ML20236D091

Generating Station Engineering Design Procedure B-10, Multidisciplinary Design Review

ML20236D091
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	11/30/1987
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20236D071	List: ML20236D066 ML20236D072 ML20236D076 ML20236D084 ML20236D087 ML20236D091 ML20236D096 ML20236D229
References
B-10, NUDOCS 8903220454
Download: ML20236D091 (41)

Text

- . _ , _ - _ _ . _

,s. .

r- o ,

1

. l 1

f l

l

.i l

i i

'\

ATTACHMENT 5 l

GSE Design Procedure B-10 Multidisciplinary Design Review i

1

!i 9

1

)

h 2

8903220454 890315

~PDR ADOCK 05000285 l P 6930 {

_, ,- _ ,ymm-- - - -- - - -

=---;------_-- -

7 L. . j

l. i L , i t

DESIGN PROCEDURE B-10 j

Multidisciplinary Design Review (MDR)

.. '1.0 OBJECTIVE

-\

This. -Procedure provides~ the guidance for routing, performing, and-l.

documenting the Multidisciplinary Design Review (MDR) to. ensure that the. .,

i Modifications / Design changes to the -fort.. Calhoun Station (FCS). are l properly. designed, constructed,. and implemented in accordance with applicable- codes, standards', . rules,- l

& regulations without~'any discrepancies or deficiencies by utilizing available expertise in various l l 1 engineering disciplines.

This Procedure is responsive to theDistrict'sQualityAssurancel(NA) I Pl an. j 2.0 l APPLICATION

]

]

A MDR 'can be performed on any Design Documents at the discretion of the  !

responsible GSE Department Manager whether or not the subject j Modification / Design Change involves or affects Critical Quality Elements (CQE) or Limited CQE items, j Each designated GSE Department Manager is responsible for requesting the-MDR and ~the GSE-Nuclear Department Manager is responsible for assuring. ,

that the MDR is properly performed in a systematic manner once the Design- j i Documents are submitted for MDR. .  ;

The MDR can be utilized as a basis for the Independent Design Verification 'and/or the Safety Evaluation. The MDR and.the Independent-Design Verification can be performed simultaneously and parallel with PRC '

Design Review.

No. MDR Interdiscioline Checklist Items 1 Design Description GSE-B-10-A 37-2 10CFR50.59, Safety Evaluation GSE-B-10-B 14

• 3 10 CFR 50, appendix B & GSE-B-10-C 9 g Pre-Operational Requirements 4 Procedural Requirements GSE-B-10-0 7 1

5 Environmental Qualification GSE-B-10-E 5 i 6 Engineering Analysis & Study GSE-B-10-F 13 7 Drawings GSE-B-10-G '10 i l

1 B-10.1 11/87 i

w ~ w .. .pww, ;g m -

3 , mw mmy..y. >

g

' g qp o

~q

J Y.  ;)

j No. 'MDR Interdiscinline Checklist'  : Items. 1

8. -Specifications GSE-B-10-H '22: )!

9 Constructability/ -

GSE-B-10-IL 21-

' Operability / .

l Maintainability,-(COM)

,. Each ~ item in - the checklist- shall be checked -as _"YES",. N0", ' or. "N/A" with -

q 7

reviewer's- initial. Additional . concerns / comments. and recommended-j resolutions -(if any) can be'provi_ded on thi MDR Interdisciplinary Summary Sheet (FORM GSE-B-10-J, Sh. 2). 4-j u

4 Each MDR interdisciplinary reviewer is responsible for performing at  ;

detailed. review within his/her area of expertise to ensure all the items 1

-in each checklist and any special aspects are considered into the subject i Modification / Design Change. If7 additional information is required ini j order to . complete' the review, each reviewer should request.it from the-Design Engineer through the'MDR r ardinator.  ;]

The MDR Coordinator is_designa'ted by'the GSE-Nuclear' Department Manager- 1 to serve as a primary contact between the each MDR interdisciplinary.

reviewer -and the Design Engineer. .The MDR Coordinator is. responsible:for.

selecting the applicable MDR interdisciplines and< its reviewers, andl providing the procedural guidance and coordination to the MDR process so

.. that the: MDR identified concern / comment are properly. resolved and i l

~

%,+

-incorporated into the Design Documents.

3.0 PROCEDURE

, 3.1 MDB on the Oriainal Document Upon-l preparation _of a Design.' Document, the responsible'GSE Department Manager attaches the- transmittal letter requesting MDR and. forwards 'the entire Design Document to' Engineering Services for the preparation _of the-MDR' package including logging and attaching MDR Forms (For GSE-B-10 A the prepared MDR package is transmitted to.the-through J). Then, GSE-Nuclear Department Manager for the MDR process. ,

Upon completion of. the MDR, the MDR Coordinator obtains'all the MDR i checklists from the MDR interdisciplinary reviewers and completes'the MDR l

& MDR Interdisciplinary Summary Sheets (Form GSE-B-10-J, Sh. 1.& 2) by  ;

utilizing the MDR results, and determines the following status on the MDR Summary Sheet (Form GSE-B-10-J, Sh. 1),

i. Document in compliance. I ii._ _ Document in compliance except as noted iii. Document not in compliance I

A:

2-10.2 11/87

-m_E_..__"..-_a_-__.m'___E - . _ _

m. .

