ML20087J202

Forwards Summary of Independent Design & Const Verification Program 840313 Meeting W/Util & Govt Accountability Project in Bethesda,Md

ML20087J202
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	03/15/1984
From:	Levin H TERA CORP.
To:	Jackie Cook, Eisenhut D, James Keppler CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
OL, OM, NUDOCS 8403220113
Download: ML20087J202 (37)

Text

_ _ _ _

I L J March 15,1984 l

Mr. James W. Cook Vice President l

Consumers Power Company 1945 West Pornoll Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. J. G. Keppler Administrator, Region lli Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road l

Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Docket Nos. 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL Midland Nuclear Plant - Units I and 2 Independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Program Meeting Summary Gentlemen:

A meeting was held on March 13,1984, at NRC's Bethesda, Maryland, offices to discuss TERA's plo,s for completing the Midland independent Design and Construction Verification Program. A summary is provided as on enclosure.

Sincer ly, NWV J.s o Howard A. Levin Project Manager Midland IDCV Program cc:

See Attached Sheet Enclosure HAL/sl 8403220113 840315 s

DR ADOCK 05000329 JV0 PDR y

f TERA CORPORATION 7101 WISCONSIN AVENUE BETHESDA MARYLAND 20814 301 654 8960

.]

O Mr. J. W. Cook 2

March 15,1984 Mr. J. G. Keppler

' Mr. D. G. Eisenhut cc:

Participants:

R. J. Erhardt, CPC D. Oucmmy, CPC (site)

R. Whitaker, CPC (site)

J. Taylor, NRC, I&E R. Burg, Bechtel J. Agor, B&W J. Korr, S&W (site)

IDCV Program Service List i

e i

t i

j' TERA CORPORATION j

SERVICE LIST FOR MIDLAND INDEPEPOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERlriCATION PROGRAM cc:

F'orold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatim f795 5

ve U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Freeland, Michigan 48623

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wendell Marshall James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Route 10 U.S. Nuclect Reguiotory Commission, Midland, Michigan 48440 Region ill 799 Roosevelt Road Mr. Steve Godler ulen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 2120 Corter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspectors Office Ms. Billie Pirner Garde

rectw, zens CHnic d, Michi on 48640 for Accountable Government Mi 9

Government Accountability Project Mr. J. W. Cook Institute for Policy Studies Vice Pres, dent 1901 Que Street, N.W.

i Consumers Power Company Washington, D.C. 20009 1945 West Pornoll Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.

^## "

Y

"*" "9 Michoel I. Miller, Esq'

.S. N clem Regulatwy Cam.issim Isham, Lincoln & Beale

'"' O' Three First National Ploro, Sist floor Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Chicago, Illinois 60602

, Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail James E. Brunner, Esq.

Boco Roton, Florido 33433 Consumers Powe> Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jerry Harbour, Esq.

Jackson, Michigan 49201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

.. Nuclaw egul twy emission Ms. Mary Sinclair Washington, D.C. 20555 571i Summerset Drive Midiond, Michigan 48640 Mr. Ron Collen Michigan Public Service Commission Cherry & Flynn 6545 Mercontile Way Suite 3700 P.O. Box 30221 r

Three First National Plaz j

Lonsing, Michigan 48909 Chicago, Illinois 60602 i

Mr. Paul Rou Ms. Lynne Bernobei Midiond Dolly News Government Accountability Project 124 Mcdonald Street 1901 Q Street NW Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, d.C. 20009

l

SUMMARY

MEETING TO DISCUSS PLANS FOR COMPLETION OF TW MIDLAN IDCVP A meeting was held on March 13, 1984, at NRC's Bethesda, Maryland, offices to discuss TERA's plans for completing the Midland IDCVP.

Attachment I identifies the attendees of the meeting which included representatives of TERA, CPC, NRC, and the public. Attachment 2 presents viewgraphs utilized by TERA in a presentation given during the meeting. Within this attachment is the ogenda which was used to conduct the meeting.

Jim Milhoon, NRC, l&E Headquarters and John Beck, TERA, opened the meeting with a discussion of the purpose and on introduction of participants. Mr. Beck indicated that TERA would describe in detail, the IDCVP completion plans which were summarized in a letter from TERA to the NRC and CPC on February 10, 1984. It was pointed out that the meeting was being held as a postponement from the originally scheduled date of February 29,1984, where this topic was to be discussed c3 part of that routinely scheduled public meeting on OCR status review. The NRC requested the rescheduling as a result of another request by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) to hold the meeting in Bethesda rather than Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Howard Levin, TERA, presented a status summary of IDCVP progress and on overview of current uctivities. Elements of TERA's February 10, 1984, letter were reviewed with the attendees along with a summary of factors which have influenced the future direction of the IDCVP.

