ML20151W248

Document /

Design /Const.

No

Source

Subject

Feature

Implementation

683.00

1.9.2.7,2

Ultimate

DC 1202-A-1.0

Heat Sink

1743.00

3.1.5

PIP'C Sys.

10 CFR 50,

DC 2415-2.0

Penetrating

APP.J

Cnmt.

4916.00

3.2.2-1

NSCW Sys.

NSCW PIP'G

DC 1202-3.1E

Design

& VLU's

Outside Cnmt.

ASME III CL3

4917.00

3.2.2-1

NSCW Sys.

NSCW

DC 1202-3.1E

Design

PIP's & VLU'S

Ir. side Cnmt.

ASME III CL2

_______ __ _________ - _-______

-

.;

.

~

.

6

,

Ref.

Document /

Design /Const.

No

Source

Subject

Feature

Implementation

{ cont'd)

'

1778.00

3.8.2.1

Pipe

ASME III,

X4AQ10-4.1A

'

Attached

CL2

To Cnmt.

!

'

Wall Sleeves

.

1782.00

3.8.2.7

Testing Of

ASME III,

X4AQ10-8.2

CL2 Pipe

NC-6000

Assemblies

5026.00

3.9.B.1.5.1

Weld Inspt.

ASME III

X4AZ01-

P3.3.0.A

Accept

'77 Edition

PPP IX-3-7.0

,

Criteria

Thru Winter

PPP IX-18

Addenda '77

,

5349.00

3.9.B.3

ASME III

CL2 & 3

DC 1017-2,1

CL 1,2 & 3

PIPG NC & NO

1

Components

'74 Edition

Thru Summer

'75 Addena

Ref.

Document /

Design /Const.

No

Source

Subject

Feature

Implementation

4913.00

9.2.1-1

NSCW Sys.

Max. Heat

X4C1202V18

Design

Load During

Accident

Conditions

349.8

Million

BTV/ Hour

'

4914.00

9.2.1-1

NSCW Sys.

Min. NSCW

X4C1202V03

Design

From Per

Train During

Accident

Conditions

15,733 GPM

384.00

9.2.1-3

NSCW Equip.

NSCW Pumps

DC 1010-T1

,

Design

ASME III,

,

CL3

'

.

!

.

. _ _ _ _ _ - .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

_ _ _ _ _ . _ .

. _ _ _ _ .

.

,

.

7

Ref.

Document /

Design /Const.

No

Source

Subject

Feature

Implementation

.'

[ cont'd)

3525.00

9.2.1.1.1-C

NSCW Sys.

Seismic

DC 1202-3.1E

Safety

Cat, 1

Design

Basis

3749.00

9.2.1.1.1-G

NSCW Sys.

Designed To

DC 1202-3.1A

Safety

Perform

,

Basis

Function

I

Following

L.O.C.A.

'

Automatically,

Assuming

>

Single Failure

Loincident

With a L,0.0.P

4912.00

9.2.1.1.1-H

NSCW Sys.

NSCW Designe( DC 1202-3.1P

,

Safety

To Prevent

'

Oesign

Boiling

Basis

Cnmt. Coolers

During L.O.C.A.

3750.00

9.2.1.1.1-I

N S C\\,' Sy s .

Sys. Pressure DC 1202-3.1H

Safety

Greater Than

Design

Cnmt. Bldg.

!

Basis

Max. Design

Pressure

i

4915.00

9.2.1.2.B

NSCW Sys.

NSCW Press.

DC 1202-3.1H

!

'

Oper.

Higher Than

X4C1202V15

Fluid In

Cooled

1

Safety-

400.00

9.2.5

DC 1202-A-1.0

l

'

Design

!

'

401.00

9.2.5.1

Seismic

DC 1202-A-3.1A

Towers &

Cat. 1

l

Basin

Design

l

!

,

'

.

I

.

l

.

8

Ref.

Document /

Design /Const.

No

Source

Subject

Feature

Implementhtion

[ cont'd)

3755.00

9.2.5.1.1.A

Single

DC 1202-A-3.1C

3542.00

Safety

Failure

Design

With

Basis

L.0.0.P

418.00

9.2.5.1.1.8

DC 1202-A-1.0A

Safety

Design

i

Basis

3541.00

9.2.5.2.2

Fan Motors

DC 1202-A-3.1B

Component

Powered by

Description

Class 1E

402.00

9.2.5.2.4

BTP ASB 9-2

DC 1202-A-1.0

Performance

403.00

9.2.5.2.4

DC 1202-A-1.0

Performance

4777.00

9.2.5.2.4

BTP RSB 5-1

DC 1202-A-3.1C

'

Performance

'

4221.00

NRC QUES.

