ML20091F356
Text
.
a-a t
/
L'd i-TFRif,'Cl3 STAFF V 7A Lyr4MM 1
1 3/RA l ff v
/(d} D S
RAJ
>;30 0
DPRP SLO E
September 20,1983 ump i
OE Mr. James W. Cook
$,I g,g g y
Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 i
Mr. J. G. Keppler Administrator, Region 111 Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Docket Nos. 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL Midland Nuclear Plant - Units I and 2 independent Design and Construction Verificotton (IDCV) Program Fourth Monthly Status Report Gentlemen:
Attached is our fourth Monthly Status Report covering the period from August I, 1983 through August 31,1983. Included in this report are:
o introduction and Purpose o
Midland IDCV Program Status Summary Programmatic Activities (including project chronology)
Design Verification Activities Construction Verificotton Activities -
o Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports o
Finonetal Status Report (CPC only) l Sincer ly, f
CW B406 g 26 840517
TERA CORPORATION 71.01 VASCONSN AVENUE ~.
BETHESDA. MARYLAND 20814 301 654 8960
Mr. J. W. Cook 2
September 20,1983 Mr. J. G. Keppler Mr. D. G. Eisenhut ec L. Gibson, CPC F. Buckman, CPC D. Miller, CPC (site)
B. Palmer, CPC (site D. Hood, NRC J. Taylor, NRC, I&E R. Keshishion, NRC, I&E G. Gower, NRC, l&E J. Clements, Bechtel F. Levondoski, B&W IDCV Progrom Serv:ce List HAL/djb I
TERA CCGPORATOJ
SERVICE LIST FOR MIDLAFO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM cc: Harold R. Denton, Director s
b o omiris Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f7 5. gy.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Freeland, Michigan 48623 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wendell Marshall James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Route 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Midland, Michigan 48440 Region 111 799 Roosevelt Road Mr. Steve Godler Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 2120 Carter Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspectors Office Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Route 7 Director, Citizens Clinic Midland, Michigan 48640 for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Mr. J. W. Cook Institute for Policy Studies Vice President 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Consumers Power Company Washington, D.C. 20009 1945 West Parnali Rood Jackson, Michigan 49201 Chories Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Michael I. Miller, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D.C. 20555 Three First National Plaza, Sist floor Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Chicago, Illinois 60602 Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail James E. Brunner, Esq.
Boca Roton, Florido 33433 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue
~
Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Jackson, Michigan 49201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Mary Sinclair Washington, D.C. 20555 57II Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Ron Collen 1
Michigan Public Service Commission j
Cherry & Flynn 6545 Mercontile Way Suite 3700 P.O. Box 30221 Three First National Plazo Lansing, Michigan 48909 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Paul Rau Ms. Lynne Bernobel Midland Dolly News Government Accountability Project 124 Mcdonald Street i
1901 Q Street, NW Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C. 20009 i
4
-~
. ~.. - -
-a
l l
o
\\
MIDLMO INDEPEtOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM MONTitY STATUS REPORT NUMBER 4 PERIOD AUGUST 1,1983 TlftOUGH AUGUST 31,1983 1
m Prepared by:
k&
Manage $r 5fglVerifiEation
=
s Manager, Construction Verification
[
/
Reviewed by: _
_3.ww u,If /- ->
y Project Manager Approved by:
M.
Princisdi in-Charge I
1 l
t
MIDLAto INDEPENDENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDCV)
MONTFLY STATUS REPORT NUMBER 4 PERIOD AUGUST I,1983 TFROUGH AUGUST 31,1983
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND PURPOSE Monthly Status Reports have been instituted by ogreement 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 identi-fled during the reporting period. This report covers the period from August I, 1983 through August 31,1983. 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.
1 2.0 IDCV PROGRAM STATUS
SUMMARY
2.1 Programmatic Activities Attachment I provides on updated chronology of mojor project milestones. The j
project chronology from inception through the beginning of this reporting period con be found in the previous monthly status reports. Several milestones worront special highlight.
.j On August S,1983, a public meeting was held at TERA's Bethesda, Maryland offices to discuss options for potential modification of the Midland IDCV program with respect to initiatives associated with Section 13 of Public Law l
97-415, the Ford Amendment. The options discussed at this meeting were later j
identified in a letter dated August 15,1983. Further discussions transpired on ll; this issue at another public meeting held on August 26,1983 of Bechtel's Ann l
Arbor offices. At this meeting, TERA indicated a, favoring of option one which f.
i I
a
+
d
o essentially maintains the existing vertical slice methodology, oppropriately considering design control, construction control GA/QC,'or other process related issues as the need may arise within the IDCVP.
The second OCR status review meeting was held on August 26,1983 of Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices. Representatives of CPC, Bechtel, B&W, NRC, and TERA attended the meeting. In addition to the statusing of outstanding issues, the discussions promoted on understanding and any clarification necessory related to new issues so that CPC, Bechtel, or B&W could either identify information that may not have been available to the IDCVP review team or clarify information that was ovalloble and reviewed.
Minutes documenting discussions at this meeting and commitments mode were issued on September 7, 1983. The third OCR Status review meeting will be held towards the end of October.
Ford Amendment activities took place during the reporting period. Represento-tives of the NRC I&E Headquarters staff observed TERA octivities during the weeks of August 8 and 22 at TERA's Bethesda, Maryland offices and Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices, respectively. Emphasis was placed on understond-Ing the design verification methodology. In addition to the brooder progammatic issues reviewed, the NRC personnel met with individual TERA reviewers and l
discussed specific detrJls on topic engineering evoluotions and analyses.
As noted in the project chronology, extensive effort was duoted in the period to site activities supporting the documentation aspects of the IDCVP review process. Physical verification remained on hold pending construction completion progress.
2.2 Design Verification Activities l
2.2.1 Summary 1
Progress continued in the review of all three systems across many of the review I
t scopes identified in the Engineering Program Plan. Internal comments were received on the consolidated criterio list for the AFW system and civil / structural l
6 2
L
,i
?
criteria were odded. Identification and review of criteria and commitments for the SEP and CR-HVAC systems continued.
l l
Engineering evoluotions were completed in several AFW review topics and were initiated in additional review topics. Previously initiated engineering evoluotions in the CR-HVAC and SEP progressed and additional evoluotions were initiated.
TERA personnel were on site at Midland on August 10 to observe the opplication of the systems interaction program to the AFW system.
The engineering evoluotion for systems interaction was initiated.
TERA personnel met with NRC personnel in TERA's Bethesda office during the week of August 8 to describe the IDV program and to allow NRC personnel to ask questions regarding review procedures, methods, documentation, etc. These discussions were conducted as part of the NRC's " Ford Amendment" activities.
During the week of August 22, TERA personnel were in Ann Arbor. Activities conducted during that week included the August 26 OCR Status meeting to discuss Confirmed items and Findings. Meeting notes were prepared which j
document subjects discussed, octions required, and personnel in attendance.
Other activities which took place in Ann Arbor that week included meetings with Bechtel personnel to obtain additional information and to allow release of Bechtel calculations to TERA in the civil / structural and electrical review topics. '
These calculations ofiect all three systems within the scope of the IDV.
2.2.2 Auxiliary Feedwater System Progress Continued progress was made in numerous design review areas during August. A combined engineering evoluotion for the Single Follure (topic number 1.3-l) and Follure Modes and Effects (topic number 1.23-1) was completed and will receive j
internal review during September. Other review topics which neared completion In August included:
e Accident Analysis Considerations e
System Alignment /Switchover i'
[.
3 l
,,y s
e e
+t--=u--*
e-
---m'
- - ' ' ~ " - " -
0 e
Remote Operation and Shutdown e
System isolation and interlocks e
Power Supriies e
Electrical Characteristics e
Protective Devices / Settings e
Actuot'on Systems Progress continued in the Systems Interaction review area. TERA personnel were onsite during a portion of the conduct of the system interaction program and observed implementation of the program for the AFW system.
The engineering evolvation for this topic has been initiated; its completion requires receipt of odditional information which has been requested.
Progress continued in the review of structural review topics, including those associated with the auxiliary building (i.e., topics 111.1-1 through 111.7-l). The review octivities for the civil / structural aspects of the AFW and HVAC systems are being conducted in parallel. This ensures that oppropriate samples of the design are being selected for review. A meeting was held with Bechtel to obtain information regarding the seismic design history and to obtain information regarding piping analyses. TERA is completing the confirmatory piping analysis problem.
A further meeting has been scheduled to obtain the necessary background information which will allow Bechtel to release structural calcula-tions to TERA. Obtaining these calculations is necessary to complete seismic design-related review topics.
A review of the scopes of work for service contractors was initiated during August. The results of this review will be used in conjunction with the sample selection process to ensure that the results of tiw IDV are oppropriately representative of the entire plant design.
l
\\
l A review of MCARs and SCREs was also initiated to ensure that the sample selection process has considered project history.
i The consolidated list of AFW criteria and commitments, which was issued for internal review and comment in July, was modified with the addition of 2
i L
u:
E 1
I civil / structural criteria and the incorporation of comments. The list will be reissued in September.
J Review of the B&W balance of plant criteria documents which were received in July wo: initiated during the month. In August several system descriptions were received from Bechtel. These documents will be reviewed in September.
2.2.3 Standby Electric Power System Progress The Standby Electric Power System design verification is progressing in the following major areas:
i e
identification and evaluation of criteria and commitments for all disciplines e
Requests for relevant documentation e
initial scoping review of electrical calculations.
An initial draft of the consolidated criteria and commitments document has been t
prepared based upon review of the FSAR. The review topics associated with 4
each critiero/ commitment will be added to the document and then the complete draft will be submitted for internal review for completeness. An engineering evaluation of the identified criteria and commitments has been initiated.
System descriptior:s for all the relevant electrical systems and pertinent or interfacing mechanical systems are under review.
TERA personnel received an introductory briefing on the DG Load calculation scope, assumptions, and methods. This briefing involved meeting with respon-sible Bechtel electrical personnel, who proceeded to describe how the calculation 3
was' performed. This activity is required to conform to Bechtel procedures regarding the release of calculations. This calculation will be evaluated as part of review topic l.24-2, Electrical Load Capacity. Pre-briefings on the SKV-Cable, Class IE Battery, Voltage Regulation, and Inverter will be held at a later l
date, since these calculations have been revised and are currently pending internal Bechtel review and approval.
l I
i 4
A--+
,n,.-.-
.L
,v...-
,-...,~e.,
,e
^
~
o*
l 2.2.4 Control Room HVAC System Progress The criteria review portion of the Control Room HVAC System review is nearing completion and the review hos progressed into the area of calculations and evoluotions. Engineering evoluotions for the criteria are being finalized. The P&lD review is also being finalized and used to Interface electrical and mechanical topics.
Following on initial scoping review, thirty calculation packages were requested and received. There are four major functional aspects of the design which are based on the calculations:
4 e
Ability to maintain the Control Room within the pre-scribed temperature limits e
Detection and Isolation of the outside air to limit hozord-ous chemical concentrations e
Radiooctive dose limitotion through isolation and filtro-tion f
System sizing and pneumatic design to establish required e
positive pressure.
The review of selected calculations for the first two areas is necring completion.
Radioactive dose calculations are being reviewed, and the system sizing and pneumatic design calculation review is on hold pending revision by Bechtel to on essentici calculation.
In parallel with the mechanical review, the single failure and failure modes and effects reviews have been initiated. Essential logic has been identified and the l
components critical to system function have been selected for review of l
electrical schematics. Event combinations for all occident conditions have been
- identified.
The structural review of the Auxiliary Building as discussed under the AFW review has been extended to incorporate aspects of the seismic design pertinent to the Control Room HVAC. For o discussion of progress in the combined structural review, see the AFW System discussion.
L I-!
l 6
P
.e
l 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 as follows.
e TERA personnel continued to channel the majority of their efforts into the review and verification of construction / installation docu-i mentation associated with selected commodities and components within the AFW system. During the reporting period a review and verification of the most current welding, NDE, and concrete installa-tion procedures were initiated and completed. Additionally, a review and verification of the most current revision of POCI's governing the inspection of installations were completed. During the process of j
conducting the review, TERA personnel were directed to note and record any differences which may exist between the most current version of procedures and those in effect at the time the installation and installation inspection were performed. The result of performing 4
this comparison will be o evaluation addressing the adequecy of available documentation when measured against current project requirements and industry-occepted standards for performing instol-lation and inspection activities.
The status of the CCP continues to effect the ICV program and e
implementation methodology. Per the agreed-upon method of pro-ceeding, TERA reviewers will not conduct field verification activities until such time as the CCP has completed its activities on selected components and commodities.
As the ICV review progresses, it
(.
becomes apparent that the inability to field verify the results of the construction / installation documentation review is beginning to cause l
inefficiencies in the documentation review itself. It was TERA's intent,-of the inception of the ICV review, to proceed immediately 7
i l
9 9 -. - -
w y
[
-, - w 3.--
-wiee,,-..,
--.-,i:.----____
m-w---
' ~-
l from construction / installation documentation review to field verifi-cation. This affords the opportunity to reconcile potential inconsis-tencies or gops in documentation with real physical dato.
As construction / installation data packages are completed by the CCP, ICV reviewers will be able to supplement the existing documentation review to ensure a complete construction / installation documentation package for final verification--this occuring prior to conducting physical configuration verificotton ex:tivities. The extent or signifi-cance of this inefficiency is os yet not discernible. The construc-l tion / installation documentation review methodology has been altered i
to ensure that all documentation requirements are extracted from the most current project instructions, or those to be used by the CCP. Any differences r>oted between instructions in effect at the i
time the installation and installation inspection were conducted and i
the most current instructions are being noted, recorded, and recon-ciled.
e The ICV review of storoge and molntenance documentation for selected components within the SEP and CR HVAC systems was completed during the reporting period. Applicable checklists were completed for the components subject to the storage and mainte-nonce review. The preparation of an engineering evoluotion of the results of the review was intentionally deferred pending a review of Information obtained during the OCR status review meeting held at l
Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices on August 26,1983.
in response to OCR's generated as a result of the storage and l
maintenance review of AFW system components, Bechtel advised of positive steps being undertaken to not only address inconsistencies relating to spccific AFW sys^em ceiveents, but also concerns relating to more generic, or programmatic inconsistencies as docu-1 mented in OCRs 45,46, and 47. Since the preliminary results of the storage and maintenance review of CR HVAC and SEP components l
are very similar to the nature of those observed and documented for l
l l
8 O
,.w.
..e,
..~
-,_____m m
-v
AFW system components, it is TERA's intent to first review informa-tion provided by Bechtel which oddress the inconsistencies docu-mented in OCRs 45, 46, and 47. ICV reviewers will then evoluote 1
proposed revisions to storage and maintenance programs and discern j
the implementation effectiveness in oddressing the inconsistencies observed as a result of the storage and maintenance review of the selected CR HVAC and SEP components. The results of this evolvo-tion will then be included in the engineering evoluotion for the storage and maintenance documentation review of the selected CR HVAC and SEP system components.
2.3.2 Construction Documentation Review Progress Construction documentation review relates to those ICV seview categories which are principolly concerned with the odequacy and completenen of available documentation as opposed to those ICV review categories which verify the physical configuration of installed components and commodities. The following ICV review categories are part of construction documentation review.
e Review of Supplier Documentation e
Review of Storage and Molntenance Documentation e
Review of Construction / Installation Documentation A description of progress made and principal activities undertaken in each of the above review categories are os follows:
Review of Supplier Documentation e
ICV reviewers were at the Midland site and at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices during the period of August I - 5,1983 for the purpose of obtaining information necessary to complete the supplier documento-tion revbw for selected co.Tiponents within the CR HVAC and SEP systems.
Information being sought and reviewed were principally related to documentation contained in the opplicable GA dato pock-
{
oges for the selected components.
i i
l 9
1 Y
e To support the storoce and maintenance and construction / installation documentation reviews, ICV personnel responsible for the supplier documentation review identified and assembled vendor-supplied docu-mentation pertinent to recommended site storoge and maintenance instructions, and documentation pertinent to welding, NDE, and material selection employed and provided by vendors. The assembled information was indexed and provided to the technical reviewers who are participating in the storoge and maintenance and construction /
installation documentation reviews.
e The engineering evoluotion documenting the results of the supplier documentation reviews for selected components within the IDCV systems continues toward completion with the first draft due for completion by the middle of September. The initial focus of the evoluotion has been directed toward the adequocy and completeness of vendor-supplied instruction manuals and other associated docu-mentation which provides guidance in the receipt, storage and handling, and maintenance of the supplied equipment.' Cleaning and coating, welding, NDE, material selection, and shipping instructions, and associated verification documentation are currently under evolu-otion by ICV reviewers, while IDV reviewers are evoluoting design related functional quellfication information in parallel with this effort. These items have been assigned a high priority in the IDCV vendor-supplied documentatation evoluotion.
The difficulty associated with this particular evoluotion relates to assigning significance to the types of inconsistencies to be encountered. One must be porticularly cautious and careful when weighing the importance to be assigned to any inconsistencies where a vendor has apparently not supplied all required documentation, os equivalence must be verified to complete the ICV verification process. From o programmatic sense, a continuing reoccurrence of similar -
inconsistencies would indicate o potential breakdown in the process of account-Ing for and handling vendor submittals. However, when inconsistencies are noted, but they are sporodic in nature, the reportability of such occurrences is marginal and relate principally to observations requiring no follow-up oction 1
10 0
since they would have little, if any, impact upon the quality of the installed component. ICV reviewers continue to note, record, and evoluote the results of the supplier documentation review with the first draft of the evoluotion due around mid-September.
Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation e
During the week of August 8 - 12,1983, ICV reviewers were at the Midland site ocquiring information needed to complete the storoge and maintenance documentation review checklists for selected com-ponents within the CR HVAC and SEP systems. As a result of these efforts, the storage and maintenance documentation review for the selected CR HVAC and SEP components is essentially complete with only isolated information/ data gaps still existing on some of the opolicable checklists. Preliminary results of reviewing the acquired Information would indicate inconsistencies similar to those noted for components within the AFW system and documented in OCRs 45, 46, and 47. Upon completing the review of the acquired information, ICV reviewers will document the results of their findings in OCRs, as appropriate.
i e
As a result of discussions during the OCR status review meeting on August 26,1983, ICV reviewers were advised by Bechtel of positive steps mdertaken to oddress and resolve the specific and generic, or programmatic inconsistencies noted in'OCRs 45, 46, and 47. These OCRs relate to components in the AFW system. ICV reviewers will review and evoluote the information provided by Bechtel. These i
efforts on the part of cognizant ICV reviewers will be integrated with the engineering evOation of the storoge and maintenance documen-j l
.i nents. By proceeding in this manner, ICV reviewers will be capable of measuring the efficocy of site activities undertaken to identify, reconcile, and resolve noted inconsistencies.
l i
1
As a result of the engineering evoluotion completed for the AFW e
system components, OCR C-047 was prepared and discussed with parties in attendance of the OCR status review meeting held at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices on August 26,1983. Bechtel, as pre-viously addressed in this section, advised of positive steps being undertaken to resolve the inconsistencies identified in OCR C-047.
Pending receipt and review of documented Bechtel information, ICV reviewers have reclassified OCR C-047 as a Finding (see Attach-ments 4 and 5 of this status report).
Review of Construction / Installation Documentation i
e During the month of August, ICV reviewers continued to focus the majority of their efforts upon the review of Installation and installo-tion inspection procedures and records. The review has been con-ducted for the prioritized listing of components and commodities within the AFW system (for listing, see status report for the month of July). As of the writing of this report, inforrnation necessary to complete opplicable checklists for the following items within the AFW system have been assimiloted and the necessary dato entered on the checklists:
1.
Piping runs (5 piping runs selected)
I 2.
Pipe hongers and supports i
3.
Volves 4.
Rotating Equipment (includes the 2 AFW pumps and l_
ossociated drivers)
A review of selected cable troys / conduit and supports was initiated during the latter port of August.
(
(
e As the review of construction / installation documentation hos pro-I gressed, it has become apparent to cognizont reviewers and manage-ment that the reference against which to gauge the odequacy of ovellable documentation must, and will be, the most current revision 12 l
.b
[-
1 l
l I
of existing instructions and procedures. Accordingly, the technical odequacy cf these instructions and procedures will be evoluoted and the implementation verified. Employing this opproach ossures that verifications are mode to that documentation to be utilfred by site l
personnel porticipating in the CCP. During the month of August, ICV l
reviewers commenced a review to note, record, evoluote, and recon-cile documentation and procedures, which were used at the time of l
the Installation and installation inspection, to the most current 1
revision of controlling procedures and instructions, or those to be used by the CCP.
e During the weeks of August I - 5 and August 15 - 26, ICV reviewers conducted and completed reviews of the technical odequacy of existing welding procedures, welding procedure qualification, and associated welding documentation to verify compliance to ASME, ANSI, and AWS standards. Additionally, ICV reviewers performed a review of current NDE procedures, procedure quellfication, and associated NDE records.
The welding and NDE reviews were conducted for site-generated Instructions and procedures and the most current revision of these procedures. These reviews continue for the purpose of verifying that procedures in effect at the time of installation are identical to the current revision of the opplicable procedure or, if on earlier revision, reviewed to verify that differ-ences are noted, recorded, and evoluoted.
i a
Selected vendor-supplied welding, NDE, and material selection pro-l cedures and verification documentation were identified and will be l
reviewed to verify implementation of procedures. These reviews will l
be initiated and completed during the month of September.
l l
e The specification / procedure review associated with concrete place-I ment was completed during the month of August. This review was l
conducted by LAW personnel in their Washington, D.C. offices. With i
the exception of discrete pieces of dato and information necessary to l
l 13 j
4 complete the applicable check-off lists, the remaining tasks associ-ated with the civil / structural review relate to the identification of specific placement numbers and review of applicable site-generated verification documentation.
e Near term activities within the construciton/ installation documento-tion review task relate to the summation and evoluotion of review activities undertaken to date for the following commodities and components within the AFW system.
Piping runs Pipe hangers and supports Volves Rotating equipment Cable trays / conduit and supports I
it is the intent of ICV program monogement to include the review summations for the above listed items in the topical report to be prepared in suppcrt of the NRC l&E efforts relating to the Ford Amendment.-
I 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 activities and/or the as-built configuration of installed commodities and components. For the most port, these activities require a strong site presence on the part of reviewers and include the following review categories:
t f
g e
Review of Selected Verification Activities e'
Verificotton of Physical Configuration n
J s
A description of progress mode and principal activities undertaken in each of the above review categories are as follows:
\\
\\
O..g y
6 m
+.' - w;
.-Q N '
n-m.
, y, ;A_
- i.
.i
i Review of Selected Verification Activities e
During the week of August 8 - 12, 1982, ICV reviewers observed sire personnel in the performance of cable overinspection activities.
These activities were performed for four cables in the CR HVAC and SEP systems in occordance with instructions and procedures gene-rated by the Cable Overinspection Program. ICV reviewers, during l
the observations, completed appropriate checklists. The results of these observations have been merged with similar observations mode for cables within the AFW systems to determine the effectiveness l
and adequocy of the cable overinspection program. The engineering evoluotion v.hich summarizes the results of the ICV evoluotion of the cable overinspection program has been completed in draft form and is currently being reviewed by ICV program management. Associated j
with these activities Confirmed items C-049 and C-050 have been i
identified. These are discussed in Section 3.0. Preliminary conclu-sions indicate that the cable overinspection program provides a reliable method to ascertain whether or not cable attributes are in accordance with controlling design documentation.
I ICV reviewers continued to obtain and review controlling and refer-e ence documents pertinent to the piping /honger overinspection pro-gram. During the lost week in August, TERA personnel witnessed the inspection of three different types of, pipe hangers / supports. Two honger type inspections remain to be witnessed, but have not been scheduled.
Pending discussions with ICV program management, i
cognizant ICV reviewers will attempt to schedule the remaining inspections at a time compatible with the overinspection program activities and no later than October 1.
Verification of Physical Configuration An oberted attempt was mode to verify the installation of cables and e
cable terminations within the sample boundaries of the CR HVAC, SEP, and AFW systems. ICV reviewers proceeded to determine the 15 1
,e p
n,
-n-9~
w g
-yy m
-m w
-,o--
+-,a a
--c-o-
a e
CCP statu.* relating to selected electrical devices and components es o prereqdsite to conducting a verification cf electrical terminations.
As a result of these efforts, it was determined that components and cobies scimted for ICV rwiew hcd not been turned over to CPCo ond, therefore, were enciuo-d in the CCP and coexidered in a hold status, pending CCP completion.
ICV reviewers will continue to closely monitor CCP status once the CCP hos been released for implementation.
I e
JBosed upon dbcussions during the OCR stotus review meeting on August 26,1983, and the ICV review of the field change process as it relates to pipe hongers and supports, ICV reviewers prepared Finding Report F-031.
Finding Report F-031 relates to inconsistencies observed in the r.4enner field changes were being made to pipe honger and support drowings os previously discussed and defined in OCR-C-03 !.
3.0
SUMMARY
OF CONF!RMINED AND RESOLVED ITEM REPORTS, FIND-s ING REPORTS, AND FINDING RESOLUTION REPORTS Attactinent 2 provides TERA's Trocking System Suenmary fo.- Open, Confirmed, and Resolved (OCR) ' Item Fieports, Finding Reports, and Finding Resolution Reports. This tool ossi'sts TERA in tracking the-disposition of issues os the; progress through thz review process. Items that have changed status or that j
have been adddf during the' reporting period are eted with on osterisk.
Attochment 3 pievkles retyped copies of Resolved item Reports (that have -
closed out Conf;rmed items), Confirmed items, Finding Reports, and Finding.
Resolution Reoorts. The following parographs discuss items which have charged
+
~ status in the post month, i
Two Findings were identified durinc 4he reporting period. Finding RepcM F-031 l-
!s related to ;pevious Findings F-032 through F-036 which noted : specific I
'phicc[; discrqancids between Indalled Tipe hongers *ond. design Inforrnation.
i_F-031 addresses the process 3: used to ecntrof and reconcile field modifications-
~
4 e
ki
.1 -
l j
g.-
I
~ t
+ -I I
~
.g.
-~
w i
w.
o k
g pg N.,
d r
l' l
- W' c
with the design. It should be noted that TERA efforts associated with Findings F-032 through F-036 predated the CCP and that elements of the CCP have been directed towards identifying and correcting similar issues.
iERA will focus future efforts on on ossessment of new field change procedures with emphasis on actions token to reconcile these changes with the design, including selective confirmation of implementation.
Finding Report F-047 is related to previous Findings F-045 and F-046 which noted specific discreponcles between vendor recommended storage and mainte-nonce. requirements and project procedures and octions. F-047 oddresses the processes used to assign storoge and molntenance requirements to received and installed equipment. It should be noted that the project has recently instituted programmatic changes in this area that are directed at resolving these and related issues. TERA will review the new program and selectively verify its Implementation.
Findings F-031 and F-047 have been classed " safety" becovse of the potential for the noted issues to offect the performance of equipment in accordance with the safety design bases; however, it should be noted that the specific discrepancies which led to the generation of these " process related" Findings are judged to be of limited safety significance.
Three Confirmed items were Identlfred during the reporting period. Confirmed item C-039 concerns the bases used to justify the application of environmental quellficotton dato for a specific cable type to other types. Confirmed item C-049 oddresses on apparent discrepancy in the separation of A and B channel j
cables. Confirmed item C-050 addresses on apparent misrouting of cable.
Resolved item Report R-037 has closed out on outstanding Confirmed item related to inconsistencies found between the FSAR text and figures.
li l
l 17 i
o f
ATTACHMENTI PROKCT CFRONOLOGY MIDLAPO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN AFO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM TERA PROKCT 3201 PERIOD AUGUST I,1983 TiftOUGH AUGUST 31,1983 Date Milestone August I-5,1983 TERA Construction Review Team at Bechtal's Ann Arbor Offices and on-site conducting review of supplier documento-tion and welding procedures.
August 1-31, 1983 TERA Construction Review Team on-site conducting construction / installation docu-mentation review.
August 5,1983 Public meeting held at TERA's Bethesda offices to discuss options for potential modificoiton of the IDCVP with respect to initiatives associated with Section 13 of Public Low 97-415, the Ford Amend-ment.
August 8-12, 1983 TERA observers on-site witnessing cable
- overinspection activities.
August 9-11,1983 NRC Inspection and Enforcement Head-quarters staff at TERA's Bethesda offices observing IDCVP octivities and obtaining programmatic information.
August 10,1983 TERA observers on-site witnessing sys-tems interaction walkdowns.
August 15,1983 Letter issued on conceptual options iden-tified at the August 5,1983 public meet-i ing associated with the Ford Amendment.
I August 15-26, 1983 TERA Construction Review Team on-site reviewing FOE procedures and documen-l totion.
August 16,1983 Third IDCVP Monthly Status Report issued.
- Attachment i I
o. I
~
I
=
i Date Milestone August 22-26,1983 TERA Design Review Team at Bechtel's Am Arbor offies obtaining and reviewing documentation for AFW, SEP, and CR-HVAC reviews.
August 24-26, 1983 NRC Inspection and Enforcement Head-quarters staff at Bechtel's Am Arbor offices observing IDCVP octivities.
August 26,1983 Second OCR status review meeting held at Bechtel's Am Arbor offices.
August 29, 1983 -
TERA observers on-site witnessing September 2, !983 piping /honger overinspection activities.
F l
l 2
.I k
1 Attachment i 2
l
ATTACHMENT 2 OCR, FIPONG REPORT, MO FIPONG RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MOLAPO DOEPEf0ENT DESIGN MO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGftAM 9/16/E3 OCR No. Resp. LTR Po*nntial Open Confirmed Resolved Findino Finding Topic Comments Open item item item item Reper:
Resolution Repori 0 06 RPS 12/21/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.4-1 Tech Specs 002 RPS 12/21/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 1.4-I Tech Specs 003 RPS 1/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 L8-1 Overpressure Protection 004 RPS 1/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 L8-1 Overpressure Protection 005 RPS 1/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/03 1.5-1 System Operating Limits 006 RPS 1/12/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Accident Analysis Considerations 007 RPS 1/12/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Accident Analysis Considerations 000 LB 1/19/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.19-1 Control Systems 9
009 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 II.1-1 Seismic Design 010 FAD 1/20/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 7/12/8 3 L10-1 Hydraulic Design C'I LB 1/27/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 8/8/83 Li9-l Control Systems 012 LB 2/7/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.15-3 Power SWies 013 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.5-1 Syst. Align./Switeover o Change in Status During Reporting Period I
. _. _ ~..
OCR, FIPONG fEPORT, ADO FIPUING IESOLUTION IEPORT TRACKNG SYSTEM MOLADO DOEPDOENT DE50CN APO CONSTRUCTION VERFICATION PROGRAM 9/16/83 (continued OCR No. Res.LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Findi F '
Topic Comments Open item item item laem t
so tion Report 014 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.5-1 Syst. Align./Switchover 015 CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 111.1-1 Seismic Design / Input to Egdpment 006 CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 lit.5-1 Civil /Stu Design Consid.
CJ FAD
, 2/17/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Heat Removal Cap I.10-1 Hydraulic Design 018 FAD 2/17/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83
- 1. 81 - 1 Heat Removal Cap.
019 LB 2/ 21/8 3 3/4/M 8/8/83 1.18-1 Instrumentation 020 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Hoot Removal Cap.
1.9-1 Comp. Func. Req.
021 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 II.101 Eq. Qual.
0-21 Rev. I, 4/14/8 3 022 LB 2/24/83 3/4/83 8/8/83 1.19-1 Control Syst.
023 LB 2/28/83 3/4/83 8/8/83 1.18-1 Instrumentation l.19-1 Control l*
1 1
l
OCR, F80 LNG EPORT, Af0 FRONG IESOLUTION REPORT TRACKNG SYSTEM MOLA#O ROEFEIOENT DESIGN Ape CONSTRUCTION VERFICATION PROGRAM 9/16/E (contimed OCR Nm. Resp. LTR Potential Confirmed Resolved Finding F -
Topic Comments Open item item Item Report so tion Report 024 RPS 3/1/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Acc. Anal. Consid.
025 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 I.21 Acc. Anal. Consid.
ON RPS 3/1/83 3/4/83 1.8-1 Overpress. Prof.
027 FAD 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.9-l Comp. Fune. Reg.
II.9-1 Env.Eng.
028 FAD 3/2/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 f.9-1 Comp. Func. Req.
029 LB 2/22/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.18-1 Instrumentation 1.19-l Control System 030 LB 1/19/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control System 0 38 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 8/30/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Soporis C-31 Rev. I,7/12/83' 032 CS 2/88/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/ 8 3 7/12 83 1.3-Ic Pipe Support C-32, Rev. I, 7/12/83 t
=
OCR, FIPOING IEPORT, APO Feop4G IESOLUTION IEPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MOLADO l>OEPEIOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM 9/16/83 Econtinuse Jind Findi Topic Comments OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved F
Open item item item item Report eso tion Report 033 C5 2/11/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/ 8 3 7/12/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Steparis C-33. Rev. I,7/12
- 034 CS 2 / 18/ 0 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12 83 7/12/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Steports C-34 Rev. I,7/12/83 035 CS 2/11/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/ 8 3 7/12' l.3-Ic Pipe 56,poris C-35 Rev. 2,7/12/83
~
036 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/Is3 11.2 -1 Pressure Boundary C-36, Rev. 2, 7/I2/83 037 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 8/30/83 111.5-1 Seismic Desic/Irgut a
to Equipment 038 LB 3/1/03 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.15-1 Power Steplies 039 LB 3/30/83 4/14/83 8/30/83 11.10 1 Env.Eq.Quol 040 LB 3/8/83 4/14/83 l.16-1 Elec. Characteristics 041 LB 3/25/83 4/14/83 1.l5-1 Power Steplies 042 LB 3/31/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 Env. Eq. Qual.
043 FAD 3/15/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 System Hydrmlic Design 0%
FAD 3/15/83 4/14/83 11.1 0 -1 Env. Eq. Qual.
045 08T 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 8/8/83 II.1-lC ElectricalEquipment/
C-45, Rev.1, 7/12/83 Storage & Maintenance 046 DST 3/17/83 4/I4/83 5/25/83 8/8/83 1.5-lC Mechanical Equipment /
5torage & Maintenance 4
OCR, FRONG fEPORT, ADO FN394G FVM i 8 TION IEPORT TIMCKNG SYSTEM ME3LMO DOEPDOENT DESIGN AfC CONSTRUCTION VERFICATION PROGRAM 9/16/E3(eendnued OCR No. Ross, LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resobed Tepic Comnants Open hem Item
' Nem item t
ion Report 047 DST 7/7/83 7/26/83 8/8/83 8/30/83 1.1-lC MechanicoI Evaipment/
C-47 Rev. I, storage & Maintenece 4/30/s3*
048 FAD 7/29/83 7/29/83 e/8/83 11.10-1 Emironmentol Eesipment Qualificellen 049 RC 8/20/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 II.4 lc Cable 050 RC 8/28/83 4/29/83 8/29/03 Bl.4 lc Cele 051 JAM 8/12/83 8/30/83 8/30/113 NI.l.1 Seismic Desiy#9ut to Equipment f
1 W
b l
8 i
i l
l l.
e i
o 4
ATTACHMENT 3 CURRENT PERIOD COfflRMED APO RESOLVED ITEM REPORTS, FINDING REPORTS, AFO FINDING RESOLUTION REPORTS 4
i 5
4 4
I l
l l
I i
f' f
F f
1 7,
y,-w
--,y,-
.w c4 w-,-
v-, -
,--e
-w
---c_.,w+-,.__-.,, - -_- _
,-m--
mm.
