ML20050A438

Independent Design Review.

ML20050A438
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	03/26/1982
From:	MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20050A435	List: ML20050A434 ML20050A438
References
NUDOCS 8204010291
Download: ML20050A438 (67)

Text

e Attachment I to AECM-82/ll4 GRAND GULF UNIT 1 a*

Independent Design Review  !

The following paragraphs describe Cygna's independent design review of Grand Gulf Unit 1. This description incorporates the scope of work as presented and amended during the NRC meeting on March 11, 1982.

CYGNA QUALIFICATIONS

,Cygna has provided a broad range of consulting services to the nuclear industry since 1974. Over 40 nuclear facilities have employed Cygna's expertise, including work on pipe stress analysis, pipe support design and quality assurance evaluation.

More specific experience relative to this independent design review is listed below:

e Dynamic, static and inelastic pipe stress analyses.

e Pipe support / restraint design.

e Field as-built data collection.

e Evaluation of hydrodynamic loads on piping and equip-ment.

o Redesign of equipment support structures. '

e Stress analysis of the MARK I torus support during a LOCA.

e Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) consultant.

e Analysis of piping systems for conformance to IE Bulletins 79-02, 79-13 and 79-14.

e Evaluation of operations quality assurance (OA) plans l and implementation procedures.

i. Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 1 of 25

( [ g g Grand Gulf Unit 1 1lllll11lll1111lll11111lllllll Independent Design Review March 22, 1982 8204010291 820326 PDR ADOCK 05000416 A PDR

,. e Evaluation of the OA programs, both engineering and construction, of a major subcontractor.

e Evaluation of a vendor OA control program.

In addition to being highly qualified to perform this review, Cygna also qualifies as an independent reviewer on the Grand Gulf project, as stated in Attachment 1.

SUMMARY

OF WORK The overall objective of this independent design review is to evaluate how well the design and design control processes on Grand Gulf Unit 1 pe rfo rmed under adverse conditions, such as during a major redesign effort. It is felt that a performance review of the design control procedures and a portion of the design proccas under these, adverse conditions is a good measure l of the quality of the overall plant design. Should this review l show satisfactory performance, then it can be reasonably inferred that the overall plant design is also satisfactory.

To accomplish this objective, Cygna will perform the review in two parts, which might he called " horizontal" and " vertical."

These will be described in more detail later; but, in essence, the horizontal review concentrates on the design control program while the vertical review looks at the design of a selected.

piping system. Cygna will . focus this horizontal and vertical review on the major redesign effort resulting from the requirements of the BWR New Ioads Adequacy Evaluation Program

( NLAEP) which emerged when the final design of Grand Gulf Unit 1 was nearly completed.

The NLAEP required that three new loadings be considered: loss ,

of coolant accident ( LOCA) loads, annulus pressurization (AP) loads and safety relief valve (SRV) discharge loads. SRV loadings combined with the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) will be the subject of the independent design review.  !

Cygna developed the following criteria for selecting a represen-tative piping system for the vertical review:

• The system shall be Seismic Category I.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 2 of 25 N L A Grand Gulf Unit 1 ll1lll1111111111lll1llll111111 Independent Design Review March 22, 1982

f

• The system shall be safety-related.

• The system or portion of the system shall be part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.

• The system shall be diverse in equipment content (i.e.,

it should have piping, branch piping connections, supports, pumps, valves, etc.).

• The system shall require a maximum number of design interfaces (e.g., MP&L, A/E, NSSS, and vendor).

• The system shall be located in more than one building.

(This is to ensure that the design complexities of routing piping from one building to another are addressed.)

• The system shall be one of high interest to the NRC (as indicated during initial discussion between MP&L and the NRC).

Based on the above criteria, Cygna has selected for review the following portions of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, train " A" (see Figure 1):

• Pump discharge from pump nozzle to containment flued head through the heat exchangers.

• Piping between heat exchangers.

• Piping between containment and drywell flued heads.

• Piping between drywell flued head and RPV nozzle.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 3 of 25 LN k L A Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 ll11111lll11111111111111111111 Independent Design Review

e ,. .,.

.lg.

.< s

)

'lt; 9.::.

3 i

n 3

a- -

A w _E: '

' -s ao" pea, =='  ::

.

. , , . .1....

,, . M.WA* '

M i. ..  : -

. .w; \ r , ,. ,,,. ., , .,,_ . . .;. . .,__ ff-

, ,, . _ _ - . m . mm%gg.gme -4 l-

.rssa. j j m g j g A j. .

'r

jjj

- lc, l

< g.

.- - -- . 1 1 3

.. r: e

- e t  ;

l [ . 3 ll  ! '

a #! 9

!! Q' i ig, 5!!!

k -

m.-m

-- I I

d is 7 l

,, y m. .-

c.we  ::w!;i y..t.?. 4 2 t=::::ul ,  :=~ - 2--

i il . 2 g ,

aj r. i* ,,, . , -- , a i l si l w.e<ne. ,

,1 ,:

w.me.

m .w  ;

.-a .oes j , .ees s_ s e ,;e

' : :- :i ;i l a: :.r.;: ,3 A!! l t 4 A* _L-r -

J l1 k ... . ',t -

ec i Q .- ::.:- u- -

~

}&

m I 2 :-s-! -'L..  !!!i:i.:

• j A di a$ , ,

e o ,- ,4

'E3::::;if

• ::i ;i

g si O :;:0*  ;

g mo aums:: 2 7:  ; .a

iinali! 1

=_ ,_s% . at A-= _

m. w i H .__m..

,,, og:: &w .g

, :ama w

_j

.  :<b6

-e . . , t =. . ._.

.:. . . l.:. . . . . .

!!!! ij ,

.u. . . .;. .. . . . ..

- ..- .~

q

~

* 'M*'*

' 2 7 ]

i 9R Primary Flow Path; $ i,  ;

a ,

Ej

m

'is .

. Branch Lines $:,! I tv

.; ;. ca j

_ -+;

r5  ;);:

e t l l 1

u mas 44 r r.m FIGURE 1 TRAIN "A" FLOW DIAGRAM I

I i

l  !

