ML20082A969

Midland Independent Design & Const Verification Program, Monthly Status Rept 6 for Oct 1983

ML20082A969
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/31/1983
From:	Dougherty F TERA CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20082A956	List: ML20082A953 ML20082A969
References
NUDOCS 8311180311
Download: ML20082A969 (60)

Text

_

I MIDLAPO INDEPE!OENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM MONTFt_Y STATUS REPORT NUMBER 6 PERIOD OCTOBER I,1983 TFROUGH OCTOBER 31,1983 Prepared by:  %

Manager,Ngn Vbrifico 2 ion r

a 4 Monoger, Construction Verification Reviewed by: ,

I t-Project Manager Approved by: h LJ . /hd Principol[n-Charge O hh9PDR

. 4, MIDLAFO ltOEPEtOENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDCV)

MONT14.Y STATUS REPORT NUMBER 6 PERIOD OCTOBER I,1983 THROUGH OCTOBER 31,1983

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND PURPOSE Monthly Status Reports have been instituted by agreement between the Consumers Power Company (CPC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and TERA to provide porties external to TERA's IDCV project team with up-to-date information relative to program progress and any important issues identi-fled during the reporting period. This report covers the period from October I, 1983 through October 31, 1983. A description of the scope, reporting periods and report issuance dates for Monthly Status Reports, as well as c summary of the background of the IDCV program were presented in the initial Monthly Status Report dated May 27,1983.

2.0 IDCV PROGRAM STATUS

SUMMARY

I 2.1 Programmatic Activities Attachment I provides on updated chronology of major project milestones. The project chronology from inception through the beginning of this reporting period con be found in the previous monthly status reports. Several milestones worront special highlight.

The third OCR status review meeting was held on October 28,1983 of Bechtel's l Ann Arbor, Michigan offices. In addition to the statusing of oustanding issues, the discussions promoted on understanding and any clarification necessary related to new issues so that CPC or Bechtel could either identify information that may not here been available to the IDCVP review team or clarify I

Information that was available and reviewed. Minutes documenting discussions of this meeting and commitments made were issued on November I,1983. The fourth OCR status review meeting will be held on December I,1983, rather than during the lost week of November, to avoid a conflict with the Thanksgiving holiday.

Ford Amendment activities took place during the reporting period. Represento-tives of the NRC l&E Headquarters Staff observed TERA octivities during the week of October 24,1983 at the Midland site and at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices.

Physical verification activities were initiated during the reporting period for CR-HVAC components and commodities within the Zock scope of supply. These activities were able to be initiated because Zock work is outside the scope of the CCP program and not subject to o CCP limitation. This limitation is based upon a programmatic decision not to physically verify items until such a time that the CCP has possed through and completed its activities.

The review of several process oriented issues was initiated based upon the identification of specific items and observed trends within the iDCVP:

e FSAR omendment process e Field change process (FCR/FCN) e Storage and maintenance program o NSSS/ BOP interfoce e Electrical, instrumentation, and control calculation /engi-j neering evoluotion contro!

l 2.2 Design Verificotton Activities f

l t

2.2.1 Summary l

l Significont progress was made in the design verification program for oil three

! systems during October. Of particular note has been the extensive .:r:tivity in 2

)

i ,,

the structural review area for the AFW ond CR-HVAC systems. TERA personnel reviewing the civil / structural aspects of the design spent opproximately 25 man-days in Ann Arbor during October in order to review calculations and other documentation. Civil / structural review associated with the standby electric power system was initiated in October.

Members of the design verification team visited the site on October 26 to assess the physical configuration of system components, to interface the IDV and ICV octivities, and to enhance their understanding of the plant design features. This site visit was followed by dato collection meetings in Ann Arbor the next day and the Confirmed items meeting on October 28. During the meetings in Ann Arbor, representatives of the NRC attended discussions between TERA and Bechtei personnel as part of their " Ford Amendment" octivities.

The consolidated design criteria list for the standby electric power system was issued for internal review.

Activities which progressed significantly during October which offect all three systems include the review being mode of scopes of work assigned to service contractors and evoluotion of MCARs and SCREs for consideration in selecting

. oppropriate review sampies.

OCRs are discussed in more detail in Section 3.0 of this report.

2.2.2 Auxiliary Feedwater System Progress During October, work progressed towards preparing a draft interim topical report on the AFW system. The scope of this report includes the AFW system performance requirements review areas described in the Engineering Program P!cn (EPP) and as listed in Figure 1.2-20 of the EPP. Due to the existence of OCRs in these areas and associated work in progress, it was determined that the report connot provide final ccelusions on these review topics and therefore represents o detailed topical status report. At the October 28 OCR status review meeting the question of whether to complete the report and the form for i

l 3 l

. v the report (i.e. detailed status report or o conclusionary report) was left as c matter to be decided in November.

Progress in the review of the civil / structural aspects of the AFW design included the following:

e Further review of the piping analysis was made in prepo-ration for the planned revision of the confirmatory calcu-lotion planned for November.

o Progress on review of supports was sisved because of the need to obtain calculations from Grinnel. A proprietary information ogreement regarding these calculations is being pursued.

e Seismic equipment qualification review activities con-tinued, new information was received, and the engineering evoluotion for this topic was initiated.

o Work continued in the reviews of foundations, concrete and steel design, and other structural design-related topics.

e The review of Confirmed item C-015 at the October 28 meeting determined the need to review a study performed by SMA on the effects of floor flexibility on seismic vertical response.

In the mechanical and electrical review areas, odditional information was l

i received to assist in determining the disposition of open items.

On site reviews were conducted by AFW review team members as part of the site visit by the design review team.

l 2.2.3 Standby Electric Power System Progress l

The SEP system consolidated criteria and commitments document has been issued as Revision 0 and is being evicuoted for consistency, applicability, and completeness.

l 4

l

Specific information has been identified for each SEP system work package, and the corresponding document numbers have been obtained for many of the items during meetings with Bechtel personnel in Ann Arbor the last week of October.

Information requested included:

o Over 75 schematic, logic, P&lD, single line, layout, and detail drawings; e Eleven electrical and mechanical procurement specifico-tions; e Twelve Supplier Document Registers to identify pertinent vendor documentation; e Eleven additional electrical calculations; e Mechanical Calculation Indices to identfy specific oppli-cable calculations; e Buried Piping Analysis Topical Report.

Recent revisions to the following electrical calculations have been received and are being reviewed:

OPE-4 5 & 8 kV Cable Sizing QPE-5 125 Vdc Bottery and Charger Sizing QPE-7 inverter Sizing Engineering evaluations have been initiated in the following additional areas:

i Diesel Generator Cooling / Heating Requirements l

Fire Protection associated with the diesel generators

' Diesel Generator Building Flood Protection i Technical Specifications for DG and DC Systems i

i The remaining engineering evoluotions will commence subsequent to the receipt of the information required for each evaluation.

The review of the civil / structural aspects of the stand'oy electric power system was initiated in October. Specific emphasis has been placed on the structural 5

4 evoluotion of the diesel generator building and its capability to meet design basis requirements in its as-built condition. Professors Myle J. Holley (MIT) nnd William J. Hall (University of Illinois), member of IDCVP Senior Review Team, have been requested to assist in this review.

2.2 4 Control Room HVAC System Progress The engineering evoluciion for the criterio review of the fol.owing topics was completed.

e System operating limits e Accident analysis considerations e System pneumatic design e Cooling / heating requirements e Filtration e Pressurization e Ventilation This engineering evoluotion is undergoing internal review.

The outstanding FCRs for the system P&lD were received and reviewed, thus completing the P&lD review and documentation in the completed checklist.

Calculations for the above list of topics have been reviewed and that review is complete with three exceptions: 1) resolution of OCRs, 2) completion of dose i

calculation review, and 3) clarification of minor items on a static pressure l calculation.

The drawing review stage of the program was initiated in October with the receipt of HVAC duct layout drawings and standard details of the seismic HVAC ducts. These drawings are being reviewed for conformance to mechanical design l

os described by the P&lD and also for structural aspects for seismic considero-l tion. The seismic considerations are being handled in conjunction with the review of the standard calculation for duct qualification. Architectural drowings were reviewed for significant leak paths; however the details for the control room doors cre not identified on the door schedule and review will be on hold l

l 6 I' - - . .

i until such drawings are issued. The doors are the major leak path per existing 4

calculations. As part of the design review effort, a site walkdown of various aspects of the system was conducted to familiarize the reviewers with the overall physical aspects of the system. This was intended to facilitate the drowing review activity.

System olignment requirements relating to the single failure review were clarified in response to on OCR and the review of related electrical topics is proceeding. Logic diograms have undergone on initial review resulting in a request for additional diagrams, which were received. Further progress in this area is expected in November.

1 The structural review of the Auxiliary Building os discussed under the AFW review has beam extended to incorporate aspects of the seismic design pertinent to the Control Room HVAC. For a discussion of progress in the combined structural review, see the AFW System discussion.

2.3 Construction Verification Activities 2.3.l Summory Activities undertaken and events which occurred during this reporting period which are important to the overall conduct of the construction verification i

review portion of the IDCV program are as follows:

e Upon bringing the construction / installation documentation review of selected AFW system components to the level of completion allowed by the CCP, site activities were directed to reviewing construction /

installotion documentation of selected components and commodities i

within the CR-HVAC system. These activities were undertaken to progress the construction / installation documentation review and to assemble the documentation necessory as a precursor to conducting physical verification of selected CR-HVAC components and commod-ities within the Zock scope.

7 m

-,w r-ee-e-we'g-v=mm-er -'g--- - - = - - - - y - - --e s--='T+=-* F" - - -e'""W'W'Y

. e e ICV reviewers completed the preliminary engineering evoluotion of the pipe support reinspection program. The evoluotion is currentfy under review of IDCV program management.

e Reviews of process-related issues occupied a significant portion of ICV octivities during this reporting period. ICV reviewers focused their efforts upon processes implemented /pending implementation

! associated with site storage and maintenance and FCR/FCN design l I change control. These process reviews were identified as instru- i l

mental in addressing the resolution to Findings F-047, storage and I maintenance, and F-031, FCR/FCN relating to pipe hongers and l g

supports.

2.3.2 Construction Documentation Review Progress Construction documentation review reiotes to those ICV review categories which are principolly concerned with the adequacy and completeness of available documentation as opposed to those ICV review categories which verify the physical configuration of installed components and commodities. The following ICV review categories are part of construction documentation review.

e Review of Supplier Documentation e Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation e Review of Construction / Installation Documentation l

l A description of progress mode and principal activities undertaken in each of the above review categories are os follows:

Review of Supplier Documentation e The review of vendor-supplied NDE procedures was completed during this reporting period. An evoluotion of the items obscrved during the j

review and recorded on checklists is currently being conducted. The 8

1

l l

review was conducted by LAW Engineering personnel with the evoluu-tion of the results being undertaken by both LAW and principal TERA personnel.

e Confirmation of inconsistencies noted as a result of the review of vendor-supplied documentation for selected components within the CR-HVAC and SEP systems continued during the month of October.

