ML20081C128

Svc Water Sys Operational Performance Insp Self-Assessment Plan

ML20081C128
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/08/1995
From:	GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20081C118	List: ML20081C114 ML20081C128
References
PROC-950308, NUDOCS 9503170129
Download: ML20081C128 (23)

Text

I i

.1 -

l ENCLOSURE TO C31195 2108 i P

GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION TMI-1 i

SERVICE WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE INSPECTION l SELF ASSESSMENT PLAN i

i MARCH 8,1995  !

l 9503170129 950310 PDR ADOCK 05000289  ?

Q PDR

ENCL 0SbRE PAGE 1 i TMI-1 Assessment Plan Service Water System Operational Performance Inspection (SWSOPI)  :

h 1.0 OBJECTIVE i i

To perform a self-assessment of the following TMI-1 Service Water Safety Systems to verify that the system design, operation, and performance meets the design basis and regulatory requirements:

Decay Heat River Water and Closed Cooling Water Nuclear Service River Water and Closed Cooling Water Reactor Building Emergency Cooling Water Consistent with TI 2515/118, Revision 1, the objectives of the SWSOPI are as follows: i

1. Assess planned or completed actions in response to Generic Letter ,

(GL) 89-13, " Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment."

2. Verify the Service Water Systems are capable of fulfilling their thermal and hydraulic. performance requirements and are operated consistent with their design basis.  ;

3. Assess the operational controls, maintenance, surveillance, and  !

other testing and personnel . training to ensure the Service Water  ;

Systems are operated and maintained so as to perform their safety- i related functions. ,

2.0 SCOPE The assessment will be accomplished by performing a comprehensive review of the above noted TMI-1 Service Water System components and system i performance including design requirements; operation, maintenance,. -

surveillance and other testing practices; maintenance and performance history; quality assurance and implementation of corrective. actions. To-ensure thorough coverage of the NRC temporary instruction, Attachment A '

(EPRI SWSOPI checklist) will be used to conduct the review. This 1 checklist may be augmented as appropriate by the team-leader.

3.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY This evaluation will be accomplished by performing a technical  ;

assessment which will begin with the accumulation of baseline l

)

ENCL 05URE PAGE 2 information in the form of System Design Basis Documents (SDBDs).

Overall system operation will be assessed to ensure it is being operated and maintained within its design basis to fulfill safety functions.

Emphasis will be placed on the evaluation of permanent / temporary changes made to each system and the impact on the original design and licensing basis as well as any impact on related systems and programs.

In addition, selected industry events / concerns which relate directly to these systems will be assessed. The TMI-1 response to Generic Letter (GL) 89-13 vill be reviewed in each of the subject areas. The assessment will be conducted using a team approach. The assessment team will review SWSOPI results from other plants and incorporate these considerations and lessons learned in the inspection.

The approach by subject area is summarized in the following sections.

3.1 DESIGN REVIEW The design review will assess the technical adequacy of each existing system concentrating on essential safety and functional characteristics.

The review will consider items such as design conditions and transients, component cle.ssification, equipment qualification, single failure criteria, potential flooding, common mode failure, corrosion / erosion due '

to flow and biological mechanisms, and a selection of other attributes that contribute to the effectiveness of the system.

The review will also include the impact of modifications on items such as:

System Design Basis Documents UFSAR Calculations Procedures and Tests i Plant Technical Specifications  !

Vendor Documentation Training 3.1.1 Mechanical System Review The scope of the mechanical evaluation will involve a design review of each system's components that are reouired to satisfy the operational functions of the system as described in the design and licensing basis. This evaluation will be primarily based on review of design documents, design change packages, discussions with plant and project personnel in the mechanical discipline, and a site walkdown of the installed syrtems. The design reviewers will interact with the other members of the team to provide an integrated desiga review and ensure these other review areas are consistent with design aspects.

t

T ?h"y

- ENCL 0SURE PAGE 3

. The overall evaluation -approach will be' conducted in multiple phases as described below:

l 1. Review those sections of the Updated Final Safety. Analysis l-Report (UFSAR) and Licensing Commitments which provide the.

licensing basis for the system.- Review Service Water System

Design Basis Documents which provide the system's original design basis and functional . requirements, as' well as post startup operation changes, thus establishing'the present basis for the current as-installed service water systems.

This portion of the review will identify the system's safety-and operational functional requirements.on which the inspection elements will be assessed.

2. Review the mechanical. discipline calculations associated with each system to determine if the system design bases are supported by calculations or other suitable documentation.

Assess the design margins provided.