. .,a;.wn amsneerese.wasm t.gav % 6:s, sin et h m . A . w.  ;

,. ., j -

.. s 1 (gj. Then,-'the MDR Coordinator transmits the completed MDR package (Form GSE-B-10-A through J) to Engineering Services for logging and routing of the MDR package in the following manner:

1. Document in compliance:

The MDR package will be filed in the MR file and a copy of MDR Summary Sheet (s) (Form GSE-B-10-J, Sh. 1) will be routed to the Design Engineer, the responsible GSE Department Manager, and the GSE-Nuclear Departn nt Manager. No further action is required.  !

~!

ii. Document in compliance e < cept as noted:  !

The MDR package wi" Se processed in the same manner as " Design'in compliance" however, e additional copy of MDR Interdisciplinary summary sheei.(s) ( Fo' ,.. GSE-B-10-J, S h' . 2) will be routed to the Design Engineer.

i Upon receiving the MDR package, the Design Engineer reviews the MDR  !

Concerns / Comments and provides the proper resolutions to each MDR Concern / Comment on the MDR Interdisciplinary Summary Sheet (s) (Form GSE-B-10-J, Sh. 2). Then, the responsible GSE Department Mananr reviews and approves the Design Engineer's resolution and determines whether a revision to the Design Document is needed based on the MDR Concerns / Comments and the nature of the Modification / Design Change. j 1? However, the revised Design Document does not require resubmittal f for MDR. [

l iii. Document not in compliance:  ;

The MDR package will be processed in the same manner as " Design in  !

compliance except as noted" however, the document must be revised to -

incorporate the resolutions to each MDR Concern / Comment and the revised Design Document requires resubmittal for MDR.

The MDR concerns / comments on those Design Documents "in compliance except as noted" or "not in compliance" must be properly resolved and cpproved by the responsible GSE Department Manager prior to the Construction Documents issuance, i The Design Documents submitted for MDR must be "in compliance" or "in compliance except as noted" prior to the MR file closing-out.

B-10.3 11/87

gg m g '

mrww.m;-m3 4 .w; amw.m. w, , , , . , _ . , ,j .

, - ;g.,. ;. . . p. g , -7 4, .

L,' i ;5 '. '

-(~

s

.}'.

A .

3.2 MDR on the Revised Document i Revised Design Documents 'shall! be ' processed' in.the 'same . manner; as the' .j original-Design Document.-

Y For- those Design Documents' revised.due to.the changes in the-scope'of.the subject. Modification / Design Change- after the completion of the MDR',. the d responsible . GSE- Department-'. Manager determines whether. .they . require-s resubmittal' for MDR- based on the. nature of the' changes, .,

o lj - I l

)

p -

,(

.t..

1 4

i I

J B-10.4 11/87 1

1

- - - - . . _ . .-._.2...-._

. s ,3.w . w w. ,  :- c . . - y w - yy  ;,,7 , wc7 ;; =-- qqg,g,, . f ; wj - v .- - q i,' 't <

GSE-B-10-A 1 of 6 fih W MDR DESIGN DESCRIPTION CHECKLIST

Title:

_ MR:FC

?

Document: Rev.:

Have the following been addressed in the Design Package?

YES ILO R/A J 1

1. Identification of the applicable regulatory requirements?

Comments-

]

1

2. Identification of the applicable Quality Assurance j-Category, Quality Group, Codes & Standards?

Comments- l

3. Basic f unctions of each structure, system and l component involved in the modification?

Comments: _ _

f l

4 4 System performance requirements such as capacity, j rating and system output and a reference to a

{

documentable source for these requirements? 3 Comments

• 1

5. Design conditions such as pressure, temperature, fluid 1 chemistry and voltage and a reference to a I documentable source for these requirements? i J

Comments-

6. Interface requirements, including definition of the j functional and physical interfaces involving j structures, systems and components?  !

Comments: _

7. Identification of CQE or Limited CQE Components?

Comments: ____

B-10.5 l'l/87 j I

I

__rumm.M _ _ - _ _ _ __ .-.

u .-,o ., nn :n 1

. '..' l i

GSE-B-10-A

, 2 of 6

' Qo .s .

MDR DESIGN DESCRIPTION CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document:. Rev.: )

YES N0 N/A i

8. Design change objective adequately specified' and met? {

Comments: _ __ j i

9. Systems interaction with safety-related equipment?  !

Comments: __ j i

10. The interaction.of this change document with other design change documents and its effect on any previously completed analysis seen as, HELB Post Accident radiation levels, fire hazard analysis etc.?

Comments: __

11. Are applicable design calculations included or -)

.. referenced? l e Comments-

12. Failure effects requirements of structures, systems I and components including a definition of those events ,

and accidents that they must be designed to withst.and?  !

Comments:

. i

13. Redundancy, diversity and separation requirements of structures, systems and components?  !

Comments: _

{

i i

14. Accessibility, maintenance, repair & in-service l inspection requirements for the plant, including the conditions under which they will be performed? i Comments-i B-10.6 11/87  ;

i t

i W

s

t. - - _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ . -

y... . . >v,no =.xm m;w.; ar y w .,

. 3y.g gy)ypg3g wgpaw.

4 r, d

,, , -c: ,

~

GSE-B'-10-A a 3 ~ o f. 6 -

44.