\\
MIDLAto itOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FitOING REPORT FILE NO. 3201-008 DOC NO. 3201-008.F. 031 CLAS$a SAFETY X
NON.5AFETY REV.NO. O DATE5 REPORTED TO PROECT TEAM /PROXCT MCR 8/30/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARCE 8/30/83
$RT 8/30/83 CPC/DE5lGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), $YSTEM5(5), OR COMPOfENT(5) INVOLVED:
l AFV System Pipe Supports DESCRIPTION OF FIPOINGs Fleid changes to piping hangers and supports may not be consistently and accurately Refer to OCR 3201-008-C-031, Rev. 1 j
incorporated into the original design documents.
$IGNIFICANCE OF FINDING:
Changes to design caused by construction / installation activities may not be 1
l 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 l
configuration.
RECOMMEFCATION:
ICV reviewers will review the processes used to control fleid modifications to
. piping and pipe hanger drawings. The focus of the review will be to ensure that specific procedural requirements are incorporated that require design evaluation of fleid changes to pipe and pipe hanger /suppcrt drawings.
i i
COMMENTS BY $RT OF REQUIREDh I
l t
1 REFERENCES ONCL.RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h j
OCR-3201-008-C-031, Rev. 1
Fl>CING REPORT PROACT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.IN CHARGE 5RT (IF REQUIRED) l ORIGINATOR (LTRI FOR P'.OACT TEAM j.
8/29/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE i
l j,
l I.*
f l
i 1
p.
O
MIDUuO l>OEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FitOING REPORT FILE NO. 3203 008 DOC NO. 3203 00s. F. 047 CLASS:
SAFETY X NON 5AFETY REY.NO.
0 DATES REPORTED TO PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 8/30/83PRINCIPAL.IN CHARGE 8/30/83 SRT 8/30/83 CPC/DE5fGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM 5($), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED:
AFW System Valves (2LV3975AIV, 2M03965AV), Instrumentation (2FT3969A),
Pump Room Cooler (2VM 54A)
DESCRIPTION OF FIPCING:
Several instances were noted wherein the vendor's recommended storage and main-tenance requirements were not reflected in the project procedures used to store and maintain received and installed equipment.
See OCR 3201-008-C047, Rev. 1, Description of Concern SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDING:
j Lack of proper storage and routine maintenance on installed equipment could, over time, have a deleterious effect upon the operability and overall quality of equipment.
RECOMMEtcATION: Based upon discussions with Bechtel personnel during the 8/26/83 IDCV status review meeting, ICV reviewers were advised of positive steps being undertaken by Bechtel to, 1) resolve specific inconsistencies noted in OCR-C-047 and 2) to implement programatic changes to verify & reconcile vendor-recommended storage requirements to requirements provided in Midland storage and maintenance procedures.
. Review disposition of noted inconsistencies as identified in OCR C-047 for adequacy and compliance with industry accepted and vendor-recommended standards for storage and maintenance.
. Evaluate procramatic chanaes to discern their effectiveness in reconciling vendor-recus.wnded Etoraae and maintenance requirements to requirements currently contained COMMENT 5 8Y SRT OF REQUIRED): In project storage and maintenance. Instructions.
REFEPENCES ONCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h OCR 3201-008-C-047, Rev. 1 SIGNATURE (Sh DST HAL JB DKD FIPCING REPORT PROKCT MANAGER PRINCPAL.IN. CHARGE SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR G.TM FOR PROKCT TEAM 8/29/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 4
DATE DATE DATE DATE i
MIDLAFO lbOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COtEIRMED __ X Nd 3
-008-C. 0 3 9 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO LTR 8/4/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 8/5/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARCE 8/30/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOrENT(5) INVOLVED:
Instrumentation Cable B28-C, 105-C, II5-C, Il6-C, 117-C, 118-C, 126-C, s09-C, (E-60A) 510-C OCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
.AFW Review-Equipment qualification Topic II.10-1 DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
The equipment qualification test data presented in report E-60A is shown as being applicable to the above cables as well as others. Report E-60A provides data for a twisted shielded pair test sample which is normally applied to twisted shielded pairs, triple oc quad from multi-conductor signal cable. The basis for this appIlcation is SEEE-383-1974 Table 1.
None of the above cable types are shielded pairs, triple or quad from multi-conductor signal cable. There is no clear Justi-fication in the report E-60A for the appilcation of the twisted shielded pair test data to these other cable types.
SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERNS The cable types IIsted above may not be adequately qualified or other quallfication data may more appropriately apply to these cable types.
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION Confirm and determine the availabil'lty of additional information from Bechtel re-garding the Justification of qualification data applied to these specific cable types.
l COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED's i
I s
j REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
I SIGNATURE (9 l
LPB LPB NAt JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGNATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN. CHARGE l
8/5/83 8/5/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 i
DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE i
ea MIDLAiO N)EPEf0ENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT Fu.E NO. 3208-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COPFIRMED X
DOC NO. 3201-008 C -049 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 8/28/83 $RT PROECT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 8/29/83 PRINCIPAL-IN. CHARGE A/10/R1 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (9, OR COMPOPENT(9 NVOLVED:
Cable DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICA8LD:
Topic II.4-Ic, Cable DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNS During the inspection of the physical attributes of Class IE cable 2 BIO 55A as part of the verification of the cable overinspection program, cables (2B1025D et al) at elec-trical equipment cubicle 2C166 were observed to be in violation of separation criteria as contained in Bechtel Spec. E-47Q, para. 5.1.1.4.
Cables in open riser 2BJN01 (8 channel cables) were approximately 2 feet from air lined cables at vias 2AE176 and 2AE159 (A channel cables). Separation criteria require 3 feet separation.
i SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERNS The inspected "as is" condition indicates a potential nonconformance with Bechtel Spec. E-47(Q), Notes and Details for Separation of Class 1E Equipment and Circuits.
E-47(Q) Para. 5.1.1.4 specifies that barriers be installed for the separation of different channel cables that are less than three feet apart where one is airlined in general plant areas.
RECOMMEPOATION X
OR RESOLUTION
- 1) Reconcile noted inconsistency.
- 2) Detennine if specific steps are to be undertaken to verify Class 1E cable separation criteria.
COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJs Bechtel Specification E-47 SIGNATURE (Se RC DBT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROACT MANAGER PRINCPAL.
SRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGNATOR FOR PROACT TEAM H.CMARGE 8/28/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 8/30/83 un un un un un
~
t w
y w
_._,y
-_y-
MIDLAto N)EPEFOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCFO ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201.008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COWIRMED X
DOC NO. 3201-ood -050 RESOLVED fTEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO LTR 8/28/83 SRT PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MCR. 8/29/R3 PRINCIPAL-IN. CHARGE 8/30/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (s) OR COMPOPENT(s) INv0LVED:
Cable 2AA05125, Start-Up System 2BGC l
E)CV PROGRAM ARI.A OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Topic II.4-Ic, Cable DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN The physical attributes of Class 1E cable 2AA0512S were reinspected as part of the TERA review of the MPQAD cable overinspection program. The cable had been rein-spected previously as part of the MPQAD reinspection activities. The cable 2AA0512S was found to be routed vertically through an unscheduled horizontal cable tray AJK06 when traced from scheduled tray AJB05 to scheduled tray AJK08. The cable routing did not conform to that shown in Bechtel drawing E-37.
SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN The unscheduled via (misrouting) was not noted nor reported as a nonconforming physical characteristic as a result of a previous inspection, as documented in PIPR No. 1570 dated 10/26/82, resulting from the cable overinspection program. Subse-quent to ICV review, CPC reported the misrouting occurrence in QCIR 2AA05125 dated 6/21/83.
RECOMMEPOATION X OR RESOLUTION
- 1) Reconcile the noted cable misrouting event and obtain definitive guidelines relating to what constitutes a cable being in a cable tray, e.g., is a vertically routed cable, which breaks the plane of a horizontal cable tray, considered to be in the horizontal cable tray (as is the case associated with,this 0CR).
- 2) Expand the number of cables to be overinspected as part of the ICV review of the cable overinspection program. The selected increase in the sample size should be biased as follows:
(see attached sheet)
COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUWtED):
I
(
14EFERENCES (NCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Bechtel Drawing E-37, Rev. 63, pg. 16. Unit 2 QCIR 2AA05125, dated 6/21/83 PIPR No. 1570, dated 10/26/82 SIGNATURE (9:
RC DBT HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-SRT (F REQUIRED) l ORIGNATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM N. CHARGE 8/28/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 8/30/92 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE t
.. a C-050 RECOMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION
- (continued) o Selection of cables routed in congested areas (i.e., upper andlowerspreadingrooms)
~
o Selection of cables which were previously examined by the i
QCE who conductea the examination of cable 2AA512S as part of the cable overinspection program.
4
's i
i f
l W
f V
J MK) LAM) WOEPEM)ENT CESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCFO ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 3201-o08 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COPFIRMED DOC NO. 3201-008 R-017 RESOLVED Y ITEM REV. NO.
0 I
PRINCPAL-IN. CHARGE A/10/R1 CPC/DE51GN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5). SYSTEM (1), OR COMPOPENT(5) INVOLVED:
AFW System - All E)CV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLD:
Topic III.1 Seismic Design Review of Design Criteria DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN FSAR Figures 3.7-2 through 3.7-53 are not current as they are not consistent with FSAR Text nor the models and response spectra of the containment and auxiliary building. The FSAR updating process is not consistent nor timely.
SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN FSAR errors could lead to the utilization of improper input to the design process.
RECOMMEPCATION OR RESOLUTION X FSAR revision 47 updates Figures 3.7-2 through 3.7-53, thus resolving the specific issue noted. In conjunction with the review of C-005. TERA will selectively evaluate the FSAR revision process'.
COMMENTS SY SRT (F MEQUREDh i
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJi SIGNATURE (Sk JAM FAD HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-SRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM N-CHARGE l
8/28/83 R/20/R3 8/30/83 g/30/R1 I
DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE i
i
~
MIDLAPO IPOEPEPOENT DE*;lGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT i
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONF 4RMED X
Nd 008-C -047 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO. ~l DATE5 REPORTED TOs LTR 9/30/R3 SRT PROXCT TEAM /PROKCT MCR. A /10/R1 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), $YSTEM(9. OR COMPOPENT(5) INVOLVED:
AFW System Valves (2LV3975AIV, 2 M03965AV), instrumentation (2FT3969A),
and Pump Room Cooler (2VM 54A)
DCVPROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Storage and Maintenance Documentation Review DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNi Several Instances were noted wherein the vendor's reconrnended storage and maintenance requirements were not reflected in the project procedures used to store and maintain received and installed equipment. For the selected components reviewed, the following discrepancies were noted.
- 1. The F-1 procedure governing warehouse storage for valve 2LV-3975AIV was for an air operated control valve. Valve 2LV-3975AIV is an electro-hydraulic control valve.
- 2. Manufacturer's recommended maintenance requirements contained in Bechtel Vendor Document #7220-Mll7-142-1 are not included in the project maintenance procedures for SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERNS valve 2MO-3965AV, Mfgr's requirements not included as follows:
(see attached sheet) 1.
Lack of proper storage and routine maintenance on installed equipment could, over tirre, have a deleterious effect upon the operability and overall quality of equipment.
RECOMMElCATION X OR RESOLUTION
.CV reviewers consider any one of the noted discrepancies as minor when evaluated by it-self. However, when all noted discrepancies are considered as a whole, the trend would indicate an inconsistent process being used to translate vendor-specific storage &
maintenance recommendations into project procedures..
1.
Resolve noted discrepancies between vendor-recommended storage & maintenance re-quirements and requirements invoked through project procedures.
In the process of reconciling the noted discrepancies, remain sensitized to differentiating between vendne reautrements which are seloulated based uoon warranty (commercial) considera-COMMENT 5 8Y 5RT (F REQUIRED): tions as opposed to those which are based upon industry accepted standards for adequate storage & maintenance.
i 2.
Review process used to assign storage & maintenance re-quirements to received and installed equipment to verify consideration being af forded vendor-specific recommended
.-,s.--n REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT M FPG 4.000; FPG 5.000 2LV3975AIV: F-1-197; F-10-420 2VM54A: F-1-314; Zack MS-FP.2; 7220-M14 l-1 2M03965AV: F-1-396; F-10-92; 7220-Mil 7-142 2FT3969A:.F-1-632; F-10-403; L1 7220-5245-9 6 13 SIGNATURE (g, dh y MJ DT HL i
OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER
- PRINCIPAL.
SRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROACT TEAM N. CHARGE 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 DATE DATC DATE DATE DATE l
...o
)
C-047 Description of Concern (Cont'd)
- Stroking of the valve every six months
- Lubrication of the upper yoke sleeve and valve stem 3
Warehouse storage procedure (F-1 procedure) fcr flow transmitter 2FT-3969A did not contain the manufacturer's recommenc'ed storage requirements as follows:
- Monitoring of humidity indicators
- Replacement of dessicant where necessary 4.
The project storage procedure for the pump room cooler (2VM-54A) did not contain the manufacturer's recommended storage and main-tenance requirement fur placing dessicants in the cooler units.
Furthermore a megger test was not conducted on the cooler unit, prior to issuing the unit from storage, as required by the site storage procedure.
l S.
OCR 3201-oo8-C/F-045 pertaining to the storage and maintenance of AFW Pump Motor 2P-005A.
i l
i 4
i
e
'1
, y, 0:
L J SE7KELEv DALLAS 3E'dE3DA BATCN GOUGE DEL MAQ NEW YCCW SAN ANiCN'O CENvEQ LCS ANGELES May 27,1983 FRIMCIPAL STAFF 1 Mr. James W. Cook RA MENF l
y Vice President D/RA
'NSCS.1u,f 5
Consumers Power Company A/RA iPAO
/
1945 West Parnall Road OPRP 38' -
Jackson, Michigan 49201
' Dw o4 W7 ousP l'
Mr. J. G. Keppler DE' Administrator, Region til ML I
8?8 LE%
Office of Inspection and Enforcement OL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn,IL 60137 Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Docket Nos. 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL Midland Nuclect Plant - Units I and 2 independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Program First Monthly Status Report Attached is our first Monthly Status Report covering the period from project inception through May 27,1983. Irii:luded in this report are:
General background information on the Midland IDCV e
program and details related to Monthly Status Reports Introduction and Purpose - Section 1.0 Midland IDCV Program Background - Section 2.0 Scope - Section 3.0 Reporting Period and Issuance - Section 4.0 IDCV Program Status Summary - Section 5.0 Project Chronology - Attachment 1 0
n, f
4 A
WAY 311983 TER A CCQPCQATICN 7101 WISCONSIN AVENUE BE7HESDA, M ARYLAND 20814 301 t.54 8060 h7'BVfd 8 ' &2.Y&L EX/WSS 7
s
g
. o. -
Mr. James W. Cook Mr. J. G. Keppler Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Tracking System Summary for Open, Confirmed and e
Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports Section 6.0 and Current Confirmed item Reports - Attachment 3 e
Financlot Status Report (CPC only)- Attochment 4 e
Sincerely, sert.c
/
c Howard A. Levin Project Manager Midland IDCV Program Enclosures cc:
L. Gibson, CPC F. Buckman, CPC D. Hood, NRC J. Clements, Bechtel F. Levandoski, B&W IDCV Service List HAL/sl I
i i
I 6
- a. = ncnc~
i I
l NRR Service List for Midland Ir. dependent Dasign and Construction Verification Program
<q 4
Mr. Howard Levin, Project Manager TERA Corporation 7101 Wisconsin Avenue l
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 cc: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Mr. Steve Gadler U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2120 Carter Avenue Region III St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Billie Pirner Garde Director, Citizens Clinic U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Accountable Government Resident Inspectors Office Government Accountability Project Route 7 Institute for Policy Studies
. Midland, Michigan 48540 1901 Que S.treet, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Consumers Power Company Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1945 West Parnall Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Washington, D. C.
20555 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan l
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Apt. B-125 Three First National Plaza, 6125 N. Verde Trail 51st floor Boca Raton,. Florida 33433 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
James E. Brunner, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Censumers Power Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 212 West Michigan Avenue Washington, D. C.
20555 Jackson, Michigan 49201
~
Mr. Ron Callen Ms. Mary Sinclair Michigan Public Service Commission 5711 Summerset Drive 6545 Mercantile Way Midland, Michigan 48640 P.O. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Cherry & Flynn Suite 3700 Mr. Paul Rau Three First National Plaza Midland Daily News Chicago, Illinois 60602 124 Mcdonald Street l
Midland, Michigan 48640 l
Ms. Barbar Stamiris 5795 N. River Ms. Lynne Bernabei l
Freeland, Michigan 48623 Government Accountability Project 1901 Q Street, N.W.
Mr. Wendell Marshall Washington, D. C.
20009 Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 l
l l
1
,y MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM MONTH.Y STATUS REPORT NUMBERI PERIOD INCEPTION TFROUGH MAY 27,1983 llv bs Prepared by:
ffb gg i
ze was Reviewed by:
J m%
i ud Project Manager Approved by-
"U A).
Prinhol-in-charge n
1
(
rj
- T e
, s MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDCV)
MONTit.Y STATUS REPORT NUMBERI PERIOD INCEPTION TI-ROUGH MAY 27,1983 1.0 Introduction and Purpose between the Monthly Status Reports have been Instituted by ogreement Consumers Power Company (CPC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and TERA to provide parties external to TERA's IDCV project team with up-to-t date information relative to program progress and any important issues identif!M during the reporting period. This initial report covers the period from project inception through May 27, 1983. A description of the scope, reporting periods and report issuance dates for Monthly Status Reports, as well as a 8
summary of tM background of the IDCV program are presented in this initial report. Subsequent reports will include only those items discussed in section 3.0.
