ML20049J719

Independent Design Review,Lasalle County Nuclear Station Unit 1,Initial Status Rept for Period 820211-0312.

ML20049J719
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	03/12/1982
From:	TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:
Shared Package
ML20049J717	List: ML20049J716 ML20049J719
References
TR-5539-1, NUDOCS 8203190284
Download: ML20049J719 (75)

Text

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

~

P i

4 "R TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES TECHNICAL REPORT ~

TELEDYNE ENGIN'EERING SERVICES CONTROLLED TR-5539-1 TES PROJ. NO. '((39 DATE M - /c2 2cM INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW LASALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 INITIAL STATUS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 11 THROUGH MARCH 12, 1982 MARCH 12,1982 -

9 264 D 820316 Ch 050993,3 4

PDR _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ i

O ,

i COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N O ONE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA CHICAGO, ILLIN0IS 60690 F

'O

TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 5539-1 O

1

'O INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW LASALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1

! INITIAL STATUS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD  :

l FEBRUARY 11 THROUGH MARCH 12, 1982

O

O MARCH 12, 1982 I

i O.

O 6

i jO .

t WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254 617 M 3350 Q ,

- . - - . . - . - .,-..-..-.--..-+,--.,m.--,,,-._e . . . , . . . . - , ,---.-.5 , , , . . . . - ' , , - ,

.&r -*

• ve -* r - w n - wev *v-~v-e't'

p -

W TF1 m(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report 3 TR-5539-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE D

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 SCOPE 1

3.0 CONCLUSION

S 2 D 2 4.0 PROGRAM STATUS Task 1 - Design Process and Controls 3 Status of Task 2 - Review of Design Procedures 3 g Task 3 - Review Interface Procedures 5 Task 4 - Review Implementation of Design and Interface Procedures 5 Task 5 - Determine As-Built Plant Configuration 6 Task 6 - Compare As-Built Documentation to Plant 8 Configuration 7 Task 7 - Design Documents Versus FSAR Commitment 7 Task 8 - Review Commonwealth Audit Findings 8 8 APPENDIX A - DOCUMENT LIST APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING PROCEDURE EP-1-009 APPENDIX C - TES PROJECT QA PROGRAM 8 APPENDIX D - TRIP REPORT FOR TASK 5 LASALLE STATION WALK-DONW TO DETERMINE AS-BUILT PLANT CONFIGURATION APPENDIX E - TRIP REPORT FOR TASK 8 - REVIEW CECO AUDIT FINDINGS S

e 9

/ ..

ym*

I ENGNEERING SERVCES

, Technical Report

" TR-5539-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

O At the request of Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO), Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) has prepared this Status Report.

This report describes the status of each task as outlined in the pro-O posal submitted to CECO and covers the period from February 11, 1982 (start of review) to March 12, 1982.

Appendix A lists all documents received to date by TES.

O .

Appendix B contains the TES Engineering Procedure EP-1-009 to be used on this project. This procedure defines the method (s) to be used by TES in performing the independent design review.

O Appendix C contains the TES Project QA Program (PQAP) for this pro-ject.

O 2.0 SCOPE TES has been contracted by Commonwealth Edison Company to conduct an independent design review at the LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

O The design review is limited to the Residual Heat Removal System (RHR) in the Low Pressure Coolant Injection Mode (LPCI) for Loop C. This review excludes electrical, instrumentation and equipment operational aspects O

which will be verified during preoperational and start-up testing. In addition TES will not review the development of the dynamic spectra nor the validation of computer programs.

O The portion of the RHR System subject to the independent design review is shown in Fig.1 which is taken from the P&ID for the RHR System at LaSalle (Sargent & Lundy (S&L) Drawing Number M-96, Sheet 3). The piping O

o -

'RTF1 FrVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 7)

Technical Report TR-5539-1 associated with the RHR Water Leg Pumps is included in this review as being

, representative of all small bore piping associated with this system.

v

3.0 CONCLUSION

S

, Based on the review process to date, TES has not found any open items, errors, or deviations. TES is using these terms as follows:

Open-Item: a possible error or inconsistency that has not been verified or fully understood, and its significance assessed.

Error: An incorrect result that has been verified as such.

, It may be due to any of several reasons:

Math Mistake Omission of Data Use of Inappropriate Data Deviation: Not an error in analysis, design or construction, but a departure from standard procedure (s).

J At this time most of the individual tasks are partially complete.

However, Tasks 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 are nearly complete. The reason some of these tasks are not complete is that, as the review process continues, addtional documents may be required for review.

4.0 PROGRAM STATUS

, As of March 12, 1982, TES has been active in Tasks 1 through 8. The status of each task is given below.

9 -

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

e

'RTF1 FnYNE ENGINEERING SERVCES

- Technical Report J TR-5539-1 Task 1: Design Process and Controls This task is 90% complete. During the review, documents, which TES requested and received, have been identified and cataloged as to their specific applicability (i.e., design or interface). Appendix A contains a list of all documents received to date.

O Based on the review of the S&L QA Manual and the meeting at S&L in Chicago, February 11, 1982, the organizational structure for the design of the LaSalle County Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (LSCNS1), as well as con-O tributing organizations, has been defined.

The list of companies involved in the design aspect of the RHR system are:

O Commonwealth Edison Company - CEC 0 General Electric Company - GE Sargent & Lundy - S&L Quadrex Corporation - NSC Section 1.3 of the TES PQAP defines the interfaces for this project.

This task should be complete by March 18, 1982.

Status of Task 2 - Review of Design Procedures This task is approximately 70% complete. Each TES reviewer involved with Tasks 1 through 4 has become familiar with S&L and Quadrex procedures and instructions pertaining to the design of the RHR System, Loop C. The documents identified under Task 1 as being pertinent to the design review of the RHR System are (from Appendix A): Reference Nos.1, 5 through 15, 17, 23, 24, 29 and 30.

D I

)

O SPTELE.ME ENGWNEERING SERVICES l

Technical Report i O- TR-5539-1 '

The S&L and NSC (Quadrex) Quality Assurance Manual (References 5 and 7, respectively) have been re; viewed, and provisions concerning design con-O trol have been noted. Similarly, the S&L Project Instructions (PI) and Appendices have been reviewed to familiarize TES personnel with the methods used in the design of the RHR System. These are References 10 through 14, 29 and 30. Use of the S&L "PIPSYS" computer code is. described in Refer-O ences 1, 6, 8, and 9. The Quadrex project specification (Reference 15) provides guidance on how design interface between S&L and Quadrex was accomplished.

O The performance of Task 4 is the key step in assuring the adequacy of the RHR System, Loop C. TES reviewers will utilize knowledge gained in the performance of Tasks 1, 2 and 3 to complete Task 4. Further use of design procedures, instructions, the FSAR and QA Manuals will be required by the O reviewers.

TES is currently reviewing the design procedures to determine the fol-lowing:

O Conformance to the requirments of the FSAR.

i Conformance to the requirements of the applicable Subsection of the O ASME B&PV Code,Section III.

Compatibility of design procedures from different external or internal organizations.

O Conformance to other standards, specifications, or regulatory guides deemed applicable by the reviewer.

O This task should be complete by March 22, 1982.

O

W F W NE ENGINEERING SERVCES a

73 Technical Report TR-6539-1 Task 3 - Review Interface Procedures O

This task is approximately 80% complete. During the review process in Tasks 1 and 2, TES determined the design interface procedures.

In reviewing the S&L QA Manual, specific references to development and O utilization of interface procedures were noted.

TES will determine in Task 4 if these interface procedures were fully implemented in the design process.

O Based on the review to date, those procedures reviewed by TES are adequate.

O The following procedures have been reviewed to date (listed in Appendix A): References 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 41, 42, 43 and 44.

Task 4 - Review Implementation of Design and Interface Procedures

.O This task is approximately 10% complete. The scope of work for this task requires that the major portions of Task 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 be complete' prior to the start of the work.

O At the present time TES is actively reviewing the following RHR piping subsystems and components.

O Subsystem / Component Reference RH-06 2 RH-11 36, 37 RH-07 33, 34, 35

, RHR-Pump / Motor 26 4" Gate Valve 27 l

O

/~%

s_-

ENGINEERNG S8WICES g Technical Report TR-5539-1.

TES will review all FCR's and ECNS's applicable to Loop C of the RHR System to determine if they were implemented properly in the design process including transmittal of changes in loading to all affected design groups.

TES has identified and located most project records for the design process of the RHR Loop C System. These documents represent the "As-Built" O condition prior to the ALARA modifications.

TES will use the recent changes due to the ALARA program as an example in the review process for determining:

a. The design process flow.

b. Implementation and documentation of Field Change Requests (FCR)

O

and Engineering Change Notices (ECN).

c. Resolution of "As-Built" condition to final design documents.

d. Treatment of Request for Information (RFI) between organizations.

Task 5 - Determine As-Built Plant Configuration O

This task is approximately 80% complete. TES has completed the initial walk-down of the RHR System. Appendix D is the TES trip report for this walk-down. The trip report describes the status of the system when TES performed the walk-down.

During the course of this walk-down, TES found that modifications were being performed due to the ALARA program. Some snubbers were being re-placed with rigid struts.

Since changes were taking place at the time of the walk-down, TES was afforded the ~ opportunity of actually determining the interfaces for the development and implementation of Engineering Change Notices (ECN's).

v

D "R TF1Frt/NE ENGINEERING SERVICES Technical Report U TR-5539-1 l These changes negate the Commonwealth Edison walk-down letters which are used to close out the design. These letters could only be used to D review those portions of the systems which were not being modified. Since this work was ongoing at the time of the TES trip, TES will do another walk-down in early April to determine the final "As-Built" configuration.

O All data collected during the first and subsequent trips will be used during the Task 4 review to determine the effects on design.

TES is currently reviewing, under Task 6, dimensional data collected during the trip with S&L design tolerance requirements (Reference 52).

Task 6 - Compare As-Built Documentation to Plant Configuration This task is 60% complete and should be complete by the 22nd of March for the initial walk-down.

Modifications to the system have taken place in the past few weeks.

Therefore, "As-Built" packages are not currently available.