NSCW Sys.

ASME III,

DC 1010-T1

'

0210.11

Cooling

CL3

Water

Supply &

Return

Piping

For Pump

Motor Coolers

During the review of the implementation of the above noted

commitments, the inspectors had the following comments:

COMMITMENT NO. 3750.00 & 4912.00

Commitment No. 3750.00 states that "the NSCW system is to be

' designed such that system pressure is greater than containment

building maximum design pressure."

The design implementation

for this commitment is referenced as Leing contained in DC

1202-3.H. However, the inspector could not verify this to be

i

the case. Therefore, the following question was raised to the

licensee: What are the first and second order implementation

documeris for the subject commitment?

J

i

I

.

. .

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

The licensee's response was a follows: It has been assumed that

the "Interfacing Heat Transfer Systems" referred to in DC

1202-3.1H included the containment building air coolers, and

that the NSCW system serving them would be designed with a

!

higher pressure than the containment atmosphere.

Upon further

investigation, it has been discovered that the "Interfacing Heat

Transfer Systems actually refer to the Component Cooling Water

(CCW) and Auxiliary Component Cooling Water (ACCW) Systems.

Currently, there is no first order implementation of commitment

'

3750 in DC 1202. To correct this, design engineering will issue

Design Manual Change Notice No. 1202-6 which will add paragraph

3.1R to address a commitment requirement that the NSCW system

pressure be greater that the maximum calculated containment

!

atmosphere pressure following a LOCA.

FSAR Change Notice

No. 559, filed on February 27, 1987, makes the change in

paragraph 9.2.1.1.1-1 from "Maximum Design Pressure" to maximum

,

calculated pressure. This change notice will be reflected in

FSAR Amendment 35. The licensee issued DMCN 1202-6 on March 8,

1988, therefore, this item is considered to be closed.

Regarding the second order implementation, the licensee informed

the inspector that it was contained in two design calculations:

X4C120?V21, Rev. 2 Verification Of No Boiling In Containment

'

Coolers and X4C1202V43, Rev. O NSCW

Flow Balance.

After

t

'

further discussions with the licensee on this matter, the

licensee informed the inspector that calculations X4C1202V21,

4

X4C1202S19, and X4C1202V09 were originally applicable to both

Units 1 and 2.

Due to later developments, it was decided to

recalculate the pressure drops across the restricting orifices

to balance the flows in the Unit 2 NSCW system.

Therefore,

calculation X4C1202V43 was prepared to apply to Unit 2 only.

Revision 1 to this calculation was issued on March 2, 1988, and

covers train "B" of the NSCW system. Revision 2 is currently in

preparation and will cover train "A".

!

'

"

The inspector questioned the method utilized by the licensee for

determining which unit a calculation was applicable to? The

licensee stated that the Calculation Control Log (CCL) was the

.

document for determining unit applicability of a c31culation.

I

The inspector noted that the current Calculation Control Log

(CCL) reflected that calculations X4C1202V21, X4C1202519, and

,

X4C1202V09 as being applicable to both units.

The inspector

[

raised the concern relative to correctness of the Calculation

<

Control Log. Also, the inspector questioned the appropriateness

[

of using this method of documenting unit applicability versus

specifying the unit applicability in the calculation so as to

<

provide a positive reans for documenting engineering review and

(

sign off of the calculation for Unit II applicability.

-

r

-

,

!

I

..

.

. .

'

_ __ ___ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

__

. _ -

_

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

-

.

10

,

t

4

The licensee confirmed that when calculation X41202V43 was

issued for Unit II, the common calculations (X4C1202V21,

X41202519, and X4C1202V09) were not changed to Unit 1 on the CCL

and remained as common.

Furthermore, the licensee conducted a

'

review of all mechanical calculations to determine the extent of

the problem. This inspection revealed 4 additional calculations

with incorrect designators. Therefore, a total of seven out of

r

eleven-hundred-forty

six

mechanical

calculations had the

incorrect unit designator on the CCL.

Based on the above

finding, the licensee has committed to re-review all calcula-

tions and insert a cover sheet which will specify the applicable

'

unit designator and will be initialed and dated by the respon-

sible engineer and engineering group supervisor.

The inspector

inforn:ed the licensee that, pending the completion of the above

,

noted corrective action this matter will be identified as

Inspector Follow Item 50-425/88-12-02

"Followup Licensee's

Corrective Action Relative To The Identification Of Unit

Applicability For Calculations."

