ML20209C921
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,' % # 1~._........ ) ( ~.. _. ~. . ~.,
- o O
%a. E(' h UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 -j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s a f Uf kb k3 ) NP211024 Docket Nos.: 50-275 l and 50-323 ~ l-MEMORANDUM FOR: George W. Knighton, Chief / Licensing Branch No. 3 / Division of Licensing / / FROM: Hans Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH PG&E ON DIABL CANYON UNIT 2 A meeting was held o Bethesda, Maryland at which PG&E briefed the NRC on its efforts and schedule for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 (Enclosure 1: Meeting Notice, Items of Discussion, Attendance List) as outlined in the PG&E Agenda (Enclosure 2). The PG&E Diablo Canyon Project (DCP) staff used numerous viewgraphs summarizing the presentation which are enclosed as identified below. The meeting was not transcribed.
- 1. Overview:
R. Anderson (DCP) stated that all matters which had been reviewed or verified on Unit I have also been (or continue to be) reviewed and verified on Unit 2. There is no 'ssue, finding, modification or allegation which had been raised on Unit 1 tnt has not also been raised by the DCP with respect to Unit 2. He identified the following differences and similarities regarding the two units. r In late 1981 Unit I had been upgraded for the Hosgri event in design and j modifications. That effort had not been completed for Unit 2. Accordingly, the subsequent effort for Unit I was a review or verification of work already 1 completed while for Ur.it 2 it was largely initial design and analysis work. The design and construction for both units employed the same methodology, criteria, layout and structural concepts. They are mirror images of each other. However in certain areas there are local differences because the equipment used in both units is not a mirror image of itself, resulting, for example, in different pipe runs and valve locations with accordingly different pipe analyses. There are some structures that are common to both Units (auxiliary building, intake structure) and as such have been reviewed and verified within the Unit 1 effort; some are identical and therefore are based on identical engineering approaches and calculations (containment shell and containment internal concrete), and some are different for Unit 1 and Unit 2, requiring different I 8704290113 870417 PDR FOIA 1 ) HOLMES 86-197 PDR (
lSw .c wk.-. >. ,w. - r.- r ~.. ll 5 .. engineering analyses, either in total or in part (turbine building which consist of two contiguous structures joined at column 19, and containment annulus steel structure). W. White -(DCP) provided further details in his presentations as discussed below. The Unit 2 effort is directed by G. Cranston, Project Engineer for the Unit 2 I - Engineering Project Organization, under the same QA program as Unit 1, the same procedures, same methodology and design criteria memoranda. Individuals perfoming the actual engineering work in the same engineering discipline 1 group were frequently shared between the two engineering project organizations 1 j and reported to the same engineering discipline supervisor for both units. l t R. Anderson emphasized that the work on Unit 2 was not issue driven as it 1 was on Unit 1 since late 1981, but followed the nomal engineering analysis 'i and design approach. -l 2. IRP Internal Review Program: G. Cranston discussed the PG&E Internal Review Program (IRP) as summarized in i, which PG&E had described in submittals of October 6, 1983 and i July 31, 1984. The IRP tracks the Unit 2 resolution of Unit 1 issues that resulted from the design verification effort (IDVP, ITP and associated NRC review) and from the piping and support effort associated with the Unit 1 i license conditions. Cranston stated that under the IRP a complete review of all large and small bore pipe supports is being performed (effort is not complete as of this date), and will include pipe system walkdowns during pre-heatup and hot functional tests. Staff commented that' the results of the hot functional tests could be expected to be comparable to those of Unit I i because of similarity of the units and same engineering approach. The IRP Director assigns the specific Unit 1 issues for evaluation to the appropriate engineering discipline group as " lead review entity" (LRE). When possible the i.b evaluation is performed by the same individual and reviewed by the same supervisor as for Unit 1 in order to rely on past experience and criticality. Staff raised the question as to what extent, according to this procedure, individuals would be reviewing their own work from Unit I with respect to Unit 2. PG&E explained that the IRP is an effort that is performed in addition to and after the normal engineering effort for Unit 2 has been completed. Thus the IRP substantiates the earlier evaluation. A separate review package for each issue documents the evaluation by including or referencing the appropriate calculations, drawings and corrective action. Three IRP packages (2-0032, 2-1131 and 2-8013 as identified in Table 1 of the July 31 submittal) were viewed by the staff regarding overall format and content. 3. Quality Assurance Programs: H. Friend (DCP) stated that the engineering for Unit 2 is performed in accordance with the same QA program as for Unit I which is the PG&E QA program l that is based on the Bechtel topical report and was approved by the NRC. The construction of Unit 2 is performed in accordance with the PG&E construction i QA program. All Unit 2 activities are QA audited separately.
.y .y .w -~ ~ a-w 3-4. Allegations: G. Cranston described the DCP allegation review (Enclosure 4) for tracking and evaluating all allegations that have been raised on Diablo Canyon and as listed in the NRC SSERs 21, 22 and 26. Upon inquiring by the staff PG&E stated 'j that during the evaluation of allegations for Unit 1 PG8E also detemined if they had generic applicability and took appropriate action for both units. [ Likewise, if an allegation required programmatic action on Unit I that action was also implemented on Unit 2. The following additional information was I provided by PG&E. Allegations or concerns received by PG8E via their internal telephone hot line (i.e., allegaticas not made to NRC) are tracked separately by PG8E. If further information is required by the staff regarding the PG8E evaluation of specific al'egations the technical reviewers can be identified. The matter of welder qualification, which was the subject of a number of allegations, was 4 a addressed generically at the site for both units. The matter of piping and 1 supports, which was the matter of numerous allegations and resulted in 7 license conditions for Unit 1, is being evaluated for Unit 2 even if particular allegations were determined to be unfounded for Unit 1. PG&E noted that the background and details of all allegations listed in SSER 26 have not been made available to them. The staff stated that these allegations will be made j available nless they involve confidentiality. 5. Unit 2 Design Activities: p 'b W. White (DCP) provided an overview of the Unit 2 seismic design activities i (Enclosure 5) and discussed the civil / structural aspects in detail (Enclosure 6). L. Shipley (DCP) discussed the Unit 2 piping analyses (Enlosure 7). The i matter of mechanical and electrical systems were discussed by E. Connell (DCP) J-F and W. Vahlstrom (DCP) in a separate meting with J. Wemiel and J. Knox of the staff (Enclosures 8 and 9). As stated earlier, Unit 1 and Unit 2 structures and systems vary in degree of ,[ similarity as further explained in Enclosures 5 and 6. In general, the techniques and methodology for analyzing a structure or system in Unit I was transferred to Unit 2, differences were appropriately modeled and new spectra .t were generated. The approach was specifically applied for the containment i annulus steel structure. PG8E stated that in late 1981 the piping and piping support analyses for Unit 2 with respect to the Hosgri event had not been initiated. As a result of the design verification effort on Unit 1, the Unit 2 structures were also reanalyzed as discussed earlier and the resultant seismic loads were used as input to the Unit 2 piping and support analyses. All of these analyses were reviewed since in 1984 with respect to the requirements in the 7 Ifcense conditions that were 4 4 ij established for Unit 1. i _,- n, n.s.,._ ..,.~~--w_._,.--....._,_..- - -,,._,, -.__- ~-.- -_ _ __,_ ___,.___..._ _..