1 i

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 4 of 25

'g Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982

' A- Independent Design Review

. llllllllllllllillllif{llilli s

l l

l

a

.  !!aving selected a major redesign effort, NLAEP, a specific loading combination, SRV & SSE, and a representative piping system, RilR train "A," the work process to be rcviewed is as shown in Figure 2. That process is as follows:

e GE develops a New load s definition report which is transmitted to Bechtel. This, report contains loadings due to a loss-of-coolant accident ( LOCA) , various combi-nations of safety relief valve (SRV) loadings and annulus pressurization (AP) loadings.

e Bechtel distributes the load definition report to the various engineering groups for their use, e The Civil / Structural Group develops a mathematical model of the containment building structures to which the SRV loadings are applied.

e This mathematical model is used to attenuate the loads throughout the structure, thus creating amplified response spectra (ARS) and displacements which are used for system designs.

e The ARS and displacemc..co are transmitted to the Plant Design Group.

e The Plant Design Group performs pipe stress analyses and develops pipe support designs.

e The results from the pipe stress analyses and pipe support design are reflected on system drawings and support drawings. System loadings are transmitted to vendors (via specifications) and to the NSE3 supplier.

Figure 2 also defines the boundaries of the horizontal and vertical reviews. The horizontal review, which is described in more detail in the OA Activities section, covers the review of the Bechtel Quality Assurance Program in the area of design control and the implementation of the design control procedures. Included in this horizontal review is a confirmation that the correct (final) loadir.g data was utilized in the piping analysis. To confirm this, a technical reviewer will accompany the OA reviewer during their implementation audit of internal and external interface procedures. The vertical review is discussed Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 5 of 25 Li ( k A Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 ll1llll1lllll111ll1111ll111lll Independent Design Review

, later in the Technical Ac tivites section. It is a detailed technical review of one piping system for SitV loadings to ensure conformance with the project design criteria and normal industry practice. An as-huilt verification of the piping supports along the main flow path is a part of the vertical review.

I Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 6 of 25 N. [. d k 1- Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 111111111llllllllll11111111111 Independent Design Review

y_____-----____________----------______________-_----------

l HORIZONTAL REVIEW g l _4 l l 4 4 l l Bechtel 4 I I q d toad Attenuation e  !

QA Licensing , Quality , 0"5 9" + Design --> NLAEP toad Defialtion + *ggs g Redesign + (Civil / Structural

• l Ocssnitment Assurance Peport (CT)

Group) Displacements I g Program _( I I q . l I q 4 g l a 4 I m____ _____-----_________________------____________--- --- 3 I P t 1 1 1 1 l c_______ _______________g i VERTICAL REVIEW l l l 1 i 1

1 1 g RHR train "A" g g

Piping System Redesign Design Criteria g (Plant Design Group) 1 I I { o I i 1 Other ioadings . -

Pipe Stress Analysis I + H555 I I l 1 FIGURE 2 l I '

l 1 flued Pipe Support Design i N C' "*

l Heads g l (Vendor) g WORK PROCESS FLOWCHART l l l Drawings l 1 I I I I I I

l______________________al Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 7 of 25 Grand Gulf Unit 1 -

March 22, 1982 k bD L 1 Independent Design Review lllllllllll14ll111111111llll11

PROJECT APPROACII Figure 3 shows Cygna's organization for this project. This organization is divided into three functional tiers consisting of the project team, the senior review team and in-house cc -

sultants. The project team is composed of the principal-i..-

charge, project manager and lead engineers in the areas of quality assurance, technical review and as-built verification.

This team, which will draw upon the in-house censultants as necessary, is responsible for the day-to-day work pe rfo rrr.ance .

The senior review team consists of Cygna executives with extensive experience in areas directly applicable to this independent design review. Mr. Kacyra, President of Cygna Corporation, brings to bear experience in structural design and dynamic analysis. Mr. Ward, Chief Executive Officer of Cygna Energy Services, provides a knowledge of systems design and regulatory' evolution. Mr. Trainor. Vice President, Quality Assurance, offers extensive experience in the quality assurance arena. This team, with as-needed assistance from the in-house consultants listad, will review the work performed by the project team and will pass final judgement on the impact of any potential findings.

Mississippi Power & Licht Company Page 8 of 25 L

g;;

( 3 Grand Gulf Unit 1

im Independent Design Review March 22, 1982

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT SENIOR REVIEW TE#4 PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE B. K. KACYRA R. A. FALCIANI J. E. WARD E. F. TRAINOR PROJECT MANAGER T. T. WITTIG CONSULTANTS (AS NEEDED)

CODES & STANDARDS E. VAN STIJGEREN ELECTRICAL l

~

J. BONNER I 1

LICENSING

]

T.T. WITTIG I&C P. MC CARTHY l I  ; I ,

QUALITY ASSLRANCE TECiti! CAL REVIEW AS-BUILT VERIFICATION P. DI DGW0 H. SURYOUTOMO D. D0YEL FIGURE 3 PROJECT ORGANIZATION Missiscippi Power & Light Company Page 9 of 25 Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 L i Independent Design Review 111111111111111111111111111111 I

The review process, showing the three-tier approach and an overview of the decision process, is flowcharted in Figure 4.

Throughout this review process, items identified by the project team as having potential impact on plant safety will be brought to the immediate attention of the senior review team. This is to ensure that Mississippi Power and Light will receive timely notification of those items concluded to have a definite potential for impacting plar.t safety.

The basic steps involved in the review process are as follows :

Step 1: Collect Documents.

Step 2: Develop Work Instructions. These instructions will include standard forms, design criteria and checklists to aid and guide the reviewers.

Step 3: Perform QA and Technical Reviews. During this step, the review teams will record the documents reviewed and identify significant conservatisms.

Step 4: Identify Potential Findings. The technical and QA review teams will identify potential findings in the design or design control process and record the finding. This preliminary record will contain the following (as a minimum) :

e Potential finding number (QA -

1000 to 1999, technical - 2000 to 2999).