This task is made more difficult due to the complex manner of recording vendor-supplied documentation associated with components purchased as port of the Diesel Generator purchase order.

e inconsistencies noted as a result of a review of vendor-supplied material selection and verification documentation were evoluoted and determined to be Confirmed items os documented in C-056, see Attochment 3.

Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation e As a result of the review of documentation submittols provided by Bechtel during the previous reporting period and a review of offected site storoge and maintenance procedures, TERA has initiated and completed Finding Resolution Reports Z-045 and Z-046, see Attach-ment 3.

e in reviewing site progress in reconciling specific inconsistencies noted in C-047 and in noting progress of site activities in implement-ing revisions to offected site storage and maintenance procedures, ICV reviewers noted the following:

- Site procedures noted in C-047 and currently governing site storoge and maintenance activities have rrt been revised.

9

1

- Site storage and maintenance personnel have per-formed those activities necessary to present to monogement a program plan and supporting proce-dures necessary to alter the existing site storoge and maintenance program. As of the writing of this report the principal implementing procedure, FPG 5.000, has not received approvo! for implemen-totion. Upon approval, ICV reviewers will continue their evoluotion of storage and maintenance pro-grum implementation.

Review of Construction / Installation Documentation e ICV reviewers conducted a detailed review of the construction /

Installation controlling documentation and documentation assembled to verify the quality of installed components and commodities within the CR-HVAC system sample boundaries. These activities were undertaken to verify the completeness and adequacy of the documen-tation ond to assemble that documentation necessary to conduct a thorough physical verification of the selected items. The review was completed during this reporting period with the results indicating that of the forty-two (42) items identified for current review within the CR-HVAC system sample boundaries, seven (7) items were considered as complete. The remaining thirty-five (35) items were considered incomplete due to GA holds, destatusing, or QA/QC Inspections statused as not complete.

e During the lost week in October, LAW Er.gineering personnel initiated a review of welding procedures and, proc edure and welder qualifica-tion records pertinent to the CR-HVAC system. This review and subsequent evoluotion are anticipated to be complete during the early part of November.

10

e Activities were initiated by IDCV program monogement to allow for the temporary cessation of construction / installation documentation review over the immediate near term. These actions were initiated principolly as a result of the recent stop-work orders and CCP status which, based upon TERA's observations, have caused a delay of site octivities on G-related systems specified to be within the IDCV

"- sample boundaries.

e inconsistencies observed as a result of the review of selected site welding procedures and procedure qualification records were evolu-ated during this reporting period. As a result of the evoluotion; items previously identified in Open item 0-055 have been statusted as a Confirmed item C-055, included in Attochment 3 to this report.

2.3.3 Physical Verification / Site Activities Program The activities described herein oddress those ICV review categories which require ICV reviewers to observe, witness, or verify field octivities and/or the as-built configuration of installed commodities and components. For the most part, these activities require o strong site presence on the part of reviewers and include the following review categories:

i e Review of Selected Verification Activities e Verification of Physical Configuration Review of Selected Verification Activities e ICV reviewers completed their evoluotion of the activities observed as port of the pipe support overinspection program. TERA completed a preliminary engineering evoluotion. As a result of the evoluotion, two programmatic inconsistencies were noted relating to the training program for inspectors and the manner with which GCEs are qualified to governing procedures. The inconsistencies observed as a result of II l

l

. o the evoluotion are noted and recorded in Confirmed items C-091 and 092, included in Attochment 3 to this report.

e As a result of reviewing documentation forwarded to TERA with Bechtel letter dated October 10,1983, and as a resu!t of discussions with cognizant Bechtel/CPC personnel during the OCR status review meeting on October 28,1983, ICV reviewers have prepared Finding Reports F-049 and 050, included in Attachment 3 to this report.

These OCRs, dealing with the cable overinspection program, were reported as confirmed items in the previous status report.

e A statistical model was prepared during this reporting period which could serve os o quantitative method in evoluoting ICV review results of selected reinspection programs. Utilization of the model is still under evoluotion by principol IDCV program personnel.

Verification of Physical Configuration e NRC representatives Messrs. Keshishion and Gower were at the TERA Midland site office on October 25 and 26,1983, to discuss and observe TERA octivities undertaken in preparation for the physical verification of selected CR-HVAC equipment and to observe tne results of activities undertaken in conducting the construction /

installation documentation review of selected AFW system compo-nents.

I e ICV reviewers conducted a walkdown of the CR-HVAC system in preparation for conducting a physical verification of installed com-ponents and commodities. As a result of the "walkdown" and status of completeness determined from the construction / installation docu-mentation review, seven (7) of the forty-two (42) items were statused as complete and eligible for the physico! verification review. Physi-col verification review activities were initiated with the completion l

l 12

J  %-

i of the review of eligible items anticipated during the early part of

' m November.

e

~

TERA reviewers visited the site during the week of October 24,1983 \

to revie y the processes used to control field modifications to piping 3 and pipe support drawings. This activity is part of the recommendo-tion included in Finding Reports F-031 and F-036, and Finding Resolution Reports Z-032,' Z-033, Z-034, and Z-035. The site visit I coincided with the issuance of CPCO MPQAD Stop Work Orders FSW-33, FSW-34, FSW-35, FSW-36, FSW-37, FSW-39, FSW-40, and FSW-41, which cited problems with the referencing'of drov,ing and s i

specifications in the Bechtel Field Change Request / Field Change t Notice process. Since the FCR/FCN process is the primary proce- I U

dure for incorporating field changes, the visit focused on gaining on understanding of the current FCR/FCN problems. On-going efforts are oddressing:

- Verification of recovery from the stop work orders, and

- Assessment of cumulative effect of field changes on inputs and assumptions within design calculations.

~

3.0

SUMMARY

OF CONFIRMED AND RESOLVED ITEM REPORTS, FINDING REPORTS, AND FINDING RESOLUTION REPORTS Attachment 2 provides TERA's Tracking System Summary for Open, Confirmed, and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports, and Finding Resolution Reports. This tool assists TERA in trocking the disposition of issues os they progress through the review process. Items that have changed status or that have been odded during the reporting period are noted with on osterisk.

Attochment 2 provides retyped copies of Resolved item Reports (that have closed out Confirmed items), Confirmed items, Finding Reports, and Finding Resolution Reports. Several Observations are also ottoched. The following paragraphs discuss items which have changed status in the post month.

13

i Three Findings were identified during the reporting period. Finding F-018 is related to the committed design criteria for the decoy heat load. It was found that statements in the FSAR ore not internally consistent and not consistent with related calculations. The project has clarified its commitment indicating

' that the AFW system is sized based upon a B&W decoy heat curve and not Branch Technical Position APCSB 9-2 and ANS 5.l; however, o calculation has been i completed comparing the original results with APCSB 9-2. A SAR Change has been effected to correct noted inconsistencies. On the basis of this action and 4 review of a recent B&W calculation demonstrating proper AFW system sizing, I the item has subsequently been resolved through issuance of Finding Resolution

- Report Z-018. A related Observation, B-080 has been noted. Findings F-049

1. ond F-050 each relate to issues identified during the ICV review of the cable -

s overmspection program. F-049 identified cables which foil to satisfy separation requirements in the air-lined region as these cables terminate into cabinets. The projact recognizes this discrepancy and has indicated that they are investigating ,

solutions such as wrapping or potentially gaining dispensation from the separa-t t

[

s tion requirement in this region. F-050 identified a cable that is routed outside

. of its scheduled via. The ICV reviewers ' hove determined that the engineering I s

' ' significance of this routing is minimal; hcwev[ e r, the criteria for dealing with such a routing cre not definitive within the cable overinspection program.

f 1 Finding Resolution Reports Z-04S and Z-046 hcve been issued. Both of these items relate to specific discrepancies noted in the storage and maintenance progrcms. Specific maintenance instructions have been revised to correct the identified discrepancies. TERA is currently reviewing actions taken by the l

project to generally improve the storage'and maintenance programs. This item is currently being trocked vio previous Finding F-047.

s Confirmed items C-020, C-027, and C-028 were resolved. These relate to apparent inconsistencies in the AFW system design criterio os documented in the FSAR and the BOP Criteria Document (B&W Report 36-100477, rev.1). Resolv-l tion was based upon clarification provided by the project including a SAR Change. Further related effort is being devoted to review of the FSAR omendment process and the NSSS/ BOP interface.

l l

14 wy -we rgwqcw-gq,y m mm,ymm--g-sw,gv e-,-wy-my 9w g -wmwg--v nwm ev y- --

--*ON

-w sq< +-4,-- - = - - - . - -  % q -_.ver -v~y wwee ee g *py-wv4g- , ,g ----e9 +e---

I Open items 0-082, 0-083, and 0-085 were issued during the reporting period 'l oiong with Observations B-080, B-086, and B-090 which are ottoched in l occordance with the agreement reached of the third OCR status review meeting on October 28,1983.

Ten Confirmed items were identified during the period concerning:

i l'

e C-026 - Engineering evoluotion and documentation sup-porting field change requests e C-055 - Completeness of welding procedures and proce-dure qualification records e C-056 - Nonconforming material properties and rnaterial test report documentation e C-081 - Input to piping stress anoiyses e C-084 - Assumptions for predicting toxic chemical con-centrations in the control room o C-087 and C-088 - Fire protection separation and barrier designation associated with fire crea 16 e C-089 - Emergency lighting of access area to the auxil-iory shutdown panel e C-091 - Honger overinspection program instruction for inspecting snubber installations e C-092 - Honger overinspection program personnel quali-fication progrom i

15

=

t .

l ATTACHMENTI MIDLAfO ltOEPEPOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM TERA PROJECT 320I PERIOD OCTOBER 1,1983 TIROUGH OCTOBER 31,1983 Date Milestone September 30,1983* Transmittal of additional resumes to NRC October 3-7,1983 TERA design review team at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices October 3-31,1983 ICV reviewers on site conducting construction / installation documentation review for CR-HVAC items within Zock scope and initiating the physical verification of selected CR-HVAC items October 5,1983 NRC issues letter endorsing the existing IDCVP methodology relative to a series of options identified as part of the Ford Amendment acti-vities October 10,1983 Bechtel issues Revision 4 of MED 4.40-0, Release of Project Engineering Calculations to The Client, which also oddresses the procedure for release of calculations to the IDCVP October 17,1983 Fif th Monthly Status Report issued October 17-28, 1983 IDV reviewers at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices reviewing civil / structural issues October 19,1983 Meeting notice issued for October 28, 1983, OCR status review meeting i

October 24-31, 1983 lattiotion of CR-HVAC system physical verifi-cation of items within Zock scope and review of FCR/FCN and storage and maintenance pro-gram modifications

• Omitted from September Chronology (MSR No. 5) 1

ATTACHMENTI (continued) I

)

l October 25-28,1983 NRC's Messrs. Keshishion and Gower at TERA's Midlond site office (October 25, 26) reviewing results of construction / installation documento-tion review and the initiation of the physical verification of CR-HVAC system components and, at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices observing design verification activities (October 27) and third OCR status review meeting (October 28)

October 26,1983 Wolkdown of AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC systems by IDV reviewers October 26-31,1983 LAW Engineering perscanel on-site conducting review of CR-HVAC welding procc-dares and records October 28,1983 Third OCR status review meeting held at Bechtel's Ann Arbor offices 2

ATTACMAENT 2 .