c- -,,. y : .+, i a. i-l In response to a staff question lPG&E stated that there are two bu'ried diesel fuel j oil tanks and both were analyzed'as part of the Unit i verification effort. I i ThejetimpingementanalysesforOnit2arestillongoing. They are based on { the as-built condition and include. the final loads from the seismic analyses. 6. Schedule: .ls H. Friend, DCP Completion Manager, discussed the schedule for Unit 2 (Enclosure i 10). The projected fuel load date is November 26, 1984. As of September 13,
- }!J 1984 the activities were about one week behind schedule, however PG8E believes this can be recovered through parallel scheduling of some hot functional testing.
{ The staff raised a question of how PG8E would perform major operational activities for Unit 1 and Unit 2 simultaneously. G. Maneatis, PG&E Senior i Executive Vice President, stated that the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Operations staff is currently evaluating the feasability and various options for possibly performing power ascension on Unit'I and cold system, fuel load, criticality or low power testing on Unit 2 at the same time. He stated that he would not authorize any such parallel effort if the performance of the { operating crew on one unit could be impacted by the conditions at the other unit. He stated that there is a 19 day window in the Unit 1 power ascension schedule when Unit 1 is shutdown after reaching 50 percent power level during which fuel could be loaded in Unit 2. [.. H. Friend stated that 6 weeks prior to Unit 2 fuel-load the security plan for Unit 2 will be implemented, f. 6. Miscellaneous: The following information on miscellaneous items was provided in response to staff questions. The Onsite Project Engineering Group (OPEG) has provided engineering support to both units without programmatic distinction and continues in that function. As of this suniner all engineering on safet and structures is performed at the San Francisco offices (y related systems or other Bechtel offices), non safety related engineering continues to be performed at OPEG for both Units. PG&E has prepared a listing of construction, modification and checkout items (approximatel 250 pages) that must be completed at various times between now l and full power operation (prior and post fuel load, post criticality, and post power ascension). The listing includes minor items (painting) and major items (hanger modifications). Approximately 75 items must be completed prior to plant heatup. For comparison, the corresponding list for Unit I was approximately 1,000 pages at 3 months prior to fuel load. PG&E will provide the Unit 2 list to Region V. t
t m 3.
- s... - s.m
't 5-8. Sumary and
Conclusion:
The PG8E effort for Unit 2, in addition to the nomal engineering, also .i. includes an evaluation of all concerns that had been raised on Unit 1, encompassing issues that were raised during the design verification effort (IDVP, ITP, NRC issues), allegations, and concerns related to piping and supports, including the 7 license conditions on Unit 1. The major effort on Unit 2 still ongoing is the completion of pipe hanger and other support evaluations and modifications. The staff stated that PG&E will be provided with background and details of all
- I-allegations unless they involve matters of confidentiality.
j Tne staff advised PG8E that it will recu' ire a ifsting of all PG&E QA audits, i performed on Unit 2. The staff stated that within the next few weeks it will conduct audits at the San Francisco offices of the OCP and site visits. These activities will concentrate on IRP review. packages, allegation reviews and u. piping and support efforts, including plant walkdowns. The staff will be j !. assisted by consultants. I h The staff indicated that it will require documentation of the PG&E activities mentioned above. This should include discription of programs, methodology r applied, results of analyses and modifications made. This documentation, in conjuction with staff audits, will form the basis for one or more SER supplements on Unit 2 matters. ,l' lli , (M ( Hans Schierling, Proj ct Manager t Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
1. Meeting Notice /Attendence List 2. Agenda 3. IRP 4 Allegations S. Seismic Design Activities 6. Civil / Structural Effort 7. Piping and Support Effort 8. Mechanical Systems 9. Electric Systems
- 10. Schedule
.,4 cc: Service List th e** e be*Mh
- 8S 9WW 88r** " "
8E%6 TN
- 4'YF'
-+ .. r s. Edeu L /,...,Io,, i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o { ,I wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20565 \\, s / SEP 101984 r Vocket No.: 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR: George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing ij: FRCM:' Hans Schierling, Project Manager L : Licensing Branch No. 3 l. {' ' Division of Licensing l l-
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 - MEETING WITH PG&E l r j' DATE & TIME: Thursday, September 13, 1984 j 10:00 am l i-LOCATION: Room P-118 Phillips Building Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE: Discussion of Unit 2 matters and schedule (see enclosed list) Note 1: The meeting will continue on September 14, 1984 if necessary. PARTICIPANTS: NRC T. Bishop, T. Novak, J. Knight, G. Knighton, R. Bosnak, L. Chandler, H. Schierling, C. Grimes, P. T. Kuo, H. Polk, M. Hartzman, L. Crocker, F. Anderson, R. Heishman J, k/ < "., ; " ( ( " #" I } ' h"' '#"ik'*"" t PG&E / M. C..a C m) J. Hoch, et al. 1 s !d Hans Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing o
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page h b[ ..._.i_._ j 7 7. _.. _._ _ _..
.. : ~.. = a. t 0 Items for Discussion NRC/PG&E Meeting September 13, 1984 1. Application of Unit 1 IDVP/ITP for Unit 2 2. Allegations 3. Piping and support analyses and modifications h. 4. Unit 2 quality assurance program (construction and operation) , i) j~ 5. Technical Specifications j.. 6. Unit 2 Readiness J. 7. Construction / Modifications Status and Schedule l 8. Licensing Schedule { 9. 0ther matters to be identified by NRC and PG&E f I I t i 4 1 9 'I 5 /- 2 7_,
. j.. . ~ =. _,. j. t i l 1 g kl h(\\b ( Q's-C G 1 j, i: r hiCc4 cdV 2 NC b 20- - L.- j' 3.0. k P Wt D EL '); ,e a a<s s WR.c, DE. '~I t.WCG CM$dotcK- /V'Of-(OM.d [l// C/Dio(' Alf..'- /?cs ;. l 'l i. b.'T' /hdkeuhu y< c -. qA-htd h duu / Atg SS/6 J k ed' Aab Dscsycl/' f>yimeny. A. K.. M 5 C 4 ( \\ Tc.q s.,/ pc.T v\\-\\ LA k hc.) / b.dh t i- .. %. u a F l.e cx F P c, us F av. q/e).c U s-T>,s u o c a p h ) w t-t. .s..., u.,
- v...w s\\
.4 i'
.v. e hm 74cNOi:
& awl 54 L
~
k.6 Sommer CcP,/6 dad
~
3, S o le o i 5 k. y p c, u e.r N. s. C,0 NR IS H D Uacuy~ N M @a W )
- e. connen.u,gc.
