ML20093K633
| ML20093K633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1984 |
| From: | BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093K617 | List: |
| References | |
| 100184B, NUDOCS 8410180088 | |
| Download: ML20093K633 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ , a:ka . _:_ w . w r. #99 CLINTON STATION $?W
,, u ,-
'.,. ~<-{S ; '
,a.,_. ,.
. .: N _g u}p A4 N a R. .;; ;% . . .
- j. .. . . .
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW N.M 4 , ;i FOR WW ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY $P3s
;x
;};:.- f'.-
3 .. . . a[, . 'y,
;p> . ,,:.q PROGRESS REPORT iM g: ag .
,. .x. , .. .
y..y e,
' , ,.,f;.1_ : 1
+ m*. a .1 qg
- n ..
S kg, ,
.g # -
- j. .g y . : 7. .. 7,.
e , . ' ; y ., -' en.; - q~2- .
- h. , dw . .
. ?l .
JUNE - SEPTEMBER 1984 W, '-'
. 's
,p <ya.
,N Yr( '
y.; -
~- !
;3~*Ay
-, ;. .;;,Q I.@g,-{,;.',
fM- ' -' ~:f e, . .; BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION 8 0 1 0 1 8 0t.>0 A 8410 i t ""-- - Pish ADiKk J) S O O O 4 61 h PDR
m. (..U.E J. E E. .i a O.e *;. %. i. "yy 3.-G-: 9. O ":iy A .I <! 'h . '.) .A.9
~ , . '. . ,.
-?,'.- t.l..
s.A S+. .v . i ? c .. ; * ' -
. .r- :
- 7. , e.
e I$,Y. ,..,.;- r .- . g V M. .- ., .a W d.ha
,. a .
; ;,. s,
_... . . ~.,+ , . 4,. y,'.,-
...,t '
J' * * ..
~.1- ; %.; ;.7
- r. . ' CLINTON STATION
~' f.c.<.T.c s.: - .
.: uf g
}?<.-
a v
Q. ' V 1 >.nR. :..-l .
t INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW * ?. .
. .,r FOR <.' J.
". 3 N . '
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY , p. a ., 3. .-
~
, .N }-'
/ .,'p , , -
...+
t- s .'. .x. . -m .a.,..** g2 " lQ ,. N.
+-+* ' ' g.
4 1 .: PROGRESS REPORT . 3., .s c., 7- ,_ v
.r ,.9 . ; 7.% ; . .
I
< -t 1' c .,; s .-
s., ) . E
. f.r2s.
7' x ., .. y i
- a . -e. -
g BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION " A. - > r .,
; :e .J.
,,,,- 's' s
4 e
'? JUNE-SEPTEMBER 1984 i; - [-.
x
- 3. .
- b. 6 Q.
.- ,4 4 *.r
- ,. ,. z -
c?~ v y -r.s_ , ;,
-. , , . . ._a
.** *t,...
- :. m' %,, y i.
n ., , r 9 . g -C 9e n- .c+ .; go '. .g .:n . - & .- y "*g. .
.j 4. , 4* , " E s
- .g : 4., . .
e
.o d .
. ,A--g., j ., . E ..
,- .; .,=x , ... .
- y. ,
i k .M e _ .1
.,e.., ..d.. " . .. ,
. s .
-' .s,.; 9:m.. .,.
c... i, . .q h.s .,*~'.d:
.,a .- y ...
V - G .J AM
. ;, . g. . ..
s, - 100184E WD4
,f e: het> '
'f'.,.
,, p ,'+ '.' g y.,. .'a.-, c.
.'.'.-4'2,,. ,' -
..a. ". ' ' .:. - ' * , ' g
*'.. .,.i.
., , ~'
.s. .4 -.g,,,. ..f- ,kt , . . .g .,-
-l .
~].- %*
.s.?.. 9 ;- *' . f,.'t S - ,%'1
- . ., ' ..I , t,' ? .c*.,_%#7 1' ?,
.-, . . . . ' + '.,,,, +4,..
,,._,2",.Q
- j
-:*f ..