3. Provide a review and comparison of selected design, purchase, installation, and equipmentispecifications to ensure proper interpretation and consistent use of specified 4 systems and component design conditions associated with design change packages. g

4. Review flow diagrams and piping drawings for consistency '

with design documents and licensing commitments.

5. Review design change packages for consistency with the specification design conditions and adequacy of 10 CFR 50.59 ,

evaluations.  !

6. Evaluate single active failure vulnerabilities of the  ;

systems (Reference Action IV-to GL 89-13).  :

7. Review interfacing systems for effect on service water system operability. .{

1

8. Determine if flow balancing has been conducted for various system operating modes.

9. Review the original basis and-the impact of design changes l on the Flooding Analysis (Reference NUREG.1275, Vol. 3).  ;

.i

10. Review the effectiveness of any design features installed to 'i minimize silting and biofouling of piping and components. j A site walkdown will be performed to facilitate evaluation of certain attributes such as interconnection and interactions, as-built configuration, component layout, access for operations, I

o

ENC (OSURE PAGE 4 in-service inspection, maintenance, physical separation of components, where applicable, and adequate consideration from the effects of weather.

3.1.2 Electrical.-Instrument and Control Review The scope of this evaluation involves a system design review of the Electrical, Instrument and. control aspects of each system.

The scope of the review includes the following areas:

Associated calculations, design margin ar.d setpoints.

System electrical equipment and controls.

Power sources supplying power and controls to that equipment (including instrument power).

Consistency with interfacing systems.

Field verification of a.-built design and configuration relative to design and licensing requirements.

3.1.3 Structural / Mechanical The evaluation will focus on the seismic adequacy of each system.

This evaluation will be made to examine the following attributes:

Consistency exists between the design and the licensing commitments (FSAR, SDBD, licensing commitment letters, and other applicable documents).

Calculations supporting design modifications are adequate.

Non-safety-Related portions of each system can be isolcted in accordance with the provisions specified in the design basis.

Performance of a field walkdown.

3.2 OPERATIONS REVIEW The objective of the operations evaluations is to determine that operators can perform the necessary activities to ensure that each system fulfills its safety functions. These determinations will be made by assessing the adequacy of the instructions available to the operator, and the availability of system status information, such as ,

instrumentation and alarms, at the time operator action is required. l Operator response to TMI-l simulator training scenarios will be  ;

observed, where possible. l l

l i

I

s, ENCLOSURE PAGE 5 Assessments of the operating instructions will consist primarily of a review of each system's procedures, emergency operating procedures, I alarm response procedures, and applicable standing orders. These procedures will be reviewed for adequacy (Reference GL 89-13, Action V),

completeness, and consistency with each system as modified. The review will also assess the impact of modifications on the operator's ability to perform required functions.

The operatoi training program, lesson plans, and course materials will be reviewed for each system. The review will identify the level of i detail the operators are provided in each system's design, safety functions, and operation methods. It will evaluate if modifications are properly included in the training program.

Other operational controls that ensure correct alignment of system valves and proper functioning of traveling screens will also be assessed.

Finally, assessments of the availability of essential system status information to the operator will be made. This status information includes each system's flows, pressures, temperatures, alarms, etc.,

which are required for initiation of operator responses, actions, and  !

decisions. These assessments will be accomplished by reviewing design documents, reviewing the control station area, interviewing operating personnel, and an in-depth system walkdown (Reference Action IV to GL 89-13). Particular attention will be given to the availability of each system's status information at the time when it's safety. function will be required and local operation of equipment.

3.3 MAINTENANCE REVIEW The objective of the maintenance evaluation is to verify that the maintenance performed on each system is adequate to ensure that it will perform its safety related function.

The evaluation will focus on the performance of maintenance as it relates to maintaining the functional capability of the systems.

Maintenance records will be reviewed to determine if all system safety related components are addressed by the maintenance program.

Additionally, the maintenance evaluation will supply and receive information from the other evaluation areas to ensure the actual interfaces used to communicate and document the maintenance process are assessed. The adequacy of programs and processes utilized for equipment failure trending, corrective actions implementation, and root cause analysis will be assessed. The adequacy of post-maintenance testing programs will be evaluated.

The approach used to reach the objectives will consist of assessments of the physical conditions observed during each system walkdown (Reference Appendix D of NRC TI 2515/118), review of applicable documents,

.+

ENCLOSURE.

PAGE 6 discussions with selected maintenance personnel and,. if possible, the witnessing of maintenance performed on each system.

3.3.1 Physical conditions will be determined through observation and backed up by the review of documentation such as maintenance history records, failure reports, and maintenance work requests.

