ML20076N239
| ML20076N239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Beck J, Levin H, Tulodieski D TERA CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076N208 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307210233 | |
| Download: ML20076N239 (70) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ v . MIDLAFO INDEPENDENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM MONTH _Y STATUS REPORT NUMBER 2 PERIOD MAY 28,1983 THROUGH JUtf 30,1983 Prepared by: _ h (i/ Mw% f5/rU 15cnoger, Design VerificMon /[fcif/#JS C/Vd'd 0 e Manager, Construction Verification I - . Reviewed by: .m % e-Project Manager ,
./
( ' ww r Approved by: -Lt ~ rt/L kncipol-in-Charge ]DffM 36D l i l l l 8307210233 830715 PDR ADOCK 05000329 R PDR l-
~.
MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDCV) MONTI-R_Y STATUS REPORT NUMBER 2 PERIOD MAY 28,1983 THROUGH JUE 30,1983 1.0 Introduction and Purpose Monthly Status Reports have been instituted by agreement between the Consumers Power Company (CPC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and TERA to provide parties external to TERA's IDCV project team with up-to-date information relative to program progress and any important issues identified during the reporting period. This report covers the period from May 28,1983 through June 30,1983. A description of the scope, reporting periods and report issuance dates for Monthly Status Reports, as well as a summary of the background of the IDCV program were presented in the initial Monthly Status Report dated May 27,1983. 2.0 IDCV Program Status Summary 2.1 Programmatic Activities Attachment I provides on updated chronology of major project milestones. Several milestones warrant special highlight. A meeting was held on June 3,1983 of Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices to obtain additional information related to Confirmed items identified in the first IDCV Program Monthly Status Report. Attending this meeting were representatives of TERA, Bechtel, CPC and Babcock and Wilcox (B&W). The purpose of the discussions was to promote on understanding and any clorification necessary so that CPC, Bechtel or B&W could either identify information that may not have been available to the IDCV review team or clarify information that was ovalloble and reviewed. Minutes documenting discussions at this meeting i L - - - - -_______-______-_______________-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. i ~
were issued to porticipants on June 13, 1983 and are included herein as Attochment 2. The objectives of the meeting were met and the information gained or identified has led to further review and disposition of OCRs. Changes in status to OCRs and newly identified Findings are documented in the following sections of this report. During on April 13, 1983 public meeting at the NRC's Bethesda offices, the IDCV protocol for communications was discussed. This protocol is documented in a March 22,1983 letter from J. Keppler, NRC to J. Cook, CPC. TERA indicated that " substantive" discussions would generally occur at the Findings stage of the IDCV process, at which time the opportunity for outside observation of meetings would be warranted in accordance with the IDCV protocol. On June 22, 1983, Darl Hood, NRC indicated that other meetings such as those associated with discussion of Confirmed items should be subject to the IDCV protocol provisions and that a letter will be issued by the NRC documenting their position. Accordingly, TERA will notify the NRC Regional Administrator of future meetings of this nature. Interfacing of Ford Amendment activities took place during the reporting period. On June 8,1983, a meeting was held between TERA and representatives of the NRC I&E Headquarters staff to coordinate activities associated with the NRC's observation of TERA's IDCV review process. The NRC indicated that they plan to observe activities of Bechtcl's Ann Arbor offices and at the Midland site. The emphasis of NRC's involvement is to study the efficacy of TERA's IDCV program methodology as well as other methodologies and report to Congress, recommending future initiatives to improve and verify the quality of plants under construction. A meeting between TERA and CPC was held on June 22,1983 of the Midland site l to identify information that would be useful to TERA in proceeding with field verification activities and to clarify associated interfaces between the IDCV and the Construction Completion Program (CCP). ' It was concluded that TERA would remain obreast of CCP progress and schedule independent field verification activities offer CPC hos completed work in specific areas. 2
*O ~
During the reporting period, effory was devoted to the revision of the Engineering Program Plan (EPP) and the Project Quality Assurance Plan (POAP). Revision 3 of the EPP and revision 4 of the POAP are being issued on this date. The changes reflect various improvements to administrative control procedures and the project organization. 2.2 Design Verification Activities 2.2.1 Summary During the month of June, design verification activity continued to focus on the AFW System. However, during the week of May 30, TERA's IDV team met with Bechtel personnel in Ann Arbor to identify documents applicable to the Standby Electric Power (SEP) and Control Room HVAC (CR-HVAC) systems. TERA obtained relevant design documents during those discussions and subsequently received more documents that had been requested. TERA personnel have initicted review of those documents and have begun preparation of desigr. criteria and commitments checklists. Confirmed items resulting from the review of the AFW System were discussed at the June 3,1983 meeting in Ann Arbor. The related meeting summary, which is uttoched, provides a synopsis of the discussion of each item, any information identified and as oppropriate, the resulting action to be token. A specific discussion of Confirmed items for which the status has changed during the post month is included in Section 2.2.2 below. The oction items resulting from the June 3 meeting have, in some cases, meant on increase in the scope of TERA's review. For example, the IDCV team has identified that expanded review will be necessary in the areas of the station blackout event, the interface between seismic category I and non-category I piping, and the design interface between B&W ond Bechtel. l l l
2.2.2 Auxiliary Feedwater System Progress The engineering evoluotion for Topic l.8-l, Overpressure Protection, was completed during June. This evoluotion included checking one Bechtel calculation and the performance of two independent calculations, the first pertaining to selected portions of AFW system piping and the second involving drain line piping for the AFW steam-driven turbine. The calculatior . and evoluotion are presently being checked. TERA was provided a copy of the latest (May 1983) revision to the B&W Bolonce of Plant Criteria Document. This revision, coupled with information gathered during the June 3 meeting regarding its development and usage, have resulted in the need to revise applicable in-progress engineering evoluotions. These evoluotions include those for System Operating Limits, Component Functional Requirements, System Hydraulic Design, and System Heat Removal Capability. Also, as noted in the Summary above, TERA has identified the need to increase the depth of review effort devoted to the interface between Bechtel and B&W. The more detailed review of this interface will begin in July. Further progress in the mechonical review area included: (1) initiation of implementing document review for Water Supplies and Component Functio:cl Requirements topics; (2) sample selection completion and checklist preparation initiation for Bechtel calculations to be reviewed for the System Hydraulic Design and System Heat Removal Copability topics, and; (3) completion of confirmatory calculations for the Environmental Envelopes topic. In the AFW Electrical, Instrumentation and Control review area, substantial effort was expended during June in the review of information related to AFW system and subsystem control during normal and off-normal conditions, in addition, the following specific octions were taken: (l) in partnership with the systems leod technical reviewer, commenced a single failure review of the AFW system utilizing applicable P&lD's, electrical schematic diograms, plant single-line drawings, and ovalloble documentation regarding power supplies; (2) developed ICV raceway input for on-site cable troy and conduit review; (3) 4 ~ -_- _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
completed compilation of design criterio for applicable topics, and; (4) completed draft engineering evoluotions for AFW topics Power Supplies, Electrical Chorocteristics, Protective Devices / Settings, Actuation Systems. The following brief comments concern the specific Confirmed items for which status changes were mode by the IDV team during the month of June. These comments are in addition to those of the attached June 13 summary of the June 3 meeting. e Confirmed item C-001, concerning technical specification commitments, was resolved by reissuance os on Observation in occordance with Project Instruction 3201-005. This Observation, which combines item 001 with on outstanding Open item regarding plant procedures, recognizes the draft nature of the specifications and procedures but recommends certain clarifications. e Confirmed item C-002, concerning technical specification requirements, has been resolved, o Confirmed item C-010, regarding the seismic design of the AFW System piping, has been resolved. e Confirmed item C-012, regarding power supplies to critical volve logic relays and their loss during station blackout conditions, has become a Finding. 2.2.3 Standby Electric Power System Progress During the reporting period, the design verification program for the Standby Electric Power (SEP) System was initiated. Using the sample selection criteria in the EPP and discussions with Bechtel personnel, TERA identified and obtained relevant SEP documents. The design verification project team also initiated the identification of components which are to be the subject of reviews within the ICV. Specific progress in the IDV during the period primarily involved the review of design criteria and commitments activity on the review matrix for the SEP. To date, no open items have been identified. Implementing documents have been identified and requested for subsequent review. S l.
.. 2.2.4 Control Room HVAC System Progress The Engineering Program Plan for the Control Room HVAC Design Review includes 104 review octivities os identified on the sample review matrix. To provide the project control for closure of all review octivities, the review has been further defined in terms of work packages.
The criterio review and ossembly of documentation was initiated in June. Meetings were conducted during the first week of June to identify the first set ; of odditional documentation required for the system review. These document requests were based on the system information and criterio delineated in the FSAR, supplemented by the information from the drawings which had previously been transmitted. Industry codes, stondords, and regulatory requirements and guidance for control room HVAC design and related design octivities have been ossembled and are being reviewed to establish a basis for determining the odequacy of the Midiond criteria. 2.3 CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES 2.3.1
SUMMARY
Activities undertaken and events which occurred during this reporting period which are important to the overall conduct of the construction verification review portion of the IDCV program are os follows. e A step -increase in site activities on the port of ICV reviewers occurred on June 20,1983,~ with the establish-ment of a TERA office at the Midland construction site. ICV personnel immediately commenced establishing lines of communications with CPCo and Bechtel site personnel who are cognizant of, and responsible for, the preparation and retention of selected procedures and verification documentation. The selected procedures and verification documentation are those which direct and record the results of 'the construction / installation process. ICV personnel commenced identifying, collecting, .and j assimilating required procedrues and documentation -with the emphasis' of these activities being focused upon l components and ' commodities within the AFW system
- l. somple boundaries.
L 6 L
** e On June 30,1983, TERA signed a letter of intent to contract with LAW Engineering Testing Company (LAW).
LAW was selected by TERA to provide independent NDE/Moterials Testing services and also to assist in the review of selected site and vendor generated welding, NDE, and material testing procedures and verification documentation. LAW personnel will commenc: documen-totion review octivities early in the next reporting period
- i .e., first week of July. The performance of NDE/Moterials testing, to be performed as on integral port of the physical verification review, will commence once CCP status within each of three selected IDCV review systems hos been determined (see next item).
e A meeting was held on June 22,1983, at the Midiond site between lead ICV reviewers and CPCo personnel. The purpose of the meeting was to identify information that would be useful to TERA in proceeding with field verification octivities and to clarify the ossociated inter-faces between ICV review octivities and the CCP. The principal understanding developed as o result of the meeting was that ICV physical verification review activities will commence once the status of the CCP is determined to be complete for offected portions of the selected IDCV systems. All other ICV reviews - i.e., those reviews other than physical verificatien - may proceed unoffected by CCP status, e Lead ICV personnel, in collaboration with the IDV LTR's, developed the listings of the specific components and commodities within the SEP and CR HVAC systems which will be subject to ICV review. For those vendor-supplied components appearing on the listings, ICV reviewers com-menced on extensive review of supplier documentation as indexed and retained in the Bechtel - Ann Arbor offices. This review commenced June 13,1983. e ICV reviewers held detailed discussions with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel concerning the processes and procedures used to control field modifications to pipe honger and support drawings and the mechanism used to ensure that field modifications are factored into design calculations and the design finalization process. This effort was undertaken per direction established as a result of a meeting held in Bechte' offices between ' TERA, CPCo, and Bechtel personnel on June 3,1983, to discuss confirmed items specifically OCRs C-31 through C-36 concerning AFW piping hongers and supports.- The discussions, and subsequent TERA evoluotion, have resulted in TERA's revising the offected OCRs to reflect actions under token by Bechtel to rectify noted discrepancies and the continuance of the review of exist-ing processes and procedures used to control changes to pipe honger design necessitated by the construction /- installation process (see Section 3.0). 7 L
9 e ICV reviewers completed their review of that portion of the cable overinspection program applicable to the AFW system and commenced their review of the Piping System Design and Implementation Verification (PSDIV) program, Observations were also made of certain aspects of the cable overinspection program which will be necessary to chorocterize the program's effectiveness. These observations have been recorded and will be combined with similar observations of the CR HVAC and SEP systems to enable ICV reviewers to extrapolate the evaluated results of the cable overinspection program to other systems. 2.3.2 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION REVIEW PROGRESS Construction documentation review relates to those ICV review categories which are principally concerned with the adequacy and completeness of available documentation as opposed to those ICV review categories which verify physical configuration of installed components and commodities. The following ICV review categories are considered as port of construction documentation review. e Review of Supplier Documentation e Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation e Review of Construction / Installation Documentation A description of progress made and principal activities undertaken in each of the above, highlighted review categories are os follows: Review of Supplier Documentation e Upon defining the specific components within the SEP and CR HVAC systems which will be subject to ICV review (see Section 2.3.1, Summary), ICV reviewers prepared the matrices which define the scope of supplier documento- . tion review to be conducted for selected CR HVAC and l SEP system components. The detailed review matrices were developed as a joint effort with IDV reviewers and serve to direct the octivities of ICV reviewers performing the review of supplier documentation. 8'
e A review of all specifications for selected SEP and CR HVAC components, with the exception of certain com-modities, was conducteo and completed. The purpose of this first review is to record all vendor documentation requirements noted in the body of the specifications and on the opplicable G-321-D forms. The documentation requirements were extracted from the specifications and G-321-D forms and recorded on the opplicable check-off sheets. i e A review of vendor-supplied documents which satisfy the recorded requirements for selected CR HVAC and SEP system components was initiated on June 20,1983, by ICV reviewers working in the Bechtel - Ann Arbor offices. It is anticipated that ICV reviewers will complete the majority of their activities in the Bechtel - Ann Arbor offices during the first two weeks in July. Subsequent activities will be undertaken at the Midland site to identify and record vendor-supplied documentation forwarded and retained as part of the opplicable QA dato packages. ( e With the exception of certain commodities, the review of supplier documentation for selected components within the AFW system is essentially complete. Remaining activities relate principolly to ensuring the occuracy of recorded information and the gathering of discrete pieces of dato necessary to complete the applicable check-off sheets. An engineering evoluotion of the review of ! supplier documentation for selected AFW system com-ponents has been initiated with completion of the evoluo-tion anticipated during the latter part of July or early port of August. ~ Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation L e Specific components within the CR HVAC and SEP system sample boundaries have been selected and the review of storage and maintenance documentation for the selected components has been initiated. Activities undertaken during the reporting period relate principolly to identify-ing and locating the applicable storage and maintenance records and the recording of required check-list'dato, it is anticipated that this review will be completed during the month of July. e The engineering evoluotion associated with the review of storoge and maintenance documentation for selected AFW system components has been initiated ond, os of the writint of this report, is opproximately fifty percent complae.