D 4

MDR DESIGN DESCRIPTION CHECKLIST' -]

l

Title:

EMR:FC .

Document:- Rev.:

YESL @ lN/A ]

15. . Structural requirements: covering such. items.as long L term load' control, penetrations,.rebar cuts, etc.?

l Comments *

16. . Mechanical requirements such as vibration, stress  !

shock,1and reaction forces? f Comments: ___ q

.l 17.' Electrical requirements.such as source of power, l voltage, raceway. requirements, electrical insulation and motor requirements?

Comments:

a '

_ 18 .' Hydraulic requirements such as NSPH, allowable <

U[' pressure drops andf allowable fluid velocities?.

?

Comments:

19. Chemistry requirements such as provisions for sampling and limitations.on' water chemistry?

' Comments:

20. If an ASME code edition, other than the original edition is used, was the necessary reconciliate' ion ,

documented? .'

Comments: .,

l

21. Personnel requirements and limitations, including the qualifications and number of personnel available for plant operation, maintenance, testing & inspection, and permissible personnel radiation exposures for specified areas and conditions?

Comments-

.g B-10.7 11/87

. _ _ - - _ - - - - - - _ _ - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ a

, ,. m. .ma .e m m.a.,. 2 a,, ...m. .%. <

~ -

,, i, GSE-B-10-A 4 of 6 N*D MDR DESIGN DESCRIPTION CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

YES NO N/A

22. Operations requirements under various plant conditions, such as plant start-up, normal operations, plant shutdown, plant emergency operation, special or infrequent operation and system abnormal or emergency operation?

Comments-

23. Loads, such as seismic, wind, thermal an'd dynamic?

Comments-

24. Instrumentation and control requirements, including indicating instruments, controls, and alarms required for operation, testing, and maintenance. Other requirements, such as the type of instrument, installed spares, range of measurement accuracy and location of indication should also be considered.

Comments-

25. Environmental conditions anticipated during storage, construction and operation (start-up, shutdown, normal, transient and accident), such as: pressure, temperature, humidity, corrosiveness, site elevation, wind direction, nuclear radiation and duration of exposure?

Comments: .__. ._ _

26. Technical specification requirements?

Comments-

27. Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) requirements?

Comments-B-10.8 11/87 A

,- _ _-__,_._-y. .

7c _ ,. , ,

o

, c '

GSE-B-10-A 5 of 6 .l

'l l% A M' MDR DESIGN DESCRIPTION CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC ,

3 Document: Rev.: _

l 1

1ES (L0  !!!G [

28. ASME Section-IX repair / modification requirements, including design considerations?

Comments-

29. Material requirements, including such items as compatibility, electrical insulation properties, l protective coatings and corrosion resistance?

Comments-

30. Access and administrative control requirements for I plant security?

Comments-

]

31. Test requirements including in-plant tests and the 6,.: t conditions under which they will be performed? I

& Comments-f

32. Evaluation of capacity of plant structures for heavy i load transport, storage and installation?

Commente* -

33. Fire detectior protection or resistance requirements?

Comments-

34. Handling, storage & shipping requirements?

Comments-B-10.9 11/87

. .g ' - 'l' GSE-B-10-A-6 of 6 A/t!3 W lid _R DESIGN DESCRIPTION CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

VES [LO LllA

35. Requirements to prevent undue risk to the public?

Comments: _

3 6 '. Material & equipment suitability for application?

Comments: _ _

37. Safety requirements for preventing injury to personnel?

Comments: _ _

I l

Reviewer: Date: )

. Reviewer: Date: l l%_

Reviewer: Date: )

Reviewer: Date: I Reviewer: Date: l Reviewer: Date:  !

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date: I Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date: j i

B-10.10 11/87 I

- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ l

ya=v.x 3 :.27 c.w::i::c .x;q ymm;; . s a, zgggggyng y gggguvy,;,q:;. :m.s;w -

, ,3 g ,

-GSE-B-10 8 1 -of 3c

' ('E5 E MDR 10CFR50.59-CHECKLIST-j 1.

l

Title:

-MR:FC Document: -Rev.:

- YES - NO -: N/0

1. Does the design package identify all _ references.-to the-components contained.in the USAR? j Comments-4

2. Does the design package identify all references to the  ;

components. contained in the technical specifications '

Comments: _..

i

,I

3. . Has a 10CFR50.59 safety evaluation been completed in .!

accordance with-Standing Order G-46?

Comments:  !

4. Were the following system interactions considered in  :

the analysis?

.,; f (Note: When.an. interaction review is' appropriate, utilize expanded checklist.)

a. Fire Protection / Fire Hazard __

b. -EQ ._ ___

c. High Energy Line Break ,

d. Seismic Interaction ____.

e. Electrical System Interaction ___

l f. Human Factors ___.

L g. Security .

l h. Environmental / Radiological Release '

_ .i

i. Materials Compatibility __

j. Containment Integrity _ {

k. Internally & Externally Generated Missiles

5. Was the impact on control room habitability reviewed?

Comments-I i

e B-10.11 11/87 1

E - . . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - - _ _ _

- ..- - ,. - - , . ~ , , .. w n, w.n,, ,ng,,,m,m.m e.