From this effort the adequacy level of system / equipment maintenance will be determined. The system / equipment observations considered in the assessment. include; but are nnt limited to the following:

Leaks / general conditions Cleanliness / Labeling Environmental conditions where equipment is located Erosion / Corrosion (Reference GL 89-13, Action III)

Silting /Biofouling (Reference GL 89-13, Action III) 3.3.2 Documents will be assessed through review of maintenance procedures and guidelines which affect selected components within the system. The procedures will be reviewed for adequacy (Reference GL 89-13, Action V), completeness, and consistency with Vendor recommendations. Selected maintenance documents of the following types will be reviewed:

Preventative Maintenance Corrective Maintenance Maintenance Procedures Maintenance Work Requests Maintenance Training Maintenance History Maintenance Equipment Qualification Equipment Failure Trending 3.3.3 Maintenance training records will be. reviewed to determine if maintenance personnel are being trained in maintenance processes and procedures.

3.3.4 Maintenance evaluations will include critical components and/or equipment or components that have exhibited a high number of failures. The entire maintenance process beginning with the identification of a problem and ending with the closecut of the maintenance work request will be reviewed for selected maintenance activities.

3.4 SURVEILLANCE AND TESTING REVIEW The objective of the testing review is to verify that testing performed on each system is sufficient to demonstrate that they will perform their intended functions during the most severe operating conditions.

w e w - - ~ __ _ _ _ _ -

ENCLOSURE PAGE 7 The evaluation will focus on functional testing of the systems (and components within each system).

3.4.1 Testing evaluation will begin with the accumulation of design and testing baseline information for each system, including:

Initial preoperational test requirements and criteria Technical Specifications UFSAR Periodic and Surveillance Test Criteria Response to GL 89-13 Action I and II Plant Drawings IST Program 3.4.2 Selected samples of test data results will be evaluated and compared to the functional requirements of the system. These will include:

Samples of design change package test sections and test data to determine if specific test requirements are appropriate for the scope of modification; and acceptance criteria is adequate to verify that modifications to components /each system are properly implemented and completed and the intended function was adequately proven.

Sample of maintenance work requests will be evaluated to determine if post-maintenance testing requirements are adequate to' ensure components / systems have been restored to a fully operational mode.

1 Implementation and effectiveness of Actions I and II to GL 89-13 l will be assessed.

3.4.3 The surveillance and testing evaluation reviews will cover selected samples of the following components:

Pumps and Drivers l MOVs, Check Valves, Relief Valves Safety Related Heat Exchangers Support Systems Instruments 3.4.4 Interviews with certain operators, supervisor ~,s maintenance, and engineering personnel will be performed.

3.4.5 Other specific areas to be reviewed include: the effectiveness of testing to identify piping thinning and flaws, as well as the verification of total flow rates, the adequacy of current test methods to verify that intended results are correctly indicative

l ENCLOSURE-PAGE 8 ,

of the acceptance criteria, and the verification that surveillance results represent pipe conditions as well' as heat exchanger i conditions.

3.5 00ALITY ASSURANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REVIEW The objecthe of these evaluations is to verify implementation of the Quality Assurance program for activities such as on-site and off-site  !

review committees, corrective action, technical specification  :

operability determinations, trending and quality verification. The technical adequacy and. resolution for service water system events and conditions identified by the self-assessments will be reviewed. .These .

evaluations will also review whether the quality verification- '

organizations are looking for and finding substantial problems.

Additionally, included in these reviews will be an overall assessment of compliance to the Licensing commitments associated with GL 89-13 and the service water systems.

4.0 SWSOPI TEAM ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE Week 1 (4/10/95) - GPUN Assessment Team leader assembles documentation, arranges work locations for team, and trains assessment team members not previously involved in SWSOPIs. (0nsite)

Week 2 (4/17/95) - GPUN Assessment Team leader. conducts orientation and training with assessment team and assigns areas for review. Contractors are badged. Team reviews. 4 documentation and finalizes individual review plans based on SWSOPI checklist. (0nsite)

Week 3 (4/24/95) - Entire inspection and response teams meet for entrance meeting, walkdowns and personnel interviews, and starts documentation review. (Onsite)

Week 4 (5/1/95) - Assessment activities continue.onsite. Review outstanding questions / concerns from Week #3.

Week 5 (5/8/95) - Assessment activitit continue offsite.

Week 6 (5/15/95) - Assessment activities continue onsite and summary conclusions made. Tentative exit meeting with plant management /NRC on Friday, 5/19/95. (0nsite)

Assessment Team compiles assessment results and writes report. The draft report is presented to GPUN management for review by June 16, 1995. Final SWSOPI report issued by July 14, 1995.