TES is comparing the drawing as developed by the walk-down tc the pip-ing analysis geometry used in the S&L and Quadrex reports.

O Based on the initial walk-down results and the changes taking place',

an additional walk-down will be performed.

9 The results of the final walk-down will be examined to determine their impact on the design.

Task 7 - Design Documents Versus FSAR Commitment G

This task was started March 5, 1982. This review will be limited to FSAR requirements associated with the LPCI mode of operation which is a S

TF M ENGNEERING SERVICES g Technical Report TR-5539-1 Level B service condition. The loads, load combinations and criteria will be taken from the Design Specifications and the FSAR.

All pertinent information has been extracted from the F S A'. . A detailed review of the Design Specification is currently under way. This will include a comparison to the FSAR commitments. This review should be

,J.

complete by March 22, 1982.

Task 8 - Review Comonwealth Audit Findings This task is basically complete. Appendix E of this report contains the Trip Report which describes in detail this task. The enclosures to the trip report which list those specific audit reports reviewed by TES are not included. These are on file in the TES Document Control area.

Specific activities cited in the CECO audits were reviewed and it was determined that documented corrective action was taken by S&L, Quadrex and G.E. when required. CECO audit records revealed that all audit reports and g

findings were acceptably resolved and concluded.

CEC 0 performed extensive audits of S&L and subties audits of Quadrex even though Quadrex worked directly for S&L.

,o O

O

'O

) Technical Report exiitaIT 1 TR-5539-1 '

,  ! .  ! , + -

t

~

t

.$) i,l,', s,'.

D;e -  ; ;.-] .ei )e !! .

a 1,! .. .

:u -

y

.b. l}

• I g .

1*

G v (A V.. 1 n .;, p ?d M f '.' *! I i y nej c. r!%' e.wro.

f1; !i n' '.,.'.gi -

r  ;

r D U Y. d [ l ,

jh!f !Oh .

. ./ g , .:e: - ;> 3 ..-

e ..9 p ),L.;.;.ph s.d ,

. , j .o 5.:. 9 s 4 r d' R iQ j il l ' t ,i "il

! m-e i, a.o. n..

a.&"s P. , . l .. -.- j r. . i.

y. ,, -

b b... ,l l

'5 x N

n. o*

v.

a e,- r i .;

• 1 4

rad _7 /a ,,e 6

[,4,MD

,7m 71 JpA

-] ,( ,

j 'd/if -

.e b.

.j Q'Ei',,t,hb,

{

(,

..-t i,; 7t 4

8 m

." h d..b'q - .

4 a  !. i,,h , c)

- 4. g' .. .

1 x 3

.y. 4,

., ' .

• f.. .t<\. .' ~.roQ. . ~. ,6 .

e %.

3 m.y n ,,  :

A' - q  ? .

u.

m e

a

< ..> i i i t

y i!11!!

i[i e{( 4 3 a;.+.e l . . $  ;

y 5 ,( q<

4 -=--

,mI a s. .: -

+ .

( .- h s: >

,,,. e e p; .,. .2 -( t m

e p' -

n

$ *>..:.n f.w WOC Q j yn

[N ,,t 4..t..,  !# [ b .!

4 y

.i 7, t,y ,. h;.:

u ~ ,. h 4 >n 1

~ . . n,. c < - o

, -- ., y 2 , .. n . . . ., e.

, ,l ,

s .--;

.. , . . , e, =. v. ,

1 ' a a a,,

o w:~..

m..,

.y 4

.i. o, . s, s

s,3

. c, 7 g e  %.

7 m Y 2 -

e .

J %:. f s* %;ii M> gn %n

+

%,:771 ,  ;

6.

.o s .

. ' i , ,. ! e u. o f 2 .,. . .

8

.  ; .I $ .; .

u , ., l, . '-

3 1 .  ; m. u , . ., e m.,' 4. .

C'it t. 7,. n.

!.- p q yj '

\

.' 3.>. ,M g{ '

d'#y.L. c;1,.

• i-y -

'hy#. {Ir' i

, g ,

h..h h I.'!. (fj i$. h, , .-I . . .@ $ '$

riaj ' 'Ep@pg'l:lik;f hF~~,

~

[ ?x v u'

c--

. y. r . t G n.i N . i'E -u '

ent 4 -

v ip -

L-4 _ % ~ -. '

b ...

' n,w y qWrw 1 ,

r

... % g.9 a p.;pc }y4.b. gf 1.

~ . .

., - .bg.b- -s... m;n V i. c~t ' .

'. 1N.i@ S h. 5 MUfi'k.. .+$9,rJ.sil., E b,5 0.

m .m og . i n . b.,.

. , i.' -

$. i @ I h)

S . {%W&g$

h .

,7 L@ ,\(~d' -

-v Oi.!4;s N i@

. 1 ,,-

i+

. J.

a

- c.c vh'; eup\;d M yg%id Xl*a i;l n' ,M u

,,@)R[

f

ef 1

.'

T s

$s v' N.. g. ta 8f?' f. N. .

')

',.2 '! jE '

V T

j h td g'

• -t 4/

/ i,..3. ; ;*

o.

3 #

.8 g:

-L *i. t 1 g -

F E I

- . j,.

O YE N ,

l ENGNEERINGSONICES Technical Report O TR-5539-1

'O i

l 4

!O l

i i

'O l

i APPENDIX A lO DOCUMENT LIST lO 3

,0

O 1

i J

lO i

l i

!O i

O TN ENCJJEERING SERVICES Technical Report U-TR-5539-1 ,

1. Engineering Mechanics Divisions - Piping Analysis Lesson Plan - Volume II La Salle County Project Unique Procedures and Design Data. Controlled copy number - 021 Rev. 00 9/28/80.

O Piping Stress Analysis - Commonwealth Edison Company. La Salle County 2.

Unit 1 - 4266 Residual Heat Removal - RH-06 Rev. 05 10/12/81 Acces-sion No. EMD 033722.

Piping Stress Analysis - Commonwealth Edison Company. La Salle County 3.

O Unit 1 - 4266 Residual Heat Removal - RH-06 Rev. 03 2/13/81 Acces-sion No. EMD 021989.

4. Piping Stress Analysis Report - Comm Edison Co.'s La Salle County Station Units 1 & 2 - S&L Project Nos. 4266/4267-00 (J-2952) - Quadrex Job No.

y' SAR-0303 - Quad 1-80-170 Subsystem IRH Small Bore - for Record Anal-yses - Acc. No. 021070 - Rev. 2 - 11/27/81.

5. Sargent & Lundy QA Manual Rev. 2 Copy #138 - Issued to R.H. Pollock (2/21/80).

n 6. Computer Software Library - Users Manual - Pipsys - Integrated Piping

' ~'

Analysis System - S&L Program No. 09.5.065-5.3 PIPSYS 09504542.

7. NCS (Quadrex) Quality Assurance Program Rev. 3 Controlled No. 75.

! 8. EMD-TP-1 Rev. 1 Dated 12/22/80 Copy #146. Issued to M. Vega (Engineer-

'O ing Mechanics Division) Lesson Plan for Training Personnel in Piping

! analysis.

9. EMD-TP-3-Rev. O Lesson Plan for Training Personnel in Coding Piping Systems. Copy #146. Issued to M. Vega.

10. S&L Instruction PI LS-20-Rev 2 - The Review & Documentation of Pipe lO Welded Attachments of standard Design. 2 copies.

l 11. S&L Instruction PI-LS-16 Rev 7. Selection & Calculation Requirements for piping support assembly components for the La Salle County Station. 2 l

copies.

lO S&L Instruction, PI LS-19 Rev. 3. Record Review of Piping & supports 12.

done by analysis. 2 copies.

13. S&L Instruction P.I. LS-24 Rev. 4. Sargent & Lundy Divisional Interfaces to process field initiated design changes to pipe supports. 2 copies, o" Final piping and support verification.

14. S&L Instruction P.I. LS33 Rev. 3.

2 copies.

A-1 lO

O W TELED(NE ENGNEERING SEFMCES Technical koport O,

TR-5539-1

15. Project Specification SAR-0303 Purchase Order No. CD 316 Controlled No.

61. Quad-2-79-008 (Quadrex).

O 16. Residual Heat Removal System - Piping Design Specification for Comm.

Edison Co. - La Salle County Station Units 1 & 2. Spec. DS-RH-01-LS.

Rev. 3. 9/18/81.

17. M-90-SH 3 Rev. illegible. Dwg P &lD Residual Heat Removal System (RHRS).

, 2 copies.

u

18. Dwg. M-1041-42 Rev. G. Shts 0 thru 4 inclusive. Sub System #RH 42.

19. Dwg. M-1041-ll Rev. G. Shts 0 thru 4 inclusive. Sub System #RRH-ll.

20. Dwg. M-1041-7 Rev. A. Shts 0 thru 27 inclusive. Sub System 1RH-07.

O

21. Dwg. M-1041-6 Rev. F Shts 0 thru 4 inclusive. Sub System 1RH-06.

22. Nuclear Safety Related - SRV/Loca Hydrodynamic Loads - Revised Design -

Basic Summary Report. La Salle County Station Units 1 & 2. Report SL-3876 10/1/81.

,O

23. La Salle County Station. FSAR-Volumes 1 thru 10 inclusive.

24. Specificatica No. J-2952 Issue Unit 2 4/21/80. Specification for Safety Related Piping & Support Analysis & Design Consulting Services.

O 25. CECO Drawings - LaSalle County Station i

Dwg. M839 Sht. 1 Rev. AF Dwg. M839 Sht. 2 Rev. AH Dwg. M839 Sht. 3 Rev. Z Dwg. M839 Sht. 4 Rev. W O,.

Dwg. M839 Sht. 5 Rev. U Dwg. M389 Sht. 6 Rev. W Dwg. M839 Sht. 7 Rev. K Dwg. M839 Sht. 8 Rev. L Dwg. M839 Sht. 9 Rev. K 7,

Dwg. M839 Sht. 10 Rev. S v Dwg. M839 Sht. 11 Rev. AH Dwg. M839 Sht. 12 Rev. W Dwg. M839 Sht. 13 Rev. M l

Dwg. M839 Sht. 14 Rev. F m 26. Seismic Qualification of Residual Heat Removal Pump / Motor Spec. No.