Mr. Levin indicated that the fundamental objectives and philosophy of the program have and will continue to remain intact; however, details of execution and timing have been refined to better deal with the status and recent programmatic evolutions of the Midland project. In several cases, the IDCVP has been supplemented with additional verification activities os part of the completion plan.

Frork Dougherty, TERA, reviewed the independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) methodology, reiterating the continued emphasis on a verification of the

" quality of the end product." He identified the fact that several "end products" lERA CORPORATION

2 are unavailable at this time because certain design-related activities (e.g., fire protection, systems interaction reviews) are in progress. A differentiation was made between these activities which are considered " confirmatory / licensing" in nature verses activities which are part of the primary design completion cycle and the field change / design change reconciliation process which is typical of plants at the Midland stage in the project completion cycle. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of TERA's original snmple was identified as being impacted by ongoing design-related activities. These include topical reviews in the areas of tech specs, seismic and environmental equipment qualification, high energy line break accidents / pipe whip and jet impingement, fire protection and systems interaction.

Mr. Dougherty described the IDVP approach for assuring that sample selection criteria are met for these topical reviews including the supplementation of the IDVP verification process with a review of project engineering programs for completing ongoing design-related activities.

Donald Tulodieski, TERA, reviewed the status of the independent Construction Verification Program (ICVP) and the influence of the project evolution upon the ICVP and plans for execution of the ICVP.

He emphasized the principal objective of the ICVP as being a verification of the quality of the end product which includes on evaluation of quality documentation as well as physical verification of installed components and commodities. Mr. Tulodieski indicated that in view of programmatic changes to CPC's approach to completing the Midland Project and associated delays in their execution, that the ICVP would have to be delayed to accommodate the fact that "end products" are not l

ovoilable to the extent necessary to support the required focus on verification of l

the final installation. The precise restart of the ICVP is predicated upon CPC's Construction Completion Program (CCP) Phase I release of items within the IDCVP sample selection boundaries. At that time, estimated to be no earlier than July 1984, it is anticipated that remaining construction work will be fully statused and that supporting quality documentation will be current and l

consistent with the statused completion. Mr. Tulodieski indicated that in the i

interim the ICVP focus will be on verifying disposition of identified items and on TERA CORPORATION

3 a new verification activity associated with tne CPC's ongoing Quality Verification Program (QVP). The OVP review will supplement the original ICVP scope to provide additional insight into the process by which CPC will ossemble and in many situations, regenerate quality documentation (through re-inspection) which will support the qualification of installed components and commodities.

I Howard Levin summarized TERA's formal presentation with on identification of

)

IDCVP enhancements. The meeting was then opened for discussion between the three parties, TERA, CPC, and NRC.

Ted Ankrum, NRC, l&E, Headquarters, described NRC's experience in executing similar programs and the difficulty in assuring that the review sample remained unblosed by additional attention that could potentially (unintentional or other-wise) be applied to liems within the sample selection boundaries. He emphasized the importance of the independent reviewers' attention to this potential problem.

TERA described details of IDCVP execution which attempt to deal with the potential problem. John Beck reiterated TERA's sensitivity to the issue and the firm's commitment in assuring that the objectives of the IDCVP would be met and remain uncompromised.

Robert Warnick, NRC, Region 111, indicated his satisfaction with the IDVP plans and questioned how TERA would approach ICVP execution around the time of CCP Phase I completion considering the fact that CPC's punch lists of "to do" items may be large for specific items within the ICVP sample. He emphasized the importance of maintaining a focus on a verification of the final installed and constructed products. TERA indicated a continued commitment to verification of the quality of the end product and stated that a decision to proceed or not to preeed at that time would be dependent on whether or not the sample selection criteria could be met given the completion status. An attempt will be made to maintain original sampling plans where possible and the sample will not be compromised under any circumstances.

TERA CORPORATION

4 The meeting was opened for comments from interested niembers of the public.

Billie Garde, GAP, presented comments on the February 10, 1984, letter which included GAP comments as well os that of Ms. Borboro Stamiris and Ms. Mary Sinclair, both intervenors in the Midland ASLB proceedings.

Her principal expressed concerns centered around the potential for the IDCVP to complete execution prior to the final products being complete and the potential for any compromise in the integrity of the sample through substitutions.

TERA responded directly by reiterating a commitment to focus review on "end products" and that the sompte would not be compromised due to timing considerations. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the bases for sample selection would be addressed in TERA engineering evaluations and that on auditable troll exists documenting all decisions in this regard. TERA committed to identify the percentage of substitutions, should any be required.

