11600.02 AX 10D-2 35 1 OPEN 35 1 POT. FIND 0 0 0 20 FINDING Ct.0 SED 3-11-83 36 1 MSA CALC PACA 11600.02 AX10R-3 36 i CLOSED 36 1 Ct.0 SED 0 0 0 0 Cr 37 0 GSR SFISHIC RFSPONSE CtlRVES 37 0 OPSERVATIOM 37 0 Cl0 SED 7 0 0 0 0
38 1 GSB ANALYSIS X-10T 38 1 CLOSED 38 1 C10SFD 0 0 0 0 0
39 t GSR AMot YSIS X-10B 39 1 GBSERVATION 39 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
40 1 GSB S & W PIPF *TRFSS REPRT 40 1 POT FIlfDIHG 40 1 PO T. F il!D 0 0 0 21 FINDING CLOSED 6-2t-83 41 1 FAS REF DOC 4H1ENT DISCRFPCY il 1 CLOSED il 1 Ct.0 S E D 0 0 0 0 C
12 ? EAS SUPPORT STIFFNFSS 42 2 OPFH 42 ? CLOSFD 0 0 0 0 C
43 0 1.t h SilPPORT cal.CS 13 0 OPEN 13 0 CLOSrD 0 0 0 0 0
44 1 LJD SUPPORT CALCS 44 1 OPEH 44 1 OBSFRVATION O O O i OPSERVATION C
45 1 LJD PIPE SUPTtD'ICT CRIT in 1 OPEN
, 45 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 C
46 1 10P PIFF SUPRTSDUCT CRIT 46 1 CLOSED 46 1 CLOSFD 0 0 0 0 C-47 6 LJD PTPF SUPRTtDtlCT CRIT 47 0 GPEN 4/ 0 CtOSED 0 0 0 0 0
48 1 IJD PIPE SUFRTSDUCT CRIT 48 1 0F Fil 48 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 C*
49 1 # ID PSSH 005 19 i OPEN 49 1 OBSERVATTON 0 0 0 3 OhSFRVATION C
4 50 1 LJD IE 21 PSSH 001-1 50 1 0FFH 50 1 Cl. 0
- E D 0 0 e o C
Y ENGREEMIGSBMCES
m m
i 9
f p
t 1
i e
8 8
0 0
0 9
0 t
t t
t i
e 4
M P3 O
O O
M o
O O
O O
O O
O P'-
0 0
0 0
0 0
o o o o e
o e
e C
g3 as g:
i I
1 8
0 g
I 4
0 8
- e w
em C
i 1
Zt w
we os te e
e C 0 0
t e
8 0
0 w 4 P:
P"'
P" C
6 I
>= t a ":
M t t
O C
O O
C 0
t
. I W
W W
6 l
6 1 4C1 U
tt:
U:
U; 6 e t z U: e C
C C
C C I 4w6 1 J
4
.J e
C 0 I ts. M 9 d
C U
G A 0 i
t t
8 6
- J 0
I i
C P'
s t
I w
C 0 e
> l C
C C
C 1
I E I E
E E
O 4
t"* t 0
C6
- >=
W ll=
w
- 4 0
C I C
C C
U g
Q
" 8 0 E60 2
2 C
6 P'
4 0 W >= 0
>===
ew w
U; e-
- I 6== C e 6
6 6
W eK 6
8 8
U#
C I
I 8
>: 1 0 W 9
h h
C O
O h C
O C
O C
C N
O G:
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
tr. I ee e
em w e en
- 1 9 =C8 M t e
2i C
C O
C C
C O
C C
C C C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
O 4 0 >
l
- t I 6CI e 6 iM=
f.
I 4
i C
C C
O C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
O C
- .e t me C e 1
0 624 t
6 ea:
e O
C O
C O
O O
C O
O O
c C
C O
C O
C O
C O
C O
C O
4 8
I e
O I
I i
8 I
I I
0 0
0 C
C 8 E I
3=
8 w
Ik i
g e C
Q Q
==
e=
C B b-t EC 0 Z
Z h.
C.