an. cena yr.are r-H. Asc.srzeu biseco omeu n E I-3 ..m.-
.~-. m. J a e. 4 s m v.'. 6 u y % g*,cF ( nacx 4 t) G,iti,Of bMOAG 76.fc= - (pA . R.S T \\whstee ocP/RdE
- c. LIAMG WKc/ Dsz/RSB we/'dAre/sss/' ass J.f. W ?rede/
A/re c.s. caa. kd-I6E lR[E hsb~d
- tte/c6 Ac8 j,
l' .\\ ' 8 F S 4 f< t > /de/4 C/an/a la/r I M $n 1.'t.d ta R.c / Oc/hes C T gin m es .-. cecr - u:2.c / ot i l e e i L %s Reich % k.k m h f % frf E % <- Oherny llAdj'b8 { 'A T 00CH50 fi MEST* ~ 6 Ho s s E.- i Tu Vuck. .h.crd( Ti x L_.P 9 l 5I-4
- , ;7..
i_.._ - { 1 .a L losuu z PGan es PROPOSED AGEFOA SEPTEMBER 13-14, 1984 MEETING WITH FRC ON UNIT 2 i 1. INTRODUCTION G A Monectis/H B Friend 11. OVERVIEW (Application of Unit i IDVP/ITP for Unit 2) R C Anderson A. Status of Unit 2 Engineering in Fall 1981 B. Unit 2-Unit i Similarity j C. Unit 2 Engineering Overview ,-l D. Internal Review Program (IRP) Overview l~ Ill. DESCRIPTION OF 1RP G V Cronston i IV. UNIT 2 DESIGN ACTIVITIES i A. Civil / Structural W H White /J K McColl B. Piping L E Shipley l- - License Conditions l - Unit 2 OPEG l, C. Systerns E C Connell D. Electrical W Vahlstrom i V. ALLEGATIONS G V Cronston VI. DESCRIPTION OF SCHEDULE H B Friend A. Unit 2 Physical Readiness B. Construction / Modifications Status C. Schedule Vll. OTHER NRC ISSUES i E 2 -/ - - - -.... ~
=,.. --, m..,y - . ~.... _. ,,,z. t 3 s L-4.L(OS kr3 3 4 1 5 i 1 -).. i n .i INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM s OVERVIEW 6 e o i e I i f I, t e. r e t i I i. 0299Ml0L8 LIP-L g 3.j me. pase w e w=e=w e y-egq 9mp>4mp8u9+,, - WWete> 80er***D * ** -* ,M*' & " * *M *'4@ M
- W #)*#'-"
' N %"f""
~. f. m, .~
- ., _. -.. =.,,. r. ;., g..
- 7.,.
_.a i, \\ w l, 7-l INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM 1 i i PURPOSE / GOALS I I i ADDRESS ITEMS IDENTIFIED BY UNIT I DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND l DET RMINE IMPACT ON UNIT 2. CONFIRM APPLICABLE UNIT d REVIEW ITEMS ARE RESOLVED AND COMPLETED. i PROVIDE DOCUMENTED RECORD OF UNIT 2 REVIEWS. e i r l l l! i l l 0299M/0L84P-2 E 3-2. l-s g '7.~. m....,_., _.._..
o --, ,.--;.,- 7 - - - _ - c; 7.. -- ..~n s P j INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM ORGANIZATION s UNDER DIRECTION OF ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER (INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM DIRECTOR) t. DISCIPLINE GROUPS ASSIGNED AS LEAD REVIEW ENTITIES. .} .I i l REVIEWS SUPPORTED BY UNIT l G 2 ENGINEERING GROUPS AND OFF-PROJECT ENTITIES. i IRP STAFF-l INITIATES REVIEW OF UNIT l ISSUES. t .i MONITORS PROGRESS OF REVIEWS. i REVIEWS PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS. CHECKS REVIEW PACKAGES FOR VALID AND COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION. ] PROVIDES AND MAINTAINS IRP REVIEW PACKAGE FILES. l IRP REVIEW PACKAGES APPROVED BY UNIT 2 PROJECT ENGINEER. I 1 0299M/0L84P-3 1 ,v.4.-.-. .
- w g -.m..
.~,,.,yw. .m.,,%., l
-,. g.. x.. m ,.y ~- . :.c. u.. .u.
- 2. u
.~ v INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM l - t._ j. !J REVIEW SCOPE L u l I i. t l L' L 1 ALL IDVP ISSUES INDICATED IN ERROR & OPEN ITEM REPORTS AND INTERIM 1 !l' TECHNICAL REPORTS. ALL ITP ISSUES ADDRESSED IN DCP REVIEWS AND RESULTING IN OPEN ITEMS. DCP REVIEWS SUMMARIZED IN THE PGANDE PHASE I AN: PHASE II FINAL REPORTS f NRC - IDENTIFIED OPEN ITEMS & FOLLOW-UP ITEMS DOCUMENTED IN SSER'S 18. I 19 AND 20. l, LICENSE CONDITIONS 2.C.(11) (SEVEN LICENSING CONDITIONS) OTHER UNIT I VERIFICATION PROGRAM RELATED ITEMS IDENTIFIED BY THE IDVP, l ITP AND NRC. l l l l 0299Ml0L84P-4 g3.y
- ====--
=
==: =
- ~ --
n...:+ m ;
- s
-r INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM i REVIEW PROCESS INITIAL ASSESSMENT BY IRP STAFF. Jl [ IDENTIFY ITEMS NOT APPLICABLE FOR UNIT 2 REVIEW. [ TO ELIMINATE REVIEW DUPLICATION ON UNIT 2.0F ITEMS COVERED BY UNIT l e i REVIEW OR ALREADY INCLUDED IN UNIT 2 VERIFICATION EFFORTS. 6 ENGINEERING RESOLUTION BY ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE GROUPS. ASSIGNED LEAD REVIEW ENTITY COORDINATES OTHERS INVOLVED IN REVIEW. L CONFIRMS RESOLUTION SATISFIES UNIT 2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND LICENSE l F COMMITMENTS. ) FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS i INVOLVES RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION BY OTHER ENTITIES. b LEAD REVIEW ENTITY CONFIRMS COMPLETION. 0299M/0L84P-5 53 3"
_...2 g 7 - -- _. 4., 3 - i o INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM REVIEW PACKAGE DOCUMENTATION INCLUDES DESCRIPTION OFr j UNIT I CONCERN i UNIT I RESOLUTION 4 i l l-UNIT 2 REVIEW d UNIT 2 RESOLUTION UNIT 2 FOLLOW-UP ACTION i F INCLUDES DOCUMENTATION OR REFERENCE TO: SUBSTANTIATE REVIEW RESULTS VERIFY IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION 1 1 ) CONFIRN COMPLETION OF FOLLOW-UP ACTION. l EE3 --s 0299MIOL84P-6 ( .._...._,_.7----- 7 7 7: ~f 'T-~~~~I " ~ - b l Il-- ' - ----
j'
- e.. _ :.;my.:,u..,
r b S $0SkrL $ M s L a, - ),. s i ,g ALLEGATION REVIEW PROGRAM Li{ f. 5 q I: ' l. li -p f rey _1.EW SCOPE 'h t i 1.: a MONITOR AND TRACK ALL ALLEGATIONS l (SSER - 21, 22 & 26) . l-
- l' F.EVIEW4LLEGATIONSFORUNIQUENESSTO UNIT'2 FOR FURTHER ACTION t
I'- i.- (~ REVIEW ALLEGATIONS FOR ANY COMMITMENTS f. MADE THAT MUST BE CARRIED OVER TO l.: UNIT 2 1 h b J i " 't. .. i /, ! - 64-/ ,s s 4
- e-.
