ML20097F288
| ML20097F288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1984 |
| From: | Carpenter F GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| To: | Boyer V PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| References | |
| OL, TPT:034:FDC:84, TPT:34:FDC:84, NUDOCS 8409180472 | |
| Download: ML20097F288 (7) | |
Text
E J-.bN U
g fpOL 3
\\
OL eg' ;y +
' p L s3
~
j e ENC" TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY go Cy ' ' ~
g" Po. Box 85608 7-d San Dego. Cahfornia 92138 Telephone- (619) 455-2654 A ovision of GA Technologies Inc.
TFf:034:FDC:84 Og7 0 I
/
}
August 15, 1980 j
1
'84 AGO 27 p;g 35 miladel@ia El.ectric Canpany 2301 Market St eet 325-1 r-
'Thilade1 @ia, PA_ 19101 x
Attention:
V. S. Boyer, Sr. Vice President Nuclear Power Gentlenen:
The enclosed status report is the last of six scheduled for' the Independent Design Review of the Limerick Generating Station Unit 1 Core Spray Systel.
This report covers the period AugeSt 1, 1984 to August 15, 1984.. Hmever, since several itans are being added to resolve technical-issues, additional bi-monthly status reports will be issued during the extended period of review.
A manpower activity sunmary gram was modified to include the estimated manpower needs.
The new milestones are included in Table I.
A copy of this report is being sent directly to the representative of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory -Carmission.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the contents of this report.
Sincerely,
/
FDC/dn F. D.
rpenter Encl.
Project Manager cc: PEco:
R. A. Mttlford N2-1 E. C. Kistner J. Moskiwitz L. B. Pyrih G.'J. Beck Bechtel: S. J. Playhar USNRC:
J. M. Milhoan, micf Licensing Section Quality Assurance Branch, Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carmission EWS-305A Washington, DC 20555 8409180472 340815 PDR ADOCK 05000357 g
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW
.0F LIMERICK GDIERATING STATION #1~
CORE SPRAY SYSTEM
' Bi-Monthly Status Report 16 Period Ending August.15,1984
-Introduction Lhis is the last of six scheduled bi-monthly status reports.
Bis report doct>-
ments information concerning the independent design review of Limerick's Core Spray ' System.
We work performed covers the period August 1,1984 - to August 15, 1984.
Summarv On August 9 representatives from the NRC (I&E Branch) contacted TFT's project representatives about the Limerick IINP review.
He purpose was to discuss the
. NRC concerns developed during their on-site review of the progrm: on Ju]y 24 and 25.
TFT believes the review scope is adequate to support statments which runmarize systems adequacy in the mechanical, electrical, and fluid syste To avoid a limiting statement about civil-structural itms which do not areas.
{
extensively occur within the core spray system, TPT was granted permission by PECo to extend the schedule and cost to probe a civil-structural area outside the core spray system but which is affected by components of the system.
Task A is complete and Task B is nearing completion. Rese tasks were accom-plished within schedule but with additional manhours used. to evaluate,. in depth, the audit and corrective action programs of PECo, Bechtel, and GE.
For Task C, the review scope was increased to include additional civil-l structural itans. As noted above, this was done to comply with NRC suggestions that all. technical disciplines be included in the review, even though most civil-structural items are outside the scope of the core spray systen.
A considerable nunber of PFRs have been generated during this period as Tasks B and C are nearing completion.
Fourteen new PFRs were initiated, bringing the total to 29 as of this date.
Timely processing of these PFRs will be of sprime importance in maintaining the schedule and issuance of the final report.
TASK A DESIGN PROCEDURE REVTEW i
Complete TASK B DESIGN PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW l
l Subtasks B1 through B3 complete.
' B4 A visit was made to PECo to examine their design control files for Bechtel l
docunents requiring PEco review. Se work was completed. Visits were also l
made to GE.and Bechtel to examine their design control' records. Se ord site l
reviews were essentially. completed.