• Description of potential finding.

• Documents reviewed (relative to the finding).

e Extent of potential finding.

• Evaluation of impact on design.

Step 5: Project Team Review. Isad members of the project team will review the finding for accuracy and com-pleteness, and then evaluate the potential safety Mississippi Power & Light Compeny Page 10 of 25 LN.d. i A Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 llll1111lll111111111llll111lll Independent Design Review

impact. In order to complete this evaluation, the project team may gather more data to either clarify a question or better assess the extent of the finding. Simplified analyses may also be performed.

Step 6: Record Project Team Evaluation. Upon completing their review of the potential finding, the project team will record the following:

e Description of additional work done, if any, to supplement the initial review.

e Assessment of extent (qualitatively on a 1 to 4 scale, plus a narrative).

e Evaluation of impact on plant safety (qualita-tively on a 1 to 4 scale, plus a narrative).

e Considering the extent and safety impact, assess the significance of the potential finding to the overall plant design (qualitatively on a 1 to 4 scale plus a narrative).

The result of this review will be a preliminary review package for each finding, which will be presented to the senior review team.

Step 7: Senior Review Team. The senior review team, assisted by the team of in-house consultants, will check the preliminary review package for all potential findings. This review will concentrate on completeness, accuracy. and potential impact on plant safety. Based on their assessment of the preliminary review package, the senior review team may do one of the following:

e Direct the project review team to perform more work, such as clarifying data, extending the review or performing limited independent analyses.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 11 of 25

. Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 d g 7i Independent Design Review llllll11lll11llllllllll1111111

e Determine that the potential finding has insignificant impact on plant safety, e Notify MP&L that a finding may have potential impact on plant but requires extensive review, beyond the current work scope and budget, to reach a conclusion.

e Notify MP&L and the NRC that a finding has a definite potential impact on plant safety.

The result of this senior level revies will be a final review package for each finding which will be included in the draft report.

The senior review team will also evaluate the collective impact of potential findings that are concluded to have insignificant safety consequences.

Step 8: Draft Report. The results of the three-tier review will be recorded in the draft report, which will be sent to both MP&L and the NRC. As a minimum, the report will contain the following:

e Record of the documents reviewed, e Review checklists.

e Description of .significant conservatisms identified.

e Final review package for each pote'ntial' finding, including a description of the finding and its final disposition.

e Overall assessment of Bechtel's OA Program in the area of design control.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 12 of 25 LkI. L A""

Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982

..... Independent Design Review

e Assessment of Bechtel's implementation of design control procedures for the selected scope of review.

• Assessment of the quality of the overall plant design as inferred by the results of this independent design review.

f e

l i

l Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 13 of 25 Grand Gulf. Unit 1 March 22, 1982 b k i Independent Design Review l11111111111111111111111111111 l

l

l Collect Documents

}

Develop Work Instructions t

QA and Technical Review l

Potential inding?

Yes Record Potential Finding f

Determine Extent

• !solated

• Extensive l ' ' $fgnificance Record Evaluation 3, f , ,

Required e---= Project Review Team _

l I -

l I 'Clartfy Data

'Excand Review In-House Consultants ' Perform Independent Analyses l ' Reassess Safety l As Impact l Required s===---- Senior Review Team  ;,

f Further

1. eport Findings to Yes Potential Review MPSL / NRC Safety Impact?

No r

PreDare k oort f I Sentor Review Team f '

Issue Report FIGURE 4 PROJECT REVIEW FLOWCHART Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 14 of 25 Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 L A Independent Design Review ll11111111111111111111111ll111

QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW The Quality Assurance review is the horizontal look at the design control process. This OA review will be of Bechtel's Quality Assurance Program as related to the design of piping systems.

Key elements to be reviewed are:

e Design input documents.

e Design analyses control.

e Drawing control.

e Specification control.

e Internal and external interface control.

e Design verification.

e Document control (controlled documents), including revisions.

• Design change control.

e Corrective action.

e Internal audits and surveillances. .

In addition to reviewing Bechtels OA program for adequacy as compared to industry standards, Cygna will assess the implemen-tation of the design control procedures by auditing the documen-tation related to the redesign of the RHR system, train "A," due to the BWR New Loads Adequacy Evaluation Program requirements.

The program evaluation and implementation audit are described further in the following paragraphs.

A. Quality Assurance Program Evaluation l

l The Bechtel OA Program documentation will be reviewed to assess how well it satisfies the Grand Gulf Unit 1 licensing l commitments. It will also be compared to industry standards, l such as the Standard Review Plan. This evaluation will be l accomplished by first obtaining all the necessary quality l

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 15 of 25 f Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 h A },,, Independent Design Review I.. ......

program / procedural documento from Bechtel and then developing a matrix c ross-re ferencing the key control elements to the Bechtel design control procedural system. Based upon a preliminary assessment of the Bechtel Quality Assurance Program appropriate portions of the following Bechtel documents will be used to develop the matrix :

• Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual

• Bechtel Quality Assurance Manual -

ASME III, Division 1

• Project Engineering and Procedures Manual

• Quality Assurance Department Procedures Manual other applicable documentation will also be utilized to guide this review of the quality assurance program, such as the OA

. portion of reports developed during the ongoing Independent Design Review of the San Onofre Project and the NRC LCVIP inspection reports on Grand Gulf Unit 1.

B. Implementation Evaluation An integral part of the independent quality assurance evaluation is a review of the implementation of design control procedures. This will be done by auditing selected documentation throughout the horizontal and vertical pathways shown in Figure 2. As a minimum, the following design documentation will be reviewed :

• The transfer of applicable load definition data from GE to Bechtel and within Bechtel. The purpose of this task is to ensure that the final load data was utilized in '

the design of the RHR, train "A," piping system.

• A sampling of the load attenuation calculations perfo rmed by Bechtel's Civil / Structural Group to also ensure that the final load data was utilized.