.-. , . - - - . , , - + , , - . - , . - - - - . .- - ,
Review of Construction / Installation Documentation e Specific components and commodities within the AFW, ' CR HVAC, and SEP systems sample boundaries have been identified and designated as being subject to this review category. ICV reviewers, in collaboration with the IDV reviewers, prepared the review matrices which list selected components and the detailed construction /instol-lation documentation reviews to be conducted for the listed components. o On-site activities co-nmenced with the establishment of the TERA site office on June 20,1983. ICV reviewers commenced the requisition and identification of required specifications, procedures and drawings which control and cause the recording of the construction / installation pro-cesses. Working relationships with cognizant and respon-sible CPCo and Bechtel personnel were initiated to ensure the efficient and reliable acquisition of needed informo-tion. e Checklists were developed and are currently being reviewed for acceptability. These checklists guide and direct ICV reviewers in the acquisition of dato and I information from procedures, specifications, and associated documentation which control the constuction process and which control tests / inspections of installed commodities and components. e The acquisition of dato necessary to complete the applic-oble checklists was initiated. The focus of activities to date have been directed toward selected components and commodities within the AFW system sompte boundaries. l 2.3.3 PHYSICAL VERIFICATION / SITE ACTIVITIES PROGRESS The activities described herein address those ICV review categories which require ICV reviewers to observe, witness, or verify field octivities and/or the os-built configuration of installed commodities and components. For the most part these activities require o strong site presence on the port of ICV reviewers and include the following ICV review categories: e Review of Selected Verification Activities e Verification of Physical Configuration 10
~.
A description of progress made and principal activities undertake.1 in each of the above, highlighted review categories are os follows: Review of Selected Verification Activities e ICV reviewers completed their review of the cable over-inspection progrom os the program is applicable to the AFW System. The following activities were undertaken and completed.
- Documents (procedures, references, etc.) which control the cable overinspection program were obtained and reviewed and the opplicable document control checklist was completed.
- Selected personnel contributing to the program were interviewed, their qualifications and training verifed and the opplicable training checklist completed.
Two inspectors were observed during the cable in-spection process.
- Test equipment usage and control were verified and the opplicable checklist completed.
- The engineering evoluotion of the cable overinspec-tion program, as applicable to the AFW system, was initiated with completion of the evoluotion projected for the middle of July.
e ICV reviewers commenced their review of the PSDIV program by establishing the necessary liaison with cognizant and responsible CPCo and Bechtel perscanel. The following activities relating to the ICV review of the PSDIV program were undertaken during this reporting period.
- Completed the collection and review of instructions and reference documents pertinent to the PSDIV program.
- Completed the personnel qualifications and training checklist.
- Completed the test and measuring equipment check-list.
11
- _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . l
- Witnessed inspection octivities.
- ICV reviewers continue to monitor PSDIV program octivities as these activities relate to selected hongers and supports in the AFW system sample boundaries.
Vertification of Physical Configuration e As a result of the field measurement of selected pipe, hongers and supports within the "B" AFW train, ICV reviewers prepared OCR's identifying certain inconsis-tencies between design documents and the os-installed configuration. These OCR's were reported in the previous ' status report and were, among others, the subject of a meeting held in Bechtel offices on June 3,1983, among CPCo, Bechtel, and TERA personnel. During this report-ing period cognizant TERA and Bechtel personnel met for the purpose of more clearly defining the processes, post and present, used to control field modifications and design interfaces. TERA's review of these processes continues. An additional objective of the TERA - Bechtel meetings was to obtain the most current status of activities undertaken by Bechtel to rectify the noted discrepancies, since the measurements and documentation taken and used by TERA, upon which TERA's evaluation was based, were obtained in November of 1982, prior to the implementation of the CCP and PSDIV programs. The results of these meetings are reflected in revisions to OCRs C-31 thru C-36 and the preparation of Finding and Finding Resolution Reports contained in this status report (see Section 3.0). e Based upon understandings developed as a result of a meeting on June 22,1983, betwen CPCo and TERA personnel (see Section 2.3.1), ICV review of selected, installed components and commodities within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries will commence once the status of the CCP is determined to be complete for l the offected items. Given this understanding, ICV l reviewers limited their octivities to the selection of components and commodities which will be subject to a physical verification review and the preparation of checklists to be used in conducting the review. ICV reviewers continue to work with cognizant and responsible - CPCo and Bechtel personnel for the purpose of identifying and sto?using CCP progress. l 12
3.0 Summary of Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports Attochment 3 provides TERA's Tracking System Summary for Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) ltem Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports. This tool assists TERA in tracking the disposition of issues os they progress through the review process. Items that have changed status or that have been odded during the reporting period ore noted. with an osterisk. Attachment 4 provides re-typed copies of Resolved item Reports that have closed out Confirmed items, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports. Confirmed items C-012 and C-032 through C-J36 have been re-classified as Findings. Finding Resolution Reports have been written for Findings F-032 through F-035 based upon on-going actions by CPC to correct the identified deficiencies. I Of the identified Findings, Finding F-012 is potentially the most significant. In the relatively unlikely event of a station blackout (loss of all oc power) the steam isolation volves to the turbine driven AFW pump would close as a result of a loss of power to the FOGG relays which are not powered from o preferred power source. A loss of steam to the turbine prohibits the AFW system from providing feedwater flow until oc power is restored. The plant design criterio specify that the AFW system be operable for at least two hours under a station blackout event. CPC and Bechtel have acknowledged this condition and are in the process of taking remedial action. TERA will review CPC's plans for resolution when they are available. Findings F-032 through F-035 relate to specific out of tolerance discrepancies j ossociated with field measured piping and supports. These measurements were taken in late November,1982 prior to the initiation of CPC's Construction Completion Program and Bechtel's Piping System Design and Installation l Verificotton (PSDIV) Program. Integral to the CCP ore programs which have ! been developed to identify and correct similar discrepancies. Future TERA field ! measurement activities will only proceed offer the CCP has completed their octivities in the area of interest. Finding Resolution Reports have been written l for these Findings on the basis of specific CPC/Bechtel commitments to 13
. evoluote and correct these discreponcies and the existence of CPC/Bechtel programs addressing these issues. Two related reports, Confirmed item Report C-031 and Finding F-036 remain active os they relate to issues ossociated with the field change / design interface control process. TERA is in the process of reviewing this process as a direct result of the above Findings. Future field verification work by TERA will be undertaken to verify the quality of odditional installed piping and supports.
14
~~
ATTACHMENT I PROJECT CHRONOLOGY MIDLAto INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM TERA PROJECT 3201 TFROUGH 6/30/83 Date Milestone September 2,1982 TERA proposal to CPC for Midland Independent Design Verification (IDV) Program September 20,1982 CPC letter of intent to use TERA for Midland IDV September 24,1982 TERA identification of IDV goals, objectives, system selection criterio, methodology, tasks, and schedule (outline presented to CPC on 9/28/82) September 28,1982 Meeting of CPC, TERA, and MAC in Jackson to develop submittal to NRC addressing IDV and INPO evolvation programs. TERA selects con-didate system for IDV program September 30,1982 TERA submittal of corporate Quality Assurance Plan to CPC for their review and acceptance l October S,1982 CPC submittal of Midland Independent Review Program to NRC l CPC approval of TERA corporate Quality l October 12,1982 Assurance Plan l October 25,1982 Presentation on Midland IDV and INPO pro-grams to NRC at NRC's Bethesda offices October 27,1982 TERA conceptual development of IDV program modifications to further oddress the quality of construction (telecopy to CPC) - October 28,1982 CPC decision to separate IDV and INPO evolu-otion programs I
w
. ATTACHMENTI date Milestone November 2,1982 Introductory meeting at the Midiond site to initiate IDV and INPO programs November 3,1982 Midland site tour and walkdown of the AFW system November 4,1982 TERA project team meetings in Jackson to review Midland project experience (e.g., 50.55e reports, NRC inspection reports, etc.); identi-fication of information needs November 5,1982 Meeting of TERA, CPC and Bechtel manage-ment in Ann Arbor to discuss programmatic de-toils of the IDV program, logistics for TERA-Bechtel interaction on the IDV; review of Bechtel organization, interfaces, etc.; identi-fication of information needs November iI,1982 NRC issues meeting summary for October 25, 1982 meeting November 15,1982 TERA issues Revision 0 of the Midland in-dependent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Project Quality Assurance Plan November 23,1982 CPC opproval of TERA Project Quality Assur-once Plan
't November 29,1982 TERA issues draft Engineering Program Plan for interim use and comments November 29 - TERA field verification team is on-site conduc-December 3,1982 ting physical configuration verification of AFW system piping and supports inside containment December 3,1982 CPC submittal to NRC of response to NRC comments during October 25, 1982 meeting; CPC commits to separate IDV and INPO evolu-ation, identifies condidate systems for adding on additional system to the IDV scope, expansion of IDV program to include a verification of the quality of construction of the IDV systems; details of IDV interactions and INPO reporting 2
'- ATTACHMENTI Date Milestone December 6,1982 TERA project team meets individually with Bechtel group supervisors and group leaders to give a programmatic overview of the expanded IDCV; identify elements of the design process, interfaces, logistics for conducting the IDCV review; identify information, etc.
- December 8-15, 1982 Lead technical reviewers interview Bechtel personnel as part of the IDCV review process; identification of information needs December 10,1982 Agreement reached with Bechtel on proprietary information December 16,1982 TERA completes Engineering Program Plan January 17-21, 1983 TERA design review team in Ann Arbor January 24,1983 TERA begins ICV program - review of supplier documentation, storage, and maintenance docu-mentation January 24-26,1983 TERA construction review team on-site review-ing supplier documentation and storage and maintenance documentation January 25-27,1983 TERA design review team in Ann Arbor February 7-11,1983 TERA construction review team on-site
. February 8,1983 Public meeting on Midland Construction Com-pletion Program and Independent Design and Construction Verification Program February 9,1983 TERA transmits Engineering Program Plan (EPP) and - Project Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP) to the NRC February 17,1983 TERA issues Revision I of the EPP and Revision 2 of PGAP 3
~ . - . .