TERA emphasized that the iDCVP reviewers will remain active until the originally stated IDCVP objectives have been met. A related comment was that the IDCVP may be evolving into a " process audit." TERA indicated that certain process-oriented verification activities were to be added to the program to supplement the end product reviews; however, end product reviews were not being dropped as a consequence. Accordingly, the IDCVP scope was being somewhat enhanced as part of the completion plans.

Several other issues which were related to the agenda were voiced. These included comments on TERA's recently completed evaluation of the effect of cracking on the performance of the diesel generator building, delays in issuance of on AFW system topical report, and proposals associated with a management appraisal of CPC monogement plans for completion of the Midland project.

The meeting closed with an ir.dication by Jim Milhoon, NRC, that he expected to transmit a letter within two weeks oddressing NRC's views on the IDCVP completion plans.

TERA CORPORATION J

ATTACHMENTI MEETING TO DISCUSS PLANS FOR COMPLETION CF TFE MIDLAND IDCVP MARCH 13,1984 1:00 P.M.

BETFESDA, MD ATTEbOEES LIST Jim Milhoon NRC, IE Ted Ankrum NRC, IE Jim Portlow NRC, IE John Gilroy NRC, IE Darl Hood NRC,NRR John Hayes NRC,NRR H. Wang NRC, IE Frank Dougherty TERA Don Tulodieski TERA John Beck TERA Howard Levin TERA Bob Warnic'<

NRC, Region til Lou Gibson CPC Dennis Budzik CPC J. Nelson Grace NRC, IE L. Cusco NRC, ELD George Gower NRC, IE J. Lee NRC,NRR Billie Garde GAP TERA CORPORATION

(ATTACHMENT 2)

Unitsd States Nucisar Regulatory Commission Docket Numbers 50-329 & 50-330

.* 7-

...,t

,.r a p. -QW3 -

• .:/ w..t

- p<

-". i 7.6 O'

1 t.3.d=}>=-1.;

1 ww-i i ii r:3: 1....... i

)

%. _1..

u,: y>=

= n>= e a i,u. u 1 >

3

- m.

y2 s..

w.

3.

e m

3 4>

g

.e

,,.m m;.._1 ~ 1 ~ -y.~ m,~ u,~

v~

1 1

i

~~i

-~

y.

=.,

... urn,..a_n i,=m.~90,=

e n f,;,w u<.:

-S

.., r_ f.>%. n.....,p i

. o

.~i.i i i imii m-x_.

g i

aJ.

=;..;

an;. 1.;. T

._.m. _.. ic.

. r.... - e r

-.f._

_.j_Jw. a.

j-i.

r -.,.-

p,i.* :

.p_

e m

.~. e -

I m,-:- -..-.. U' r

vi r.

.y/. \\ s -

.: :. 2 a.

y t e. t... t =, t

.i'2. _b- _A...

g a.

ii?

Midland Independent Design and M.,. R.

?....

'4.,;.#' Construction Verification Program W[- ; W ; :

g ;! In. M.y 2

,pa vt T

' U. } ;.e-

-- =<y.

,J

; t ;,.5'T i W.y. m, e l

,j ~~.

l t-* ",; t J1 li c, _ M N..,.;$,b O^

I t

. e 4 4 e

(.

j.

n.

t 5E' g W4 64'E N

. ;' I i.

A

' V.yd, y

• u, ".'m.; : ;c :,.j#fd "t3%.,g",?.'.~t'j%.% !* k @ M M"*,'upeMhg-p.w _, gg - > - '

l T. 4-

• Mj ;

x

LA

,t %.a"-E--1-~2 <-- -~ x W,. -

s'

' *~,. "'

.' ' I

[

i.s i

.(..hh 5 d_'~

In -efk'C+- *h:<.,.. t r.

r..

-w %-

4.9. hK,' "

D::1.h g

.c W '

w.

• M "l ' i R E

,-A

.]

.ij p;p

~

y

--.m ---

-'n.

c _- d as.y..g g!.pt.:

y qo 8~

m g

^ g g,,r-g~

,.%jg.1 1111

.g

..s p&-,

$Q$_

1

,i..'

WI g gl.....f.. u& N.lias "

g;.

w~gI FgpH m;.

.. m,

., g C t.s n y*. y:g g e g:%

.u y a

p.

t-n

,.m n.s ll lg

,_.. n 2; T g ;" @. &.~

~

~.1.. R.._

[k,,M.d 3

. -.a,..

e,. & -}l'

.__E.,'.5,

.g

. s....w...

m.. wi. ~,

. =..

-v.

=

4 pi

.x e

i.s.,_

v.,

-e*-o w

~t. '%% iqii-A >

~'

r

@m i

f. 2................ 1*~.:.:

CC e l'

~--

Q* & ;g-o yi ~I c p.'.s{;

p....I"I. LCs 2;;d,;.-(j.,q r

t, mm.:3:te v i :,,

• .~ r.