, _ < 7, ..

w,- p ,

. L-

e

.g 6 ,

GSE-B-10 B

' d

- 2 . o.f 3 '

*:, t

< t T MDR 10CFR50.59 CHECKLIST :1 -

Title:

' MR: FC.=

Document: Rev/:

XES [LO ' Re 6.- Was the possibility for increased operator' error

. reviewed?

Comments: - ___ - _

7. Were the potential' consequences of procedural errors :

reviewed?

Comnients: __. __. >

t

8. "Does the. modification have' the possibility of creating a-new initiating event' resulting in an accident.not previously analyzed? If so, have the effects ~been analyzed & inherent compensating features been identified?- a

' Comments; ___ .__

.n.,

' c'

9. - Is there an introduction of-a previously unanticipated failure mechanism for-safety-related equipment?

, Comments *

~

10. Are'the design limits of_any safety-related equipment ,

-exceeded? ~l Comments-

11. (Will' a partial installation of the design package create an-unreviewed safety question?

Comments- ,

i i

l B-10.12 11/87

)

4 i

, - _ . - - . . .__ - ,,.u; .-

__r , ;w g.w.;pg;gg;_g,,s. m ai.u ~ .

s.' 1m'

?

GSE-B-10-8 3 of 3 MDR 10CFR50.59 CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

YES ILQ L@

12. Have the three criteria fcr determining an unreviewed safety issue as found in 10CFR50.59 been addressed in the package in' specific detail in such a way that an ,

independent reviewer can reach the same conclusion 1 without recourse to additional information?

Comments-

13. Is there any reduction in the margin of safety in any affected technical specification?

Comments-

14. Have all commitments in USAR Appendix G been maintained?

. Comments-t Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date: __

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date: i Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: _ Date:

Reviewer: Date:

B-10.13 11/87

. - . - . , . . ~ . - - _ - , . , ,

. . _ . ,, n .y ,. . . ,, y,,;,,c . , . .w . , .m

~ .

c;;. .' - t,.'

GSE-B-10-C

-r 1.,of 2^- -

If .,

.'MOR 10CFR50 APPENDIX B & PRE-0PERATIONAL' CHECKLIST

-Title: MR:FC Document:- Rev.:

'YES:  !LO. N/A

.1. Were QA/QC inspection requirements ~specified for

. equipment procurement?-

Comments- u

2. Were. receipt'documentationrequirementslidentifiedLfor.

equipment'and' material?-

Comments:-

,u

. 1 3 .- Were requirements for_ QA/QC specified for. ,

installation?

Comments-

,., 4. 'Is a system demonstration test / procedure specifie'd?-

sf[p: Comments-

5. Is a system pre-op test /proced'ure required?

. Comments:

6. Is a. system flush procedure required?

Comments-

7. .Is a new system hydro or baseline test required?

Comments-B-10.14 11/87 i

ft .

l'. ____.__-__=--_=-_-_-___-_-____---___-----__.__----.-------- 1

y,y.y-. -- ,m_. - . _.-- .y .: ,

, j=m. ;s y.gg , j,g.:y _,

5

, f'

' *Q .

g,- .c ,v ,

fr.2 -.9:

l 1

( :q' '

' ^ I GSE-B-10-C F

L, 2 of 2 ' ".

h.

MDR 10CFR50. APPENDIX B & PRE-0PERATIONAL? CHECKLIST.

Title:

MR:FC

~

Document: Rev.:

y

~YES !LQ ' R/A -j

8. - Were. changes to the_ station's ISI program identified?

' Comments-

'9. Were component tests identified. appropriate' for the t modification?

(See S&L modification. testing checklist.)

Comments-

, '10. Do the contents of the work outline provide sufficient-detail to identify the requirements?-

Comments-

.i

+ f ,q ; _

Reviewer: Date:

' Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer

Date:

i

' Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

1 B-10.15 11/87 i

l l

r

_W-__---_------,-_u_- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - W

. , 7 m .- - , 7.- g . c- s , , .

t i

. ' . '[

f.- GSE-B-10-0

, . p .. -

1 of'2

. c.v .

Kyr MDR PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST 4

Title:

MR:FC-

- Document:. Rev.:

I 1ES - N_Q . ' ((/_A

1. Are the appropriate title, revision and date indicated on the B-2-2 Form?

Comments: _

2. When 10CFR50, Appendix B Critical Quality Elements and/or interfaces with Critical Quality. Elements are involved,'has a detailed safety analysis been performed in accordance_with S.0. G-46?

Comments: _

3. Was-the design package prepared in accordance with GSE Procedure B-2'and contain: Forms A,B,C,D, and I, Design Basis Requirements; Technical Descriptions; Drawing List.per GSE Procedure B-3; Design Evaluation;

,L -

Procurement ~ Documents and Work Order?

Comments: _.

-l

^

4. Are Forms E, F, or G, H, J, FC-154, and FC-142, if required, included in the_ package and completely filled out?

Comments: _

5. Are the required ALARA worksheets included?

Comments: _ ,

6. Drawing list in'accordance with GSE Procedure B-37 Ccmments-t k

q d

B-10.16 11/87 J 1

l l

-._ ___-._________________..m __m_ __ _

GSE-B-10-D 2 of 2

/M.

MDR PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

7. Are drafts of all documents identified on Form I been included with the construction package?

Comments: __.

I Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

, Reviewer: Date:

Ss. Reviewer: Date:

76- Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

.i B-10.17 11/87 l t .

I' .. j l

t . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I c .

l GSE-B-10-E 1 cf 1 l (w/i .

MDR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC l Document: Rev.:

YES N0 N_/_6 i

1. Has equipment subject to the requirements of i 10CFR50.49 been adequately identified in the design? l Comments: q l

2. Does this modification identify all changes to I environmental conditions to which EQ equipment is j exposed? j Comments:

l

3. Are all aspects of installation procedures which impact the EQ qualification of equipment addressed?

Corrments:

l 4.'. " 4. Were the normal operating and service conditions for i

"' new EQ components properly identified? l Comments: _. l

5. Was the component's operating time in a harsh environment properly determined?

Comments: __

l l

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:  !

Reviewer: Date: I Reviewer: Date:  :

Reviewer: Date: l Reviewer: Date: l Reviewer: Date:  !

Reviewer: Date: )

l l

B-10.18 11/87 l

l l

1 I

1

- - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ k

.. .- 1 t l

{

i GSE-B-10-F 1 of 2 MDR ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & STUDY CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

YES N0 UZ3

1. Does the calculation clearly identify the purpose?

Comments-

2. Are CQE and Limited CQE components properly identified?

Comments-

3. - Are the requirements of GSE B-9 met?

Comments-

4. Is the material presented sufficiently detailed as to objective, method, assumptions, input, references and i units? I Comments: __ _ __,

5. Was the appropriate method used in the analysis?

Comments-  !

6. Were inputs correctly selected?

Comments-

7. Was all dcsign input properly documented?

Comments-

8. Were all " engineering judgements" properly documented and acceptable?

Comments-B-10.19 11/87

. -  : L-

.e e . s, ., . . ,, . , . . . w ., n. .c

~.

GSE-B-10-F j 2 of 2 '

MDR ENGINEERING ANAL.YSIS & STUDY CHECKLIST I '

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

XfS NO N/A

9. Have adjustment factors, uncertainties, and empirical correlations used been correctly applied?

Comments: ___

10. Are the results reasonable when compared to the  !

inputs? i Comments: 4

11. Is the conclusion clearly stated and not ambiguous? r Comments-

12. Are calculations involving Technical Specification values and associated margins of safety clearly ,

identified?  !

Comments-

13. Do all calculations / computer runs meet the requirements of B-9 and Form GSE-B-ll-lG?

Comments-Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: D&Le:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

B-10.20 11/87 l

l

,n.e i e w-- . g % . .,m._s em a ron ro e==_ en __ _s,ucyr nehi

_y___ __ _ ,- ,

,7 s 9 , /9 -

a

! c 5 * .-

GSE-B-10-G:

_*7,,

l'of 2 l 1 MDR ORAWINGS'CHECKl.IST Titie: MR:FC

~ Document: Rev.: l

1. Is the drawing properly stamped as CQE, if-appropriate?

' Comments:

2.- . Were appropriate drafting standards used? 7 Comments: _-

'3. " Is' the scope of' work clearly identifiable?-

Comments: _.

4.- Is .the drawing properly checked?

Comments: _

5. Are all: necessary tolerances shown?

Comments - .

-i

6. Are the~ drawings free of unnecessary and contradictory dimensions?-

Comments: _

~

7. Is the drawing consistent with the design package?

Comments: i

8. Have necessary COM considerations been applied in the i layout? I Comments: _ j B-10.21 11/87 1

i z__i___________________________ _ _ t

,,, , . . _q ,_ _

t b

GSE-B-10-G I

. 2 of 2 MDR DRAWING CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

XfS EQ U/3  !

9. If required, are clearances for ISI Tests and

, equipment maintenance removal provided?

I Comments *

10. Other: ___ l Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date: ..

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

-- 8-10.22 11/87 )

m .m.w-- nx, a s s.ca w . . w e.;c gg.

.. . .c z .v.: .

, .p ,. 1 l

. t . j

'O. ,

GSE-B-10-H ]

1 of 7 1 I.g L* t "

'I MDR SPECIFICATIONS CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

JJ,S NO N/A

1. Was the specification properly prepared, reviewed, approved and certified? i Comments-

2. Is the scope of work clearly defined?

Comments: ._

3. ' Are the necessary design documents (standards, drawings, codes, regulations, etc.) identified and

~

clear descriptions covering exceptions to these documents identified?

Comments

• d, 4. Are the design inputs properly selected and identified for the contractor's use in preparing his design?

Comments-

5. Is there a list of certified design and conformance documents and data required from the contractor?

Comments-

6. Are construction, fabrication and erection dimensions and tolerances identified?

Comments-B-10.23 11/87

c.. -

GSE-B-10-H

. 2 of 7 l s

.r$,.

a MOR SPECIFICATIONS CHECKLIST l

Title:

MR:FC  !

l Document: Rev.:

l YES N_0 f!!L& '

7. Are.all interfaces with other systems, equipment or services identified? l Comments: __ _

8. Are performance requirements and test acceptances provided?

Comments: _

9. Are environmental data and qualifications properly included? .

Comments: _

)

. 10. Are inspections and audits by purchaser identified consistent with the type and importance to safety of the equipment?