1 .,[_ [ I ~~~ ~
- " * ^
L.
=- .r% EACH i ALLEGATION i 1 .i DETERMINE UNIT 2 APPLICABILITY f l /, *, t Q ] , UNIT'?-REVIEW 4 CONTENTS OF ALLEGATION APPLICABLE NOT REQUIRED TO UNIT 2 BASED ON ' 1'- L. CONFIRM THAT UNIT'2 IS SIMILAR NOTE A: UNIT 2 IS IDENTICAL TO i-TO UNIT l.WITH RESPECT UNIT I WITH RESPECT TO i TO THE RESOLUTION TO THE THE SUBJECT ITEM AND THE b ALLEGATION UNIT l RESOLUTION COVERS ,BOTH UNITS. ~l OR i NOTE B: THE ITEM APPLIES TO A i 2. ISSUE UNIT 2 DESIGN CHANGES PORTION OF THE PLANT COMMON TO BOTH UNITS I AND 2. AND THEREFORE. IS ALREADY RESOLVED BY THE UNIT I RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATION. NOTE C: THE ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO UNIT l. + 1 1 / NOTE D: THE UNIT I REVIEW HAS INDICATED THE ALLEGATION IS BASELESS AND WITHOUT MERIT AND/OR HAS NO IMPLICATIONS WITH REGARD TO 3AFETY AND. THEREFORE. NO A,CTION IS REQUIRED. ) t NOTE E: THE NRC REVIEW OF THE j !. t ALLEGATION liAS INDICATED .1 THE ITEM IS RESOLVED AND/OR THAT NO DCP ACTION l IS REQUIRED. .y ,[ s i l' I' i le t 0299M/0L84P-44 A 64-2.s 2 .g
- 3-+3
,*,7+----- o _. e.*+-- s,g. -,,, -.. ~. - - -. - ~. -.
- +-=
w e ..., ~ ^ ~ .. -- 1
- ^'
m
.. ~ = - c ..+ .E W W m y s W E E = = W W i c. / Y. I I I I l' I gd I I I V a ~ .= Wm A A A A, A R R R, =, .e .e .e .e .e .e .e .e r = a e o e = a e o a W ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? W E E E. E. E. E. E. E. Ez e z z W W W h. g g g g g W E E! I i i - 1 i i i i = es e I =
- cim, E
=# m sn (. e u d 3 W W W W W W W W W E E E E E E E E E s l 5 =~ u .W u W u u c. a s. 2 8 W W W W W d W W W d d d W 8 d d d =W I "W 0 0 I W = = = g a .= =! fE W' g h IE E W MN 3 "s - a = = n: ~n ~ 5 E ~E g3 "E "W E = E d= 5 M Ed y m W
== k.g gm g" E= m-E 5 g" = 5 Wu E~ W5 .5 EC 5 2. mE .E 5 E 8* "E =E Es E EE" EE EE E" EE g
- =g
--E 'E " u e =s g -= W. ma _s _g-m2 gm -=-
=
=
== =. - W e. = =s W- -se
g see s
ss O = E mg =a age 5-d 7* 28 d W"
- WE W
g S E W 's -.s =.= wwt -= ms-se.
- m. W d
W a ma m. m_ e., 's. m. W ~ g: i r. f I WW e' d ei 4 J wi J d N ' 'c 3 O O O O O O O O O E4-3 gn +
- A T*
9 M _ = sa y.
- w pm. y m, p..,_,,g 1.p g ; >
31 .s-M
3 ;. -.. -. -... ~. s NdOSML $~ 1 OVERVIEW OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS i j GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY WAS THE SAME FOR BOTH UNITS. I 1 'f WORK WAS PERFORMED USING THE SAME CRITERIA WHICH INCLUDES INPUT MOTION e l AND DAMPING. WHERE NECESSARY. SEPARATE ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED. il J. WORK WAS PERFORMED BY THE SAME ANALYSTS IN MOST CASES. I i 0299M/0L884P-L8 67-/ _s -, --_.~ _...-. - -.- a'L-ef
- ...=
..4 7. v e* l REVIEW 0F SEISMIC ANALYSIS ,t CIVIL STRUCTURAL
- 1 s
1 CONTAINMENT - SEPARATE STRUCTURES CONCRETE FORCES. RESPONSE SPECTRA IDENTICAL <t ANNULUS FORCES. RESPONSE SPECTRA SIMILAR. SEPARATE ANALYSIS PIPEWAY FORCES; RESPONSE SPECTRA SIMILAR. SPECTRA ANALYSIS r 'l POLAR CRANE - FORCES; RESPONSE SPECTRA IDENTICAL i f-a. e e l I 0299M/0L84P-L9 Ey_g j i I ..,.r... .,,n a ~a;.
- ,i,
.g . j_. -.-
- . ~
g, g,..-. REVIEW 0F SEISMIC' ANALYSIS AUXILIARY BUILDING - COMMON STRUCTURE IDENTICAL FUEL HANDING BUILDING - COMMON STRUCTURE ID,E,NTICA L TURBINE BUILDING - SEPARATE STRUCTURE SIMILAR. SEPARATE ANALYSI!- L INTAKE STRUCTURE - COMMON STRUCTURE IDENTICAL l' I i.' .'N f 6 J a t T 8 0299M/0L84P-20 op@ w a -eask +*"" ^ w-- ~
77 - ~=. -
- -.,.,.... _.. yp cym.