1

~ _ _ -- - - . - - -

-ENCLOSURE PAGE 9 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES  ;

5.1 Technical Functions Division Vice President ,

Has overall responsibility for the SWSOPI self-assessment. Provides necessary resources for the establishment of an Assessment Team to successfully implement the requirements of this plan. Also provides resources to support implementation of a SWSOPI Response Team. ,

5.2 THI Division Vice President' Is responsible to provide plant support in the implementation of the assessment plan and for question / concern resolution associated with the ,

assessment process including potential operability issues.

5.3 Director. Technical Functions Mechanical Engineerino Department l

Is responsible for providing the overall project leadership necessary for the assessment development and implementation as well as resolution of assigned questions and concerns. Also ensures appropriate independence of assessment team members.

5.4 Assessment Team Leader Is responsible to direct the course of the inspection and to keep the inspection focused on the important issues. Is responsible to provide orientation and training to team members on the approach methodology and ,

overall expectations. Is responsible for reviewing and approving  !

checklists, supplements, individual review plans and plant responses to ,

all documented concerns, and for ensuring that team members  ;

appropriately follow through on questions and potential concerns. Is l responsible to promptly advise plant management personnel of potential l safety / operability items. Is responsible for developing a summary  !

report of assessment findings.

The co-team leader is responsible to assist and advise the Team Leader ,

in carrying out his responsibilities and acts for the Team Leader when  ;

necessary.

The SWSOPI Self-Assessment Team organization and interfaces are shown on Figure 2. Summaries of the experience of individual team members is provided in Section 6.0 below.

5.5 Assessment Team Member  ;

Is responsible to develop and implement a plan to evaluate the subject l area (s) assigned in the SWSOPI checklist. Each team member will keep l l field notes and a list of documents reviewed and personnel interviewed I i

l

4 ENCLOSURE PAGE 10 during the assessment. Each team member will write a factual account of how each objective was satisfied whether or not problems or concerns are uncovered during the review. Each team member will document questions / concerns using Attachment B.

NOTE: Key members of the team will be dedicated to the assessment by relieving them of their normal responsibilities. Key members include: Team Leader, Co-Team Leader, Design Reviewers, Maintenance Reviewers, Operations Reviewer, Quality Assurance and Corrective Actions Reviewer, and Surveillance / Testing Reviewer.

5.6 Support Staff The Assessment Team will have a staff of personnel to facilitate the inspection by providing clerical and administrative support, Licensing-related support, and technical support to assist the team leader and Assessment Team members as necessary.

5.7 Response Team Leader Is responsible for managing Response Team Interactions with the Assessment Team, and to ensure potential operability issues are adequately addressed in a timely manner by the Operability Screening Team. Ensures proper staffing to enable rapid response to Assessment Team findings and requests for information. The Response Team Leader also ensures proper communication of concerns, findings, and potential operability issues to plant management.

5.8 Response Team Membeic Team members within each assessmeat review area will develop responses to Assessment Team findings and open items, respond to Assessment Team requests for information, and facilitate plant walkdowns and inspections for the Assessment Team.

5.9 0_perability Screenina Team Is responsible for reviewing each finding or oper item to determine impact on system or component operability, and ensure communication of operability issues to plant management. Operability determinations will be provided by the TMI-1 Plant Review Group (PRG) with input from the operability screening team. ,

i l

1

. r ENCLOSURE PAGE 11 6.0 TEAM OVALIFICATIONS Assessment Team Leader T. M. Dempsey - GPUN Consulting Engineer, Engineering and Design Department, Technical Functions Division. Twenty-four years mechanical-nuclear engineering, and design experience, including thirteen (13) years supervisory and management experience.

Co-Team Leader P. C. Wagner - Engineering consultant (0GDEN) recently served as co-team leader on utility-sponsored SWSOPI at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station.

Mr. Wagner has experience as a former Region IV NRC inspector and team leader on service water system inspections.

Desian Reviewers M. Shlyamberg - Engineering consultant (0GDEN) with 20 years .

engineering, design, and management experience. Has participated in numerous inspections of nuclear power plants including SWSOPIs, EDSFIs, and E&TS.

L. A. Schreiber - GPUN Manager OCNGS Startup and Test Department, Technical Functions Division. Has 23 years engineering, design, and testing experience in the nuclear power industry including supervision of test engineers in the preparation of test procedures and performance of field testing for plant modifications.