ATTACHMENTI Date Milestone February 28 - TERA construction review team on-site and March 4,1983 design review team at Ann Arbor February 28,1983 TERA meeting with B&W in Lynchburg March 1,1983 TERA meets with Bechtel management in Ann Arbor to clarify requests for information March 2,1983 Project team meeting, Ann Arbor March lI,1983 Project quality assurance audit conducted by the Project Quality Assurance Engineer March 18,1983 TERA transmits information to NRC regarding corporate and individual independence, profes-sional qualifications, scope of review, reporting and auditability, and program status March 21-25,1983 TERA construction review team on-site and TERA design review team at Ann Arbor March 22,1983 NRC selects Standby Electric Power System os the second system and the HVAC system assur-ing control room habitability as the third system for the IDCV program ! March 24,1983 NRC provides TERA with a service list for Midland IDCV program March 28,1983 NRC issues the protocol for the Midland IDCV program
- - March 30,1983 TERA transmits supplemental information to l NRC regarding affidavits of independence and
! professional qualifications, including additional affidavits by individuals previously employed by NRC I l 4
ATTACHMENTI Date Milestone April 8,1983 Project quality assurance audit report issued by the Project Quality Assurance Engineer April 9,1983 Senior Review Team meets to review project status, review OCRs, and develop recommendo-tions for the project team April 13,1983 Meeting at NRC, Bethesda, including TERA, CPC, GAP, and NRC. TERA presents synopsis of progress to date of AFW system review, plus discussion of topics to be reviewed for the two additional systems (Standby Electric Power; Control Room HVAC) selected by NRC. All parties discuss protocol for Midland IDCV Pro-gram April 21,1983 TERA transmits supplemental information to NRC regarding offidavits of independence for individuals previously employed by NRC May 3,1983 NRC letter, Novak to Cook (CPC) stating acceptance of TERA Corporation to conduct IDCV Program and acceptance of Engineering Program Plan for the Auxiliary Feedwater System May 18,1983 TERA issues general Revision 2 of the EPP and Revision 3 of the PGAP to incorporate the oddition of the Standby Electric Power System and Control Room HVAC System to the IDCV scope, update personnel qualifications, add project instructions and reference new protocol for communications May 18,1983 TERA meets with NRC, I&E HQ management l to discuss consideration of the Midland IDCV program within NRC's response to the Ford Amendment legislation. May 27,1983 TERA issues first Monthly Status Report. l I 1 5 C
ATTACHMENT I Date Milestone May 31 - June I,1983 TERA construction review team on-site. May 31 - June 3,1983 TERA construction and design review teams at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices. June 3,1983 Meeting at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices to discuss Confirmed items documented in the first Monthly Status Report dated May 27,1983. June 6-9,1983 TERA construction review team on-site. June 8,1983 Meeting with NRC I&E Headquarters staff at TERA's Bethesda offices to coordinate Ford Amendment octivities. June 13,1983 Meeting minutes issued documenting discussions during the 6/3/83 meeting on Confirmed items. June 13-17,1983 and TERA construction review teams on-site and at June 20-24,1983 Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices. June 22,1983 Meeting between TERA and CPC of the Midland site to identify information that would be useful to TERA in proceeding with field verification activities and to clarify associated interfaces between the IDCV and CCP. June 22,1983 Meeting with NRC, NRR and l&E stoff at TERA's Bethesda offices. NRC observation of the IDCV filing system and review of selected documents. June 27,1983 Senior Review Team meets to review project status, review OCRs and Findings and develop recommendations for the project team with emphasis in the area of root cause determination. June 27 - July 1,1983 TERA construction review team at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices. June 30,1983 TERA forwards letter of intent to use Law Engineering Testing Company professional services in support of IDCV octivities related to NDE, welding and materials testing /evoluotion. 4 6
ATTACHMENT 2
. E- J MEMORANDUM TO- Distribution DATE:
June 13, I"S3 pm H. Levin, Project Manager, g/ CORES TO-Midland IDCV Program m ECT: Meeting Minutes - First Meeting on Confirmed items, June 3,1983 A meeting summary for the first meeting on Confirmed items for the Midland IDCV Program is attached for your information. Attachment Distribution: File 3201-007 J.A. Clements, Bechtel File 3201-010 E.H. Smith, Bechtel D.F. Lewis, Bechtel Patrick Corcoran, Bechtel T.E. Johnson, Bechtel S.L. Sobkowski, Bechtel S. Roo, Bechtel R. Tulloch, Bechtel D.S. Riot, Bechtel R.C. Hollar, Bechtel G. Borsteins, Bechtel Dennis Kelly, Bechtel Mark Mou, Bechtel Donald Tulodieski, TERA Frank Levondoski, B&W Jim Agor, B&W Lionel Bates, TERA Robert Snyder, TERA Mortin Jones, TERA F.A. Dougherty, TERA R.P. Snaider, TERA H.A. Levin, TERA G. Eagle, CPC L. Gibson, CPC J. Knight, CPC T. Bollweg, Bechtel W. Neilson, Bechtel E.M. Hughes, Bechtel J. Beck, TERA D.D. Simpson, Bechtel D. Davis, TERA J. Mortore, TERA R. Wilson, TERA D. Witt, TERA R. Cleland, TERA F. Pellerin, TERA M. Polit, TERA W. Hall, U of I HAL/djb
E.,
SUMMARY
OF FIRST MEETING ON COPFIRMED ITEMS JUPE 3,1983 MIDLAIO IDCV PROGRAM r I A meeting was held on June 3,1983 at Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices to obtain additional information related to Confirmed items identified in the first IDCV Monthly Status Report, dated May 27, 1983. Attachment I identifies the participants of the meeting which included representatives fr9m TERA, CPC, Bechtel and B&W. Attochment 2 presents the ogendo for the meeting. The meeting was opened by Jerry Clements, Bechtel with on introduction of participants. Lou Gibson, CPC provided a statement of the purpose of the meeting and more generally the IDCV program. Howard Levin, TERA followed with a discussion of important features and objectives of on "lDV type" review, a summary of the status of the IDCV program to date os documeraed in the first Monthly Status Report and a presentation of details related to the IDCV program reporting process os shown in Attachment 3. The discussion on the reporting process focused on a definition of the various types of reports to be generated within the IDCV program and the circumstances under which these reports are generated. Lead TERA personnel then led a discussion of Confirmed items identified in the AFW system review. The purpose of the discussion was to promote on understanding and any clarification necessary so that CPC, Bechtel or B&W could either identify information that may not have been available to the IDCV review team or clarify information that was available and reviewed. The Confirmed items were discussed in the order shown on the ottoched ogendo. CPC, Bechtel and B&W personnel generally porticipated in discussions of Confirmed items by discipline, consistent with the responsibilities shown on the agendo. The following description, by Confirmed item, highlights important issues discussed and any course of oction identified during the meeting. d
.1
.; gw ; r . . ' * . . . : , i .. .; ; ). '.-l ' ; ~ , _; '
~
- h. ' / . ;,.; .
... .. '// .
~
l . l 3201-008-C-037 Discussion: Bechtel pointed ou. that Revision 47 of the FSAR put the subject figures in congruence with the descriptive portion of the FSAR. They indicated that the delay was caused by on effort to catch-up resulting from the I massiveness of the FSAR revision process ossociated with soil-related activities. I The civil discipline indicated that project specs serve os their design i,put versus the FSAR and therefore there is no impact due to the delay. TERA asked whether there could be o potential impact in other disciplines where the FSAR serves os the primary design input document. Bechtel replied that the responsibility for FSAR revisions rests with the group supervisors who keep their personnel informed of changes. They also pointed out that the SAR Change Notice was on important milestone that keyed attention to these issues. Action: The status of the item will remain unchanged subject to TERA's review of the SAR Change process. TERA indicated that specific changes would be trocked to verify the odequacy of the process. _3_201-008-C-Oll Discussion: CPC pointed out that the auxiliary shutdown panel did not serve I on emergency function and therefore FOGG override control was not provided at this location. TERA asked B&W to describe their rationale for the BOP criterio document (section 3.12) specifying FOGG override control at both the main control and auxiliary shutdown panels. B&W pointed out that certain BOP criterio document information is considered critical from on interface standpoint and should be treated as a specific design requirement to permit interface compatibility between the NSSS and BOP as opposed to general design criteria. This information is identified by a double osterisk and B&W must concur in deviations. TERA had reviewed a draft of Revision I of the BOP criterio document, dated June 25,1982 which did not include the double osterisk notation. The final version of Revision I was approved on May 31, 1983. The first BOP criterio document (Revision 0) was issued in 1978. Prior to this time, criteria were identified in design or guide specs. CPC indicated that they are 2
contemplating revision of the FOGG logic to improve certain human factors considerations. Action: The status of the item will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review issues related to the B&W deviation concurrence process for h this specific issue and the rationale for deviation from a double asterisk item. TERA will review the BOP /NSSS interface in greater detail with particular emphasis on the period prior to 1978 (guide specs) and operability of the " double asterisk system" thereafter. TERA will factor CPC's revised FOGG thinking into the IDCV design review process including a review of the ATOG document. 3201-008-C-012 Discussion: Bechtel indicated that their preliminary evaluation verified TERA's conclusion that during a loss of oil AC power, the power to the FOGG interlock relays for channels AA and BA' would be cut, cousing volves 2MO-3277A and B to shut, cutting off steam to the AFW turbine. Action: Subject to any further clarification received from Bechtel as part of their final evaluation, TERA will process the item in occordance with Project Instruction PI-3201-008 and issue o Finding. TERA will factor this information into the IDCV review of Topics 1.23-1, -2 and -3, FMEA and consider enlarging the sample size to verify that this issue is not a systematic problem. 3201-008-C-025 l Discussion: CPC pointed out that a steam generator tube rupture is a limiting fault versus the more probable leaking scenario. Bechtel indicated that they had determined through discussions with the manufacturer that the Terry turbine would run on water and not be domoged under such conditions. The scenario was identified as being controlled by timing and the ability of the j operator to identify the event and take oppropriate oction. TERA questioned the (- bases for the FSAR conclusion that the operator would override FOGG in time. i l !- 3 ?.
Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review information supporting the FSAR conclusion relative to operator action. TERA will review the Terry tests supporting operation when subjected to water. I 3201-0')8-C-038 i Discussion: Bechtel indicated that the minimum flow scenario would be about 100 gpm. Under this condition, Bechtel determined that domoge would not occur to the pump during the 2-hour period of service that may be required. They received a telex from the manufacturer of testing to this assertion. Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review Bechtel's 100 gpm minimum flow calculation and the pump manufacturer's minimum flow evoluotion or test dato supporting the pumps performance under this condition. 3201-008-C-005 Discussion: TERA pointed out that this item was a " process" oriented OCR that served as on umbrella to identify a more generic issue that has arisen as a direct result of several specific OCRs (i.e. C-Ol7, -018, -020, -027 and -028). Action: The status of this issue will remain unchanged pending further review of Confirmed items C-017, -018, -020, -027 and -028. CPC/Bechtel/B&W will provide clarification resolving potentially conflicting data relative to AFW system design parameters. 3201-008-C-018 Discussion: B&W indicated that they originally utilized a proprietary decay heat curve that is less conservative than the ANS 5.1 curve, assuming required AFW flow at 30 sec.; however, 40 sec. is the earliest that required AFW is available. CPC indicated that it was their intent to meet the BTP APCSB 9.2 position which requires opproximately a 20% margin over the ANS 5.1 curve. B&W stated that 1035 gpm AFW flow was required to meet 1.2 times ANS 5.1 at 4 1 b . .. .
40 sec. of a 2552 Mw ultimate power level plus 16 Mw for the RCPs. They also indicated that the 850 gpm design flow would be adequate for 1.0 times ANS of 40 sec. of 2552 Mw plus 16 Mw level. TERA pointed out that the BOP criterio document is unclear relative to the required time for AFW in that 30 sec. and 40 sec. are both specified. Also, TERA indicated that the acceptability of AFW r izing s was contingent upon the power level specified (i.e. 2452 Mw (license), 2552 f (ultimate) or 1.02 times these values to account for instrument drif B&W t). ogreed with TERA's C-Ol8 write-up that statements in the FSAR relative to the use and opplication of decay heat curves were conflicting. Action: The status of this issue will remain unchanged pending further review. TERA will review the rationale for criteria related to decoy heat removal capability with emphasis on performance criteria necessary for maintaining primary pressure within required limits. In conjunction with the review of other Confirmed items ossociated with the specification of AFW system parameters (e.g. power level, margin for instrument error, timing, etc.), TERA will conduct another independent analysis to verify AFW system flow capacity utilizing oppropriate parameters. Bechtel/CPC will review the FSAR to determine the need to correct conflicting information. 3201-008-C-20 Discussion: Bechtel indicated that the 1080F service water temperature was a conservative value used in the stress analysis coles and not on expected temperature of the point where AFW is required in response to a transient. The 1050F service water temperature was based upon a calculation which conservatively modeled the cooling pond during a LOCA for purposes of determining the maximum service water temperature. Bechtel indicated that ! the 900F was a reasonable design temperature for evaluating AFW in consideration of the timing of demands on AFW and the expected temperatures of the cooling pond and condensate storoge tank. Action: The status of this issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of Bechtel's evoluotion supporting the 900F criteria, l l 5 l l
r L 3201-008-C-027 Discussion: CPC indicated that the design basis or licensed power level (2452 Mw) of the plant represents their licensing basis and commitment relative to safety analyses. They have exercised the option of conducting various analyses such as dose colcs assuming higher power levels for conservatism and to avoid future work by conducting bounding evoluotions. Action: The status of this issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of the Bechtel/CPC/B&W bases for the specification of various other AFW system parameters in conjunction with the review of other Confirmed items (i.e. C-005,
-017, -018, -020, -028). Bechtel/CPC will review FSAR App. 3A and 10A for consistency and clarity.
