ML20151Z975
| ML20151Z975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1996 |
| From: | Albrecht K NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Z887 | List: |
| References | |
| 5AWI-6.1.10, NUDOCS 9809220185 | |
| Download: ML20151Z975 (62) | |
Text
_ _ . _ _ - - - ._. - _-
PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION 7'
TITLE: NUMBER:
O 5AWIL DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT 5AM 6.1.10 REv: O Prepared By:, e IM Effective Date: lO'/S-7b Quality Review By- I" Approved By: '
/Md/d6dbVPLANT MANA V
1.0 PURPOSE This Instruction provides guidance for closing out a plant design change or portions of a plant design change which has been turned over in accordance with N1 ACD 2.2 (Nuclear Plant Modification).
2.0 CONTENTS Section Title Page 6.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ............ .... 2 6.2 Assembling the Design Change Package for Close-out . . ..... ......... . 3 p) 6.3 Design Change Package Review and Acceptance . . . . . . .
6.4 Design Change Cancellation Prior to Commencing Installation . . . . . . . . . . .
3 4
6.5 Design Change Cancellation After installation Has Commenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.6 Required Records . . . . . . . . .... ....... ................ . ...... .... 5 List of Figures FIGURE 1 - CLOSE-OUT CHECKLIST PINGP 1219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. 6 FIGURE 2 - DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE CANCELt.ATION FORM PINGP 1221. . . . . . .... 7 List of Tables TABLE 1 - SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS REVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.0 APPLICABILLIY This instruction SHALL apply to all Design Changes.
4.0 DEFINITIONS NONE
,A tJ 9809220185 980915 Pa9e 1 of 8 PDR ADOCK 05000282 p PDR
r ;;
- t #
PRAIRIEIdLA D SITE ADMINISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY y TITLE: NUMBER:
15AWI DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT 5AWI 6.1.10 g REV: O 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES.
5.1 The General Superintendent Engineering NGS and Plant SHALL be responsible for:
5.1.1 Ensuring that design changes are closed out in a timely manner following turnover for operations.
5.1.2 Ensure that the users comply with this instruction.
5.2 The Project Engineer SHALL be responsible for record closure within ninety (90) days after turnover to operations.
5.3 The Data File Coordinator SHALL be responsible for verifying the equipment data base has been updated prior to closecut.
5.4 The Plant Sponsor SHALL be responsible for review of the closecut package.
5.5 The Supervisor Site Materials SHALL be responsible for disposition of any spare parts.
h 6.0 REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS l
6.1 General Requirements 6.1.1 The package is not to be submitted for close-out until all plant design change activities are complete.
6.1.2 When a design change has parts, they may be submitted separately for closecut.
6.1.3 The Project Engineer consults with the Design Change Team to determine if the plant's needs have been met.
6.1.4 Design Change records are filed in the following three major groups:
- a. Design change package records, (PINGPs 1210 through 1219); Document Type 8.160. Refer to PINGP 1210.
- b. Design change output records, refer to Table 1 of SAWI 6.1.3, Design
, Change Package, Logs and Records.
These records SHALL be cross-referenced on Records Log, PINGP 1217 O
l and microfilmed as generated via the process owner.
l Page 2 of 8 l
1
l PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE q NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION TITLE: NUMBER:
O ,
- 5AWi! DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT 6.1.10 REV: O
- c. Miscellaneous design change records can be included at the discretion of l the Project Engineer. Refer to Table 2 of SAW16.1.3, Design Change l Package, Logs and Records. '
6.1.5 To determine the appropriate contact person / backup for a given program, refer to the Pi Contacts Matrix on the Information System computer network. l 6.2 Assembling the Design Change Package for Close-out Use PINGP 1210, Master Project Index as a method to keep the design change package organized. The PINGP forms are listed and filed in numeric order.
- a. Indicate 'Yes' or 'No', if the form is attached, also indicate the totai number of pages,
- b. Items indicated with a # sign on PINGP 1210 are required for the Closecut Package.
O c. Miscellaneous records may be included in the package at the discretion of the U Project Engineer QB use established 8000 series document type numbers for various miscellaneous records, refer to Table 2 of 5 AWI 6.1.3, or the General Record Index in the Records Module of CHAMPS.
6.3 Design Change Package Review and Ac_ceptance 6.3.1 The Project Engineer ensures that the Closecut Checklist, (PINGP 1219) Figure 1, is completed. Various personnel supporting project closcout may be relied on to research and confirm acceptable status. Refer to Record Log, PINGP 1217.
The Project Engineer signs line 1 of PINGP 1219 upon closecut of the required items.
6.3.2 The Data File Coordinator signs line 2 when input of associated equipment data has been added to CHAMPS.
6.3.3 The plant sponsor reviews and signs line 3 to document final plant acceptance of the plant design change and to the best of his/her knowledge that all requirements of the design change have been met.
6.3.4 The Supervisor Site Materials signs on line 4 when all spare parts and excess (J ) project materials are dispositioned.
Page 3 of 8
i PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE ADMINISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION y NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY NUMBER:
TITLE:
5AWI DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT 5AWI 6.1.10 g REv: 0 6.3.5 The Gen. Supt. Engineering (NGS) or designee signs line 5 when design change program adherence is satisfactory.
6.3.6 The Gen. Supt. Engineering or designee signs line 6 documenting that the plant is satisfied with the close out package.
6.3.7 The Design Engineering Coordinator signs line 7 and logs closure in the data base and forwards the package to Records Management.
6.4 Design Change Cancellation Prior to Commencing Installation 6.4.1 The Project Engineer initiates the design change package cancellation form PINGP 1221, FIGURE 2 stating the canceled explanation and any other pertinent information to the plant sponsor and GSE.
The Project Engineer ensures all drawings identified as being involved in the plant design change are removed from the Transitional Drawing File in accordance with drawing system instructions.
6.4.2 The Plant Sponsor and GSE review and document concurrence on PINGP 1221.
O 6.4.3 The Design Engineering Coordinator logs the cancellation and forwards the t records to the Records Managerpent department.
6.5 Design Chan_ge Cancellation Amer Installation Has Commenced 6.5.1 The plant design change may be returned to the original condition, and the l requirements in 6.4 above are also implemented. Additionally, the Project l Engineer attaches an explanation of work done, and then undone and if the l design change was safety related, the engineer documents cancellation in a l Non-Conformance Report.
i l 6.5.2 If the plant design change is not returned to original condition, the Project l Engineer changes the plant design change scope and SHALL process the plant
- design change to reflect only the work accomplished. In effect, this becomes a revision to the plant design change or a new plant design change part.
6.5.3 The Project Engineer submits the package to the plant sponsor and GSE for review. The plant sponsor and GSE review the package as required in section 6.4 above and signs PINGP 1221.
6.5.4 The Design Engineering Coordinator logs the cancellation and forwards the O
records to the Records Management department.
Page 4 of 8
, , 4
- 1 PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE
,- NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION 4'
TITLE: NUMBER:
O 5AWI: '
DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT SAM 6.1.10 REV: 0 6.6 Be_ quired Records !
l Refer to 6.1.3 Design Change Package, Logs & Records. l 1
l l
n I
i v
~ C.
Page 5 of 8
- ?
PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE ADf 41NISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION 'y NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY NUMBER:
TITLE:
i5 awl: DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT 5AWI 6.1.10 REV: O g
FIGURE 1 - CLOSE-OUT CHECKLIST PINGP 1219 EXAMPLE ONLY USE CURRENT REVISION PINGP 1219. Rev. O e t E $ a$
Design Change #
Pan of Rev.
Title:
Unit CLOSEOUT CHECKLIST 5AWI 6.1.10 Please indicate closure on the following items:
(Completed: YES or NOT REQUIRED (NR) and indicate the date) pa.tg a
All Work Orders closed out . YES O NR O Tumover and punchlist items complete . YESO NR O Drawings updated . ... . ... . . . . . YES O NR O Technical Manuals updated . . . . . . . . YESO NR O l lSFSl/USAR Update submittod to Licensing . YES O NR O l Summary of Safety Evaluation sent to Licensing . YES O NR O Plant documents updated:
ACD, AWI, SWI, SP, PM, TP, Op Manual, Checklist, etc. . . YES O NR O ASME Section XI revision submitted . . YESO NR O Specification file updated . . . . YES O NR O Nuclear Analysis . . .. YES O NR O Plant Process Computer Changes . . . YESO NR O Software Control Form Sheet . . . . YESO NR O EQ Master List updated . YES O NR O Safe Shutdown lists updated (Appendix R. SOUG) YESO NR O All external design change records received by the site .. ... .. .. .. YES O NR O All reouired trainino comoleted. Site Roouest for Trainina (TR) YES O NR O _
Others: YES O NR O i
- 1. Items above are all completed or NR l Project Engineer _ Date l
- 2. Equipment Data base updated i Data Filo Coordinator Date
- 3. Plant Sponsor review: Date
- 4. Spare parts dispositioned Supv. Site Materials Date
- 5. Closecut Program Adherence:
NGS Date
- 6. Plant Acceptance:
GSE Date
- 7. Design Engineering Coordinator Date Page 1 of 1 O
Psge 6 of 8
s,
- PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE
, r, NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION TITLE: NUMBER: l
' A 6.1.10 5AWi-f DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT REV: 0 FIGURE 2 - DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE CANCELLATION FORM PINGP 1221 EXAMPLE ONLY USE CURRENT REVISION 8O*7;A..".
n u . b.,.
Design Change #
Pad of Rev.
Title:
Unit PLANT DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE CANCELLATION FORM h
5AWI 6.1.10 Plant Design Change Cancelled Explanation: l l
i I
Project Engineer Date Project Coordinator Date Gen Supt Engr Date Design Engineering Coord Date l
d Page 1 of 1 Page 7 of 9
ip PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE .
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK INSTRUCTION ,
TITLE: NUMBER:
5AWIL DESIGN CHANGE CLOSE-OUT 5AWI 6.1.10 REv: 0 g
TABLE 1 - SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS REVISION Section Change All This is a new Instruction. Previously handled per N1 AWI 5.1x.
Series of Instruction.
O l
l l
l 9
Page 8 of 8
. . . . . _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ ~ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . - . _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . - - .
i 4 ' ' PINGP 1210, Rev. O Document Type: 8.160 ,
Retention: Ufaof Plant 1 Design Change # l Part of Rev. l
Title:
Unit 1 DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE INDEX 5AWI 6.1.3 Filed in the following order:
Attached Number Y/N of pages PROJECT INITIATION:
e 1. . Solution Team Report (PINGP 1211) pages 2.*#. Design Change Team (PINGP 1212) pages 3.# Request for. Training (PINGP 1268) pages DESIGN ACTIVITIES:
4.# . Design input Applicability Checklist (PINGP 1213) pages
- 5.*# Project Description / Safety Assessment (PINGP 1214) pages 6.* Implementation Plan (PINGP 1215) pages REVIEW & APPROVAL:
7*.# Plant Specific Review & Approval Form (PINGP 1216)
O (Note: Include all attached reports) pages 3
LOGS & RECORDS:
8.# Record Log (PINGP 1217) pages
- 9. pages TURNOVER AND CLOSE-OUT:
)
10.# .Tumover Checklist w/ Punch List (PINGP 1218) . pages 11.# - Close-Out Checklist (PINGP 1219) pages MISCELLANEOUS:
- 12. pages
~ 13. pages
- 14. pages
- Required records for Plant Design Change Review Package Approval
- Required for Closeout Package Authenticated By: Date:
O I
l Page 1 of 1
_m.-_.. . . ~ . - _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . - . . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ ~ _ - . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . _ _ . . .
PINGP 1211, Rev. 0
,, DocumentType: 8.160 Retention: Ufe of Plant Design Change #
( Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit SOLUTION TEAM REPORT
- 1. Issue being resolved 2.- Alternatives
- 3. Recommended solution
- 4. Scope of Work 5 Net present value analysis and cash flow O
- 6. Estimate )
. 1
- 7. Assumptions used
- 9. implementation team recommendations (assigned action responsibility, etc.)
- 10. Team members (with disciplines):
Page 1 of 1
l
<* i PINGP 1212, Rev. 0 4 Document Type: 8.160 Retention: Ufe of Plant Design Change #
bs Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit DESIGN CHANGE TEAM MEMBERS SAWI6.1.0 1 1
~
SIGNATURE : l TITLE ORT . '
SPECIMEN ' l ORGANIZATION! NAME ACTIVITIES (Required fori .': Initials ' l
' Verificatio'n)
(if Req ) I Project Engineer l l
l Plant Sponsor l
Design Basis Engineer l Fuel Resources (NAD)
/%. -
U PRA Group Quality Services Operations Maintenance Construction Project Management Training Drafting L.)
Consultants and A/E Page 1 of 2
l PINGP 1212, Rev. 0 1
'(
Document Type: 8.160 Rotentkm: Ufo of Piant f~3 Design Change # l V Part of Rev. :
Title:
Unit I i
l DESIGN CHANGE TEAM MEMBERS l SAWI6.1.0 l l _ SIGNATURE.: l l iTITLE ort ,
. SPECIMEN. )
ORGANIZATION [ t NAME ACTIVITIES. ' (Required for..'. Initials 1
- Verification) - -(If Req.) j Finance l l
l Building Inspector 1
State of Minnesota '
NRC O
V American Nuc.
Insurers NSP Corp.
Insurance M & SP ASME Section XI MN Pollution Control Management and Licensing Issues Other(s) l l
i 9
Page 2 of 2
3 . -- - -
PINGP 1213, Rev.0
' ,1 DocumentType: 8.160
- Retention: Ufo of Plant Design Change #
U Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit DESIGN INPUT APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST 5AWI6.1.1 The Project Engineer completes this checklist based on discussions with the plant sponsor and other sources as appropriate.
This checklist represents only a partial list of items to be considered.
Refer to the Pl Contacts matrix on Site Information System for a contact name.
Items which are checked YES or UNKNOWN should be addressed in the Design Change Package.
i The following eleven topics are: 1) General Design Considerations,2) Electrical Design Considerations,3) l&C Design Considerations,4) Mechanical Design Condferations,
- 5) Civil / Structural Design Considerations,6) Nuclear Design Considerations,7) Material, Chemical & Environmental Considerations,8) Operational Considerations,9) Site Security Design Considerations,10) PINGP Site Programmatic Considerations,11) System Interactions
, Created by the Design Change.
YES NO UNKNOWN ,
1
- 1. General Design Considerations 1.a. Is any part of the design change within the Quality 0 0 0 i Assurance Program Boundary or Q-List? Reference Procedure 5AWI 2.1.0. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Q-listprocess owner.
1 1.b. Does the design change affect any Technical O O O Specification (TS) or TS support related equipment.
Reference Procedure 5AWI 3.3.4. ANY QUESTIONS, l contact the cognizant Engineenng Supenntendent.
, 1.c. Does a design specification or field standard exist for the O O O i design change? Reference Procedure SAWI 4.6.0 and
^
the Site Engineering Manual. ANY QUESTIONS, ,
contact the Speci5 cation Mle process owner. l 1.d. Are codes or industry standards applicable to the design O O O l change?
Page 1 of 14
,. _ -._ .____-...._._._._.___..__._.-__....._m...~_.__-.m.--_
4 1 j..*- PINGP 1213, Rev. 0 DocumentType: 8.160 e
. Retention Ufo of Plant l7 y Design Change #
Part of Rev. l l
Title:
Unit :
l YES NO UNKNOWN 1.e. Do any bulletins, circulars, NUREGS, Operation O O O Experience Assessment (OEA) Reports pertain to this design change? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the OEA process owner. !
l 1.f. Does the design change affect any structure, system or O O O component described in the text, tables or figures of the USAR or ISFSI USAR. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the f Licensing & Commitments process owner. i 1.g. Does any USAR statement, ISFS1 SAR statement, NRc 0 0 0 1 commitment., regulatory transmittal or other letter / memo )
affect the design change? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Licensing & Commitments process owner, t 1.h. . Will this design change, alter plant operation to be O O O inconsistent with any design basis requirements or are j '^ any design or performance requirements stated in the DBD affected by this design change? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Design Basis process owner.
l 1.1. Will the design change introduce any new equipment. O O O not having previous plant experience or is not identified in the NPRDS? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Nuclear Plant Reliability Database system (NPRDS) process owner.
j 1.J. ' Will there be any additional industr'al safety 0 0 0
- requirements because of this design change? Reference l NSP PINGP Safety Manual. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Plant Safety Coordinator.
1.k. Will any special personnel be needed for installation. O O O testing or operation of this design change? Reference procedure 5AWI 9.1.0. ANY QUESTlONS, contact the appropriate work superintendent.
!. 1.1. Will the size or location of equipment being installed or O O O modified add any additional handling or transportation jq . concerns? Reference procedure 5AWI 8.6.0. ANY
- V QUESTIONS, contact the appropriate work e superintendent.
Page 2 of 14
~.. . . , . - - - . - _ . - . . . ~ . . - ~ . - . . . - . - - - - . - - - . - - - . . _ ~ . . . _ . _ - . - - . ~ -
l
- PINGP 1213, Rev. 0 Document Type: 8.160 Rotenuan: uteorrient Design Change #
[ . .
Pad of Rev.
L
Title:
Unit
?^
!' YES NO UNKNOWN l
l 1.m. . Do layout ad arrangement requirements exist, such that O O O "AS BUILT" drawings will be required? Reference j Procedure 5AWI 4.4.0. ANY QUESTlONS, contact the ;
appropriate work superintendent. l 1.n. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any usas not fully described in the USAR7.(Review 10CFR50 Appendix A for design considerations).
, ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Nuclear Generation
{ Services Department.
l 1.o. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any areas not fully described in the ISFSI SAR?
l (Review 10CFR 72, Subpart F for design L considerations). ANY QUEST /ONS, contact the Nuclear Generation Service Department.
'\ 1.p. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any systems utilized in ECCS testing? (Review the l 10CFR50 Appendix K for applicability).
- 2. Electrical Design Considerations 2.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O !
I any equipment or system ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT i ANALYSIS (Analysis Type 2.3.01), i.e., Raceway Fill (cable or conduit), Grounding, Surge Protection, Electrical Separation Criteria Analysis (cable
! tray / raceway, main control board, electrical panels L and equipment) Reference Site Engineering Manual.
ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Electrical Analysis Mtiew Coordinator.
h l
1 h ;
Page 3 of 14 L
. _ _ _ . . , _ . . _._ - _ . ~ _ . _ . - . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ._._._____._._____..__.m __ .. m.___. ._
. PINGP 1213, Rev. 0 Document Type: 8.160 Retention: Ute of Plant Design Change #
Pad of Rev.
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN 2.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O '
any equipment or system ELECTRICAL SYSTEM l ANALYSIS (Analysis Type 2.3.03), i.e., DC LoadingNottage Analysis, DC Short Circuit Analysis, 1 DC Circuit Coordination, Voltage Adequacy Analysis, !
AC Short Circuit Analysis, System Grid Stability Analysis, Station Blackout Adequacy Analysis, Diesel Generator SS and Transient Analysis, AC Circuit Coordination, Diesel Generator Protection. Reference Site Engineering Manual. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Electrical Analysis Review Coordinator.
2.c. - Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any equipment or system ELECTRICAL SIZING / LOADING ANALYSIS (Analysis Type 2.3.02),
i.e., Battery Charger Sizing, Battery Sizing (Load g Profile), Cable Sizing /Derating, Molded Case Circuit Breaker / Fuse Sizing, Diesel Generator Sequence loading, Inverter sizing / Loading and Voltage Analysis.
MCC Starter / Overload Heater Sizing, Switchgear Breaker sizing, Transformer sizing / Loading, MOV terminal Voltage Analysis, MCC Control Circuit Fuse Sizing, Relay time delay sizing, Reference Site Engineering Manual. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Electrical Analysis Review Coordinator.
2.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any electrical setpoints, setpoint margins and/or setpoint calculations?
2.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any local / remote circuitry design features that preclude inadvertent loss of control from the control room?
2.f. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any electrical equipment that is mounted under piping or other equipment that may leak?
Page 4 of 14
..._.7_ r_..-._._-.____-_....__.._._.__.._.~.._._._..._...____...-..-_._._____
i PINOP 1213, Rev. O ;
DocumentType: 8.100 Retention: Ufo of Plant Design Change #
V' Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN !
2.g. Will the design. change affect, change or introduce O O O I any test acceptance criteria requirements for !
' measurement and test equipment or test equipment -
accuracy evaluations?
Reference:
Electronic Calibration Card System. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Superintendent of Electrical Systems.
~
3.. 1 & C Design Considerations 3.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any instrument or control systems? ANY.
QUESTIONS, contact the Superintendent ofI&C Systems.
3.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any instrument piping or tubing, Reference Engineering Manual.- ANY QUEST /ONS, contact the Superintendent ofI&C Systems.
3.c. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O- O any I & C setpoints, setpoint margins and/or setpoint calculations? Reference Engineering Manual. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Superintendent ofI&C Systems.
3.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any test acceptance criteria requirements for i
measurement and test equipment or test equipment accuracy evaluations?
Reference:
Electronic Calibration Card System. 'ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Superintendent ofI&C Systems.
3.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any I & C equipment that is mounted under piping or other equipment that may leak?
E 3.f. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any digital based equipment: Reference Site j Engineering Manual. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Superintendent ofI&C Systems.
Page 5 of 14
. - . ~ _ . - .. .
d
- PINGP 1213, Rev. O l -
Document Type: 8.160 Retention: Ufe of Plant Design Change #
Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN l 3.g. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any equipment or system software design or functionality. Reference Engineering Manual. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Supenntendent ofI&C Systems.
- 4. Mechanical Design Considerations 4.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any system or component capacity, rating?
Reference Design Basis manuals. ANY QUESTIONS, contact a Supenntendent of Mechanical Systems.