J-2500 File No. QD-000264.

l A-2 lO

C)

YM ENG3EERING SERVICES Technical Report I) TR-5539-1

27. Seismic Requalification of 4" Gate Valve covered by Anchor / Darling Valve Co. Report #E-5875-26 (Tag #E12-F064A-B). Spec. No. J-2938-01 File No.

EMD-029421.

O

28. Penetration Stress Analysis Report Primary containment RHRS/LPCI Line Penetration 1PC0012. Rev. 1.

C) 28. Penetration Stress Analysis Report Primary containment RHRS Pump Supply Line Penetration 1PC0071 Rev. 00.

29. PI-LS-16 Appendices A-S Book 1 of 2.

C) 30. PI-LS-16 Appendices T-Z Book 2 of 2.

31. Formal Piping Stress Analysis La Salle County Station - Unit 1. Project No. 4266-10. HP-5, LP-5, RH-33 RH37 & RH32. Rev. 00. Date 11/7/80.

32. RH-64 Accession #021071 C) Addendum A. Rev. O Comprehensive Stress Analysis Report

33. RH-07 Accession No. EMD-024665 Book 1 of 2. Rev. 3

34. RH-07 Accession No. EMD-024665. Book 2 of 2. Rev. 3 0

35. RH-07 Accession No. EMD-033860. Rev. 4. Close out.

36. RH-11 Accession No. EMD-022732. Rev. 3

37. RH-ll Accession No. EMD-033883. Rev. 04. Accession No. EMD-034308.

C) Rev. 05.

38. RH-23 Accession No. EMD-021063. Rev. 2.

39. Document No. 33A2817AK. Rev. 3. MPL #E 12-4010 RHR System Design Spec.

(3 40. Document No. 22A2817 Rev. 3. RHR System Design Spec.

41. Thermal Transient Calculation RH-15 Rev. 1

42. Thermal Transient Calculation RH16. Rev. 1.

C) 43. Thermal Transient Calculation RH17 Rev. 1.

A-3 g

O W TF1 W NE ENGINEERING SERVICES I

Technical Report O TR-5539-1 i

l

44. CEC 0 QA Manual Rev. Various by Section QR's.

CEC 0 QA Manual to Nuclear Generating Stations Rev. Various by Section.

O CEC 0 QA Manual, Q.P.'s Rev. various by Sections.

45. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Miscellaneous Piping Sections M863, Sheets 34 and 40 O M1163, Sheet 34

46. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Support Drawing M09-RH56-1001V, Rev. D.

47. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Support Drawing M09-RH56-1004S, Rev. D.

O 48. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Support Drawing M09-RH56-10055, Rev. E.

49. LaSalle County Station ECN's, Unit 1_

FM-636-LS FM-663-LS FM-634-LS FM-7153-LS O FM-637-LS FM-7154-LS FM-640-LS FM-7155-LS FM-642-LS FM-7157-LS FM-644-LS FM-7159-LS FM-645-LS FM-7160-LS FM-646-LS FM-7161-LS O FM-647-LS FM-7162-LS FM-648-LS FM-7163-LS FM-650-LS FM-7164-LS FM-651-LS FM-7165-LS FM-652-LS FM-7166-LS FM-654-LS FM-7167-LS O FM-655-LS FM-7169-LS-Delete Rev. Letter dated 3/5/82 FM-656-LS FM-7170-LS FM-657-LS FM-7171-LS FM-658-LS FM-7172-LS FM-659-LS FM-7173-LS FM-661-LS FM-7158-LS O -

FM-662-LS FM-7168-LS

50. Small Bore Supports - LaSalle County Station Unit 1 - FRH-1215-H04G -

Rev. E.

O 51. Small Bore Supports - LaSalle County Station Unit 1 - FRH-1215-H02X -

Rev. E.

A-4 O

b l WTELED(NE I

ENG3 JEERING SEMOES Technical Report O TR-5539-1

52. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 - One Set M1100 Drawings, 56 pages - Com-ponent Supports General Notes and Details - Rev. Various.

O 53. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Support Drawing RH53-1566S - Rev. C.

54. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Support Drawing RH53-1567S - Rev. C.

55. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for Seismic Loads (Reactor Building Only) from Rev. 4 of the LaSalle Calculation Book, Vol. 163, O " Seismic Analysis of the Reactor-Auxiliary-Turbine Building Complex LSCS".

56. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for SRV-Symmetric (All and ADS) Loads - Rev. O.

O 57. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for SRV-Asyntetric Loads -

Rev. O.

58. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for SRV-Single Loads -

Rev. O.

O 59. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for Chugging (20-30 Hz)

Loads - Rev. O.

60. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for Condensation Oscilla-tion (Levy) Loads - Rev. 2.

O 61. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for Annulus Pressurization -

Loads'Due to Recirculation Outlet Line Break - Rev. 1.

62. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for Annulus Pressurization Loads Due to Feedwater Inlet Line Break - Rev. 1.

O 63. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for Annulus Pressurization Loads - Cosine 1 Harmonic Due to Recirculation Outlet Line Break -

Rev. 2.

64. LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response Spectra for Annulus Pressurization Loads - Cosine 1 Harmonic Due to Feedwater Inlet Line Break - Rev. 2.

O O

A-5 O

O 1 m W NE ENGNEERING SEFMCES Technical Report 3 TR-5539-1 O

O O

M ENDIX B O

ENGINEERING PROCEDURE EP-1-009 O

O O

O O

iO O

ENGINEERING PROCEDURE EP-1-009 O

TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES PROJECT PLAN O FOR INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 0F LASALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RHR SYSTEM O

REVISION O PROJECT 5539 O

FEBRUARY 10, 1982 O

,. h[

O Prepared by: mx Date ? - ( ci - 8 2_

Approved by: tbwAo h, h Date J - / 9- [2 O oject Manager

Reviewed by: ,N . AGl60 Date 2 / f OV O 0"*I#t###S""*"'*[

TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254 0 e17 890 3350

0 "RTFI mYNE ENGINEERING SEFMCES ENGINEERING PROCEDURE TITLE: EP 009 PAGE i REV. _0 REV.

TES Project Plan for Independent Design ORIG. ' FAD ORIG.

Review of LaSalle County Nuclear Power ENG. AS "J#f 4 ENG. AS.

s Plant RHR System Q.A. c C5~ Q.A.

J PROJ. MGR.

PROJ. MGR4 A P DATE gh9 Qf DATE SECTION DESCRIPTION REV.

D 1.0 SCOPE 1.1 This EP provides the method to be used by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) in performing the LaSalle County Nuclear Power 3 Plant, RHR System, Loop C, Independent Design Review Program .

under Project 5539.

2.0 APPLICAT'l0N 2.1 Enclosure (1) to this procedure contains the Project Plan for

, the Independent Review Program, including:

%/

a) Criteria b) Personnel responsibilities 3.0 METHOD 3.1 Independent Design Review Program 3.1.1 Section 1.0 of Enclosure (1) describes the Independent Design Review Program Scope, including:

a) Specific systen to be reviewed.

b) Exclusion of items and areas from review.

3.1.2 The objective of the Independent Design Review Program con-ducted by TES is to determine the adequacy of the design pro-cess as it relates to an operating mode of a specific system.

That system is the RHR System, Loop C.

3 It is anticipated that this type of review would result in con-clusions that are applicable to all work performed by the organizations subject to the review.

g' 3.1.3 The Independent Design Review Program includes ten tasks. Sec-tion 3.0 of Enclosure (1) describes the tasks in detail.

]

2/81

3 'RTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING PROCEDURE TITLE: EP 009 2 REV. _0 REV.

TES Project Plan for Independent Design ORIG. f) D ORIG.

Review of LaSalle County Nuclear Power ENG. AS.'2pf4 0 ENG. AS.

3 Plant RHR System Q.A. e cs ' Q.A.

PROJ. MGR.S AF PROJ. MGR.

DATE ghC f1 DATE SECTION DESCRIPTION REV.

D 3.2 Project Organization Section 4.0 of Enclosure (1) describes the TES organization for conducting each of the tasks.

3.3 TES Technical Efforts 3.3.1 In general, TES will not perform any detailed analyses to arrive at conclusions. Review of existing analyses performed by the organizatior.s involved will be sufficient and, further, g will provide better insight as to the design of other plant systems for which they were responsible.

3.3.2 If detailed analyses are required, additional requirements for the " Supplementary Efforts" will be defined by EP-1-010, latest revision.

3.4 TES Reporting 3.4.1 Section 3.11 of Enclosure (1) describes the TES reporting of the results of this project. This is Task 10 of the Project Plan.

h 3.4.2 Task 9 of the Independent Design Review Program Plan of Enclo-sure (1) describes the Project Review Internal Committee. This committee will assess the impact of any potential findings on the overall design adequacy of the RHR System, Loop C.

3 Project Review Internal Committee determines if the findings will have an impact on the design adequacy; this will be for-warded to the 10 CFR Part 21 review committee for disposition in accordance with TEP-1-004.

3.4.3 An Open Item Report (letter form) will be submitted when a g finding which may affect the design adequacy has been identi-fied.

O 2/81

0 "RTFl FrWNE ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING PROCEDURE O PAGE 3 TITLE: EP-1-009 REV. O REV.

TES Project Plan for Independent Design ORIG. h{h ORIG.

Review of LaSalle County Nuclear Power ENG. AS.f>>y s ENG. AS.

Plant RHR System Q.A. cWs _ Q.A.

PROJ. MGR. 4 A F PROJ. MGR.

DATE alC/ilff DATE SECTION DESCRIPTION REV.

O 4.0 RECORDS All records shall be controlled in accordance with the PQAP.

O O -

O l

O O

O A

2/81

O '

"RTF1 FnYNE ENGINEERING $ERVICES ENGINEERING PROCEDURE -

PAGE 4 TITLE:

EP- -009 ,

'4 RE TES Project Plan for Independent Design -

Review of LaSalle County Nuclear Power 0 b'~= E D Op

, ENG ."' AS . 'JpB ENG.'AS.

g Plant RHR System Q.A. e6Y Q.A.