--y. REVIEW OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS i i i Fb. PLANT DESIGN, PIPING; SUPPORTS. VALVES SEPARATE ANALYSIS S i] ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT - SAME Eo0IPMENT SIMILAR QUALIFICATION -f ^' MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT - SAME EoUIPMENT SIMILAR QUALIFICATION I l F I AND C - SAME EoVIPMENT SIMILAR QUALIFICATION .i. ELECTRICAL RACEWAY & HVAC SEPARATE ANALYSIS i: L 4 i t i e i e e L t c i ~ 0299Ml0L84P-2L ow, % g, y g.*. M' e em a
- e t
' '~ g j4 g T q
m.,w -
- 3. -
- -. = - -. .,- z_ ,u.. '^
- =-
[p -. bAcleSkre [o .] I i DIABLO CANYON PROJECT UNITS i & 2 CIVIL GROUP VERIFICATION PROGRAM
SUMMARY
l-
- j' OVERALL PLANT ARRANGEMENT 4
I. TYPES OF STRUCTURES i MAJOR STEPTS IN VERIFICATION 1 DETERMINE AND/OR VERIFY AS-BUILT CONDITIONS PREPARE DETAILED CRITERIA FOR BOTH UNITS PERFORM SEISMIC AND OTHER ANALYSES EVALUAT.E STRUCTURAL ITEMS DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT MODIFICATIONS COMMONALITY OF STAFF GROUP LEADERS TRANSFER OF ENGINEERS TECHNICAL REVIEW V 4 l E S -l 0299M/0L8'4P-29
- 7.,-
N - - - - - - h ~; -- -
m. 7 7,. y _-. .,x m..- _,. m. - - 7 y..y r.- u -s-CONTAINMENT 'l SEISMIC d M AS BUILT CRITERIA ANALYSIS EVALUATION MODIFICATION: EXTERNAL SHELL; S C C C BASE-SLAB; AND JUNCTURE OF WALL j. AND BASE SLAB 'l INTERNAL CONCRETE S C C C ij-STRUCTURE i. MAJOR PENETRATION S C C C C EQUIPMENT HATCH S C C C -i. ANNULUS S C S S S STEEL STRUCTURE PLATFORMS S C S S S POLAR CRANE S .C C C C DOME SERVICE CRANE S C C C C PIPEWAY STRUCTURE S S S S S LEGEND: S - SIMILAR C - COMMON 9 4 e l. l s i i 3 1 b b 0299M/0L84P-30 9 w -M,' f" M Nm F,9 1 Mueguuut *****4+*WWmusew eemgmg,. gag %g.. p .W<- i
. x. - n.3.:,,... .x - s STRUCTURE: AUXILIARY BUILDING O ) SEISMIC ITEM AS BUILT CRITERIA ANALYSIS EVALUATION MODIFICATIC SEISMIC MODEL S C C NONE ~ WALLS; SLABS AND S C C C NONE COLUMNS LOAD C C C C NONE DISSIPATION TO FOUNDATION PLATFORMS' S C S S S I i 2 i i ) .{ LEGEND: S - SIMILAR t C - COMMON i i. l l t EG-3 0299M/0L884P-3L i .... -., ~.. - - - -ggram e P WB9,u.8 1 a
77 i. a STRUCTURE: FUEL HANDLING BUILOING a SEISMIC 1 M AS BUILT CRITERIA ANALYSIS EVALUATION MODIFICATION FUEL S C C C S HANDLING i BUILDING CRANE (COMMON) C C C C NONE t. l 1r'l 4 i LEGEND: S - SIMILAR I C - COMMON i i- = I 4 i i EG-t/ 0299M/0L884P-32 i meeg M yeuyn pp w. dup *4 = t g
- - * ~ ' '
W".""-. -T***"""*~*'"Y'~** ' ' *~~ ,1 _s f, W-J
. c ~ - m =., .. ~.. ;;.. ; _ ^ -- s 1 1 TURBINE BUILDING SEISMIC ITM ' AS BUILT CRITERIA -ANALYSIS EVALUATION MODIFICATIONS TURBINE PEDESTAL S C .C S S BRIDGE CRANE S C S S TURBINE BUILDING LATERAL BRACING SYSTEM f SUPERSTRUCTURE S C S S i [:- FLOOR S C S -S S DIAPHRAGMS CONCRETE WALLS S C S .S' BUTTRESSES S C S S 1 jj FLOOR BEAMS S -.C S S S COLUMNS S C S S S BgCINGBELOW S C S S S [.; LEGEND: S - SIMILAR l-C - COMMON 'e r s ). f 0299M/OL884P-33 b -I l ~........... l Lewsm y.;,; es.. v---- w~y e .' i rjY ' ' s; ,(
3_ ,..i, g g .q. j VARIOUS COMMODITIES i SEISMIC IIQi-AS BUILT CRITERIA ANALYSIS EVALUATION MODIFICATIO ELECTRICAL S C S S S RACEWAY SYSTEMS 7 IWAC SYSTEM S C S S S PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS S C S S S f: BLOCK WALLS S C S S S j. SIP S C S S S t f I 4 i'i. LEGEND: S - SIMILAR 1 L C - COMMON a ? 0299M/OL84P-34 6(,-6 ~ [_ _ -.j. ~~ j. '" #7 * ' ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~
r: - -r. .u. .7... . y. q,. a. f o ~:~ gy%.ftg c s >.,,'4 s h g c 4i 4,4 0 'R +. 3 4s,,n 4g l / \\i 3 ,nw. ~u f s / / i l ggucTUN t h((pw/ N \\ [{^ / W 4 -- ~~3 ik 1 ~ x s., e,Feu'r-e * =7d ee ene p+* M + ** - === o w geoep _ _=ar > 4 w eg mapw ege - ---*=e e 3,e
- g. _.m. .r 4 .o. l j -j. n 4 VIT A 74 W K s p M l t
- a. 1 UNIT /
UMT2 sn 1 1 O CONTANMENT O OWTAtHME'NT ~ + E lL I 1 A I i I ( e [' i e L l ' 3 a I
- l u nir i r u e bi m a o n.
uMT 2 TUR&NE M.Dcy. ') 1 s I E E 1 gl l a rn n 'il J, i 80 i E !4 I. i
\\ - - - *, tx. ~. :;,
- , a. _
.. ;- -.. -c 7.- 1,. w -s.-
- e 0
e' D em 1 J.'-m e' % - 8 i tem.--e e t' '. k: i-l i ( p.=w as ens =. {- _Qr .. w y= y smas essor em.e l,. t.* g%. i. 2m. i l l w I l-g aE Q_ e 4 9 I am "r_T. ElL i w e,, s g m -.'J. I i u. l -d .i r K,) y:- ?&- L u i-f, 5
lD! . < ~ - ~ ' ~ * - ~. ~ ~ *
- n o
- lsg
's ~ r 4 T TNu b 9 i_ 5 $$b. . i. - x~ m.. g ^ g / \\ \\ W T A A_ _~ 1 g" U \\ D t C [ l \\ ,f [ -w} 'p/ D y /.