Any additional trips required will be brief and limited to clearing up any open items. Work is continuing in San
[
d 6
w
[-
.2-
'Diego to' complete the checklists, -initiate PFRs (as required), and prepare the Task Surinary Report.
. Memo #2524-QA-19 was issued, sunmarizing the Task B work related to Design Audits.
TASK C TECHilICAL REVTEh?
C1 and C2 are complete.
C3 he review scope was increased to include additional civil-structural itens.
'Ibe new review itens are the local contairment areas which are affected by loadings fran : the core spray line pipe whip restraints and contairment penetrati_on.
C4 Most of the review work has teen completed with the exception of the local contairrnent area which is an extension of the original review scope. Work in these areas has just been initiated.
Ccepletion of the technical review will be delayed until Septonber 7.
05 A visit to GE was made to initiate an analysis of the core spre" nozzle which is independent of the one currently being performed by GE.
Bis analysis is necessary to perform an impact asses: ment for a PFR, and is scheduled for completion by August 24.
C6 Preparation of initial drafts of the review evaluation reports (RERs) has been initiated or ccmpleted for several review itans.
The task sumoary report will be based on these drafts.
Because of the additional civil-structural review scope described in C3 above, the task sunmary wilL not be completed until Septenber 14.
TASK D PHYSICAL VERIFICATION All work on Task D is complete.
TASK E POTENTIAL FINDINGS Tasks El through E3 are complete.
For this period, fourteen potential findings were initiated.
Five were issued within Task B which questioned compliance of design docunents with controlling procedures.
The nine PFRs issued within Task C involved additional loading or analysis inconsistencies.
A site visit was made to resolve disagreanents in the accuracy of. several potential findings, his purpose was achieved and the PFRs in question are being processed.
A visit to GE to assess the impact of a PFR is described under Subtask CS above.
l Re Findings Review Committee convened during this report period and l
classified four FFRs.
l
, - - ~, -
w,
.- 3'-
w:n
/..
ADMTNTSTRATIVE AND REPORTING TA"K p T 1984. a. conference ; call was initiated between the NRC (I&E On August 9,' :
Licensing Section) and TFT's Limerick.IINP project-personnel.. he purpose y"
' of this~ conference call was to discuss the on-site ;rogrammatic reviw made '
- by NRC representatives on July 24
- and 25,1984.
NRC's impact on the tech '
- nical scope or depth of revis is-discussed under C3 he NRC will be requiring considerable detail in the final report ~ to sub--
stantiate the technical review which supports the conclusions.
Extracting detail from records-developed during the verification and restating sudt the.-reporting : effort and schedule. - (Previous TFT
- process 'will affect reports on independent reviews cunmarized details with-the specific data -
and requirments docunented in backup project records.). ' Once the results of.the potential findings are compiled (Subtask F4), _the preparation of the
~ final report is expected to take 14 days rather than.the 'l days previously -
planned.
he TFT project. office isicertainly' mare of PECo's desire:to maintain cost e'
and schedule. - Every ; effort to use -options cuch as overtime or increased manpower is being considered. - Some extended hork days have been utilized alrea#,
hwever ~ with the, requirments of' personnel independence, engineering capabilities and qualifistion, and project orientation and '
J training,- the utilization of. additioral personnel is questionable at thia late date in the progran.
We suomary of projected vs. actual ' manpower graph has been revised ~ to include the additional effort.
O An estimate of manhours to accomplish the additional effort is:
Manhours i
60,
ll Task B - Procedure Implenentation (Design Docunent reviews)
I Task C - Technical Revis a) Subtask C5 Independent Analysis for PFR-014 80 160 b) Civil / Structure Analysis Task E - Potential Findings Revim 250 L
(Based on a new estimate of 30 PFRs)
- l Task F - Adninistrative & Reporting pja Total 820 Table I has been updated to reflect the revised milestcle ccepletion dates.
1 i '
h>
e v
,. m r
,-..m,_,,
..,.s..,,-._.e,.
,.,_.,..~,,,w.