PROJ. MGR.NA F PROJ. MGR.

s s DATE AhGft DATE

p. ', '

SECTION DESCRIPTION, REV.

O O

Enclosure .P-1-009 ,

7 ,

\

g --

TES Project Plan -

for the g LaSalle County Nuclear Power Plant, Unit L ,

RHR System, Loop C Independent Design Review O .-

g

~%

g \ 's 4

en 9+

- \

'~-

2/81 ,

n TN ENGrEERNG SERVICES Technical Proposal PR-5792

,O

1.0 INTRODUCTION

,, Comonwealth Edison (CECO) has been requested by the Nuclear Regula-

.a tory Comission (NRC) to obtain the services of an outside consultant to conduct an independent design review at the LaSalle County Nuclear Sta-tion, Unit 1. The design review is limited to the Residual Heat Removal g system (RHR) in the Low Pressure Coolant Injection mode (LPCI) for Loop C excluding electrical, instrumentation and equipment operational aspects which will be verified during preoperational and start-up testing.

g The portion of the RHR system subject to the independent design review is shown in Figure 1 which is taken from the P&ID for the RHR system at LaSalle (Sargent & Lundy Drawing Number M-96, Sheet 3). The piping asso-ciated with the RHR Water Leg Pumps is included in this review as being g representative of all small bore piping associated with this system.

Two organizations were involved in the design of the RHR system, Loop C, at LaSalle. These organizations are Sargent & Lundy (S&L) and Quadrex. ,

.O 2.0 PROGRAM PLAN OUTLINE l

l l 2.1 General O

The final result of this independent review is to determine the adequacy of the design process as it relates to an operating mode of a l specific system. It is anticipated that this type of review would result jg in conclusions that are applicable to all work performed by the organiza-tions subject to the review. In general, the reviewer will not perform any detailed analyses to arrive at conclusions. Review of existing analyses performed by the organizations involved will be sufficient and further, lO will provide better insight as to the design of other plant systems for which they were responsible. This does not preclude the reviewer from l performing any calculations and analyses that are deemed necessary.

l l0

O WTELEDGE Technical Proposal PR-5792 O The generation of dynamic spectra and the validation of computer programs utilized by the organizations involved is specifically excluded O from review. The reviewer will accept dynamic spectra for the buildings involved as presented and will only assure that their application to the system is appropriate. It is assumed that any computer program used has already been subjected to proper validation and verification procedures.

O 2.2 Plan Outline Essentially the reviewer will start with the final design g package which is presented as being representative of the as-built system.-

From this point the reviewer will work back through the design process to the initial design assuring that interface control (internal and external) was applied.

O The program is separated into 10 tasks as follows:

Task 1 - Design Process O Task 2 - Review Design Procedures Task 3 - Review Interface Procedures Task 4 - Review Implementation of Design and Interface Proce-g dures Task 5 - Determine As-Built Plant Configuration '

Task 6 - Compare As-Built Documentation to Plant Configuration jg Task 7 - Design Documents vs. FSAR Comitments Task 8 - Review CECO Audit Findings Task 9 - Project Review Internal Comittee O Task 10 - Reporting l

l

O TN ENGNEERNG SEFMCES Technical Froposal PR-5792 O -

3.0 PROGRAM PLAN IMPLEMENTATION n

q) 3.1 General The following sections discuss the detailed implementation of each task outlined in Section 2.0 above. It is anticipated that some tasks g will proceed in parallel while implementation of others will be dependent on completion of associated tasks. Terminology is used in the following task descriptions that may not be particular to S&L and Quadrex. However, the intent is to define scope and method and terminology can be revised to n

v suit the particular organizations involved.

3.2 Task 1 - Design Process and Control g The reviewer will meet with S&L to determine what process is used in taking aesign requirements and developing construction drawings. Fur-ther, the process of developing revisions to the design will be reviewed.

Interfaces between internal organizations will be determined in following , ,

the process of:

O a) specification of design requirements I b) development of preliminary design lg c) piping analysis d) support location and selection e) support analysis f) effect on building structure rg g) equipment loading requirements I

h) development of construction drawings

1) revisions to design

'g Intarfaces between external organizations will be determined in following the process of:

I a) transmittal of information to Quadrex lO b) review of Quadrex procedures

O TN ENGNEERNG SERVICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O c) review of Quadrex design d) transmittal of Quadrex developed information to S&L organi-

, zations (i.e., loads on building structure, etc.)

e) dealing with Field Change Requests (FCR) f) dealing with Engineering Change Notices (ECN) g) dealing with nonconformance and associated corrective ac-

, tion.

E/

Based on the results of this discussion a design process flow

, chart indicating interf aces and required design procedures will be de-veloped.

3 3.3 Task 2 - Review Design Procedures 9 Procedures, instructions and methods associated with developing the design of the RHR system, Loop C will be made available to the re-viewer. This will result in a list of procedures with associated descrip-tions which can be utilized with the results of Task 3 to develop a design ,

-) process. The reviewer must become familiar with these procedures to assure that implementation was adhered to by the design organizations.

Since Quadrex was a subcontractor to S&L the compatibility of

. design procedures of both organizations will be determined. If different procedu res, instructions and methods were used by each organization to perform a similar task (i.e., support design) the review must ascertain that the results are acceptable using either technique.

aY The design procedures will be further reviewed to determine if they are representative of the design criteria established in the FSAR. A detailed review of the Design Specification will be performed to determine g its acceptability with respect to the FSAR, the Code and other design requirements.

WTm pr#NE ENGNEERNG SENICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 D 3.4 Task 3 - Review Interface Procedures Using the design process determined in Task 1 and design proce-3 dures obtained in Task 2 the required interface procedures or instructions to implement those procedures will be determined. A review will then be made to determine if these interface procedures or instructions are avail-3 able. The reviewer will become familiar with the interf ace or control procedures to assure that implementation was adhered to in the design process. The interface procedures in conjunction with the design proce-dures of Task 2 will allow the reviewer to develop a design process for g comparison with that obtained in Task 1.

3.5 Task 4 - Review Implementation of Design and Interface Procedures O

A detail review of the analyses, design and construction draw-ings and reports will be performed to determine if established procedures were adhered to. Information requiring transmittal to others will be g reviewed to determine whether interface procedures were followed and whether the information was properly interpreted and applied. This will be particulorly important in relation to communication of design requirements I and information between Quadrex and S&L.

O All FCR's and ECN's applicable to Loop C of the RHR system will be reviewed to determine if they were implemented properly in the design process including transmittal of changes in loading to all affected design p groups.

All nonconformances and resulting corrective actions applicable to Loop C of the RHR system will be reviewed to determine if they impacted Q design and were implemented properly in the design process.

D

o' y

ENGNEERNG SERVICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 0 3.6 Task 5 - Determine As-Built Plant Configuration The reviewer will obtain the current data which represents the O

as-built plant configuration. Using this, a walkdown of the system will be made to develop a general feeling for the accuracy of the data. It is not intended that the reviewer perform a complete dimensional check of the O system. However, dimensional checks of various portions of the system and some supports will be performed. Photographs, as deemed necessary, may be taken to provide documentation of significant areas or components of the system.

O 3.7 Task 6 - Compare As-Built Documentation to Plant Configuration The reviewer will obtain from S&L or CECO the as-built documen-O tation which is specified to be representative of the plant configuration.

Having developed sufficient confidence in the data obtained in Task 5, the reviewer will make a comparison of documentation and plant configuration.

Any differences which are in areas of the system not subjected to dimen-O sional check in the field by the reviewer will need to be checked by the reviewer in detail at the site.

The as-built documentation obtained in this task is the informa-O tion that will be used in the detail review outlined in Task 4. This package should represent revisions resulting from ECN's, FCR's and any applicable corrective action for nonconformances and therefore will allow the reviewer to follow the process of the design back to initiation.

O 3.8 Task 7 - Design Documents Vs. FSAR Comitments The as-built documentation established in Task 6 will be used to O determine if the FSAR comitments have been complied with. It is noted that a detailed review of the design specification will be performed in O

O TM ENGNEERING SERVICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O Task 2 since that document forms the basis for the design approach. This review will be limited to FSAR requirements associated with the LPCI mode g of operation which is a Level B service condition. The loads, load combi-nations and criteria will be taken from the design specification and the FSAR.

3.9 Task 8 - Review CECO Audit Findings 3

The reviewer will obtain CECO QA and technical audit findings related to design activities of S&L and Quadrex. The specific activities g cited will be reviewed to determine if corrective action was teken and if CECO audit personnel assured that this happened.

3.10 Task 9 - Project Review Internal Comittee D

The reviewer will form an internal committee whose responsi-bility will be to review all potential findings of the project review team.

This review will include the definition and accuracy of the finding and 3 assess the impact of the potential finding on the overall design adequacy of Loop C of the RHR system.

Any potential findings determined to have an impact on design 3 adeauacy by the Project Review Internal Committee will be forwarded to the 10CFR Part 21 review comittee for disposition in accordance with regula-tory and company procedures.

3 Any potential findings that are not determined to have an impact on design adequacy will be returned to the project review team with accompanying discussion related to rejection by the comittee. Should the individual reviewer or the project review team manager disagree with the 3 review comittee conclusions the potential finding may be forwarded to the 10CFR Part 21 review committee for disposition.

t

O WTELED(E ENGNEERING SERVICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 g 3.11 Task 10 - Reporting g The reviewer will provide reports to CECO on the following schedule:

Initial Status Report - March 15, 1982 O Final Report - April 28, 1982 The initial status report will outline the progress to that date of the independent review and detail any findings which have been O through the entire review process at that time.

The final report will contain all findings which have been processed in accordance with Task 9. Observations and suggestions will be O available in the reviewers records and can be forwarded at i later date if CECO wishes.

The final report will also include details of the review pro-O cess and summaries of each task.

3.12 Task Sequence lO A number of the above tasks will be carried out simultaneously while others are dependent on each other. Further, the numbering of tasks does not indicate the order in which they will be performed. Based on l current understanding, the following task sequence is established.

lO Tasx No. Sequence No.

I 1 1 2 2 (O

3 3 4 4 5 2 10

O TN ENGNEERING SBWICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O (Cont'd) Task No. Sequence No.