- -/
q =l _=,\\ z N Ebh-ke%_- k y 1: a r u an: vs I h'\\l1 T y\\ l la m L j ~ n + r l/ s] N Z /~ r -t a VRh0L./ I z $$bN? ( h [ r /\\ \\WFA /. ad A. cri u 3 _g O j b J \\ \\pj r<, is %.,~ YNf U. I @;7/=_ m anv7 5 ~~ a l 0 I i 4 EG- /o s-e ap. e n ., ~....,....... - 5 4
- D e---
.. '; + : - i_
- .L
- 7-
. ;, ~. 'u. 3.. 13 e y. I
- )'.
FAN ROOM ROOF AT ELEV.164' I I UNIT I l' CONTROL ROOM ROOF -o ; AT EL.164' D \\ UNIT 2 j[! h ( FA N RCC M RC,C F >~
- l AT ELEv 164
.l' 1 .l. i ~ N V EL EV.140, t.. f~ ELEV.115' i i \\ ELE v. LOO' g ELEv. 85'(FIXED) FUEL PfANDUNG SUILDING NOT INCLUDED IN MODEL 4 I C i Eco-11 9 e.-e e edew go d Fi e = *_ _y ,*M=/e*ru-w-,
- W e t--~*
--r,-.= g .-e .~ L t
a a - ;- -.
- -...ge 1
3 i- .) s 6NN p coe#TAMlWATio4 FUEL AfEEA .H ! 'i 1 Pool I I I l l l 1 i 1 5 / ~i [ I HOT SHOP UNIT 2 UHtT I 4 NEW FLIEL a STORA6E l i 5 e i.. l 1 1 "j i I" i l 1 -l 1 -i I 4 t u, i i e -l g C' 8 i I l' ) i V
...a n '__ w r r. ].,,. 3:. f. i I g M JO _WNM _a_ssooN, _ 9%/g MW 'hD'.
- 2%E N ? W '
f. '/ p-wi. j - m j.. aneus y M' \\Mp ~ i
- 35 42 v 4 ( % O
l m s-Nu' /, -Q~ 1 w _ i i> 1_, /i ygoy I j .f.
- yyg, i
W 9%ff7' 9%ff.i' W n gms c n .r l-w g%g o nw i /l wu==< j. l A\\ s =I i 4 1 J mount 7-5 DIAsto CANYON POWER PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 I QUALIFICATION OF MODEIED FUEL HANDLING BUILDING FULL SUILDING MODEL 1.0 (APPftoX.1860 NODES AND tsoo utustas) EE 6 - 0 y w --p,,- -w,,
s. a-8 . g jl. s l Ju 55 1 i .s a .r m .a-m J.* AE I I @@ T v'p-t',.s,
- , s. --
.i @s s,a o ".N, 'es s I.,- c s , s.: - s
- ,,s,'
- s. ;
t S rir @-t. , --j-, - ; ,'--,i+ e l l l, y,,- H, ;F. F.s,, ;e!s-:'2., -----?. 1 r li; --j-- I I, G-3,. s , s., ,,s. i w i T-fs, - ;,'---f4 .L @-v i , s+As;, ,,is -7,,.-,4, '. s, ',,s, 't )=u i,s, i n S /' ;,' I @-W T @-t i ?s' S r,. r, i, -,s. :: --, ----*. : .x: s q. S -+ ; c s s
- s.i i y--i--r-J-M,. -
y 3-,s : S i [s,J
- I. h,,'E,
.! --! s,j',,l,! - ! -h.'!,-- 'i s'y--,N '<' s w i
- e p.,'d.' ';'..;. I g
n j '.'_'d - .' ? [ g. i i 1, ,e, - s s. ..s. .s e 1, v, s,,, -,,3,,. ,,1 a: @.= --4,, e y -, - ;, t. s.. ,r i : -: :.-4 A. @- *s.;,. , ;,f'S i .s i -i-i i ...i
- .i3
!-f--h.-y i-:4 'O@h4 i ,s,. A, %l 's.,<,',' --- i s g l '$ H @4 f,,4.' 8 t-4 l ',8 <, s l,A ,,l,g 1 4 'g 3 4 . /. G --t ;c::v3,t ;
- s.
s y,,, t { .i y ',;:.v-,i,/. 8 s
- 3 4
..,/,.:,, ,/., s ,/ i,,., j g s,,,* i. g ,g e i, eis .o a e,, ,p.,,,. . 4 s. 4 u A,.,, .--t. ':,- s s i.,,,, i i i i s
- -s:
- -s:
S ?, t.--+. - r. -+, 'c ' c.'s e.: :.se. e i:iiI,-i-i 6-s :N S ,s'. r @~I i @ J Es/- F-W,,.,. :.....,.!,,s*: t i S i S -, -- t,,, S- ,s, e... s
- 4..
- .s.,s rs,,, v, s,,, i s,,4:
g__,S g ,e S 1:___: u __
- s., '
y [ g_1.'I__4.,.. '<tC.,
- ._f g
L E. s' _':,. ^J ;s.^d. 3 t.'s/s' :. i s - t. ' t,- t, ; d;, S @-T. @--d. ,'..x,4 i I .a t.<
- e,
@- =w t :, -,:.--+,-,;i, i si .s. +
- s I
y g. . /s s '[ Z g h. '.. %':.l'.i._' y *W[' i **' V, '.i 5 (, : m
._1-- e-.e-a_ u-, ~ -~;---~~~~~~ ' ~~'~~~s ~ ~' t ~ ~ ' ~ ^* * '. * ,n .t .s t l i. I. 'f 5 COMMON AEEA) VM I T 1 I 3 UNIT 2 MST N^Y ~$ MEWS) 4ggo yogy (6UTTR6tfgh i }: 6Wl7t.H6 EAR,h 'l l l l j CCW HEAT EXCHAW4ER63 / 41M VOLT e- { 6 WITCH 4 EAR } k ]i' EDU
- EEE3 E== V D
4 I 1 c 000 fp g e 4 t8 Pl&6EL / J I. 4EhJERATO126 \\ / h DIESEL 1 4EhJERArost6 N / \\ WE67 e,UrrRe%E6 .i y Ou61Ter TecHkflCAL {* -COMDENGATE FF#"T l FouMiiuta SY6 TEM p TU R Bi hJ E BUI LD I MC, e, 'm' e. 9 5 ^ .l ,,.,,.m em 9
... u,:.