3201-008-C-028 Discussion: B&W indicated that their stress analyses were based upon a 400F AFW inlet temperature. The normal line-up to the CST assures meeting this criterion since the CST is heated to maintain at least 400F. B&W and CPC maintain that in the unlikely event that AFW draws service water at temperatures between 320 and 400F, on evoluotion would follow. Notwithstanding this, B&W asserts that the fatigue usage factor associated with a one time occurrence of this nature would not invalidate the plant design. Action: This status of this issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of the bases for the specification of other AFW system parameters in conjunction with other Confirmed items (i.e. C-005, -017, -018, -020, -027). 3201-008-C-010 Discussion: Bechtel indicated that certain segments of non-Cotegory I pipe had been seismically evoluoted. There are three categories of items: 1. S-1: seismic, Q-listed, full QA; 2. seismic designed and supported; 3. non-seismic. The portion of pipe in question was seismically designed; however, without ASME 6 r
ill certification. The systems interaction review for seismic ll/l identified lines in category 2; however, these are not identified en P&lDs. Action: This specific item is resolved. TERA will review the bases for the seismic /non-seismic interface considerations and classification as part of other r y topics within the IDCV program. 3201-008-C-001 Discussion: CPC indicated that independent volve line-up verification is accomplished offer maintenance by a signoffs of the responsible maintenance personnel prior to return and by logging in the control room in occordance with the tech specs. Action: The status of this issue is unchanged pending TERA's review of the tech spec language to verify cieor specification of verification of line-up subsequent to maintenance. 3201-008-C-002 Discussion: CPC indicated that the Midland tech specs are consistent with the B&W Standard Tech Specs os applied to a 2 pump plant. Action: The status of this issue is unchanged pending TERA's review of the tech spec language to verify clear specification of oction requirements if both trains of AFW ore inoperable. 3201-008-C-036 Discussion: Bechtel conceded that offset dimensions to the reactor building centerline may be off because these drawing dimensions are not always corrected as part of the Field Change Request process; however, these dimensions are not very important offer the line is originally located. Bechtel stated that placement tolerance is plus or minus 2 inches in any direction. 7 i - - _ _ _ - - - _ _
Action: This issue will be considered for re-classification as o Finding. TERA will conduct further review to verify the frequency of drowing errors of this type and determine the impoet. I 3201-008-C-035 i Discussion: Bechtel indicated .that they had revised honger iso H-639 sh. 14(O), rev. ll on May 26, 1983 reflecting the os-built dimensions and that the stress group had re-evoluoted the line. TERA indicated that they had secured red lines from Bechtel (Zenovy) of the site. Bechtel and TERA were unable to reach full agreement on all dimensions. Action: The status of the issue remains unchanged pending TERA's review of Bechtel's latest information which was unavailable to TERA. TERA will review the red-line and FCR process to verify that it was operable. TERA will continue o review and resolution of the field dato collected in November 1982 against Bechtel information available then and now. 3201-008-C-032, -033, -031 Discussion: Bechtel discussed the FCR process and indicated that they had instituted a new program, the PSDIVP (Piping System Design and Installation Verification Program) which would apply to all O piping and supports, superceding the red-line process. Specific agreement was not reached on the deviations noted on these Confirmed items. Action: The status of these items remains unchanged pending TERA's review of the chronology of various primary verification programs and a determination of a course of oction necessary for TERA's verification that the process (new and/or old) is operable. A review of the appropriate process will be undertol<en along with specific closeout of these Confirmed items. 8 L _
We 3201-008-C-045 Discussion: TERA indicated that C-045 should be revised reflecting a 30 day shaft . rotation period rather than o 90 day period. TERA provided clarification that maintenance octivities had token place; however, Bechtel's f procedures were in conflict with the manufacturer's recommendction. Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending the identification and review of ony generic superceeding guidance that may justify i o relaxation of requirements. 3201-008-C-046 Discussion: TERA provided details related to the Confirmed item and clarification of the concern. Action: The status of the issue will remain unchanged pending TERA's , observation of the pump and turbine disassembly and inspection and review of results. 9
, Attachment 1
- reev c/3/r3 xut 4 m> o r '
r MAO 1E COMPAUY MMwE _ C,c u tk) Y
.d. M &'JDO
- u. l. L g.JnQ ;
b.Q c.& Q f l-.6 w a f, O ge a yg z l
/$?A/fl[ hA&lA'M' $AN7/L D D. SnRsx Bawret T E Jot / WJ4~ & wies i . S . b , 8 o h h o w .r b : $C c L ht 5 RAo r?, E c e rE L.
R .T u tt.e 4 necAraL C K / a />+ sm
-. Z%d Au:( . &esrc&.. .- ... - .. _ . . . - . . . . - . .
l
/YArk -
A fg u Cccti 1c 4. ! ON Ab D l u L.0 D l E s, ira TER8 a n, u. i l -. 2 r m ... A q a t .. . . . . . DFW . . . . l L :e f S r .le s rde.a
- 8. & 754 . . - . .
maso-nn Outk<r . TER A i _ . . . _ . . .. . . _ . . _ . . _ . A f. SanToen reRA . . . H. fl. LEVir) re-rA
- 6. W W .
OW .. L . e-i C)60 J -- 7.KaiGH T , T ?.3 d L L . u C; L '. D
- k. NiCLStd S J
. Attachment 2 i 3
a IDCV MEETING - Friday, June 3,1983 am Conference Room 3D5
}-
Initial Discussion on Results of Review of ATWS I AGENDA r 51 _n
)
- 1. Summary review of status of IDCV for AFW system.
II. TERA
%[=
Review / discussion of confirmed items: No. Responsible Party Subject Bechtel B&W CPCo 37 Seismic Design Criteria Civil 11 Control for FOGG - CS X 12 Power Supply - FOGG _ 25 CS/E Accident Analysis - FOGG CS/M 38 Power Supply - Min. Flow M/E - 5 System Operating Limits M X 17 Heat Removal Capability j 18 X : Heat Removal Capability 20 27 Heat Removal Capability M X X
}
Power Level for AFW Anal. X ~, 28 Min. Temp. for AFW Anal. 10 Water Volume in AFW Pipes M X Il M 1 Technical Specifications M X 2 Technical Specifications M f 31 32 Physical Config. - Suppports PD/Const. X A f Physical Config. - Supports PD/Const. 33 Physical Config. - Supports 34 PD/Const. Physical Config. - Supports PD/Const. 35 Physical Config. - Supports 36 PD/Const. Physcial Config. - Pipes PD/Const. 45 Storage & Maintenance Constr. 46 EE Storage & Maintenance Constr. I-III. Establish plan, format and schedule for responding to the confirmed items. I! B/CPCo/B&W/ TERA jj H 1=a 4 E N i il J 9 b
- Attachment 3
. Tr ewc AL A atvite sv Stuta TI Au 1r 1'
at$0'. vt3 eg ais e t c't
.' .:s .s.o.,
L 8' L'tI*
P0ttNTIAL OPEN ITEM U 1r i r v se.:*ec mtvita a "E*0"I SOLW3 pITEu CL At5Fi:ATCN g, g3 n.g, v r. h 1P 1 r Cs*CSTCN OPENITEW 1r 9r 1r if IV8T4R REVIE* ACTION PL AN tv R! view TE Am M Y pateAR ATcN'. l g,* RtroRT.. CPC0/ORiCNAL DEllCN q , ORGANIZATCN Rtg.no CLORA'.C~ sv LTm's geysoy p,ay F08t RESOLUTION 1 r v 1r COWimmE3 ITEM
" E **I * '
v( r Rt50L C reg CLASST10 Af t0% tv LT= 3. 1 v MONT>LY 1 r i r
!TATUS Dl5*051 TION MPORT *
- sv PC* umy
[ ^ .. I ' 1 r v v PRE
- AR ATCN 1 P OF P,t5PON51 BY CDC/ORICNAL DESIGN -
FNAL REvita ORCANIZAT10N - gy pic, $RT I j 1 r 9 r mgspoggg INTERIM TECPNICAL v I REPOR ** 1 F A KEY: Pu . Pat 0A CT M ANACt"4 LTM . LEAD TECPNICAL Arctw!R Plc . patincipAt.gwaqCg NOTEa
- Plc TO DETERMINE 1r 3RT REMEW A@ CONCVRRENCE IS Itt0VIRED SRT . SENt0st afvitw Tt A*
oisTRomD TO oCv stRwcz usT cac - cw*R5 a0=t* co**** ! t p: FIGURE I
~ '
REPORT FLOW CHART MIDLAto INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROC-RAM
ATTACFRAENT 3 OCR, FIPONG REPORT, ADO FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO NDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM 7/15/8 3 OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Fi Jndi Findi Topic Comments Open item item item item Repori eso ution Report 0 01 RPS 12/21/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 f.4 1 Tech Specs
- 002 RPS 12/21/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 I.4-1 Tech Spees
- 003- RPS 1/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.8-I Overpressure Protection 004 RPS I/3/83 , 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.8-I Overpressure Protection 005 RPS 1/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.l-I System Operating Limits 006 RPS 1/12/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Accident Analysis Considerations 007 RPS 1/I2/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.21 Accident Anciysis Considerations 008 LB 1/19/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 1.19-1 Control Systems
- 009 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 11.1 -1 Seismic Design 000 FAD I/20/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 7/12/83 1.10-1 Hydraulic Design
- Oil LB I/27/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.19-1 Control Systems 012 LB 2/7/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 1 1.15-1 Power Supplies 013 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/I2/83 1.5-1 Syst. Align./Switchover *
- Chase in Stotus During Reporting Period
w OCR, FIPOING REPORT, APO FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO DOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Continued)
- OCR No. Resp. LTR Potentiol Open Confirmed Resolved Findino Findi Topic Open Item Comments item item item ficpori eso ution Report 004 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 f.S-l Syst. Align./Switchover
- OIS CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 111.1-1 Seismic Design / Input to Equipment 016 CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 Ill.S-1 Civil /Stu Design Consid.
.C7 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.II.I Heat Removal Cop l.10-1 Hydraulic Design 018 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.II-I Heat Removal Cap.
019 LB 2/21/8 3 3/4/83 1.I8-1 Instrumentation 020 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.ll-1 Heat Removal Cap. l.9-1 Comp. Func. Req. 0 21 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 Eq. Qual. 11.I0 -1 0-21, Rev. I, 022 LB 4/14/8 3 2/24/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control Syst. 023 LB 2/28/83 3/4/83 1.18-1 Instrumentation f.19-l Control
OCR, FitolNG REPORT, APO FitOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO ltOEPEPOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICAllON PROGRAM (Continued) OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Finding Findi Topic Open Item l'em item Comments item Repori eso ution Repor1 024 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Acc. Anal. Consid. 025 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Acc. Anal. Consid. 026 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 l.8-1 Overpress. Prof. 027 FAD 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 l,9-l Comp. Func. Req.
- 11. 9 -1 Env.Eng.
028 FAD 3/2/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 g,9-1 Comp. Func. Req. 029 LB 2/22/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.18-1 Instrumentation 1.19-1 Control System 030 LB I/19/63 3/4/83 3/4/83 t,39-1 Control System 031 CS 2/11/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Sepporis C-3l, Rev. I, 7/12/83
- 032 CS 2/II/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 7/12/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports C-32, Rev. I, 7/12/83
- I OCR, Fl>ONG REPORT, APO FIPONG RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO POEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Continued)
OCR No. Resp. LTR Potentiol Open Confirmed Resolved Fi Findi Topic Open item item item 3ndi Comments item Report eso ution Repor1 033 CS 2/11/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 7/12/83 1.3-le Pipe Supporis C-33, Rev. I, 7/12/83* 034 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 7/I2/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supporis C-34, Rev. I, 7/I2/83
- 035- CS 2 /11 / 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 7/12/83 1.3-le Pipe Supporis C-35, Rev. 2, 7/I2/83*
036 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 II.2-1 Pressure Boundary C-36, Rev. 2, 7/12/83+ 037 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 III.1-1 Seismic Design / Input to Equipment 038 LB 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 039 LB 3/30/83 4/14/83 11. 1 0 - 1 Env. Eo. Qual. 040 LLB 3/8/83 4/14/83 1.16-I Elec. Chorocteristics
- 041 LB 3/25/83 4/14/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 042 LB 3/31/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 Enw.Eq.Oual.
043 FAD 3/15/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 System Hydraulic Design 044 FAD 3/15/83 4/14/83 11.1 0 - 1 Env. Eq. Qual. 045 Tulo 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 II.1-lC Electrical Equipment / C-45, Rev. I, 7/12/83
- Storage & Maintenance 046 Tulo 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 1.1-IC Mechanical Equipment /
Storage & Maintenance
ATTACHMENT 4 CURRENT PERIOD CONFIRMED AND RESOLVED ITEM REPORTS, FINDING REPORTS AND FINDING RESOLUTION REPORTS l l
MIDLAPO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT a TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN FILE NO. 320t-008 CONFIRMED DOC NO. 3201.008.R 001 RESOLVED X ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/12/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/12/83 PRINCIPAL..N. CHARGE 7/12/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: AFW System operability and surveillance requirements in Technical Specifications IDCVPROGRAM AREA OR TASK (lF APPLICABLE): Topic l.4-1, Technical Specifications DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: A commitment made in response to NRC requests has not been incorporated into the Midland Technical Specifications. That commitment involved NUREG-0611, Appendix 111, recommendation GS-6 regarding verification of proper AFW system valve lineup. It is not clear that the Technical Specifications do incorporate the means to assure dual valve lineup after maintenance. Also, the associated draft procedure does not incorporate a requirement for valve lineup verification (see OCR-014). SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Valve lineup after maintenance or testing may not be correct. RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X : This item is resolved by classification as an Observation (B-001) COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): SIGNATURE (S): RPS RPS HAL JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAfO INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN AtO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED DO O. 3 - 8.B 001 Observation RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/12/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/l2/83 PRINCIPAL.lN-CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: Procedures and Technical Specifications regarding AFW System valve alignment IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic 1.4-1, Technical Specifications Topic 1.5-1, AFW System Alignment /Switchover DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- 1. Review of Technical Specifications has shown that there is no requirement expressly stated for a second valve lineup check after AFW system maintenance, contrary to a commitment made in FSAR App. 10A.3 in response to recommendation GS-6 of NUREG-0611, App. 111. II. Review of draft procedure OPS Surv 3395.1 (Unit 2), dated January 14, 1982, has also raised questions regarding valve align-ment after maintenance and/or testing. Although each valve lineup enclosure includes
" position required", it then calls for logging the " original position" & signing for
" returned to original position", thus potentially resulting in assumptions that ori-SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: ginal positions are correct. Also there is no requirement that the plant / shift supervisor review the valve lineup sheets to assure AFW system readiness.