2.0 Midland IDCV Procram Bockaround The Nuclear Regu!atory Commission (NRC) Issued a letter on July 9,1982 which requested that Consumers Power-Company (CPC) provide for an independent assessment of the design adequacy of the Midland plant. CPC responded to this i
request on October S,1982 by submitting an outline of the scope of a proposed
~
independent review program. A public meeting was held on October 25,1982 at the NRC's Bethasda, Maryland offices to discuss details of the proposed program, the scope of which included an evaluation of the Midland Unit 2 Auxiliary I eedwater (AFW) system. During this meeting, the NRC requested that the
, scope of the Independent design assessment program be expanded, including an assessment of the quality of construction. The NRC requested that CPC Identify i
three candidate systems for scope expansion based upon their contribution to plant risk, from which one system would be selected.
i I
s CPC responded to NRC by a letter dated December 3,1982 which identified the Standby Electric Power system (diesel generator), Safeguards Chilled Water system and Containment isolation system as candidate systems.
A public meeting was held on February 8,1983 of Midland, Michigcri to discuss details of the program related to the evaluation of the AFW system and to provide status.
On March 22,1983 the NRC selected the Standby Electric Power system and the Control Room HVAC system for scope expansion. Proposed elements of the scope of evaluation for these systems as well as the AFW system were discussed at another public meeting held on April 13,1983 at the NRC's Bethesda, Maryland offices.
TERA Corporation has been selected by CPC to scope, manage, and implement the Midland Independent Design and Construction Verificotton (IDCV) Program.
By a letter dated May 3,1983, the NRC approved the selection of TERA. The selectlan is based upon the firm's technical qualifications, experience, and independence from the Midland project.
Such inderendence includes all individuals who may contribute to the IDCV Program.
The Engineering Program Plan (EPP), Revision 2, dated May 18, 1983, has been established to outline the scope, philosophy of review, methodology, independence requirements, organization, control, documentation, reporting, and quality assurance requirements for the Midland IDCV Program. The Project Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP), Revision 3, dated May 18, 1983, has been established to define the document,ed, auditable, control measures necessary to ensure the quality of services provided by TERA.
3.0 Scope
, The following items are included in Monthly Status Reports:
i IDCV Program Status Summary e
i Tracking System Summary for Open, Confirmed and e
Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports 2
d
e Current Confirmed item Reports, Finding Reports and e
Finding Resolution Reports e
Financial Status Report (CPC only) 4.0 Reportino Period ed issuance Dates i
4 l
The reporting period shall generally be on a calendar month bar.is with issuonce of the corresponding Monthly Status Report around mid-month. of the month l
following the end of the reporting period. The reporting period for this initial Monthly Status Report is from project inception through May 27,1983, the date of this report. The'second Monthly Status Report will be issued in mid-July, j
cowring the period from May 27,1983 through June 30,1983.
t 5.0 IOCV Proaram Status Summary j
S.1 Programmatic Activities Attachment i provides the chronology for major project milestones during the reporting period. This chronology will be maintained up-to-date and included in future reports.
i i
i Several milestones warrant special highlight.
On March 22, 1983, the NRC selected the Standby Electric Power (SEP) system and the Control Room HVAC (CR-HVAC) system for inclusion within the IDCV. program scope. This selection along with the previously identified Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system completes the scope identificotton process for the IDCV program. A public meeting was held on April 13, 1983 to discuss details of TERA's AFW system l
review and conceptual plans for the SEP system and CR-HVAC system reviews.
l I
Comments were assimulated from CPC, NRC and interested members of the public. TERA responded to this direction by further development of the existing progcom to incorporate the revised scope.
On May 18,1983, TERA issued l
j Revision 2 of the Engineering Program Plan and Revision 3 of the Project j
Quality Assurance Plan, reflecting the full scope of the IOCV program.
i 3
4 3
i
\\
.s During the period of March-April, TERA transmitted Information to the NRC relative to corporate and Individual independence and professional qualifications.
The NRC reviewed thisQnformation and on May 3,1983 documented their formal acceptnnce of TEHA to conduct the IOCV program and acceptance of the scope of, the AFW system review. The NRC i.a currently reviewing TERA's proposed scope of reviewbr the SEP system and CR-HVAC system as defined in Revision
'2 of the Enginedring Program Plan.
5.2 DMign Verifiedtion~ Activities 3.2.1 introduction end Background Independent Design. Verific lon (IDV) review octivities during the reporting period pf this statui report focused upon the development and establishment of n resources, programs, and organizational Interfaces necessary to execute the IDV review methodology'nnd making substantial progress in the IDV review for the AFW tystem. Tt.e ' methodology, as described in the IOCV Engineering Program Plan, strives to establish a consistent set of review activities applicable to
~
systems, components, structures, and materials subject to IDV review. These review activities have been categorized into five areas as follows:
N
\\
Review of Design Criteria and Commitments e
~
Review of implementing Documents e
e ' c Check of Calculations or Evaletions s
- ~
'm
' Confirmatory Calculation or Evaluation e
s ACheck of Drawings ed Specific 5tions e
JL
,.[l G
%,y
'The int'ent of this pxym.of th'e status report is to present and summarize n
. Ir.,oortant IDV octivities undertaken during'th'e reporting period relative to j
review progress _ mode in the above five categories for each of the 45 design l
topics within the. scope of' the AFW' system review. Future reports will be limited to significant o. tW.?Ies on topics which have been completed during the i,x.
month or on which substorstM proyese. has been mode.
N.
,f.U' l
,, E it.*
\\./ 'p, t.
y' 4
c a.
t s.
i y
s\\
t J
.s-S
,m
$1 i ^'
t b
.. ~ - _.
e-
,t 3
1 The programatic development was completed for the Standby Electric Power (SEP) system and the Control Room HVAC (CR-HVAC) system during the reporting period. Preliminary review activities were also initiated and will be reported in the next Monthly Status Report.
It is estimated that the AFW system lOV review is 60-75% complete relative to i
the initial scope defined in Revision 0 of the Engineering Program Plan. This estimate.does not include any efforts required to resolve existing issues identified in section 6.0.
5.2.2 IDV Topic Summaries The IDV Topics and summaries of the scope for the AFW system are presented in section 3.1.3 of Revision 2 of the Engineering Program Plan. The corresponding Initial Sample Review Matrices are presented in Figure I for convenience. The following sections provide a topic-by-topic summary of progress:
l.1-1 SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS Applicable operating limits for various components of the AFW system have been extracted from documents such as the FSAR and the Babcock and WIIcox B&W)
Balance-of-Plant Criteria Document.
The review includes a check for completeness of specified parameters and bounding values and a check for consistency from document to document.
J A check of appropriate calculations and evoluotions is being conducted to verify
~
that the specified !!mits are either capable of being met or are used correctly as 1
input to assure proper system or component operation.
'The limits identified in this review ors being utilized 'in the review of other topics related specifically to component operability.
i S
,t INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR THE AUXILIARY FEED //ATER SYSTEM MIOLAND INDEPElf0ENT CESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAMI f,
SCOPE OF REVIEW lle l
5 4
ga
,I e
TW. SIGN DEA gg7 2
J a$ !/!! sill f
e t
e n*
x 1
b's d
w E
(,,
AFW SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUi??JMENTS l.l 1 SYSTEM OPERATING UMITS X
X X
l.21 ACCIDENT ANALYS15 CCN5tCERATIONS X
e 1.31 SINGLE FAILURE.
X X
X e
!.4-1 TECHNICAL SPECIFjCATiONS X
X l.5-1 SYSTEM ALIGNMENT /5WITCHOVE"4 X
X l.6-1 REMOTE CPERATION /JC SHUTOOWN
't I.7-1 SYSTEM !$CLATION/1NTERLOCKS X
X
!.8-1 OVERPRESAJRE PROTECTION X
e a
e f.S.I COMPONENT FUNCTION AL REQUIREMENTS X
X X
X l.10-1 SYSTEM HYDRAULIC C d51Cr4 X
X X
- e l.ll-1 SYSTEM P(AT REMOVAL CAPABILIT7 X
X -
X a
- .;;p, 1.12-1 COOUNG FEQUIREMENG X
e 1.13-1 WATER SUPPUES X
X us.
CRESERVICE TESTINC/CAPABluTY FOR
' CPERATIONAL TESTING X
{
l.15 1 POWER SUPPUES X
X e
s 1.16-1 ELECTR! CAL CHARACTERISTICS,
X e
'e 1.17-l PROTECTIVE DEVICE 5/5ETTINGS X
X X
I,18 1 INSTRUMENTATION i.
X X
X X
l.12-!
CONTROL SYSTEMS
X X
X e
k 1.20-1 ACTUATION 5f5TEMS X
1.21-1 tCE COMMITMENT 5 '
N/..
e l
.X e
e j
l.22 1 MATERIALS SELECTION
'X X
i L23-i failure MOca5 AND EMCT5 9 [e j
e e
m m_a X. mal SCM M N1 L
INri"l AL SAMPLE DOCUVENTED !N AEV. O AND l i
h tX' LETED SCCPE CF REVIEW ' /',,
OF TW5 PLAN HAS BEE,N MODIFIED EFFECTIVE F
e. ADDED SCOPE OF ' REVIEW
"'383 i
.l
_^
FIGUFE I
- j _,'F j-lg, -
.m - -
~
9 e
,e
.lNITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR THE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (CONTINUED)I f
SCOPE OF REVIEW i
1 lr
^
Mp4lRn IyJl'f flhag 1
1 AFW SYSTEM PROTECTION FEATURES
- 11. 1 1 5El5MIC DESIGN X
- 11. 2 1 e PRESSURE BOUPCARY X
X X
X X
- 11. 3 1 e PIPE /EQUFMENT SUPPORT X
X X
X X
- 11. 4 1 e EQUFMENT QUALIFICATION X
X X
X
- 11. 5. I HICH ENERGY LNE BREAK ACCDENTS X
l141 e PIPE WHIP X
X X
X li.7,1 e ET lMPNCEMENT X
- 11. 8 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION X
- 11. 7 1 e ENV'RONMENTAL ENVELOPE 5 X
X X
X X
11.10 1 e EQUFMENT QUALFICATICN X
X X
X ll.11 1 o HVAC DESIGN X
11.12 1 FIRE PROTECTION
~
X X
X 11.13 1 MISSILE PROTECTION X
II.141 SYSTEMS NTERACTION X
'X X
STRUCTURES THAT HOUSE THE AFW SYSTEM 111. 1 1 SEISMIC DESIGN / INPUT TO EQUFMENT X
X X
X q
j lll.2.l WlNO & TORNAOO DESIGN / MISSILE PROTECTION X
lll.3 1 FLOOO PROTECTION X
111. 4 - 1 HELSA LOADS X
111. 5 1 CIVIL / STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS X
11141 e FOUNDATIONS X
X X
111. 7 1 e CONCRETE / STEEL DE54GN X
X X
X 111.8 1 e TAtES l
.iar
~OTE l[
AI" 1.
INITIAL SAMPLE DOCUMENTED N REV. O AFC I
@.oELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW OF THl5 PLAN HA5 BEEN MODIFIED EFFECTIVE l
. - AcoED SCOPE w Review 4/is/s3 I
FIGURE I 4
4 v-
..~.-..-,.,n
,o 1.21 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS The FSAR has been reviewed to determine those events for which the AFW system would be expected to play a role either in mitigation or recovery. The system was also reAewed to determine if there were any plausible means by which it could cause an accident or exacerbate an existing occident.
A meeting was held with Babcock and Wilcox to gather information related to the design requirements for the auxiliary feedwater system. Further review of CPC/Bechtel actions in response to the B&W-developed Anticipated Transient
~
Operction Guidelines document has been deemed necessary and will be accom.-
plished.
The review scope also was expanded somewhat to review calculations regarding the required system heat removal capability under accident conditions. This subject is being considered further under Topic l.11-1, System Heat Removal Capability.
l.3-1 SINGLE FAILURE Applicable criteria have been extracted from the FSAR, NRC Regulations, and the B&W Balance-of-Plant Criteria document. Applicable documents such as piping and instrumentation diagrams and electrical schematics have been reviewed to determine whether the system can meet these criteria.
It has been determined that two complementary octions are necessary to verify the design relative to the capability of the AFW system to withstand a single failure. First, a confirmatory evaluation of the system is being conducted to i
verify the design from a single-feilure-proof standpoint, especially regarding
, power supplies. This effort will concentrate mainly on the portions of the system comprising the pumps' suction and the steam discharge to the steam-driven turbine.
!o 6
i i
Concurrently, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis will be performed, as documented under Topic !.23-1.
l.4-1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The draft Midland Technical Specifications contained in the FSAR have been reviewed as they relate to the AFW system.
The finalization of these specifications is on-going as well as the NRC's review. TERA is mmitoring this process old when complete, the IDCV review will verify that the specifications are complete, consistent with NRC Standard Technical Specifications, and reflect commitments made in the FSAR.
1.5-1 SYSTEM ALIGNMENT /SWITCHOVER Applicable criteria have been drawn from such sources as the NRC Regulations, FSAR, B&W Balance-of-Plant Criteria document and the NRC Standard Review Plan and applicable Branch Technical Position.
The pertinent Piping and Instrumentation Diagram wcs reviewed to ascertain whether the criteria had been implemented. In addition, a CPC letter regarding specific switchover design capabilities, and the process by,which they were deriwd, was reviewed. Finally, available procedures were reiviewed to deter- -
mine what guidance will be available to operators regarding alignment and switchover.
These procedures are in draft form; further review will be undertaken later in the IDCV process.
The switchover of AFW control from the main control room to the auxiliary
- hutdown panel is under review as part of the control systems topic and also will be covered as part of the fire protection review.
~
I.6-1 REMOTE OPERATION AND SHUTDOWN
.l 1l Applicable criteria are included in the NRC Regulations, the FSAR, and the B&W Balance-of-Plant Criteria document.
These criteria have been reviewed to j
I 7
I
e
.e.
determine their completeness and consistency.
Results of the review also included several systems capabilities requiring further review under other topics.
For example, the capability to control the system and shut down the plant from the auxiliary shutdown panel, and the regulatory guidance for manual actuation and control, are under review as part of the applicable electrical, instrumento-tion and control topics.
l.7-1 SYSTEM ISOLATION / INTERLOCKS Criteria for this topic are contained in the NRC Regulations, the FSAR, the B&W Balance-of-Plant Criteria document, and th'e NRC Standard Review Plan.
The applicable piping and instrumentation diagram was reviewed to determine whether the criteria had been implemented into the design.
Further review is being devoted to specific aspects of the design process, including a Design Change App svol Request relating to AFW pump low suction pressure trips.
l 1.8-1 OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION I
The criteria for this topic review were drawn from the FSAR and applicable codes and standards. Independent confirmatory calculations were performed for selected sections of piping to determine whether overpressure protection devices were needed.
Attention was given to resolution of Management Corrective Action Report 65 and its related updates and submittals to the NRC. These deal with a potential AFW system suction piping overpressure problem discovered at an operating plant and applicable to the Midland design. The IDCV team will continue to follow the corrective action taken.
Site-requested changes to piping design pressure ratings are under review. This i
j is an active review topic.
I 4
k 8
l J
..a
8 l.9-1 COMPONENT FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS The component functional requirements review is progressing in parallel with reviews in several other topics as AFW system design criteria are translated into corresponding component specifications for parameters such as flow rates, a:lowable pressure drops, NPSH, voltage, device settings and similar characteristics. The review has oiso included IDV confirmation of functional requirement parameters. For example, the functional requirements for the AFW pumps are being independently confirmed as confirmatory calculations related to the topic reviews of System Hydraulle Design and System Heat Removal are completed. Reviews of test data are also in progress to confirm that specific components con meet their specified functional requirements. The components shown in Table I have been initially selected for this review. Because of its dependency on many topic reviews, this topic will be among the last to be completed.
i.10-1 SYSTEM HYDRAULIC DESIGN Significant progress has been made in the System Hydraulic Design review area.
The identification of design criteria and confirmatory calculations which are part of this review are essentially complete. Several Bechtel calculations have received preliminary reviews to date. Completion of the reviews of these calculations and selection of those calculations to complete the sample is currently in progress. An initial identification of implementing documents to be reviewed has been made.
i 1.11-1 SYSTEM HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY Progress in the System Heat Removal Capability review arco parallels that of the System Hydraulic Design review area. Identification of design' criteria and development of_ confirma* tory calculations is essentially complete.
A B&W l
calculation concerning heat removal requirements has been reviewed. An initial
,j identification of implementing documents to be reviewed has been made.
l 1.12-1 COOLING REQUIREMENTS The criteria for cooling requirements have been identified and reviewed. This 1
review has provided input to the selection of calculations and other documents to
.e 9
4 s
+
J-
+
y
L j.
TABLE I l.
I MlOLAM) IDCV t
i SLPPLER DOCUMENTATION REVEW L.
March 8,1983 J
l l
t l
Item Component ID Weld Gen Fnct NDE Mot l
No.
Type ID No.
P.O. No. Cmpt Dwgs Regs EQ SORT OA Props Misc Comments 1.
Pump 2P-005A M-14 X
X X
X X
X X
2.
Motor 2P-005A M-14 X
X X
X X
X X
3.
Pump 2P-005B M-14 X
X X
X X
X X
r 4.
Turbine 2G-005B M-14 X
X X
X X
X 5.
Volve 2LV-3975AlV J.255 X
X X
X X
X X
X 6.
Operator 2LV-3975Al J-255 X
X X
X X
X 7
Volve 2MO-3965AV M-I l7 X
X X
X X
X X
8.
Operator 2MO-3965A M-117 X
X X
X X
41
?-
9.
Volve 2MO-3993A2V M-396 X
X X
10.
. Operator 2MO-3993A2 M-398 X
X X
i1.
Volve 2XV-3989 M-l 18 X
X X
12.
Operator 2XV-3989Al M-I l8 X
X 13.