4.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any system design pressure, temperature or chemistry? Reference Design Basis manuals. ANY QUESTIONS, contact a ~Supenntendent of MechanicalSystems.
4.c. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any system fluid velocity, allowable pressure drop, or pump Net Positive Suction Head requirements?
Reference Design Basis manuals. ANY QUESTIONS, contact a Supenntendent of Mechanical Systems.
4.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O l any pipe stress, pipe support, thermal expansion,
- seismic movement or hydraulic analysis? Reference Site Engineering & Design Basis manuals. ANY QUESTIONS, contact a Supenntendent of MechanicalSystems.
4.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any safety related, high energy, ASME code, or
- regulatory related pressure boundary? Reference Site l Engineering & Design Basis manuals. ANY i QUESTIONS, contact a Supenntendent of MechanicalSystems.
Will the design change need to consider possible O O O 4.f.
(Q> effects or mechanical conditions such as vibration,
- stress, shock and reaction force? ANY QUESTIONS, 1
contact a Supenntendent of Mechanical Systems.
j Page 6 of 14 l
-~.--.._~..~_.-..-...-.-m-...--...-__-~_~-_-.
. PINGP 1213, Rev. O Document Type: 8.160 l Rotenten: Life of Plant Design Change # l Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN 4.g. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O !'
any repairs or replacements governed by ASME Section XI? Reference SAWI 3.12.2, Site Engineering Manual and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the ASME section XI Engineer. j 4.h. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O l any mechanical setpoints, setpoint margins and/or setpoint calculations (i.e., Relief Valve settings). ANY QUESTIONS, contact a Superintendent of Mechanical Systems.
4.1. Will the design change affect,' change or introduce O O O i any piping erosion or corrosion concerns? Reference 5AWI 3.12.2, Site Engineering Manual and DBDs. 1 ANY QUESTIONS, contact the ASME section XI l l Engineer.
l 4.J. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O :
any underground tanks that need to meet NSP UST l (ERAD) requirements. Reference Site Engineering '
Manual and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the ERAD department.
4.k. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any motor valves.
Reference:
Site Engineering Manual and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the MOVEngineer.
4.1. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any control or solenoid valvss.
Reference:
Site -
. Engineering Manual and DBDs.' ANY QUESTIONS, contact the CV/SOV Engineer.
4.m.' Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any check or relief valves?
Reference:
Site Engineering Manual and DBDs.' ANY QUESTIONS, contact the CVorRV Engineer.
, 4.n. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O i
any ventilation / heat loads? ANY QUESTIONS, L contact the Supt. Mechanical System / Programs Engineer.
Page 7 of 14
. -- . . . _ . - . - . . - - . - - ~. . . - . _ . . ~ . - - ~. - . . .
l PINGP 1213. Rey. 0 DocumentType: 8.160
-)
i Retention: ufe of Plant i
Design Change # l Part of Rev.
l
Title:
Unit
-YES NO UNKNOWN
- 5. CivillStructural Design Considerations 5.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any additional loading or loading type of structures including floors, walls, masonry walls, equipment supports, restraints, and associated members?
Reference:
Site Engineering Manual and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact a Civil Engineer.
H 5.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O
. any penetration of safety related structures, including: l floors, walls, ceilings, tanks or vessels.
Reference:
Site Engineering Manual and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact a Civil Engineer.
5.c. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any structural requirements for equipment foundations or pipe supports? .
Reference:
Site Engineering
' Manual and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact a Civil Engineer.
5.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any snubbers.
Reference:
Site Engineering Manual and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Snubber Engineer.
- 6. Nuclear Design Considerations 6.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any equipment or systems utilized in reactor core power monitoring (i.e., Nuclear Instrumentation, Plant Calorimetric input parameters, fuel loading or enrichment)? ANY QUESTIONS, contact Nuclear Engineering.
O Page 8 of 14
PINGP 1213. Rev. O I j , ' Document Type: 8.160 l
Retention: ufe ef Plant l Design Change #
Part of Rev.
l
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN 6.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O !
any equipment or system performance parameters included in the Reload Safety Evaluation? (i.e.,
Reactor Core: Fuel Assemblies, Rod Control Cluster 1 Assemblies, Vessel Internals, Nuclear Instrumentation; Reactor Coolant System: RCS Piping, Reactor Coolant Pumps, Charging and Letdown Systems, Pressurizer Relief / Safety Valves, I Heaters, Spray Systems, and Instrumentation /
Setpoints; Steam Generators: Vessel / Tube Structure, Relief / Safety Valves, Main Feedwater Systems, Auxiliary Feedwater Systems, i instrumentation /Setpoints; Main Steam System:
Piping, Main Steam System Valves Bypass, Dump, Isolation, Control and Stop Turbines; Safety Systems: Safety injection System Piping, Pumps, fg Boric Acid Tanks and Instrumentation /Setpoints, O Reactor Protection System Instrumentation and Sensor Logic /Setpoints; Control Systems: Feedwater Controller, Control Rod Controller, Dump and Bypass Controller, Containment Structure and Safety-Related Systems). ANY QUESTIONS, contact Nuclear Engineering and the fuels resource department (NAD). -
l l
- 7. Material, Chemical & Environmental Considerations )
7.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O l any hazardous materials?
Reference:
SAWI 8.5.1.
ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Red Protection and Chemistry group.
7 b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any structures, systems, or components that have special material requirements including such items as compatibility, electric insulation properties, protective i coatings and corrosion resistance?
Reference:
SAWI l 8.5.1, SAWI 8.2.0, Site Engineering Manual and I DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Rad Protection and Chemistry group.
,(
l Page 9 of 14
, . .. -.. - . .- .. ..- ._.,_ .. . _ . . . - _ - . . . _ . . . . - . - . , . ~ . .- -,--_...~., . .
. PINOP 1213, Rev.0 Document Type; 6.160 Retention: ufe of Plant g Design Change #
Pad of Rev.
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN
-7.c. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any chemistry requirements such as provisions for sampling and limitations on chemical concentration?
Reference:
5AWI 8.8.0. ANY QUESTlONS, contact the Rad Protection and Chemistry group.
7.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any special handling or storage requirements for components?
Reference:
SAWI 8.2.0, SAWI 8.6,0, 5AWI 12.1.0, and DBDs. ANY QUESTlONS, contact the Rad Protection and Chemistry group.
7.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any additional limitations on the materials, processes, parts, or equipment to ensure suitability in the application? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Rad Protection and Chemistry group.
7.f. Will the design change affect contaminated systems or O O O be installed in a radiologically controlled area?
Reference:
SAWI 10.1.0 and Site Engineering Manual.
ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Rad Protection and Chemistry group.
7.g. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any potable (fit to drink and govemed by OSHA and commercial plumbing codes) water equipment or systems (i.e. Drinking fountains) 5AWI 10.1.0 and DBDs. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Rad Protection and Chemistry group.
7.h. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any toxic chemicals or postulated scenarios of toxic chemical plume dispersion (from rail line, highway or barge traffic) which could affect control room habitability? Reference USAR Manual Section 14 paragraph 2.9, and Hazards DBD.
(
Page 10 of 14
.. - - . . . ~_- . - . - - .- -.
l PINGP 1213, Rev. 0 -
Document Type: 8.160 i
- t Retention: Ufo of Plant Ih Design Change #
V Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN
- 8. Operational Considerations l 8.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O l any changes to the control room? Reference Engineering Manual Section 2.4.8. ANY ;
QUESTIONS, contact the Human Factors Engineer. l 8.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O I any accessibility to systems or components and are provisions necessary to meet the appropriate maintenance, testing, and/or inspection I requirements?
8.c. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any requirements with changes in the plant modes, i such as startup, power operation, shutdown, refueling, i special test, abnormal or emergency operation?
[_~)
L 8.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any additional requirements for special tests such as surveillance, in-service inspection, Appendix J leak rate tests or Section XI hydro tests?
8.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any special isolation, relief, vent, drain, surge or recirculation functions?
8.f. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any technical specification surveillance requirements associated with existing plant systems (new electrical loads may need to be added to diesel survelliance, etc.)?
- 9. Site Security Design Considerations 9.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any security related cables (mostly ICSU- cables) that require updating the ND-85586 series drawings?
Note: there are no data files for these cables. ANY
! p QUESTIONS, contact the Security System Engineer.
! V Page 11 of 14
._ . .~. . . - . - . ~ _ . . - . ~ . - - - . - . ~ . - . . - . - - - . - - - _ - . - . - - . ~ . _ . - . . - ~ - -
. PINOP 1213, Rev. 0
- Document Type: 8.160 1 Rotenten: ufe of Plant g Design Change # .
i.
L/ Part of Rev.
Title:
' Unit YES NO UNKNOWN 9.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any security related equipment that has tamper switches associated to it for alarming purpose? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Security System Engineer.
9.c. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any ISFSI related security equipment? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Security System Engineer.
9.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O ;
any security cameras, intrusion zones or any other security related equipment? ANY QUESTlONS, contact the Security System Engineer.
9.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O
- any loads on the MCCs backed by the security diesel generator? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Security System Engineer. i 9.f. Will the design change installation, testing or operation O O O breach a security barrier? ANY QUESTlONS, contact !
the Security System Engineer.
9.g. Will the design change installation, testing or operation O O O affect any plant recurity procedures? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Security System Engineer.
- 10. PINGP Site Programmatic Considerations 10.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any component requirements to funct,;n in an accident or post-accident environment?
Reference:
SAW13.22.0 & 3.22.1 and Engineering Manual Section 2.4.1. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the EQ Engineer.
10.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O
- i. any components _in the EQ Manual? Reference l' Operations Manual H8. ANY QUESTIONS, contact i the EQ Engineer i
L Page 12 of 14
.. ~ PINGP 1213, Rev. 0
,- Document Type: 8.160
, Retention: Ufo of Plant 1
% Design Change #
Pad of Rev.
Title:
Unit l s
YES NO UNKNOWN 10.c. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O
. any environmental hazards to sensitive areas, such as steam, flooding, fire loading, chemicals, or temperature extremes? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the EQ Engineer.
-10.d. Will the design _ change affect, change or introduce O O O '
i- any systems included in the Plant's Probabilistic Risk Assessment?. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Licensing and Management Issues- PRA group.
- 10.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O- O any Appendix R safe shutdown equipment, emergency
- lighting, fire barriers, or the plant's fire protection Safety 7
~
Evaluation Report?
Reference:
SAWI 3.13.1 and Operations Manual F5. ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Appendix R/ Fire Protection Engineers..
4 10.f. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O .O any SQUG listed safe shutdown equipment directly or l'
indirectly through seismic interactions? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the SQUG Program Engineer.
10.g. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O i
any pipe erosion / corrosion issues? ANY l
. QUESTIONS, contact the Erosion / Corrosion Program i Engineer. l 10.h. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any change to the list of in-scope Maintenance Rule SSCs? ANY QUESTIONS, contact the Maintenance j Rule Coordinator.
