ML20094B377

Forwards Fourth Status Rept Re Independent Design Review of Core Spray Sys for 840701-15.Related Correspondence

ML20094B377
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	07/16/1984
From:	Carpenter F TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY
To:	Boyer V PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
References
OL, TPT:023:FDC:84, TPT:23:FDC:84, NUDOCS 8408060419
Download: ML20094B377 (7)

Text

.

.s 9)Cif

,ym

.TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY l\V. RELATED CCRREspoy95pC N

l f

RO Box 85608

• S.w oiego, Cahforrua 92138 5.s Tr* phone: (619) 455-2654 A oms on of G A Technologies Inc.

h Og L' U

84 n ut". 23 TPr:023:FDC: c- I #0/

- July 16, 1984 ' oc- .

Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street S25-1 ce=7,:m m Philadelphia, PA 19101 Encu UT;i.r c...d.NO M3 O L, Attention: V. S. Boyer, Sr. Vice President Nuclear Power Gentlemen:

The enclosed status report is the fourth of six scheduled for the Independent

^

Design Review of the Limerick Generating Station Unit 1 Core Spray System.

Tuis report covers the period July 1, ]984 to July 15, 1984. A manpower

- activity stmnary graph illustrates the planned projected vs. actual. effort to meet the IDVP milestones in the Program Plan.

A copy of this report is being sent directly to the representative of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Please call me if you have any questions' regarding the contents of this report.

Sincerely, FDC/dn F. D. Ca penter Encl. Project Manager cc: PECo: R. A. Mulford N2-1 ~,

E. C. Kistner J. Moskiwitz L. B. Pyrih G. J. Beck Bechtel: S. J. Ployhar USNRC: J. M. Milhoan, Chief Licensing Section Quality Assurance Branch, Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission EWS-305A Washington, DC 20555 8400060419 840716 PDR ADOCK 05000352 R PDR 1

.r.. . - - _ , _ , ,

i

.. ..; -1 I

l l

~

cc: Judge Lawrence Brenner . (w/ enclosure)

Judge Peter A. Morris (w/ enclosure)

-Judge Ricndrd F. Cole (w/ enclosure)

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. -(w/ enclosure)

Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

- Mr. Frank R. Romano (w/ enclosure)

Mr. Robert L. Anthony (w/ enclosure)

Maureen Mulligan (w/ enclosure)

' Charles W. Elliott, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

Zori G. Ferkin, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

Mr. Thomas Gerusky (w/ enclosure)

Director,. Penna. Emergency. (w/ enclosure)

Management Agency Angus Love, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

David Wersan, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

Robert J. Sugdrman, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

Martha W. Bush, Esq. N -

(w/ enclosure)

Spence W. Perry, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. (w/ enclosure)

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board (w/ enclosure)

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel (w/ enclosure)

Docket & Service Section (w/ enclosure - 3 copies))

James Wiggins (V/ enclosure)

Timothy R. S. C4mpbell (w/ enclosure) 4

+

g 9

o

, ' ~

_ INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW .

" ~

0F LIMERICK GENERATING STATION #1 -

CORE SPRAY SYSTEM Bi-Monthly Status Report M Period Ending July 15, 1984

. Intreduction 1his is the fourth of six planned bi-monthly status reports. h is report docu-

ments information .concerning the-independent design ' review of Limerick's Core C - Spray - System. The work performed covers the period July 1, .1984 to July 15, 11984.

Alasitrl ,

- Le design procedure review which describes the Bechtel and GE design process and PEco's design review function for conformance = to the PSAR or to 10CFR _Part 50, Appendix B. is essentially complete. We only reaining activity for this Task A portion of the IDVP is the samary- report.

he design procedure implementation review of specific _ design documents is progressing. Some schedule shifting was necessary due to delays in receiving procedural doctuents. he design procedure implementation review has required more visits to the major suppliers than projected. However, the net effect appears as a one week delay in preparation of the Task B summery report.

Portions of the technical review, Task C, are being completed. Other portions are progressing reasonably well with no predictable schedule slippages.

De six initial PFRs from Tasks C and D have been received fra the ' original design ' organizations and the responses are being reviewed by the independent reviewers and the task leader. An additional six PFRs were identified. Bree were in Task B, which have been forwarded to PECo. The other three were in Task C and are in process at TPT. '

TAM A DRRTnM PROrrnURE REVTFW Al Complete - Procedures 2524-PD-1 and -7 issued.