- .. c.-
---~ - ;;. c g c, 'q. ' k. ~. AC f $ $4rc h i s UNIT 2 PIPING DESIGN CONTENT lh OVERVIEW i 4 . LICENSING CONDITIONS I-7 ENGINEERING PROCEDURAL CONTROLS i - t. I f' _I I~ I '- 3 - e t 0299M/0L84P-7 6 }-[ m.g ow n we y 99 - ,"W,,' " '.[I; " ', bM j g.i.,, 4 1 f
-__...x
- 1,,
l t s [ .\\ t OVERVIEW: 44 i .'y e 1' ^l. li MID-1982 DESIGN REVIEW IS0 METRICS (DRIS) WERE WALKED-DOWN & AS-BUILT ~ n t-OCT.1982 PHASE I FOR CLASS I LB & SB PIPING UTILIZING PRELIM. ~ SPECTR A i; PERFORMED. c DEC.1983 PHASE II FOR CL ASS I LB & SB PIPING UTILIZING FINAL SPECTRA PERFORMED. i AUG.1984 PHASE III FOR CL ASS I LB & SB PIPING FOR FINAL AS-BUILT i RECONCILIATION. {. i 5 i 0299M/0L84P-8 4 l I ..- _ec -m . - - - ~ - - - - ,.'( o f'. in-
L L, s. w' . LICENSING CONDITION I ./' SB PIPE SUPPORTS y!}. }\\- .. l.. l t -}l 10% OF PIPE SUPPORTS REVIEWED TO DATE i FOR AS-BUILTS AND L.C. #7 l
- ) -
.e L.C. # 7 INCLUDED IN REVIEW- <I l ^l n If. i 5 l~ 4 0299M/0L84P-9 E 7 -3 o.... 7., ,. *.i ll ' . L'_ ~ igi.h ;'. ' fC.'. i} ~;,.,. ...,.s s 3
f.- 37 7J LICENSING CONDITION 2 PR0XIMATE RIGID SUPPORTS t 4 e 4 1 ALL CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMS 1: -j. 1' IMPLEMENTED PER PROC $ DURE P-1I 1 INCLUDED IN CllECKLIST y
- l f,
.l UNIT I RESULTS 1 UNIT 2 RESULTS I t i . 0299M/0L84P-LO 67-4 .'.~. g _. - y;g..
_= m ~ o, ':3 3 'S h LICENSING CONDITION 3 1. PR0XIMATE SNUBBERS ALL CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMS i IMPLEMENTED PER PROCEDURE P-il INCLUDED ON CliECKLIST I . i. UNIT I RESULTS UNIT 2 RESULTS l l t l l l y. i ewr r 0299M/ 0L8 LIP-L L 1 + 4llub*4 m m
- hpg e WeM#437_
p _gD -wwe m ,-gq, pgnyggpg g, q A 1-3-4t[<rd,a L, fjj ' s
s. m.. s $ia i \\ l' i. -[
- t, :
- 1,
.y LICENSING CONDITION 4 ~' ~ 1 l-THERMAL GAPS s 7 l J UNIT 2 HAS NOT' UTILIZED THERMAL GAPS IN ANALYSIS o I-a i ( o ) h d 4 l 1 j 1 s k 0299M/0L84P-L2 6"f-g L ~"". qv.r : 7- .. i.c s.c, 4.g,. ...rg,.; y,.;ggf;; 1 t,a. < ry. 3. i.i i. y j,; -x 4-s
ynn,,g. .,7. -..:. -pu. _.... ~.- ;..... . ~.. pp. - fr: g, [. - i 1 i \\ ie LICENSING CONDITION 5 ( ( y F... s F, t# t i HOT WALKDOWN OF CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMS , s, ! 1 (' -l / t i \\ PROCEDURE P-36 FOR WALKDOWN DURING INII7AL HEATUP 3 7 i \\ 6 [ PROCEDURE P-38 FOR WALKDOWN DURING POWER ASCENSION g \\ f s' ) c. )- \\ f g e > \\ gs., Y m ,i t 8 .f If I r 0299M/0L84P-L3 p7 ( i. 'Z,. K _ - } ' ~ ~ ~ v --~ ;
- r,------...
..s ..m. -- w .., c..
- -?.
o' 4 .}- s ).,, t.- / <j ge v ,f ' ! s j 1 4 g 1 LICENSING CONDITION 6 -e 1 t .j. 4 g c& s r ,1
- c..>
-e J [
- l. PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN TOLERANCE CLARIFICATION!(PSDTC) 5,.
..}., l f-3- i L. qt ,1 / 1 i REPLACED BY FCR Pf0 GRAM i >y, '/ / e ,l i 1[
- 2. DIABLO PROBLEM (DP)
- s,
/ s V J v e DP'S REVIEWED' FOR PROPER DESIGN DOCUMENT CORRELATION j I g \\ 4 4 e ,f [.. y M r. g1 )'( s ^' i t 3 p t-t i n t ./ t y 0299M/0L84P-L4 N n.<, @ b-8 .. A
- I,o
,1 _ '\\ go '^ ..b}
- l
,,1 t 1 4. -.,_.,--l-.---- ... (_
- s l < <.
3 VO.,4.,.. .....e..- + .w .i.J_y. ... ll.. ^ * * > ' r ' V.' 1
(y.. _ . _,. wn .. e .. m :.. .w. . _x_-------- -j. 9*. 1.,; + .t LICENSING CONDITION 7 ( -l 3 LB AND SB PIPE SUPPORT TECHNICAL ISSUES I~ t A,i }. .j og eA. [MRPING NORMAL AND SHEAR STRESS ' c,, A INSTRUCTION I-59 l CALCULATION M-576 j' 5 fALLOWABLE UNBRACED LENGTH FOR ANGLE SECTIONS k ( p ,.f i c r s v .[ (.I INSTRUCTION I-59 t ~ i-C. LATERAL / TORSIONAL BUCKLING N CALCULATION M-576 l r D. LOAD ECCENTRICITB i t .b ~ G: / INSTRUCTION I-59 . CALCULATION M-576-o ( 'i
- p..
1 E. RAYLEIGH'S METHOD FOR FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY U ~s \\,. i l INSTRUCTION I-59 1 F. FLARE BEVEL WELD EFFECTIVE THROAT / i 4 : l 0299M/0L84P-L5 .-*v.er*Se_ .[* N q q. ..p ' - ~ s.
a l I +4 r ENGINEERING PROCEDURAL CONTROLS T. PROCEDURE FOR CONTROLLING PIPING DESIGN DATA (P-33) I~ i CONTROLLED COPIES DISTRIBUTION 1-IMPACT EVALUATION 9i1. ] DISSEMINATION OF CHANGES i l-i IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES !'j: i-i [. i 0299M/0L84P-L6 E 7-/o ~~n.,. - 5 4.jp;l ;k,m f;;+c -~ --'- -'. - ' - - ~ ' ~ * ' ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ' ' ~ s ~
. ~ -~e. c_. n .ax. p { ~.. g - bAdcStAk h ..I j-i ' ? O. p. MECilANICAL's NUCLEAR SIMILARITIES p l. .:j SCOPE 1 i 1 a != EQUIPMENT 1 't DESIGN PROCESS 3 j DESIGN TEAM t. DESIGN REVIEW 1 . 4 e 0299M/0L84P-22 63-l N 9-**N' WN
- 49+w ese.ww ew we sg wene w-b4
/ 4 r0 t- '[$ 4 * - j ?