10.i. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O l any system or components under the In-Service inspection or in-Service Testing program? ANY l QUESTIONS, contact ASME Section XI Engineer. :
[ 10.J. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O
[ any system or ccmponents that requires a Material &
l Special Process (M&SP) group? ANY QUESTIONS,
[ contact Welding Help Hot Line, 347-9426.
i
[ Page 13 of 14
- _ _ ._. _ _ m .- . . _ . . . . . - . _ . . _ . _ . ~ _ . . ~ . . - _ . _ _ - - . - _ . . . - _ _ . ~ . . _ . _ . . --
. . *, . PINOP 1213, Rev. 0 :
- Document Type: 8.160
'O - Retention, ufe of Plant Design Change #
O Part of _
Rev.
Title:
Unit YES NO UNKNOWN i 11. System Interactions Created by the Design Change 11.a. Will the design change affect, change or introduce 0 0 0 any supporting systems that are required to meet design bases requirements.
11.b. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any potential adverse effects involving systems interactions? To answer this, consider NRC Generic Letter 89-18.
11.c. - Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any adverse interactions between normal or off site power systems and emergency power systems, and the electrical power system as a common support system? Consider: load sequencing / load shedding, diesel generator failures caused by. specific operating
.O modes, breaker failures due to loss of DC power, V failures that propagate between the safety related 4
7 portion and the non-safety related portion of the power system.
11.d. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any front-line systems, in which failures in support systems could potantially initiate a transient or possibly degrade other systems which may have been e designed to mitigste the very same event?
11.e. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any partial failure modes such as high or law voltage to assumed fail-safe systems or components?
- 11.f. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O any automated safety actions that have no preferred failure mode modes?
- 11.g. Will the design change affect, change or introduce O O O
, any special interactions that may degrade I&C power supplies?
O u ". wii' < ii <
components, ri".,
c meceemt < rect "x i.e ll/l or lil/l seismic reiv reietee mounting details o or o o IE and non-lE cable separation issues?
Page 14 of 14
_r__._..-__.. ._ . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . - _ . . . _ .- .. _ . . _ . . _ - . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ,
.'. I ,*
PINGP 1214, Rev.0 4 s, , DocumentType: 8.160
,t Retention: Ufe of Plant
, Design Change #
Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit PROJECT DESCRIPTION / SAFETY ASSESSMENT 5A WI 6.1.4 3
.m.;
'a Prepared by: Date: ,_
Reviewed by: Date:
O fi 4.,.
.. u.:. ~
Page 1 of 3
~
v % -F *--eve - + w #
., ~ . . . . - ... _ _. _ _ _.-.._.. _ ..,... _ .~ __. _ ..._.._...m._. . ~ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ - . _ . . . . - - .
O;pg PINGP 1214. Rev.0
$ g ': Document Type: 8.100 4 Relentiort ufe of Plant
, Design Change # ]
U Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit i: l
- 1. - INTRODUCTION
- 2. SCOPE 4
- 3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION 3.1 Ge aral
'3.2 Sy 'em Details
. 3.3 Operator Interface 1
G:
- 4. ORGANIZATION INVOLVED (Address Training) i g.
- 5. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATION
?-
5.1 Mechanical Design Piping - ,
Structural !
5.2 Electrical and I&C . .
Power I. Instrumentation
'5.3 Computer Hardware / Software Design b
5.4 Human Factors 5.5 Construction and Testing Electrical / I&C Mechanical
! 6. MATERIAL, CODES AND STANDARDS a i
- 7. CONSTRUCTION / PLANT INTERFACE CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Plant Conditions L
7.2 Special Construction Considerations L Mechanical L Electrical - - - - - - - --- -
n b Page 2 of 3
?
,e .
PINGP 1214, Rev. O y 7, Document Type: 8.100 -
Retention; Ufo of Plant Design Change #
Pad of Rev.
Title:
Unit
- 8. SAFETY ASSESSMENT 8.1 USAR/ISFSI SAR Safety impact i 8.2 Tech Spec impact 8.3 - Design Basis impact 8.4 Safety Assessment Conclusion l
6 9. REFERENCES i
i 10.~ ATTACHMENTS I
t 4
i
- O f
e l.
)
. Page 3 cf 3
- s. .. ._ _. _ _ . .
e PINCP 1213, Rev. o DocumentType: N/A
/ Retention. N/A Design Change #
'T Part Of Rev.
(O
Title:
Unit DESIGN CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ,
5A WI 6.1.5 Complete the fo!!owing tables with as much detail as possible. The purpose of this information is to help in scheduling your design change work activities. This form could be substituted with a bar chart. Items identified with
- to be reviewed by OC SHALL be in a planning document. Work that can be completed independent of a plant condition code, use a NA in the appropriate column. Use the following codes for piant impact and condition codes:
CODE PLANT IMPACT CODES CODE PLANT IMPACT CODES
- AFFECTS RCS PRESSURE CONTROL R AFFECTS REACTOR REACTIVITY C AFFECTS CONTAINMENT BOUNDARY CONTROL T AFFECTS RCS TEMPERATURE CONTROL L AFFECTS RCS WATER LEVEL CONTROL Z AFFECTS NONE OF THE PARAMETERS M AFFECTS MORE THAN ONE PARAMETER CODE CONDITION CODES 1 POWER OPERATION (CRITICAL >2% POWER) 1-1 TURBINE ROLL 1-2 GENERATOR ON LINE 2 HOT STANDBY (CRITICAL <2% POWER) 3 HOT SHUTDOWN (SUBCRITICAL >350*F) 3-1 STEAMLINE HEATUP 4 INTERMEDIATE SHUTDOWN (SUBCRITICAL 200 - 350*F) 5 COLD SHUTDOWN (SUBCRITICAL <200*F) 6 REFUELING OUTAGE - ON LONGER USED (HISTORY)
[m V; 6-1 REFUEUNG OUTAGE - WIN 1 SHUTDOWN / COOLDOWN 6-2 REFUELING OUTAGE - WIN 2 RX DISASSEMBLE / NOZZLE DAM 6-3 REFUELING OUTAGE - WIN 3 FUEL SHUFFLE (POOL FLOOD) 6-4 REFUELING OUTAGE - WIN 4 RX HD INST / NOZZLE DAM Rr.M 6-5 REFULEING OUTAGE - WIN 5 FILL & VENT RCS (INT Si TEST) 6-6 REFUELING OUTAGE - WIN 6 HEAT-UP RCS - ON LINE 6-A REFULEING OUTAGE - ANYTIME IN REFUELING SHUTDOWN 6-0 REFUELING OUTAGE - SEC WORK WIN ISOLATION REP D57 6-N REFUELING OUTAGE - NOT AT REDUCED INVENTORY 6-P REFUELING OUTAGE - PRE-OUTAGE WORK
.1mpact . *Cond. .? Estimated '
- Desired ; : Work s MQ-
- Mechanical Work :
- Unit ' < Code? CCode. Start Date J : End Date > " Orders Y/N-
- lmpact . ?Cond.-
- Estimated ? Desired .. Work: ISO
' Electrical Work
- Unit ' Code' : Code Start Date' End Date " Orders E Y/N ,
9 Required information for OC Review. Page 1 Of 2
PINGP 1213, R'v. o Document Type: N/A Retention: N/A Design Change #
Part of , Rev.
7
_)
Title:
Unit
- 1mpact *Cond.
- Estimated
- Desired Work MQ
- l&C Work '
- Unit Code. Code Start Date End Date Orders ' Y/N l
l l
l lmpact - *Cond. .* Estimated
- Desired . . Work- MQ ,
- Civil / Structural Work'
- Unit,. -
Code Code Start Date End Date Orders Y/N I l
l
.1mpact "Cond.
- Estimated
- Desired . . Work EQ 9 ... .. .. .
- ~
- Pre-Operational / Operations Work.
. ..* Unit -Code. Code Start Date End Date ' Orders Y/N m
Equipment SHALL be tumed over prior to leaving the indicated condition code.
Tumover to Operations . .. . . . *Cond. Estimated Wdrk Order Used Restoration To Tumover ' ' Y/N
- (List Equipment and / or System)
- Unit ' Code '- Tumover Date q
L)
- Required information for OC Review. Page 2 of 2
_ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _
PINOP 1218 Rev.0 2.i Document Type: 8.100 Retenikut LNe of Plant l
('
\
Design Change #
Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit i l
PLANT SPECIFIC REVIEW & APPROVAL FORM i WITH ROUTING 5 A WI 6.1.6 PART A PLANT SPECIFIC REVIEWS Reviewers Return to Project Engineer: By:
'e ROUTE TO THE FOLLOWING ASSIGNEES: *u Check Report # of if Rea'd Assioned to: Slanature / Date Attach? 9A222 S 1. Design Control Review NGS Dept. 7 Y/N
@ 2. Design Basis Review NGS Dept. / Y/N S 3. PRA Review PRA Group / Y/N :
S 4. Fire Protection Review F.P. Engr. / Y/N E 5. Environment (Seismic /EQ) EQ Engr. / Y/N '
O 6. HELB Review EQ Engr. / Y/N O 7. ALARA Review Rad Prot. / Y/N O 8.Section XI(ISI/IST) Sect XI Engr. / Y/N O 9. Software Control Mngr PlIT / Y/N O 10. NAD Fuel Resources NAD / Y/N O 11. Security Review S. Engr. / Y/N O 12. Other Organization PINGP 1212 / Y/N O 13. / Y/N O 14. / Y/N PART B APPROVAL
- 1. Engineering approval to implement Design Change
- a. Project Engineer Date _
- b. Plant Sponsor Date
- 2. Management approval to implement Design Change:
- a. et Review Required? (if yes, Operations Committee will address "b" below) O YES O NO
- b. Ow - ins Committee Review: Date Meeting #
- 1) License Amendment or Unreviewed Safety Question (ref.10CFR 50.59 and 72.48)? O YES O NO
- 3) SAC Review Required by Operations Committee? O YES O NO (if Yes, complete "c.1" below)
- c. SAC and regulatory review dates
- 1) SAC review completed: Date
- 2) Amendment request transmitted: Date
- 3) Authorization letter received: Date
- d. General Superintendent Engineering Date
- 2. - Route to Design Engineering Coordinator Date Page 1 of 1
w
^
'~'
PINGP 1217. Rev,0 lb. Document Type: 8.160 H Retanhon ufe of Plant Design Change #
- l1
- v Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit RECORD LOG
- .l 5A WI 6.1.3 List all associated design output records on this multi purpose form
i Examples: Work Orders, Drawing Request Number, Technical Manuals, Procedures, Purchase Orders, Data Files (CFN #), Tech Spec Change, Engineering Analysis, Calculations and Setpoints, etc.
W j' Indicate a log number for: USAR Text, Table or Figure Change, License Amendments, or 10CFR50.59 Screening.
Indicate if the item is required for Operational Turnover (T.O.) in the 5th column.
^
4 3 1 .. . . _ . ..
Rev; Logffracking jT.O.L. ;; Submittal:
1 Document Nu'mberi iTitle.'or PO. Vend 6r Name:: i#3 l Number] ::. Reg'd) :.Date:l iY / N2 i
[
h
/)
V Page 1 of 1 l
._ - . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . - _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ __. . _ . _ _ .-.__._.m_ .