O l

-(

". N 1.g JQi" I D,

$ ~ - '7---.=----~f i f l4 *"M ;Q9g Q]g

'.d

,,.N h[

[

f"f$

.k1 I

Est*-

c 7

P.s m:. w,, w m'~2*'*

L

.-y :.

n

+

--c t. m.M " *. ~

dLad:

Y

,E CA_

A 3.' l. iF g l a

r > ='*

• r.11

,. p -

• p.,.

.a l y,

- *.,+.. #.

,, L-u..,.

+*

.c.

7

~

• :. r.,,. tc,

=

.s 1 4-

- i W=W l W.o 1 a)s g

t

._ej

-e e m$,._,$...u-

,O$

\\

i ** L-*n*

• e t.

n

;*.~_E,.. p g :

t e

e.

sw m

t

~ e.

~

t,9. y.

ig

-w r :. !..,

_T w.y 'u. ee.p.

1 y, %,

r s

a TERA CORPORATION

4 AGEtOA MEETING TO DISCUSS PLANS FOR COMPLETION OF TK MIDLAPO IDCVP MARCH 13,1984 BETESDA, MD e

PURPOSE - BECK (TERA) e INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND - LEVIN (TERA)

STATUS OF THE IDCVP RELATIONSHIP OF THE IDCVP AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES REVIEW OF IDCVP OBJECTIVES / PHILOSOPHY

SUMMARY

OF IDCVP COMPLETION PLANS COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN VERIFICATION - DOUGHERTY (TERA) e REVIEW OF IDVP METHODOLOGY EFFECT OF ONGOING DESIGN-RELATED ACTIVITIES SCOPE OF REVIEW / APPROACH TO SAMPLE SELECTION REVIEW AREA STATUS / FUTURE ACTIONS COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION - TULODIESKI e

(TERA)

CURRENT STATUS AND ACTIVITIES QVP REVIEW FUTURE ACTIVITIES

SUMMARY

OF IDCVP ENHANCEMENTS - LEVIN (TERA) e DISCUSSION - LEVIN (TERA), ANKRUM (NRC), GIBSON (CPC) e e

PUBLIC COMMENTS - AS REQUESTED BY OBSERVERS h

e

SUMMARY

- BECK (TERA)

TERA CORPORATION i

=. _,

1 l

PURPOSE i

e TO DESCRIBE PLANS FOR COMPLETION OF THE MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN.

AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM AS SUMMARIZED IN TERA'S FEBRUARY 10, 1984, LETTER TO NRC AND CPC.

4 e

i i

4 i

s 1 ERA CORPORATION I.

STATUS MIDLAW IDCVP MSR 9 (2/lS/84) e PERCENTAGE COMPLETE IDVP = 64%

ICVP = 26%

IDCVP = Sl%

e OCRs/ FINDINGS IDENTIFIED ACTIVE POTENTIAL OPEN ITEMS (P)

IS4 0

OPEN ITEMS (0) 136 16 CONFIRMED ITEMS (C) 97 S8 FINDINGS (F) 20 12 RESOLVED ITEMS (R) 37 FINDING RESOLUTION (Z) 8 OBSERVATIONS (B) 23 P=OA+CA+FA+R+Z+B e

CURRENT ACTIVITIES IDVP ICVP BASE SCOPE X

OCR DISPOSITION X

X REPORTS X

TERA CORPORATION

INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MIDLAND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS Ato T1E MIDLAFO IDCV PROGRAM

[ 40 CFR 50, APPEPOix A l di 5

. SRe e Reg Cu!ers F5A3 Ato OTTER REVIEW Or DESIGN e smkistry UTILITY CRITERIA APO Stedse COMMITMEti5 COMMITMENT 5 e N555 Criterle 1f l

DESIGN PPUT5 l

7 REVIEW Or A-E, N555 VEPOOR IMPLEMENTP4C ENCPdEERING IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS STAPOARDS, DOCUMENTS PROCECURES ii If DE5IGN PROCE55 e Dent Centrol e QA/

• Easiaecias Evolwtions CDECK Or COPFIRMATORY e Calculations CALCULATIONS Ato CALCULATIOt 5 OR 4

EVALUATIONS EVALUATIONS 1f l DE5tCN CHANCES l 1r goy o

o DESIGN OUTPUT 5

CHECM OF e Dra.ings DRAWINCS APO e Specif. cations

, SPECFICATION5 l

4, 1f 1f 3Q

,R, ICV CR,t?

5 FABRICATlON DOCUMENTATON I

i 1I i,

SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES "8i""'i"8 e Carstruct.en e5 Centrol REVIEW OF e ON R EW OF STORACE e Erection,Instel.