OCR, Fl>OING REPORT, APD FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKHG SYSTEM MIDLAPO 20EPEICENT DESIGN APD CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATICN PROGRAM 11/15/s3 Confirmed Resolved Fi Findi Topic Comments OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Jndi Open Item item ite.vi Item / Repor t eso ution Tservotion Repor t 3/4/83 7/12/83 L4-1 Tech Specs 00s RPS 12/21/83 3/4/R1 3/4/83 1.41 Tech Specs 002 RPS 12/21/83 3/4/63 7/12/8 3 3/4/83 1.8-1 Overpressure Protection 003 RPS 1/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 f.8-1 Overpressure Protection 004 RPS l/3/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.5-1 System Operating Limits 005 RPS 1/4/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Accident Anolysis 006 RPS 1/12/83

' Considerofions 1

3/4/83 3/4/83 f.2-1 Accident Analysis 007 RPS l/12/8 3 Considerations 3/4/83 7/12/83 1.19-1 Control Systems 000 LB I/ 0/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 11.1- 1 Seismic Design 009 JAM I/20/83 i

FAD 3/4/83 4/14/83 7/12/8 3 I.10-1 Hydraulic Design Of0 1/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 8/8/83 1.19-1 Control Systems Oil LB l/27/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 9/30/83 1.15-l Power Supplies 012 LB 2/7/83 013 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 1.5-1 Syst. Align./Switchover

• Change in Status During Reporting Period I

i

OCR, FN)S4G REPORT, Art) FirONG RESOLUTION lEPORT TRACKNG SYSTEM MIDLAfD WOEPEPOENT DESIGN MO CONSTRUCTION VERFICATION PROGRAM 1I/15/83 (continued Finding Findi TMc Comments OCR No. Resp. LTR Potentiol Open Confirmed Resolved

Open item - Item item item / Report eso utlan Evotion Repor t LS-l Syst. Align./Switchover 044 RPS 2/8/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 til.l-I Seismic Design / Input 015 JAM 2/10 /8 3 3/4/83 10/ll/83 to Equipment l

111. 5 - 1 Civil /Stu Design Consid.

Of6 JAM 2/10/8 3 3/4/83 1.11-I Heat Removat Cop 017 FAD 2/17/8 3 3/4/83 3/4/83 10/5/83 I.10-1 Hydraulic Design Heat Removal Cop.

• 018 FAD 2/17/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 11 / 11/ 8 3 II/ll/83 1.11-1 8/8/83 1.18-1 Instrumentation OtD LB 2/71/8 3 3/4/83 Heat Removal Cop. B-000 Related,'

020 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 fl/ll/83 1.11-1 l.9-1 Comp. Func. Req.

' II.101 Eq. Qual. 0-21, Rev.1, 021 FAD 2/24/83 3/4/83 4/14/8 3 Ll9-1 Control Syst.

022 LB 2/24/83 3/4/63 8/8/83 8/8/83 1.18.I Instrumentation 023 LB 2/28/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control i

1

OCR, FDONG MPORT, APO FRONG RESOLUTION MPORT KNG SYSTEM .

MOLAPO DOEPEPOENT DESIGN ADO CONSTRUCTION VERFICATION PROGRAM II/ISta3(enntinued OCR No. Resp. LTR Poemtiol Open Confirmed Resolved Fgindi Findi Top!c Comments Open item item item item / f epor* eso ution Evotion Repori 024 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 1.2-1 Acc. Anol. Consid.

025 RPS 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.21 Acc. Anol. Consid.

Overprass. Prof.

• 026 RPS 3/l/83 3/4/83 11/1I/83 f.8-1 Comp. Fune. Req.

• 027 FAD 3/l/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 11/11/83 1.9-!

11.9 -1 Env.Eng.

Comp.Func. Req.

• 028 FAD 3/2/83 3/4/83 4/14/83 II/II/83 1.9-1 029 LB 2/22/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.I8-1 Instrumentation 1.19-1 Control System 030 LB 1/19/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.19-1 Control System 3/4/83 3/4/83 8/30/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports C-31, Rev. I,7/12/83 031 DBT 2/II/93 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 7/12/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Sets C-32, Rev. I, 7/12/83 032 DBT 2/il/83 033 DBT 2/II/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/I2/83 7/I2/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supporis - C-33, Rev. I,7/I2/83 DBT 3/4/83 3/4/83 7/12/83 7/12/8 3 1.3-Ic Pipe Supports C-34, Rev. I, 7/12/83 034 2 / 11 / 8 3 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 7/12/83 1.3-Ic Pipe Supporis C-35, Rev. 2, 7/12/83 035 DBT 2 / 11 / 8 3 3/4/83 i

1 1

t

'I 4

OCR, F90 LNG REPORT, APO FIPOING RESOLUTION REIM)RT TRACKNG SYSTEM MIDLAPO DOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM 11/15/83 (continued OCR No. Resp. LTR Poisnt ol Open Confirmed Resolved Findino Findi Topic Comments Open item item item item / Report eso ution Cservotion Repor t 3/4/83 7/12/8 3 11. 2 -1 Pressure Bomdary C-36, Rev. 2, 7/12/83 036 JAM 2 / 11 / 8 3 3/4/83 037 JAM  !/20/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 8/30/83 ll1.1-1 Seismic Design /Inret to Equipment 038 LB 3/1/83 3/4/83 3/4/83 1.15-1 Power Supplies 037 LB 3/30/83 4/14/83 8/30/83 11.1 0 - 1 Env. Eq. Qual.

040 LB 3/8/83 4/14/83 9/30/83  !.I6-1 Elec. Characteristics 041 LB 3/25/83 4/14/83 9/30/83 1.15-I Power Supplies

! 042 LB 3/31/83 4/14/83 9/30/83 1.10-1 Env.Eq.Ovol.

043 FAD 3/15/83 4/14/83 10/6/83 1.10-1 System Hydraulic Desip FAD 4/14/83 10/6/83 11. 1 0 - 1 Env. Eq. Oval. Resolved as 044 3/15/83 Observation 5/25/83 8/8/83 11/11/83 II.1-lC Electricol Equipment / C-45, Rev.1, 7/12/83,*

045 DBT 3/17/83 4/14/83 Storage & Maintenance Mechanicol Equipment /

• 046 DBT 3/17/83 4/14/83 5/25/83 8/8/83 11/11/83 1.1-IC Storage & Mointenance 047 DBT 7/7/83 7/26/83 8/8/83 8/30/83 1.5-lC Mechanical Equipment / C-47, Rev. I, Storage & Maintenance 8/30/83 4

OCR, Fl>OING IEPORT, APO FIPONG RESOLUTION REPORT TRACXHG SYSTED .

MIDLAPO IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM ii/15/83 (continued OCR No. Resp. L TR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Fi Findi Topic Comments Jndi eso ution Open Item item item item / Repori Observation Report 11.10-1 Environmental E'quipment 048 FAD 7/29/83 7/29/83 8/8/83 Qualification 049 RC R/28/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 II/II/83 II 4-Ic Cable 050 RC 8/28/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 Il/1I/83 II.4-Ic Cable JAM 8/12/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 111. 1 - 1 Seismic Design / Input 051 to Equipment 9/30/83 AllICV Topics for AFW Sgp::er Doc 052 DBT 9/30/83 9/30/83 FEP 9/77/83 9/29/83 9/29/83 All ICV Topics for AFW Const./ Installation 053 Documentation 054 FEP 9/27/83 9/29/83 9/29/83 All ICV Topics for AFW Const./installotion

- PQCIs 055 DBT 9/19/83 9/29/83 11/II/83 All ICV Topics ConstJinstallation Documentofian -

WPs & PORs,'

11/l1/83 All ICV Topics for AFW & SEP Supplier / Doc. -

056 DBT 9/26/83 9/29/83 Matericts,'

DW 9/30/83 9/30/83 1.34-3 Pressurization Resolved as 057 9/29/83 Observation 4

OCR, FireING IMEPORT, A>0 FIPGNG RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM

~

MIDUUO DOEPDOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM lI/15/83 (continued Findi Topic Comments OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved F aindi Open item item item item / Repori eso6ution Report

_ Observation 1.12-3 Cooling / Heating Require.nents 058 DW 10/6/83 10/6/83

! 1.3-1 Sing'e Follure Resolved as 059 RPS 8/11/83 9/30/83 Observation I.23-1 Failure Modes & Effects 1.1-3 System Operating Limits 060 DW 9/29/83 9/30/83 1.18-3 Instrumentation Resolved as 061 DW 9/29/83 9/30/83 Observation f.9-l Component Functional 062 FAD 9/30/83 9/30/83 Requirements 1.10-1 System Hydraulic Design Resolved as 063 FAD 10/5/83 10/6/83 Observation 1.10-1 System Hydraulic Design Resolved as 064 FAD 10/5/83 10/6/83 Observation All IDV Topics 065 FAD 10/4/83 10/6/83 1.5-3 System Alignment /Switchover 066 DW 9/29/83 10/6/83 10/6/83 I.7-3 System Isolation / interlocks I.34-3 Pressurization Resolved as 067 DW 9/29/83 9/30/83 9/30/83 Observation

OCR, FIPONG REPORT, APO FIPOING HESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM MIDLAPO DOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERFICATION PROGRAM

~

ii/15/83 (continued Finding Topic Comments OCR No. Resp. LTR Potentlot Open Confirmed Resolved aindi F

Repori Resniotion

- Open item

• Item item item /

Observation Report JAM 9/27/83 9/30/83 9/30/83 II.4-I EO/ Seismic 068 069 JAM 9/27/83 9/30/83 II.4-I EO/ Seismic JAM 9/27/83 9/30/83 1.4-1 EO/ Seismic 070 071 JAM 9/27/83 9/30/83 Ill.i-l Sismic Design /

Input to Equipment 10/6/83 f.9-1 Component Functional 072 FAD 9/30/83 Requirements 11.2 - 1 Seismic Design - Pressure Boundary 1.12-3 Cooling / Heating Requirements OCR-058 related,*

073 DW 9/29/83 10/6/83 10/6/83 11/II/83 10/6/83 10/6/83 1.1-3 Sys'em Operating Limits 074 DW 9/29/83 Accident Analysis Considerations 1.2-3 1.15-3 Power Supplies 10/6/83 10/6/83 1.1-3 System Operating Limits 075 DW 9/29/83 Accident Analysis Considerations 1.2-3 10/6/83 10/6/83 1.12-3 Cooling / Heating Requirements 076 DW 9/29/83

! 077 JAM 9/27/83 10/6/83 10/6/83 11.4 - 1 EO/ Seismic

OCR, FIPOING REPORT, APO FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM .

MIDLAfO IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO LONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM 11/15/83 (continued OCR No. Resp. LTR Potentiol Open Confirmed Resolved Findi Findi Treic Comments Open item item Item Item / tion Tservation Repor t 078 FAD 9/30/83 10/6/83 1.9-1 Component Functional Requirements 07? JAM 8/29/83 10/6/83 Ill.5-l Civil / Structural Desip Considerations 111.6-1 Foundations 000 FAD ll/l/83 II/II/83  !.9-1 Component Functional Resolved es Requiiements Observation

• 081 FAD 11/l/83 II/II/83 II/ll/83 11. 2 - 1 Fiesure Boundary

• 1.9-1 Component Functional Req.