2 I v'-
0 EC 0
- =
w C
Q C
e=
C Q
C Q
Q ll O
>=
Q A
G G
Q Q
G G
Q C
82*
8 AW t 6
6 W
taJ W
6 taf W
W W
W M
W 6
W W
W W
W W
W 6
W W
IT l
. >= 0 U
U*
U2 U:
U' U:
V U
W 6
U*
U UT U'
U:
T U2 U
U:
0; U:
8 8
C8
>= >=
C C
C
>= C C
C C
C
>=
U:
C
>=
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
t U:
l U8 C
C
- G W
A u
U C
U U
A C
C A
C G
U G
G G
G U
U U
a
.e C
J J
u C
em
.,J C
J
- a
.,2 e
J 8U f >
0 A
A U
eA 4 6 8
4.
t gC en se em
.4 we
,e
,e
.4 og og
,e
,e
,e ce
.4 em
,e we
,e e.e ce
,e
,e w
8 9
%0 g ed 9 GC 9
3 I t :C C I f.
fra T
n <
N G:
0=
C ea (4
M e
O h
0:
0-O (4
M
<= n 6 e **
t AEt O
41 O M n n n C
If1
- C
=0 1:
13 4
13 1:
4 4
h h
N N
N w t om 8
0 b8 %
0 6 00 0
0 2
2 4 9 I
>= 0 C
C 42 I
g I w
w.
M tC I
C e
>=
>=
Ct >= O 9 6C 0
(*
C
> a*C4 EW 9 C
Q Q
Q Q
C Q
U' t **, a E e= 0 M
V W
W W
st W
6 W
la, I >=
0 C6
=
2
- J W
U:
Z 2
2 Z
Z 2
US UL Z
J U'
6 U'
O' 2
C 0C38 W t W
W W
U:
C W
ta:
W W
W 6
W W
W ta.
C C
W W
C U1 C
C C
6 1
tal I >
I A
A A
.E J
A fa.
A e.
G.
A 6.
A A
Q.
J A
A w
em A
>= 0dw I WCI C
O C
C u
O C
C C
C C
C C
C C
U U
C O
G G
G U
C O
M i k *- 0 m%e is i 3W 8 I
w w
es es M
og og e=e we we se we
,o
,e e.=
es e=
we e.=
w e
em
,e C 8 CE I la.
t Z IA 0 0: OO ts 6 1 gZ t e=
f.
M T
O f
h (C
0*
C
- e f4 M
T n <
fN O'
O-C we (4
M C
l 4.
IE I
H
&~:
If1 C
D E3 0
C o
4 13
- C 13 4"
13
- C 13 4'
=0 h
b h
h IN h
W t 4 e
i d".
t saJ e
e O I I
e w 4U-t i
6 O I
I e
f O 4
i f*.
t t
i Pt 4 *!
t t
=
Q Os e<
t 6
ft 2
taJ f.
t Z t
t U1 O
U*
eW e
e e=
U U:
w U1 g
i na; I
t me J
>=
O C
6 W
W e C' t Z E
4 taJ U
3
- =
c ta.
A
-t I eC B
G U
U
- .; u C
E C
E e 93 I
e*
I a
J O
ei e E
C naf
- l" U.
.4 C
M i a >-
1 et 4
- =
M M
i U:
La.
6
>=
6 C
w 46 W
M I I A I
O U
Q U
I 1
ff C
C 4
C w
eK C
2 A
G eI i me t
O (4
(A ce C
4 h
y g
w I
W C
J G I 3 g I
>= >= >=
C C
C C
C W
w C
W E
G C
U:
C E
W t
aU I
E E
E er o
C 3
C C
Z
>=
6 16:
W u.
3 6-t I r 6
C C
C 2
O O
Q
>=
6 M
2.
U t 4 6 I
A A
fa.
E E
U, tf3 O
C E
G 6
A C
.J 3
C
>=
W e I C t
A Q
A Q.
m U*
m e
a e
g
'r:
01 D
w 3
3 4
C O
E C
C 9 5 0
0
- l.
s
A A
(6 e
U3 A
o C
Q C
U1 C
V
=
h w
=
C I e
i U.
U:
Ut w
,e (n.
=
C se
==
C E I a
9
.4 es O
O C
e-k.
4 y
c e=
.4 C
i A 4 iM i
6 W
W W
h f4 h
se f4 ll
>=
M M
E C
Z w
6 Z
Ia.
O I
a 6.J t
i A
A A
E g
2 fa 6
U' o.
A C
C C
E L
V 4
U1 1 0 ? et I e
- ==
oe 6
W U2 Ui U:
W L
>=
US 3
0 C
E C
m A
Q.
A e==
e=
w 0.
W U
6
.J 3
U"
~*
6.e ta.