Potential misalignment of AFW system valves after maintenance and/or testing. RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X : This observation is a combination of related items: confirmed item 001 and open item 014. It is recommended that the procedure be reviewed to remove any ambiguity and that the Tecnical Specifications specifically incorporate the requirement for a second valve alignment check after either maintenance or testing. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): SIGNATURE (5): RPS RPS HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN. CHARGE 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
e
.. MIDLAND 1&2*FSAR e
- 10A.3 6F NUREG-0611, APPENDIXCOMPARISON OF THE MIDLAl'D AUXILI ARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM DES lli (continued)
Recommendation
Response
(1) Procedures should be implemented to require an Maintenance and technical specification surveillance . operator to determine that the AfV system test procedures require that valves be returned to valves are properly aligned and a second their original position after the completion of operator to independently verify that the maintenance or surveillance testing. In addition, valves' are properly aligned. Subsection 16.4.7.1.2.A.3 requires a valve lineup verification following maintenance or testing of the AFW system. The combination of these verifications constitutes two, independent valve lineup checks. (2) The licensee should propose Technical subsection 16.3/4.7.1.2 requires a flowpath test every Specifications to assure that, prior to plant 18 months or after an extended cold shutdown. Extended startup following an extended cold shutdown, a cold shutdown is defined as a cold shutdown of 30 days flow test would be performed to verify the or longer. The technical specification also specifies normal flow path from the primary AFV system the flowpath as: motor driven pump with suction lined water source to the steam generators. The flow up to the condensate storage tank and discharging to test should be conducted with AFW system both steam generators through the auxiliary feed valves in their normal alignment. nozzles. 16.4.7.1.2 Each auxiliary feedwater system shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:
- a. At least once per 31 days on a 3TAGGERED TEST BASIS by:
- 1. Verifying that the steam turbine driven pump develops a discharge pressure of 21,160 psig above suction pressure at a flow of 2850 gpm when the secondary steam supply pressure is greater than 885 psig when tested as required by the specification in Subsection 16.4.0.5.
- 2. Verifying that the motor driven pump develops a discharge pressure of .5(by amendment) psig at a flow of 2 (by amendment) gpm when tested as required by the specification in Subsection 16.4.0.5.
- 3. Verifying that each valve (manual, power I
operated, or automatic) in the - flowpath that is not locked, sealed or otherwise secured in position, is in its correct position.
- 4. Entry into Mode 3 is allowed for the purpose i
of performing the surveillance testing l requirement in Subsection 16.4.7.1.2.a.l. l
--1
~~
l MIDLAtO INDEPEtOENT DESIGN AtO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
. OPEN, CONFIRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED D O. 32 1 008.R -002 RESOLVED X ITEM REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/6/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/12/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: AFW System Operability and Surveillance Requirements in Technical Specifications IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.4-1, Technical Specifications DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Midland Technical Specifications do not meet NRC BT,W Standard Technical Specifica-tions in that: An action statement is needed to require immediate action if both AFW systems are inoperable. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Lack of action statement may result in inadequate plant protection. RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X : The concern was that the T.S. lack a speci - fic statement delineating action to be taken in the event both AFW trains are out of commissior.; the T.S. do require action within an allotted time period if one train is inoperable. CPCo contends, and we concur, that the addition of a statement similar to that contained in the NRC's standard Technical Speci fications ("...immediately initiate corrective action to restore at least one auxiliary feedwater pump to operable status as soon as possible") adds no real substance to the Technical Specifications and is therefore unnecessary. This issue is resolved. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): SIGNATURE (5): RPS RPS HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 7/6/83 7/6/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR PLANT SYSTEMS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 16.3.7.1.2 Two independent steam generator auxiliary feedwater l33 pumps and associated flowpaths shall be OPERABLE with:
- a. One auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from an OPERABLE emergency bus.
- b. One auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from an OPERABLE steam supply system,
- c. Operation of the steam driven auxiliary feedwater pump for MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4, except for surveillance and testing requirements and when actuated by station emergency conditions, is prohibited unless the electric driven feedwater pums. ?s inoperable.
APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, and 3. ACTION:
- a. With one auxiliary feedwater system inoperable, restore the inoperable systcm to OPERABLE status within 72 hours or be in HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 hours.
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 16.4.7.1.2 Each auxiliary feedwater system shall be demonstrated 133 OPERABLE:
- a. At least once per 31 days on a STAGGERED TEST BASIS by:
- 1. Verifying that the steam turbine driven pump develops a discharge precsure of 2.1,160 psig above suction pressure at a flow of 2850 gpm when the secondary steam supply pressure is greater than 885 psig when tested as required by the specification in Subsection 16.4.0.5. l 33 16.3/4.7-4 Revision 33 4/81
~
PLANT SYSTEMS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION l 3.7.1.2 At least three independent steam generator auxiliary feedwater pumps and associated flow paths shall be OPERABLE with:
- a. Two motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pumps, each capable of being powered from separate emergency busses, and
- b. One steam turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from an OPERABLE steam supply system.
APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, and 3. ACTION:
- a. With one auxiliary feedwater pump inoperable, restore the required auxiliary feedwater pumps to OPERABLE status within 72 hours or be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours.
- b. With two auxiliary feedwater pumps inoperable, be in at least HOT STANDBY within 6 hours and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours.
- c. With three auxiliary feedwater pumps inoperable, immediately initiate corrective action to restore at least one auxiliary feedwater pump to OPERABLE status as soon as possible.
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.7.1.2 Each auxiliary feedwater system shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:
- a. At least once per 31 days by: -
- 1. Verifying that each motor-driven pump develops a discharge pressure of greater tnan or equal to psig at a flow of greater than or equal to gpm.
, 2. Verifying that the steam turbine-driven pump develops a discharge pressure of greater than or equal to psig at a flow of greater than or equal to gpm when the secondary steam supply pressure is greater than psig. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable for entry into MODE 3. B&W-STS 3/4 7-4 SEP 171980
.' MEX.APO POEPEFOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION l OPEN, CONFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COWIRE NO 1006.R.010 RESOLVED X ITEM REv.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO . LTR 7 /5/83 $RT PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 7/12/63 PRINCPAL.N. CHARGE / / 4 2 / O $ CPC/DEslGN ORG. . sTRUCTUREf 5). SYSTEM (5) OR COMPOW.NT(5) Nv0LVED: AFW - Piping and valves DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLir AAI F): Hydraulic design (I.10-1) DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The original open item was concerned with the volume of water available after a seismic event. Bechtel had taken credit for piping not designated as Section III and not designated as Seismic Cat I as being capable of retaining a minimum volume of water after an SSE. SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN: Failure of the section of pipe shown on the P&ID (M 439) as being non-Cat I would result in damage to the AFW pumps and prevention of the achievement of their safety function. RECOMMEPOATION OR RESOLUTION X : Althouah not designated as seismic on the P&ID, a review of Bechtel calculations showed that the piping in question was analyzed for seismic events. COMMENTS SY SRT (F REQURED): REFERENCES (NCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJ: (1) See OCR 3201-008-C-010 (3) Bechtel Calculation (2) P&ID M439 Sheets 3A (Rev 9) and 3B (Rev 10) SC-2-634-3(Q)H l OCR M 1%PONT d }
'\LTM #
h% PROKCT MANAGER JB PRINCPAL. $RT (F REQUIRED) TOR /
, FOR PROACT TEAM N. CHARGE oD N3083 7 IL D 7/14/83 un un un aAn un i
.. j MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION ~~
FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 320i-008 CLAS5: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3231-008.F.012 REV.NO. DATES REPORTED TO: PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MCR. 6/30/83 PRINCIPAL.lN-CHARCE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/CESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM 5(5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED: Steam isolation valves 2 70-3277A and B and FOGG Relays 3x-1, 3x-2, 3x-4, 3x-5 DESCRIPTION OF FIND!NG: The FOGG relays 3x-1, 3x-2, 3x-4 and 3x-5 located in panel 2C14 are powred from 120 VAC power (not preferred power). During a station blackout ( loss of all ac) these relays would deenergize causing the steam isolation valves 2'D-3277A and B to close. This would result in the inability of the turbine driven AP.1 pump to function. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: The loss of power to the FOGG relays during a station blackout [ prohibits the AFl1 system from providing feedwater flow until ac power ! is restored. The AFl1 system does not meet the design requirement to i be operabic for two (2) hours under station blackout conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Corrective action be taken to power the FOGG relays from preferred power. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): I REFERENCES UNCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h OCR 3201-008-C-012; Schematic Diagrams E-158 Sil 24,25,41,42 Midland FSAR Section 10.4.9.1.1. d% FINDING REPORT hh PRORCT MANAGER JB PRINCIPAL-eN-CHARGE DKD SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM 6/29/83 1/Tf83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE 'DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAto INDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
. OPEN, COtflRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201 008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X DOC NO. 3201-008. C -031 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. 1 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/27/83 ;
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/I 2/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3 lc - Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Refer to OCR's C-32 thru 36, same program area as above, for description of concerns related to inconsistencies in dimensions and orientation noted during the field verification of AFW system piping, pipe supports and hangers. The five OCR's, when taken as a group, establish a trend potentially affecting the design finalization progress - i.e., that process used to ensure that changes to the original design, warranted by construction / installation activities, are accurately and consistently incorporated into the original design documents. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not be accurately and consistently factored into the original design resulting in situations whereby the as-installed condition may not be analyzed nor evaluated to determine that original design criteria are satisfied by the as-installed configuration. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : ICV reviewers have initiated a review of the processes used to control field modi-fications to piping and pipe hanger drawings. It is recommended that this review continue in order to confirm that the existing processes used to control field changes to piping and pipe hanger and support drawings are effective in ensuring that original design documentation accurately and consistently reflects the as-Installed configuration. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q) , Rev. 11 Spec. 7220-M-326(Q), Rev. 8 " Installation, inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports)" SIGNATURE (5): DT DT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT M ANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) i i ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
~ - MIDLAbo INDEPEPOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED AtO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED x D O. 32 -008.C 032 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/27/83 PRINCIPAL-IN CHARGE 7/I2/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3-Ic- Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Hanger H-10, a horizontal snubber, is properly installed in accordance with the red-lined detail hanger drawing. Changes indicated on the drawings were approved by the site resident engineer.
- Hanger location for hanger H-10 was field measured to be approximately 3' from its design location (along the direction of the pipe axis) as shown on the piping isometric drawing.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not neces-sarily be fed back into the design finalization process in an accurate and consistent manner. Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : ! - Confirm that as-installed dimensions are indicated on the piping isometric drawing - the document controlling input to the piping stress analysis. Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that field changes are consistently and accurately reflected in design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q) , Rev. 11, attached redline for H-10 Spec. 7220-M-326, Rev. 8 " Installation, inspect. f. Doc. of Pipe Supports" SIGNATURE (5): DT DT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER #RINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
ruse ,, x ,, wp
,.h'g$$$ f .
l
- y. .
l e $45.1it4 ;.. ~.
~N.;n(SET?q9W ii eI c
*r 1 88 h
,k' It- . . . . . >
~.
h d Q3 ~
\
.h i
'58 l y w I A56 s - m o .
1,- _
- i,, .r .
,, c '
1
~my ;u1 m;.
s ,. 4 _ z , o, na.s
, . s . .r , . , . - - .
e eos ' A - r E = .c or W " Z
/w g m5s 4q: f k.
b
*o
% m, gg i i -
a x =. ; i_ .1 b T ' QK_ e 40 f I I M {p m .) _ i. - - - - ,r - m l , + 3 g , ., m
~,
i J
/@i , v M., ll5E1 - ..
j l 8 g I - i i i iI y
@ ti 'j g j j
~
S g V I S. . . ti I= y p' i ]I 1 s A, Z' i g 5 n
; a g g l g,. R y a s 55 .$ t l 3 <
g p r! s p! a ., 4:9 % a n p%: Rh # . 3 1 ! S A I l: ,. r d nq I%. a .. a ,i d
. ,i o a
, 4 r 's TbE]M~ % R .s n 1 o 8
; jg , ,
1 a f n ,. 'g 6 d - ',. * ..$ r ".;r .t .--
'a>
' ~# 3 " I '
i g 3 s : o 4 i I _ i :. il d 3h$$,Ph ! l ns ' [=*] 5 r : 2 i 41,
"$k) M N b 3 i l g N h !! f@ , !. k, 4 Re .yn le -
J. D M5fN i I v .v..,...~: v:..g;jr :.) 7.. r y ,-. >p, ,',o q ' Q Qg. jy(}i]c- M-5. Y@Q {.). y_. 13 5 9i ', N. J 'Y , h. hh* .s' .]. ny,qd['p.?s!F
;p y g b
$6k6 [e - I ,8
~
l
',~.. },T p. . . $ 4
'j C
b [y. u g\b, y i-r 4
'GL
- -r.._.k__7 r -
. , r - u .-
%_.. - qr3; .
4, I}'d {_,E:. gA
*h t . -
n ~$ I.~i,,' ~ y
/ .<C g f .s -
f [j d ' 1
-.. Wl (4 ,. -
- Ma r. .1 1; w$
ge
.g3 - g l l D4J[ ', #
~
E i H R ,
Y O. ff II s, ,
, c
- i .. ,,
~,. ;,;' j ,.gE j ,j5j j
's .L,g) ,,
^
F- -L . - '-
.s h k i h_ g v . t a._3g er s.
ga r S 4
* ,y_ J s a u ~ p sr a . h YW , =Y
~
Y E k1 . . .
; ... dr.I, .