I PINGP 1218, Rev. O ;
DocumentType: 8.180 Retention: Ute of Plant Design Change #
O- -
Part of Rev.
Title:
Unit TURNOVER CHECKLIST 5A WI 6.1.9
- 1. Attach explanation of tumover boundaries for system, structure or stages with appropriate drawings or sketches as applicable, plus any specific training requirements if done in stages.
- 2. Stage of Plant Status Tumover Hold Code
- 3. Installation complete: Project Engineer Date
- 4. Punch List attached: 0 YES O NO (if yes, # of pages )
>>The Project Engineer indicates: Completed (C), Not Required (NR) or Punch List (PL)
(Refer to Record Log, PINGP 1217, for required turnover items)
Sa. Pre-operational Testing completed 5b. Equipment Numbering / labeling completed l Sc. - Training required prior to tumover completed 5d. Plant Operating Procedures updated Se. Transitional Drawings updated (in the transitional dwg file) 5f. Technical Manuals submitted Sg. Preliminary Equipment Data listed for turnover are updated l Sh. . Calculation / Engineering Analysis completed l
- 51. Non-Conformance Report closed - other quality issues resolved Sj. Additional items / Regulatory issues complete (Identify SAR changes)
Sk. Project Engineer attests to the above: Date
- 6. Plant Acceptance by Plant Sponsor: Date
- 7. Reviewed by Gen Supt Engr. Date
- 8. Ready for Operations:
Gen Supt of Operations Date
- 9. Route to Design Engineering Coordinator for logging: Date
- O Page 1 of 1
PINGP 1219, Rw. O Dccum:ntType: 8.160 RItintion: Lif3 of Plant Design Change #
em\ Part of Rev.
I t.J
Title:
Unit CLOSEOUT CHECKLIST 5AWI 6.1.10 Please indicate closure on the following items:
(Completed: YES or NOT REQUIRED (NR) and indicate the date)
Date All Work Orders closed out ................................... YES NR Turnover and punchlist items complete ............... . YES NR D rawi n g s u pd at e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .YES NR Technical Manuals updated .................................. YES NR O ISFSI/USAR Update submitted to Licensing ......... YES NR Summary of Safety Evaluation sent to Licensing .. YES O NR Plant documents updated:
ACD, AWI, SWI, SP, PM, TP, Op Manual, C h e cklist, etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
YES O NR O ASME Section XI revision submitted ..................... YES NR Specification file updated ...................................... YES NR N u clea r An alysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES NR Plant Process Computer Changes ........................ YES NR
/m Software Control Form Sheet ................................ YES NR O EO M aste r List updat ed ...... .. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . YES NR Safe Shutdown lists updated (Appendix R, SQUG) YES NR All external design change records received by the site......................................................................... YES NR All reauired trainina comoleted. Site Reouest for Trainina (TR) ....................... YES NR Others: YES NR
- 1. Items above are all completed or NR Project Engineer Date
- 2. Equipment Data base updated Data File Coordinator Date
- 3. Plant Sponsor review: Date
- 4. Spare parts dispositioned Supv. Site Materials Date
- 5. Closeout Program Adherence:
NGS Date
- 6. Plant Acceptance:
GSE Date
- 7. Design Engineering Coordinator Date Page 1 of 1
PINGP 1268, R v.1 Pcg31 of 1 1h !
Retention: NA A
() TRAINING REQUEST g , SReq_uesterx to; complete the following[i Note: Refer to 5AWI 3.11.0 for TR completion directions; as necessary.
- 1. Requester: Date: l Description of request:
Affected group (s) l'( l Knowledgeable contact person (s):
Note: Attach additionalinformation including any specific training request details, project descriptions, procedure references, implementation dates, turnover dates, closure dates, etc. as necessary.
- 2. Line management approval: O yes O no cate:
. Comments:
- Forward training. request to;the;Pl Training issues Manageri J:\ TEMPLATE \1268. DOT
1
-I.
Qh l
! j NORTHERN STATF.S POWER COMPANY
]
, .* 1
- PRAIRIE IS!AND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
- (..
. ENGINEERING MANUAL i
1-1
! ENGINEERING DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND i 1
INSTALLATION
SUMMARY
4
, for i .
i SEISMIC QUALIFICATION l
(INCLUDING II/I CRITERIA)
! l 4
. SECTION 2.1.10 i
I.
8 i
Revision Prepared Date Reviewed Date Approved Date By By By 7MM $4 l L% f&& f/f/fZ 0 P 2 P1 L. I fJfffL A*V StN W q ,
/y. pyg r.3,.n g.,
/
. - . .. ... -. - . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . - . - ,
. . NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Section No.: 2.1.10 4 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Revision: 0
~
ENGINEERING MANUAL Date 97/01/92 Page i SEISMIC QUALIFICATION REVISION RECORD Revision Number Revision Descriotion 0 Initial issue.
i Y
~
9 4
e 1
m 4
.. . -. ~ -- . . - , - - . - - .-. .- - - - - =--
,- NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Secti a N:.: 2.1.10 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Revision: 0 ENGINEERING MANUAL Date: 07/01/92 Page: 1 or10 _
SEISMIC QUALIFICATION This summary document addresses the overall subject of seismic qualiEcation of structures, systems and components (SSCs) at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP).
The objective of this document is to provide a concise overview of the topic such that the applicability of this subject to the design activity can be determined. In addition, this summary provides references to other more detailed guidance documents.
The document does not address impact of, or procedures associated with, the activities of the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG).
A. Applicability This summary is applicable to all SSCs at the plant. The speciEc criteria applicable to each SSC is dependent on the quality and design classification of the SSC as discussed in the topic discussion section of this summary. The Prairie Island Quality List (Q-List) and Q-List extension should be consulted for speciEc guidance on the
.( classification of the item. The Q-List is provided in the Operational Quality Assurance Plan (Appendix C of the USAR) and the Q-List Extension is accessible on the plant information computer.
B. Discipline Responsibility The Mechanical / Civil Group maintains cognizance over the seismic qualification issues and qualification methodologies in use at the PINGP. Many site groups need to address seismic qualification issues since all SSCs in the plant require documented i evaluation against seismic requirements. These various groups should generally consult with the Mechanical / Civil Group to ensure consistency of qualification method and standardized design inputs.
4 C. Topic Discussion
^
L Classification of SSCs All structures, systems and components (SSCs) at PINGP are classified by Quality Class and Design Class according to their function and importance to safe operation of the reactor and to their degree of integrity required to l protect the public. Quality Classes are Type 1,II or III and Design Classes 4
. . .- . -- .- - - - . - _ _ - - . . ,_ ~ -. . . . . ..
'. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Sectima Nc.: 2.1.10 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Revision: 0 ENGINEERING MANUAL Date: 07/01/92 Page: 2 of to SEISMIC QUALIFICATION are either I, I*, II, III, or III*. The USAR Volume (Ref.1) defines these classifications. Design classifications are defined in Chapter 12 and QATypes are defined in Appendix C.
. In general, all SSCs identified as Design Class I and I* are being designed using the response spectra and dynamic methods as described below. Design Class I and I* differ in the applicable load combinations and quality classification. Specifically, Design Class I* items are designed to the same seismic loading as Design Class I, but are treated as QA Type III in all other respects.
Except for the new DS/D6 Building and the equipment housed in it, the term Seismic Category 1 is not used in the PINGP licensing basis. Seismic design requirements for Design Class I and I* SSCs are similar to that required for Seismic Category 1 SSCs. The new D5/D6 Building is designed to the latest seismic requirements (Reference 8) and is the only structure at the PINGP k that is designated Seismic Category 1.
Design Class II and III* SSCs are designed to Zone 1 seismic criteria prescribed by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (Ref. 2).
Design Class III SSCs do not require seismic qualification. However, NSF s general practice has been to design all Design Class III structures and certain components to UBC Zone 1 seismic criteria. (Reference 1, Chapter 12).
- 2. Code of Record Modifications to, or upgrade of, existing SSCs are governed by the edition of record for the specific codes of construction specified in the USAR, Section 12.2.1.2. New construction, in general, should follow this same approach, except when specific design criteria and any related Safety Evaluation Report is developed for the project. This supports the general philosophy that the code of record in the plant licensing basis should be complied with for all modifications.
Specific description of the code of record for seismic qualification is presented in Section 3.1.4.2 of the Engineering Manual.
27 Milnt:n nc3 Rul) Sy;t:m Cecis Dxum:nt
. Valump 1C- Structures Monitoring Program Loss of bond due to concrete cracking or spalling, loss of material, loss of strength and modulus e Embedmont Steel Improper installation and deterioration of the embedded concrete
- Prestressing Steel (Tene.'ons)
Corrosion and Loss of Prestress For each 5 year inspection, the following factors should be considered when developing the work order and related procedure for the inspection.
. Structures (e.g. containment, reactor vessel, shield building, and certain areas of the auxiliary building) may be inaccessible due to radiation levels or obstructions.
. Site specific characteristics, industry experience data and/or testing history of features under similar conditions may aid in the examination.
- Accessible areas subject to similar conditions (material, environment, etc.)
may be evaluated in lieu of inaccessible areas.
- Whenever inaccessible areas are excavated, exposed, or modified an examination should be performed.
e inaccessible areas should be examined when conditions exist in accessible areas that could indicate the presence of, or result in, degradation to such inaccessible areas.
- Applicable standards and guidance documents available at the time of the inspection also be considered. These information sources are listed in Section 4 of this guideline.
For the interim periodic inspections, the follo'Ning factors should be considered when developing the work order and related procedure for the inspection.
. Structures (e.g. containment, reactor vessel, shield building, and certain areas of the auxiliary building) may be inaccessible due to radiation levels or obstructions.
- Site specific characteristics, industry experience data and/or testing history of features under similar conditions may aid in the examination.
- Accessible areas subject to similar conditions (material, environment, etc.)
3.3.3 Method of Inspection Methods of inspection used may include:
e Visual examination
- Inspection when buried equipment is exposed e (Jitrasonic thickness measurements Other methods may be used as deemed appropriate by the interim or 5 year structures inspectors.
3.3.4 Follow-up Actions Follow-up actions as the result of an inspection are expected to include one or more of the following:
. No action Rev i Page 10 of 22
r ~. ._ ~ , - . .. - . - . - . - . . - . - . ~ . - - .. -
Mainten:nce Rul3 Sy; tem 3:13 Document ,, .\
. , . Volume 1C. Structurwa Afonitoring Program -
f #.i - i?!"WW #
^
Loss of bond due to concrete cracking or spalling, loss of material, loss of
' strength and modulus
- ~ Embedmont Steel improper installation and deterioration of the embedded concrete
- . . Prestressing Steel (Tendens) ~'
- Corrosion and Loss of Prestress - ' i l For each 5 year inspection, the following factors should be considered when
. developing the work order and.related procedure for the inspection.
h .