4 I W *e i
A Q.
fa.
A i
4 L
l
>= t i ei.e >=
e > >. 4
[
t e
C O
Q C
Q a z u:
Us u~
U1 U-s u-Q U:
us u:
1
=
.t s.
a.
x 1
l 8
1 6Z I
- )
- )
- )
4 4
C 4
C c c *i C
C C
a I
U1 v:
W 6
E I
t g >e I
a 4
.J
.J g
W W
W 6
W 6
W W
6 W
W 7
C C
.J M
I I
f i
l 8
e 4
we e.
,e we e.s e.e so w ' es sia
,e
,=
es
==
w on sw ed en r
4 0 ED I l
0 4 W taJ 0 I
$ >= 4 9 f4 M
T
=0 h
G3 0=
0
- fa M
e O
=0 N
G' O
f4 M
9 bl l
4 me 1 I O
M n
If) n p
n M
If1 13 43 M3
- O
=0 M3 13 13 0
S3 6
h fN h
F h
I 8
8 l
i I
~. _, _. -,
- __c_,
.a e
1 9
I i
l 8
8 i
e o
j l
l O
O O
O O O O O O O
O O
s)
O O
O O
O O
o O
O O
e i
0 0
0 t
6 i
g 8
9 Z l r,g 8
0 C 9 I
8
> 0 4
I e
e t
- 4 0
O e c
t 6
.J
! l g,;
I I
8 4C D g
6 8 e M U: t c
C e 0 w6 0 a
4.
8 0 6E 8 y
t 1
w I I
I 1
0 0
0 C
P' 4
0 0
C 0 8
> 0 g
[
- 0 t
g I g
h
[
O O I
C 0 e i e ee e
g
,,.f
- 6 iEW 8 g
g M i eup t
- 6
. wC 6 g
y 4
I uI a
e e
- 7. '
e' "-
i c O
c c4 O O c
O e O c
O e o e O
c O
e O
P-O c
O e
e e
r *.
8 1 0 >= C I
{a l
%e C
C O
O O O C C C O C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C C
- I.
e k C,e
.m=
n,:
l-el c
C C
C a C O O e C C
C e
C a e a C
O C
O e
O C
O
.62.
l l
lE l C
O O
C O C C C O C O
C O
C O
C O
C O
C O
O O
C O
.i l
l l
=
s
.c M.
6 x.
a e
n.
eC,
=
3' a
g g a a p
a a o g
a g
a O m g
a g
'E O FC e G
A c
w g a
' M 1 66, 8 W
W k
6 W W g W 6
W 6
W 6
W W
W W
W W
W 6
W W
W W
1
~'
u-r M
u: v:
6 w
w w U.
r M
w v.
u~
u.
v: v v
u-u: w u:
0 8
C I C
C C
O C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
>=
C C
C C.
- =
.m C.
lr l c.. u '
u a.
u u C
u u - e -
e e u - u o a u u a a u r
J
. e e
- e
_ e a -.
a a
a -
u u a
l-lwgl O
O
- - - - - - - - c - - - - - - - - - c - -
.=
3 4 I EC 6 w
N (L
g-O
.* re M
ar n
4 N
a, 0-O r4
=r n <
P.
<L c
hlt l ' 2- ;
N N
8 a e e a e e a,
e a,
m 0-0-
0-0-
O.
r-e O-0-
O,
-. n 6 4 0 0
6
~
g I 6
3=.
t 5
- " 0 %
9 a1 C.
6 C a
C I y
9 - C3 0 6C e q
C0 4W '
C a O
C Q
a:".
G
_S Q
C c
" ' < - ' * ' d ** '
W 6
W E
W 6
La.:
W W
Las W
Y* I C 8 W
W W
C C
w C C w w W
6 C
W W
6 W
C C
e.
C C
w C
2 0
u; UP
=
U: 2 Z
4 F
d Z
Z U:
w W
V u:
2 0:
- l#5 ' ' ' '
e [, l > Cgl W
A r
c.; a a a a.
a a a e a.
o.
_ e C
u e C
u C
C C
C u a C u a C
C C
C c
C C
C C
e
-.: a a a
g,
g l 3* W l 6
e C
C
-.* - *== C
.= -
C
- -.* -.= - * - -
et C
.=
E8 i 0 EO f 98 8 EZ 8 N
03 0-c ce c.