Tk ,, ..,. - -
- c. .
w
'N3k,')w' 7 [* ,
kg;[.y.;; 4 I *g *
"C- '
5 py gi%-w --.a.2 .. . . -p '
.na;,q.m; v __ 7 g_- 1. - 4f 8e 'W,'vFie* _m -'.MN
.m-_-- L'#4 8#' Y. Of--- _ _ _ _
,. , , r v ,- ,
.~
(
~
_ ,o . s .
l
.: - m, -e. ,
M?r.y.. .m<w@ww.8,p. .: ' W w f,.o w ,,c, % g m y.. .. tg, '.
-...m---.-
# cs I s .
.O $_ &
~
A A
$
- f ,*,,, 9 a:lf -
n i ii 5b7 3
'f O s 3 3 a. . 4 ys 4 k ,.I.E i ~p h 3f c l 'g a
_. - I a y s e
*;h
.fQg I -
'f) x -Q'- ,
Q h ll L.
~
- S =
I!,T ;- 7~f ' '
.5 sia ri d I II I
5 1
'h,ks6g V 4 l
l .
- o. g. [] ~ n ~ ~ %
y u - e i e w ' y e g:,
- n.
e 4 y -
\ < Y, r e
n r t
- O4 1 q
% *0 / 7Y s- U l ,<.dj E
_ d' il { N\. <4 W O; '-
*?( . 6 ~ *2 kN* ! !d , t$- bs k M
I
/
' { '
',,, 3
, q]e.> x- w .- !Y \
. c.J'[ i M'[g5;[e 6s*h
<- . _ >=mme e -
a g
.-n..;g.r.,9;g.. -
,,2g.g ,
' ' ' . - Pi kdU i w : wg,6j<MS.< .^ : t t t 9 ,;.;:: .__5 M:.
,,Q t u
,- 3 ..
91-4 . -. , . - %: -Q W. . . l
<e m ) t,.x e :c .-
q, s s <;-. J g ,, 3 h,- .3/ >a q 5, . g,, . f (j y . x. s j., 's N .
"Q. #mdf~ ,mm m s h
j' j s ,,g
,i-i w . ,..g s-..
-h._ _4.. _-,7 Q e' .). ,g r,'
%.-ga -
, ~
}
,f : "
- -4 _ -yg* yg.# . , ...s>. .T ,, l. '.
~* *
.h : ,, : ,
.. (-* 2>. W ,
- c:'
t'
;..;; v
; . ;. At -'.
.-.7.
.:.g; G... Y 'h f:. {:j t. .- .
- i. h, \
- p. ::
Q.~ .. .. v .+-m
. , . n., . ::~
- n. .'i.;:.;. . J n*;-i. c 1
^
%..~ - .
.: a
.0 ~4 .
.. r. ~
g ?) .\ .
.e s. m y , -
.: s -
g
- g . '
Q :,4 1 he .........i...e,. . E , ,
' k;.
^
A g o \ j'.,
- 5. .'. # -@.T p 4 at_ * \- 'a
($ . ..z a
.( ~
.a . . .
- 4 3*
j
.ai
.,, , ., - o , ,
< F 1 " ' , . s g
..- i V im s*' x__ -. :. 5 i O '$ )* *
.+
i \ '9, hw g,iM;E:. - a
. <W:h%2'-T@3 w -
w -
% <. :: -c~ s. :-..- > -
eem.j&gkh g /.. A,.&
$1m .
,N. .S . y ,. ;.. u.;;.g.-g g g 5s u r.e
_ _ wp. l x - pyt ;-
~
g
. i. .c ,k
- y. . .r.
~
. MIDLAtO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN AfO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
. FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008-F M2 REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/1/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/l2/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION Or FINDING: Hanger location for hanger H-10 was field measured to be approximately 3' f rom its design location (along the direction of the pipe axis) as shown on the piping isometric drawing. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel and ensure that processes are in place which would ensure that field modifications to the design are accurately and consistently reflected in the design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): l REFERENCES ONCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): l Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14(Q), Rev. 13, & Rev. 14 - OCR 3201-008-C-032 ( Spec. 7220-M-326, Rev. 8 " Installation, inspection & Doc. of Pipe Suports" j SIGNATURE (S): l DT HAL JB DKD FINDING REPORT PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROJECT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE
~ '
MIDLAFO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008-Z .032 REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/I/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FitOING (OR REFERENCE DOC. NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Hanger location for Hanger H-10 was field measured to be approximately 3' from its design location (along the direction of the pipe axis) as shown on the piping isometric drawing. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION: The dimensions appearing on the piping isometric drawing utilized to locate pipe hanger H-10 have been changed to reflect the as-measured and as-installed location. Since the piping isometric drawing is being revised to accurately locate hanger H-10, the piping stress analysis will be revised to analyze the as-installed loca-tion for hanger H-10. TERA will review the revised piping isometric drawing and piping stress analysis. (The piping isometric drawing is the controlling design document for input to the piping stress analysis). Procedures and processes have been revised and implemented which are designed to ensure that field generated modi-fientinns to hanger locations are compared against the piping isometric drawing. RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION: Bechtel Procedure FPD-2.000, FCR/FCN Procedure, has been implemented as the procedures controlling the revisions to Marked-up Dwg. 7220-H-639, detail hanger dwgs., replacing the pre-Sh. 14 (Q) , Rev. 14 viously used red-line procedure. The above actions, when coupled with the CCP & PSDIV programs, indicate that CPCo & Bechtel have implemented significant progr am modifications to control & verify field-generated changes to design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): TERA continues to evaluate the implementa-tion and outputs of these programs (refer to " Recommendation" section of OCR-C031) I as they specifically relate to piping sys-tems within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries.
~
l SIGNATURE (5): DT HAL JB DKD FINDING RESOLUTION PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROJECT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAto INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT l TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN FILE NO. 3201-008 CONFIRMED X DOC NO. 3201-008. C 033 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 7/12/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 7/12/63 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 7/12/63 CPC/DESICN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3-Ic Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: Hanger H-7, a vertical and horizontal restraint type hanger is not installed per redline dwg. nor per hanger isometric. E/W - redline dim 24-51" west of centerline, H-639 Sh. 14 calc'd dim. 31'-0", measured 28'-10 19/32" N/S - redline 38' -1 dim. 37' 40'8 15/16 1/8", measured south of centerline, H-639, Sh. 14 calc'd dim.
- 2 17/32" SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
Change to design caused by construction / installation activities may not neces-sarily be fed back into design finalization process in an accurate and consistent manner. Updating the isometric with erroneous redline data for stress analysis may lead to higher support loads and piping stress than calculated. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : Confirm that as-installed dimnsions are indicated on the pipe isometric dwgs. - the document controlling input to the pipe stress analysis. Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that field changes are consistently and accurately reflected in design documentation. Quality review against ECR, ECN, redline or other change documentation prior to in-corporation may help. COMMENTS BY SRT (iF REQUIRED): i l l REFERENCES (INCL RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): l Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14(Q), Rev. II, Rev. 13 & Rev. 14 & attached redline for H-7 Spec. 7220-M-326, Rev. B installation inspection & doc. of pipe supports SIGNATURE (S): RCS DT HAL JS OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN CHARGE 7/11/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
I .
~
.. /'Y.HAC)q W
,m.,, :.msc-, .. . ..
, .. . .rc .m.w. .. .r . . . . . . . - # :s,.
r
. r . . <
, .y 3 4,, z
,.g
.=
.. ). _
dA . ,
= - - - -. = w > .
n . a. N *- g .; . ,, M 1> : ; [ ]r y'. -; w c r n .e w. == - a , g ^ , J_*Q* v : i u , , . i, .
. * ** f M Sfr ig a. -
4, ,-, r #6 g5a S l L
,gygg
, f , , .
.. st- m u y . u , -
g .-n ... 3 ,
=, ., j , ,y g . I ,.
.i I U r., PJ,'.- 1 f, 'I .sy ,l p - - = l Y.Tr
~
- -,{, '
l ,
.-h r#
% W 2
c ., [ 4 - y:, : r (
=
pq T c" ' 7,
$--F s
;lluj l mais
; g; . 1 .
M." I l- 'D. h 11 w I-
' a
! . , a i g M..-
g[ q' o a r ..i,1 . L ra n is l j i . y _ j - . g j- idF i ca } h, g 4
.? t' l i
l g GG
- ". q - -
1 i
< B, .,.
=<
g gg
$h:- k h
- M:.#-- i- - "sR :
-M i is I D I f =
- l 1 I -2 '! !,. , .. g.:e Y G pa Rn t . .. .. $ m -
< n ,
E ka d.,: ( ) ': I E
~( .a.
- 1 4- [ Q i ! Q. !s ~'a .
i sa 8 a C g ?- *'gl . p 1 4 ;M 'f .a I
- 0 4
v' 0Fq g f ,fa E N g c
- t j Q -
jd 8e i %
~ '
e; - rt i )
! $ ga ._d d 1; h' g E i t . s
- Ls .]
< I l ,
C I-U j-1 - 'i J t; g ih4- -= I 3' 4 o z a =t f I 3 )A "! 1 (i =.kmit ' ((-
~ .'
- T, I [,
I. .-
, D E !c a . $ $ . .
Es W.4-1 + e : T l set-
. . s.
3
- .E 3 <
_s 8 % j
.i c<<o p
[{g<, .,. c .t t lq f j 1 , E -
+) . - . t-*
F.
,.; g ..
- < a 1 q. o
. .- .I [W .
a -[- w s bh) ,, wh ;. :i qen
.t t :
e ,u p. ' s - 3 I 9 1:5.. 4 . J , [ .I Nq mL N. j
" E
!f. D h . J ?
@ $ .' i .- .
". 18 ,
~ ~
$$k kh hiYi- N $#ptr. ? 'E,. ! .
j q
-sp F (. 4 p] gp 1
~
=- '
-4 L" i f,5 3 w E <
M.
~: . ..g
~pd,d'1W4 .
$$. 2 .:) 4...g i p%
> ddL s
! Ofctg ,' ,
- A
- f g- d-
*?
#.e,:. ,;#.no'."a
- E .*p
>:I8M s D. Y'A '
- h @ c* s s ;-
a e n
=. - e -
. . . t. - .
.. ~ , :Q
;,,Ls t.r+ C- ~%
s e 2,f (,. h :*
- ibly *
*- in
~ .
f
.c 'p,* ~
W'yyg.y y ..x.
= .o ' ':1g .]r.wW t
7 g:y'[ .-r ( -F: j%gq; c:g. ! N
- I T1
*p ,A '
4 L : kf;.i yj *-)W [.N ..- $ f0 f(f.$ (l Jji n l n.;r *. a. - w a , P5nfu- 3:
. --eg .
F .
". ; . 4r . .
[ l d _ ' 'l:':" . s_ . .- k.tj,.. . $; b:$; . . J .s ~g Q .$e -:y. . ; -
~
g . .c ,
.,g.
t3 e =1 . ., E C:. d l j:.
>. g T T- T a
.4 . - V.=* to n-
- e guy I- i g e u- -
q z- w ,
,[-{EIM M 'f' S;EpIw;p KE g[9 p$@q
~
; 4
[ g _. g 2.N 'if f)l"~' 5 t - . S - e . g'. - e ,a . j [ p,- . rN 'T f.d y '. :4 &L* '"V '. W . Y, $ t < [ sl.? f . .
}b -M d.}<.N,\ El f'jl h- -
~. ,;
gb
@;g. h._k' 9 5. ."}h.d u s --is .....r.+.
M 9 ,. 3 , .
. I : e
,R y w..
n ' 4+
,, _ s r
w -. 4, % t.,, y hE @. P.
- g. .c ,.'
. g, ..
m . . . -
- y. .a .... %.
~.1 .
. ..u s W,, . .
2
; .-.; u . :y '.;.. j".'......s. . p: *. .*[ .- .)/," , . g.. [.-.. %.[ff; !.. ,
,' y, n .
g.
- p .... - 9 Rb}' S s.:t m 9.. Ly. ..';; ,,
I'.,5Q%' g . M . M- , _ _ - l
....:. < i .,, . . - --- w W'As .
,@Q. ::v.w.- .., .
x: ma -mj. .,s. -- - - U
.V .
M ...-,w- __
. ).
l
- W. een . ..
w_ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _
. MIDLAto INDEPENDENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008. F 033 REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 7/1/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Hanger 7 location field measured to be 2' to 3' from redline dimensions. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Incorporation of redline data did not match field condidions stress analysis of erroneous data will not establish loading conditions representative of "as built" conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel and insure that processes are in place which would ensure that field modifications to design are accurately and consistently reflected in design documentation.
- COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED)
l ! REFERENCES ONCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639-Sh. 14 (Q) , Rev. 11, 13 & 14 - attached redline M-2-639-14(Q)7,Sh. 9of 45 i Spec. 7220-H-326, Rev. 8 Installation, inspection & doc. of p1pe supports I l SIGNATURE (S): DT HAL JB DKD l PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) FINDING REPORT PROECT MANAGER ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROKCT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE
MIDLAPO ltOEPEtOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FitOING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008. Z. 03 3 REV.NO. 0 DATES REPORTED TO: PROICT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 7/1/83 PRINCIPAL.lN-CHARGE 7/l 2/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Support DESCRIPTION OF FifOING (OR REFERENCE DOC.NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Hanger 7 location field measured to be 2' to 3' from redline dimensions. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION: Bechtel personnel have become aware of the dimensional errors and are in the process of revising H-639, Sh. 14 hanger isometric and related stress analysis I to conform to "as built" conditions. RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOW lNG DOCUMENTATION: Discontinued use of redline procedure, replacement with FCR/FCN procedures and implementation of the CCP and PSDIV programs. TERA continues to evaluate the implementation and outputs of these programs (refer to " recommendations" of OCR C-031) as they specifically relate to piping systems within the IDCV system sample selection boundaries. l f COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): l l SIGNATURE (5): DT HAL JR DKD FINDING RESOLUTION PROICT MANAGER PRINCIPAL lN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/81 DATE DATE DATE DATE e
MIDLAIO INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN Af0 CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
,} - OPEN, COfflRMED AfO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT F
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X D Ol 3 C -0 3 4 RESOLVED ITEM REV. NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/30/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/30/83 PRINCIPAL-IN CHARGE 7/I2/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCVPROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3 Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- Red-lined detail hanger drawing shows hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90 elbow than the actual, as-installed location. Red-lined hanger drawing depicts hanger installation on the N-S run of pipe; actual installation is on the E-W run of pipe.