s, ,-_..,_.y,..., ~~ 4, .,/ 'q;
- 7 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN UNITS EQUIPMENT IDENTICAL 4
SAME SPECIFICATIONS s EXCEPTIONS: REACTOR RATING. SI PP 4 MOTOR AFW TD PP SHIELO OPPOSITE HAND LAYOUT MINOR PIPING DIFFERENCES ~ $j ~ DG EXHAUST PIPING ERECTION SEQUENCE H DESIGN PROCESS .i; COMMON CRITERIA U3 P& IDS L CALCULATIONS j 0 ): DESIGN TEAM 1-p ONE GROUP 1 CONSULTANTS !~ r i 0299Ml0L84P-23 EF-L e ._i
- g. z~,
n; .u
- c. y.;s w
-. _, _. ~... .,._-7._ .~ - - - _...._._ s. SIMILARITIES OF REVIEW IRP .j. MAJOR SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES
- 3. i.-
- .i 100% REVIEW
[3 SAME PEOPLE SIMILAR RESULTS~ T DOCUMENTATION INTERNAL REPORTS r= h 1: P LICENSING REPORTS c U. REVIEW 0F DCNS l, ' 6 f.. l1 .c 0299M/0L84P-24 f8-3 ~ -, ~ ~ - - - :mn y.q;?my' ' '6% *'__ _ ? -
- ~;~.
- =. - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - " ~~- w._ '.'ii.v _1 fr'<, " .'?' ,, ' )? ,\\ 'S, ! 1 \\
m;e _. ,.-..~ - -. -. --. .g '::1., ).' .. v REVIEW PROGRAMS FILE REVIEW i HVAC HEAT LOADS ...t I i SEISMIC QUALIFICATION I
- l*
FLUID DESIGN CONDITIONS s ee e. 1. HELB
- l
..], j-! MELB .11 7:p. ti' FIRE PROTECTION
- \\
?-{} a SIP !.'i; f
- 1 RADIATION SHIELDING
' l I,- I $s .l' HEAVY LOADS INTERNAL MISSILES .j ; 4, i '. 0299R. 'b 84P-25 E8-V g oe s,s, ww Ame - _, qP*=*,P,w . wr= - F .*4N spe eew es*-* et
- w=
-.ww ^ ltn e' b sw '.' ' 5 ' l. ' }3ml a.
- 'w% N 5,'
'*e n e .s s e.
.. = w ..,., -:, =., c-pe., '); ~ Euclesm 9 ' ~ ~ n. ,'<t. ). 1 -ELECTRICAL SIMILARITIES 1 7 .p L-
- lg L'
,t X-SYSTEMS + t.'l -{'. J U EQUIPMENT i; + DESIGN PROCESS i i.; DESIGN TEAf1
- e..
t. i DESIGN REVIEW t. O ia 1 I $ I !f t* ] s l 0299Ml0L84P-40 .,4 +w,.* 3
- e
=m=g.- p a ' wec"* r e_wMg q *
- *p*GP t_.
?"**'**-*E**#
- 9,--
~ * #* "-e* N ** * * * * * * * " * * ' * * ' ' ~ ' - L d .'t ; ~ ' a b :s * '! L*' -.L.. .nu v -4: -. -- ~ ':l ' J
........z- ., m. -- f -- ; "f~'" "}, %y,. g., SIMILARITIES BETWEEN UNITS' (ELECTRICAL) 1 EQUIPMENT l.' IDENTICAL h[.{ _ [l SAME SPECIFICATIONS ci.I EXCEPTIONS: MAIN GENERATOR RATING. CONTAINMENT g. }; PENETRATIONS, MOTOR STARTER l;( OPPOSITE HAND LAYOUT f. (; -EXCEPTIONS: DG & NON-SAFETY RELATED SYSTEM LOADS - i. i. i. DESIGN' PROCESS 4 COMMON CRITERIA i COMMce PROCEDURES COMMON DRAWINGS ~ CALCULATIONS l DESIGN TEAM P ONE GROUP l 1 0299M/0L84P-4L f y 2,. 3,~ s m r . - + ws, ~ ~, [ '" * ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' ' 'W ' *: ;~ ~ ~ .,. % Q. j;p s t; ' 1 ))_- ~ ~ e-'a. <~ , ~ s (_ s c
...y.~.- :. - ~ ;.~
- ...--. -: --a : m - -
-: ~ .~ _ ;( m,, ./ i r I j SIMILARITIES OF REVIEW (ELECTRICAL) IRP f: . t.- MAJOR SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES g 100% REVIEW 4 SAME PEOPLE SIMILAR RESULTS f P. REVIEW 0F DCNs e t *, i 4-u ~ t 1a l i ) \\ l, .il ) r j l' i 1 I E 0299M/0L84P-42 57-) f .: cs.. ~~~.-yN'*'.1.. ' ' ' ' " " " ** * ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * * * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' .n.m. e.** ._. e so n -,,-- ~ **~ T' r* ..y..,,..,-.~ ~~: : <<, wv. s
- ~~~,
..n. -.. m a... - = a _..- ..,. =- , s_ a g. REVIEW PROGRAMS (ELECTRICAL) DESIGN REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION 4 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION FIRE PROTECTION SIP i '\\. HEAVY LOADS h 4 h i-lc + E r F h ) {.' l :. 0299M/0L84P-43 g pf, 6 _m.
+ ' ' ~ ~ -
- - - -~ -
e e .y. u. W f5 rI Eu c/osur, /o -e (1 e 'J $~ j COMPLETION
SUMMARY
SCHEDULE 1984 e c J ' I l AUGUST l SEPTEMBER l OCTOBER l NOVEMBER ] UNIT NO.1 l, RECEIVE FULL POWER !e X LICENSE 8/10/ 84 l3 U (EFFECTIVE 8/17/84) l
- J I
MODE 3 MODE 5 io { ISSUE STAY INlm 'j 6 84 MOTION 8/17/84 UNIT NO. 2 lm a e }o~J. lF a< 8lF m
- FUEL, HOT FUNCTIONAL STARTUP TESTING LOAD a
'i ILRT TESTING PROCEDURES -1 O 4 _n g (8/27A i 10/151 11/26 1 7/30A 8 I ~ li TENSION HEAD l 1 i [_ l & HEATUP 81ST' k 175 525*e COOL o-) e547 I, r e t i W 'l, c [: VALVEj t DOWN oj 547o g 150'250 { ,i ? ~ LINE-UP e k o') INSPECT & REASSEMBLE o GENERATOR 8 h P, i s 9/11/84 0 CD i N O N r .}}