• Ensure that computer codes utilized by the Civil /

Structural Group have been verified in accordance with OA procedures.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 16 of 25

{ g Grand Gulf Unit 1

!!!1ll111llll1111lll11111lll11 Independent Design Review March 22, 1982

e A sampling of design documentation in the Plant Design Group.

e A sampling of specifications to ensure that the final load data developed by the Plant De sign Group was incorporated in the specification.

Cygna will develop a plan to ensure that the Bechtel program for controlling the key design control elements has been satisfac-torily implemented. This plan will include a review of the documentation discussed above. Specific activities involved in the implementation evaluat' ion are as follows :

1. Develop an implementation audit checklist. The check-list is designed to focus the audit activities towards key areas of the implementation process. The checklist will contain key design control element attributes (questions derived from Bechtel procedural ccmmitmeni.c to be reviewed during the audit). Emphasis will be placed on developing attributes pertaining to activities where, if not properly implemented, would result in the greatest impact on quality. A checklist will serve the purpose of ensuring depth and comprehensive coverage of the audit. It is intertded to be utilized only as a guide during the audit and will not restric: the audit investigation. To provide further audit continuity, t,he checklist will be prepared by an individual who will also participate in the audit. This will ensure tha t the audit is per fo rmed in acco rdance with both the content and intent of the checklist.

2. Conduc t an implementation audit at the Bechtel offices in Gaithersburg, Maryland. This audit will concentrate on the items contained in the audit checklist and will be structured to identify weaknesses, assess their extent and evaluate their impact on plant sa fe ty.

During this phase, the quality assurance team will be accompanied by a technical representative who will review ti a design flow with respect to the transfer of data across interfaces. The audit will be performed by qualified QA personnel who will:

a. verify by examination and evaluation of objective evidence that the established design control program has been implemented; bjississippi Power & Light Company , Page 17 of 25 Mt'] g 3 Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 19R2 11lllll111llll111lllllllll1111 Independent Design Review

b. assess the degree of implementation;

c. identify the impact of failures to implement the quality program.

Cygna will identify any findings during the course of the OA program review and implementation evaluation efforts which may have occurred due to the following conditions:

• Omissions in the quality program with respect to the key design control elements identified earlier.

e Implementation is not in accordance with the documented quality assurance program.

The findings will be reported in sufficient detail to assure that corrective action can be effectively implemented.

All findings will be reviewed by both the project team and the senior review team to assess their accuracy and completeness. As a part of their overview process, findings which individually have no impact on plant safety are assessed collectively to evaluate their cumulative effect on plant safety.

TECHNICAL REVIEW The vertical portion of the independent design review involves a technical review of the design of a selected system. As discussed previously, the selected system is. the RHR, train " A, "

piping from the RHR pump to the reactor vessel nozzle (i.e. , four piping calculations).

The objective of the technical portion of this review is to '

perform an assessment of pipe stress and support calculations to insure correctness with respect to applicable code requirements and industry standards. The vertical review will also concentrate on one loading combination containing SRV(ADS) plus SSE load cases. Other loading combinations will be reviewed only for their reasonableness. In addition, an as-built review will be per formed to insure pipe supports are installed in accordance with the intent of the design drawings. This review applies to large pipe only (2-1/2" and up) and excludes ins trumenta tion tubing.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 18 of 25 Af 3 Grand Gulf Unit 1 IWWWlmWWWIWW Independent Design Review March 22, 1982

j The vertical review includes a detailed review of criteria l documents, a pipe stress analysis review, a pipe support design review and an as-built verification of pipe supports.

i A. Detailed Review of Criteria Documents In order to obtain an independe. t assessment of the methodo-logies and approaches implemented in the piping analyses performed by Bechtel, the Cygna team will review the applicable design criteria documents. Based on Cygna's own expertise in piping design and analysis, we will then de termine the validity of the criteria encountered. As a minimum, the appropriate sections of the ' following documents will be reviewed:

e De sign Specification for Nuclear Piping Systems (9645-M-220.0) e Design Specification for Hangers and Supports, Nuclear Service (9645-M-300.2) e Field Fabrication and Installation of Nuclear Service Piping (9645-M-204.0) e Criteria for Hanger Installation (9645-MS-16) e Compensa tion Allowances for Piping Misalignment (9645-MS-21)

The above documents will form a basis for the development of checklists to guide the technical reviewers. These checklists will contain key design elements derived both from the design criteria documents and from normal practice , such as, loeding combinations, stress allowables, code classifications, system requirements, operating conditions, verified codes, input loadings, damping values, required stiffnesses, allowable component accelerations and system boundaries. The use of these checklists will permit a qualita tive, comprehensive evaluation of the technical adequacy.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 19 of 25 Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 L Mg i Independent Design Review liiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;iiiiiiiiiisi

B. Pipe Stress Analysis Review Activities The technical review of the four stress problems will consis t of the following activities :

1. Input data check;

2. Piping model check;

3. Review of all stress related calculations performed;

4. Review of reports and conclusions.

Each of the above four piping review activities are described in detail below.

1. Input Data Check Cygna will perform. a check of the piping analysis to ensure that data was properly input. The development of the input data itself will not be checked; however, the Cygna review team will check the input for general conformity to industry standards. As a minimum the following input data will be considered :

e Internal piping pressure e Thermal load cases e System operations modes e Seismic spectra and anchor movements e SRV spectra and anchor movements e Other applicable SRV loading conditions

2. Piping Model Check Using the criteria and operating conditions established above, the Cygna review team will obtain the applicable piping isometrics (latest revisions) and will perfo rm the detailed check of the piping models developed by the Bechtal strese group. During this effort Cygna will pay Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 20 of 25 Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 J ., Independent Design Review 11,,,,,,

. . . . .. . . . . ..im

particular attention to the following items as a minimum:

e Piping geometry e Piping section properties e Support and restraint types and location e Fittings, nozzles and valves e Operating conditions e System boundaries and classification

• Other considerations such as modal spacing and sdpport stiffness

3. Review of Stress Related Calculations During the stress analysis e f fo rt, numerous related calculations are perfo rmed . These calculations will be subject to a detailed review by the Cygna team. Some of these calculations are identified below:

e Stress intensification factors for weldolets

• Flow impact loads at elbows e Pool swell impact loading on piping e Seismic anchor movements e Valve natural frequency check e Support, restraint and penetration lead summaries e Flued head reports (by vendor)