Comments-

11. Are packaging and protection requirements for shipping and storage included?

Comments: _

12. Are schedules for design data submittals, tests and delivery included?

Comments-

13. Are specified parts, equipment and processes suitable for the required applications?

Comments-B-10.24 11/87

,- .a 3

f .. 1

.. r i

GSE-B-'10-H

_ 3 of 7 I)e L {

MDR SPECIFICATIONS CHECKLIST j

-Titie: MR:FC Document: Rev.-

i g gq :g

14. Are the specified materials compatible with each other i and the design environmental conditions to which the ~

i, material will be exposed?

Comments:

'15. Have adequate maintenance features and. requirements ,

been specified?

Comments:

16. Are adequate ' identification requirements (labels or marking) specified?

Comments *

.a 4NN. 17. Are requirements for record preparation, review,

• approval, retention, etc., adequately specified?

Comments:

18. Are quality requirements, including use of procedures or instructions, specified? l Comments: ._ _

-j

19. Are requirements for a' Supplier Quality Program and documentation specified?

Comments-i B-10.25 11/87 J

. _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ , . ~. , . . . ,. , , , , , ., ,,, . . . - ,o l ' E GSE-B-10-H 4 of 7 MD I 47 MOR SPECIFICATIONS CHECKLIST ,

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

XIS 80 HzA

} 20. Are requirements for documentary evidence (records) of quality to be furnished by the supplier (e.g., test results, certification that specific requirements have been met, or traceability to the source) specified?

Comments:

21. Are equipment manuals required for this equipment with

, a parts list?

Comments-

22. Are requirements for providing adequate vendor information included in the specifications? (i.e.,

updated drawings, installation manuals, maintenance

. .. . manuals, spare parts lists, and any additional Eij information recommended by NPP-1)

Comments-For ASME Section III Components, are the following included in the specification?

I. A. Functions and boundaries of the system covered? ___

B. Design requirements including overpressure ,

protection? _ _ _ _

G C. Environmental conditions including radiation? ___

D. Code Classification?

E. Material requirements including impact testing? ___

B

, B-10.26 11/87

y

.)

a- .GSE-B-10-H

, , , , .. ~ 5 ~of 7 Qil.

MDR SPECIFICATIONS CHECKLIST-

Title:

MR:FC i

Document: Rev.: _

g g g. .!

F. Operability requirements?. _

G. Effective' code edition, addenda.and class codes?

II. Identification of enforcement authority for filing 'i data report? __.

III. Filing of' design specifications? _'

IV. ' Req. for review of design report? _

V. Classification of components?

VI. Service conditions and their significance to design and~ operability? _-  !

[ ....

VII. A. Design Pressure? _

B. Design-Temperature? _ i C. Design Mech. Loads?

VIII. Design and service loads and service limits? _ _ .

IX. Test Loadings? _.  ;

1 X. Loadings:

A. Internal & external pressure? _

B. Weight of component?

C. Superimposed loads? _

l l

B-10.27 11/87 L

l.

l

- _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o

. i. . - ,- --

~ 7Lc. me .~. m % >

,; . gj;

<l .

4 ' ti! ; '

GSE-B-10-H:  !

6 of'7 .d

'fiL.*

- i&U; MDR SPECIFICATIONS CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC.

Document: __ Rev.:

ifs HQ (U.S .  !

D. Vibration and earthquake loeds? .

E. -Support reactions?' _ .;

F. Temperature effects? .__

G. Restrained thermal expansion? _

l H. Anchor &-support movements? __

I. Environmental loads? ___.

XI. Service: load limits?

• a, XII. Load combinations) a

' *s _

XIII. Deformation limits? ___.

X I V .- Material Requirements:

A. Hydrostatic & service temperature limits? ._.

B. Reductions to design stress intensity values, I allowable stress or fatigue curves necessitated by environmental conditions?

C. Material cladding restrictions? _ _ . i D. Heat tracing restrictions? _ 1 s

E. Cleanliness requirements? ..___ _

l F. Impact test requirements? __

3 4 4 i'

l B-10.28 11/87 1

l

w .. . - , , , ...c , -- . n- ym m- .

g ;---- --- . - - - - - ;- - - - - ;- ---7--------

~ it :. ',(Qs ; -i ,.\'-

1

, 7 a. < 4 ,

h '"' ~

GSE-B-10-H-

, ., 7Jof 7' MDR-SPECIFICATIONS CHECKLIST

Title:

_ MR:FC-3 Document: R6v.:-

YES- UQ - N/A .

-XIV. Material- Requirements (Cont.):

G. Corrosion / erosion allowances? _ _ _ .

H. Post weld test treatment requirements? , ___ l

' XV b Type of testing and restrictions? _ _ _ . .

XVI., Leak tightness requirements? ___. ___

t Comments / concerns from this review: -i I

..;n y p,7 [ r,

Reviewer: Date: 1 Reviewer: Date: __  !

Reviewer: Date: ,

Reviewer: Date: '

. .l Reviewer: ;__ Date: .1 Reviewer:__ -Date: .

' Reviewer: Date: )

Reviewer: ' Date: 1 Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date: i

)

• l l

B-10.29 11/87

7.gw y .pva.. x w .; i .w,; z. c ;_  ;..,33ggg9a mmygi;.gg. y

' ] [. (;[. ?;' .