Volve 25V-3969A J-256 X
X X
X X
X 14.
Volve 2MO-3226V M-l l 7 X
X X
15.
Operator 2MO-3226 M-I l7 X
X X
16.
Valve 2MO-3277AV M-l l?
X X
X X
X 17.
Operator 2MO-3277A M-l l?
X X
X X
18.
Heat-X 2E-105A M-14 X
X X
DL-83-024-1
e TABLE I (CONTHLED) ltem Component ID Gen Fnct Mot No.
Type ID No.
P.O. No. Cmpi Dwgs Reqs EO SORT OA Props Misc Comments 19.
Panel 2C-I l4 J-202 X
X X
20.
X
.X X
21.
SwGear 2A-05 E-205 X
X X
X X
22.
Cable E-26A X
X X
X 600V 23.
Transmitter 2PT39000BI J-245 X
X X
'24.
Transmitter 2FT3969A J-245 X
X X
X 25.
Transmitter 2FT3975AB J-245 X
X X
X 26.
Transmitter 2LT3298 J-245 X
X 27.
Transmitter 2LT3975AA2 J-245 X
X X
X X
X 28.
Indicator 2LIK3975AA2 J-204 X
X 29.
Switch 2ZS3975Al J-255X X
X X
X X
30.
Cable E X X
X Instru.
31.
Air Cooler 2VM-54A M-149 X
X X
X X
32.
Elec. Penet.
E-20A X
33.
Piping X
X X
i 34.
Pipe supports X
X X
35.
Cable Troy X
X 36.
Troy Supporis X
X 37.
Conduit X
i DL-83-024-1 l
TABLE I (CONTINWD) o Weld item Component ID Gen Fnct NDE Mot No.
Type ID No.
P.O. No. Cmpt Dwgs Reqs EO SORT QA Props Misc Comments
.e 38.
Conduit Supports X
X 39.
Instru. Piping X
40.
HVAC Ducts (later) 41.
HVAC Supports (later) 42.
Rebor X
43.
Str. Steel X
X 44.
Inserts X
X i
e e
DL-83-024-1
o be reviewed in the Equipment Qualification and Component Functional Require-ments review areas.
1.13-1 WATER SUPPLIES The criteria for the AFW water supplies have been identified and reviewed. This review has provided input to the selection of calculations and other documents to be reviewed in the System Hydraulic Design and Component Functional Require-ments review areas.- For example, the criteria for switchover from condensate storage to service water have been used as an input to reviewing calculations in the System Hydraulic Design area. Implementing documents for review of the Water Supply area have been identified.
l.14-1 PRESERVICE TESTING / CAPABILITY FOR OPERATIONAL TESTING Criteria for the review of preservice testing requirements and operational testing capability are being identified in conjunction with other review areas, including the Technical Specification Review Area. The scope of review in this area has been expanded to include;a review of implementing documents and.
engineering evaluations supporting test programs. Ti$is will serve as input to the ICV review. This expansion is based upon the desire to further verify system conformance with design criteria and commitments through an evaluation of tests that serve to establish the odequacy of the design and the capability of the system to function as planned.
l.15-1 POWER SUPPLIES i
The applicable design criteria for AFW power supplies have been identified from NSSS vendor, regulatory and industry requirements. The Midland FSAR is the
- primary implementing document design which has been checked to verify the j
proper consideration of the design criteria determined from the criteria review.
The AFW system logic and schematic diagrams have been reviewed to ensure that requirements relative to the quality of power supplies (diversity and redundancy) are met. In particular the review included the assurance that the g
AFW system is operable in the event' of loss of offsite power and station blackout.
o 1
10 i
l.
1
-+
r
+ &--
e -
,a w
,,e-r r
I.16-1 ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS Design criteria relevant to the electrical characteristics of cable physical 4 -
separation, system electrical separation, cable and raceway sizing and terminal voltage on power circuits have been identified. The Midland FSAR sections I.nplementing these criteria have been reviewed to verify that the criteria have been considered in the design process. Cable sizing calculations have been reviewed as applied to seven power circuits in the AFW system. The cable routing design process is being reviewed to ensure consideration of cable separation criterio in that process.
l.17-1 PROTECTIVE DEVICES / SETTINGS Design criteria relevant to this topic have been identified. The Midland 'FSAR has been reviewed to ensure that the criteria have been documented and that commitments have been made to meet the criteria. The schematic diagrams for l
all motor-operated valves in the AFW system have been reviewed to eraure Incorporation of thermal overload and opening torque swtich bypass features.
The AFW pump motor schematic is being reviewed against the committed design 1
criteria.
The evaluation of the electrical penetration assembly protection scheme are under review to ensure compliance with design criteria.
l.18-l INSTRUMENTATION l
The instrumentation and alarms required to operate, monitor and protect the AFW system, as determined by design criteria, commitments and expected plant operations, have been reviewed against those specified for-the AFW system to verify the adequacy of the instrumentation. Selected instrument accuracies under' applicable plant operating conditions have been reviewed ed evaluated.
.{
Instrument loop diagrams for steam generator water level indication have been reviewed for-proper circuit electrical design.
The calculation for steam l
generator low water level setpoint has been reviewed for compliance with design criteria.
Major instrument package procurement specifications have been reviewed to verify that the design criteria have been considered in the purchase of the instrument hardware.
j
's a-
+
e w a,--
r k--
---w e
w
1.19-1 CONTROL SYSTEMS Design criteria and commitments governing the steam generator water level and AFW turbine control systems have been checked to verify the inclusion of necessary regulatory, Industry, and system performance requirements.
The Midland FSAR has been reviewed to verify that the necessary requirements were used as input to the control system design. An evaluation of control system characteristics such as time response, component characteristics, and separation from actuation systems has been performed. A very limited FMEA review has been made (See Topic l.23-1, Failure Mode and Effects).
Control system circuitry design (voltage's, currents, polarity) has been reviewed to verify that selected components will function as intended in the steam generator wcter level control system.
The circuitry design review has included instrument loop diagrams, logic diagrams, and valve and motcr schematic diagrams.
1.20-1 ACTUATION SYSTEMS 1
The auxiliary feedwater actuation system (AFWAS - which includes FOGG, " Feed Only Good Generator") design criteria and commitments have been reviewed to verify the proper consideration of regulatory requirements, industry codes and standards, and plant operational requirements. AFW system logic diagrams and schematic diagrams for all motor operated valves and the AFW pump motor have been reviewed against the design commitments.
In addition, the AFWAS procurement specificotton is being reviewed against the design criteria and commitments.
l I.21-1 NDE COMMITMENTS Design criteria, commitments and implementing documents related to nondestructive examination have been identified and are under review against l-
]
applicable industry codes ed standards.' A detailed checklist has been developed
~!
to assist in this activity.
As commitments and proper translation ' into l-t j
specifications and field procedures are verified, this input is being factored l
directly into the ICV r.tview process to verify that these have been properly 12
. t
~.
- ~ - - - - '--
- --- ~-
~ - - - -
d implemented. The review of implementing documents and specifications wcs added to the scope of the IDV to support the expanded NDE/ Material Testing program documented in section S.3.1 of this report.
1.22-1 MATERIAL SELECTION This topic will be initiated in June,1983 and will be reported upon in future status reports.
l.23-1 FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS This topic has been:added to the scope of the IDV to verify conclusions reached about system and component failure modes and effects under various operating j
conditions.
The topic review will be initiated by continuing where the FSAR evaluation ended. It is intended, at the present time, that emphasis will be placed on components of the electrical, instrumentation and control systems. Criteria from other review areas will be consolidated as e initial step in preparing the planned confirmatory evaluation.
II.I-l SEISMIC DESIGN The seismic design chain, criteria and commitments applicable to the design of the Midland plant were identified and reviewed with particular emphasis on specific aspects of the criteria applicable to AFW components and systems and structures that house these components and systems. In view of several major perturbations during the design process, a significant portion of time was devoted to the identification and understanding of the seismic design chronology
. for the plant. The knowledge gained from this activity was utilized to assist IDV reviewers in the selection of issues and methodologies on which to concentrate the review. The selection of specific structural elements / features, components i
and systems was also influenced by this activity.
r
{'
i; 13
~
~
- i.-
- 11. 2 -1 SEISMIC DESIGN - PRESSURE BOUNDARY Progress on this topic has been made in two principal areas. A confirmatory seismic stress analysis is ' nearing completion for a portion (i.e. one piping problem) of AFW piping and supports on the "B" train inside the Unit 2 contcInment building. The line evaluated runs from the containment penetration to the first anchor which is approximately midway along the "B" train line on its paths from the containment penetration to the steam generator ring header for the AFW discharge. IDV analysts will soon be in the process of comparing the results of their analyses with Bechtel's analyses to independently confirm the adequacy of implementation of the design methodology and results..The comparison includes the contribution of seismic stress at critical locations, predicted support loads for all supports along the line and a design s erification for representative support types. The model was developed by the IDV analysts without prior benefit or knowledge of Bechtel's methodology and in particular, specific modeling assumptions. The IDV analysts utilized the dimensional as-built data that was independently compiled through the ICV field verification program related to the program activity, V?rification of Physical Configuration (see sections S.3.1 and S.3.6 of this report). In a separate activity, IDV reviewers identified and initiated a review of pertinent criteria, implementing documents, calculations and specifications applicable to ASME Code considerations associated with the pressure boundary integrity of a portion of the AFW discharge piping located in the auxiliary building. Future activities will include a review of Bechtel's recent configuration changes associated with the AFW piping and supports inside containment as,well as a review of field engineering for small bore piping.
11.3 -1 SEISMIC DESIGN - PIPE /EGU!PMENT SUPPORT
. This topic closely parallels that of Topic 11.2-1 which is asscciated with pressure boundary integrity and ASME Code considerations. As discussed, piping supports are chosen for evaluation consistent with the selection of piping lines to permit an integrated evaluation of the seismic design capabilities of the total system.
Progress to date has been discussed for piping supports. The anchorage and 14
support for AFW equipment is under evoluotion as part of Topic ll.4-l. For components selected for evoluotion under this topic (see Toble 1), selected calculations, drawings and specifications are being checked to verify adequate seismic capability in accordance with seismic design criteria and commitments.
11.4 -1 SEISMIC DESIGN - EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION in addition to o review of seismic equipment qualification design criteria ord commitments and implementing documents, the principal progress on this topic has been to select a sample of components for review (see Table 1) and to acquire existing SQRT qualificotton "pockages" from Bechtel. ' Progress has been slowed because Bechtel's seismic equipment qualification process is in early stages of completion. Complete SQRT packages are being reviewed along with the process for completing additional packages.
II.5-l HELB/ PIPE WHIP / JET IMP!NGEMENT (including 11.6-1 and
!!.7-1)
Criteria for this group of review area have been identified and preliminary reviews conducted. Implementing documents, calculations, and drawings will be reviewed upon completion of the confirmatory calculation in the Seismic Design review area.
II.8-l ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION / ENVIRONMENTAL ENVEL-(including OPES /EGUIPMENT GUALIFICATION/HVAC DESIGN 11.9-1, II.10-1 &
i 11.11-l)
The criteria and commitments for this group of review areas have been j
identified and reviewed. A somple of equipment for the review of calculations l
and evaluations, primarily associated with the Equipment Qualificotton Report, I
has been made os shown in Table 1.
Reviews of the selected equipment qualification packages have been initiated. A confirmatory calculation in the 15 i-1 1
2 i-
environmental envelopes review crea has been initiated. HVAC design criteria have been identified.
II.12'-l FIRE PROTECTION Steps have been completed to organize the review of fire protection for the AFW system into subtopics. These topics are:
Safe shutdown analyses e
Associated circuits analyses e
Fire hazards analyses e
e Remote shutdown transfer switches / isolation devices e
Fire barriers Fire detection systems e
Suppression systems e
FSAR commitments, documentation of the fire protection program, and CPC submittals to NRC related to a comparison to 10CFR50 Appendix R and to BTP CMEB 9.5-1 have been reviewed. Interactions with Bechtel personnel have taken place to identify and collect design documentation pertaining to the AFW fire protection features, and to discuss fire protection program status and approaches in key areas.
Detailed design and analysis information has been received.
Verifications and reviews were initiated for two of the eight fire protection subtopics, namely fire barriers and emergency lighting. It is expected that these two subtopics and the remaining six will be completed in the next reporting period.
11.1 3 - 1 MISSILE PROTECTION The review scope for the Missile Protection review area consists of a review of I
criteria and commitments. This review is currently in progress.
16 i
-we++._,
- 11. 1 4 - 1 SYSTEMS INTERACTION Criteria for this review are defined in the Bechtel/CPC program for determina-tion and resolution of potential systems interactions. This program was obtained for review after discussion with key Bechtel personnel involved in the program.
The program will be reviewed for completenes and consistency.
System wolkdowns in selected areas will be observed, and selected data sheets and recommendations will be reviewed.
b 111.1-1 SEISMIC DESIGN /INi UT TO EQUIPMENT in parollel with discussions and reviews associated with the seismic design chronology, substantial progress has been mode relative to the understanding and review of modeling procedures and techniques utilized to generate frestructure seismic input (e.g. floor response spectra). This activity has taken more effort than anticipated to identify the complex history associated with the seismic design chain and verify that the various perturbations were odequately handled by the project designers and onelysts. Particular attention has been focused on the acquisition and review of information related to the effects of floor flexibility on predicted floor response spectra. Emphasis is being placed on the proper specification, use, and transfer of floor response spectra between interfacing groups both internal and external to Bechtel.
~
i 111. 2 -1 WIND AND TORNADO /, MISSILE PROTECTION 111.3 -1 FLOOR PROTECTION 111. 4 -1 HELBA LOADS v
The criteria and commitments associated with these topics have been identified
. and the review commenced. Progress will be reported in future reports.
y-j lil.5-1 CIVIL-STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS I
Progress has been made on this topic in two principal crecs. First efforts to Identify design criteria such as that incorporated within Bechtel's
{
17 i
i 7
w-
Civil / Structural Design Criteria document and the FSAR have been completed and the review is continuing. Secondly, efforts are continuing in a review of project experience within the civil / structural discipline to identify important issues that have surfaced during the project, review how these have been resolved and verify that these do not exist in the same or similar form e' ewhere.
Ill.6-1 FOUNDATIONS The concentration of this topic is on structural aspects of foundation design verses soil mechanics aspects. Accordingly, a portion of the auxiliary building i
foundation has been selected for detailed structural review. Efforts to date have focused on an identification of foundation design criteria, a review of project experience to understand the design chronology and important loading conditions and the collection of pertinent calculations. The detailed structural review is just being initiated and will be reported upon in future reports.
111. 7 -l CONCRETE / STEEL DESIGN Specific structural elements (e.g. shear walls, floor diaphrom) have been selected for detailed review and evaluation. Onphosis is being placed upon an evoluotion of the project's capability to transfer loading information both internally and externally from one organization (e.g. analytical groups) to another (e.g. design groups) and on the proper identification and interpretation of this information.
Input from other IDV topics is _Important relative to information gained in the review of the various loading conditions that offect structural elements. The q
specific use and implementation of this information is being verified through a l
review of design calculations. These calculations are being reviewed to verify the design organization's capability to properly size and detail concrete and steel
, structural elements.
I.
l l
l j
i i
18 1
_l
-j
5 5.3 Construction Verification Activities S.3.1 Introduction and Background Independent Construction Verification (ICV) review ocitvities during the repor'-
[
t Ing period of this status report focused upon the development and establishment i
of resources, programs, and organizational interfaces necessary to execute the h
ICV review methodology and initiation of the ICV review. The methodology, as described in the IDCV Engineering Program Plon, strives to establish a consistent
-f set of. review octivities applicable to systems, components, structures, and materials subject to ICV review. These review octivities have been categorized into five creas os follows:
a Review of Supplier Documentation e
Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation j
e e
Review of Construction / installation Documentation e
Review of Selected Verificotton Activities g
Verification of Physical Configuration e
a 9
The intent of this portion of the status report is to present and summarize Important ICV octivities undertaken during the reporting period and to categorize these activities using the above five review categories. Sections
~
5.3.2 through 5.3.6 address each of these review categories respectively. The i
ICV review categories and Topics for the AFW System are presented in section 1
3.2.3 of Revision 2 of the Engineering Program Plan. The corresponding Initi.cl i
Sample Review Matrix is presented in Figure 2 for convenience.
f i
Events external to the ICV review program have had significant impoet on the program. Accordingly, the following discussion summarizes the background of 2
. events which have had on influence on where the ICV review is today and where l
it is to be directed in the future.
In a letter to the NRC dated October 5,1982, CPC outlined a proposed scope for j
the planned Midland independent design review program. In addition to a design 4
i l
19 i
1 i
- ) '
I
INITIAL SAMPLE REVIEW MATRIX FOR THE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM I
MIDLAND INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM SCOPE OF REVIEW ddas<
of 'i y
SYSTEM /COMPOtENT k
s 8,-
b$
[
f h
N l
I E
MECHANICAL 1.1-lc e EQUIPMENT X
X X
X X
l.2-Ic e PIPING X
X X
X l3-le e P!PE SUPPORTS X
X X
X ELECTRICAL
!!.1-Ic e EOUPMENT X.
X X
X X
IlJ-lc e TRAYS Ato SUPPORTS X
e e
X li.3-Ic e CONDUlf AND SUPPORTS X
e e
X ll.4-Ic e CABLE X
X X
X X
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL ~
!!!.I-Ic e NSTRUMENTS X
X X
X X
lil.2-Ic e PIPING / TUBING X
X lll.3-Ic e CABLE X
X HVAC i
IV.1-Ic e EQUPMENT X
X X
X X
IV.2-Ic e DUCTS Ato SUPPORTS X
X STRUCTURAL V.I-le e FOUPCATIONS X
X l
Y.2-lc o CONCRETE X
X X
V.3-Ic e STRUCTURAL STEEL X.