P:
e ta
- 3 N
03 0-O re M
e n <
N a:
0-c c.f l
8 h
h h
h E
e C
m T
C W
C 4
4 C
W 7"
8 4
i q
" ' M 8
M b
Oe I
0 b
M U
w l "=-. i i
W z
=
c 8
M c
G w
g I
8 8
4 0-E ul
==
l 4-I I
M
,e W
==
laJ W
C U
M.*
- I I
I E
N
>=
a O
6 i
=
8 4 8
La; c
4 6
6 m
E c
0 E N
>=
M a
g a=
C W
h re':
8 I 8
I Z
U1 A
O C
6 C
u.
8 O e
g E
O G
u Z
a Z
t
] '8 M
e a: >=
g C
Laf M
4 w
O.e 8 ?
8 O
A N
C la.:
t 2
C I
g u.*
r.i C-l
' =
a.
4
- c N
C C
un r-u W
5I I
0-
>=
A U;
A ti W
C E
W 6
4 0 0 8
Q.
8 f3 V
A W
=
C W
6 6
6 U
i >
2 E
i L,
I 8
F 2
E C
r O
4 4
C C
A C
C A
C Z
E 4
I #
E v
6 3
i A
A C
4 4
~!
.J b
LaJ G.
l*. '
8 * '
P
.e g
G Q
6.
A 6
e.
i
- ')
D
>=
a-
- h. i I w I
e n
M.
(.s.
y 6
g
.e3 4
13 O
u' Q
1 I
i O'
C r4
- s y
r; y,
C o e g3 4
ga n
LS n n,
y W
m C," '
I I
a C
C C
C C
O O
O C
O r4 rs c4 es c.
g C
c v.
6 6
q 8
4 e
O 2
O C
O C
O C
N
.J C
u A '
' A U
U1 v3 U2 u:
a >-
2 e
U1 O
U1 E
E E
E A
L
_C C
6 C
C Z
T i
Z u
C e.-
>- >=
=
ui c4 _
ta.
' bJ 8 V I 8 34 8 m
C M
r **
M 4
M v1 u: un U:
u) u" M
u' ut u: =
C x
C v
3 I
l * *'* l 4
i A
Q A
u A
Q.
A A
A A
Q.
A A
i U1 a.
6 C
C 3
A i
i >- i a n.
a.
u,
= z M
u, M
v.
M M
.: us u-c w x a.
e e e I
I "E '
1 A
O C
O O
4 n
g
> > > > > > > > > ~. >
W w
l l""
J M
7 7
7
=
W 3
g x x M
4 M
M M
M E
3 C
C C
4 4
l l,,l C
C
., e -
c - - -
c.
e -
.WW.
I '"" M i
- 3 N
C3 0-O r4 P3 er n
4 N
03 0-O ce re P1 e
p 43 N
CD C
f l"'l b
b h
h G3 (D
03 G3 G3 03 03 G3 Q3 llD 0-0-
0-0-
0-0*
0-0-
0-O i
TFS PRO. LECT 5433 f tlDEPEMDF;f T DFSIGN REVIEW 27-MfM *3 tT193101 PAGF 5 SHOREHAit NUC L.E AR PotJFR S T AT U!tt ilN I T 1 tPCS SYSTEM REVIEW LOG ITF;1 RFV!FWER DFSCRIPTION RRF RFY RRF PMR RFV PNR RFI RFV ICR ICR FINAL
-REV INITIAL NO NO CATFC.ORY HO HO CATF00RY NO NO HQ CATEGORY RF S01. TIT 10N 101 2 KTS WK SLETCH DOES NOT HATCH DWG 101 2 OPEN 101 1 CtOSED 0 0 0 0 0
102 1 KfS PSK 001-6 NF* DWG 102 1 OPEN 102 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
t 103 0 KTS CALC PACK NOT StGHED 103 0 0FFH 103 0 CIOSED 0 0 0 0 0
101 0 KTS NO CHECK FOR BASF PLATE 101 0 OPEN 104 0 CL.09ED 0 0 0 0 0
t 105 0 LJD RRF 8 PHR 43 105 0 DPElf 105 0 Cl0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
106 1 KTS cat.C PACK PSSN 015-7 106 1 C109ED 104 1 Ct09ED 0 0 0 0 0
107 1 KTS CALC PACK PSSH 045-7 107 1 CLOSED 107 1 CLOSFD 0 0 0 0 0
108 2 8.EB PACKAGE AX 10-0-2 108 2 DBSERVATIGH 108 2 GBSERVATIGH 0 0 0 27 FINDING Ct.0SFD 4-27-83 109 1 LEB PACKAGE AX 10-D-2 109 1 CLOSED 101 1 Cf.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
110 0 LER PACKAGE AX 10D 2 110 0 DESEPVATIC:t 110 0 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
111 1 LEB INADEGUATF SRV FHVFt.OPF 111 1 CLOSED 111 0 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