6 3 0 7 5 8 4 9 N/A 10 6 O

Tasks 2 and 5, 3 and 6, and 4 and 8 can be carried out simul-taneously but are dependent on completion of previous tasks (i.e., Tasks 2 and 5 cannot comence until Task 1 is completed).

O 4.0 PROJECT STAFFING 4.1 Project Review Team O

The work outlined in this plan will be conducted under the general direction of Mr. Donald F. Landers, Senior Vice-President. The Project Manager for TES will be Mr. James A. Flaherty, Manager, Engineer-O ing Design and Testing. TES will provide staffing to this project as required to complete the effort outlined. The program as outlined will require the use of a number of senior level staff personnel to make the types of judgements required by this review. Further, the program will O also require the use of some personnel familiar with documentation control and record retention as well as personnel with field experience to obtain as-built information. Current projections for the Project Review Team Senior Staffing are shown in Figure 4.1.

g 4.2 Prcject Review Internal Comittee This committee approach is currently used by TES for projects O that involve state-of-the-art engineering. TES forms a comittee in such cases composed of senior level personnel who have the necessary expertise to resolve technical issues presented by the particular project under O

O WN ENG4EERNG SOMCES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O

o Project Manager O J. A. Flaherty Tasks 1 thru 4 Task 5 Tasks 6 and 7 Task 8 O

G. A. Carpenter R. H. Howard R. M. Pace J. A. Malonson R. D. Hookway R. D. Foti J. C. Tsacoyeanes Additional TES staff will be utilized as required. '

.O 1

, Project Review Team Senior Staffing Figure 4.1 O

O

!O

a ENGNEERNG SERVCES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O review. In this case the committee will consist of three senior level engineers who together have a broad background in technical management, g analysis, design, regulatory and Code criteria, and utility experience.

Mr. Nicholas S. Celia, Manager, Projects will chair this committee. The organization is shown in Figure 4.2.

g 4.3 TES 10CFR Part 21 Comittee TES has a standing company policy with respec t to Part 21 issues. This policy is implemented by the use of a Technical Engineering g Procedure (TEP-1-004). Although the findings which appear in the final TES report. may not be of a Part 21 nature we will use our Part 21 approach in establishing these findings. The two major reasons for this are:

n (1) The independence of the TES Part 21 Comittee v

(2) The opportunity for a reviewer to appeal the Project Manager or the Project Review Internal Committee conclu-sions on his potential findings.

O This standing committee is chaired by Mr. Ron Wray, Manager, Engineering Analysis. He has the authority to assemble a comittee of his choosing based on the potential finding presented to him. In the case of O this project he will be requested to review the plan presented here and establish this committee in the near future and to revise the current TEP with respect to the time allotted therein for ... eview. This will be done to expedite matters so that the April 28th da:e an be met. Since the O findings being considered may not be Part 21 issues it is felt that this can be accomplished.

4.4 Overall TES Organization O

The TES standard organization is shown in Figure 4.3 and the organization for this particular project is shown in Figure 4.4.

O

O WM ENG3JEERNG SERVICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O O

O N. S. Celia - Chairman J. W. Hanson O g, ggy Project Review Internal Comittee O

Figure 4.2 O

l lO O

o o

O O O O O O O U U U O TN Technical Proposal M SSR\/ ICES PR-5792 Fred C. Bailey, President I l l l A. E. Johnson W. S. Moonan D. F. Landers J. Q. Cragin W. E. Cooper Vice President, Controller Senior Vice President, Manager, Consulting Engineer Internal Services Engineering Operations Marketing Services i l l I N. S. Celia J. A. Flaherty R. Wray C. G. Sprangers Manager, Manager, Manager, Manager, i Engineering Projects Engineering Design Engineering Analysis Quality Assurance  %

and Testing I I I I Engineering Projects Design Testing Analytical Thermal-Fluids Capabilities Special Projects Engineering Assurance TES Organization Figure 4.3

O WM ENGMEERNG SBMCES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O

'O F. C. Bailey o President D. F. Landers Senior Vice President

.O I I Project Review Project Review 10CFR Part 21 Team Internal Conmittee Comittee O J. A. Flaherty N. S. Celia R. Wray Manager Chairman Chairman

'O i

i LaSalle Project Organization Figure 4.4 O

'O O

s O

i

O TE N ENGINEERNG SERVICES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O 5.0 INDEPENDENCE g TES has not been under contract to CECO to peform any work associated with the LaSalle project. With respect to the design agents involved, TES has not been under contract to Quadrex in the past ten years and has had one contract with S&L in that time frame. The S&L contract was performed g in 1980 and 1981 and included a management audit of the process used to perform analyses of piping systems. In the process of that audit, techni-cal issues were discussed related to computer software and hardware used by S&L. The income to Teledyne, Inc. for the S&L contract amounted to g 0.000105% of total sales for that year.

In order to qualify as an independent reviewer for the design verifi-cation program at LaSalle, all personnel assigned to the project will O c mply with the following:

(1) Key project personnel shall have no present or past work ex-perience in design of the LaSalle County Nuclear Station.

O (2) Project personnel shall not be active on any other CECO, S&L or Quadrex work.

O (3) No project personnel shall have members of their immediate family (parents, spouse, children and grandchildren) who are employed by CECO, S&L or Quadrex.

O (4) During the term of the project no project personnel and their imediate family shall have cumulative ownership interest in CECO, S&L or Quadrex which exceeds 5% of their gross f amily annual income.

O O

o v

ENGNEERNG SEFMCES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O The most important f actor in completing this design verification pro-O gram is competence. This competence must be based on knowledge and ex-perience in the matters under review. The company and individuals involved should also be independent. Independence means that the individuals and company involved must be able to provide an objective, dispassionate tech-O nical judgement, provided solely on the basis of technical merit. Inde-pendence also means that the verification program must be conducted by individuals and a company not previously involved with the design activi-ties at the LaSalle County Project. Their integrity must be such that they O are regarded as a reputable company or individuals.

J 6.0 COMPANY QUALIFICATIONS

'O TES has b2en actively engaged in the nucler power industry since the early 1960's. Services have been provided to the industry in the areas of mechanical, structural, civil, electrical engineering, testing and instru-mentation. Our engineering activities range from stress analysis to O design and material procurement and include fracture mechanics, design i reviews, ASME Code consulting and training activities. In the areas of l

testing and instrumentation we provide material testing, nondestructive  !

examination, failure analysis and mechanical testing services. TES staff are heavily involved in ASME Code activities, the Pressure Vessel Research (O

Committee, ANSI Standards Committees, ASTM and SESA.

i

\

l TES has a staff of approximately 220 people of which 195 are involved O in engineering activities. Most of the senior staff are Registered Profes-sional Engineers who have authored numerous papers.

l O

l l

l lO J

o W TELE M E ENGSEERNG SBMCES Technical Proposal PR-5792 O 7.0 RESUMES g The following key personnel have been identified to participate in one of the major areas of this project:

J. A. Flaherty g N. S. Celia R. Wray G. A. Carpenter R. D. Hookway O R. M. Pace J. H. Malonson G. Moy J. W. Hanson g R. D. Foti J. C. Tsacoyeanes Other personnel whose participation may be required will be drawn g from the following individuals:

D. F. Landers M. A. Revett J. F. Maher O L. J. Diluna S. D. Wharton R. D. Ciatto D. Messinger R. A. Enos W. J. Carey L. B. Semprucci B. C. Ryder

g J. P. King J. J. Rivard R. A. Smith M. R. Dellorso D. C. Neal M. F. Moran g The resumes of these personnel follow.

I l

Participation of the above will be subject to their demonstration of j being free of substantive conflict of interest.

O

O WM ENGNEERING SOMCES Technical Report

O TR-5539-1 O

O O

APPENDIX C O

TES PROJECT QA PROGRAM (PQAP)

O O

O O

O

O WTELED(NE ENGNEERING SERVICES O

O PROJECT QA PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 5539 PROJECT MANAGER J. A. Flahprtv O INITIATED ON 2/2/82 REV 0 DATE 2/A/A9 CLIENT Commonwegith Edison comoany (CFCO)

QA APPROVED - h YvoDATE '

W / k /N8" '

g

' r 9 f PROJECT SCOPE Provide an independent design review at the LaSalle County Station of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System on Loon "C" as marked in Exhibit 1 to

O this P0AP. This review only includes the RHR system in the low pressure coolant in.iection mode (LPCII and shall encomoass the structural and mechanical asoects of this system only. CEC 0 has not imoosed any Ouality Assurance Requirements. However, TES will invoke its QA Program for O adequate control of the project.

• Approvg  ;

Revisions Project Manager Date E A Manaoer Date .

O O M, &. ,]lgb 2ll1f8.l. g& W B2 10 lO

O

?

WM FD(hE PROJECT 5539

! 6M REV. O DATE 2/8/82 PROJECT QA PROCEDURE PAGE 2 0F 9 O Note: The following paragraphs are numbered to correspond to the TES QA Manual.

1.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 1.1 TES Organization O

Project Manager: J. A. Flaherty Assistant Project Manager: L. J. Diluna QA Engineer: D. Messinger Project Review U Internal Comittee: N.S. Celia, Chairman 10 CFR Part 21 Committee: R. Wray, Chairman 1.2 Client Organization Project Manager: B. R. Shelton, Project Engineering Manager, CEC 0 g Contractual: N. E. Wandke Quality Assurance: Not Applicable 1.3 Interfaces Project Manager J. A. Flaherty B. R. Shelton/T. E. Watts, CECO O Contractural W. S. Moonan N. E. Wandke, CEC 0 Quality Assurance D. Messinger T. E. Watts, CECO Technical Data J. A. Flaherty/ 5. R. Shelton, CEC 0 L. J. Diluna i - >

0 Tasks 1 through 4 J. A. Flaherty/

L. J. Diluna G. A. Carpenter R. D. Hookway R. J. Mazza, Project O J. C. Tsacoyeanes Director for LaSalle Task 5 J. A. Flaherty/ County Station, Sargent L. J. Diluna and Lundy (S&L)

R. H. Howard Backup: D. C. Haan,

.O Tasks 6 and 7 J. A. Flaherty/ Project Managar (S&L)

L. J. Diluna R. M. Pace R. D. Foti Task 8 J. A. Malonson B. R. Shelton/T. Watts, CEC 0 Task 9 N. S. Celia B. R. Shelton, CECO Task 10 J. A. Flaherty B. R. Shelton, CEC 0 O

D W TF1RV E 5539 g g PROJECT REV. O DATE 2/8/82 PROJECI QA PROGRAM PAGE 3 0F 9 O

l 1.4 Project Document Distribution Controlled Document Distribution: J. A. Flaherty, TES b Report Distribution: J. A. Flaherty, TES B. R. Shelton, CEC 0 2.0 PROGRAM 2.1 Client Requirements None; CEC 0 has not imposed any QA requirements, nor will they review or approve TES Project QA Program.