X X
f VI.I Ic NDE/ MATERIAL TESTINC PROGRAM e
i m
NOTE i
X - ME N & W l.
INITIAL SAMPLE DOCUMENTED N REY. O AND l h DELETED SCOPE OF REVIEW OF THIS PLAN HAS BEEN MOOlFIED EFFECTIVE 1
l.
.. ADOED SCOPE OF REVIEW
"#I3#83 i-J j
FIGURE 2
<)
j e
verification component, this program included a verification of physical configuration of selected structures and components for the AFW system. A public meeting was held on October 25, 1982 at NRC's Bethesda, Maryland offices where the details of this program were discussed. The NRC indicated I
that they would like the proposed program to be expanded to include a review of an additional system with increased emphasis on the verification of the quality of construction including additional verification of physical configuration.
i TERA responded to NRC and CPC direction by developing an expanded Independent Construction Verification (ICV) program centered around the five previously discussed review categories. The scope of this revised program was documented in Revision 0 of the EPP dated November 29, 1982. Details of the ICV and IDV were discussed at public meetings held on February 8,1983 at Midland, Michigan and April 13,1983 at NRC's Bethesda, Maryland offices.
[
TERA's initial field verification activities were Initiated the week of November 29,1982 with a physical configuration verification of the AFW system piping and i
supports inside containment.
In early December 1982, CPC instituted their Construction Completion Program (CCP). Under direction from NRC and CPC, TERA was asked to hold certain portions (in particular, physical configuration
~
verification) of the ICV review in obeyance pending resolution of critical interfaces with the CCP and other on-going construction related programs.
Accordingly, only reviews of supplier documentation, storage and maintenance documentation and selected verification activities proceeded.
On March 22, 1983, the NRC selected the Stanony Electric Power system and the q
HVAC system assuring control room habitability as additional systems for IDCV
)
review. Revision 2 of the EPP dated May 18, 1983 incorporates these systeras l
Into the scope of the ICV as well as the IDV.
l t
i During the April 13, 1983 public meeting, the NRC, CPC and TERA agreed that the scope of ICV octivities within the prescribed sample selection boundaries
(
could proceed irrespective of the stage of construction completion.
This f
direction enables the~ ICV review to obtain better insight into the quality of:
l 1
l-
- )
.o '
e Completed construction activities On-going construction processes from the standpoint of e
how these will impact future completed construction products l
[
e Remedial and corrective actions taken in response to on-going construction review efforts such as the CCP At the current time, the ICV scope has been fully defined and the review process is gearing up to full speed, consistent with critical Interfaces with on-going i
construction related programs.
The events described above have enabled the initiation of all planned ICV review activities which are described below and in the following scetions.
e The sample selection boundaries for the ICV review of the AFW system were firmly established and implemented into the ICV review program. Development of the AFW System sample selection boundaries was - performed through the joint efforts of IDV and ICV reviewers.
Additional, detailed discussions were undertaken by Lead IDV and ICV personnel to identify which components, structures, and material, within the sample selection boundaries would be subject to detailed ICV review. The selection process employed the sample selection criteria as defined in the EPP and resulted in the designation of the items shown in Table I as being subject to initial ICV review.
e The ICV review activities associated with the AFW System were expanded in scope. The additional review activities and the reospn these activities were factored into the ICV review program are as follows:
System / Component Scope of Review Added Reason (s)
- Electrical Cable
- Review of Construc-
- Project experience Trays & Supports tion / Installation
- Monitor the outputs Conduit & Supports Documentation &
of the on-going over I&C Cable Review of Selected inspection program Verification Activities for cable separation as directed by NRC
- NDE/ Material
- Verification of
- Project experience
!~
Testing Program Physical Configura-
- NRC direction tion 21 1-
, - - =
---v,
~
~,o m,
~
,.e-As a result of adding the NDE/ Material Testing Program e
as an integral part of the AFW system ICV review, Lead ICV personnel commenced the development of this pro-gram. Program execution will involve first the selection of the sample and sample size, selection of the specific components and material to be tested, determination of the type (s) of testing to be performed, testing, and evaluation and documentation of the test results. To assist in executing the NDE/Moterial Testing Program, Leod ICV program personnel initiated the solicitation and review of proposals from material testing firms who have exhibited the capability to accomplish required testing in a professional, objective manner. Selection of a material testing firm has not been completed; review of proposals and identificotton of material testing firm capabilities continues.
important interfaces between the Lead ICV program per-e sonnel and reviewers and IDV personnel have been tested and utilized to ensure their effectiveness ed efficacy.
Additionally, critical interfaces with site-construction personnel have evolved to the point where ICV reviewers can acquire needed information and are afforded the flexibility and latitude necessary to be effective in the ICV review program.
5.3.2 Review of Supplier Documentation The overwhelming majority of resources expended in executing the ICV review octivities has been devoted to defining the detailed steps of the Supplier Documentation Review and performing the review steps. These activities are of substantial importance to the remaining portions of the ICV review, because they establish the documented resource which is used as initial input to evaluating remaining construction cetivities. Additionally issues and trends determined as a result of performing the review of supplier documentation have alerted, and will continue to ciert, ICV reviewers to outputs in the construction process which l.
require a greater degree of scrutiny. In essence, the results of the review of supplier documentation establishes the reference for the effective continuance I
of the ICV review process.
]
During the period of this status report the following important activities have
.i been undertaken as part of the review of supplier documentation.
l l
22 i
n
Detailed review matrices for components within the AFW e
system sample selection boundary were developed as a joint effort with IDV reviewers and serve to direct the activities of the ICV reviewers performing the review of i
supplier documentation.
The review of supplier documentation has been broken down into discrete review categcries as follows:
General Completion Overall review of documentation to ensure that the supplier package is generally complete for Document Categories required by specification for the component.
Drawings Review of supplier drawings for conformance to specification requirements for the component, subcomponent or part.
Functional Requirements Review of supplier documentation for conformance of major functional requirements to specificottons.
Enviro' mental Qualification - Review of supplier n
documentation for conformance to specification requirements.
Seismic Qualification Review of supplier.
documentation for conformance to specification requirements.
- Welding, NDE, GA Review of supplier documentation for conformance to specification i
requirements for the component, subcomponent or part.
Material Properties - Review of supplier certified material property reports for conformance to specification requirements for the component, subcomponent or p. ort.
Miscellcaecus - Review of instruction manuals, cleaning and coating procedures, storage and handling instructions and shipping procedures for conformance to specification requirements for the i
t component, subcomponent or part.
l In practice, an ICV or IDV reviewer is assigned one or l
more of these review categories for a specific component or group of components identified for ICV review.
As of the writing of this report, the majority of. the i
activities necessary to perform the following documenta-tion reviews for the AFW system have been completed:
23 l
-~~
I
l General Completion Drawings Functional Requirements Miscellaneous As a result of conducting the above reviews, approxi-mately 1,000 documents have been reviewed for applic-1 ability, catalogued, and categorized as to the type of document - i.e., drawing, welding procedure, seismic qualification report, etc.
The " Environmental" and " Seismic Qualification" reviews are tied closely to the IDV review precess and have progressed to the stage of completion identified for selected components in the IDV review portion of this status report.
The " Welding,. NDE, GA" documc.1tation review has focused upon identifying the derivation of the require-ments, the completeness and consistency of the require-ments and the cataloguing of vendor-supplied documenta-tion which satisfies the requirements for welding, NDE, and QA aspects of selected fabricated components.
Further, more detailed review of the vendor-supplied documentation has not been aggressively pursued pending finalization of the degree of involvement of an outside material testing firm (see Section 5.3.1 of this status report) in the ICV review program.
The review necessary to verify the odequacy of Material Properties by reviewing certified material property reports has most recently been initiated and, as a result, not much progress has been made toward completing this review during the current reporting period.
To ensure that a consistent method and set.of data are e
used and collected during the review of supplier documen-totion, detailed checklists were prepared and imple-mented.
The checklists, and associated implementing Project Instruction (P!-3201-007), direct the ICV reviewer to sources of information and direct the recording of l
required informaticn onto a standardized form. As of the
- j writing of this report, five checklists have been prepared and used to conduct the review of vendor supplied docu-mentation. The title and a brief description of each i
~
checklist used in this protion of the ICV review are as i
follows:
Documentation Verification Form (DVF) t
.1 s
i 24
.1 9
F
Checkoff list utilized to record those requirements imposed upon suppliers and vendors which define the specific documents to be submitted to fulfill and satsify procurement and specification requirements; Documentation Availability Checklist (DAC)
The DAC is used to document the process and sources of information used to complete the Documentation Verification Form and to provide a consistent, standard format for documenting the results of evaluating the completeness of vendor documentation submittals; Supplier Documentation Functional Review (SDFR)
Form The SDFR provides the format and directs the recording of data relevant to the following of specific categories of vendor-supplied documentation:
a)
Instructions (operating, maintenance, etc.)
b)
Cleaning & Coating Procedures
)
c)
Certified Material Reports d)
Supplier Shipping Procedures; Supplier Documentation Adequacy (SDA)
Verification Form This' form is used in conjunction with the SDFR to evaluate the adequacy of the vendor's documentation submittal; and Time-Base Evaluation (TBE) Form for Vendor Documentation Submittals This form provides the format for establishing a method to evaluate the timeliness of certain vendor documenta-tion submittals associated with a specific component.
Vendor documentatico submittals are compared on a time-base against two key events in the construction l
process:
1 l
a)
Date component is received at the site b)
Date component is withdrawn from storage for installation.
L Commencement of the supplier documentation review e
required a greater-than-anticipated scope of task initi-otion activities.
These activities were necessary to develop an understanding of the following:
s 1
I' s 2S
m 7
s-g
- t.,
s P
.,.v N
1 x
.O
?
s r.
2 3,
- ( ~ '
p
~
6%
~ " * 'g Relationship of site vendor files toi9endor files i
retained in Ann Arbor;
.\\
N O
.\\
~
Distinctions made' between supplier docummtationc 3
included as part of a GA dato package 'ond that documentation loclu' ed as pari of the vendcr docu-N d
s ment control system;,
s n
L'ocotton of'djfferent documenth:entrol centers and x
~'
N.their principal fils holdings and scope pf 'responsi-t j
q.
1 bilities; y.'3 i
y.,
s s
s a;
I,nformction required to access' needed documerits a
and recydsiand-4 w
s.
- m 3
' N
.,. Location'and' ope.-otion of systems utilized to index nevied Information. g
?
y 3,
y g
As of the writing,of this\\reporf, activities undertaken
~
' e with. regard to supplier documentation reviews, have been s
\\
\\ focusea'open fitcollection cmd' assimilation of vendcr:-
s T } supplied information. Cur, rent and near term activities of
\\'
the ICV revieviers tore and: vill be directed toward a
~
thorough evoluution'and assessmen't of the significance of findings,resulting from the review of' supplier documento-N s
~
s !on.3,g e
t w
3 m._
s 3.N, N
+
s s.g 3
. SA;3, Review of.Storpp'ond Maintenance documentation
,j i
qu s,
\\,
3 s
s s.-
i
~ Jbis review is intended ti? ascertain,the sered 'and'os-installed condition of 3
i s-
_iy s
, ' selected components: of the systems niected as part of' thel,lDCV program.
' ~ t Oiserate activities which constitute this revieV include the following:
u%'?? 'p,
(~
~3
-geI m
s N
Occ0inentation Review and Observmion of Receipt In-Y "V ~ spect' ions; c
1 \\,, m,
> y Documentation Review and Observation of Worchouse
's '
Storage Practices; i
4 v
x 3
\\
Documentation Review and Observation of In-ploce Main-l R
tenance Practices; and s,
,l 4
,)
Visual Inspection of installed / Stored C+-[,ents.
V (s
\\
1' q
y.,
\\
O
\\
N' 4,
k g (@'
\\ !.
K-
\\
m t
gv
- ..g
,),
.\\
e t3 a
t 26
~
/
s.j,
[
I' s sa s
\\
h l
x x~ x:
r-nr m
m:
..b n
The progress made to date in conducting this review has all been associated with the components selected in the AFW System. Activities undertaken to date include the following:
Checklists have been prepared and implemented which o
direct the acquisition and recording of information and data which characterize the receipt inspection, storage and maintenance activities. Detailed Project Instructions (PI-3201-007) have been prepared which provide ICV reviewers with an explanation in the use of the following
' checklists:
Receipt inspection Check!!st; and Storage and Maintencnce Checklist.
e Data required by the checklists have been' collected and completed for the components selected with the AFW System sample selection boundaries.
The components selected for this review are shown in Table 1.
Current ed near-term activities involve the evaluation of l
the collected data and an assessment and recording of the significance of any issues resulting from the evaluation.
ICV reviewers, in a joint effort with the IDV reviewers, e
prepared the review matrices for the Control Room HVAC and Stedby Electric Power Systems. The matrices require a review of storage and maintenance documenta-tlan applicable to the following categories of components I
within the sample boundaries of the indicated systems.
Standby Electric Power System Mechanical Equipment Electrical Equipment ed Cable Instruments and Instrument Cable i
Control Room HVAC System L
Mechanical Equipment Instruments
~
HVAC Ducts & Supports I
Specific components within each of the above categories 1
j.
are currently being identified.
l l
27 L
.t L
.4 r-+-
s 5.3.4 Review of Construction /InstcIlotion Documentation As of the dritig f this report, no resources have been expended in performing the cctual review of construction! installation documentation.
Activities undertaken to date have been directed towcrd the selection of specific com-ponents within the AFW' System sample selection boundaries which will be subject to this review.
5.3.5 Review of Selected Verificotton Activities During this repcrting period ICV reviewers commenced the review of selected j
outputs from the cable seperation and pipe support over-Inspection program which relate directly to cdles and pipe supports within the ICV review sample selection boundorles of the AFW System. These activities were conducted at the site and focused upon tbo collection of required documentation, including procedures and drawings, and the evaluation of the procedures to discern the methodology emp;oyed by the over-inspection prograrns.
This evoluotien is necessary to identify. those outputs of the program which are most representative of the final prod. acts of the over-inmeetion process and therefore those prod,ucts which shovid be subject ;to ICV review. Evoluotion of selected outpQts was initiated and continues. Near. term activities' relate to continued I
. / !!
,r detailed evaluation of selected outputs from the program that relate to the AFW system and the extens'on of, these eva!uctiens te include the Control Room
' HVdC and Sfondby Electric PowAr,5ystemi.
l?
if 5.3.6' Verification of Physicol Coni!guration A
a n
i e
As a firstord importon't review associcted with the verification of the physical configuration of s$lecteMeomponen'ts within the sompte selection boundaries of i
. the AFW system, ICV rtviewers ecdducted a re. view of selected AFW System u pipe, hangers, and, supports. This review involved not only the careful selection v.~
?.
.I'<
4
~'#
l' Q f' j of those pines, hangers and supporis to ensure.o confurotive bcsis for other,
~9.-,.
s f
L',
tsirhilar[ revius md extrapolation :to 'sinsilar items, bdt oiso, extensive field verifidbtloriEnd measurementh ' I w
y ; j'
(
/<
{
f
} ~'l y
( f..-
,/.
)
L y -
c-28:
J'
..j y'
- /
~
ee + 4?
/
Y
' ;f
,f I, 'L,.,V i
.l.
~
p
~ y "jp py x
l The review involved the field measurement of pipe, hangers, and supports of the "B" Auxiliary Feedwater train, inside the Midland Unit 2 containment building.
Subsequent to acquisition of field measurements and verification of identity and orientation, the collected data were compared against design documentation and documentation used as input to representative stress and seismic de,ign calculations.
The results of these efforts have been summarized into an engineering evaluation report which highlights the sollent findings of the review and evaluation and documents the methodology utilized in conducting the physical configuration verificotton.
Near term activities relate to completing the review of issues arising. from the physical configuration verificotton of selected AFW System pipe, hongers, and supports and selecting similar samples associated with the Control Room HVAC and Standby Electric Power systems.
6.0 Summary of Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports 1 provides TERA's Tracking System Summary for Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports. This tool assists TERA in tracking the disposition of issues as they progress through the review process. Attachment 3 provides re-typed copies of all existing Confirmed item Reports. - To date no items have progressed to the Findings stage of the reporting prxess which is documented in Project Instruction PI-3201-008 and con be, fou-d as part of Appendix B of the Project Quality Assurance Plan.
A meeting will be held on June 3,1983 at Bechtel's Ann Arbor, Michigan offices to obtain additional information reltalve to the Confirmed items presented in
, Attachment 3.
.j.
1
.29 i
\\
J.
ATTACHMENTl PROJECT CMONOLOGY MIDLAFO INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM TERA PROJECT 3201 TmOUGH 5/27/83 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 criteria, 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 evaluation 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 October 5,1982
. CPC submittal of Midland Independent Review Program to NRC October 12,1982 CPC approval of TERA corporate Quality Assurance Plan October 25,1982 Presentation on Midland IDV and INPO pro-grams to NRC at NRC's Bethesda offices i
October 27,19E,2 TERA conceptual development of IDV program modifications to further address the quality of 4
construction (telecopy to CPC)
October 28,1982 CPC decision to separate IDV and INPO evolu-otion programs I
'v-
ATTACHMENT I Date Milestone November 2,1982 Introductory meeting at the Midland site to initiate IDV and INPO programs November 3,1982 Midland site tour and walkdown of the AFW system 4
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-men
- in Ann Arbor to discuss programmatic de-tous of the IDV program, logistics for TERA-Bechtel interaction on the IDV; review of Bechtel organization, interfaces, etc.; identi-fication of information needs November i1,1982 NRC issues meeting summary for October 25, 1982 meeting November 15, 1982 TERA issues Revision 0 of the Midland in-depmdent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Project Quality Assurance Plan November 23,1982 CPC approval of TERA Project Quality Assur-ance Plan 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 1
comments during October 25, 1982 meeting; CPC commits to separate IDV and INPO evolu-ation, identifies candidate systems for adding an 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 I
I 9
j 2
i z s-:
, s, e
ATTACHMENT I 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.