112 1.lCT PENH X-10B 112 1 OPEN 112 1 OBSERVATION 0 0 0 24 OPSFRVATION O
113 1 KTS PACK REFLECT DWG CHANGF 113 I Cl.0 SED 113 1 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
114 1 KTS PO 5 A95tlNPTIONS CONFIRNFD 114 1 Ct.09ED 114 1 Ct.0 SE D 0 0 0 0 0
115 1 KTS PSSA SIZE 8 STRtlTS 115 1 OPFH 115 1 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
114 1 KTS DWG A CAL C PACK 3 114 1 C109ED 116 1 Cl09ED 0 0 0 0 0
117 1 KTS PSR 044 ASSitHPTIONS 117 1 OPFN 117 1 Cl0 SED 75 0 0 0 0
118 1 SDM ANAL.YSIS 1*
PIPING 118 1 C8.09ED 118 1 CtOSED 0 0 0 0 0
119 0 SDW DF t.T A T'S FOR SOCA0fETS 119 0 0FFH 119 1 ORSERVATION O O O 11 ORSERVATION O
120 1 SDW TFSTING COHn. CORE SPRAY 120 1 C109ED 120 1 CL O9ED 0 0 0 0 0
121 1 SDW TRANSIENT FVENT 7.1 121 1 OPEN 121 1 Cl.0S E D 0 0 0 0 0
l 122 1 SDW DERIVATION OF DFLTA TS 122 1 C109ED 122 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
1 123 1 SDW RPV N0Z7LE fiATFRTA1.
123 1 POT.FtHD 123 1 POT. FIND 0 0 0 14 FINDIHG ClOSFD 3-11-83 I
i 124 1 SDW SRANCH FILH C0FFF.
124 1 Cl09ED 124 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
12S 0 SDW FREE FitM 00FFFS.
125 0 OPEli 125 0 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
t i
N ENGBEBWGSERACES i,
TFS F RO JECT 5433 f NnFPephr #T DFs?C;l RFY!Eu
??-!tlM 83 13143:01 PfFr 3 SHOREHAM Nt! CLEAR POMFR 9;TAff0H HNIf t IPCS SYSTEM PEVIEW LOG ITEM RFVIrWER OFSCRIPTION RRF RFV RFF PMR RFV PMR RFI REV ICR ICR FINAL
-REV INITIAL NO HC CATEGORY NO NO CATFGORY NO 4t0 NO CATFGORY RFSOLt1 TION 12f 1 ODU RPV N072LF DISPLACEMENTS 126 1 POT.FIMD
!?6 1 GBSE RV AT IO!!
0 0 0 16 OBSERVAT 10l!
0 127 1 SDW S0tlRCE OF DFLTA TS 127 1 OPEN 127 1 Cl.0 SED A 0 0 0 0
129 1 SDW LUG FVAtUATION 128 1 Cl0 SED 128 1 Cl0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
129 1 SDW CLASS 1 CERTIFICATION 129 1 CLOSED 129 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
130 1 SDW BRANCH PROPERTIES 130 1 CLOSED 130 1 Cl0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
131 1 SDu HISSING CAL C.
PAGES 131 1 Cl.0 SED 131 1 Cf.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
13? 1 SDW FO. 10 HOMENTS 13? 1 OPEH 132 1 GBSERVATIDH 0 0 0 24 OBSERVATION 0
133 1 EAS RADIATION LEVEL. O LPCS 133 1 POT. FIND 133 1 POT. FIND 0 0 0 12 FINDING C1.0SCD 1-11-83 134 1 LEB DATA SHEET DISCRFPANCIES 134 1 CLOSED 134 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
13-1 lEB DYMANIC DISPt.ACEMENT 135 1 OPEN 135 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
136 1 LEB SitPPR. POOL CtlRVFS 136 1 Cl.0 SED 136 1 CLOSFD 0 0 0 0 0
137 1 LEB SKFidFD SilPPORT 137 1 OPEN 137 1 Cl.0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
130 0 LEB BR. L.INE ANAL.YSIS 138 0 OPE!!