.,-...,.m.,,,
~
August 15, 1984 TABLE I-CORE SPRAY SYSTEM INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW TASK / MILE 370NE STNIUS Schedule -
Milestone Moiect Orin Revised Actml Document Al Procedure / Checklist-5/30 5/24 252 4 PD-1 & 7 A2 Procedure Structure.
6/ 15 7/08 - 2524QA-01,05, 07,13 A3 Access Design Procedures 6/15
_7/06
'NA A4 Bechtel Revis
~7/05 7/03 TFr:012:FDC:84 AS PECo/GE Review 7/05.'
7/05 252 4 QA-01, 05, 07 A6 Time-period Procedures-7/10
_7/10 l252 4 QA-12, 14, 15 A7 Task Stamary 7/24 7/4 2524 QA-11 B1 Procedure / Checklist 5/30 5/24 252 4 PD-2 B2-Doctment Selection 6/15 7/27 7/W B3-Doctment Location -
7/01 7/W 7/27 B4 Doctment Review 7/27 -8/10 B5 Task Stanary 8/10 8/17 Cl Procedure / Criteria 5/30 5/30 2524PD '
C2 Design Chain 6/08 7/31 7/31 C3 Feature Selection Cont 2524:ENG:02:AS:84 i
C4-Design Review 8/10 9/7 4
C5 Independent Analysis 7/27 8/24 C6 Task Stanary 8/17 9/14 D1 Walkdown Procedure -
5/30 5/31 2524PD-4 D2 Item Selection.
6/04 5/29 2524:ENG:03:AS:84 D3 Complete Walkdown 6/W 6/15 4
D4 Task Stamary 8/10 6/22 2524:ENG:07:CFD:84 -
' El Establish Committee 5/30 5/18 Proj. Directive #3 E2
-Define Criteria 5/30 5/25 2524 PNS L-E3 Procedure 5/30 5/30 2524 PD-5 1
Di Processing PFRs cont 9/21 h
F1 Management / cost cont Project Directive #1 i
F2 Protocol Procedure 6/01 6/01 2524PD-6 F3 Status Report #1 6/1 5/31 TPT:005:FDC:84 Status Report #2 6/15 6/15 TPr:012:FDC:84 47 1 7/2 TPT:018:FDC:84
/
Status Report #3 Status-Report #4 7/15 7/16 TPr:023:FDC:84 i
Status Report #5 8/1 8/1 TPr:029:FDC:84 Status Report #6 8/15 8/15 TPI:034:FDC:84 F4 Information Ccmpilation 8/15 9/21 i
F5 Final Report Draft :
8/24 10/5 l
F6
' Final Report-Issue 8/31 10/12 L
4 6
4
.u
,... ~.
-u
.,,_,.,m,.,.y-,,_,,,,s.
y.
m+.,,,-,
T ACTIVITY
SUMMARY
- 1 PECo INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT 2524 MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTO BER kl k8--hg OM8b N2% ON6 k0 Q k- - - 4 bl b
6000 M
g-
/
5000 100.
/
/
/
9 90 t'
l 4000 80
/
n
/
70
/
m m'
/
,h '
{t l3000 60 g.
f
/
[
-8; 50 2000 40
/
30-
/
a
./
\\
1000
/
h.
20
- t-s
/
10 s
0 e ^ /
O.
'290 4630'4830 5000 516( 5310 542('5520 560C 56505700 Prej ected-10 130 350 6801100 15001920 23202690 30903490 3930.
Ac tual-200 357 552 838 L169 1536 L876 2197 2473 2891 3347 3876 4364 492.5 Q
t
-cc: Judge Lawrence Brenner (w/ enclosure)
' Judge Peter A. Morris (w/ enclosure)
Judge Richard 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. Snergency (w/ enclosure)
Management Agency-Angus Iove, Esq.'
(w/ enclosure)
David Wersan, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Martha W. Bush, Esq.
'(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 (w/ enclosure)
Timothy R. S. Campbell (w/ enclosure)
..