R. W. Knoll - Florida Power Corp., Nuclear Engineering Supervisor with 13 years nuclear engineering experience. Developed and implemented Design Basis Reconstitution program at Crystal River 3. Participated as Response Team Leader for the Crystal River 3 SWSOPI self-assessment.

Maintenance Reviewer W. C. Sherbin - Engineering consultant (0GDEN) with 23 years of mechanical engineering experience including 13 years in the nuclear power industry. Has participated in 13 utility-sponsored Safety System Functional Inspections. Has participated in SWSOPIs at Fitzpatrick, Haddem Neck, Indian Point 3, Palo Verde, Brunswick, Beaver Valley, and Crystal River 3.

w. .

l ENCLOSURE PAGE-12 Operations-Reviewer L. J. Armstrong - Engineering consultant (0GDEN) with 12 years

. experience in project management, systems design review, assessment and _;

audit support, reactor operator training and operations support. 'Has a Senior Reactor Operator certificate on the-Zion Plant. Has participated on SWSOPIs ct Crystal River 3 and Shearon Harris.

l Quality Assurance and Corrective Actions Reviewer j

L. A. Schreiber - GPUN Manager OCNGS Startup and Test. Department, l Technical Functions. Division.  !

< d Surveillance and Testina Reviewer -l

~

R. P. Warren - GPUN Consulting Engineer, TMI-1 Independent 0nsite Safety Review Group. Has 23 years engineering, design, and testing experience.

Responsible for performing independent assessments of plant activities. i involving nuclear safety. Has experience conducting TMI-1 Safety System' -i' Functional Inspections.

7.0 OVESTION/ CONCERN PROCESSING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION During the assessment, questions or potential concerns shall be l documented (see Attachment B - Questions / Response Form) and presented to  ;

the responsible organization for' response or reply. See Figure 1 for ,

flowchart of the question / concern resolution process. Concerns will be .

responded to in a timely manner with the goal of responding to each  !

concern before the exit. The priority of responses will be based on safety significance. The Assessment Team Leader and the Operability Screening Team screen all concerns to assess. impact on the system's safety function. Conditions'and concerns that.are potentially safety significant will be promptly brought to the plant management's  ;

attention for their action including determination of operability and '

reporting / notification. Established nonconformances, deficiencies, or defects will be identified and addressed through approved corrective 4 action processes, where appropriate (e.g. MNCR process).

Responses will be reviewed by the originator of the question / concern and ,

the Assessment Team Leader for adequacy. Where appropriate, the '[

response should address the type of corrective action taken and/or  ;

proposed. Where responses do not resolve potential concerns, discussion l will continue until resolution is achieved. The Assessment Team Leader r has access to all levels of management but if the concern cannot be t resolved prior to the exit meeting it will be identified as an action  ;

item that requires a response and disposition via the Licensing  :

l Information Tracking System maintained by the Planning and Regulatory ,

i t

u, - . - . - . - -

6 4

l ENCLOSURE  !

PAGE 13 l Affairs Department. All _ documented questions and responses will' be kept l as records of the assessment.  ;

r 8.0 SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT All-unresolved concerns will be identified in the assessment report as ,

SWSOPI open items and entered into the Licensing Information Tracking  :

c- System (LITS), as appropriate.. As stated above, corrective action  ;

programs such as the MNCR process will also be utilized where appropriate. Strengths and opportunities for improvement will also be included in the report.

9.0 FOLLOW-UP VERIFICATION Planning and Regulatory Affairs Department will track identified concerns within the LIT System. Assigned responsible departments will  !

follow-up and close out these concerns. The priority and timeframe for resolution of open items will be established by the Assessment Team Leader and the responsible licensing engineer.

t l

t

FIGURE 1 QUESTION / CONCERN RESO.LUTION GPUN MANAGEMENT .......................

ASSESSMENT -

U QUESTION ASSESSMENT TEAM

.................-> NOTEBOOK RESOLVED <

l

+

RESPONSETEAM REPRESENTATIVE V V DEPT. SUPERVISOR / , OPERABILITY / REPORTABILITY MANAGER SCREENMG TEAM

+

l TMI-1 PLANT REVIEW GROUP (PEG) i l

V l

GPUN CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS l

[

i

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

FIGURE 2 TMI-1 SWSOPl SELF-ASSESSMENT TEAM ORGANIZATION t

t ASSESSMENT SUPPORT TEAM LEADER STAFF f5tC --- - --- ---------------------- - - ---- ----------------- >

Tom Dempsey LIC: Dave Distel (GPUN) ADMIN: Becky Siebler TECH: Harry Heilmeier CO-TEAM LEADER Phil Wagner (Consultant) l DESIGN SURVEILLANCE

- -------------- MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS QA & CA

/ TESTING M. Shlyamberg - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- -------------

(Consultant) W. Sherbin L Armstrong L Schreiber R. Warren L. .Nhreiber (Consultant) (Consultant) (GPUN)

(GPUN) tur>UN)

R. Knoll (FPC)

Attachm:nt A, SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST

!stwtis41 OluECTIVES ASSIGNED TO-01.01 Assess m imeneses planned or completed actons m responsa to Genene tager 81L13.

i 01.02 Verfy Mt M SWS is capable of fumbng as Mrmal and hydraube performance requrements and is operated conostent witiils desgn bases.