082 DW 10/18/83 11/11/83 1.9-3 Component Functional Chemical Cone./

Requirements Dow Interface,'

083 DW 10/31/83 11/11/83 I.23 Accident Analysis Considero-

• tions 1.23 Accident Analysis Considero-

• 004 DW 10/31/83 11/II/83 11/1I/83 tions 085 DW 10/31/83 Il/lI/83 All IDV Topics Noted issues iden-tified in CR-HVAC review,

• 086 FAD 10/13/8 3 11/11/ 8 3 11.1 2 -1 Fire Protection Resolved as Observation" 1

e 4

OCR, FileNG REPORT, A>D FIPONG RESOLUTION NPORT TRA K,NG SYSTEM MOLADO DOEPEPOENT DESIGN AIO CONSTRUCTION VERFICATION PROGRAM 11/15/83 (continued Finding Topic Comments OCR No. Resp. LTR Potential Open Confirmed Resolved Fin 3d Open item item item item / Teport Resolution Tserwation Repori I

11.f2-1 Fire Protection 087 FAD 10/13/83 11/11/ 8 3 11/11/ 8 3 lI/11/83 11.1 2 -1 Fire Protection 008 FAC 10/I3/8 3 11/11/ 8 3 I!/II/83 II.12-1 Fire Protection 089 FAD 10/13/83 II/il/83 Fire Protection Resolved as 090 FAD 10/13/83 II/II/83 11.1 2 -1 Observation

• 1.3-1C Pipe Supporis Overins 091 RSC 10/18/83 Ii/1I/83 1I/I1/83 Prog.,* pection 1.3-IC Pipe Supports Overins 092 RSC 10/18/83 II/II/83 II/ll/83 Prog.,*pection d

e 1

l l

l

ATTACHMENT 3 CURRENT PERIOD COWIRMED Af0 RESOLVED ITEM REPORTS, FINDING REPORTS, APO FitOING RESOLUTION REPORTS t

n , , -- . . ,., , , .,__. - . , , . . - - , , . - . _ - . . - . - , , . . , , . . . , _ , - . , , , . - ~ . - - . , , _ _ - . , , . . . , - - . , - - . ,

MIDLAPO ltOEPEPOENT DESIGN MO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FIPOING REPORT FILE NO. 320 t.002 X NON.5AFETY DOC NO. 3?ot.oos.F . 018 CLA55: SAFETY REV. Pto. _

II/II/83 DATE5 REPORTED TO: PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MCR. 10/31/83 PRINCIPAL.fN-CHARCE SRT I1/14/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. _

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM 5(5), OR COMPOff NT(5) WVOLVED:

AFi[(general)

DESCRPTION OF FPOING:

Contrary to FSAR statements, the sizing of the AFW system was not based upon APCSB 9-2 and ANS 5.1. Furthermore, other parameters used in sizing the AFW required clarification. The system does not meet the B0P criteria specified by B&W.

o SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDNG:

1. FSAR statements are not correct.

2. The AFW system could have been undersized.

3. The accuracy of the FSAR as a statement of design criteria has been brought into question.

RECOMMEtCATION:

1. Revise the FSAR to reflect actual basis for sizing AFW.

Revise calculations as recessary to be consistent with FSAR. Revise the BOP 2.

criteria document as necessary.

3. TERA to use the CR-HVAC and SEP systems as an additional sample to evaluate design criteria in the FSAR.

the extent of inaccuracies in the stated COMMENT 5 BY SRT OF REQUIRED):

REFERENCE 5 ONCL.RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h

1. OCR 3201-008-C-018 B&W Document 36-1004477, Rev. 01 2.

s k __

JB -

PRINCPAL-IN-CHARGE DKD 5RT (ir REOulRED)

FROING REPCMT PRO.TCT MANAGER OpuGNATOR G.TR) FOR PROKCT TEAM 11/14/83 11/14/83 9/3ffry g g p DATE M TE DATE DATE

~

MIDLNO NXPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATICN FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT

• FILE NO. p01008 CLAS$: SAFETY X NON 5ATETY - DOC NO. 3?01006 2 018 REV.NO.

DATE5 REPORTED TO: PROJ A/PROECT MCR. 10/31/83 PR!NCP AL-IN CNAP.CE I1/1i/03 '

~

SRT .63 CPC/DEstGN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5). SYSTEM 5(5) OR cot $#MNT(5) INVOLVED:

AFW (general)

DESCRIPTSON OF Fl@ LNG (OR REFERENCE DOC. NO. OF FROING REPORT):

Contrary to FSAR statements, the sizing of the AFW system was not based upon '

APCSB 9-2 and ANS 5.1. Furthermore, other parameters used in sizing the AFil required clarification. The system does not meet the BOP criteria specified by B&W.

DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION:

1. An SAR change notice has been prepared which corrects the current text.

'2. B&W calculations demonstrate that the AFW has been sized properly given the parameters which are appropriate for the system. An " Observation" has been prepared to document our recommendation that the B0P criteria document be revised.

3. TERA review of other systems is in progress.

RESOLtJTION SASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMENT ATION:

Bechtel letter BLC-18114 (9/30/83) with attachments:

1. B&W 1etter of 8/26/83 containing calculation 86-1143885-01

2. SAR change notice 4067 COMMENTS BY $RT OF REQUIREDh 1

l PRO.ECT MANAGER Hb JB PRINCPAL-P4-CHARGE DKD 5R1 (IF REQUIRED)

FNOiNG'RE50LUTIOV REPORT ORGet G TR) TOR PROKCT TEAM

1. elyh) o silr3 11/14/83 11/14/83 _

DATE DATE DATE DATE _.

w+ m- ,,,--a,.--,,,m,, - , , - - - - - - - - - , , , - - - - , , --y- - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - ___

C'DLAPO IPOEPEPOENT DE50GN APO CONSTRUCTlON VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT

- l FIL NO. 3201 000 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COPFIRMED NO. 3201000 -R-020 y gg, DATES REPORTfD TO: LTR 10/31/83 sRT _ PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MOR. II/1/83 PFuNCPALMMARGE ,) 1/11/53 CPC/DEllCN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOrENT(5) INv0LVED:

AFW System (general)

DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TA5K (F APPLICABLE):

System Heat Removal Capability (1.11-1) System Hydraulic Design (I.10-1)

Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:

There are inconsistencies in inlet water temperatures used in AFW analyses. The B&W criteria * (section 2.14) require the use of 90 F inlet water temperature for AFW system design. B&W's " Specific Design Criteria for Safety Grade AFW Control System" document (4100) describes 90 F as " typical." BAW 1612, Rev.1 (section 2.1) makes use of a 100 F value in calculating minimum flow requirements. The FSAR contains analyses indicating a maximum service water temgertture of 105*E Bechtel calculation FH 4117-28 uses a maximum SW temperature of 108 F.

• Document #36-1004477, Rev. 1 SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

Use of a 90 F temperature when 105 F can occur results in an underestimate of tha quantity of water required to remove the heat being generated in the primary sys.em.

This in turn affects the AFW system heat removal capability, its hydraulic design basis, and the sizing of components.

RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X B&W Calculation 86-1143885-00 and Bechtel letter BLC-18114 provide documentation that 105 F rather than 90 F results in only a minor primary temperature increase. The Bechtel letter states that "No further action . . . is required on this item." We agree that this specific issue is resolved, but velieve that the B&W B0P Criteria Document (Ref. 2) should be revised (see Observation 3201-008-B-080)

COMMENT 5 BY SRT (F REQUIRED):

1 fEFERENCES ONCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NCLh See Attached h JB PRNCPAL- SRT (F REQutRED)

OCR ITEMi$ PORT LTR j PROACT MANAGER ORIGNATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM N CMARGE lohi/Q ,,h,/g 3lnl&3 11/14/g3 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

REFERENCES:

1. Bechtel Calculation FM 4117-28 (Rev. 0)

2. B&W Balance of Plant Criteria for AFW (36-1004477 Rev. 01)

3. B&W Conceptual Design Study (BAW-1612, Rev.1)

4. B&W Specific Design Criteria for Safety Grade AFW Control System (86-1119130, dated 4/80)

5. Bechtel Letter BLC 18114 (9/30/83), including attachments (B&W Calculation 86-1143885-00 is included in the attachments) 9 TERACORPORATION

MIDLAto IPOEPE70ENT DESIGN AbD CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATIO OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPC#tT: OPEN CONFIRMED X REV.NO.

f O C.026 RESOLVED ITEM -

SRT _ _ PROJECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. 11/1/83 D.4TES REPORTED TO: LTR _11/1/63 PRINCIPAL-eMMARGE I I / I I / 5 5 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5),5YSTEM(5), OR COMPOPENT(5) INVOLVED:

AFW System - Driven Pump Turbine Drain Piping DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPL CABLE):

Topic I.8-1, Overpressure Protection DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN Bechtel field change requests M6694, M6?99, and M6995 refer to down-rating the design pressure of certain high-pressure drainThe piping associated stated reason iswith the turbine to facilitate and inlet valves of the AFW steam-driven pump.

testing, since these high-pressure lines are connected to lower pressure linesThere is from which isolation cannot be provided for testing.

an engineering evaluation was perfonned to justify the change.

SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN:

Field change requests passed through engineering without documentation of adequate confirmatory calculations and review may jeopardize the integrity of design process.

OR RESOLUTION  :

RECOMMENDATION X Review calculations, if any, behind approval of field change requests.

COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):

REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):

Field Change Requests M-6694, M-6309, and M-6995 SIGNATURE (5):

JWB FAD HAL _

FAD _ _

PRINCIPAL- SRT(if REQUIRED)

LTR PROKCT MANAGER

_OCR ITEM REPORT FOR PROKCT TEAM N CHARGE ORIGINATOR 11/11/83_ 11/14/83 11/1/83 11/1/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

COLAfC IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED AND RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT Type Or REPORT oPEN coesiRMEo ',y *,o; 7,"oos -R-027 OESOLVED X fTEM ggy, wo,

_PROKCT TE AM/PROKCT M*R. 11/1/83 DATES REPORTfD TO LTR 10/31/83 sRT i PRINCJPAL-IN CMARGE 11/ii /n3 CPC/ DESIGN ORC.

STRUCit#tEl&), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPor(NT(5) INVOLVED:

AFW(general)

DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICAALE):

Component Functional Requirements (I.9-1)

Environmental Envelopes (II.9-1)

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERft The FSAR contains references to the following power levels: (a) 2452 MWt - license power level, (b) 2552 MWt - power level for calculation of core inventories for accident analyses, (c) 2603 MWt - power level for containment analysis.

The 2552 ."Wt power was used in the B&W AFW calculation (Ref.1). The 2603 MWt is 102% of 2552. FSAR page 10A-17 (Item a) states that 102% of maximum power level is used for AFW analysis. Thus, the power level for A91 analysis should be 2603 MWt.

