ML20138H452
| ML20138H452 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1985 |
| From: | Stanley L QUADREX CORP. |
| To: | Sumpter J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| References | |
| OL-I-CCANP-103, NUDOCS 8510290045 | |
| Download: ML20138H452 (4) | |
Text
50-+15'r79oc
/
g@p tlUCt.CitR J-d/%t/4/03 FA ERVICES CORPORf4Tluft g 39/gr-k 1700 (Jitt Ant % Ut (4 Mrsitt,(4tH ON M 4 Mous lit t PHONI 440s) 446-54Ms 4 kl6* d 7418 O/_lRDREX a o.wmon os
' CO APOR ATION (0! 1? fy0 :p D
February;13,.1981 H00-Ol"lNb
,~018f $
81
_ Dr. J. R. Sumpter Manager, Nuclear Engineering Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 1700 '
Houston, Texas 77001
Subject:
Proposed Report Outline for B&R Design Review
Dear Dr. Sumpter:
i After considerable thought, I would propose that we develop a concise 10 to 20 page executive summary which is supported by 10 to 30 pages of technical adequacy assessment for each technical discipline in sequence.
The design review questions 'and ' responses would be located in a separate Appendix (Volume II).
The executive summary would have. these,, sections,:
(a)
_ introduction, to state the purpose'of the review, and to present its scope.and depth; (b) methodoloov, to describe the conduct of the review, upper management level reviews, dates of meetings and participants, and a disclaimer statement to alert the reader regarding possible limitations due to sampling error and time duration allotted for the review; (c) ceneric observations, to provide an overall statement of i STP design adequacy with summary highlights of strengths and weaknesses for each technical discipline; and
~
'(d) generic recommendations, to identify correctable problem areas, subsequent in-depth. review areas worth and suggested improvements.. deemed ;necessary. y of pursuit -
D' The remainder of Volume I would be a technical adequacy assessment with
~ following areas:' substantiation for each discipline in sequence, and would a
-(a) are the design criteria selected to satisfy appropriate design basis requirements, such as safety needs or power production
' needs?
s
$ho2}og g $oo,e GC AP P M
l 0
l
-,4-.
i a
I 4
/,',r*$,';g 0
4
/
- h rf+#
W,;p d
- lg s/p/*
/\\
7 p
t gok
u.-
o EA DUCT. ERR SERVICES CORPORRT100 OURDREX a DewebsOsts Of CO RPO R ATION Dr. J. R. Sumpter February 13, 1981 (b).are the chosen design criteria and requirements adequate for STP? Are they complete? Which ones are missing and why 4
should they be adopted? Are these criteria and requirements and the FSAR licensing commitments properly reflected in the STP design?
(c) are the chosen analysis methods adequate for STP? Are the chosen models and computer codes adecuate? Are the analysis results properly reflected in the STF design?
(d) are the technical assumptions used for design and analysis reasonable.for STP?
g (e) are the design inputs used by the discipline correct in quantity and quality and are they current?
(f) h$ethevariousplantop'eratingstatesandenvironmental conditions been considered in the design and analysis? Are they consistent with other technical disciplines?, "Are they i
' adequately, reflected in the STP design?
(g)- have transient and accident conditions.been cansidered in the design and analysis? Are they adequately reflected in the STP, design?,
s i
s.
(h) have interface's' with 'other disciplines and major subcontractors been adequately addressed? Has the discipline assured that its design outputs are properly used by compatible with. other. plant, systems?.,,otners?' Is, the design (i) 'has the discipline closed'the' loop to assure that actual equipment characteristics remain within the design bounding values?
Is the plan for, incorporating as-built information reasonable?
(j) have, maintenance,. test and ins'pection requirements 'needed by STP been adequately incorporated ~into the" design?
(k) have reasonable accepta.nce'cri,teria,,been chosen where', appropriate?
J (1) aEe thb ^ design veYific'aYion"nie"thAds 'used"for STP acceptable?
Have identified, discrepancies been adequately resolved and reflected in,the desi
, 'fo.'r. thi s' t'as k? " ' " ' "' gn ? ' ArE the chosen design verifiers appropr H'
t "'-
(m) is there evidence that the design is overly conservative and un-economic?
If s,0.,' where and why?,
t gg RUCLERR SERVICES CORPORRTI0n OUP.DREX 4 0svetsow 08 C O R P O R ATIO N Dr. J. R. Sumpter February 13, 1981 (n) do uncertainties remain in the reviewer's mind regarding technical adequacy of the design and analysis? Were un-l expected problem areas uncovered during the design review?
Is there a generic problem or are they individual problems 1
each of limited scope?
Is this significant for STP?
i (o) based on the responses to the questions asked, is there a i
need to pursue these particular areas in greater depth?
Are there other areas that should be investigated?
If so, where and why?
I would welcome your thoughts on this proposed outline.
Sincerely, i
Loren Stanley 1
Group Manager Plant Stfety Analysis' LS/bjk cc:
R. Bhat D. Munson Q. Hossain E. Willey G. Esswein R. Uffer
}
H. Yao D. Scapini H. Booth J. L. Wray J
l 1
1 l
11 L