AND MAINTENANCE CNRCW I

en, etc.

DOCUMENTATlON N T 1f l FIELD CHANCES l 1f i,

,r VERIFICATION /

INSTALLED 5TRUCTURES, d'

OVER-R4SPECTION D

SYSTEMS APO VERFICATION OF ACTIVITIES COMPOPENTS Pt4Y5iCAL COtFICURATON qr g

Review Or VERIFICATION TURNOVER FOR ACTivlTIES O

FUNCTIONAL TE5fr4C If i,

5l OPERATIONS l

DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION PROCESS MIDLAto IDCV PROGRAM l

l l

l t

l

l I

RELATIONSHIP OF TFE IDCVP AFO ONGOING ACTIVITIES l

MIDLAND PROJECT STATUS e

i CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PROGRAM DESIGN CHANGES /RECONCILATION e

INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION DURING THE PROJECT COMPLETION CYCLE 1

ROLE OF IDCVP VERTICAL SLICE l

ROLE OF CIO, ETC.

I 1

i TERA CORPORATION l

- -. J

I USE OF ltOEPEtOENT DESIGN AFO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAMS TMIOUGH TFE NUCLEAR PROJECT COMPLETION CYCLE C

H=0

" VERTICAL SLICE"/EtO PRODUCT REVIEWS (V) %. n' g

w W

8U Et

" HORIZONTAL SLICE"/ PROCESS REVIEWS (H)

I I

I I

I I

I I

YEAR OPERATIONS PROJECT MANAGEMENT TESTING CONSTRUCTION DESIGN PLANNING 1

QUALITY ASSURANCE LICENSING KEY:

SPECIFIC DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION ACTIVITY /

j PROGRAM SHOWING RELATIVE EMPHASIS OF VERTICAL APO

'

• HORIZONTAL SLICE REVIEWS A RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF Ero PRODUCT REVIEWS AFD y PROCESS REVIEWS TO AN ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY AT A l

1. SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE COMPLETION AND INTERVAL OF TIME

i PHILOSOPHY OF REVIEW e

SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS, AND STRUCTURES WHICH WILL FACILITATE:

AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANT PARAMETERS AFFECTING THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY OF THE THREE SYSTEMS, AND THE ABILITY TO EXTRAPOLATE FINDINGS TO SIMILARLY DESIGNED FEATURES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE e

CONSIDER POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FINDINGS WHICH WILL ALLOW A BALANCED VIEW OF OVERALL QUALITY e

ASSESS ROOT CAUSE AND EXTENT OF IDENTIFIED FINDINGS e

REVIEW CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN TO ADDRESS FINDINGS TERA CORPORATION

SUMMARY

OF IDCVP COMPLETION PLANS e

MAINTAIN EXISTING VERTICAL SLICE APPROACH IN IDVP END PRODUCT EMPHASIS SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW OF SELECTED ENGINEERING PROCESSES ONGOING CONFIRMATORY PROGRAMS (E.G.,

FIRE PROTECTION) e POSTPONEMENT OF SELECTED ICVP UNTIL PHASE I OF CCP SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW OF OVP DOCUMENTATION PROCESSES e

FOCUSED REVIEW OF IDENTIFIED PROCESS-RELATED ISSUES RESULTING FROM FINDINGS (E.G., FIELD CHANGE / DESIGN CHANGE CONTROL PROCESS) l m cm - mu

k COMPLETION OF TFE DESIGN VERIFICATION REVIEW OF IDVP METHODOLOGY EFFECT OF ONGOING DESIGN-RELATED ACTIVITIES SCOPE OF REVIEW / APPROACH TO SAMPLE SELECTION REVIEW AREA STATUS / FUTURE ACTIONS 4

1 l

i L

1 ERA CORPORATION l

l INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR TW AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAto ItOEPEtOENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM SCOPE OF REVIEW i

b'

] e!

an s

~6 v5 W* n g[e ofs! En! >f gf DESIGN AREA bg f!il'/"!s&u s

l' l.

AFW SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM OPERATINC LIMITS X

X X

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS X

SINCLE FAILURE X

X X

e Ti CHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS X

X SYSTEM ALIGNMENT /SwlTCHOVER X

X REMOTE OPERATION AND SHUTDOWN X

SYSTEM ISOLATION / INTERLOCKS X

X OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION X

e e

e COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS X

X X

X SYSTEM HYDRAULIC DESIGN X

X X

e SYSTEM HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY X

X X

e COOLING REQUIREMENTS X

WATER SUPPLIES X

X PRESERVICE TESTINC/ CAPABILITY FOR OPER ATIONAL TESTING X

e e

e POWER SUPPLIES X

X e

ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS X

e e

PROTECTIVE DEVICES / SETTINGS X

X X

INSTRUMENTATION X

X X

X F

CONTROL SYSTEMS X

X X

e l

ACTUATION SYSTEMS X

e NDE COMMITMENTS X

e e

MATERIALS SELECTION X

X l

l FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS e

l KEY X -lNITIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW

@ DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW e ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW

INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR TK AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAto INDEPEtOENT DESIGN VERIFIC ATION PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

SCOPE OF REVIEW ll 1

1 DESIGN AREA E

y g g.

a gh bf. c? 5~8 b b

+9 82

's s

Es E

t' F

y W

u o

!!. AFW SYSTEM PROTECTION FEATURES SEISMIC DESIGN X

e PRESSURE BOUNDARY X

X X

X X

e PIPE / EQUIPMENT SUPPORT X

X X

X X

e EQUIPMENT GUAllFICATION X

X X

X HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK ACCDENTS X

e PIPE WHIP X

X X

X e JET IMPINCEMENT X

I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION X

e ENVIRONMENTAL ENVELOPES X

X X

X e EQUIPMENT GUALIFICATION X

X X

X e HVAC DESIGN X

FIRE PROTECTION X

X X

MISSILE PROTECTION X

SYSTEMS INTERACTION X

X X

lit. STRUCTURES THAT HOUSE THE AFW SYSTEM SEISMIC DEStGN/lNPUT TO EQUIPMENT X

X X

X WIND & TORNADO DESIGN /MlSSILE PROTECTION X

FLOOD PROTECTION X

HELBA LOADS X

CIV!L/ STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS X

e FOUNDATIONS X

X X

e CONCRETE / STEEL DESIGN X

X X

X e TANKS h

h h

KEY X -INITIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW h DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW

• - ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW

INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOfi TI-E AUXlLIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAto INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM SCOPE OF REVlEW d d o [i r

2

• 8 es

]

d SYSTEM / COMPONENT 86 5

ele $

a*l r ;$ $s$

~

h 6

e e

%e w1 E

2 1.

MECHANICAL e EQUIPMENT X

X X

X X

e PIPING X

X X

X e PlPE SUPPORTS X

X X

X II. ELECTRICAL e EQUIPMENT X

X X

X X

e TRAYS AND SUPPORTS X

X e CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS X

X e CABLE X

X X

X X

ll!. INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL e INSTRUMENTS X

X X

X X

e PIPING / TUBING X

X e CABLE X

X IV. HVAC e EQUIPMENT X

X X

X X

e DUCTS AND SUPPORTS X

X V.

STRUCTURAL e FOUNDATIONS X

X e CONCRETE X

X X

e STRUCTURAL STEEL X

X X

VI. NDE/ MATERIAL TESTING PROGRAM X

KEY X -INITIAL SCOPE OF REVIEW

@ DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW

• - ADDED SCOPE OF REVIEW

~

..-_._..-___..-...m_

t EFFECT ON IDVP OF ONGOING DESIGN-RELATED ACTIVITIES TOTAL NUMBER PERCENTAGE MEASURE NUMBER AFFECTED AFFECTED MATRIX XS 352 34 10 LINE ITEMS 127 15 12 ENGINEERING 80 12 15 EVALUATIONS o

i 1 ERA CORPORATION t

. - ~

~

,-n..,.mm.

,,,---.,m..

_,%.,,v.

,_m-.__,__.m...

4%,.

i i

SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA e

IMPORTANCE TO SAFETY J

e DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION INTERFACES I

i e

ABILITY TO EXTRAPOLATE RESULTS t

e DIVERSITY e

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE 4

l e

TESTABILITY

'l i

i 1

I I

t i

l TERA CORPORATION

lDVP REVIEW APPROACH TO S/MPLE SELECTION FOR SPECIFIC DESIGN TOPICS ORIGINAL IDVP SAMPLE 1 P 1 P END ?RODUCTS EtO PRODUCTS AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE 1

1 P i f 1 F 1 P SELECT NEW END SELECT PEW END SELECT INTERMEDIATE COMPLETE PER AND END PRODUCTS PRODUCTS MEETING PRODUCTS PARTIALLY 2