01.03 Assess the SWS opennonal controis, mantenanca, sutvananos, and other testng, and personnel trarung to ensure tie SWS is operated and mantemed so as to perform its aslety remind funtsons.

2519116 4 2 BACKGROUND Pronously idensfled SWS problems rdude inM* heat removal capsbety, befouhng. siltng, segie failure conoems, eroman, corrosion, msuflbent ongeal demgn margm, lapses in contgunton contal or vnproper 10 CFR 50.59 salsty evalustons. and inW* teetng 2519116 4 3 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS i 03.01 Momanscal Systems'Engmeenng Demon Remow'Contlgurabon Control a[1] Rowow the demgn-base and other demgn documents sucfi se calcule. I bons and analyses fcr the SWS, and determme tie functonal requre-rnents for SWS and each adive component dunng acadent or abnormal conditons indude the appropnateness of the desgn assumphons, boundary conditens, and models STATUS.

~

a[2] Determne if the system desgn s in accordanca with fadirty's beenmng commitments vid regulatory regurements.

STATUS:

a.[3] Detent.ae af the system val meet the thermal and hydraube performance recurements.

STATUS' l

~

a[4] Determme if assocated desgn output documents such as fadhty draw.

ings and procurement E--/- M-- are consstent with the demgn  !

bases and engmeenng enaivses.  !

STATUS

b. Renew the SWS cxmfigurabon drawags for si &4 with apphcable demon documents. NRC reouvements and licensing commrtments.

STATUS:

1

c. Rewow the SWS operaten as comoared to the desgn documents.

STATUS-1 d.[1] Evaluses smgie acerve taluro vulneratulees of the system and the result-ing ynpoet on mterfaang system components such as emergency diesel 08"*f8'C'5- .~..

STA TUU.

Evaluate the oflect on 5WS operaoshty of futures e maartaang systems,

(

t d.[2]

sucts as mStrument ar.

STATUS:

[

0 13] w ,c.,n,non modeiaA ,es.omiouingof -

intakes orirevehng scenens STA TUS-A1

.,--_-_-_____-______________---_.___________._-_--___-_______.__._._____..________---____-___--_.._________J

'I Attachm:nt A, SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST

, l 03.01 e.[1) ~ Renew me enactveness of any omegn leennes metened to mnmes slung ard belouhng of me pipeg and components j

STATUS:

l e.[2] VerWy # Isolures are prowded for the emely deleden of Row degrade-ton.

STATUS:

e.[3] VerWy W Aow baianong has been conducasd dunng versus sysum operseng modes Flow baianang ven6caton should be done tar worst case combmabons of pump operaton STATUS:

e.[4] Venfy met pump runout condstons are not present wim mrumum num-bor of pumps operstng uth worst case algnment of non ealsty relded loads.

s1ATUS:

l e.[5] Evaluate mornum and mammum hmils for valve poseons and ensure these hmrts are property translated into operatonal controls STATUS:

I e.[6] VerWy that system flow balance is consstent with key desgts assump-bons, where available, for Row opefhoents, rated pressure drops across components and -%, rated heat removal, heat estanger fouling, and totalsystem now foropereeng rnoep STATUS:

f. Check whether desagn features are prowded to megate me aflects of Roodmg caused by SWSleaks.

STATUS

g. Revury the safety-related porton of the system for samme quallecaton l and venfy that non-safety-related portons can be isolated in accordance ulh the provsions spooned in the system demgn bases.

STATUS:

h. Rewow as modsecaton to the SWS. Indude 50.59 evaluatons and on.

( sure mat the changes have not w+vn ed the system desgn bass j and have induded reweed mamtenance regurements and procedures, operstng procedures. tranng. and penode tesbng as r- y.