A2 Memos 2524-Q&o5 dated June 27,1984, 2524-QA-07 dated July 3,1984, des-cribing design control procedure structure of Bechtel and GE, respectively, were issued. This completes Subtask A2.

~A3 Copies of currently applicable design control procedures, including proce-dures for audits and corrective action fra PEco, Bechtel, and GE have been obtained. This completes Subtask A3.

A4 21s subtask is complete with the issuance of memo 2524-QA-05.

AS Reviews of PEco's, Bechtel's and GE's current design control procedures for conformance to the commitments in PSAR are complete.

A6 Review of available earlier revisions of PEco, Bechtel, and GE design con.-

trol procedures is complete.

AT Summarization of the design procedure review is in progress.

+

l--

y  :

3 ':

. 2 TASK B DFSIGN PROrFnURE IMPIFMENTATION REVIEW B1 Complete - Procedure 2524-PD-2 issued.

B2 The selection of design docments to be reviewed for compliance with the design control procadures continues. This is being done in conjunction The scheduled completion of with develognent of checklists for Subtask B21.

this subtask has been advanced to July 27, 1984 since full access to design procedures were not achieved until July 6,1984.

B3 This activity is being coordinated with Subtask C4. The schedule completed date is also advanced to 7/27/84.

B4 Based upon the PECo, Bechtel, and GE design procedures identified and obtained in A3, detailed checklists are being prepared. These checklists will be used _to conduct the design docment conformance reviews. Specific checklists are being generated for the different types of design docments, e.g., calculations, drawings, specifications, change notices, etc., for each design process systm of the major suppliers and PECo.

Preparation of PEco's design process review checklists and the identifica-tion of specific design dooments for review is complete. Bechtcl's and GE's checklists are approximately 407, complete.

The evaluation of PEco's design-review process for conformance to proce-dures is scheduled at PECo the week of July 23, 1984. The evaluation of Bechtel's and GE's design docment conformance will be initiated as soon as all checklists are complete for each of these major suppliers.

The review of PECo's and GE's implementation of the design control audit and corrective action activity was completed. Bechtcl's review in the design audit and corrective action area will be, initiated shortly. Thrco PFRs were identified in the review of PECo's implementation.

The scheduled completion date for the design docment reviews will parallel the schedule completion of the C4 subtasks, August 10, 1984. See Table I.

BS 1hc task stunary completion date has also been advanced to August 17, 1984 as a result of the change in Subtask B4, TLW C TECHNICAL REVTFW C1 Complete - Procedure 2524-PD-3 issued.

C2 Completion of the design chain will be delayed until all vendors have boon identified. Relevant design docmonts are currently being received as shown in Task C4 below. A new scheduled completion date of July 31, 1984 has been established.

t C3 No change has occurred frcru the initial selection of specific components and major features identified for the detailed design review. .

k

t . 7

' C4 De relevant GE design docunents to perform the technical review have been identified. .. Bene componen t s include the reactor. vessel nozzle, core spray 3 Rese docunents are piping inside the vesssl, the sparger,' and' the pump.A visit to GE the week of July 16, availatic at GE's facility in San Jose.

, 1984'will be made for this review.

De technical ' review of AS!E Class I piping and contairment penetration have been completed. - Wo PFRs have been issued and are currently being Technical review of Class 2 piping reviewed -in light of OD0's response.

and pipe supports has also been completed. 'lhree PFRs have been issued.

. De technical review of the CSS fluid systan to meet the. basic functional requirements is also completed. Instrumentation and electrical components-are currently being reviewed. Valve review has just been initiated.

C5 No activity to date. s C6 No activity to date. -

TAM D PHYSIPAffVFRTFICATION D1 Complete - Procedure 2524-PD-4 issued.

D2 Complete - Memo 2524-ENG:03:AS:84.

D3 Complete - Review of PFR responso from the "OD0" is in progress.

D4 Complete - memo 2524:ENG:07:CDF:84 issued.

TAM E POTENTTAf FTMDTNcM E1 - E2 Complete For this period, six potential findings were initiated. Bree were initia-ted in Task B and directed to PEco. These three PFRs identified concerns relating to PEco's implementation of their design control audits and cor-rective action program. The other three PFRs concerned the review of Class 2 piping and pipe supports. These PFRs are being processed and have not been sent to the respective original design organizations.