2.2 TES Requirements O This Project QA Program, latest revision, constitutes the QA requirements for LaSalle County Station Nuclear Power Plant Independent Design Review Program for the RHR Loop C System.

2.3 TES Quality Assurance Manual Applicability 8 QA activities 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,15,16,17, and 18 apply as supple-mented by this PQAP.

2.4 Implementation TES Engineering Procedure EP-1-009, "TES Project Plan for Inde-8 pendent Design Review of LaSalle County Nuclear Power Plant RHR System", latest revision, defines the plan for implementation.

2.5 Indoctrination Each TES employee assigned to this Project shall complete and

1. sign a copy of Attachment 2. These documents shall become QA Records.

3.0 DESIGN CONTROL The present scope of work does not include Design or Analysis. If the 8 scope of work changes, then, in addition to the requirements of the TES QA Manual, all supplementary efforts, task and subtask activities, will be controlled by an Engineering Procedure, if required.

5.0 PROCEDURES, INSTRUCTIONS AND DRAWINGS 8 5.1 General No additional requirements to TES QA Manual.

O

)

TME PROJECT 5539 REV. O DATE 2/8/82 PROJECT QA PROCEDURE PAGE 4 0F 9 O 5.2 Supplementary In implementation of the requirements, the revision identified by EP-1-009 applies as do:

TEP-1-001, Rev. 2, " Initiation, Approval, Implementation, Revi-O sion and Control of TES Procedures and Engineering Instructions" TEP-1-002, Rev. 2, " Guidelines for Writing TES Engineering Pro-cedures" TEP-1-004, Rev. O, " Reporting of 10 CFR 21 Offenses" TEP-5-003, Rev. O, " Method of Determination of As-Built Configuration of RHR System, Loop C, LaSalle County Station, Unit 1" 6.0 DOCUMENT CONTROL 6.1 General The requirements of the TES QA Manual apply except as modified by TES SQAP 81-01, Rev. O.

O 6.2 Controlled Documents All documents developed by TES or provided to TES by external organizations shall be controlled documents except as stated in 6.4. All verbal communications with external organizations shall be documented in the form of telecons, meeting minutes, trip , ,

reports or memos to the Project Manager. The Project Manager O will retain a copy of all documents until completion of the Project.

6.3 Addressing All external organizations shall be requested in writing to O direct all transmittals to TES as follows:

TES Document Control Project 5539 130 Second Avenue Waltham, MA 02254 O

Any external transmittals not so addressed will be submitted to Document Control through use of the Multi-Purpose Form (MPF) defined by TES-SQAP 81-01.

6.4 Exempted Documents O

6.4.1 The following are exempted from the requirement that all documents be considered as controlled documents, and shall be kept in the custody of the Project Manager:

a. Final Safety Analysis Report for the LaSalle Nuclear O Power Plant

WME PROJECT 5539 M REV. O DATE 2/8/82 PROJECT QA PROCEDURE PAGE 5 0F 9 O All external generated Design Records (Specifica-b.

l tions, Orawings, Procedures, etc.) required for the l Review.

c. Information, such as resumes, concerning the person-

.O nel of external organizations.

6.4.2 Personnel statements regarding potential or apparent con-flicts of interest by TES employees shall be retained by the TES Personnel Relations Manager.

O 15.0 NONCONFORMING MATERIAL OR ITEMS 15.1 TES Activities No additional requirements to TES QA Manual.

g 15.2 External Activities The reporting procedures of EP-1-009 apply rather than the requirements of the TES Policy Manual.

16.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION O

16.1. TES Activities No additional requirements to TES QA Manual.

16.2 External Activities O

The reporting procedures of EP-1-009 apply.

17.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS The requirements of the TES QA Manual apply and are implemented by O the QA Records list (Attachment 3) which provides retention periods of no lesser extent than does ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1979.

, 18.0 AUDITS The requirements of the TES QA Manual apply as implemented by Attach-O ment 4 of this PQAP.

O O

ot ,

!!; ;;r * - r I  !

5; ;:

o 6. y%.0 f

a}g}L,.,;n

/ 8e r

M .$rir ;U,j 'lla s Oo e

_b O

.w .

N.s g -

3" >d c c

'dg u ! i..'/ o~ '. +!

1

%. q J s*3 t i, I-

,7 p

• s pJ t

k. b,, i,# b.,#i'.- f . . .m

.'j f f p>;t.

p 7o y

~

i d '. .iri T O

Y QbH +.. 9 dul 6 ;'

.h l

5, p, :si

~ d Q.!

i 1& W*l .'

( M 'sl illl 5 ff, ,t 3 1 jI{i l

y8- l

{ =, r, i-+- -t --9

. 8/kih. l Q vy tr .e V< - d,, .

j;i g

t J. 3??' 3 Q(, h,99  ! ' k'i 1 *P'pM y' P. b; 9

)

i

@l EriEN4

- x 9

I 'y lr N{aIa N '1 i i

b <,+t i

. I; // t g .i ',

..-rfg u ! - .

A [q.j

• . g y

-  ;?l.q! '  !{v '1:'44N !.?i V ; at ig' G,  !  ; I, Sh ' $:. W , 9 Fi;  ! t i di t' V i

{1 C i.j o t . a. a,

e. -

l -

> p 2 E B ', i l gg g-f8 .; - oru 3- ,1

+1' t

Fd j gp i (,;, gsa;: <

l b i l3E' @4 ,$g

, ',a_ gy I;.]

3 {h ; k' gp a ri  ?[3 6 M i -wref g p= , ) uy

/,. ~

a/

N

• ~ #M'~~ 5, r.;

a\ n.u 7w -

y,i #

am C

N i p

me ,gh [i- -

C"

" id.

I g

m :f >~.1 f .Mv ~ .' ,.w-

__/ p

= r, .i . M,-

il ir-

; i w,L 1

s

?

i

[ 7{a9 t-

.t .i.:j y ,: ;

i

}. .

a -

c y _ s t ._g, m. e s: me:n, c gq 9  :- e q x+D m ,,I, 3.. v- .

c s s -

y B -o. y.~ '

l h, p3 4,4 l.

i Ng

• 9

!i r

^?1- -ST W{ &uUd( ;i iIM!>#d., I A%Cd 9 1 Y "'

2 J

k%i%a -

n b

- St,..

i b

<g.. L.. ...._-.

bb E E' ma _

.y b~ {;

," I'f* f l rYT3 e ;ln ' u 7 ].h1h d% ]y C , *E)2ii p

!m 1piaf)[M , , *dV

t EEl, c . n q'p'

.s kl P1 0t *f'w%j '

wQe //s-- .d .;> ',h MI 9;d 1  ; t

$ so -------?4 Q g # 9 fl5 f1 ~;'

-~

e 1r*" > -

i k$ hhh $$ N'~"'*/i

f. .i- fTl50 ' f

- 8'.h,8'#'QdB;F{@yT/.-.m~iiu.a.

-w d,. .

.. 1iGh,-_a.a.a + N['ldhD m

a. <

~

v s ,e. w v..

%f

~

.==- - r

$. ' ll' - pM.' I 9

m

.C-Eiiif.Ly*9 u+ t.

=r.Qd p? g iti ,p %j.f

.n.

u. =3.?, d'p9= 4,a hiii.,sd

~

jh";lIh Lfw'h, '. [i, i

Y h M i [pf, N b m Y [,*,-A(9 l hq ,N * ,N q .

.. w .-.>y $m.

"'J..1sI k .".'"i o n?e~ t Efp: .I ..~# e o .

.o a' m 02'1 'g 3 r-** $ gr, ? ., u

• ;ij 4:s q.[q:i mM=*

.M-------- . < E.f 3 X

.: 4 4 en .

S g .a 4 ;. g i

u T 'k

' 3

[a )d ad *>'. F~ 'Sp wil.

P :li 2 !'

i t .0.d3 a L u* Af; .O. A h}q v' g .

y

+

n u om <

i t:! i

' uQ C M5 .

. . < '~

1

. . i .

O

TEME PROJECT ss%

i REV. O DATE _2f_8L82_ _

PAGE 7 0F 9 PROJECT QA PROGRtd J

ATTACHMENT 2 l

TO: J. A. Flaherty, Project Manager D. Messinger, QA Engineer

SUBJECT:

Project 5539, Independent Design Review, RHR System LaSalle County Nuclear Power Plant: Project Indoctrination I certify that I have read and understand, and that I will comply with, the following documents which control this project:

1. Project QA Program, Revision .

D 2. TES Engineering Procedure EP-1-009, "TES Project Plan for Independent Design Review of LaSalle County Nuclear Power Plant RHR System", Revision 0.