4. Review of Reports and Conclusions Upon completion of the reviews of the above indicated areas, the Cygna team will perform a detailed review of Mississippi Power & Edght Company Page 21 of 25

{gi Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 lllll11111llll11111llll1111lll Independent Design Review

the results and conclusions made by the Bechtel stress

-' group. The basis for this evaluation will be a careful study of design and stress reports issued to date. As a minimum, particular attention will be given to the following items:

e Ioad cases considered in analyses

• Ioad combinations summarized e Pipe stress code check e Nozzle reactions and valve acceleration check C. Pipe Support Design Activities The technical review of selected pipe supports and restraints fo r the four stress calculations will consist of the following activities :

1. Review of the input data and load combinations considered.

2. Review of all design calculations performed.

3. Review of drawings issued.

This review applies only to supports and restraints on the primary flow path (as identified under the piping scope) from the RHR pump to the RPV nozzle. Each of the pipe support review activities are described in detail below.

1. Review of Input Data The Cygna review team will take a close look at the support guidance generated by the Bechtel stress g roup for the pipe support group. Based on Cygna's own experience, it is felt that this interface requires attention. Some items to be reviewed in detail are :

e Support loads generated for all essential load cases

)

l e Support types and locations 1

1 Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 22 of 25 l Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982  !

Li b A Independent Design Review liii;; "! llllllIlll l l

l l

l 1

4 l

e Piping deflections for all essential load cases

2. Review of Design Calculations i: sing the criteria and support guidance established above, the Cygna review team will review the calcula-tions performed by the Bechtel pipe support group. For those supports and restraints on the primary flow path, Cygna will check the calculations in detail paying particular attention to :

e Support stiffness

o. Weld calculations e Stress allowables e Vendor allowables for catalog hardware e Proper modeling for computerized calculations e Expansion bolt allowables and base plate flexibility

3. Review of Drawings Since it is essential that correct drawings are for-warded to the site, Cygna will closely compare the analytical results of the overall piping design process with the support drawings produced. Consequently, the Cygna team will review the support drawings to insure that the intent of the stress analysis and pipe support design were met. There fo re , the following information will be checked on the drawings as a minimum:

• Proper type, orientation and location specified e Proper clearances specified e Proper structural and weld data e Proper component sizes Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 23 of 25 g Grand Gulf Unit 1

" E"" " 9"

• March 22, 1982 1lll1111llllllllllll1111ll Ill

, D. As-Built Review of Pipe Supports The purpose of this review is to insure the pipe supports and restraints will perform their intended functions in the installed condition. To accomplish this task, the Cygna review team will consider the overall assembly from a func tionali,tv, dual vantaae point rather than inspecting detailed ind1Vi p&rts and components. Therefore, the following review activities will be done as a minimum:

e check approximate location and orientation with respect to the piping system

• Check the type, size and adjustment of components such as springs and snubbers e Check approximate dimensions of critical members of the support assembly

• Check miscellaneous considerations such as clearance between pipe and restraint steel and gaps between baseplates and concrete surfaces.

PROJECT SCIIEDULE The project schedule is shown in Figure 5. It extends approxi-mately ten weeks at which time a draft report will be issued concurrently to MP&L and the NRC. A status report will also be produced about one week prior to fuel load which is presently scheduled for April 23, 1982.

Mississippi Power & Light Company Page 24 of 25 Grand Gulf Unit 1 March 22, 1982 L (D [ A Independent Design Review

!"""" !llllllll11llll11lll

i

• Er

• l Ed t

Ep:

l E

=

i 1 i r .-

! E wi g *- ACTIVITY DURAIION l

$kf. I WEEK l WEEK WEEK WEEK CL A ut mom I g 2 3 4 g WEEK5 g 6 l WEEK 7 g 8 l WEEK 9 l 10l WEEK ' WFEK i g g l l 1

3uom * [* I GENERAL l l g l g g l l {

CL c e. Determine scope a i I I I I I I l 2 H'd i g i l l 3 l l g I l l Collect Data 1

i l l l l D th '$. o g g l l l l

c T i i l I i i i E N-[ Draft Report

_______ - __-___t= = } __ _ g - _ g - _ - _ _ ___ _ _ .

II QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW l l l l l I I g cen i l i I I I D Perfonn Review of Bea al I I l

• I I i 1 l I l g Program and Develop Hatrix _; F7 l l l 1 l g m t< l 1 1 I l I

<; P. Develop Implementation l, l l '

l l l l I I gg Evaluation Checklist _a l

j n 1 I I #

Perfonn Audit i O a6 a l l l n

O

_ _ g - _ _l. - _g _ _ ._

_.{___..._ _I_ _I_ _l _l__

g lil IECHNICAL REVIEW l l l l l l B I [

)c Review Applicable Criteria Documents 1

l I

g a g l l

i l

l 1

I l

I l

l I 1 l

l l

l

• <: i I l i I t 1 I I l i Develop Review I e  !  !  !

l  ! l l l l Program Checklist __A i g

Perform Stress  ! l  !  !  !

l o l l l Analysis Review l __A a l g

l l Perform Pipe Support l l l l l Design Review l o - l l l l I g g__n g ga g I

l

.,. Perform Pipe Support l l I I o

!  !  ! l y As Built Review l 1  ! - l 2' A l

• OW lr c m

N N N ui o

H tt e FIGURE 5 -

PROJECT SCHEDULE mN N U1

l i l

l Attachment 2 to AECM-82/114 W

p 4 l R p

-1 i $b o  : t; If i B s

U i

s 6

$f

'e 4 j ,

f! d e f b t

s l 4

lW e

l i- M l-, l R  ! $ i E

p I l n" <

,l 1 3 G E e

l

-! @ l  !'

a E

2 i

EL J m n n

I $ b  !. l l 5 E o W l 0 >

O 3 lI 4 s -

k z- m

!! R! i

, = i j J W=W M  !