- Structures'(e.gi containment,' reactor vessel,- shield building, and certain y . areas of the auxiliary building) may be inaccessible due to radiation levels or
- i. . obstruchons. . . .
L e ' Site specific characteristics, industry experience data and/or testing history of MIMi$yil.y$$ FL ?
~ features under similar conditions may aid in the excmination. . 7Q;f~Q'*L"b W
^
. et Accessible areas subject to similar conditions (material, environment, etc.)
may be evaluated in lieu of inaccessible areas. ~
?e Whenever. inaccessible areas are. excavated, exposed, or modified an
- Examination should be performed. .
- i. -e inaccessible areas should be examined when conditions exist in accessible
- arer that could indicate the presence of, or result in, degradation to such i ' inaccessible areas.
1 e- Applicat>le standards and guidance documents available at the time of the '
'inspectiois also be considered. These information sources are ilsted in Section 4 of this guideline.
For tha interim periodic inspections, the following factors should be considered i
.when developing the work order and related procedure for the inspection. !
.* Structures (e.g. containment, reactor vessel, shield building, and certain arzas of the auxiliary building) may be baccessible due to radiation levels or
' obstructions, e- Site specific characteristics, industry experience data and/or testing history of features under similar conditions may aid in the examination.
.o Accessible areas subject to similar conditions (material, environment, etc.)
yrp syy 3 p.a :
7 Method ofInspection ,
~ '
Methods of inspection used may. include:
> e' - Visual examination .
Je " : Inspection when buried equipment is exposed a = : Ultrasonic thickness measurements Other methods may be used as deemed appropriate by the interim or 5 year .
- struc'!;res inspectors.
L F::llow-up Actions Follow-up actions as the result of an inspection are expected to include one or
-more of the following:
e . No action Page 10 of 22 t
Milntenance Ruis Sy;t:m Dmis Doaum:nt
, V:lume 1C. Structures M:nitoring Program .
e . Shorter interval to next inspection -
- Painting of surfaces e Coating of surfaces e Grouting _
.. Sealing i e Weiding . .
- Replacement 3.3.5 ( Cause Determination . I The following are some, but not necessarily all, causes that 'can lead to
- degradation in structures:
e . Drying shrinkage . j
. Freeze-thaw cycle . I e Abrasion e Groundwater, rainwater, or other forms of water intrusion ;
' '= Weld quality e' Thermal cycles .
- High orlow temperaNro environments e Vibration e Original material quality e : Continued or varying high loading e . Inadequate surface preparation )
e Radiation
.* Electricalcurrent ,
l 3.4 Evaluation of Results !
An. effective monitoring program should describe how examination results will be-
- evaluated,' and'should provide acceptance criteria for use by personnel performing examinations of structures. Acceptance criteria should be based on guidance in Section 3.3 of this guideline, in conjunction with relevant codes and standards, or should be based on the judgment of technically qualified individuals performing the examination. ,
Acceptance criteria should be included in the interim or periodic inspection work order. !
l Monitoring programs could classify the condition of structures as follows:
e' Acceptable Acceptable structures are capable of performing their structural functions, including the protection and support of maintenance rule systems or components.
Acceptable structures are free of deficiencies or degradation which could lead to
- possible failure. .
A PE should make this determination.-
~
e Acceptable with defciencies Structures which are acceptable with deficiencies are those which are capable of performing. their structural functions, including the protection or support of
- maintenance / license renewal rule systems or components, but are degraded or have deficiencies which could deteriorate to an unacceptable condition, if not ,
analyzed or corrected, prior to the next scheduled 5 year examination.
Rev 1 Page 11 of 22
. .~.-,,.a, - - - , -~
, . _ . . - - . ~. . -- .. - - . - -
M intenansa Rula Sy tem C:cis Docum:nt Volums 1C. Structurw3 M: nit: ring Progr:m Structures that are acceptable with deficiencies should have the the following types of corrective actions initiated:
(1) Interim repair, depending on nature of deficiency
- (2) Complete repair and elimination of condition (3) More frequent monitoring to ensure failure does not occur.
Type (3) method may be appropriate in those cases where additional time is required to prepare for the needed repair, repair can only be done while the plant is shutdown, or additional funding is required. A PECE should review these l conditions. Structures falling into this category should be considered for a(1) l classification. The expert team should review structures for which type (3) corrective action is being used.
- Unacceptable Unacceptable structures are those which are damaged or degraded such that they are not capable of performing their structural functions. An unacceptable structure should be classified as a functional failure in accordance with the maintenance rule.
A PECE should review these conditions. Structures falling into this category should be considered for a(1) classification. The expert team should review structures which fall into this category, it is expected structures in this category would be classified as a(1) structures.
3.5 Corrective Actions The structural monitoring program should define how corrective actions are to be taken, documented and tracked to ensure the structures can meet their intended function.
Cause determinations should be made for structures which are unacceptable (Unacceptable per Section 3.4) or which could deteriorate to an unacceptable condition prior to the next scheduled examination (Acceptable with Deficiencies per Section 3.4).
The results of the cause determination may result in corrective actions including goal setting, as appropriate.
3.6 ' Frequency, Tronding, and Industry Data In accordance with NEl 96-03, the following inspections should be used to determine if structure problems exist:
PM 3588-3 through -6 These PMs are conducted on a 5 year basis by a registered civil engineer. The inspections are a follow-on to the original plant life extension inspections that were conducted in the 1988 to 1990 time-frame. Documentation of the original 1988-1990 inspections and follow-up PM inspections are being included as part of the Maintenance Rule documentation. These include a more detailed review of areas than periodic inspections. A detailed report should be provided.
PM 3686-10 Inspections The PM 3586-10 periodic inspections (currently quarterly) have a primary purpose of identifying structure problems during the interim period between the 5 year inspections.
t Rev 1 Page 12 of 22
._ _ - _. . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . ._ .-._ _~ . . . _ . . . - . . _ _ .
I Milntenan30 Rule Sy; tem B cla Document
, . Volume 1C. Structures Mcnitoring Program Special inspections after seismic events would fall in this category. A quarterly plan i should be developed, conducted, evaluated, and summarized. The intent is to have a structures review conducted on each in-scope structure over a 2 year period. Section 4 of I this procedure emphasizes key points to consider.
e l
l I
i i
i 4
o
- Revi Page 13 of 22
9 M int;n nca Rul)Synt:m 2:13 D cumint V:Ium)1C Structure 3 M: nit: ring Progr:m The following may also provide insights for the Maintenance Rule backup to consider:
PM 3686-1, -2 Inspections The PM 3586-1 and -2 periodic inspections (quarterly by each group) have a primary purpose fixing minor equipment. problems, however, these may be used to identify structure problems. No special guidance is provided in th'ese procedures.
Employee Observation Reports (EORs)
The EORs identify problems, e.g. human and equipment. A person is assigned to review these and, if appropriate, action is taken.
l When appropriate, the Maintenance Rule Coordinator should ensure that the following actions are i taken:
- when applicable, frequency SHALL be in accordance with regulatory requirements, !
e.g. examination frequency of containments SHALL be in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a (which endorses Subsections IWE and IWL of ASME Section XI). )
e examinations following unusual events such as flooding or seismic activity, i e evaluate industry operating experience data will be used to assess potentially applicable conditions at each plant.
e document evaluation the effectiveness of the overall structural program in the i periodic assessment I e trending examination results and enrrective actions (including containment and ISI l ASME supports).
3.7 Qualification Of Personnel i i
The quality and value of the examination results are dependent to an extent on the qualifications and capabilities of the examination personnel.
The minimum qualification requirements for the individual (s) responsible for the monitoring program:
- State-licensed PE The minimum requirements for personnel performing monitoring activities and evaluating examination results.
- Submittal of EORs Any person working onsite
- Quarterly plantinspections System engineer, operator, technician e interim inspections State licensed PE e 5 year inspections State licensed PECE 3.8 Documentation Documentation should be sufficiently comprehensive to allow for an accurate assessment and re-creation of the results for future trending purposes. Accurate documentation of degradation is essential because the indicator is likely to change over time.
NOTE If this guideline is utilized for purposes of ti.w d$ense renewal rule, the documentation requirements in 10 CFR 54.37 must be satisfied.
Revi Page 14 of 22
i Milnt:n:nco Rulo Sy;t:m B: sis D: cum:nt
, Wlum31C. Structures ht: nit: ring Program For the maintenance rule, examination results and corrective actions should be documented as outlined in associated guidance. The documentation report should include:
- Results of the examination, including a summary of the overall condition of the structure (s),
e Description and location of any identified degradation. !
- Copies of data sheets, pictures, video tapes or other relevant information.
Photographs and videos should be clear and taken from several perspectives and distances from the subject. Pictures and videos should be properly annotated to document the location (e. g., reference to column, floor, etc.) and size (e. g., inclusion ,
of scale or reference),
e Assessment of the degradation.
- Recommendation for additional investigation, corrective actions, or future examination where appropriate. :
e Information relative to changes in conditions or continued degradation since the .
previous examination of areas identified as acceptable with deficiencies or unacceptable.
- Conclusions on the ability of the structure to perform its intended function.
The plant's Work Order and Nonconformance systems, as described in SAWI 3.2 series, ,
SAWI 3.12 series, and 5AWI 8.4.1 should be used to document identified structural j problems. !
i 4.0 Specific Structures inspection Guidance 4.1 Containment inspection (examination, evaluation. repair, and/or replacement) of containment structures SHALL be in accordance with American Society Of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Section XI subsections: )
e IWE. " Requirements for Class MC and Metallic Liners of Class CC Components of Light , Water Cooled Plants," and e IWL. " Requirements for Class CC Concrete Components of Light-Water Cooled Plants."
4 as endorsed in 10 CFR 50.55(a) to ensure containment integrity and assist licensees in i meeting the requirements of the maintenance rule.
In addition, the following additional measures SHALL be taken for those areas not specifically covered in Subsections IWE and IWL:
e inspection of containment supports in accordance with Subsection IWF of ASME Code Section XI. " Requirements for Class 1, 2. and 3 and MC Component Supports of Light-Water Cooled Plants" e Demonstrated effectiveness of the foundation drainage system e Settlement of the containment structure within the anticipated (design) limits e Demonstrated integrity of the foundation structures (basemats, piles, and mechanical devices used to transmit loads to the foundation)
Rev i Page 15 of 22 l
i
. . . _ _ _._______._..m_. -
Maint:ntnc) Rul) Sy t m Bscis Docum:nt Vilum21C. Structures M nit: ring Program 4.2 Other Concrete Structures Concrete structures included are:
- Auxiliary Building '
e Screer house e Spent Fuel Storage Building
. . Diesel Generator Building Concrete structures that are intended to support and transmit floor and equipment loads can be water-retaining structures. such as spent fuel pools, which could be challenged during both normal and accident conditions. These structures are normally Seismic Category I of safety-related" structures.
American Concrete Institute (ACl) 349.3R-96, " Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures," should be used as guidance on various degradation mechanisms, the inspection of concrete structures, and specific evaluation criteria for metallic and nonmetallic liners of concrete, embedments, joints, coatings, and for prestressing tendon systems in prestressed concrete structures.