4 December 0-15,1982 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 Januorv 24-26,1983 TERA construction review team on-site review.
Ing supplier documentation and storage and molntenance documentation January 25-27,1983 TERA design review team in Ann Arbor February 7-l 1,1983 TERA construction review team on-site February 8,1983 Pubtle 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 _ Guolity Assurance Plan (PGAP) to the NRC
- j February 17,1983 TERA issues Revision I of the EPP and-l Revision 2 of PGAP 1
l i
- i i
p g
yf
-+.m w
g y
y 7
I ATTACHMENT I 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 I,1983 TERA meets with Bechtel management in Ann Arbor to clarify requests for Information March 2,1983 Project team meeting; Ann Arbor March ll,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 as 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 NRC regarding offidavits of independence and professional qualifications, including additional offidavits by individuals previously employed by NRC i
i f'
4
=!
l
.g
l ATTACHMENT I
'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 affidavits of independence for individuals previously employed by NRC 4
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 addition of the Standby Electric Power System and Control Roo'm HVAC System to the IDCV seppe, update personnel qualificottons, add project instructions and reference new protocol i
for communications l
May 18,1983 TERA meets with NRC, I&E HQ management i
to discuss consideration of the Midland IDCV program within NRC's response to the Ford l
4 Amendment legislation.
l
^
t.
May 27,1983 TERA issues first Monti-ly Status Report.
4 l
I
.j S
L a
,___._____.._________e
J.'.__._..,_..
_ _. J.
~
s o
e Attactunent 2 OCR, FIPOING REPORT, Ato FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIOLADO DOEPDOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM OCR tJo.'
Resp. LTR Potentfel Open Confirmed Resolved F
Findi Topic Comments Dpen item Item llem Item eport eso ution Report Cet RPS 12/21/83 3/4/83 3/4/83' l.4-1 Tech Specs 002 RPS 12/21/8 3 3/4/83 3/t./83*
l.41 Tech Specs 003 RPS 1/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.8-I Overpressure Protection 004 RPS l/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.8-1 Overpressure Protection 005 RPS I/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.1-1 System Operating Limits 006 RPS 1/12/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Accident Analyds Considerations 007 RPS 1/12/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Accident Analysis Consideroflons 008 LB I/19/8 3 3/4/83 1.19-I Control Systems 009 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 11.1-1 Selsmic Design 040 FAD 1/20/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 Hydroolic Design Oil LB 1/27/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control Systems 012 LB 2/7/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 013 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 1.5-1 Syst. Aligm Zwitdever w-
_.... ~
OCR, FRONG REPORT, AfD FIPONG RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM 4
MiGLAPD ROEPE'OENT DESIGN AfD CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Continued
~
OCR No. Reso.LTR Posential Open Confirmed Resolved
. Taoic Cor.wnents Open item item item item t
e tion Repott 014 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 l.5-1 Syst. Align./Switchover 015 C5 2/10/83 3/4/83 Ill.8-1 Seismic Design / Input to Equipment 016 CS 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 111. 5 - 8 Civil /Stu Design Consid.
017 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Heat Removal Cap l.10-1, Hydraulic Design 018 FAD 2/17/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11-1 Heat Removal Cap.
019 LB 2 / 21/ 8 3 3/4/83 LI8-l instrumentation 020 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.11 -1 Heat Removal Cap.
l.9-1 Comp. Func. Req.
0 21 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 11.1 0 -1 Eq. Qual.
Rev. I,4/l4/83 022 LB 2/24/83 3/4/83 LI9-l Control Syst.
023 LB 2/28/83 3/4/83 I.18-1 Instrumentation 1.19-1 Control O
e i*
OCR, FN)NG REPORT, AM) FIPOING RESOLtRION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO N DESIGN A>D CONSTRUCTICH VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Centinued s
OCR No. Resp. LTR PotentIol Open Confirmed Resolved FAI Findi Topic Comments Open item item item item Report eso otion Report 1
024 RPS 3/1/83 3/4/83 1.21 Acc. A.wd. Consid.
025 RPS 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Acc. Anal.Consid.
026 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 f.8-1 Overpress. Prof.
027 FAD 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.91 Comp. Fune. Req.
11.9 -1 Env.Eng.
028 FAD 3/2/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 f.91 Comp. Func. Req.
029 LB 2/22/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.18-1 Instrtanentation 1.19-1 Control System 030 LB li:7/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control System 0 31 C5 2/11/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports 032 CS 2 / 11 / 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3.lc Pipe Supperis
=n
- ~_
s s
OCR, FIPONG REPORT, AM) FIM) LNG RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPD DOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (Continued OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved aFindi Rnd Topic Comment:
Open item item item item Report eso utlan Report 1
033 CS 2/H/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports 034 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Stpparis 035 CS 2 / 11 / 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Sipporis Rev. I,5/25/83 036 CS 2 /11/ 8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 11.2 -1 Pressure Boundary Rev. I,5/25/83 037 CS 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 111.1-1 Selsmic Design / Input to Equipment 038 LB 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.15-1 Power Sepplies 039 LB 3/30/83 4/14/83
- 11. 1 0 - 1 Env. Eq. Oval.
040 LB 3/8/83 4/14/83-f.16-1 Elec. Characteristics 041 LB 3/25/83 4/14/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 042 LB 3/31/83 4/14/83 1.10-1 Env.Eq. Qual.
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/l7/83 4/14/83 S/25/83 11.1-lC Electrical Equipnent/
Storage & Maintenance 046 Tulo 3/l7/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 1.1-1C Mechanical Equipnent/
Storage & Maintenance l
l b
e ATTACHMENT 3 CURRENT CONFIRMED ITEM REPORTS O
I 1
e 9
l l
I -
4
MIDLAbo INDEPEbOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
D 3 I-oo C 001 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE J///0J CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (s), OR COMPONENT (s) INVOLVED:
AFW system operability and surveillance requirements in Technical Specifications IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Topic I.4-1, Technical Specifications DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
A commitment made in response to NRC requests has not been incorporated into the i
Midland Technical Specifications. That commitment involved NUREG-0611, Appendix III, 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).
SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERNS l
Valve lineup after maintenance or testing may not be correct.
i RECOMMENDATION
^
OR RNUTION Process in accordance with Project Quality Assurance Plan.
i COMMENTS BY 3RT (F REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
FSAR, REV. 47 SIGNATURE (5):
RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
sRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN. CHARGE i
3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
,g
+
e-
,q p---.
y.
gm,--w-w*w
,*w
MIDLAPO INDEPENDENT DESIGN Abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COeFIRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
o I
C 002 RESOLVED ITEM REY.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/03 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE J///5J CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AN system operability and surveillance requiren'ents in Technical Specifications.
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASA (IF APPLICARLE):
Topic I.4-1. Technical Specifications DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN Midland Technical Specifications do not meet NRC B&W Standard Technical Specifications in that:
An action statement is needed to require imediate action if both AFW systems are inoperable.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN Lack of action statement may result in inadequate plant protection.
RECOMMEFOATION X OR RESOLUTION Process in accordance with Project Quality Assurance Plan.
i 5
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIREDh I
j REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJ Midland Technical Specifications (Rev.33) in FSAR; NUREG-0103, REY. 4, FALL 1980 c
SIGNATURE (5):
RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB l
OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-SRT (IF REQUIRED) 1 ORIGINATOR FOR PROACT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 J
DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
+
i 5
n imi
i MIDLAND INDEPEbOENT DESIGN AbD CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED AND RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT gg.'
i[s.C.005 TYPE OF REPORT: CPEN CONFIRMED X
RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83
$RT PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.N-CHARGE 3/ //B3 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S) OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
Entire AFW system IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.1-1, System Operating Limits DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNS Balance of plant criteria are inconsistent with regard to AFW system flowrate requirements and other design parameters. OCRs C-017, C-018, C-020, C-027 and 0-028 also apply.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERNe i
Nuclear steam supply system performance requirements for the AFW system may not be adequately or consistently reflected in the balance of plant design.
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION Process in accordance with Project duality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
FSAR, REV. 47; B&W B0P Criteria Document 36-1004477, REV. 01 (6/25/82)
OCRS SIGNATURE (5):
RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARCE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE 4
e ee,
,.m_
---4
.o MIDLMO INDEPEFOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED AND RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
C.010 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR J/d/dJ sRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 314 Is3 PRINC: PAL.IN-CHARGE +1rK Ii'3 CPC/DEslCN ORG.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (s), OR COMPOPENT(s) INVOLVED:
AFW - piping and valves IDCv PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Hydraulic Design (I.10-1)
DESCRIPTION OF C In calculationethe volume of water available during the transfer from the condensate 1
storageMb.Tervice water suction source it was assumed that all Category I piping was full of water. However, the water might leak out prior to the service water be-coming available because of the lack of Category I check valves.
The recommendation of OCR-3201-008-0-010 was implemented.
It was determined that the AFW pumps could have a loss of suction during switchover to service water, slGNFICANCE OF CONCERf4 Although unstated, except by inference in calculations, the AFW design criteria i
i call for prevention of any occurrance of the pump running dry. Under some sequences i
of events it may be possible for the AFW pump to lose suction.
- i The AFW pumps could be damaged by running dry.
4 RECOMMEPOATION X
OR RESOLUTION 1.
Process per PQAP.
~
2.
Review seismic analysis of suction piping to evaluate assumption in Bechtel's analysis of the switchover to service water that credit can be taken for piping upstream of Category I/non-Category I interface.
COMMENTS SY sRT (F REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
slGNATURE(9:
FAD FAD FD
@k
~
OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER
' PRINCIPAL-sRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN(HARGE 3/29/83 3/29/83 4l:4lti rh./n DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE i
l-
MIDLAbO INDEPEbOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CONFIRMED AND RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT N
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
NO.
2 I 00 C-011 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/4/fl3 SRT PROJECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/4/83 PRI CIPAL.IN-CHARGE J///63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW " Feed Only Good Generator" (FOGG) Control IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
i Topic I.19-1, Control Systems DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
4 TheB&WBOPcriteriadocument(36-1004477 Draft) section 3.12 requires that control for FOGG be available at both the MCR and the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel.
The FOGG interlocks are controllable (invertable) from the MCR but are not controllable from the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
B&W BOP criteria regarding control of FOGG from Auxiliary Shutdown Panel are not met.
RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION
~
Project team confirms concern and has determined that design interface between B&W and Bechtel should be reviewed further.
COMMENTS BY SRT (F RE3URED):
^
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
i SIGNATURE (9 RPS RPS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PRO.CCT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
t MIDLAbO INDEPEFOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT y
C 012 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X NO.
RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 2/7/83 sRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 3/3/83 i
PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/DEstGN ORG.
STHUCTURE(s), SYSTEM (s) OR COMPONENT (s) INVOLVED:
FOGG Interlock IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.15-1, Power Supplies DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
The Midland FSAR and the B&W balance of plant criteria document (36-1004477-01) require that the AFW system be capable. of operating for.two hours in a station blackout condition (loss of all AC). The FOGG interlock relays for channel AA and BA are powered from Class 1E AC (lost during blackout). This would cause valves 2MO-3277A and B to shut, cutting off steam to the AFW turbine and causing loss of AFW function during blackout.
SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN The AFW system may not be functional during station blackout conditions.
4 f
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION i
~
l Although limited Failure Modes Effects Analyses (FMEAs) haVe been performed on AFW, a systematic analysis should be done which considers all applicable plant i
conditions.
i t
COMMENTS SY sRT (F REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
OCR 3201-008-0-038 & C-038 Drawings E-158Q SH41, 42, 24, 25 SIGNATURE (Se LB LB HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCPAL-sRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGNATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN CHARGE 2/7/83 2/9/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
l
_ _,.~_
.. -.. ~
{
MIDLAND INDEPENDENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION 1
OPEN, CONFIRMED AND RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT e
[
TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X 0
3 i SC 017 h
RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
0 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 sRT PROECT TEAM / PROJECT MGR.
3/3/83 P
PRINCIPAL.!N-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
y AFW Pumps r
IDCV P,ROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)
System Hydraulic Design (I.10-1) e Sistem Heat Removal Capability (I.ll-1)
(Criteria & Commitments / Review of Cales)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
There are inconsistencies in the minimum required AFW flow. B&W document BAW 1612, ir Rev. 1. (Ref. 1) lists values of 500 gpm and 720 gpm. The B&W BOP Criteria Document (Ref. 2) requires 850 gpm and a B&W calculation (Ref. 3) is consistent with this r
value, although (as reported in other OCRs) this calculation may not be consistent m
[
with appropriate design parameters. The 850 gpm figure may not provide enough water to remove the heat being generated at the time specified in the B&W Criteria Document (i.e. 30 sec after reactor trip).
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:
This would result in a temperature increase in the primary system until the decay heat rate' falls to the point where 850 gpm is adequate.
E E
E
~
RECOMMEFOATION X OR RESOLUTION
~
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
f COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
V cm REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): (1) Conceptual Design Study for Auxiliary Feedwater System Feed Rate Control for B&W 177-Fuel Assembly Plant, BAW 1612, Rev.1.
b O b.
b b." "* ** * "
b S!CNATURE(S):
FD FD HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
sRT (!F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE I
MIDLAbo INDEPEPOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CONFlRMED Abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
00d 418 Rd50LVED ITEM REV.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MCR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.lN-CHARGE J///54 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
i STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (s), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED:
AFW System (general)
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICA8 LID:
System heat removal capability (I.11-1)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
There are inconsistencies in the information presented in the listed references ccncerning the decay heat curve used to determine the heat load which the AFW must be capable of removing.
The AFW ' calculation FSAR page 10A-17 item (e) performed by B&W (Ref.1) uses a B&W decay heat curve.
states that 1.0 x ANS 5.1 (Ref. 2) heat curve whereas FSAR page 10.4-37 states that the design is in conformance with the method of the NRC's Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.2 (Ref. 3). B&W Docu-ment BAW 1612 (Ref. 4) uses the ANS curve plus 20% which is consistent with Reference 3.
Ref. 3 requires a 20% margin to be added to the ANS curve. The actual l
slGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN GeSign Dasis is not Clearly 1 dent 171ed.
{
If the heat load used for analysis is less than the ANS curve (Ref. 2) plus i
20% the calculated heat removal requirement will be too low and could conse-quently result in undersizing the AFW pumps.
4 RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan l
l i
COMMENTS 8Y $RT (IF REQUIRED):
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.): (l) B&W Calculation for AFW 32-0525. Rev.00.
(2) American Nuclear Society Standard 5.1-1979.(3) NRC Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.2. (4) B&W 1612(Rev.1), Conceptual Design Study.
5IGNATURE($):
l FAD FAD HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN-CHARGE l
3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
=. _
.., - _... ~ _.. _ _,. _..
MIDLAbo INDEPEFOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF TE* ORT OPEN CONFIRMED X
-oos. C. 020
- RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
0-DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 sRT PRORCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR.
3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 1/7/R3 CPC/DEsiCN ORG.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (s), OR COMPONENT (s) INVOLVED:
AFWSystem(general)
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPUCABUD System Hydraulic Design (I.10-1)
System Heat Removal Capability (I.ll-1)
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)
I DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN There are inconsistencies in inlet water temperatures used in AFW analyses. The B&W criteria * (section 2.14) require the use of 90'F inlet water i
I temperature for AFW system design. B&W's " Specific Design Criteria for Safety Grade AFW Control System" document (4100) describes 90*F as " typical". BAW 1612, Rev.1 (section 2.1) makes use of a 100*F value in calculating minimum flow requirements. The FSAR contains analyses indicating a' maximum service water temperature of 105'F.
Bechtel calculation FM 4117-28 uses a max. SW temperature of 108'F.
- (Document #36-1004477, Rev.1) slGNFICANCE OF CONCERN Use of a 90*F temperaturewhen 105'F can occur results in an underestimate of tihe quantity of water required to remove the heat being generated in the primary system.
This in turn affects the AFW system heat removal capability, its hydraulic design basis and the sizing of components.
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION I
I Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan l
l COMMENTS 8Y sRT(F REQUIREDh 1
i i
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM RE* ORT N(A): (1) Bechte'. Calculation FM4117-28 (Rev.0).
(2) B&W Balance of Plant criteria for AFW (36-10044/7,Rev.01). (3) B&W Conceptual Design Study (BAW-1612 Rev.l rnntrol Kvstem (86-1114130. gtg)4/80)B&W Specific Design Criteria for Safety Grade AFW slGNATURE(sh FAO FAO HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROXCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
sRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROACT TEAM IN. CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
- - -. - - -. 2
MIDLAPO INDEPEfCENT DESIGN AIO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CONFlRMED Ato RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT
-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN_
CONFIRMED X
-oos.C.025 j
RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
n DATES REPORTED TO: LTR J/J/63 sRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MCR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORC.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (s.\\ OR COMPOMNT(s) INVOLVED:
j AFW system operability under postulated accident conditions "FOGG" system i
may function in detrimental manner IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Topic I.2-1, Accident Analysis Considerations DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN. The " Feed Only Good Generator" system aiay perform in a detri-1 mental manner under conditions of steam generator tube failure followed by loss of offsite power.
Its design would force it to direct feed to the " bad" steam generator only because F0GG logic directs feed to the steam generator with the higher pressure based upon a delta pressure measurement between th,w two SGs. Without prompt operator j
action, the steam-driven pump could be flooded and rendered inoperable as a result of j
leaking primary coolant. The FSAR analysis assumeis operator a:: tion (no time delay mentioned) to " invert" FOGG and send flow to good generator such that the SG tube rup-ture is recognized & mitigated in sufficient time. The basis for this assumption is I
slGNFICANCE OF CONCERNJ not clear. Wfth a singie faiTure of the motor dr1ven AFW pump, j
iall AFW may be rendered inoperable.