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

If 2552 HWt was used, the heat load which must be removed by the AFW will be under-estimated compared to the heat load associated with operation at 2603 MWt, resulting in undersizing of AFW components. Furthermore, other analyses may need to be per-formed at 2603 MWt.

RECOMMENDATION OR RESO4 >JTION X  :

Ref. 2 provides an SAR change notice which clarifies the reactor power level to be used for evaluating the AFW system. Thus, 2552 MWt will be used for evaluation of AFW.

l COMME *ff5 BY SRT (F REQUIRED):

IEFERENCES (NCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJ:

(1) B&W AfW calculation 32-0525 Rev. 00 (2) Bechtel letter BLC-18114 (9/30/83) and attachments k I wb '

PRoKCT MANAGER k JB PRINCIPAL- SRT (F REQUWLED)

OCR ITEM REPORT ORIGNATOR VYt ) FOR PROKCT TEAM DM MARGE 8' b D solylt) n I.lu 11/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATI DATE

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

MIDLAf0 IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COPflRMED . 3201006 -R-028 RESOLVED X ITEM REv.NO.

- PROKCT TE A A/PROKCT MOR. 11/3/63 DATES REPORTfD TO: LTR 10/31/83 SRT PRINCIPAL-IN.CMARCE 11/ I I /53 CPC/DE51CN ORC.

STRUCfLRELS) SYSTEM (5). OR COMPOff.NT(5) INVOLVED:

AFW System DCV PROGRAM AREA OR T ASK (F APPLICABLE):

Component Functional Requirements (1.9-1)

(Review of Criteria and Comitments)

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:

The AFW system design may not megt a B&W interface requirement that auxiliary feed-water temperature be at least 40 F. B&W's BOP criteria for AFW (Ref.1) requires a 40 F minimum AFW temperature. This criterion is consistent with the B&W document for reactor coolant system analysis (Ref. 2) which is used in analysis of reactor coolant system components. Bechtel calculation FM-4117-28 (Ref. 3) uses a 32 F temperature as a worst case winter temperature.

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

If the interface requirement is not met, analyses of the reactor coolant system components could become invalid, l

RECOMMENDATION OR RE50iUTION X  :

Reference 4 provides an adequate basis for resolving this item.

COMMENTS SY SRT (F REQURED):

REFERENCES (INCL.RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h (1) B&W Criteria for AFW (36-1004477, Rev.1 )

(2) B&W Functional Contract Specification for Reactor Coolant System (18-1092000012-04) l (3) Bechtel Calculation FM-4117-28 (4) Bechtel letter BLC-18114 (9/30/83) _

JB _

OCR ITEM RdPORT' 'LTR PROACT MANAGER PRINCPAL- 5RT (IF REQUIRED) i N.CMARGE l ORIGINAT llR FOR PROKCT TEAM 4, /t3 solh [83 fil88li3 11/14/83 l DATE DATE DATE DATE l DATE

MIDL/dC IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN AIO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FIPOING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO, 320!-000 DOC NO. 320i.00s. Z. 045 CLASS: $AFETY NON-SAFETY X _

REV.NO.

DATES REPORTED TO: PROKCT TESM/PROKCT MCR. 10/21/83 PRINCIPAL.IN-C SRT I1/1I/83 CPC/DE51CN OF C. _ -_

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM 5(5), OR COMPOfENT(5) INVOLVED:

AFW System: AFW Pump Motor 2P005A DESCRIPTION OF FIPOING (OR REFERENCE DOC. NO. OF Fl*CING REPORT):

• Finding Report 3201-008-F-045 concerning the periodicity associated with shaft rotation of the AFW pump motor while the motor is in place and in storage.

O DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION:

• In-place maintenance procedure, F-10-247, has been revised to alter the frequency of shaft rotation of the motor from a 30 day period to a 14 day period per manu-facturer's recommended instructions.

• NCR 6262 has been issued.

RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOW lNG DOCUMENTATION:

F-10-247 Rev. 3 NCR 6262 COMMENTS BY 5RT OF REQUlFEDh i

i

$4GNATUPI(5): JB OKD MJ HAL _

PRINCIPAL.IN.CMARGE 5RT (IF REQUIRCD)

FirOING RESOLUTION PROKCT MANAGER REPORT ORGIN. (LTR) FOR PROKCT TEAM 11/14/83 11/11/83 11/14/83 10/21/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE

. . MIDLAto IPOEPElOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FitOING RESOLUTION REPORT FILE NO. 3201 000 X DOC NO. 32010007 - 046 CLASS: $AFETY NON.5AFETY 0 l REV.NO.

DATE5 REPORTED TO PROKCT TE AM/PROECT MCR. 10/21/81 PR SRT 11/11/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. '

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM 5(5), OR COMPOtENT(5) INVOLVED:

AFW System: Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps 2P005A&B DESCRIPTION OF FIPOING (OR REFERENCE DOC. NO. OF FIPOING REPORTh

, Finding report 3201-008-F-046 concerning the implementation of vendor-recommended storage and maintenance instructions and the adverse conditions to which the pumps and turbine have been exposed.

o DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION:

. The pump and turbine will be disassembled and inspected in the presence of factory representatives to determine the condition of the equipment.

• TERA ICV reviewers have been contacted concerning the Inspections of the turbine and pumps. TERA reviewers will be present to witness the inspection to verify the condition of the pump and turbine.

. The in-place maintenance instruction, F-10-118, has been revised to include a humidity check every 30 days & desiccant replacement if Lymidity exceeds 60%.

RESOLUTION BASED UPON FOLLOWING DOCUMEtaATION:

F-10-118, Rev. 6 Maintenance Work Packages 352, 353 (Un.it 2 Turbine and Pump)

COMMENTS SY SRT OF REQUIREDh r

The resolution of this finding is conditioned upon TERA witnessing the factory-rep's. Inspection of the pumps and turbine and an evaluation of l

the inspection by ICV reviewers.

SIGNATURE (Sh JB DKD _

MJ HAL ,

PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE 5RT (IF REQUIRED)

FirOING RESOLUTION PROECT MANAGER REPORT ORCIN.(LTR) FOR PROECT TEAM 11/14/83 11/14/83 -

10/21/83 11/11/83 DATE j DATE DATE DATE

MIDLAPO ltOEPEPOENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FIPOING REPORT FILE NO. 3206 008 DOC NO. 3201 008.F .049 CLASS: SAFETY X NON-5AFETY REY.NO.

DATES REPORTED TOs PROJECT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 10/31/83 PRINCIPAL SRT 11/11/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEMS (S) OR COMPOrENT(S) INVOLVED:

Cabie i

l DESCRPTION OF FROING:

During the inspection of the physical attributes of Class IE cable 2Bl055A as part of the verification of the cable overinspection program, cables (281025D et .1) at electrical equipment cubicle 2C166 were observed to be in violation Cables ofin separation open riser criteria as contained in Bechtel Spec. E-47Q, para 5 1.1.4.

2BJN01 (B channel cables) were approximately 2 feet f rom air lined cables at vias Separation criteria require 3 feet separation.

2AE176 and 2AE159 (A channel cables).

SIGN!FICANCE OF FitOING:

10/10/83 and provided during Based upon information provided with Bechtel letter of the OCR status review meeting on 10/28/83, ICV reviewers were advised of measures being undertaken to reconcile the noted finding. Total resolution of the observed inconsistency relates to a review of program plans to verify that adequate measures will be undertaken to check implementation of cable separation criteria and the design to address the noted air-lined cable separation finding.

RECOMMENDATION:

- Review program that addresses the inspection of applying cable separation criteria.

• Review the design response for the disposition of the specific air-lined cable separation finding.

COMMENTS BY SRT OF REQUIREDh REFERENCES ONCL.RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h

. Bechtel Spec E-47 Response to OCR-C-049 dated 10/4/83 SIGNATURE (Sh JB DKD HAL RC SRT (IF REQUIRED)

PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL.N-CHARGE FftOING REPORT OR)GNATOR 0.TR) FOR PROECT TEAM 11/14/83 11/14/83 _

11/11/83 10/31/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE

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

MIDLAPO DOEPE!OENT DESIGN MO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION FIPOING REPORT FILE NO. 3201 008 DOC NO. 3201 00s.F .050 CLAS5: SAFETY X NON 5AFETY REV. NO.

II/ 3 '/b DATES REPORTED TOs PROKCT TEAM /PFOKCT MGR. 10/ 3 I /53 PRINCIPAL.lN.

sRT 11/11/83 CPC/DE51GN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5), $YSTEM5(5), OR COMPOtEt4(5) INVOLVED:

Cabl4 2AA05125, start-up System 2BGC i

DE54 RIPTION OF FIPOING:

Cable 2AA05125 was found to be routed vertically through an unscheduled horizontal cable tray AJK06 when traced from scheduled tray AJB05 to scheduled tray AJK08.

The cable routing did not conform to that shown in Bechtel drawing E-37 SIGNIFICANCE OF FitOINO:

As a result of information and documentation provided ICV reviewers with Bechtel 10/28/83, letter of 10/10/83 and discussions during the OCR status review meeting on it'l reviewers were provided the status of activities undertaken to address the ICV reviewers continue to verify the explicit criterion previously confirmed item. utilized in the cable reinspection program to determine what being in a cable tray.

RECOMMENDATION:

P Review this finding with MPQAD personnel to ascertain the program applied interpre-tation of the routing criteria. Review with cognizantBased personnel the reconcilation upon results of the pre-of this finding to controlling design documentation.

vlous activities, expand the sample of cables to verify that the reinspection routing criteria has been consistently applied.

COMMENTS BY 5RT OF REQUIREDh

- QCIR 2AA05125 dtd 6/21/83 REFERENCE 5 0NCL.RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h . Response to DCR-C-050 dtd 10/4/83 Bechtel Dwg. E 37, Rev. 63, pg. 16, Unit 2 PIPR No. 1570, dtd 10/26/82 . NCR A-5000-6-CV

. FCN E-10406 SIGNATURE (Sh JB DKD RC HAL PRINCIPAL.IN-CMARGE SRT OF REQUIRED)

FIPOING REPORT PROKCT MANAGER ORIGNATOR (LTR) FOR PROKCT TEAM 11/14/83 11/14/83 _

,10/31/83 11/11/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE

_. ___ . - _ . _. . _ - = -. ._. . - _.

MOLAPO ROEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEP4 COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT M& T m M6 X N 3 C- 055 M50L O MM REV.NO. O PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 10/28/83 DATE5 REPORTED TO: LTR 10/28/83 ERT PRINCPAL-N. CHARGE II/I!/83 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOffNT($) INVOLVED:

Site Welding Procedures (WP) & Procedure Qualification Reports (PQR's)

SCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):

Verification of Construction / Installation Documentation DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: .

The attached IIsting of WP's and PQR's were evaluated and found to possess incon-sistencies and/or gaps in typically recorded data and information.

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

Lack of completeness in welding procedures and procedure qualification records is inconsistent with industry practices for specifying welding processes and qualifying welding procedures. Those items noted with an asterisk on the attachedItems listing with-bear more significance than those items which do not have an asterisk.

out an asterisk relate to deviations from typically recorded data, their absence would not generally af fect the quality of the weld.