S Signed:

Title:

Date:

9 9

9 9

1

O PROJECT QA PROGRAM PROJECT 5539 TE WE '

" SERVICES REV. O, DATE: 2/8/82 ATTACHME!iT 3 PAGE 8 0F 9 La QA RECORDS REQUIREMENTS LIST TYPE RETENTION PERIOD CODE CLIENT PROJECT BY OWNER BY TES O 1. CLIENT DOCUMENTS A. Specifications B. Procedures C. Drawings D. Instructions E. Other 2 yrs O X

!!. TES DESIGN DOCUMENTS A. Specifications ,

B. Procedures X Life C. Drawings n

D. Instructions E. Analyses X 2 yrs F. DesapRop<>rts Phase Reports X Life G. [2ermwe Error & Ooen Item Rots, X Life H. Other rnnt enll od nnt trnonte c X 2 vr5 111. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS O

A. Welders B. NDE C. OC Inspectors ,

D. Other g IV. EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONS A. Calibration B. Standards C. Other V. VENDOR REQUIREMENTS O A. Personnel oualifications B. Measurement /lest C. Procurement

( ). Other VI. TES DOCUMENTS O A. Project QA Program X Life B. Special QA Procedures C. Project instructions D. NDE Reports F. Other g VII. AUDITS A. Per Audit Plan X 2 yrs B. Vendor P. Other A z yrs 3/00 0

i 1,

h TME PROJECT 5539 NN REV. O DATE 2/8/82 PROJECT QA PROCEDURE PAGE 9 0F 9 O ATTACHMENT 4 1.0 INTERNAL AUDITS 1.1 On completion of Phase 1 (Preliminary Finding Report, due O March 15,1982), the QAE shall complete an appropriate Document Control Audit Checklist to verify that all TES requirements have been met.

1.2 During progress of Independent Design Review activity the QAE shall perform an internal project audit of work in process. This O audit shall be performed using a prepared checklist to cover the sign off sheets, document control and requirements of the PQAP and TES Engineering Procedures.

1.3 Prior to project closeout the PQAE shall conduct a final project audit to assure the identification, accumulation and storage of g Project QA Records and update of Project Personnel Training Records.

2.0 Upon completion of the QA Audit and documenting the results, the QAE shall discuss his findings with the TES QA Manager and Project g Manager.

3.0 For this scope of work, all personnel performing QA auditing assign-ments shall have been qualified per ANSI N45.2.23, 1978.

O O

O O

O

l 8 W

W NE ENGNEERING SERVCES s

Technical Report TR-5539-1 3 -

A. #

%s .

, s. , _

b .s s

. ~

A

O x, . .

w t

-f

, s

-s s

s APPENDIX D J3 O

TRIP REPORT FOR TASK 5 LASALLE STATION WALK-DOWN' '

TO DETERMINE AS-BUILT PLANT CONFIGURATION .

O s  : f O

, st e

)

G s O

O

3 '

WTELED(NE ENGNEERNG SERVICES TRIP REPORT NO. 1420 PROJECT 5539 VISIT TO SARGENT & LUNDY

) CHICAG0, ILLIN0IS February 22, 23, 24, 1982 Monday morning, February 22, 1982, Teledyne employees, R. A. Enos, J. J.

3 Rivard, R. A. Smith and R. J. Gomes arrived at the Sargent & Lundy (S&L) head-quarters office in downtown Chicago. The purpose of this trip was Task 5 of tne TES Project, Determination of "As-built" Plant Configuration. TES visited the S&L office to obtain all documentation required to perform an "as-built"

) walk-down at the LaSalle Plant. We were met by Dave Haan, Steve r(illian and Chuck Semmler. We were supplied with seven subsystem as-built packages, which were put together by Chuck Semler. They consisted of: a final walk-down letter which lists applicable drawings and open ECN's; a computer list of all 3 the supports on the subsystem and the corresponding support drawing numbers; a set of support design drawings which address all of the supports on the sub-system; and lastly an analysis stress summary with the corresponding stress u.alysis drawing. We reviewed the as-built packages for subsystems RH-06, '

RH-07, RH-ll and RH-42, which represent the main pipe line of the RHR Loop C

' system. Subsystems RH-23, RH-63 and RH-64 represent branch line systems off of the main line. To get started we requested cnpies of all the~ support draw-ings for subsystem RH-06 (all of the inside containment portion) and copies of h the fourteen drawings which show the whole RHR Loop C system. All of the drawings requested and received from the Chicago office are listed on Attach-ment No. 1. Dave Haan had informed us that we could obtain copies of anything

! that was in the as-built packages right at the site.

)

Monday afternoon we departed Chicago and headed for the Holiday Inn in

! Morris, Illinois.

Tuesday morning we arrived at LaSalle County Station Nuclear Power Plant and met with George Mank, Assistant Project Leader to Dave Gallagher. We were assigned two escorts, Dennis Hatcher and Larry Serna, to accompany us on site.

O TN ENGNEERING SERVCES g Trip Report No. 1420 Warren Vahle, support coordinator for Commonwealth Edison, took us into the plant for the initial walk-down and to point out support locations. Subsystem O

RH-42 was under water in the suppression pool and could not be looked at.

Consideration of an alternative for this subsystem was to look at this section in Unit 2, if time permitted. The initial walk-down started at the suppres-

, sion pool penetration and proceeded back to the containment penetration.

Warren Vahle pointed out that some of the enubbers were being changed to struts as a result of the NRC's request to reduce unnecessary exposure to radiation when inspecting snubbers with less than 1/16th of an inch thermal movement. The supports involved have ECN's showing the changes. Later in the O

day copies of the ECN's were requested. In reviewing the inside containment piping, our review was restricted due to the close proximity of other systems and support structures. The piping and support drawing from S&L's office in Chicago for inside containment were used to check supports. Warren Vahle left us with our two escorts to complete the work.

The verification consisted of checking dimensions, support component num-bers, valve operator orientations, pipe interferences, etc. Any item reviewed is either indicated 0.K. or the difference indicated on the piping or support drawings and initialed. A list of field survey items requiring clarification i is appended to this trip report.

O After completing the inside containment walk-down of the as-built config-uration, we requested copies of the ECN's, all of the remaining pipe support drawings, the walk-down letters for all seven subsystems and the piping draw-ings for subsystem RH-63, branch piping to the water leg pump. All drawings O -

and copies of letters requested and received are listed on Attachment No. 2.

R. A. Enos departed the site for the airport at 3:00 p.m., leaving the other three to complete the as-built configuration walk-down. We received O

mo;t of the copies of the support drawings we requested. We also received piping drawings for subsystem R-63, branch piping to the water leg pump; how-ever these were illegible. Dennis Hatcher told us that they did not have the O

O YM ENGNEERING SEFMCES O Trip Report No. 1420 .

latest revisions of all the support drawings we requested and that they would have to come from the S&L Chicago office. He alto would try to get better O

copies of the R-63 subsystem drawings.

R. J. Gomes, R. A. Smith and J. J. Rivard borrowed a camera and film from George Mank and took pictures of the supports inside containment which were O

reviewed earlier. We then received copies of the support drawings which we requested from the S&L Chicago office and also copies of the walk-down letters. Af ter we left the site for the day, we purchased film to complete the photographing of the supports and branch attachments.

O Wednesday morning we started measuring and checking supports starting at the wall of the suppression pool and completed the as-built verification up to the RHR pump including the first support of each of the branch lines. Since the piping drawings of the line to the water leg pump were illegible, we sketched the line and its supports. These will be compared to the piping and support drawings when they are received. ,

O Wednesday af ternoon we completed the as-built verifications from the RHR pump to the containment wall. A number of the supports were too high to take measurements. Therefore, we were only aDie to see if they were similar to the drawings.

O We left the site Wednesday night without rEceiv1ng any ECN's or legible copies of the piping drawings for the water leg line. We flew back to Boston Thursday.

O Friday afternoon J. A. Flaherty requested the following drawings from Rich Pollock: RH-56, 100 IV, 1004 S, 1005 5, M 863, Sheets 34 and 40, M 1163, O

Sheet 34, and the support drawings for the water leg line.

O

U .

pg ENGNEERINGSERVK' ES Trip Report O No. 1420 Field Survey Items Requiring Clarification O Drawing # Rev. Date Remarks RH53-1550 5 C 8/11/81 Snubber pin to pin dimension does not agree with drawing RH58-10055 F 6/22/81 Snubber anJ clamp shown on O drawing missing RH58-1007X F 4/10/81 Plate size not same as drawing RH58-1005X C 8/31/81 The U-bolt is loose on the pipe O RH58-10105 C 9/16/81 There is a strut not a snubber as drawing shows RH56-1007S A 9/25/81 There is a strut not a snubber as drawing shows O RHB9-10025 F 8/31/81 Snubber and clamp shown on drawing missing RH53-1563S D 12/2/81 2-plate sizes not same as draw-ing I-beam not centered on base plate RH53-1017 0 11/10/81 There is a strut not a snubber as drawing shows

-RH53-1006V E 10/26/81 Clamp to lug contact only on inside of lug @ pipe RH53-1020S B 11/10/81 1. W 5 x 18.5 support approx.

4" higher than claim:

snubber 0 angle

2. Elev. of claim 3" higher O the drawing indicates RH53-1008R E 4/13/81 There is a' 3/4" shim under pipe not shown on drawing RH53-1022S E 4/13/81 Pin to pin dimension not the O same as the drawing RH53-10235 E 6/15/81 There is a strut not a snubber as drawing shows RH53-1031S C 12/2/81 Support not accessable but some O parts did not look like draw-ing.

a

O WW NE ENGNFERING SERVICES g Trip Report No. 1420 Field Survey Items Requiring Clarification (cont.)

0

1) Support drawing #BH53-1000C is Rev. J. However, the walk-down letter RH-06 refers to Rev. H.

O

2) There is a clamp with two snubbers attached to it at Elev. 684'-8" just above support BH53-15635 not shown on the piping drawings.

3) The RHR pipe is touching the sleeve in the floor at Elev. 761-0".

O [m/

v J'. J.1ivard O

ul

/R. A. 'Enos

~ ~ ' '

Rf A.~ Sfnfth~

24 JLtd

"/M J. Gom O. JJR.jej /g/

1 - Trip Report File 1 - JAF 1 - JJR 1 - RAE O 1 - RAS 1 riJG O

O WM ENGNERING SEFMCES Trip Report No. 1420 O ATTACHMENT 1 O

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED MONDAY, 2/22/82, FROM S&L I - PIPING DRAWINGS C) DWG. No. Sheet No. Rev. Dated Reference Sub. Sys. No.