SA DISPOSITION OCRs SAM T

IE SE I N CR TE lA 1 P REVIEW ENGINEERING PROCESS FOR COMPLETING DESIGN 1 P lNTEGRATE EPO FINAL IDVP SAMPLE /

PRODUCT APO O

SAMPLE SELECTION 4

ENGINEERING PROCESS CRITERIA MET REVIEWS Ato DISPOstTION OCRs 1

I I

i 1 P Y

PREPARE INPUT TO IDVP REPORTS ICYP l

REVIEW AREA STATUS TECH SPECS PROPOSED STATUS ACTION 4

e IN DRAFT FORM e

VERIFY THAT PROCESS ENSURES COMPATIBILITY e

REVISED IN FSAR AMENDMENT OF TECH SPECS AND 49 DESIGN e

SPECIFIC NUMBERS NEED TO BE DEVELOPED e

TYPICAL OF PLANT AT THIS STAGE A

TERA CORPORATION

s REVIEW AREA STATUS S_EISMIC DESIGN / EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION PROPOSED

~

STATUS ACTION e

APPROXIMATELY 70% COMPLETE e REVIEW AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION s

e OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR HAS e

SUBSTITUTE COMPONENTS SIGNIFICANT SCOPE FOR INCOMPLETE PACKAGES WHEN NECESSARY e

AFFECTS ALL'3 SYSTEMS IN e

REVIEW SORT PROCEDURE SAMPLE e

50% OF PREVIOUSLY SELECTED PACKAGES NOT COMPLETE OCRs INDICATE A MEED FOR

~

o

/ODLTIONAL DOCUMtiNTATION

~

]

s 3

W3 #g

,, s v-r s

O

\\

g i

I

?

i i

l

- ~

's.

s y y E

TERA CORPORATION js '_'

.b

.c _

REVIEW AREA STATUS HlCH EERGY LIE BREAK ACCIDENT PIPE WHIP / JET IMPlNGEMENT PROPOSED STATUS ACTION e

BASIC EFFORT IS e

REVIEW PROCEDURES ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE e

WALKDOWN FOR FIELD RUN e

USE ICVP TO VERIFY OR FIELD LOCATED ITEMS RESULTS MUST BE DONE 1

1 i

TERA CORPORATION

~

)

J' REVIEW AFMA STATUS ENVIRONMENT _AL PROTECTION /EQ PROPOSED STATUS ACilON REV. I, OF EO REPORT

. e NO CHANGE TO e

ISSUED 12/82 PROGRAM ASSUMING LAST PACKAGE IS AVAILABLE e

REV. 2 IS PLANNED e

REVIEW QUALIFICATION PROGRAM FOR PACKAGE IF 1

ikESULTS NOT AVAILABLE e

3 PACKAGES WERE NOT

. e REVIEW TESTING PROGRAM COMPLETE, BUT 2 NOW RE I

AND THE LAST ONE IS SCHEDULED PRIOR TO 3/31 e

ONE OTHER ITEM IS IN TESTING AND IS SCHEDULED FOR

'4 MID-YEAR COMPLETlON

.+

-s

~

,, p-g 1-

.(

TERA CORPORATION r-N"*

• M

REVIEW AREA STATUS FIRE PROTECTION PROPOSED STATUS ACTION e

FIRE HAZARDS STUDY BEING e

REVIEW PROGRAM FOR REVISED COMPLETION OF FIRE HAZARDS STUDY e

AFFECTS MULTIFLE AREAS OF PLANT e

OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR e

TERA ATTENDED NRC/CPC/

CONTRACTOR MEETING e

CONTRACTOR REVIEWING AREAS THAT OUR OCRs INDICATED NEEDED REVIEW I

TERA CORPORATION

~

c REVIEW AREA STATUS SYSTEMS INTERACTION f

PROPOSED STATUS ACTION e

PROGRAM HAS BEEN STARTED e

REVIEW PROGRAM IN DETAIL e

TERA HAS REVIEWED PORTIONS e

USE ICVP TO VERIFY OF OF PROGRAM RESULTS e

PROGRAM BEING PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR e

F! ELD ACTIVITIES IN PROGRESS TERA CORPORATION

1 ItOEPEIOENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (ICVP) e ORIGINAL PLAN FOR ICVP EXECUTION e

INFLUENCE OF MIDLAND PROJECT ENVIRONMENT UPON ICVP COMPLETION e

ALTERATIONS TO ICVP EXECUTION PLAN NECESSARY TO RETAIN PRINCIPAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES I

TERA CORPORATION

ORIGINAL PLAN FOR ICVP EXECUTION e

PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE: VERIFICATION OF THE QUALITY OF END PRODUCTS 1.E.,

DOCUMENTATION / PROCEDURES GUALITY VERIFICATION PACKAGES INSTALLED COMMODITIES AND COMPONENTS e

SCOPE AFW SEP CRHVAC REVIEW CATEGORY SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM l.

VENDOR DOCUMENTATION X

X X

2.

STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE X

X X

3.

CONSTRUCTION /lNSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION X

X X

4.

PHYSICAL VERIFICATION X

X X

S.

VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES X

X X

e PLAN FOR EXECUTION OF SCOPE (REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN LOGICAL GROUPINGS) 1.

CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION AND PHYSICAL VERIFICATION 2.

VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES 3.

VENDOR DOCUMENTATION AND STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE E

TERA CORPORATION

INFLUENCE OF MIDLAPO PROJECT ENVIRONMENT UPON ICVP COMPLETlON e

FACTORS AFFECTING ICVP EXECUTION PROGRAM. VATIC CHANGES TO COMPLETE PROJECT

+

RECERTIFICATION OF "O"-RELATED WORK CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PROGRAM (CCP)

+

QUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM (OVP)

+

DOCUMENT / RECORD HANDLING PRACTICES

+

DELAYS TO PROGRAM EXECUTION

+

APPROVAL OF CCP/QVP

+

STOP WORK ORDERS (FCR/FCN)

+

COMPLETlON STATUS OF ZACK WORK e

INFLUENCE UPON ICVP SCOPE AFW SEP CRHVAC REVIEW CATEGORY SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM i

1.

VENDOR DOCUMENTATION X

X X

2.

STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE X

X X

3.

CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION l

4.

PHYSICAL VERIFICATION 5.

VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES X

X X

TERA CORPORATION

IWLUENCE OF MIDLAPD PROJECT ENVIRONMENT UPON ICVP COMPLETION e

PHYSICAL VERIFICATION - HOW AFFECTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ZACK, SELECTED COMMCDITIES AND COMPONENTS WITHIN SYSTEM SAMPLE BOUNDARIES WILL BE RECERTIFIED (END PRODUCT UNAVAILABLE)

INSTALLED COMMODITIES AND COMPONENTS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY STATUSED PENDING COMPLETION OF CCP PHASE I REINSPECTION (ACCESSIBLE)

+

RECERTIFICATION (INACCESSIBLE)

+

+

"TO DO" PUNCH LIST e

CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION-HOW AFFECTED REVIEWED INSTRUCTIONS AND PROCEDURES UNDERGOING REVISION (END-PRODUCT DIFFICULT TO DISCERN)

FINAL QUALITY VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION NOT COMPLETE / COLLATED (END-PRODUCT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN AND VERIFY AS BEST AND FINAL)

INSPECTION RECORDS FOR ACCESSIBLE ITEMS TO BE SUPERCEDED BY. CCP/QVP RECERTIFICATION PROCESS (END PRODUCT NOT AVAILABLE)

TERA CORPORATION

ALTERATIONS TO ICVP EXECUTION PLAN ECESSARY TO RETAIN PRINCIPAL GOALS AlO OBJECTIVES e

PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE: VERIFY THE QUALITY OF END PRODUCTS e

SCOPE AFW SEP CRHVAC REVIEW CATECORY SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM l.

VENDOR DOCUMENTATION X

X X

2.

STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE X

X X

3.

CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION X

X X

4.

PHYSICAL VERIFICATION X

X X

S.

VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES X

X X

6.

QUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM X X

X l

1 TERA CORPORATION

l i

e PLAN FOR EXECUTION OF SCOPE VEtOOR DOCUMENTATION

.:AFW/SEP/CRHVAC_:t

!]

STORACE & MAINTENANCE

AFW/SEP/CRHVAC ::

-l C 6T UCT t NSTALLATION

AFW/CRHVAC:' +]

[.

AFW/CRHVAC/SEP::

]

PHYSICAL VER!FICATION

i AFW/CRHVACi

f.]

[H :::AFW/CRHVAC/SEP :: :]

VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES i!]

OUALITY VERIFICATION PROGRAM (OVP)

• I i

i I/84 7/84 1/85 7/84 = ASSUMED DATE FOR CCP PHASE I COMPLETION ON SELECTED COMPONENTS Ato COMMODITIES e

NEAR TERM l-7/84 OCR/ FINDING DISPOSITION VERIFICATION OF REVIEW RESULTS REVIEW OF OVP PROCESS

+ INTERFACE WITH STATUS ASSESSMENT TEAMS

+ REVIEW, IDENTIFY, AND UNDERSTAND ELEMENTS OF DOCUMENTATION (CONSIDERED) IMPORTANT TO ACCESSIBLE AND INACCESSIBLE ITEMS e

LONG TERM (7/84 - 1/8S)

SITE MOBILIZATION CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION AND PHYSICAL VERIFICATION REVIEWS 1 ERA CORPORATION

0 f

SUMMARY

OF IDCVP Et41ANCEMENTS PRIMARY e

AID EXTRAPOLATION OF RESULTS AND INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT e

IMPROVED EXECUTION COHESIVE REVIEW LESS SENSITIVE TO EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS e

TIMELY RESULTS SECONDARY e

IMPROVED RESOURCE USAGE / SCHEDULE i

l l

l TERA CORPORATION a