Based on the industry experience highlighted in NUREG-1522, the inspections should address:
(1) Condition of concrete slabs, beams, columns, base plates, and foundations (2) Condition of the prestressing system (for grouted and greased prestressing elements)
(3) Condition of metallic and nonmetallic liners (4) Leakage through water retaining structures and through portions of structures below grade (5) Differential settlement of walls and foundation slabs (6) moisture accumulation and high stresses can cause cracking of anchor devices and corrosion of meattlic components.
(7) Grease leakage that can. affect the integrity of the metal components, e.g.
prestressing tendons, in the concrete.
(8) Excessive setdement or deterioration (or trends toward same) of concrete foundations, slabs, and basemats 4.3 Intake Structures included are:
e Circ water and emergency intake stnJctures in the "old" screenhouse Fluid-retaining structures that provide water storage and transfer areas during normal operating, extreme environmental, and accident conditions are considered Seismic Category I " safety-related" structures,
, ACI 349.3R-96 should be used as a reference for identifying degradation mechanisms and clarifying questionable conditions of concrete. As a minimum, maintenance programs should address the following areas pertaining to intake and pumphouse-structures:
Rev1 Page 16 of 22
^
M: int:n:n o Rula Sy t;m C: sis Docum:nt Vols,mc 1C. Structurwa At: nit: ring Program
' The inspections should address the following:
(1) The intake structures are exposed to harsh environmental conditions. The result can i be extensive cracking and corrosion of reinforced concrete walls, slabs, beams, and steel support members of the intake structures. Acceptance criteria for corrosion of metal components to be inspected should be included. '
(2) Pump supports should properly transfer all loads from the pump to the parent structure. Anchorage systems (grout, base plates, anchor bolts, nuts, etc.) must be inspected to ensure that all required components are present, The anchorage stem is functional if all components are present and capabh of performing their intended function. Anchor bolts and support plates should have corrosion acceptance criteria.
Grouted support chairs should be fully intact and capable of supporting the anchorage system.
(3) Intake and discharge tunnels should be serviceable and should function properly.
There should be no debris in the tunnels that appreciably restricts flow and no signs j of appreciable differential settlement underwater that would exacerbate future degradation and settlement. Underwater parts of the structures could be susceptible j to degradation, j When possible, e.g. during outages, these structures should be inspected to allow quick detection of degrading conditions.
4.4 Masonry Walls Those masonry walls of in-scope structures should be inspected.
When masonry walls are used to support safety-related piping. raceways, and equipment.
they are considered Seismic Category I " safety-related" structures.
Applicable inspection guideline references are:
)
- I.E. Bulletin 80-11. " Masonry Walt Design." outlines the design provisions for masonry walls e NRC Information Notice (IN) 87-67, " Lessons Leamed from Regional Inspections of -i Licensee Actions in Response to l.E. Bulletin 80-11." provides inspection experience.
. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 11-90. " Guideline for Structural Condition Assessment of Buildings" provides visual examination guidance for masonry construction, including the evaluation of the surface condition of the masonry., in order to determine deficiencies in joints, differential movement in joints, and warping, bulging, or sagging of components.
When inspecting masonry walls, the following should be considered::
(1) Previous nuclear industry observations of masonry construction have indicated that masonry wall cracks are likely to be present at all plants. Unreinforced masonry walls may have been design qualified, assuming no cracks in the walls; therefore, the existence of cracking implies a loss of structural capability and/or margin, (2) Lateral supports have been installed on some unreinforced masonry walls to ensure seismic adequacy, Previous inspections have found these supports unanchored to the masonry construction.
Rev i Page 17 of 22
. .. . - - - . - .- - . - ,.. - - . - - - . - _ . ~.-. - - - - - .. - -
l Milnt:ninto Rulo Syst:m Omis Docum:nt V: lum 31C.Structurwa At: nit: ring Program
' When steel construction is used to support and/or protect safety-related piping, raceways, and equipment. the construction is considered a Seismic Category I " safety-related" structure. Structural steel frames (beams, columns, trusses, etc.) provide support for carrying anticipated loads. This function requires that the chemical and physical
. properties of the steel remain acceptable for the expected loading conditions and lifetime of the structure. It is important to consider the effect"of corrosion, physical damage, fatigue, excessive loading conditions, and exposure to fire on the structural capacity of steel.
References to consider in the inspection are:
. ASCE 11-90 Section 4 provides guidance- and evaluation methods for steel structures.
-. Electric Power Research' Institute (EPRI) NP-6380. " Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria." provides additional guidance and evaluation methods for structural welds.
The steel structures and connections inspection should address the following:
(1) Safety-related cranes (hoists, trolleys), monorails, and their supporting steel structures and anchorages.
(2) The functionality of blowout panels when they are used to relieve the intemal pressure of a structure caused by pipe breaks, high winds, or design-basis ;
tomadoes. .The maintenance program should verify that the panels have not been inadvertently secured (welded or bolted) to the structure such that the panels cannot ,
properly function when required.
(3) Acceptance criteria pertaining to corrosion of metal components and connectors to be inspected under the maintenance rule. Connectors are the means of making structural connections and may include welds, rivets, bolts and rods, studs, and wire ropes. l 4.8 Dams, Embankments included are:
- Circulating Water Pump suction bay Fluid-retaining structures that provide water storage and transfer areas during normal operating, severe environmental. ' and accident conditions are considered Seismic Category I " safety-related" structures.
References to consider in the inspection are:
. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.127 provides inspection guidance for water-retaining structures that could be useful for reviewing their serviceability.
- ACI Committee 207 Report," Practices for Evaluation of Concrete in Existing Massive Structures for Service Conditions." Should be used in inspections of Reinforced and unreinforced concrete surfaces.
The inspection of dams and embankments should consider the following:
Rev i Page 20 of 22
'=m=
l Maint:n:ncs Ruls Sy:t:m B ci3 D: cum:nt I V: lum 310. Structure 3 M: nit: ring Progr:m (1) Settlement . Embankments and downstream areas should be examined for any evidence of unusual .-localized-or-overall..-settlement, depressions or sinkholes. :
1 1
(2) Slope Stability. Embankment slopes should be examined for irregularities t and i variances from originally constructed slopes, unusual original crest alignment and j elevation, evidence of movement at or beyond the toe. and surface cracks that indicate significant intemal movement. l (3) Seepage. The downstream face of abutments, embankment slopes and toes, embankment-structure contacts, and the downstream valley areas should be examined for evidence of existing or past seepage. The sources of seepage should be investigated to determine the cause and the potential severity of effects on dam safety under all operating conditions. Animal burrows and vegetative growth on slopes that might cause detrimental seepage should be examined. l l
(4) Drainage Systems. All drainage systems should be examined to determine whether the systems can freely pass discharge and to ensure the discharge is not carrying embankment or foundation material. Systems used to monitor drainage should be examined to ensure they are operating (5) Slope Protection. The slope protection should be examined for erosion-formed gullies and wave-formed notches and benches that have reduced the embankment i cross section or exposed less wave-resistant materials. The adequacy of slope '
protection against waves, currents, and surface runoff that may occur at the sito l should be evaluated. The condition of vegetative or any other protective covers should be evaluated, when pertinent.
(6) General. Massive water-retaining structures should not have areas of differential settlement or construction, joint gaps that allow water to leak beneath the structure thereby causing so erosion and concrete deterioration. Concrete cracking around spillway gates of dams may be due to the high hydrostatic forces, differential settlement, and lack of maintenance. Reinforced and unreinforced concrete surfaces should be visually inspected in accordance with ACI Committee 207 Report,
" Practices for Evaluation of Concrete in Existing Massive Structures for Service Conditions."
4.9 Seismic Gap Evaluation A seismic gap is designed to prevent damage to the structure. Some variation is expected in the seismic gaps measured in plants because of construction tolerances, differential settlement, concrete volume changes, and temperature-related movement of structures.
NUREG-1522 documents previous inspection walkdowns in which seismic gaps were not in accordance with design.
The inspection should address:
(1) The seismic gap expansion filler to determine the condition of the joint and to note any indication of movement or distress. Fill materials have been found to experience degradation, thereby allowing moisture and debris to fill the seismic gap.
(2) Adequacy of seismic gaps by direct measurement of the gaps and comparison to the design requirements and tolerances.
Rev i Page 21 of 22
l PM 3586-10 1F 1
. Periodic Structures inspections Rev 0 Table 3 - Structures and Considerations Page 2 of 4 2
,, =
Cindition \ Structure > a i
E r
u r i . -
E g n h $
I t~ l ; s s E
- h. 2 11 lill ;i ll 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
-r ..t.
Gouges Paint peeled back, delaminated, diabonded, or scratched Surface corrosion of liner seem welds -
Loose or missing anchors / fasteners Missing or Degraded grout under base plates Twisted Beams Cracked welds i
Gouges in liner Bulges Roof Systems Structuralintegrity of support system Deteriorated penetrations (i.e. drains, vents, etc.)
Barrier integrity Signs of water infhtration Cracks Flashing degradation Expansion joint degradation Siding Structuralintegrity l
Visible damage I Windows / Doors Missing panes Cracks Deteriorated glazing Broken or cracked frames Missing or damage hardware Seal Integnty E rthen structures / Dams Erosion Settlement Slope stabilty Seepage Drainage systems MtegrRy of np rap Envronmental conditions Page 9 of 12
,I "
[
Northern states Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis. MN 55401 Telephone 612-337-2035 March 18,1996 j
Mr. Tony Keifer !
Project Manager i STS Consultants 1 1415 Lake Cook Road -
l Deerfield IL 60015 Dear Mr. Kiefer 1
I am enclosing the report of the NSP surveillance at your facility on 15 March 1996.
As we discussed, there are four requirements, which will be added to the purchase I order, as a result of this surveillance.
Thank you and all of the staff at STS Consultants for the corperation and courtesy extended during this surveillance.
If you have any questions please call me at 612.337.2035.
Sincerely, I v
Thomas W. Iseman Quality Engineer -
attachment: Vendor Surveillance Report (4 pages)
Commercial Grade item Survey Plan (1 page) c: C A Fieldseth R G Fraser (PI)
R W Hagerty (PI)
Larry Templeton (CQE inc.)
RMS 8.5: STS Consultanu / TEA g
RECORD SEO. NO d
.- -- PAGE l OF6
/
.? -
Vendor Surveillance Report SS-96-14 VENDOR: . -
STS Consultants 1415 Lake Cook Road -
Deerfield, IL 60015 NSP PURCHASE ORDER: ,
i 'PJ6539CQ
- PRODUCT: l l
Surface Exploration and Liquefaction Analysis -
SURVEILLANCE DATES:
I 15 March 1996 '
i SURVEILLANCE OBJECTIVE:
i Verify that STS Consultants controls those items determined to be critical as I documented in the attached Commercial Grade item Survey Plan.
1 l
SURVEILLANCE SCOPE: !
The Scope of this surveillance is the verification of control of the critical characteristics i for the Prairie Island subsurface exploration and liquefaction analysis.