X

,. E E l s, t (;

j l M i i  ! O 1 I i l Z  !  !

s . , 4 h  !

I t :d 4 l d i h

!s [

a  !

I i b!!

Grand Gulf Unit 1 independent Design Reviety y Cygna Presentation

• INTRODUCTION J. WARD ORGANIZATION

- QUALIFICATIONS

• REVIEW ACTIVITIES PROJECT OVERVIEW R. FALCIANI.

- QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION G. TRAINOR

- TECHNICAL REVIEW E. VAN STIJGEREN

• SCHEDULE T. WITTIG

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y u.-+ .::: .

, Company Organization CYGNA CORPORATION B. K. KACYRA I

CYGNA CYGNA ENERGY CONSULTING SERVICES ENGINEERS J. E. WARD S. TANDOWSKY

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Cygna Energy Services Organization 1

PRESIDENT QA AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES I i 1 I i

SAN FRANCISCO BOSTON SOUTHERN ClllCAGO AREA 0FFICE AREA 0FFICE CALIFORNIA AREA 0FFICE AREA 0FFICE

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y. - , ,

Services Offered 9 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT ENGINGEERING~

)

QUALIFICATION MECilANICS PIPE STRESS SERVICES ANALYSIS RESEARCH AND TRAINING CYGNA DEVELOPMENT EERGY SERVICES QUALITY PROBABILISTIC ASSURANCE RISK ASSESSMENT RELIABILITY a . _ RECORDS MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT RADWASTE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING SERVICES a LICENSING

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y w - c ..

Plants PWR BWR

• ARKANSAS UNITS 1 & 2

• HUMBOLDT RAY llNIT 3

• PILGRIM UNIT 2

• LA SALLE IINITS 1 & 2

• YANKEE R0WE

• SUSQUEHANNA IINITS 1 & 2

• TROJAN

• MILLSTONE IINIT 1

• MAINE YANKEE

• HATCH IINITS 1 & 2

• SURRY UNITS 1 & 2

• PEACH BOTTOM llNITS 2 & 3

• SOUTH TEXAS UNITS 1 & 2

• SHOREHAM

= PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 & 2

• HOPE CREEK llNITS 1 & 2

• PALO VERDE UNITS 1, 2, & 3

• VERMONT YANKEE

• KO-RI 5 & 6

• LIMERICK UNITS 1 & 2

• MAANSHAN 1 & 2

• KU0SHENG 1 & 2

• MIDLAND

• JAMES A. FITZPATRICK

• ROBERT E. GINNA

• PILGRIM IINIT 1

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Pipe Stress Analysis & Pipe Support Design HUMBOLDT BAY 3 YANKEE R0WE SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 ,

HOPE CREEK 1 & 2 LA SALLE 1 & 2 PU CH BOTTOM 2 & 3 LIMERICK 1 & 2 PIL6 RIM 1 & 2 ARKANSAS ONE 1 & 2 MAINE YANKEE VERMONT YANKEE

• DYNAMIC, STATIC AND INELASTIC PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS

• PIPE SUPPORT AND RESTRAINT DESIGN

• PIPE RUPTURE RESTRAINT DESIGN

• FIELD AS-BUILT DATA COLLECTION

Grand Gulf Unit 1 !ndependent Design Review y

.-. u - .

Related BWR Experience (Hydrodynamic Loads) l I

LA SALLE

• PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS OF THE CRD SYSTEM

• PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN FOR THE CRD SYSTEM SUSQUEHANNA

• EVALUATION OF HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS ON PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

• REDESIGN OF EQUIPMENT SUPPORT STRUCTURES MARK I STRESS ANALYSIS OF THE TORUS SUPPORT DURING LOCA

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y wm.; .

Evaluation Of Structures, Piping & Equipment YANKEE R0WE

• SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM (SEP) CONSULTANT

• STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REACTOR SUPPORT STRUCTURE VAPOR CONTAINMENT FUEL POOL REDESIGNS

' PRIMARY PIPING LOOP

• ANALYSIS OF PIPING SYSTEMS FOR CONFORMANCE TO IE BULLETINS 79-02, 79-13, AND 79-111

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y . . - .

Quality Assurance SOUTH TEXAS

• EVALUATED THE OPERATIONS DA PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES

• EVALUATED THE VENDOR CONTROL PROGRAM SHOREHAM

-

• EVALUATED THE QA PROGRANS, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, OF A MAJOR SUBCONTRACTOR PILGRIM 1

• DEVELOPED POTENTIAL COURSES OF ACTION ADDRESSING CONCERNS RAISED BY TMI I

e EVALUATED OPERATIONS QA PROGRAM PRAIRIE ISLAND e EVALUATED OPERATIONS QA PROGRAM eEVALUATED MATERIALS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

! ARKANSAS 1 & 2 e EVALUATED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS QA PROGRAM AT THE SITE i

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y '

H.~n ::=

l I Project Overview

.

• OBJECTIVES

• PROJECT ORGANIZATION ,

• PROJECT APPROACH

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Project Organization MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT 'aaaaaaaa-aaaaaaa ~

y i

i SENIOR REVIEW TENi PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE R. A. FALCIANI B. K. KACYRA J. E. WARD E. F. TRAINOR PROJECT MANAGER

- _ . . . . . e T. T. WITTIG CONSULTANTS (AS NEEDED)

CODES & ST.ANDARDS ELECTRICAL E. VAN STIJGEREN J. BONNER -

LICENSING I&C T. T. WITTIG .P. MC CARTHY I I QUALITY ASSURANCE TECINICAL REVIEW AS-BUILT VERIFICATION P. DIDONATO H. SURYOUTOMO D. D0YEL

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y ww Objectives

• EVALUATE THE BECHTEL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, AS RELATED l

TO DESIGN OF THE NEW LOADS ADEQUACY EVALUATION PROGRAM (HORIZONTAL)

• PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 0F A SELECTED GRAND GULF 1 PIPING SYSTEM (VERTICAL) l

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review D lranr- ._

Hydrodynamic Loads' Input Logic l l

i

, b l

l CE Load Defn. Reporta l u

L E __ k l l LOCA l l SRVD l SRVA l AP l l g - - - '

E ,r

[

Finite Element Finite Element Math Model K th Model )

I l 1  !