Calculation X4C1202V43 was identified by the licensee as the

working level document for implementing commitment numbers

3750.00, "NSCW system shall be designed such that system

,

pressure is greater that containment building maximum calculated

pressure" and 4912.00 "NSCW system shall be designed to prevent

boiling in containment coolers during LOCA conditions".

The

inspector reviewed the calculation and determined that the

design did incorporate the subject commitments.

However, ths

objective section of the calculation did not reflect these

,

commitments as objectives therefore the calculation did not

!

contain any conclusions relative te these design objectives.

,

The

licensee committed to include these commitments as

!

objectives and state conclusions relative to these design

objectives when Revision 2 of the subject calculation is issued.

.

The inspector informed the licensee that, pending the issuance

i

of the revised calculation, this matter will be identified as

Inspector

Followup

Item 50 425/8S-12-03

"Review Revised

'

Calculation

X4C1202V43

Regarding

Design

Objectives

And

Conclusions."

.

,

During the review of FSAR sections 2.4.11, 9.2.1, and 9.2.5 the

inspector questioned why was the following sentence in FSAR

9. 2.1.1.1-J not considered a licensing commitment? "The NSCW

4

System Is Designed To Minimize The Ef fects Of Water Hammer

'

Fo rc e s" .

The licensee's response was as follows:

This sentence was

apparently taken in context with the seventh paragraph of FSAR

9.2.1.2.3 on page 9.2.1-4 in which the features of the NSCW

system that minimize the effects of water hammer are described.

4

,

I

f

.

'

.

,

.

'

11'

In as much as'these features appeared to implement the apparent

commitment in paragraph 9.2.1.1.1-J, it was interpreted as a

descriptive- statement when taken together with paragraph

9.2.1.2.3, and thus was . not considered a ' licensing commitment.

The inspector considers the licensee's response to be a.cceptable

and thus has no further questions'on this matter.

. COMMITMENT NO. 4913.00

Calculation X4C1202V18 NSCW/C0PATTA 11 Input Data /LOCA 1-Train"

was reviewed to determine the adequacy of the implementation of

FSAR commitment for a' maximum total NSCW heat. load of 349.8

million BTV/HR during accident conditions given in FSAR table

9.2.1-1.

This commitment.was tracked by GPC asl readiness review

commitment Reference no. 4913.00.

Results of all cases. studied

in this calculation to determine total' NSCW heat load were

higher than the values given in FSAR Table 9.2.1-1.

GPC has

initiated FSAR Change Notice 559 to update the table.and will

include the revised heat load values in FSAR Amendment 35. The

inspector also noted that the description of one of the cases-

(case 3C) dealing with fouling factors in heat exchanger tubes

was misleading.

The licensee committed to correct this

discrepancy in the next revision ~ of the calculation.

The

inspector informed the licensee that, pending the issuance of

the revised calculation, this. matter will be identified as

Inspector Followup

Item

50-425/88-12-04

"Review Revised

'

Calculation X4C1202V18 Regarding Case 3c Description."

COMMITMENT NO. 4914.00

NSCW calculation X4C1202V03 "Verification Of NSCW Constant Heat

Loads And Flows" was reviewed to determine the adequacy of the

implementation of FSAR commitment- for a minimum NSCW flow of

15,733 GPM per train during accident conditions given in Table

,

i

9.2.1-1.

This commitment was tracked by readiness review

commitment reference no. 4914.00.

This calculation was performed to compile the latest available

'

constant heat load and maximum required cooling water flow rate

for all equipment cooled by the NSCW system, as well as the

component pressure drops.

.

The inspector reviewed the calculation and noted that the data

'

used was based upon the latest vendor data as of February 27,

1985,

In particular, the number for the heat load per train of

the standby diesel generator coolers was different than the

.

number in the FSAR Table 9.2.1-1.

The vendor number was

17.1 x 10 to the 6 BTV/HR. Since the FSAR had not been updated,

the inspector qtestioned what was being used as the design basis

of the plant.

..

.-

--

-

.~

.

-

.

-

.

12

.

The licensee provided a copy' of a FSAR Change Notice No. 631,

which identified in January 1988, that the FSAR update was

needed. A meeting was conducted on March 9,

1988 with the

cognizant

personnel

concerning calculation reviews,

. changes, and licensing personnel to discuss this item.

The

licensee provided project instructions which required calcula-

tions be reviewed for possible FSAR changes. This resolved the

programmatic. concern of updating the FSAR.