STATUt

4. Evaluate the asses >nent to Acton tv of GL 8913. Specal note on system abgnment STATUt J. Renew the program for momtonng system degradabo i Evaluate periormance trendmg and adequacy of engmeenng evaluaton and operability determmabons STATUS:

tL Rowow me setpoets for alarms and actuatons m ensure hoy are consstent uti the desagn base and -amptons STATUS I

A.2

i Attachm::nt A, SWOPI-REVIEW CHECKLIST l 03 02 -

Operstons i

s. Perform an eHlopih eyelera waklown Review me SWS conAguraban f for conostency wim design drawings t status: i b.[1] . Rowsw me SWS alarm response procedwes and operstng procedures  !

for normal, abnormal. and emergency system opershons to assure the }

system is operated wimin the design envelope i status:

b.[2] Revow the implementaton of opersang and alarm response pmos- i dures. Assoas adequacy of low instrumentaton relied upon dunng (

acadent condsons  ;

STATUS- }

b.[3] Rewow avadable operatng loos to determme adequacy of tempersess i and Aowmonitanng ,

srATus-

c. Review operator trammg for me SWS, bcuemg on he techncel com- l plateness and accuracy of the training manual and lesson plans. Ensure that the lesson plans renect he system moddestons and met he boensed operators have been traned as mees r%

STATVs: i I

d.[1] Renew me proper enplementaton of pmcodures for verfymg penode and post-mantenance abgnments of vahes in the SWS espeaany mose ,

valves that isolate low to safety related 06E@,ats.  !

STATUS: i d.[2) Venfy mat requred acadent condrbon Aow a not degraded during normal system operston valve abgnments STATUS:

d [3] Rewow the method used to vonfy proper SWS thmtte vehe posson STATUS:

l d.[4] Rewsw contml of SWS heat exchanger now vanstons due to ctangmg chmals (temperature) condtons. ,

STATUS- l 1

l

e. Wak thmugh the system operstng procedures and the system P&lus.

Verry that me pmoedures can be performed and that components &

equipment are - for normal and emergency operston if any spemel equipment is requesd to perform these pmcedures, detemune I the egapment is avasable and in good wortung order. VerWy met me operator's knowledge of equipment locahon and operaton is adeouste.

STATUS-

f. Interview he operators to determme me adequacy of meir lectincel knowledge of such noms as me operaton of me system, ne role in acadent megaton, tecnncal W survedanos requesments, and determmaton of operatey srATus:

1 A3

co.

.- Attachm:nt A, SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST 03 02 g. AsWowmelocaloporanonof equement DelameneImeinecoton svelsble b operate me aquement is in acconhnos esti appimMn opersang pecedures and instucsons Verfy met sie armronmental constans, such as espected room temperature, emergency ightng, and ensom, aneumed under acxulent conetons are adequets for remote operaton of eeusment srATUB-

h. Aseses operssonal contoir, for tavehng somens and anniseng water pumps to produde excesswa drawdowrs of to iniske boy, ulti associ-aled loss of SWS pump suchon head, as a result of cloggmg me travoi-ino screens STATUS:

0103 Mamtenance

a. Conduct an mespti system wegulown to tewew tie as contgumC system for metanal coneton. (Relemnes Appener D of Tl 2515/118.)

status-

b. N pueble, wdness mamtenanos performed on SWS. Renew package prep and obeene OCinvolvement.

STATUS.

c. Rowow mantenance procedures for todwucal adequacy. Compare to i

vendor manuals te"y any vendor recommendsbons not incorpo-rated. VerWy met r 4 tant manuais are compiele and up to dels.

STATUS:

6. Review the mantenance program for removal and reper of SWS pipeg and interface system components due to siltng, knofouing, cormoun,  ;

eromon. and failure of protoceve coatng l

STATUS' I

e. Determme if me SWS componens are bemg adequately mentaned to ensure mer operabday under as acadent conebans. Renew mforms.

ten regareng unevaiabety due to planned mantenance as an inecatr l of mantenance adequacy.

STATUS:

f. Romew tie mantenance histor) for tie selected components of tie SWS for sie past two opermang cydes (mrumum of 2 years) or longer #

necessary Look for recunmg equipment problems and detsmune of any tends owet Evaluate the adequacy of me root cause analyes and conecove acsons uplomoned in response e adverse tends. Renew for hdi atioquacy, perfomience of appropnete poet mamlenance teseng. and nanoisetary demonersson of souement opersbety STATUS.

I 9 Conduct dew murviews witi tie mMihrletta peh t detr.

i mme lher technsai knowledge of how ocuponents are meninned, audi as tie solang of limit ownches, sie abgnment of pump coupings, dean-ing and repisong aners, and me messenanos of drault breakers.