Piping Isometric drawing shows hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90 elbow than the actual, as-installed location. Dimensionally the red-lined detail hanger drawing is correct - i.e., dimensions SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: for locating hanger H-4 are correct but the orientation of the hanger relative to E-W and N-S is incorrect. Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not neces-sarily be fed back into the design finalization Prccess in an accurate and consistant manner. Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping stress analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : leading to higher support loads & piping stresses than calculated.
- Confirm with cognizant Bechtel engineers that the as-installed configuration of Hanger H-4 is incorporated into the detall hanger drawing and the piping isometric drawing.
Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that the as-installed configuration is consistently and accurately reflected in design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q) Rev. 11, attached redline for H-4 l Spec. 7220-M-326(Q), Rev. 8 " Installation, inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports" { SIGNATURE (Sh DT DT HL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
.. =. . .. .. ...
l
..r.
l
.v_ . . .. r - 2. ~, ;
sx.3 3, .,
- 5. n.
, , g q
,J..#A. c $ C .U'i . hathM'. p> an ..n Y.'h.j;'k ._ _..~ .-- *- h*
> u N E['",..'s$..$. es.skpf r.: ... v2 ,
aman .ta.dra n. n.-6 1. =tas.atea. =d e a x wmr,u.- ee ,mz,.... ,. i ..
.r ...... ~. w . ,,,,,.. iw,33 ... , .
.n,
..' , n. . p :. ....; -
. '..v*s
- s. c .e G.i... a *R'd.s. ;. .
1-
/,s sts. # f 9 . Peen.s use s. hertE.#' x
. r -
.t,
.wtok.t ,o , . . . . . - - . - - [
==saat .= men *rt.e e.e . .sa. =4 a.-sm.
.s - -
1 .im. eu, .m .a .w*.
~
1
'r. .- - . Exists ~ . .
4
.,,.n.a n a . ssin
) r r i ,f, ;. ..e . , ' WSkz(,.
2 . e ' . ,, (I .
~"**'""*"'%.*""'"***~~2h. " N
\. l
'~~ .* .w ' Mic. , : :7f '
y .~ ~~
. . . 's W. as. 2*- i . a.a. et.. 14e. .n uma. 1 ira * ~
4Ci _ ; - ., , Q,
- g 3 __ @ . ,
It b v2 s s J=4
- - _aov. saan : x m.-fan _
} /e W s. et . se. =ta .
'9..,.
4' ' *
.'. ,, , .o L,_. - c -e. s.. an. a .i isis t aus_ , a, .
- i. t '., - ', . .;
its m4 r r3. e 3et toum .. W ' ' t- . x- _. . . .--< i
. , id
( 7 -
~
he - --,' m 1 -s 6 F' Yu. - n *';7sr.36 h . 9 m .: w ni 3
*- 7 m_ ,_ cQ i,.2 --
so := . , . * . h . 5 i .. -
.m . z. -
*sh _% ft.G3S:0- _m --< .-
o pn=x z-xz x o z ton awreip tse.3s3 - ,
; k.1 . ... ' . 6*Efo&*' ' , ' ,
s . . ~. e' _ SECT 10g A.A. Y._---."
. ., N >
- sosasee L ysa
- ~~
~D*-~:,w--<.- ?
(, ' -
. I E t
, 1 H ic # 6*.z e e s-6 -H +
[: o.1.7.j[ 9 f. Aert.y oNI COAT OF CARSO 1**"~~~"*- '*
- d--. --
' """ d' h l U-T f# zinc .To eu. =4T i. s.scu -
E 8 H 8Bt eEEEE ~~ "" '
;,Q b N#I#0AI-d 7 \ggyj trms EXCEPTTH'DS TO BE COATED
* *" "082 Pasvrarniva - r. u ... .. m g Dasaus. _
hh s n . d y~ ,- -- M'f .' u i 7' -
~
'ustzi-f*8Aam.Ts4,sruosin g c' y
'.' C0"o^ncgwf -J so nae
- nois caso n.e . ..
e. t
. e, - = m, =
..m.
p6p. .. Q ,, -
- 3. 3IQbW.'.t .
_w M rsoJ W . y O g
..,t- 'c, w monennt a urest tasaggesaggy ? -
- - . sea e c.
.n 9.,<
s. corse.W;
, .e 7
g.
; ,5. . ? TYP. EN . COM <_ r.. ,
r w' L
~
. . .4
'9.r' . ' p'
. ; . .: . *p'; ,', I g FAULTso . . <- . -
d . g..
'- . :La. .' .
r .*
-(g
~
i
/ c gil. gy"*1**. T
- I 4, _ IT k 1 f j' c. L t . ItEF.DRAsuuse 81Unastas .ff3r3fg '4p d 'g Pg,Es N-75 RE*4 ELsCT; E-&st Iky.2 f E,GJ
. ..-. . '!(.une we.a so. im.o reocasses l smass. teocroun7s ts tocarne.a.am. . srstLt-a28 Av.2.stvp, ai.s3s gotA %. . .g, x
.{. ,w
.y o &x issoeD woat t' g gaj a g,-.., g- Qetc ,,g, Avson a4H HD ahf *sK'8'".'
custossenca,,,,,, ,,,,,c ,,,,
, . - . . . . . . . . . - ofy Jf"N sd M oncen on coast. sea
- r. : . dalnam -
' H-639 EH 14 Revi1,v ,- r. P,"<!.- <-4 t i , . .- Joe annast -- :- 6 usa. inar't. b.
T;g$[1 .- imara Wimr ' J222l .9Tf*.' M 7 K V. O TV,@.7 G r.$srvy. 4 w v., : i C- 2 E e s.s. H + 58.8. v . h,O::Q, c }:.l{ ' 'w wassm.s> .n m.m .. + w i. >. . v .
, naams sea w :-.a .
. ,,ana . s, . ,u e ~
dA,.M.1 d.I-UIsuWtiesE'.@ d ,M'8 ( M .D "'V-MEMMII'FIE.ags@mi,he.@ 6,.G.,,1 yr g,, .= A arm. e$ET 6 0F 4 5 s,..' (*;, ftEV. O//i 1 s
~
, MIDLAtO INDEPENDENT DESIGN AfC CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION i .
FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008E 034 REV.NO. DATES REPORTED TO: PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MCR. 7/1/63 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEMS (S). OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Detail hanger drawing and piping isometric drawing show hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90* elbow than the actual, as-installed location. The drawings depict hanger installation on the N-$ run of pipe-actual installation is on the E-W run of pipe. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATlON: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineering personnel and ensure that processes are in place which would ensure that the as-Installed configuration is accurately and consistently reflected in the design documentation. l l COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Dwg. 7220-H-639, Sh. 14 (Q), Rev. 14 OCR 3201-008-C-034 SIGNATURE (S): CT HAL JB 'DKD FINDING REPORT PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
~
- SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROJECT TEAM 7/1/83 7/12/83 - '7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE ~ DATE DATE
=
u s W
MIDLAPO ItOEPEIOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FINDING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201 008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON. SAFETY DOC NO. 3201 008. Z. 034 REV.NO. DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROXCT MGR. 7[1/83 PRINCIPAL.lN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING (OR REFERENCE DOC.NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Detail hanger drawing and piping Isometric drawing show hanger H-4 on opposite side of 90' elbow than the actual, as-installed location, the drawings depict hanger in-stallation on the N-S run of pipe-actual installation is on the E-W run of pipe. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION: The orientation of Henger H-4 as depicted on the detail hanger drawing & the piping isometric dwg. has been marked to indicate that the as-installed location of the han-ger on the E-W run of pipe next to the 90* elbow. The detailed hanger dwg. & piping isometric are being revised & will be reviewed by TERA upon completion of the revision . Since the piping isometric dwg. is being revised, the piping stress analysis will alsc undergo revision to analyze for the as-installed location. TERA will review the re-vised piping stress analysis. Procedures & processes have been revised & implemented which are designed to ensure that the as-installed configuration of piping hangers & supports are accurately and consistently compared against the piping isometric drawing. The above action, when coupled with the CCP and PSDIV programs, indicate that CPCo & Bechtel have imple-mented significant program modifications to control & verify as-installed configura-tion to design documentation. TERA continues to evaluate the implementation & outputs of these programs (refer to " Recommendation" section of OCR C-031) as they specifi-cally relate to piping systems within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries. RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION: Marked-up drawing 7220-8-639, Sh. 14(Q), Rev. 13 COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): SIGNATURE (5): FINDING RESOLUTION PROXCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROXCT TEAM DATE DATE DATE DATE 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J
MICLAtO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT X FILE NO. 3201-008 TYPE OF RfPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED DOC NO. 201-008f . 035 RESOLVED ITEM REV NO. 2 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/27/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. ) STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports IDCVPROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic l.3-Ic Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- Hanger H-ll is correctly shown on the detailed red-lined hanger drawing, approved by the cognizant resident engineer.
Changes depicted on the detailed red-lined hanger drawing were not factored into the piping isometric drawing. When changes on the detailed hanger drawing are factored into the piping isometric drawing, a change of I'2" in the locating dimensions for Hanger H-Il will occur. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not necessarily be fed back into the design finalization process in an accurate and consistent manner. Since the piping isometric drawing is used as the input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : Confirm that as-installed dimensions are indicated on the piping isometric drawing - the document controlling input the the piping stress analysis. Review existing processes and procedures utilized to ensure that field changes are consistently and accurately reflected in the design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): [ REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Drawing 7220-H639, Sh. 14 (Q), Rev. II, attached redline foil H-il Engineering Evaluation 3201-001-001, pages 7 r, 8 SIGNATURE (5): DBT DBT HAL JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT HAM IN-CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
&.. x...
-k1 fyj f
- T/ &
_ 2 .":. 5;"'h, .
;;iFF-- .".3 f.. .
r-~ C !M . . :*.u- <- c # *- C '.#1 g FA% m w -
--.r s 2 . .
?,,,,
v e i n., -. , c n .,,.;
- , , ..c. <. ,
L 3..~3 m-
, s > . I s 5s w a x .
u n 2 v -
. 4 g .
y* ;
, m u -
p.j . 3 < .
, ac -
- * , ( af _ g
. ,. x 3 ' '
. 6 g g ,. ".]) la-l G lp. s Y '
I d ;- r!! 3
) d 4 <
/ x
. }> .'
, .J > .
g y T e - . ( ] 13
- i .. -- -
M %,, [g h '. $; f.
'j M '-
i Mt I i
- - + l a l- 9 - " "
( _4. . _ _ O *
.g It d e h,i
@flg h..
g s , (1} p
- 9 e j . .
)t; -
f \ N. * ; # z ,
.t.
p[ h e j f h i - 88
.h 1
- ;r.. 2 - .. a
.. t.s. ',. r.. N. s ..- ,.
._ . ; t j
Q p kp( N li e .l Ty .
?.
3 1 1 6 j .*
+ - . , - ;
6 . , -
- :: < .q L ..
g
,[
.r 1 .
. i, t ,.. .
k h. I! ((N l . S 1.! I $3
!. [ s 1
),
} .
/,:.y:
1 ' 1 h,. i 3
, e t . g .- b. ;.a ..
n u t 9 .' ' g i g J :1 - g, s . h y --
- W g
- iI ~.g .
1 I a
; = '
l y 5e c . ... vg4 D t e !! ! !
?
[-[ 15 s E 1 s 91
' ~
"- pumbin l. .;.
! p+...
N. 4
,. < s
.Qw , , < ..
9, I ,e i -: .' 1
;sr;'u :
. s. ?R y .*
r y 4 se gr[ 1.,.
-i
- g. ,
.1 g ,1 c ..i ..3.1g.
g i<
~
q_. j _,q.c..g ~ .. g.
.. n ve-%H9.t yy .[, .
4 ,
~
5.
. a 9
- h. _!.M$ $ his., $am:f 4.
; ,. :. :. m F .,.:
. 5Y.h . N.i cs -
2 c.
'.,,i m ,L.#5 u g,s., g p w-._.
~., .. .
- g. a : + i ,!
g.,:n y\* a - U sn ' y 7- . n e_ 2.m y y g yi i g : ' .t , Y ., ,i %Nl% .J . j> lMWWl$gjp";,. . .:-- 9.$ . l i ' :D
?
$ i M.
i R.,5 r g p_ g g h! .h: M'@4MMjskN?O NFygy:7 M M j
,i. y , u . 7 .. ,s . p y. g ..
g i,
...i.4 3
- s. .
,=. ..
~ . - a a .a
,3 , ,,
..v.e
. .s . -
.J !Ba a
< w+ .,, ,h r ..... r ,;. m .