138 0 POT. FIND 0 0 0 1 FIHDIt!G CLOSFD 6-27-R3 139 0 LER BRANCH SIF 139 0 OPEN 139 0 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
140 1 LEB NO SIF INPilT 140 1 C1.0SFD 140 1 CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
141 1 LFB DISCREPANCIES DATA TABLE 141 1 CLOSED 141 1 Ct.0SFD 0 0 0 0 0
142 1 LEB PIPE AND TIEBACK PROPS.
14? 1 CLOSED 14? 1 Cl0 SED 0 0 0 0 0
141 0 LEB VAtVE OPERATOR STIFFNESS 141 0 OPEN 113 0 CIOSED 0 0 0 0 0
144 1 LEB BRANCH 1. !!!F ANALYSTS 144 1 010SFD 141 t CLOSFD
' O O O O
145 1 lER BRANCH 1.INE TEllP.
145 1 OPEN 143 1 POT. FIND 0 0 0 28 FIMDING CLOSED 4-27-83 146 1 LEB BRANCH IINF DISCRFP.
146 1 CtOSFD 144 1 CLOSFD 0 0 0 0 0
147 1
- 1. F B NASS POINTS NODES 147 1 CLOSED 117 1 C10SFD 0 0 0 0 0
148 1 LEB BRANCH !!NF SEISMIC 148 1 fl.rdE D 148 1 CLOSFD 0 0 0 0 0
149 0 llSA FilNCT10NAl. CAPABItTTY 119 0 OPEN 119 0 Cl.0SFD 0 0 0 0 0
150 1 RRH MISSING PAGF 150 1 0FFN 150 t CLOSED 0 0 0 0 0
Y l
ENWEBWGSBMCES 1
t I
i t
O O 6 C eo e6 6 6 C M O O 6 C 0 C W C 0
+
6 e
m m
e e
i t
I I
I i
6 w
w t
I Z I w
w t
t 4
C i e
e 0
a m 9 V
M t
i M I C
N 6 6
O f C
C W
t I
J_
l w
w m
I 6 4C 0 m
W C
k 0 1 %# 9 C
C J
c t 4 wk 6 G
J G
< t 6 64 9 G
A 4 6
9 t
t t
2 I
f 6
O e I I
e Li t t
>t C
- 4 1
E l O
O C
4 F 0 i
C I Z
Z w
6*
i t
C D w
w Q
M
- 9 lEW t C
C 6
M I t uk t t
w v.
e i I wCt w
6 K
f I
G I L
k C
e I
e M r I E I
C O
C O
C e C O C O C
M C
C O
C O
C C
C I 1 0 t
N
=
e t 6 wC I E e a
Z t C
C C
C C C C O C C O
C O
O C
C C
C C
C O
- 1
..e9 4 I I ZZ I l
lwO f
C C
O C
O C O C O C O
C O
O O
O O
C C
O C
I ekZ t i
I E 5
O O
O C
O C O C O
C O
C O
O O
O O
C O
C O
I 4
9 9
9 t
I I
I Z
I e
t
=
I E 6
b l w
t k I
M I Q
Q C
t >
CMC I z
z c B M t EC S C
O C
Q g
Q g Q c
Q C
w C
w C
G C
Q w
t b 9 AW I W
W U
W w w w w w w W
k W
k W
W 6
W 6
2 I V I
A W
U' W
m y
y: m u: v (f:
U2
=
U' U;
U; V
e W
5 I
< t C
C C
C C C C C C
C C
W C
C C
C C
H M
I V e
C t J
w J
w a ; a _ ; u J
C J
C J
w a
a C
E I C 1 3 0
C U
y u
y g g e y u y
A c
A G
G U
U i
C t i 9 6 6
S t zc1 w
a w
w d
w C
w w
w C
C C
C C
w C
C C
w I
6
%8 I w l E I
3 e I EC S e
N m
e C <
N m > C
=
N M
V O
N C
C O
W I
I AZ t O
G O
C n n n n g
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 S
a" I
I w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w w
e
=
=
M t %
I I
6 I O 8
I a i e
W I I E 9
E l M I O t
C l g
C 9 M O 4 EC 1 FC l WW 8 Q
c Q
g g
g w'
- 9. I u i s_ se-I w
w w w
w w
g I
< t
- e m e z e = z e z e z z z = z = =
. z w1 9_9 oi 9
C C
C w C w w C w C
w w w w w w w - w
" ' 9 - t E 'w t
J I
w A
w g
4 J
i' J A
A A
A A
A L
C A
0 6C t C
U C
C C U C C C
C G
C C
C C
C C
C i
C yI k~
4 6.- 0 x_t e3W 6 I