Status; A4

Attachment A, SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST i

M.03 h. himpm6Wp l bg to me SWS and ime degree of runng paused is conostent wlm  !

me amount of ledncal detet in me pmcedres.

STATUS: I i

L Reesw me penode mopecton program used to detect corromon, ero-  ;

sion. proteclNe coatng faRufe, siltng and tuoloulmg

+

STATUS: ,

03.04 Sunabance and Testng I

a. Revow and evalusa the tectnced adequacy and accuracy of the tectn- i cal speafceton sunabance procedures and inserwoe test procedures j performed in me past two operatng cydes (mamum of 2 years) for the SWS.

l Status: ,

b. Renew the SWS dempn and kanseg bans. Vertly hat test acceptance f cinens are conentent wah the demgn bass e ensure the D.VS teseng i

%% demonstates that the SWS wil operate as demoned. Re- i wow indcolors of SWS performance to idently N any testng inadeque. '

ces east or # test frequency a appropnate Detemune i sunmilence '

test procedures crmpreheneNeiy adeses requwed SWS responses i status: l

c. Rewsw results imm pre operatonal leseng to deterrruns whether the SWS capatni'tes and imtstons were appropnetely demonstrated-Determne whether appmpnate controls were estabbehod to avoid ,

unacceptable system or component operstng regimes such as hmitng vane travel b avcud pump runout condebons.

l t

STA TUS.

i

d. Evaluate the support systems and plant modificatons to ensure that ,

sunabance and teshng has been properhr performed  ;

STATUS- >

I

e. Renew the reserwa test recoros for pumps and vahmi n me SWS, wnh an emphase on the tecincal adequacy of procedures, trendng of inst  ;

results and recurrent falures Rewsw the IST program for compiele.

Does. i sTATUsc

f. Rewow how spealc SWS instruments are cahtrated and tested, h)w valve stroke tme lestng a performed, and how and where temporary 5 test equipment is instaged to vonfy comphance with techncal specdice-km operabikty regurements Venfy the tolerance used for instrument accuracyis acceptable l STATUS.

P

g. If poemble, miness post 4nemtenance, sunellanos, and inconnoe tests periormed on the SWS.

STATUS:

h. Reesw procedures for penode lesang of safety-related heat exchanger ,

heet Farbler W and the trendng of sucti resuRs.

sTArus-A5

c .

Attachm:nt A, SWOPI REVIEW CHECKLIST 03.04 6., For the two provuAss operatng cydes (2 years mamum) procedmg the mapacton, ascertam the system tam, pumps, or ogndcent component unavadabbty dunng power and shutlown conditons. Compare the achaal unevadabbty data to tiet assumed by the IPE.

sTATw J. VerWy that the mstated SWS components are tested to ensure tie components wis perform in somrdance with their design bases.

sTATut

k. Renew the implementaton of the peaode inspecton program to detect Row blockage frorn belouing in otier systems This includes the Are protecten system that uses the same source of water as the SWS.

STATUS

1. Rewow testmg on one at-b-wmar heat exchanger sened by the SWS to ensure proper heat transfer Examme em air side for fouhng STATUS:

03.05 Ouakty Assurana and Correctve Acsons

a. Rewow the meseng mmutes of tie plant onses saisty rewsw commntes

, and the offsite safety rewsw committee for the past six montis for items portanno to the SWS.

sTATut

b. Renew the operatonal helory of the SWS, mdudmg LERs NPRDS, 10CFR50.72 reports, enfortement actons, NCR's, T/S operatukty determmatons, mantenana work requests, and adverse test reeutts or recxarrent test falures Emphasas the adequacy of root cause evalu-ations.

STATUS-

c. Compare the results of the (NRC) team's assessment of the areas irispected for the SWS witi the results of W licensee quakty verscatons acWhos m *,he same areas (i.e. operatons, mamtenance, survedlance and tesang, engreenng desgn, and desen contml).

Determme why the boensee's admtes das not uncover sgndcant issues idensted by the (NRC) team.

STATut

d. Renew the biTmicens and techncal adequacy of heensee resoluton of Andmgs from its self-essesenents. Rowow tie open item tradang system items portanng to the SWS for We tradung and closure of identined denaenoes STATut

, e. Evaluate the meerface between engmeenng and techncal support (E&TS) and plant operatons, regardog correceve ectons to resche oporatonalpmblems status-A6

r

• . I EXAMPLE Attachment B - Service Water System Self-Assessment OUESTION/ RESPONSE Fonn Question No.

Date/ Time:

Team Member:

Subject Area:

Question / Request:

GPUN Response Assigned to: GPUN Response Date:

GPUN Response:

i