Time-History l Dynamic Analysis

[

E r a 4  :

Acceleration Displacement Stress T-H L

T-H T-M s a a Acceleration ABS. Maximum AES. Maximum ,

8tesponse Spec t . Displacement Stress Resultant  !

r . .

l. . .,

6 Mechanical Electrical Plant Control Civil  :

Design Systems I  !

Pipe Stress ,

Analysis I

Pipe i Support  ;

Design i

i e

(

i

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review n

.i:r ---

Project Logic  !

I Collect Documents  !

f OA and Technical Review  !

i 0 Potentia r Finding? I l

Yes

[

r Record Finding ,

Detemine Extent ,

• Isolated l 1

• Extensive Record Evaluation f Project Review Team l

' Clarify Data

' Expand Review

' Perform Independent  !

Analyses Senior Review Team ' Assess Safety f Impact Report Findings to Yes Potential i MP&L Safety Impact? ~

l No i r

Prepare Report t t

Senior Review Team f '

Issue Report l I

Grand Gulf Unit 1 independent Design Review y

_,c - -

Quality Assurance Evaluation-Overview

• SCOPE

• OBJECT!VES

• APPROACH

• PROGRAM REVIEW REVIEW PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION DEVELOP CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX

• AUDIT DEVELOP AUDIT PLAN PERFORM AUDIT

. - - . . .. . . - - ..--,,,..._..------~.,_.-,,....~,,.--..~m,, .,w-,,__... . , , . - . . . - . . . . - , . _ . - - - - , ._,,,-,_....,,,.-,.m., - , - -. , - . .. - . , _ . , . . , . _ .

. Grand Gulf Unit 1 independent Design Review -

'=

Quality Assurance Evaluation-Scope r

EVALUATE THE BECHTEL QA PROGRAM FOR:

• CONTROL OF THE SELECTED PIPING SYSTEMS DESIGN

• CONTROL THE DESIGN PROCESSES RELATED TO THE BWR NEW LOADS ADEQUACY EVALUATION PROGRAM 9

i 1

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y

. Quality Assurance Evaluation-Objectives l

• PROGRAM REVIEW CONFIRM COMPLI ANCE WITH LICENSING C0fflITENTS

• AUDIT .

VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDilRES t

e .

m rw -- ~ _ - - _ . - - -- _ _ _ - -

Grcnd Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Rovicw y e

Quality Assurance Review Logic l 1

Collect Documents k

Review Program for

• Adecuacy

• Implement 4 tion Adequacy j Implementation I I Evaluation Checklist k

Yes Meet Key Elements?

Satis factory Yes Implementation No No

Project Review Team j Detemine Extent k

Senior Review Team 1r Report Findin9 Yes Potential to MP&L Safety Impact?

No Prepare Report k

Senior Review Teait ,

h Issue Report l

1

l Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y

- c ..

Quality Assurance Evaluation-

Review Program Documentation

• NUCLEAR QA MANUAL ,

• BECHTEL QA MANUAL - ASME III, DIVISION 1

• PROJECT ENGINEERING AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

• QA DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL  ;

--- - - - , , - w-,,-- - -, - - - ,-, , - - ,-w_,,n,--- _ , -,

. . - n,,_,_--- _--,--,w-,-_----e, , , --_,- , - --,,,,-- - , , - - , ,,,-,,e . --,- , ,,,-,w-- , - , - , , --

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y

~"

Quality Assurance Evaluation-Develop Cross Retrieval Matrix PROGRAM COMMITMENTS VS. THE FOLLOWING KEY DESIGN CONTROL ELEMENTS:

DESIGN INPUTS DESIGN ANALYSES DRAWING CONTROL SPECIFICATION CONTROL INTERFACE CONTROL DESIGN VERIFICATION DOCUMENT CONTROL DESIGN CHANGE CONTROL CORRECTIVE ACTION AUDITS AND SURVEILLANCES

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review museer , ' ~

Quality Assurance Evaluation-Audit Plan I

I

• IDENTIFY "NEW LOADS" WORK FLOW

• DEVELOP UDIT CHECKLIST INCLUDE ATTRIBUTES DERIVED FROM DESIGN CONTROL PROCEDURES EMPHASIS CONTROL ELEMENTS RELEVANT TO PLANT SAFETY 4

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review ==-mm mm Quality Assurance Evaluation-Checklist M*

• mammmmmmes Quality Assurance Audit Checklist

1. "d"*'I'I John Doe (fead) #"d" "*

~ ~

Joe Smith orenedaementAssweee Avdeced Amme Detoe Engineering une, 1980 Forsonnel Casuected Job No (s) 85016 hem No. AudN ANretweet Relevence Document SAT UNSAT NA Cosnmente Calculations 1 Doe =3 the responsible engineer QAP, para. 4.4.3 assure that calculations are in agreement with the design basis, criteria, SAR, etc.?

2 Are references made to sketcheo QAP, para. 4.4.3 or drawings when calculations are based upon such documents?

3 Is a copy of the drawings QAP, para, 4.4.3 filed with calculations when practicable?

4 Are calculations neat and QAP, para. 4.4.3 legible and performed on stan-dard calculation sheets so that assumptions, calculated results, and conclusions can be easily checked by others?