OR RESOLUTION  :

RECOMMEfCATION X Discuss w/ cognizant Bechtel/CPC personnel & evaluate actions to be taken in addressing the following concerns as extracted from the attached sheet.

PI-A-LH - Preheat for post weld heat treatment condition should be 100'F per Code; PI-A588-A-1H - Preheat is not specified; P8-PI-A - Mat. thickness qualified should be 2 1/8" (SMAW) l CONTINUED ON ATTACHED PAG :

COMMENTS BY $RT (F REQUIRED):

MFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):

As Indicated in the Description of Concern SIGNATURE (9:

DBT HAL JB 08T SRT (F REQUIRED)

LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-OCR ITEM REPORT N. CHARGE ORIGINATOR FOR PROKCT 1EAM 10/28/83 11/11/83 11/14/83 10/28/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

RECOMMENDAT10N (CONT lNUED):

Discuss and evaluate the reason!ng and justification for not including the non-essential variable of " Technique" in the following welding procedures.

PI-AT-Lh PI-F-(A-C07 )-3u PI-T '

P8, PI-T-Ag P8, PI-T-b P8-T-b

- Discuss and evaluate the reasoning and justification for not recording the essential and non-essential variables in the PQR's as listed on the attached sheet.

.-, .-. , - - . . . . -e_ .. , , _ . ,_., _ . _ _ , _ . _ . . , ..__ , .m.. _-.

, s

• ITEMS WHICH BEAR MORE SIGNIFICANCE TO AFFECTING THE QUALITY O REV DATE DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN SPS/PQR - -

• Preheat #or post weld treatment ccndition ~

2 10/25/78 should be 100*F per Code. (

1. PI-A-LH 2/20/69 No interpass temp. or travel speed recorded

-PQR-8 8/03/63 No interpass temp. recorded

-PQR-9

-PQR-10 3/03/65 No electrical cnaracteristics recorded

2. PQR-6 (for -

1/20/71 No electrical characteristics recorded for WP PI-A-C-Lh) the 2G position PI-A588-A-Lh 9 11/03/80

• Preheat is not specified

3. No travel speed recorded

-PQR-751 11/21/80 a

4. PI-AT-Lh 4 1/16/79

• Technique not documented 2/20/69 No interpass temp or travel speed recorded

-PQR-8 3/03/65 No interpass temp recorded

-PQR-17 12/12/69 No travel speed recorded

-PQR-17A 5/06/65 No interpass temp or electrical characteristics

-PQR-18 recorded

5. 9/26/74 No travel speed or tec'inique recorded ,

PQR-452(for -

WP PI-F-(A-C0 2 )'I) 9/27/74 Interpass teg & technique not documented

6. PI-F-(A-C02 )-2 9 Travel speed not recorded

-PQR-453 9/27/74

7. PI-F-(A-C0)-3u 1 9/27/74

• Technicue not documented 2 -

8/05/74 No interpass temp or travel speed recorded

-PQR-450 No travel speed recorded

-PQR-455 9/27/74 1/16/79

• Technigae not documented

8. PI-T 2 No preheat interpass temp, electrical

-PQR-29 1/02/68 characteristics, or technique recorded 8/22/68 No interpass temp, electrical characteristics,

9. PQR-47 (for WP or technique recorded P-8A) 9/06/78

• Max thickness qualified should be 2-1/8" (SMAW)

10. P8-P1-A 3 No interpass teg or electrical characteristics

-PQR-78 5/16/58 ' C 1

recorded .

11. P8,PI-T-Ag 4 8/30/78

• Technique not documented 3/ 21 / 73 No electrical charact3ristics or technique

-PQR-82 recorded i

12. P8,PI-T-b 1 2/19/82

• Technique not documented 3/12/80

• Technique not documented

13. P8-T-b 1

5/08/68 No interpass temp, electrical characteristics

-PQR-53 or technique recorded 3/24/58 No interpass temp,\?Iectrical characteristics

-PQR-54 or technique recorded

14. PQR-618 (for -

8/05/77 No interpass temp or electrical characteristics WP PI-Structural to RE8AR) recorded t

\

MEX.AfC DOEPEfCENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED AfO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT

(

C-056 RESOL E ITEM REV. NO. O PROECT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. 10/21/63 ~

DATES REPORTED 'Oi LTR 10/18/83 SRT CPC/ DESIGN ORG.

PRNCIPAL.N. CHARGE STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOPENT(5) INVOLVED:

V Various v'endor-supplied components within the AFW and SEP systems.

' CCV Supp11er PROGRAM AREA Documentation OR TAEK (IF APPLICABLE)

Review of material selection a Review:

' ' test reports DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:

i

1. Air Receiver 2T-93A

,' a. li" pipe and li" nozzle (Heat #725076) do not conform to the chemical re-quirements of Type 304L stainless steel. Carbon content was tested & recorded

.I to be in excess of maximum allowable of 0.03%.

2. Shafts for Pumps 2P005A and 2P005B.

a. No material test report on flie for the pump shafts, s

54GNilCANCE OF CONCERN:

I Utilization of a material which possesses chemical and/or physical characteristics potentially not suitable for the Intended application.

t OR RESOLUTK)N  :

- RECOMMENDATION For concern #1, interface with IDV engineering design personnel to determine the potential for degraded component performance in light of using materials which possess less than specified chemical properties.

• For concern #2, verify the availability and review of the shaft material test reports.

l COMMENTS BY SRT (IF REQUIRED):

l REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):

Air Receiver 2T-93A, Spec. M-18, AE0-9835 Shafts for Pumps 2P005A&B, Spec. M-14 AE0's - 4980 & 4993 SsGNATURE(Sh _

DBT HAL DBT _

PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)

LTR PROKCT MANAGER OCR ITEM REPORT FOR PROKCT TEAM M HARGE ORIGNATOR 10/18/83 10/18/83 10/18/83 DATE DATE l DATE DATE DATE l

MDLAPO DOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REFOT TYPE OF MPORT: OPEN COrFIRMED No. 3201-008 -R-073 y gg, DATE5 fEPORTfD TOs LTR ll/2/83 SRT PROKCT TE AM/PROKCT MOR. 11/2/83 PRINCIPAL.IN CMARCE 11/11/81 CPC/ DESIGN ORC.

STRUCTURE (5), 5YSTEM(5), OR COMPorf rG(5) INVOLVED:

Control Room HVAC - Air Handling Unit Cooling Coils DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):

l l

Review Topic I.12-3, Cooling / Heating Requirements DE5CRipTION OF CONCERN: .

The calculation is intended to check the cooling coil load. In the assumptions for the calculation, the conditions for a post-LOCA are presumed to exist. No l statement is made regarding other accident conditions. The concern is whether other accidents would cause more limiting demands. For example, are adjacent wall temperatures higher during a steam or feedwater line break?

56CNFjCANCE OF CONCERN:

The cooling coil sizing appears marginal. If there are conditions which increase the load, a higher control room temperature would exist.

RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X Referencing the 10/28/83 OCR meeting, it was determined that the post-LOCA condition

^

is the nest limiting for cooling coil sizing. There are no postulated high energy line breaks in the vicinity of the control room which would result in increased cooling loads. The marginal sizing of the coil is being addressed in a revised calculation and is covered by OCR 3201-008-0 058.

I COMMENTS BY $RT (F REOUIRED):

I l

f REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h '

Calenlation No. CPM 4321-01(Q),Rev.2 _

OCR ffEM REPORT '/LTR PROKCT MAmGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (F REQUIRED)

ORIGNATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM IN.CMARGE l ///?//) /> /r /f 1 Ilfst lR 11/14/83 DATE DATE DATE l ' DATE 'DATE l

MIDLAPO ltOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT 3

TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COtflRMED - 3 [.008 080 OBSERVATION RESOLVED X ffEM REv. E.

DATE5 REPORTfD TO LTR I 1/1/83 SRT - PROKCT TE AM/PROKCT M5R. II/I/83 PRINelPAL.lN CMARGE 11/11/81 CPC/DE5!CN ORC.

STRUCTURE (5). SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOPENT(5) NVOLVED:

AFW(general)

DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLEh Component functional requirement (I.9-1)

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERre Bechtel letter BLC-18114 (Ref.1) provides the basis for resolving several OCRs including C-020, C-027, and C-028. No reference is made regarding revision of the B&W interface criteria document (Ref. 2). The B&W criteria document goes beyond interface criteria and, in fact, functions as a primary source of design providing(along criteria vith the FSAR). Minor inconsistencies exist among References 1 and 2 and the FSAR. bce attached list for examples.)

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCI RN:

This concern is of minor significance if the B&W interface document is eventually replaced with a final design criteria / basis document which serves as a point of reference for future design changes. With the present inconsistencies a risk of errors in future revisions exists.

RECOMMENDATION OR RESOLUTION X  :

l

, 1. Process as an Observation.

2. Consumers Power Company should consider developing system description / design l

criteria documents which document in one place the assumptions and bases for

! plant systems.

i COMMENTS SY SRT (F REQUIREDh l

I MEFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h l 1. Bechtel letter BLC-18114 (9/30/83) l

i. B&W Criteria for AFW (36-1004477, Rev.1)

-  % JB PRINCIPAL-SRT (F REQUIRED)

OC 4t ITEM REPORT' CTR /

PROKCT MANAGER FOR PROKCT TEAM N.CMARGE ORIGNATOR

{ if[/ [M fr [i /T') li lle l83 11/14/83 DATE DATE DATE Daft DATE

EXAMPLES OF INCONSISTENCIES:

1. FSAR page 10.4-37 states "The capacity of the auxiliary feedwater pun.p is equal to that flow at 105F which, when injected in the steam generator, will offset by evaporation the decay heat released following a reactor trip from full powar." One could be lead to believe that this means +. hat at the time when water is injected that this offset occurs. B&W calculation 86-1143885-01 shows that t = 50 sec is the point where this offset occurs, although water must be injected at t = A0 sec (per the B&W interface document). Furthermore, the B&W interface document states that this offset occurs at t = 30 sec.

2. Neither the B&W criteria document nor the FSAR make it clear whether the APCSB 9-2 method is the basis for demonstrating compliance with the offset condition discussed above.

3. Bechtel letter BLC-18114 states that ". . .AFW temperature could be as high as 105 F in the unlikely event that service water is used." Bechtel calcu-lation FM-4117-28(Q) shows that the condensate storage tar.k temperature could be as high as 135 F. This would indicate that there may be conditions under which the 105 F service water temperature would be lower than the expected condensate temperature.

l l

TERACORPORATION

Mi[X.Ake IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION CPEN, COtflRMED Aro RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT CONFIRMED X TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN .

O i.006-C - 081_

RESOLVED ITEM REV.NO.

11/1/83 SRT PROKc1 TE AM/FROKCT MO,R. 11/1/83 DATE5 REPORTfD TO: LTR CPC/ DESIGN ORC.

PRINCPAL.8N.CMARCE I 1/11/83 STRUCTURE (5). SYSTEM (5), OR COM*0rtNT(5) INVOLVED:

AFW System Piping DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABJ):

11.2 Pressure Boundary, l.9-1 Component Functional Requirements DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:

Calculation FM-4117-28(Q) appears to contain errors which could affect subsequent analyses.