SURVEILLANCE TEAM:
Thomas Iseman, Lead Auditor.
RECORD S?G. NO O PAGE S OF G !
.m . ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ . _ _ _ ___ .._.. _ __ __ _ _ .. ._
Vsndor Survsillinca ksport
- t. SS 96-14 Page 2 of 4 PERSONS CONTACTED
- Ted Bushell, Principle Engineer Tony Kiefer, Senior Project Engineer William Quinn, Laboratory Manager.
John Gnaedinger, Chairman Emeritus EVALUATION STATEMENT A source' inspection at STS Consultants was completed on 15 March 1996 in response to a request from Prairie Island staff. The critical chafacteristics identified in the commercial gradeltsm survey plan (attached) were evaluated and found to be adequately controlled with the following stipulations: .
i Requirement #1. STS shall have the laboratory gage block set calibrated with certification traceable to N.I.S.T. STS shall provide a copy of this certification to NSP Supplier Quality Assurance prior to any soil analysis for NSP.
Requirement #2. STS shall complete verification of computer software for the
" Unconfined Compression Program" and the " Sieve Analysis" program.
Documentation of this verification shall be submitted to NSP Supplier Quality Assurance (T. Iseman) prior to use on NSP work.
Requirement #3. STS shall commit to notify NSP in the event that STS identifies an error (in software or hardware) or an out-of-tolerance condition on M&TE that could have a material change in the results presented to NSP.
Requirement #4. STS shall provide _ objective evidence of the controls implemented by the suppler utilized to perform the Min / Max Relative Density
. Test. These controls shall include those items identified on the attached Commercini Grate item Survey Plan.
SUMMARY
. OF FINDINGS: -
No findings were issued as a result of this surveillance.
~ ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLIER CONTROL OF CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
The critical characteristics, identified in the Commercial Grade item Survey Plan, were assessed as documented in the following list.
FiEOCE 320.NO M g, ,,.g 3g g - - --
^
_ ~ ,. ,
. 'Vsndor Surv%illanca htport
- v. SS-96-14 Page 3 of 4
'1) Procedures and instructions to direct the work activities.
STS has laboratory procedures and field procedures for the work that will be
.done for NSP.
. Cone Penetration Test: . CPT Standard Operating procedures which comply with ASTM procedure D-3441-86 and ISSMFE procedure TC-16-1989. The STS procedures are: "20-Ton Cone Truck Operating Instructions Checklist",1991 and " Operating instructions; Electronic Cone Penetrometer Software Version 2.01, For VGA Field Computer Systems", June 1995.
Visual Classification: Classification of Soils AS'TM D-2488.
Selective Water Content: Moisture Content procedure - ASTM D-2216, Dec i 1993.
Unit Weight Determination: Unconfined Compression ASTM D-2166.
Min / Max Relative Test: STS is not equipped to perform this test. See requirement # 4 above.
Sieve Analysis: Combined Sieve Analysis ASTM D-422 The procedures were assessed as providing sufficient detail to assure repeatability of method contributing to the acquisition of comparable data if required.
- 2) Qualified personnel to take, read, and interpret data.
Lab personnel are trained to the ASTM procedures. Training records indicate that Tom Conte and Pa_ul Kreski are trained to the procedures that will be utilized for the laboratory work for NSP.
STS maintains training records which indicate that Tony Keifer and Deon Thewell are trained to the ASTM procedure (D-3441-86) for the cone penetration test.
- 3) Calibrated measuring equipment is identified, controlled, and traceable to NIST or other recognized national standard.
The STS maintains numerous calibrated ins'ruments in the soils laboratory.
Calibration records were reviewed for calipers, balances, load cells, and gage m . blocks. Most of the calibration is handled by external sources, e.g., Northern Balance, Calsier Corp, and Instron Corp. All of the instruments reviewed were
~
RECORD SEQ. NO PAGE Y OF G
Vcndor Surveillanen n. port
',. SS-96-14 Page 4 of 4 found to have calibrations traceable to N.I.S.T. with the exception of the calipers and the gage block set. No calibration records were available for the gage block set. See Requirement # 1 above.
- 4) Qualified software to record, process and output the seismic data.
STS utilizes software programs for both the laboratory analysis and the analysis of the data from the cone penetration tests. The laboratory programs do not have verification documentation availabl.e. See Requirement # 2 above. The programs utilized to analyze the cone penetration data, Cone program and STSCPT, were found to be controlled with documented verification and version history records. XSTABL version 5 will also be~ utilized for this project.
Verification-documentation is on file for this software.
CONCLUSION The surveillance team concluded that STS Consultants has adequate centrol of the critical characteristics as defined in the Commercial Grade item Survey Plan. STS Consultants will be listed on the NSP Operational Quality Assurance Vendors List as a commercial grade supplier of Subsurface Exploration ciio L:pefaction Analysis.
SIGNATURES: I Prepared by/ en Date /8Mac 8/4 Thomas W. Iseman, QA Engineer R2CC3D SEG. NO pao 2 g or.e
I COMMERCIAL GRADEITEM SURVEY PIAN
? ~
Foam 7-1959 HOAP 2.9)
- q. :
I '
SURVEYi: .fS-1'$ -k/ [
SUPPUER'S NAME: STS C e e s . / M /:s Lfl.
lg PRODUCT (5): Sla= 2 ~- gy ,( M *gys u/ /t, M)c[5 A d;gg '
g ,
l JUTG TECHNICAL EVALUATION # (d revision med dae)
[ ,
e . t 1- ACCEPTANCECRITERIA f CCs CRmCAL CHARAC'IERISTICS KC) 113 BE VERMED .
t s
WEcn<ci GRnbM TifAf PnUCA!!ivogns 6fssT- b '
Frcaswna n u .,a ,sen .wa.e w sea e me g
' kve nnes sem kauseo ccone wuA .
E 1
mr, asuec cussau=u.seuxn s o weeitcoment 08.1 w&c nr acxwoanmas, man /my wrwe - g Test so4.Ed A44cys/d m
- l D6JCcnVE 6ttf 4edde ' J'6AScNUec AAf TftAtu66 itt.1w Acntersi ytte/ 964.foDEM f6RScryd6L $ 4sNtAlh Il l m is cusames or n eeuwen ruan 1 i
- n bu6orned IGarnu op # {TE munaa n war ,
of,J6cnsE 6JJoev844 DF ,$o646 LEVE, sF FER$ed SE 60FTWA-RE b^f7E.O L- (bAf7Eot, , if $ /, Aato 6 tick 25 Post 71#6 %
25 d
- ! u .,
g
!8 M IL1 4 a <>
!yrei O t
- .u- ,
a O ,,,mo e, Q, ), om: ev95 ===rwomrammobr/A J ni 'dodf%@'/Afp 4;
e6 8 a.
5- i c
/ -na m ,
O i i I I
ai . k: '
e
<b i
_ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .. . _. . I
+, ...
Northern states Power Company 414 N:ccitet Mall Minneacclis, MN 55401 Telephone 612-337-2035 Monday, June 02,1997 Dr. Gonzalo Castro gel Consultants, Inc.
1021 Main Street Winchester, MA 01890-1970
Dear Dr. Castro:
\
This letter serves to transmit the surveillance report for the 14 May 1997 NSP surveillance at your facility. As we discussed, there were no finding or recommendations issued as a result of this surveillance.
Thank you and the staff at gel Consultants for the courtesy and cooperation extended during this surveillance, if you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 612.337.2035.
Sincerel ,
/ ' J2'Qs& Ff "
Thomas W. Iseman ;
Senior Quality Assurance Engineer l c: C A Fieldseth- j R W Hagerty (PI) ;
Tony Keifer (STS Consultants) l l
RMS 8.5; STS Consultants / WASg l
l l
l f;20CriD 330. No V lrp y
Vendor Surveillance Report SS-97-08 VENDOR:
gel Consultants, Inc.
'1021 Main Street Winchester, MA 01890-1970 NSP PURCHASECRDERi PJ6539CQ (Purchase order to STS Consultants)
PRODUCT:
Soil Analysis -
SURVElLLANCE DATES:
14 May 1997 x'
SURVEILLANCE OBJECTIVE:
Verify that gel Consultants controls those items determined to be critical as I I
documented in the Commercial Grade item Survey Plan.
SURVEILLANCE SCOPE: l l
The Scope of this surveillance is the verification of control of the critical characteristics l for the soil analysis contracted by STS Consultants.
l SURVEILLANCE TEAM:
Thomas Iseman, Lead Auditor.
h _ - . . La 11 ".. . . V M C.E + C .: Y 8
Vsndsr Survzilianca R. port SS-97 -
)
Page 2 of 3 l PERSONS CONTACTED: -
1
. Todd Moline, Geotechnical Laboratory Director ,
Dr. Gonzalo Castro !
i l
EVALUATION STATEMENT
- The 16 April 1997 surveillance at STS Consultants indicated that gel Consultants was !
performing analysis of soil samples as a subcontractor to STS Consultants. The critical '
- characteristics identified in the commercial grade item survey plan as applicable to gel Consultants were evaluated and found to be adequately controlled. !
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS:
No findings were issued as a result of this surveillance.
~
ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLIER ~ CONTROL OF CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
, - The critical characteristics, identified in the Commercial Grade Item Survey Plan, were -
assessed as documented in the following list.
- 1) Procedures and instructions to direct the work activities. ,.
~
gel has laboratory procedures for the work that was done for NSP.
/ :
Laboratory activities are completed in accordance with ASTM procedures.
These procedures providing sufficient detail to assure repeatability of method contributing to the acquisition of comparable data if required.
- 2) Qualified personnel to take, read, and interpret data-Lab personnel are trained to the ASTM procedures. . Training records indicate that Todd Moline and Sunil Sharma are trained to the procedures that were utilized for the laboratory work for NSP.
- 3) Calibrated measuring equipment is identified, controlled, and traceable to NIST or other recognized national standard.
l The gel maintains numerous calibrated instruments in the soils laboratory. :
~
Calibration records were reviewed for calipers, balances, load cells, sieves, l
~
u s il n .D D . : . '.; N pAm 3 CFY 9.
--n -
g -- y -,-y- +r +--- -
t . .
Vcnder SurvIllirnco Ep::rt -
- SS.97 08 .
q Page 3 of 3 4 l
vibrating tables, molds, and gage blocks. All of the instruments reviewed were !
found to have calibrations traceable to N.I.S.T.
- 4) Qualified software to record, process and output the seismic data.
gel does not utilize software programs for the laboratory analysis they perform.
N CONCLUSION The surveillance team c,oncluded that gel Consultants has adequate control of the -
critical characteristics as defined in the ~ Commercial Grade item Survey Plan. gel !
Consultants is considered a subcontractor to STS Consultants will not be listed on the !
NSP Operational Quality Assurance Vendors List.
S!GNATURES: .
Preparedgi@f.hto l' Date d'E Thomas W. Iseman, QA Engineer l l i
~~
__ _ P..\ 0 3 VCF b -
. . . . - -