Leed Audetor/Dow t eet Attribute No : of Ps0e 1

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review

~

Quality Assurance Evaluation-

~

Perform implementation Audit

• UTILIZE CHECKLIST AS A GUIDE FOR AUDIT DEPTH AND CONTINUITY

• EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE

• IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FINDINGS

• ASSESS EXTENT OF POTENTIAL FINDINGS

~

• EVALUATE IMPACT ON PLANT SAFETY i

O i--___.-_____ ___ - - - - - - . - - - - - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Technical Review-Overview l

• SCOPE

• SYSTEM SELECTION

• LOGIC

• REVIEW CRITERIA DOCUMENTS l

• PIPE STRESS REVIEW INPUT DATA PIPING MODEL STRESS RELATED CALCllLATIONS REPORTS AND CONCLilSIONS

• PIPE SUPPORT REVIEW INPUT DATA DESIGN CALCULATIONS DRAWINGS

• AS-BUILT REVIEW 0F PIPE SUPPORTS

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review y g _. . _

Technical Review -Scope

• RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL (RHR) SYSTEM, TRAIN "A"

• PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS

• LOADING COMBINATION: SRV (ADS) + SSE

• LARGE PIPE ( h 2-1/2" DIA.)

l

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

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Technical Review-System Selection CRITERIA RHR TRAIN "A"

• SEISMIC CATEGORY I

• PART OF REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY

• VARIETY.OF COMPONENTS PIPING SUPPORTS PUMP BRANCH PIPING VALVES HEAT EXCHANGERS FLUED HEADS

• SEVERAL DESIGN INTERFACES

• LOCATED IN MORE THAN ONE BUILDING /

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review M.

$69%f0 CGS Residual Heat Removal System -

1 l

e j f;:

C0=fammst =f $ sea,

- - , . 4,  ::n:

Y <

. 9d.

l [

30 d s.

p . .s. ,,

. m .

1:.:.. .-

, ...j, gg,W4

! 4 AC 58ea'  ?$ .,

g "

- 4 .*

. . f g g l

.m r. -

.e

, j. 'i

! ,......of.,..#,..,.

. " ;.,g w.;!

y: . .4:4:4#MupWMicheKR<&:Mnes.dh 9( ACTOS vtssh -Yd.G%4+. 4hh:42W:4%dO A:hU.MucQ:,,' -

F j s

x

.2% ,"* 4 I' - -

a e m

[

6 g

i  : #

P @

l' l w JIPS:9-  :  ?

'f *

. .?.

a i.- w::

N f [

i

_...s.

..-- i i '

r 4

o

_ l x T l ,.

l.'

g::' .?;- g o q t g.:

s t n , _ , e 3

ll . g -

r e u ':'q - g.- i

" !T .c ~ , , ,

3 1 $ $

ai -6 ii :i; ?

s.c s

i W atsson i I set ssc= - :hN i i Q *CC6 g  ; , ace, E, 5 ,

'l } ,

~

l' 1 I l! Esd  ;; :f f 9

~ w .: -

4} 3 t-L.

u '

N* f.YUlm." '

> v A 4

. E .i!h h*i!i.

bh JIM.: k

-+=.

s

. . b h bh. . . .

8- +.

g 3 ====== $: ,

f' f

• 1' 9 ,, f![ $

^

i Q $.1:., C f t y- M JOCAE' N!!. -

^

+

5

6. I hN A -

s:  ! .

un .m , .4_g.we. - .

p.w.w~

.w.e %,-.

,w i ..

g r

. N-w " www.w:w*.45 . ,.v.+w , 3. e."llL. ,m., k j

, , , , _ ;a:. w .~ - .

lM b ...

I :-.:

d.

<is F$

I f

f{ .,'

..h .

_ "-~.=. -

p -: . w.

_ _. A.:.

...m..

.2'.

• P g.;.,  ;.:p .  :.:.e ( p

=

.. <. wem

npg _

=

K ED I

gglgqgI

= -

EI W

= ..

jl1l 1I1_ l l

= b K _

= FG E .

=8 E9 .

=08 W' .

s8 a

K L_ _

E E 8 _

W w ~

e K _

i v

E 7 E

W i

e _ _

R N K

E - a 0 E6 -

n g

l f

A W -

- 2g._

R K _.

i U s D E 5 _

e W _

D K _ _

E qu E 4 t

n W _ , ,

e II i

l s ,

2 K

E -

d E3 t*

n W e ,

I II p K E g- (

e E 2 -

d n l e W K

! 4 a

I u E E

W 1 i ;

6 d , t I

e a

1 t h i

n c a U S -

f x l

u t W li er G c E I

tt ha n d j e Y V

E R

cM e

Bp ts o

o it ai s t

r o

t r

o n o T

I E

C fl oe tl nk W et l n t

s p

p p

p uw a r V

I T

e p

N A we v ec meeh E

I be am wl i

se w uS Se r o R eD t V cu ek si e piew i

C c a U lC E i c i c ev ev P

i i A t G S e D t

a r S o

p AS Ra vd en p

mn I o A d

u R

I l o ve pD p

eh RC re tR S

iv Pe iR P

pe n e Y i A Aa s R t mm C pm ni rs m og ml L t pt A

t c R ra oa m wr i

oa rn R u r e T

I or l u r

o I

N ee l r oy ri ou t eg E e l f L f g el f H it 'f l fi fB N t l a A ro va r C vi vo ra rs r E e o r U er ev e E er er en ee es G D C D Q PP CE P T RC DP PA PD PA I l I l I I

Attachment 3 to AECM-82/114 Mississippi Power & Light Company df' IJ,1, 6 8

. Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review u ww.s ,

This statement attests-to the fact that Cygna Energy Services and the membership of the Independent Design Review project team have no vested interest in the outcome of our effort to assess the adequacy of the' Grand Gulf design control scheme nor the manner of its application to the detailed design of a specific system.

Cygna Energy Services has perfonned no engineering work or consulting services for Mississippi Power & Light's Grand Gulf project, nor for any other MP & L project.

No member of the Cygna Project Team noc of the Cygna Energy Services corporate management has ever worked for Mississippi Power

& Light nor its engineering finn, the Gaithersburg office of Bechtel Power Corporation.

No relative of the Cygna Project Team or of a corporate officer has ever worked for MP & L or Bechtel - Gaithersburg.

No member of the Project Team or any corporate officer or any relative thereof owns stock in Mississippi Power & Light.

I believe this satisfies the current f1RC requirements regarding the independence of the design review engineering firm.

lff ( '

.- Y//date 2--

, Johii E. Ward

~ Chairman /CEO O

a