The ' licensee

provided a copy of a temporary exemption request from 10 CFR 50.71(e), FSAR annual update, dated January 15, 1988, to the

inspector. The licensee is required to update the original FSAR

within 24 months of the date of the issuance of the operating

licensee. Unit 1 received its low power operating licensee on

January 16, 1987, and the updated FSAR is due January 16, 1989.

.

The exemption would defer the submittal of the updated FSAR for

units one and two until 12 months after the licensee for unit

two expected in February 1989.

The particular concern of the

standby diesel generator coolers heat load would be incorporated

in the update as requested by the exemption.

(2)

Evaluation of Commitment Additions / Changes From Unit 1 To Unit 2

The Commitment matrix identified 13 commitments as changes from

those presented in the Unit 1 Module. Of these, seven were not

included in the Unit report, but were subsequently added by an

FSAR amendment and the remaining six were subsequently changed

by various FSAR amendments.

The inspectors conducted a review

of the added commitments to verify proper implementation by a

working level document and the commitments which were revised

were reviewed to evaluate the significance of the change.

The inspectors reviewed the following commitments which were not

included in the Unit I report, but were subsequently added by

FSAR amendments as noted below:

Ref.

Design /Const.

No

Source

Subject

Amend

Implementation

5107

3.6.2.1.1.B.4

No Welded

30

DC 1018-3.3.B.3

!

Attach.

d.1.a.

Within 5

Pipe Dias.

'

Of Highest

Stress

location On

MS & tiFW

Systems

.

.-

.

'

-

,-

.

13

Ref.

Des'ign/Const.

No

Source

Subject

Amend

. Implementation

{ cont'd)

5108

3.6.2.1.'1.B.4

No Welded

30

DC 1018-3.3.B.3

Attach.

d.1.b

Within 3X

.SQ.RT. Of

-

Highest

Stress

Location On

High Energy

Sys. Other

Than MS & MFW

5026

3.9.1.5.1

Weld Inspt.

20

X4AZ01-P.3.0.A

Criteria

PPP IX-3.7.0

ASME Code

PPP IX-18

5027

3.9.B.S.1

Weld Irispt.

20

X4AZOI-P4.3.0.A

Criteria

PPP IX-15-14

B31.1 Code

PPP IX-18

5346

3.9.B.3

ASME III,

34

DC 1017-2.1

CL I PIP'G

Design Per

Sub NB '77

Edition Thru

Summer '79

Addenda

5349

3.9.B.3

ASME III,

34

DC 1017-2.1

CL II & III

PIP'G Design

Per Sub.

l

NC & NO '74

Edition Thru

'

Summer '75

!

l

Addenda

5091

3.11.B.1

BTP MSB 3-1

25

DC 1018 - 3.3.B.6

Designed To

L

Break

Exclusion

Criteria MS

PIP'G Thru

i

Cnmt.

l

i

l

.

..

.

2 .

'

,.

.

14

The i nspectors reviewed the following commitments which were

included in-the Unit I report, but were subsequently changed by

various FSAR amendments as noted below:

Ref.

Design /Const.

No.

Source

Subject

Amend

Implementation

711

1.9.82.2

Sumps. For

19

- Adequacy Of CS Pump

Emerg. Core

Available NPSH

Cooling &

Recalculated To

CS Systems

To Address

Additional Factors

2295

3.F.4.4

Propagation

16

Design Basis Pipe

Of Flood

Failure Mode Change

Waters From

From A Critical

Break In 96"

Crack To A Full

CW PIP'G Into

Circumference Break

Safety-Related

In The 96" CW PIP'G

-

Structures

Precluded By

Design

,

2816

6.3.2.2.9

RWST Designed 17

Stipulated A Recir

To Seismic

Htr, Is Provided

Category 1 &

To Maintain Min.

Htr. Provided

Wtr. Temp.

To Maintain

Min. Wtr

Temp. Of 50%

4923

9.2.2.3.A

Peak Load On

20

Peak Load On CCW

CCW Sys.

Sys. And Time For

1-Train Oper.

Achieving Cold

Is 189 x 10 To

Shutdown Was

The 6 BTV/ Hour

Revised Upward

Cold Shutdown

Achieved In

34 Hours

3535

9.3.3.4.A

Testing Of

19

Pressurized

Portions Defined

Portions Of

As Pump Suction

Waste

And Discharge

Collection

PIP'G

Systems

Hydroed To

1 1/2 Times

DP

r

F

4-,

- ,.--- , ,

,e-------.v-

-n.,-~.

9g

-

x-

-,,yn,u

,-,,---en,,

,,e.n---c--

-m-

--y-,-

, - - , ,

.---------en

.n-ng-,

--

-

.

.,

-

.

.i

.

~

i

15

,

Ref.