TAM F ADMTNTSTRATIVE AND RFDORTING he sunnary of projected vs. actual manpower and percent complete graph was updated to show current data.

he TFT Limerick IDVP project office was informed by the NRC that an or>-

site review of TFT's activities will be conducted on July 24 and 25. A team of three NRC representatives will conduct this review.

t 9

6

1

-q g. -

' July 16,1984 _

TABLE I ~

CORE SPRAY SYSTEM INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIDI

. TASK / MILESTONE STATUS f

And lect jgb Actual Doci==nt

'plilastone

. 5/30 5/24 ~ 2524-PD-1 & 7 Al' Procedure / Checklist 2524-QA-01,.05, 07 A2 Procedure Structure 6/15 7/08 1 A3- - Access Design Procedures 6/15 7/06 NA Bechtel Review 7/05 7/03- T n:012:FDC:84 A4 7/05 7/05 2524-QA-01, 05, 07 AS PEco/GE Review '

A6- Time.-period Procedures 4 7/10 7/10 NA

- A7 Task Samary 7/24 9

'B1 Procedure / Checklist .5/30 5/24 2524-PD-2 B2 Dooment Selection- 7/27 B3 Docunent Location 7/27 B4 Docunent Review 8/10 B5- Task Sunnary 8/17 C1 - Procedure / Criteria 5/30 5/30 2524-PD-3 C2 Design Chain 7/31 ,

C3 Feature Selection Cont 2524:ENG:02:AS:84 C4 Design Review 8/10 .

C5 Independent Analysia 7/27 C6 Task Sunman 8/ 17 D1 Walkdown Procedure 5/30 5/31' 2524-PD-4 D2 Itan Selection 6/04 5/29' 2524:ENG:03:AS:84 D3 Complete Walkdown 6/27 6/15' 8/10 6/22 2524:ENG:07:CFD:84 1

D4 Task Summan El Establish Committee 5/30 5/18 Proj. Directive #3 E2 Define Criteria 5/30 5/25 2524-PD-5 E3 Procedure 5/30 5/30 2524-PD-5 E4 Processing PFRs cont 1 Project Directive #1 F1 Management / cost- cont -

F2 Protocol Procedure 6/01 6/01 2524-PD-6 F3 Status Report #1 6/1 5/31 Tn:005:ImC:84 i Status Report #2 6/15 6/15 T n :012:FDC 84

. Status Report #3 7/1 7/2 TPr:018:FDC:84 ,

i Status Report M 7/15 7/16 TPT:023:FDC84 Status Report #5 8/1

. - Status Report #6 8/15 i F4 Information compilation 8/15 l F5 Finel Report Draft 8/24 -

l I

F6 Final Report-Issue 8/31 O

g- 9.m r- s- -~-tw-w.--,,- yem-y--s--ev,,.mme-w--< w w . e vy.- me ,y+ mew-.,.,,ec,--w, g,,., ,.-.sr,4,-..w-.,ey.e-,,.-,,-.,<ww.,7---m-umm - e e c e-m-y

. w t

,edlU w

". 0. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1

.% 8 7 6 5 4 g*);.r ,U bj yte)t8,I.

(l Qp'q . ;

n*  %

1 0

1 3 9

- 4 7

2 l 0 4 7 2- 8

- 4 0

2 T j 0 3

S l 8 U - 4 G 3 U 1 '

A Q 0 3

1 6

- 4 6

0 0

- 4 9 0 ' 2

- 4 0

3 7

0 3

2 9 4

- 2 3 3 5 2 2 4 0 9 T 2 -

4 C

- 3 E 6 '-

- J 1 ~ O Y. l- 0 R L 9 P U 3 0 J 1

- 3 YW 9

R E A I hO s, 0 9

3 7

M M

V E

~ 6 4 U R 2

? 2 2 S N

0 's' Y G 0 7 T I 2

S

/ -

2 3

9 1

I S V E 5 / 2 2 I D 2 T C T 4 0 6 A N 2 2 7 E

- . 9 $ D 8 1 1 N E

E 1  : P E

N i 0 6

'1- 5 ,

D U , 0 3 J 5 5 N 1 / 1 1 I d

1 O

/' 0 0

9 6

1 c

C E

P 4

- /- 1 1 1 _

0 1

0

./ ,

0 8 8 3 6 8 8

2 -

l 5

2 '7 0 2 5 5 2

1

~

3 5 M %

1 0 7

. t

-

• 3 5 1 3 4

1 / -

1 0 0 ,

1 0 .

7 2 _

,i 0 .

0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 e l 3 2 1 5 4 t a c u Q8mh e t j c o A r

y