M w
a w
w w
w w
w C
C C
O C
a C
C C
w # CC t k t
E l i l EO S k 9 D EZ t N
M T
O N
m C
w C:
M V
C N
E o
O O
H" C
O C
c C g C c <
4 4
4 4
4 rs A 3 2 8
i W f <
0 t
a w
a w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w e
w w
C f k t
I Z t w e
I
= t u I
I 4 0 I
B e
4 %
I I
C 6
1 I
w 8 Z I
I m
W W
G C I
I e
g w
I I I
I 2
B W G
I O
m w w w
I &
I I
Z O
m E
E E
O M
I C A Z I
w
. =
y g
c =
I q
y g
I I 1 0 i
M C
w g
c w
A o
C M
s 1 0 5 "
I M
Z M
w O
m i w
L Z
Q1 M
4 M
M I I k I
w Z
m W
Z w
O H
C W
U O
re C
Z M t I A 9
w z
A w
g m
C k
A w
O J
Z H
wC
$1 I w W
E o
C r
J g
E C
M 4
w C
L.
c I M e
> i c
g y
p g
w w
g 3
y g
y I
4 C I
O w
gi c
w k
J w
O w
m M
6 C
N '
I F I
A O
q C
m C
C 6
J M
G 6
w Z
E J
U t i k I
W Z
E y
Z q
=
g L
G 6
W Z
J A
E O
W 9 I Q I
w w C
c 3
c c -
c c 9 1 I
I w
C E
w a g
g g
p r
q 6
w > >
I C l e
i E
I g
y g
w g
w c
g g
c g
g M f I
I C
L w
c w
= c 4
6 w
m C
E C
C C
m t l a I
c = c x y
w g
c g
w 3
w w, ; g g
w g
A w
C a w c - e 6
6 I WJ I J
4 e e g
c g
g g
c g
w g
V 4 8 3C l 6
w w
w C
C C
C Z
H O
L M
6 O
A' O
W S 1 6m a 3
A q
A g
c y
c g
g 3
g g
g g
q c e 3
g
> s I ~w t
t I Dw I E
E M
M g
g g
2 m
E E
M C
E 3
3 3
T E
8 I WZ I W
03 M
> > > > c w 6
W M
C C
O C
H m
W 9
t Em I 4
C M
M g
g g
C J
W E
W W
W W
M C
M w
t t
t l
I I
b w
w a
w C
w w
C C
O C
=
C O
C C
y I
3 W6 1 U
M e
C T
N C
C 0:
M w
O N
T C
O I
t hd i O"
O D
H n n a o n 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 N
8 I " ' I I
I I
e w
w w
w w
w w
w w
w
=
w w
w w
w w
w
'RTF1 WNE Technical Report TR-5633-3 Table 2 Suussary of Items Phase 2 Findings Only Status after Review of Generic ICR LILC0/SWEC Response
Response
Modification Required No.
Closed Additional Concern Yes No Documentation Plant 1
Additional Concern X
No No 2
Additional Concern X
Yes No 5
Closed X
No No l
9 Closed X
No No 10 Additional Concern X
No No 12 Closed X
Yes No 13 Closed X
No No 14 Closed X
No No 15 Closed
.X Yes No 17 Closed X
No No 18 Additional Concern X
No No 19 Additional Concern X
Yes No 20 Closed X
No No 21 Additional Concern X
As part of SWEC No Reconciliation 27 Additional Concern X
Yes No 28 Additional Concern X
As part of SWEC No Reconciliation
o
"# TF1 mVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES l
Technical Report TR-5633-3 j
j Table 3 Suassary of Items Phase 3 Additional Concerns Only Status after Review of Generic ICR LilC0/SWEC Response
Response
Modification Required No.
Closed Finding Yes No Documentation Plant 1
Closed X
Yes No 2
Closed X
Yes No 10 Closed X
No No 18 Closed X
No No 19 Closed X
Yes No 21 Closed X
Yes No 27 Closed X
Yes No 28 Closed X
Yes No
.~
I
.