1 Failure of operator to take action quickly could result in total loss of AFW (taking into account single failure).
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION _
4 Process in accordance with Project Quality Assurance Plan.
i I
i COMbENTS BY 3RT (F REQUIRED):
i i
{
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Topic 1.2-1 Engineering Evaluation; FSAR Revision 47.
SIGNATURE ($le RPS RPS HAL JW8 N/A JW8 OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROACT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (F REQUIRED)
ORICNATOR FOR PROACT TEAM IN. CHARGE i
3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATA dan.
DATE DATE i
g..
,.nw.
,.s._,_.,,
.._.,_-,,n,,..-
MIDLA!O INDEPEf0ENT DESIGN A!O CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT 3
M E & REPORT:
C RMED X
3 C 027 g
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 sRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MCR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.N-CHARCE 7 n /om CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (s) OR COMPONENT (s) Nv0LVED:
AFW (general)
IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICA8 LID:
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)
Environmental Envelopes (II.9-1)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The FSAR contains references to the following power levels:
j (a) 2452 MWt - license power level, (b) 2552 MWt - power level for calculation of core inventories for accident analyses, (c) 2603 MWt - power level for containment analysis.
}
The 2552 MWt. power was used in the B&W AFW calculation (Ref.1). The 2603 MWt is 102% of 2552. FSAR page 10A-17 (Item a) states that 102% of maximum power level is used for AFW analysis. Thus the power level for AFW analysis should be 2603 MWt.
1 siGNFICANCE OF CONCERN If 2552 MWt was used, the heat load which must be removed by the AFW will be underestimated compared to the heat load associated with operation at 2603 MWt resulting in undersizing of AFW components. Furthermore, other analyses may need to be performed at 2603 MWt.
1 RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION
~
l Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
PIC COMMENTS BY GRE (F REQUIRED):
Before doing any confirmatory AFW flow requirements analyses, detennine the rationale for the use of 2552 MWt by B&W, and discuss core power level to be j
used with project manager and PIC.
JWB REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
Ref 1: B&W AFW Calculation 32-0525, Rev. 00 SIGNATURE (sk FAO FAO HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-sRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE l
3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 l
i DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
--'m-
MIDLAFO INDEPEbOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CONFIRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
F D
3 i C.028 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/29/83 sRT PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 3l% lK PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 4 tit is 5 CPC/DEslGN ORG.
)
j STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (s), OR COMPONENT (s) INVOLVED:
AFW System IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)
(Review of Criteria and Comitments)
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
The AFW system design may not meet a B&W interface requirement that auxiliary feed-water temperature be at least 40*F.
B&W's BOP criteria for AFW (Ref.1) requires a 40*F minimum AFW temperature. This criterion is consistent with the B&W document for reactor coolant system analysis (Ref. 2) which is used in analysis of reactor coolant system components. Bechtel calcluation FM-4117-28 (Ref. 3) uses a 32*F temperature as a worst case winter temperature.
The recomendation contained in the original was implemented, but no addition analyses were identified.
slGNFICANCE OF CONCERN l
If the interface requirement is not met, analyses of the reactor coolant system l
components could become invalid.
RECOMMENDATION A OR RESOLUTION Process per PQAP.
t COMMENTS BY sRT (F REQUIRED):
i 1
i
__ MeNoYNNM N D1 B&W Functional Contract Specification for) Reactor Coolant System (18-1092000012-04 Bechtel Calculation FM-4117-28 slGNATUREts):
FAD ht
@L FAO e
OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANAGER
' PRINCFAL.
sRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN CHARGE i
3/29/83 3/29/83 4-ll4 ]t3 f//./f) j, DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
.i l
i I
MIDLAFO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COeFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT FILE NO. 320I-008 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
DOC NO. 3201-00s. C. 031 RESOLVED ITEM REY.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MCR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL lN-CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports IDCv PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPUCABLE):
Topic I.3.lc - Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN 1
Refer to OCR's C-32 thru 35,.same program area as above, for description of four hangers field measured by TERA to be out of installation tolerance limits.
t l
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN The construction deviation control process is not functional.
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION
~
1.
Review further the construction deviation control process to determine extent i
of breakdown.
2.
Process per Project Quality Assur.ance Plan.
4 4
COMMENTS SY SRT(F REQUIREDh l
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h Dwg 7220-H-639 SH 14 (Q), Rev 11 I
Spec 7220-M-326 (Q) Rev 8 " Install., Inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports" SIGNATURE (1):
CS CS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANACER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 i
DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE f
MIDLAbO INDEPEbOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED AbD RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
D I
C.032 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
O dates REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 sRT PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MCR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.lN. CHARGE 3/7/83 CPC/DEslGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (s), OR COMPONENT (s) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR Task (F APPUCA8UDs Topic I.3-1c - Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNS Hanger H-10, a horizontal snubber, was field measured by TERA to be about 3'-0" from its design location (along the direction of the pipe axis) which exceeds the allowable tolerance for snubbers of O'-G".
Construction deviation information was not forwarded for approval and processing by engineering as required by procedures.
i slGNFICANCE OF CONCERN 1.
The piping analysis for this portion of the system may be affected as a result of this change leading to higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated.
2.
The construction deviation control process does not appear to be functioning for this case (refer to separate OCR for reconsnendation).
PECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION 1.
Input this information to the TERA confirmatory piping analysis for further l
evaluation.
2.
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan e
COMMENTS BY sRT (F REQUIRED):
l i
i l
i l
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
l Dwg 7220-H-639 SH 14 (Q), Rev.11 l
Spec 7220-M-326 (Q), Rev. 8 " Install., Inspect. & Doc. of Pipe Supports" 4
I slGNATURE(sh CS CS HAl.
JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT' LTR PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
sRT (F REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROACT TEAM IN. CHARGE 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE L
4 I
g*
w
' s MIDLAto INDEPENDENT 06S!GN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
- y.. \\ 's SPEN, COWIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT, TYPE OF REPOT: OPEN -
CONFIRMED X
"U' '
C-033 RESOLVED ITEM 3
N
,REV.tc. O DATES REPORTED TO, LTR 3/3/83 sRT PROECT TEAM /PROJEhkCR.
3/3/83
' N 1
PRINCPAL-IN-CHARGE 1/7 /91 CPC/ des!GN ORC.
STRUCTURE (s)/5Ysip!,9, OA, COMPONENT (s) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipd.Si.pports
%~
(~
s N ic N c N e Sp# N s p
x Verification ofThysical Confignation N
s 5,%
- DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN g
\\,
u 3
Hanger H-7,"a verticalgi,Mc 61angcr, was field measuredsby TERA to. be about 3'-0" from 3ts' design location kal'or.3 the direction of the pipe. axis)~ which exceeds the
'allohble tolerance of '1-0".,' Construction deviation information was not forwarded
.7 r approv,al and processing by engin o ring as required by procedurcs.
9 s
s
(
\\'
c s
\\s l s
SIGNWICANCE OF CONCERN:
s s
3
- 1. / 7ha piping analysis for this artion of the.systemmy be 'affected as a result cf.this change leading'to higher support loads ~end piptrg stresses than
+
s cat i cu*Q*.cd.',
?
'\\
s b.-
2.
The construction deviation coritroi process does'stot appear to be functioning for this case (rltfer to sepMde OCR for recomendation).
S $ "'
s., ;
x-
}
u R200MENDATION _
X-OK REsOLUTIONii_
i 1
s
.,g 4
.,1 Input to:7 ERA,sanfirmatory piping Snalysis forhurther evaluation.
x,
~
s
\\..
....4r Fi&ct' Quahty Asswance P1r.n.
y Procau-)A y\\
3 c,-
Q-
, i s,A,.
S,'
I.-[\\
.. ?' s. g i %,
'\\ -
y..
(\\
\\;
l
\\
\\
COMMENTS BY 3RT(F REQUIRED): b
,\\t.
I
'. s g
s i
i
)
yl t
1 Dwg NSNE NeYN s
Spec 7220-M-326 (Q), Rev. 8 "tastall., Inspect. & Doc. of.9f pe Supports..."
i
$4GNATdtEG
'CS\\
CS hat. <
JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR
, PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-sRT (IF REGUIRED) 0%3NATOR FOR PROACT TEAM IN. CHARGE 3/3/83' 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83
~
~
DATE DATE DATE DATEy DATE t,
T l
\\
)
i
- 1,
,n.
o
~
MIDLAto INDEPEPOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT e $ ((,'o*gs.C.034 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
RESOLVED ITEM REY.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83 sRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MCR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.iN-CHARGE 3/7/R1 CPC/DEslCN ORG.
STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (s) INVOLVED:
AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic I.3 Pipe Supports Verification of Physical Configuration DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Hanger H-4, a vertical spring hanger, was field measured by TERA to be located on the opposite side of a 90' elbow (along the axis of the pipe) which exceeds the allowable tolerance. Construction deviation information was not forwarded for approval and processing by engineering as required by procedures.
l slGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN 1.
The piping analysis for this portion of the system may be affected as a result of this change leading to a higher support loads and piping stresses than calculated.
2.
The construction deviation control process does not appear to be functioning for this case (refer to separate OCR for reconnendation).
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION 1.
Input to TERA confirmatory piping analysis for further evaluation.
2.
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
4 I
COMMENTS 8Y sRT (IF REQUIREDh l
i Y&D?Y#
Spec 7220-M-326 (Q), Rev 8 " Install., Inspect., & Doc. of Pipe Supports..."
l slGNATURGs):
l CS CS HAL JW8 JWB N/A l
l OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-sRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROJECT TEAM lrM HARGE i
j 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 l
DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE t
i l
l
a y *> +
f
- *[
/MIDLAto R DEPEFOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION
[
OPEN, CONFIRMED NO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT
. TYPE OF RCPORT: OPEN _-
CONFIRM".D(M---
3201 C.015 t
RESOLVED ITElA REV.NO.
(I) One DATES RfPORTED TO: LTR 5/1048.j, SET PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 5/20/83
.A PRINCIPAL.MHARCE 5/2b/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
' STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (5) INYOLyriD i
AFW System Pipe Supports IDCV PROG.9AM ARE A OR TA95 (F APPLICABLE):
~
Topic l.3-Fc Pipe 5upports.
Verification of. Phys! cal Configuratton DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN Hanger H-ll, a vertica' rigid hanger was field measured by TERA to be at the proper elevation but mis-located b'y I'-3". according to drawing dimensions from DP '260.
Further measurements show DP-260 at proper elevation, but dimensions do not match elevations showi for DP-260 or 265. Steel locations and penetration locations support elevations as measured, s
Sl;;NFICANCE OF CONCERN:
1.
Drawing errors of this nature are not consistent with pipe analysis and may indicate the probability of other drawing errors that would develope loading higher than design levels.
2.
The construction deviation control process and drawing checking process does not ' appear to be functioning.
l RECOMMENDATION _ X _,OR RESOLUTION
~
1.
Investig te quality paperwork to determine effectiveness of acceptance procedures and feed back of results of design, group for determination of acceptance resolution.
2.
Investigate shop drawing approval and establish feed back to design and drawing of dimension / elevation nonconformance.
CO! AMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):
l
\\
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
l-
}
Drawing 7220-H639 Sh.14(Q), Rev.11 & Engl.1eering Evaluation 3201-001-001, Pgs 7 s 8 L
SK; NATURE (5):
i RCS DRT HAl J8 l
OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT(F REQUIRED)
ORIGNATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN-CHARGE 5/10/83 5/20/83 4/2s/81 C/*>7/Rt DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE b
e 9
MIDLAND INDEPEbOENT DESIGN abo CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X NO. 3 1-008. C. 036 RESOLVED EM REV.NO.
(1) One DATES REPORTED TO: LTH
- /11/R35RT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MCR. 5/20/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARCE 5/26/53 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED:
AFW System Piping IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Topic 11.2-1 Pressure Boundary Drawing Review OESCRIPTION OF CONCERN The offset dimensions to the reactor centerline are not consistent with dimensions given along pipe center 1Ine as follows. Distances between DP 270 and 280, 280 and 285, 300 and 306. Differences range from 5/16 and 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 and components from design assumptions.
6 RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION 1.
Investigate shop drawing approTral system to establish method of resolution and feed back to design and drafting.
4 j
COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):
1 REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
l j
Drawing 7220-H-639 (Q), Sh.
14, Rev. 11 & Eng. Eval. 3201-001-001, page 9 i
SicNATURE(Sh 1
RCS D8T HAL JB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (IF REQUIRED) i ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN. CHARGE l
5/10/83 5/20/83 5/25/83 5/27/83 l-DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE t
t
-+,
g.
v g
-y c-
-p
-g-r g
--orw.
MIDLAlO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN AfO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
No i s.C.037 l
REY.NO.
0 RESOLVED ITEM DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/3/83
$RT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MCR.__3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.IN. CHARGE 1/7/p1 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTUPI(S), SYSTEM (s), OR COMPONENT (5) INVOLVED:
AFW System - All IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):
Topic III.1 Seismic Design Review of Design Criteria DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN FSAR Figures 3.7-2 through 3.7-53 are not current as they are not consistent.with FSAR text nor the models and response spectra for the containment and ' auxiliary building. The FSAR updating, process is not consistent nor timely.
slGNIFICANCE OF CONCERNi FSAR errors could lead to the utilization of improper input to the design process.
RECOMMEPOATION X
OR RESOLUTION 1.
Review further information regarding the FSAR updating process.
i 2.
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
4 COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):
l i
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
i FSAR, Rev. 46, Section 3.7 l
Spec. 7220-G-6, Rev. 7 and G-7, Rev. 9, Containment & Aux. Bldg. Response Spectra l
$1GNATURE(s):
I CS CS HAL JWB N/A JWB OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
sRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN-CHARGE l
l 3/3/83 3/3/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l
3 l
j
MIDLAFO INDEPEICENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED abo RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED X
os sC.038 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
O DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/1/83 SRT
_ CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
PRORCT MAM/PROKCT MGR. 3/3/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 1/7 /R1 STRUCTURE (s), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPONENT (S) INVOLVED:
AFW Pump Turbine Minimum Flow Valve IOCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
Topic 1.15-1, Control / Power Supplies i
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
Under condition of loss of all AC (station blackout), the AFW pump minimum flow valve 2SV-3969B would not be operable because it is powered from Class 1E AC power. The Midland FSAR and B&W BOP criteria document (36-1004477) both require that AFW be operable for two hours under station blackout. During this period of time flow through the minimum flow line may be necessary to prevent damage to the pump.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN Failure to provide minimum flow would cause consequential damage to the AFW turbine driven pump during :tation blackout.
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION
~
Process per Project Quality Assurance Plan.
COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):
i I
4 j
REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
1 OCR 3201-008-0-012 & C-012 ; Drawing E-158(Q) SH 29, 29A, 29B, 29C 4
SIGNATURE (S):
LB LB HAL JWB N/A JWB l
OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (IF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN-CHARGE l
3/1/83 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/14/83 DATE
. DATE DATE DATE DATE 4
I.
=
~
e MIDLAPO INDEPEPOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CONFIRMED AND RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED Y
NO 8 C.045 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/17/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR._ 5/_2.0'83.
PRINCIPAL.IN. CHARGE 8;/26/81 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.
STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPONENT (S) lNVOLVED:
Auxiliary Feedwater System: AFW Pump Motor 2P005A IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICABLE):
ICV: Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
1.
. Manufacturer's recommended storage instructions require motor shaf t rotation I
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 90 days, exceeding the maximum duration between shaf t
.a:ations, as recommended by the vendor, by a factor of 6.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN i
Failure to comply with manufacturer's recorrinended shaf t rotation schedule for the motor may have a deleterious effort upon the shaf t bearing surfaces, shaf t bearings, and rotating elements of the motor.
RECOMMENDATION X
OR RESOLUTION Recommend motor inspection by manu7acturer's rep. and ICV reviewer of motor bearing surfaces.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
t I
j REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
i Bechtel Storage Procedure F-10-247 Vendor Descument No. 7220-M14-68 SIGNATURE (S):
OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT OF REQUIRED)
ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM lN-CHARGE 3/17/83 5/20/83 5/25/83 5/27/81 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE i
i i
~
_..=
(O ao
>*.. e 3.
MIDLAto INDEPEbOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, CObFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT. OPEN CONFI'1MED X
NO. 3 8.C.046 RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.
DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 3/17/83 SRT PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 5/20/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-CHARGE 5/26/d3 CPC/ DESIGN GRG.
STRUCTURE (5). SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOffNT(S) INVOLVED:
Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps = 2P005A & 2P005B IDCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (IF APPLICA8LE):
ICV: Review of Storage & Maintenance Documentation DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:
1.
Pump manufacturer's. recommended storage instructions require pump to be stored under vacuum with VPl crystals (dessicant) to maintain Relative Humidity at i.ess than 50%.
2.
Bechte.1 Procedure for storage of pumps, Proc. #F-10-Il8, does not require vacuum nor humidity check per item #1 above.
3 Further to concern, review of. records indicates pump have been open, subject to flooding & other damage, & several NCR's remain open against the AFW pump turbine SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: indicating maintenance problems which have not been addressed nor closed out.
Failure to comply with the vendor's recommended storage instructions coupled with the long time (since 1978) the pumps and turbine have been in storage (both in the warehouse and in place) raise concerns as to the existence of Internal damage to the pumps and turbine resulting from rust, corrosion, and foreign materials.
RECOMMENDATION X
09 RESOLUTION a.
Recommend pumps and turbine disasseImbly and inspection.
Disassembly and inspection should be witnessed by manufacturer's rep. and ICV reviewe r.
COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):
1 9
l
. REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):
i Bechtel Procedure F-10-118 and Storage and Maintenance Checklist GN-3-118 l
l SIGNATUREts):
. OCR ITEM REPORT LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.
SRT (IF REQUIRED)
OFICINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE 3/17/83 5/20/83 5/25/83 5/27/83 i
DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE
-