A. Sheet 18 li.sts hanger nodes 985-786 as corresponding to section 2 shown on sheet 11; however, this combination of nodes does not appear on sheet 23.

B. Sheet 23 refers in two places to node 936, which appears neither on sheets 11-12 nor on sheets 18-22.

(see attached)

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

The wrong pressures and temperatures may have been used in piping analysis if the analyst did not resolve these problems.

RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION  :

i

( 1) Develop SCR to do a detailed review of the data contained in FM-4117-28(Q) and the corresponding stress analyses.

( 2) Investigate the process by which this interface is controlled.

COMMENTE EY SRT (F REQUIRED):

REFERENCES (INCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJ:

_ i g 'b $ JB __

~ MTR) '

PROKCT MANACER PRINCPAL. SRT (F REQUIRED) 0D4 aftiilRtORT N.CMARGE HATUR / FOR PROKCT TEAM ORp/93 a [,, ,/f[fy ,, l ,, l g( 11/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN (continued):

C. Nodes 415-401 are listed on sheet 18 and on sheet 23. Sheet 18 States that ij these nodes are in section 1, but a comparison with On sheets sheet11-12 shows 23, nodes that 415-401 lj node 415 is in section 5 (sge sheets 21 and 32).

~

, are listed in mode I gs 108 /85 psig, whereas on sheet 32 nodes 415-401 are listed in mode las 295 /1875 psig.

D. Node 401 appears on both sheets 11 and 12.

o 1

TERACORPORATION

l MDLAPO 2DEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION f OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT X

TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN COPFIRMED NO. 006 - C-084 OE50LVED MM ngy, go, DATE5 REPOMTED 70 TTR 10/31/83 SRT PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MOR. I1/1/83 PRINCIPAL-N.CMARGE 11/1 UB 3 CPC/ DESIGN ORC.

STRUCTL#tE(5), SYSTEM (s). OR COMPorENT(5) HvOLVED:

Control Room HVAC Toxic Chemical Detectors DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):

Review Topic I.2-3 Accident Analysis Considerations Calculation Review DESCRIPTlON OF CONCERN:

Calculation FM-505-9(Q) is documentation of a computer code development for predicting corgentration of toxic chemicals in the control room following a chemical release.

The model used assumes that the toxic chemical which is introduced through the air intake is instantaneously distributed in the entire control room volume. The toxic ch:mical would actually be at higher concentrations in the vicinity of the HVAC supply than the exhaust or return during the initial transient. The concern is that the model underestimates the concentration to which operators in the vicinity of the air supply are exposed.

SicNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

For chemicals with short term (TLV-STEL) or time weighted average (TLV-TWA) threshold limits, the assumption is reasonable; but, for ceiling threshold limits (TLV-C) that concentration should not be exceeded even instantaneously. This applies to hydrogen chloride and boron trifluoride (used as a basis in the calculation for boron tri-chloride). Depending on the rate of dispersion of the HVAC supply, thesa instanta-nrous ceiling limits could be exceeded by a factor of ten using the detector sensitiv-ity calculated in calculation FM-0505-56(Q) using the computer code from FM-0505-9(Q).

REC 0 EMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION  :

Access the potential for adverse physiological effects, considering both dispersi.on l

and toxicity.

l COMMENTS SY SRT (F REQUIRED):

REFERENCES (NCL. REL ATED OCR ITEM REPORT NCLh Calculations FN-0505-9(Q) and FH-0505-56(Q)

SaGNATL#tEt&h W

i

'O DAAb nl/s)?

PROKCT MANAGER PRNCPAL-SRT (F REQURED) l OCR WlEM REPORT 7 LTR N.CMARGE l ORICHATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM 19/n />J _n/n //) lslitIn DATE 11/1k/83 DATE DATE

' DATE 'DATE

a .

MDLAPO ROEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COWIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT NO 201 M COffWtMED X TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN ,9 006-C -085 OE50LVED REM ggy, no, PRO.ECT TEAM / PROJECT MCR. Ii/I/63 DATE5 fEPORTED TO: LTR 10/31/83 3RT PRINCPAL-4N.CMARGE I6/Ii/53 CPC/ DESIGN ORC.

STRUCTL#tE(5). SYSTEM (5). OR COMPotfNT(5) NVOLVED:

Control. Room HVAC i

DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):

Applicable to all review areas DESCRIPTION OF CONCERtc See Attached 5!CNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

Inadequate control of calculations could have significant adverse effects on

multiple areas of the design.

RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION Review methods for controlling design calculations and use of resulting data.

I COMMENT 5 BY SRT (F REQUptED):

l ftEFERENCES (NCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NCLh SIGNATURE (9:

_ AJL) ~__x A js ) /& JB PRNCP.E. SRT (F REQUIRED) oCR'ifEM REPORT opucaNATOR

/ LTR ' PROR "T MANAGER FOR PROJECT TEAM pgMARCr.

s/rs //1 'en l T3 IIII4/83 __

n/1//13 su DATE DATE

' OATE < OATE DATE

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN

)

in the process of reviewing calculations, it has been observed that some final The calculations are outdated, or use preliminary or outdated information.

technical impact has been evoluoted by TERA as part of the calculation review process, and geneiolly there are no cdverse effects. However, the question raised by repeated obsc.votions is whether the absence of adverse technical calculations are impact in the semple selected is sufficient evidence that controlled adequately to ensure there are no technical discrepancies throughout the entire design.

o A brief summary of specific instances is provided here to establish an under-standing of the nature of the concern observed thus for.

Calculation FM-4321-22(G), approved 5/9/78, is categorized " final." Its purpose is to establish the number and size of the control room pressurization tanks. 3 The The calculation concludes with a selection of four tanks (each 1,210 ft ).

current P&lD shows two tanks. Technically, two tanks are as adequate as four provided the total volume is the same. The calculation establishes that volume.

A check of purchased tank volume is sufficient to ensure that the sizing is technically odequate; however, the calculation is not current.

Calculation FM-4321-07(G) was transmitted to TERA on 8/12/83 as Rev. O, but the transmittel letter stated that it was being revised. Revision I was transmitted on 9/27/83, after being requested by TERA. The cpproval dates for Revisions 0 and I are 11/1/76 and 12/15/77, respectively. The last revision was, therefore, released over five years after approval. At the time of release the drawings referenced in the calculation had all been superseded as follows:

1 TERACORPORATION

Drawing No. Referenced Rev. Current Rev.

i 16 A-25 15 j A-48 1 15 A-49 1 0 7 A-50 3 10 A-51 0 12 C-207 C-208 0 11 5

C-222 1 The technical review of the calculation, which determines exfiltration and infiltration rates, evaluated the consequence of the outdated information to be insignificant in general. it was noted in the review that the leak rate is essentially only a function of the air tight door designs, and the drawings do not yet address specific design details. The calculation used reasonably atto~ noble values for the door leckage. This leaves open the issue of final confirmation of the leakage rate, which presumably will be addressed in a revision to the calculation.

Calculation CPM-4321-8 references FM-4321-07 for estimating the exfiltration, but then assumes a rate of 25 cfm at 1/8" w.g. The referenced calculation gives a value at 1/4" w.g., not at 1/8" w.g. Using the methods of that calculation, the TERA reviewer calculated a leak rate of 50 cfm for 1/8" w.g. Calculation CPM-l 4321-8 also assumes that leak rate is linear when it isn't linear in the referenced calculation. These facts appear to indicate a lack of appropriate interface between the calculations. The technical consequences were then reviewed and TERA determined they were insignificant. Calculation CPM-4?.21-8 determined the required flow rate of the pressurization system to be 75 cpm during the 25 second pressurization period, but an arbitrary margin was added increasing the sizing to 100 cim. The reviewer estimate is 90 cfm without margin. Further-more, the system is actually sized for 350 cim, per the FSAR.

- Calculation FM-0505-56(Q) was used for back-up to a design data transmittal in an IOM from J. N. Vance to L. H. Curtis dated 4/7/80. The calculation was not checked or approved of the time the memo was released, and this fact was noted TERACORPORATION

In the memo along with a commitment to update the data for any significant changes. A comparison of the approved calculation ed the memo shows 3 that the detector sensitivity for propylene oxide changed from 18,000 mg/m in the 3

memo to 45,000 mg/m in the final calculation. This means that the memo conservatively required a more sensitive detection level. The memo was not revised, but it isn't clear whether the control procedures would have resulted in an update had the preliminary results been unconservative.

i h

_ Calculation 55 0 0 ile No.1-8) was released final to support a conclus on t at floor flexibility could be neglected in seismic design. It referenced spectra from calculation 50 l19(Q) which was preliminary. It isn't possible to conclusively determine that the study would have been reassessed offer the referenced calculation was finalized.

In summary, each instance described above raises questions regarding the process for updating calculations, although no technical deficiencies have occurred.

MCAR 30 describes a technical deficiency which did occur, and it concludes that the failure to implement EDP 4.37 " Design Calculations" was partially the cause.

The concern here is that this procedure may not teve been implemented even though no significant technical problem resulted. Such a failure could have consecpences in other calculations which are not part of the sample.

l 3

TN-83-702 TERACORFORATION

MIDUUO ROEPEf0ENT DEF ^ CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COWIRMED Af4 mVED(OCR) ITEM REPORT M & REPORT: OPEN CONFIRMED NO. - B -086 X REV.NO.

RESOLVED fTEM 0bservation DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 10/13/83 SR1 PROECT TEAM /PROECT MGR. I1/1/83 PRINCIPAL-IN. CHARGE 11/11/63 CPC/ DESIGN ORG. _

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S). OR COMPOf4NT(S) INVOLVED:

Auxiliary Feedwater System Components and Fire Barriers DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):

II.12-1, Fire Protection DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The now obsolete design of cable penetration seals did not correspond with the configuration tested in the related qualification test, and the major discrepancies include: Use of a higher density and different material for o

silicone foam in the seal design as compared to that tested; different cable construc-tion materials from those used in the test (i.e., those tested were EPR/hypalon whereas Midland cables include several that are neoprene Jacketed); and use of a larger conduit size for certain penetrations as compared to the penetration conduit size used in the test.

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

The significance of these discrepancies is questionable with the recent notice that this design will not be used and that a new design will be developed; however, the reason that this design was rejected was due to the difficulty in pulling cables in the future. This should be tracked as an Observation.

RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION  :

TERA perform subsequent evaluation on the revised design to verify that similar j discrepancies do not occur. Resolved as an Observation.

COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):

REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):

SGNAT 5):

JR , < FAD _

h PROECT MANAGER JB PRINCIPAL- SRT (IF REQUIRED)

( A oCN nGM REFON LTR V ORIC,NATON FOR PROECT TEAM IN-CHARGE l

10/P,/83 11/1/83 :lhli; 11/14/83

~

DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

MDLAfC l'OEF90ENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT NO '

CONMRMED X NO C -nR7 TYPE OF REPORT 4 OPEN RESOL E m REV.NO.

PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MCR. II/I/83 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 10/25/83 PRINCIPAL-N CHARGE 3RT j,1/11/83 CPC/DESlCN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOPENT(S) INVOLVED:

i Auxiliary Feedwater System Components and Fire Barriers DCVPROGRAM AREAORTASK(F APPLICABLE):

11.12-1, Fire Protection The FSAR, Section 9A.2 Zone 16, identifies redundant safe shut-DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN down cable in Fire Area 16. A review of the safe shutdown components in this zone has d in accordance with the criteria in FSAR Section determined that they are not separateThese should be separateri by a 3-hour fire rated barrie 9A.I.B.3e.

space with fire detectors and fixed suppression, provided with a 1-hour barrier enclos-Ing one train with detection and automatic suppression, or deviations fro criteria justified.

down, but does not identify a discrepancy between conditions in this zone and the In addition, Bechtel document " Midland Plant Units 1 & 2, Fire

< svaluation criteria.

Protection Safe Shutdown Analysis - Spacial depara t s or,, L i st SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN: of Problem Areas" does not IIst Fire Area 16 as a deficiency.

The safety concern for fire area 16 is that a fire could cause loss of redundant safe shutdown components.

Discussions solution is being developed.

with Bechtel personnel indicated that this discrepancy is re the discrepancy of zone 16 from the evaluation criteria was not identified in the FSAR or in the May 5, 1981 problem area summary document.

1 Y OR RESOLUTION  :

RECOMMEPCATION TERA review the proposed Bechtel modification when available for compliance to the criteria.

COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED): ,

REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h JB __

AM FAD PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT (F REQUIRED)

LTR f OCRITtM REPORT ORICNATOR FOR PROKCT TEAM

,,lts /3 N-CHARGE 11/14/83 ._

10/13/83 iiftifg3 DATE DATli DATE DATE DATE

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

e .

MIDLAPO ROEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICA OPEN, COfflRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT COWIRMED X . f[r s. .C -088 TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN REV.NO.

RESOLVED ITEM PROACT TEAM /PROKCT MGR.-

11/1/81 SRT __

DATES REPORTED PRINCPAL-MCMt.RGE TO: LTR _10/1 *</8? _11/11/R3 CPC/ DESIGN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOPENT(5) INVOLVED:

Auxiliary Feedwater System Components and Fire Barriers DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):

11.12-1, Fire Protection DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:

Safe shutdown components in the Turbine Driven AFW pump room (Zone 20),

separated including piping. cables and the turbine driven AFW pump, are not in accordance with the criteria in Section 9A.1.8.3e of the FSAR from safe shut-down components associated with the redundant motor driven AFW pump located Thein the corridor (Zone 16). Separation is provided by a non-fire rated barrier.

walls of this zone are concrete, and contain non-rated door, pressure relief panel, and other penetrations.

SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: ,

A fire in this area could possibly cause the loss of redundant safe shutdown comp The significance of such a loss is questionable, but could be asse rigorous evaluation.

leading to such discrepancies, particularly the failure to address the discrepancy from evaluation criteria for those locations where fire zones are not enclosed by three-hour barriers.

_a X OP RESOLtJTON RECOMMENDATON TERA should review fire barrier designation Justification for non-rated features such as the door, pressure relief panel and other penetrations, and look at the process for fire barrier designation.

COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIREDb REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):

SIGNATLME(Sh JB FAD HAL -

'5RT (IF REQU; RED)

JR PROKCT MANAGER PRNCPAL.

OCR ITEM REPORT LTR H.CMARGE FOR PROKCT TEAM ORIGINATOR 11/11/83 11/14/83 _

10/13/83 11/1/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE l DATE

l MOLMD DOEPEPOENI' DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION '

OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT COPFIRMED X NO. I . C-089 TYPE OF PEPORT: OPEN RESOL E ITEM REV.NO.

PROKCT TEAM /PROKCT MGR. II/I/63 DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 10/11/83 ERT _ _

PRINCPAL ".? CHARGE 11/11/83 CPC/DE5lGN ORG.

STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOrENT(5) INVOLVED:

Auxiliary Feedwater System - Emergency Lighting DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE): 1 l

11.12-1, Fire Protection DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN FSAR Section 9 5 3 2.2 states that the emergency lighting system provides adequate illumination levels of lighting at main points of control of shutdown equipment, and access routes to and from this equipment. However, the access area to the auxiliary shutdown panel room adjacent to line K, between column lines 8.1 and 8.6 at elevation 659' of the auxiliary building was not specified to contain an emergency lighting unit.

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN The significance of the lack of emergency lighting in the above access area could result in insufficient lighting for access from the control room to the auxiliary shutdown panel room and also does not comply.

^ OR RESOLUTKN  :

RECOMMErOATION I

l COMMENTS BY 5RT (F REQUIRID):

fEFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.):

SIGNATURE (9:

JB FAD HAL JR/HG PRINCFAL- SRT (F REGulRED)

LTR PROKCT MANAGER OCR ITEM REPORT FOR PROKCT TEAM N CHARGE ORIGNATOR 11/1/83 11/11/83 11/14/81 10/13/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE l

MIDLAPO ROEPEFOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COtFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT M W REPORT: M CONFIRMED ,f', ,

X ITEM O Observation RESOLVED REV.NO.

PROECT TEAM /pROECT MGR.

DATES REPORTED TO: LTR 10/13/83 SRT PRINCIPAL.IN. CHARGE CPC/ DESIGN ORG.

STRUCTURE (S), SYSTEM (S), OR COMPOffNT(S) INVOLVED:

Auxiliary Feedwater System - Emergency Lighting DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLE):

11.12-1, Fire Protection DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN:

The Teledyne emergency lighting unit, Model 2SGL10012-80, was not tested to demonstrate the full 8-hour capacity. The functional test prior to and after the seismic qualification test consisted of only depressing the test switch to simulate loss of power, rather than a time duration test. Also, the model numbers do not agree for the model listed to be installed, and the one tested.

SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCERN: be regarded as The lack of functional testing for the Teledyne unit should an observation. From the documents reviewed, it appears that the discrepancies relative to model numbers tested and those requested for installation and the lack of adequate functional testing have been identified by Bechtel and should be resolved as part of the Bechtel review process.

l RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION  :

Verify proper qualification testing for lighting units.

Resolve as an Observation.

COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUIRED):

REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJ:

SIGNATURE (S):

FAD HAL JB HG LTR PROECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL- SRT OF REQUIRED)

OCR ITEM REPORT N. CHARGE ORIGINATOR FOR PROECT TEAM 10/13/83 11/1/83 11/11/83 11/14/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

r .

MOLAPO POEPE70ENT DESIGN Ato CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COPFIRMED APO RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT N IRMED X NO s.C 091 M W MT OPEN fTEM REV.NO.

RESOMD 1I/l/83 PROKCT TEAM /PROECT MCR.

DATES 9EPORTED TO: LTR _10/20/83 SRT I 1/ I I 153 CPC/DE51GN ORG.

PRINCIPALMMARCE STRUCTURE (5), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPorENT(S) NVOLVED:

Pipe Supports DCV PROCAAM AREA OR TASK (F APPUCABLE):

Pipe Supports - Topic 1.3-1c, Review of Selected Verification Activities (Overinspe tion Program)

TERA personnel observed a portion of the reinspection of pipe Project Quality DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN (component) support item 2-604-3-40, a large bore shock suppressor.

Control instruction 7220/P-2The 30QCE Re[nspection of Pipewith experienced difficulty (Component) shock suppressorSupports was util by the quality control examiner.

(snubber) part terminology, associated dimensional checks, and associated mater tification. The QCE correctly notifiedThe the Project Fleid Quality Control Engineer as Lesson Plan No. PQCl-P-2.30 Rev. 3 instructed in PQCl 7220/P-2.30 Rev. 3 LP Rev. la omitted the Activity 3.4, instructions for snubber assemblies.

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

terminology should be clearly understood to assure that consistent Shock suppressor part .

inspection techniques are understood and employed by QCE's.

X OR RESOLUTK)N  :

RECOMMEPOATK)N 1)

Observe additional shock suppressor P-2.10 and P-2.30 inspections to obtain fee back to clarify support data.

2) include Activity 3.4 in Lesson Plan PQCl-P-2.30, Rev. 4.

Determine whether Activity 3.4 was omitted from the training sessions.

3)

COMMENTS BY SRT (F REQUPtED):

PQCl 7220/P-2.30 Rev. 3 Reinspection of REFERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NOJ:

Pipe Component Supports. MPQAD Training Department Telecon, R. Cleland, TERA, and J. Cia.k, CPCo, Lesson 10/18/83 Plan PQCl-P-LP Rev. No. 4, 9/2/83 SIGNATURE (Sh HAL JB RSC RSC/DBT SRT (IF REQUIRED)

PROKCT MANAGER PRINCIPAL-OCR ITEM REPORT LTR N-CHARGE FOR PROKCT TEAM ORIGNATOR 11/14/83 10/20/83 11/11/83 10/18/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

o

• MDLAND NDEPEPOENT DESIGN APO CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION OPEN, COWIRMED A>O RESOLVED (OCR) ITEM REPORT X

TYPE OF REPORT: OPEN _ _ M MED REV.NO.

- 09 MD M" 1 PROJECT TEAM /PROKCT MGR.

I1/1/83 l DATES REPORTED TO: 1.TR 10/20/83 SRT Cf C/DE5tGN ORG.

PRNCPAL-.% CHARGE I 1/ I 1/83 STRUCTLMEts), SYSTEM (5), OR COMPOPENT(1) INVOLVED:

Pipe Supports DCV PROGRAM AREA OR TASK (F APPLICABLEh Pipe Supports - Topic 1.3-Ic, Review of Selected Verif. Act. (Overinspection Programs)

DESCRIPTION OfCCNCERN Within the hanger over-Inspection program, QCE's who are being qualified are first The qualifying

, given a listing of pipe supports that are available for inspection.

QCE is then afforded the opportunity to select the support which he/she These finds through acti-observation to be accessible, lighted, clean and with unpainted welds.

vities are undertaken. prior to conducting the " Performance Demonstration" portion of the " Capability Demonstration" to instruction 7220/P-2.30, Reinspection of Pipe (Componant) Supports.

SIGNFICANCE OF CONCERN:

The selection of the pipe support for the " Performance Demonstration" by the qualifying quality control examiner may introduce a bias in the " capability demonstration" by potentially allowing a qualifying QCE to select a hanger or support with which he/she is most familiar.

j i

RECOMMENDATION X OR RESOLUTION It is felt that the selection of the pipe support for the qualifying QCE's " performance demonstration" should be made by an individual or group other than the qualifying QCE.

Discuss the feasibliity and appropriateness of implementing this recommendation with cognizant program personnel and discern and evaluate the impact on past qualification activities.

COMMENTS BY 5RT (F REQUIREDh .

1 IEEERENCES (INCL. RELATED OCR ITEM REPORT NO.h ANSI /ASME N45 2.6-1976 Qualifications of Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.

SIGNATURE (9 HAL J8 RSC RSC/DBT _

PRINCPAL. SRT (IF REQUIRED)

LTR PROACT MANAGER OCR ITEM REPORT FOR PROKCT TEAM 94 CHARGE ORIGNATOR 11/14/83 10/18/83 10/20/83 11/11/83 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE

.. __