. L.i
.1 ey-A.1t'3 * ..A c.,,
. I ..m .
8.. $: :4.w 8. ;.- . . . ;; m .. _ y. , ie F ;,J,.,,.,, }. a 1 '.'.. > ... . . . : . c, .. ~ .9
.-4* .
... !. 4 . 5
.r== w.s u ,. :x u.;'; c
.', y.~;
s' :sg ' y. }' tt
~
y :qp =.a. - ty
]*
....z, .
~. . . , , ~ -
$ hYN h#f #Y ? - .Y h? -h h d'@.;~..,jp([k"!f ' s .s@i\a Qw-$4'
- - . @g p;p$$. $, y mmw. }
, ~.
Ws,6 .*. . . . . . .;ie - -
**.m e y - *.;.
.pract.gqeWstesup:4avv.tresr W v < se w .:.r. . . - )
. , .: ..,9 .._ . .
- .w_ . ~ . - l ;:-
) . k. ., ,
M .f.i.y, ,Y S M I N i M *. . e. 4 . c. . - 6 ,: '-
. . . . . . ~ . . . . .
pM " 4q. (Gg;>.a;', w +.. .,FQ.H .
. . . g. . , .. . . ; ;
A. .h..,. f3 . -. . g..,... ..
.o -.
*}' c, " h.'. * .
8 $0 h .f ~ -
. .s . , . w
) 5. ' ,
gm e= e. r,) .
..l e>.-
- s. w = po ~,: .',d.
t v. 2 i -
.s -
- y. .u.. . ..
g n .. . am. g a .2 n;.0,. i
, ~%;g. ,. o .. -
c c : 9 !
; gy ,g. *,. :*
e4?. t.v .~ .
. , a g in ~*:.'
. IM $ g -
g 11 u ts yM ..Q: :y1 t..
..Q t
. - e,.c, ..* .
a . d./ .; . ..- .
. ... .. .,. f. ,
- ge9,48'.=p. .; i
;}*]&jr i IT. "
T a,{g M... i
- .r.-(.i5}as L j. . T 7.- c se 5:dyi
.i .* ,.-
< 'T - ti 2 +mJ! Si s
.'p.
d' ': ,' .q' {.M lj,1. - *
-4k,'
j -
.,g . . -
g*
'I a.y,y
'i .g.'w'.E.'.T.fg .
f. i ( -
.; i , p,, ".
,' h,'#,h:P.i .. . '
!.i "-u :
k ! ": > >. , p. Q h.b[". .h.i ',c,.,yf.:
...v*.- . e. ;
$ , .* , . bl
!: g g,
!". q i1 t
.c * ., . l - ? t-
,. a4* g.,
- g. g, e- ((- VJ l
[ .
. :2c - 3o .
, w' ,5:.., s.
t, - -e d. e
= l li
- t a ..
i q y. : #. ,
. v.r. . . . .
4 4. . % gl g [g .t
.c .
Y- -
} ,
* *. *, f, '-
p E'Y{. g' . E,. f: , ,. . . . ~:
. , . n.
e a .;
,..,.,f.,,,,_
~
;w eEj,9:. . 6-, - X+ . . ,* .
s - !
- 4 c.
c_ , . s . . s. _ _ . . _ . _ . . - 5 -
= m ,
- - - ~ -- -.9%%):' Wyg .es t J - . / t:f M r.ty,'.t r,.su s.- Qu ip.5.
l d q,. W
. pn*.M
,, e
** V . ,.
# t g
r-f -
, A t2 . .4,e f....<w-g - ' *
.t
.n
.c.
** l , fjYX*: ;T. .
I s) .g** t a6
.w' ' ,(J :.- .e, .1 2
._ _ . . v'.. o .,
., . . ; -- -a 4 ;
e 3 ye p O
$ I k* en ". .V;
%,s. 7- .s '.
- t, e
- fa. '
. . m .
. ,, s .s e e a
~
$.#b? %. .4
+ *n f. * - *
- Cb a ,3.-ft, .,$
~
. 's'e . ... ,, O . $
s' i J ' '
\ .,. *f,'s .4 .fy,
- t, ol W
5 Q. s. ','.,%* . .." . .: e a % . Y an ,
- s. e by V '
ik'.'
't , I..k .
i
. ~--$ .
v ,J.r~ m ! \ @ .. .
, p d l
. r
- y'.1 z -6
^
c f I t
'fc l5 4<
].i D
. .a .'-- - '
i y? . zig *
- f, p(. ...7 t-
. . -),1 ' . ,
3.. ,s .,,+ .,r" .
. e..- *
- k' a,d, **. .- 1 y'Y% -'
s.. . ,. b ; * . .]a- ; 1] .
.') - ...+ 6 e;.( * , ;* .' . . k.,b. : yj; , ..( )
f ?d." .' Cif,- , l
. 7 h-f+.~ W *.e.r
- 1 - g"r 'f
. . - - . . = -
3, - ' .
, , . . .. . .: .. . . ..: n.. . a .. . : t- * .;i 4 .,
_ m w -_m.w s=.s,% N r
. y [ ' ; g y r A.,.t.' s L u..; ; y m ..._ -- Y.- -
O
.. .s
.- +AT ;EN -P-/t
~
,. . . . :, >-.. :u .. - ..... ..-- : .' .-
J. 'l
. =
< q
.e ,
$' d
.= ,. O g
=I -
4.: 'd j (
- hb ,' '.r-1 O _-i 4 .g ;r f
b I! "3 '.
- N d*n 'r - .
4lg + I B-Q 4, Y
*i i/ .*
'.j ',Y I-
- . x--
N as 6 y u =g r
.3 e .. c ... .: > .a P U - .l S
~ ok, bl,$,I,.k 2 -i _
*~'
20 i.l l
;o J *k g g Isf % .
t 's ' Il k.
- ~ :,
-s L:
e, ..
.,. .- i j ,l dy e
>= v. I J
- a. p 2., v. J I
% Q s S I
*E d Y. 1
!il u = .a, .T tt ' I t .
.o . -
l I
,a '
' ,.!llji.
* .l
~ t
, ,.a hp .' 2 i o E a dE.e
_. .. = u ci =~ 4
% 29 s E ol' g #
t i i e ,ea 3 m? 6. .7 g 6, , I
= 64 ,<r*a a*. '
e
~ =4 aw p . 6 t I
wW es*J , gg .,_,, n.
.N ,
+ Le #t - ,
a. w
- zw .
- f. ' $ { -$ @
s r x 4:
".ar t '
s .
,_ g u,e.
.c: ,
E -E-1 j gyy, g , % 6" l. l g ~ acm i {&-3 ~ ,,,4 <t ;; -
~
+ 19 o .
or n sE2 pa 7 *
- 4 4sy D ul w
W u .. {. @ o . 9e +
. <g x
~
y 7
~ .J rJe ss -
a 4- r2 < c
. a :;
. - . - e . . . . . .
ry'3 o J 5 5 a UE-> + 2 4ods a
~- 2" d d W V Ch
.' 4
, i .
. - l e w
'IQ >M
=
.4 b-
'~
T ' ~T I__ __~ -- -
- " ' ' ' ' ## ~~ ~~
M MIDLAPO INDEPEtOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION [. FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008- F- 0% REV.NO. O DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROXCT MGR. 7/I/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/l2/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Hanger location for Hanger H-ll was field measured to be l'2" from its design location as shown on the piping isometric drawing. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Since the piping isometric drawing is used as input to the piping stress analysis, the piping analysis for this portion of the system may be adversely affected lead-ing~to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated. RECOMMENDATION: Pursue resolution of finding with cognizant Bechtel engineers and ensure that processes are in place which would ensure that fic1d modifications to the design are accurately and consistently reflected in the design documentation. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): REFERENCES ONCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Drawing 7220-H639, Sh. 14 (Q), Rev. 14 OCR 3201-008-C-035 Engineering Evaluation 3201-001-001 SIGNATURE (5): ) DT HAL JB DKD FINDING REPORT PROXCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROXCT TEAM l 7/1/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE
M o MIDLAPO IlOEPEIOENT DESIGN AfO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
., FitolNG RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008 Z. 035 REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: PROICT TEAM /PROECT MGR. _]/1/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEMS (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FitOING (OR REFERENCE DOC.NO. OF FINDING REPORT): Hanger location for Hanger H-11 was field measured to be l'2" f rota its design location as shown on the piping isometric drawing. DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION:
- The dimensions appearing on the piping isometric drawing utilized to locate pipe hanger H-11 have been marked & the drawing is being revised to reflect the as-measured and as-installed location. TERA will review the piping isometric drawing upon completion of the revision.
Since the piping isometric drawing is being revised, the piping stress analysis will also undergo revision to analyze for the as-installed location of hanger H-II. TERA will review the revised piping stress analysis. Procedures & processes have been revised & implemented which are designed to ensure that field generated modifications to hanger locations are compared against the piping Isometric drawing, Bechtel procedure FPD-2.000, FCR/FCN Procedure, has been imple-mented as the procedure controlling the revisions to detail hanger drawings, replacing the previously-used red-line procedure. The above actions, when coupled with the CCP
& PSDIV programs, indicate that CPCo & Bechtel have implemented significant program modifications to control & verify field generated changes to design documentation.
TERA continues to evaluate the implementation and outputs of these programs (refer to
" Recommendation" section of OCR C-031) as they specifically relate to piping systems within the IDCV systems sample selection boundaries.
RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION: Marked-up Dwg. 7220-H639,Sh.14(Q),Rev. I COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): SIGNATURE (5): DT HAL FINDING RESOLUTION PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) j REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM l 6/30/83 7/l2/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE I l
MIDLAto INDEPEtOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
- OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT X
F' TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED DO O. 2 - 84 036 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. 2 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/27/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/30/83 PRINCIPAL.IN. CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System Piping IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE): Topic 11.2-1 Pressure Boundary Drawing Review DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The offset dimensions to the reactor centerline are not consistent with dimensions given along pipe centerline as follows: Distances between DP 270 and 280, 280 and 285, 300 and 306. Differences range from 5/16 & 7/16. Drawings that have been signed have not been adequately checked. SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Inconsistencies in design drawings could lead to deviation of constructed structures, systems & components from design assumptions; however, in this specific case the noted discrepancies would have no impact upon the piping installation or design and are primarily due to inattention to detail during the dwg. checking proces i. Reference dimensions, as indicated above, are typically not used as input data to piping stress analyses. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : This OCR relates principally to more attention to detail being exercised during the drawing-checking process. A Finding should be issued and resolution should proceed in conjunction with C-031 to assess process oriented issues and the potential that similar errors could have adverse impact in other situations. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): i i l l ( REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): j Drawing 7220-H-639 (Q), Sh. 14, Rev. 11 & Eng. Eval. 3201-001-001, page 9 l SIGNATURE (S): DBT DBT AL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) i ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 6/30/83 6/30/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
l o MIDLAfO INDEPEbOENT DESIGN AFO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
. FINDING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-SAFETY DOC NO. 3201-008F 036 REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: PROXCT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 6/27/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 SRT 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM 5(S). OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System, Piping DESCRIPTION OF FINDING: Approved drawings (7220-H-639(Q), Sh. 14, Rev. 11, 12, 13, 14) have not been adequately checked. Dimensional errors on hanger isometric drawings were confirmed through dis-cussions with cognizant Bechtel engineers. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING: Inconsistencies in design drawings could lead to deviations of constructed structures, systems and components from design assumptions; however, in this specific case, the noted discrepancies would have no it.gact upon the piping installation or design and are primarily due to inattention to detail during the drawing checking process. RECOMMENDATION: Bechtel personnel have become aware of the identified drawing errors and have init!ated steps to establish corrective action. This activity should be monitored by the review team and selected drawings checked for similar crrors. Resolution should be considered in conjunction with activities associated with C-031. COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): OCR 3201-008-C-036, Rev. 2 Drawing 7220-H-639(q), Sh.14, Rev. 11,12,13&l4 Eng'g Eval. 3201-001-001, page 9 SIGNATURE (5): DT HAL JB DKD FINDING REPORT PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED) l ORIGINATOR (LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM ! 6/27/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 7/14/83 ! DATE DATE DATE DATE
" MIDLAiO INDEPENDENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION ' OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFlRMED X DOC NO. 3201008.C - nL c; ~
RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. I DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 6/10/83 SRT PROJECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR. 6/15/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 7/12/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED: AFW System: AFW Pump Motor 2P005A l lDCVPROGRAM AREA OR TASK (lF APPLICABLE): DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
- 1. Manufacturer's recommended storage instructions require motor shaft rotation every two weeks while motor is in storage (Ref: Vendor Doc. No. 7220-M14-68).
- 2. Bechtel procedure governing in-place maintenance (F-10-247) requires rotation of motor shaf t every 30 days (which has been accomplished). Warehouse storage procedure F-1-435 only required rotation every 90 days. The vendor recommends rotation every two (2) weeks.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: Failure to comply with manufacturar's recommended shaf t rotetion schedule for the motor may have a deleterious effort upon the shaf t bear ing surfaces, shaf t bearings, and rotating elements of the motor. RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION : Recommended motor inspection by manufacturer's rep. and ICV reviewer of motor bearing surfaces. COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED): REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): Bechtel Storage Procedure F-10-247 Vendor Document No. 7220-M14-68 SIGNATURE (5): MBJ DBT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED) ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 6/9/83 6/14/83 7/12/83 7/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE}}