1 c  :.

f-CSE-B-10-1 l t- 1 of 4 .;

.p,y '

i 9;:.;

'MDR COM REVIEW CHECKLIST. >

,\

.\.

, j litle: -MR:FC i e

Document:' Rev.: ,

Have'thefollowingbeenconsideredintNedesignpac'kage? ._ ._

• " ~' '

CONSTRUCTIBILITY:

~

r  ;

'l. 'A're the installation pr6cedures adequate? 1 Comments. .\

c l

'2. . Do.the d'rawings provide sufficient information for- 3 completing;the installation?

Comments:- 1 _.

1 3.- Do.the. pipe / conduit' routings facilitate construction -) '

1. . sequencing?. <

a 4

e Comments:- __ -I t

.'f

'4. Does the design' minimize rework to the existing installation?

Comments-

5. Are the core drill / expansion anchor requirements '

7 achievable?

Comments: _.

.m i

6. Does the design minimize / avoid rebar cuts?

Comments:

J

7. Has appropriate NDE been identified? q Comments: l

.g.

\

8. Are welding requirements achievable?

Comments

• J 1

i l' l L B-10.30 11/87 T

E'2L_____.....__..__.__._________.___

g~mwn m--www . .

i ,.

=.>i.4 , un w a m

~

h x.,y4 .1-

.-7 .q. .a

}, K L LGSE-B-10-I g,

2 of'4

fi MDR COM REVIEW CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC i Document:' Rev .' :

( XLS. N_Q . N/A

9. If asbestos cont'aining' insulation will be removed, has. _ __

. planning f or removal of ACM and methods ~ for. marking of now,non-asbestos containing insulation been~incorpo-l rated?

'If any: temporary structures (including scaffolding)

~

'10. _

neededLto build the modification can be identified up front, has a proper, safety analysis been done to

.' accommodate this?

11. - Are special requirements for tools, rigging, training, _ __

and fire protection identified?~

Comments: j

. \

, OPERABILITY:

-? -

12.- Are. all components accessible in relation to their _

operating requirements?

Comments:

l

13. Are there adequate vent, test and drain points on __

piping systems?

Sampling points?

Comments:

14. Are periodic operator surveillance and/or testing .__ _ . _ ,

requirements identified?

Comments:

15. Are any changes to the existing operational procedures _

separately identified?

Comments:

16. Are provisions for ISI testing requirements included in the design?

Comments: I B-10.31 f i

1 1

. ,_._____,y- ,,

g .o. , , ,. g . g g.j g s.,g c. m u . a .

F

. :, 3 h'.

L- ,

'GSE-B-10-1 l 3 -of 4' j MOR COM REVIEW CHECKLIST l

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

YES lLQ U/A.

17. Did the ALARA review adequately address the operational aspects of the modification?

Comments: _

'l' MAINTAINABILITY:

18. Are all components accessible for required' maintenance?

Comments-

19. . Is there sufficient laydown area'.for_ maintenance activities?

Comments-

,,. 20. Has the need for special maintenance or measuring

,"". equipment been identified?  :

Comments- i

21. Have special preventive maintenance requirements been identified?

Comments- t

22. Does all new rotating equipment have sufficient guards?

Comments: _

23. Are any special post maintenance testing requirements identified?

Comments:

B-10.32 11/87 l

.e , ~ . .

p.,,.

.. :r

.-(

GSE-B-10-1 4 of 4 7h -)

MDR COM REVIEW CHECKLIST

Title:

MR:FC Document: Rev.:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

Revi' ewer: Date:

Reviewer: Date:

l l

l B-10.33 11/87 e

_._m_..__._____m- _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _.. __.4 , e . ee44m.a. .ceaao s

. w. . . - u w .=w n.e .va - n.- xyw;; - , m.,;. x,. - ,2  ;--- - ; = = r---

l. .

a e I-I GSE-B-10 J 1 of 2

/*~ MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN REVIEW (MDR)-

' ';;ls'

SUMMARY

SHEET l

TITLE: MR:FC __-

DOCUMENT: Rev.

l ROUTING No.: INITIATED: / /19 COMPLETED: / /19 Significant Concerns / Comments No, MDR Interdiscioline YES NO N/A 3

1. Design Description

2. 10 CFR 50.59, Safety Evaluation

3. ' 10 CFR 50, Appendix B

& Pre-Operational .

4. Procedural Requirements

5. Environmental Qualification l

.Th

6. Engineering Analysis & Study

,Mc

7. Drawings  !

8. Specifications

9. Constructability/

Operability /

Maintainability, (COM)

i. Document in ii. Document in compliance iii. Document not compliance [ ] except as noted [ ] in compliance [ ]

Remarks:

This Design Change will [ ]/will not [ ] impact the FCS Design Basis.

Completed By: Date: / /19___

MDR Coordinator B-10.34 11/87

j )J

[/;  ;

a

c. -

h c n

+"

J, 2 .

i o _

O t u

'l-Bo

- r' .

/

e/ te/ te- l o .7 t

a a'- a s r,.

8 D/ D e E / D/ / ._

S2 '

R 1 1

g,.;e...