M-839 1 AF 8-31-81 RH-06 M-839 2 AH 9-17-81 C) M-839 3 Z 8-31-81 M-839 4 W 5-5-81

M-839 5 V 9-17-81

!() M-839 6 Y 2-10-82 RH-07 RH-42 M-839 7 K 4-14-81 RH-11 M-839 8

• M 5-27-81 RH-11 18" Branch

!(3 l M-839 9 L 3-10-81 M-839 10 T 4-28-81 M-839 11 AJ 8-31-81 RH-06 C) RH-11 M-839 12 Y 4-30-81 M-839 13 M 4-30-81 C) M-839 14 G 2-27-81 M-96 3 V 10-6-81 P & ID-RHR System O

l

'O

TE M

. EN3NEERING SERVICES Trip Report No. 1420 O ATTACIMENT 1 (cont.)

O II - SUPPORT DRAWINGS

.O DWG No. Rev. Date M09-RH53 - 1001C J 2-8-82

~O - 1002C E 9-21-81

- 1004V E 8-11-81

- 1550S C 8-11-81 ,

o - 15515 D 8-11-81

- 1553S D 8-11-81

- 1554S SH 1 . D 8-11-81 ,

~O - 1554S SH 2 D 8-11-81

- 15575 F 12-15-81

- 1561S E 10-26-81

.O - 1562S E 8-11-81

- 1568S D 8-11-81

D O

O

O Trip Report No. 1420 ENGNEERING SERVICES o ATTAC MENT 2 DOCUMENTS RECEIVED TUESDAY 2/23/82 and WEDNESDAY 2/24/82 o FROM S & L FIELD 0FFICE I - WALKDOWN LETTERS O Subsystem FCR # Date 1 RH-07 809 1/27/82 2 RH-06 795 1/6/82 0 3 RH-11 850 1/21/82 4 RH-64 1178 1/22/82 5 RH-42 LSC-76 8/18/81

-o 6 RH-23 896 1/21/82 7 RH-63 1012 10/12/81 O II - SUPPORT DRAWINGS DRW # Rev. Date RH58-1005S F 6/22/81 0

-1004S F 4/10/81

-1007X F 4/10/81 RHE2-1005X D 5/6/81

o RH58-1009X C 8/31/81

-1010S C 9/16/81

-1006S E 7/10/81 O

RH56-1003S D 7/10/81

-1004S D 4/10/81

-1005S E 12/4/81 0

-1007S A 9/25/81

Trip Report TN No. 1420 ENGrEBilNG SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2 (cont.)

O II - SUPPORT DRAWINGS (CONTINUED)

DRW # Rev. Date O RHB9-1002X F 8/31/81

-1003V B 4/10/81 RH53-1563S D 12/02/81 0 -1016S E 12/2/81

-10175 0 11/10/81

-1070V B 5/6/81 0 -1006V E 10/26/81

-10185 E 1/29/82

-1020S B 11/10/81 0 -1069S C 12/2/81

-1007X E 12/4/81

-10215 E 11/10/81 0 -1008R E 4/13/81

-10225 E 4/13/81

-1564X E 1/29/82 0 -1009X C 9/13/81

-1023S E 6/15/81

-1024S G 8/26/81 0 -1010V 0 7/10/81

-1025S D 4/13/81'

-10275 G 1/29/82 0 -10265 0 7/27/81

-1012X 0 5/6/81

-10285 0 4/13/81 0

'O Trip Report No. 1420 N MES O ATTACMENT 2 (cont.)

II - SUPPORT DRAWINGS (CONTINUED) g DRW # Rev. Date .

RH53-1013Y C 4/13/81

-1014X D 12/2/81 0 -1029S A 4/13/81

-1030S C 12/2/81 RH69-1010V D 11/18/81 RH53-1015V F 10/26/81 lO

-1031S C 12/2/81

-1565S E 3/8/82 (o -1032S D 7/27/81

-1575 C 12/2/81 O

l iO I

iO 1

O O ,

O WTELED(NE ENGNEERNG SERVICES )

Technical Report i O TR-5539-1 4

'O d

!O i

O i

APPENDIX E o ~

TRIP REPORT FOR TASK 8 - REVIEW CECO AUDIT FINDING O

10 l

O l

O

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

TE N FNGNEERING SERVICES TRIP REPORT NO. 142 t 3 PROJECT 5539 VISIT TO COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CHICAGO, ILLIN0IS FEBRUARY 23, 24, 25, 1982 3

PURPOSE: TES Audit of CECO to determine CEC 0's implementation of quality assurance requirements on A&E, major system suppliers, and sup-3 pliers of engineering services.

PRE-AUDIT CONFERENCE g A Pre-Audit Conference was conducted at CECO on 23 February 1982 with Messrs. B. R. Shelton, Project Manager, W. J. Shewski, Manager of Quality Assurance, and G. F. Marcus, Director of Quality Assurance (Engineering and Construction).

O Mr. Shewski inquired as to the qualifications of the TES auditor, and whether or not he had previously audited a utility.

3 Mr. Malonson (TES auditor) replieu that he is presently qualified as a Lead Auditor per ANSI N45.2.23, and that he had not previously audited a utility.

3 The TES auditor (J. H. Malonson) stated the purpose of the audit and the necessity for the independence of TES in this activity, and that the TES audit report of findings, observations or comments would not be dis-cussed with CEC 0 personnel during the course of the audit, and would not be 3 presented for discussion at an exit meeting upon completion of the audit.

Mr. Shewski and Mr. Marcus then explained the CEC 0 Quality Assurance overall audit plan and its implementation by CECO.

O Mr. Marcus explained that CEC 0 audits are general audits which cover a broad scope, or the entire scope, of QA program requirements. Any audit may cover aspects of design control, but an audit would not necessarily be

O WTELED/NE ENGNEERING SERVICES

.n Trip Report v No. 1421 limited specifically to design control, or, specifically to a piping system.

O It was then agreed that the TES auditor would begin the activity by performing an in-depth review of the CECO audits of Sargent & Lundy (S&L) for the year 1978 and then determine the extent of review of other audits O

and other principals (e.g., General Electric, San Jose, and Quadrex (NSC).

Mr. Marcus explained that audits and audit activity may be generic;

,O covering quality assurance and technical requirements for many nuclear sta-tions, or an audit may be discrete to a station. When discrete, the sta-tion, or audit characteristic (question), is identified as such.

The TES auditor responded to state that the scope of this audit O

applies only to the LaSalle Station, and, further, to RHR piping system design control audits, if this is discernible within the general audits.

Mr. G. F. Marcus was assigned as the CECO interface with the TES p"

auditor (J. Malonson), and it was agreed that during performance of the audit some discussion with the TES auditor might be necessary for clarifi-cation of CECO audits, reports, and correspondence included in the audit files.

O TES AUDITOR ACTIVITY n The TES auditor consulted the CEC 0 audit plan of general office audits scheduled for the A&E and major system suppliers for the years 1978 through 1982.

'o Audit files were reviewed to determine: conformance with the planned schedule, adequacy of audit questions to the scope of activity audited, identification of findings, observations or comments, the audit report to the activity audited including requests for corrective action, CEC 0 review O

a

O WN ENGNEERING SERVICES n Trip Report No. 1421 and acceptance of corrective action, and/or follow-up or surveillance audits until a satisfactory conclusion or closecut of corrective action was n"'

achieved.

The TES auditor prepared a separate sheet for each audit file reviewed to record the scope of the audit and the TES auditor comment. The sheets O'

are attached to this report.

Following is a listing of the CECO audit files that were reviewed by the TES auditor.

O CECO Audits of S&L March 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, 1978 October 30 and 31, 1978 February 21 through 27, 1979 l March 27 through 29, 1980 January 29 and 30, February 2, 3, 5, 9 and 11,1981

~

May 11 and 12, 1981 July 20, 21, 22, 1981 January 18, 19, and 20, 1982 iO CECO Audits of Quadrex March 25, 26 and 27, 1980 September 23, 24 and 25, 1980 lO l

May 18, 19 and 20, 1981 NOTE: 1982 audit not performed to date.

l g CEC 0 Audits of General Electric Company, San Jose, California May 6, 7 and 8, 1980 May 5, 6 and 7, 1981 NOTE: 1982 audit not performed to date.

l t

L  ;

O YM ENGNEERNG SERVICES

.g Trip Report No. 1421 TES AUDITOR COMMENT The 1978 audit of S&L revealed a finding that dealt with the lack of control in S&L's processing of field change requests. Corrective action was initiated by S&L and continuously monitored by CEC 0 by follow-up sur-veillance. This finding remained an open item through the 1979,1980 and 1981 audits. CECO continued to list this finding as an audit character-istic, and continued reporting on the progress and condition of corrective action. The item was closed out by the 1981 audit.

O The 1979 audit of S&L revealed the following: S&L's response to an audit finding identified an "Overall Design Review Report" dated December 13, 1979, Project No. 4266-09.

O Ref: Report Section D - Documents re tiewed Item 2 Design Criteria Area 1 - the following documents are listed:

,, RHR System GE22A2817, Rev. 3, 11/27/73 RHR System GE22A2817AK, Rev. 3, 4/13/77 -

l l

l The TES auditor visited S&L to verify documented evidence of the lo t

applicable document revision correlation to the date of the report. Copies of the document are included with this report. Mr. D. C. Haan, S&L Project Manager, was the interface for this verification.

lm

,o The audit finding was documented as closed.

The 1981 CECO audit of Quadrex reported an observation pertaining to analysis of supports in the RH subsystem. The observation identified the U condition as an isolated case. The item was documented as closed.

O 1

O WN ENGNEERNG SENICES Trip Report O No. 1421 TES AUDITOR CONCLUSION

.O All of the listed audit files were reviewed to determine that all audit findings were reported, corrective action was accomplished and items (findings, observations and comments) were closed.

O All audits were cond ad on schedule in accordance with the audit plan.

The TES auditor could not find a single instance of any audit items O remaining open or unanswered. There were no NCR's identified in the CECO audits listed.

The TES auditor has a high level of confidence that CEC 0 QA Program O Audits were adequately implemented and effectively performed and documented in accordance with codes, standards and regulatory requirements.

'O O G n*btA W ,

hJ.H.Malonson,LeadAuditor '

V Quality Assurance Engineer  !

Teledyne Engineering Services

O  ;

JHM:Jej attachments 1 - Trip Report File 1 - JHM O

O O