_ ~G s j-

're e

n Wiu i

E r

t n

r r M o e n t e a a n i i

n i g s e

dr n D E

o ~

o n g

C i

R s

[ e M D

_ T E E S E G

. H n S  :

o y  :

y-, y' i Y B B B ~- ta R  ?

im r

9 d de d M e e -

L ra v- v -

S x l u q o s 5 Y s' e

- 5 3

- R F-1 R h A 0

A F N 1 I

L s B .

P 're __ 9.u;,

. c. _

S I

f:% . _.

D w R i e

E I v N e I R R

E R

[

N .

M v

e R k

. 0 o 1 N

g i

n B t - i_

u .

o E R S G

'a u _

o -

N t:

O

/

< s i n _

l r _

- k e _

c _

n o

d e

J.

N C i

c R s ve I M 're .

+....

R de w c. ni; c

e t-a i  : .

C - n v s E : e e e k e a r R r l e a _

- t f R m Ri h' e D e MT E R  !

? R , .

L u. 1

.: C .- , . 3'. r

1 l

.- j i

i i

)

l l

l ATTACHMENT 6 Vendor Correspondence.,

)

3

+ _ = . _.---=====;a_=====_====n==:

t i

Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102 2247 402/53G 4000 February 9, 1989 PED-N-89-758 i

.-. 1 Customer Service Manager Byron Jackson Pumps '

Borg-Warner Industrial Products u1 PO Box 22634 "

Long Beach, CA 90801

SUBJECT:

Pump Performance

Reference:

Contract 691-H-0428, Pump #AC-10 A, B, C & D

Dear Sir:

l 's

,;In Please advise the undersigned by March 31, 1989 regarding the performance Tr -

characteristics of a type 28 RXL-2 STG V.C.T. pump. Our NRC project manager ,,

has requested that Byron Jackson.. evaluate the feasibility of running one pump forextended(2-3dayminimum)operationataflowrateof6003gpm.  :.A?

wyv If you have any questions please contact me at (402) 536-4654. Thank you for your efforts in resolving this matter.

Sincerely, l

(OL(, O bdfL W. O. Weber ,

Supervisor Reactor Performance Analysis b/lb 45 1824 mnioyment wim fou coportunity

- w = = - . .

=====.

Omaha Public Power Disti'ict 1623 Harney Omaha, Nebraska 68102 2247 402/536 4000 February 8, 1989 PED-N-89-74B Mr. Ram Laks KETEMA 2300 Marshall Drive Grant Prairie, Texas 75051 ,

I

SUBJECT:

Transient Design

Reference:

Job No. 20-69-4333 lag No. AC-4A, 4B

Dear Sir:

Design records indicate that the shutdown cooling heat exchangers referenced above should survive a hot transient event during a LOCA. However, given a mode D condition (LOCA) if the heat exchanger experiences a cooling transient (e.g. the shell side fluid has an inlet temperature of 40*F vs 95 F assumption) ill the heat exchanger be capable of performing its design function? Please i .: pond to the undersigned by March 31, 1989 if possible.

If you have any questions please call me at (402) 536-4654. Thank you for your efforts in resolving this matter.

Sincerely, N$ l _

W. O. Weber Supervisor -

Reactor Performance Analysis WOW /lb l

csm emmoumen tonononunay

\ - _ _ . . - - . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i 1

<< u l

)

i c i e

I' ATTACHMENT 7 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARD EVALUATION 3 AND REVISED TECHNICAL 1 SPECIFICATIONS PAGES ,

s

+ i e

l L

1

- _ . _ ~ _ _ - _ .

]

DISCUSSION, JUSTIFICATION AND N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARD ANALYSIS The proposed Technical Specification changes shown on Page 2-24 and 2-25 of the Technical Specifications concern changing the minimum operating requirements of the Raw Water Pumps so that it will be allowable to operate with one inoperable raw water pump when the river water temperature is below 60F. When the river water temperature is above 60F, all of the raw water pumps must be operable.

J If one of the raw water pumps is inoperable when the river water temperature is above 60F, the inoperable pump must be restored to operability within seven days.

It was discovered that there was a discrepancy between the USAR and the Technical Specifications concerning the operability requirements for the raw water pumps.. Technical Specification 2.4 currently allows one pump to be inoperable indefinitely. During a postulated accident (MSLB or LOCA) with concurrent loss of off-site power and failure of a diesel generator, this could leave only one operable raw water pump. However, USAR Section 9.8.2 states that a minimum of two raw water pumps are required to supply sufficient flow to the component cooling water (CCW) heat exchangers to shut down the plant.

Further studies have shown that when the river water temperature is below 60F, the flow from one raw water pump is sufficient to remove the ' design basis heat load of 280.0E6 Btu /hr from containment (USAR Table 9.7-2).

Basis for No Significant Hazards Determination:

This proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration because the operation.of Fort Calhoun Station in accordance with this amendment would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. This change decreases the consequences of a LOCA or MSLB with concurrent loss of off-site power and failure of a diesel generator by ensuring that the CCW heat exchangers have enough heat removal capacity to maintain the containment pressure below the design basis maximum.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. It has been determined that a new or different type of accident is not created because no new or different modes of operation are proposed for the plant. The continued use of the same Technical Specification administration controls prevents the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. This change increases the minimum operability requirements of the containment cooling system and, therefore, does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.

1

( Based on the above considerations, OPPD does not believe that this amendment involves a significant hazards consideration.

l

_