., ., . . e r *. - . . , ,. - - , .:, - - - - -I_a' *'.i,3
TABLE OF CONTENTS = SECTION TITLE PAGE NUMBER 2 1
SUMMARY
GENERAL 3 2 3
2.1 INTRODUCTION
3
2.2 BACKGROUND
ACTIVITIES 4 ' 2.3 REVIEW SUBJECTS VS. TASKS (TABLE 1) 5 6 2.4 OBSERVATIONS 3 PROGRAM STATUS 7 TASK 1: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 7 3.1 3.2 TASK 2: DESIGN ADEQUACY 10 3.3 TASK 3: DESIGN PROCESS 12 3.4 TASK 4: GENERAL ASSESSMENTS 14 3.5 HORIZONTAL REVIEW 14 3.6 WALKDOWN 14 4 MEETINGS 16 APPENDIX A POTENTIAL OBSERVATION REPORT
SUMMARY
17 APPENDIX B OBSERVATION REPORTS AND RESOLUTIONS 18 mumm - m m mmmme um-m um mm e
1 . . Section 1
SUMMARY
In June 1984, Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC) began work for the Clinton independent design review (IDR), in accordance with authorization from Illinois Power Company (IP). This involved preparation of a program plan, organization of the IDR team, and initial requests for information. By September, work was well advanced. The Program Plan has been - developed, comments incorporated, and has been approved by IP and the NRC. Accordingly the IDR now incorporates a change from the original scope of work planned; e.g., design-walkdowns have been added, design . contractors are not limited to Sargent & Lundy (S&L), and modifications were made in the selection of the systems to be reviewed. Approximately 13 meetings were held with S&L and others, covering virtually all areas of the IDR, and a large amount of requested information has been received. About 500 documents have been reviewed. Organization and staffing of the IDR team was completed, with the exception of the walkdown teams. The walkdown teams are completing their organization and staffing, and will complete preparatory work by the end of September. To date, the IDR has submitted one Observation Report (OR) to S&L. Also 7 Potential Observations are being processed internally by the IDR team. Some of these are likely to be issued as ors. 0070C 2 100184B
Section 2 GENERAL
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This is the first report covering the progress of each task as outlined in the proposed Program Plan and highlighting the activities which occurred during the IDR from June 1,1984 through September 25, 1984.
2.2 BACKGROUND
On June 15, 1984, BPC was requested by IP to undertake preliminary work to conduct an independent design review of specified activities related to the design of Unit 1 of the Clinton Power Station, beginning with preparation of a Program Plan. 7 N The IDR will mainly cover work by Sargent & Lundy Engineers, but will also include Reactor Controls, Inc. (RCI). Work by other design contractors may also be evaluated when they have performed design which is part of the specified activities, and where there is evidence this could be important to results of the review. The purpose of this design review will be to provide additional assurance that the design of the Clinton Power Station meets licensing requirements, through a review of the technical adequacy of selected systems and the design process (i.e., design system). Both vertical and horizontal-type reviews will be employed. The vertical review will comprise a review of the shutdown service water (SSW) system, and the Class lE ac electrical distribution system. Also, a limited review of the high pressure core spray (HPCS) system will be performed to the extent needed to cover areas not present in the SSW system. For the horizontal review, the adequacy of the design process on Clinton will be reviewed, using as a data base the results of review reports on Byron, LaSalle, and Fenni stations, and other infomation _~ from previous reviews by IP and others. 0070C 3 100184B
. - .. . , ~ . _ . .. , _ . . - . . . . .
_,77 , From the vertical and horizontal reviews, an assessment will be made both of the adequacy of the systems reviewed and of areas of plant design which were not specifically reviewed, including positiva aspects of the design work. Where appropriate, deficiencies identified will be evaluated for underlying, root causes. The program for the review of each system is divided into the tasks listed below. Task 1: Design Requirements Task 2: Design Adequacy Task 3: Design Process Task 4: General Assessment In addition, certain requirements, such as fire protection, high and moderate energy line breaks, and seismic II/I will be analyzed. The relationship of tasks to subjects and design areas for review is shown in Table 1, based on a similar matrix in the Program Plan. 2.3 ACTIVITIES The Program Plan was completed and issued as Revision 1 to IP for . approval on July 19. It was further clarified on August 17, through responses to NRC comments. Included in the Program Plan are a fomal m protocol agreement, a QA program, a revised scope of systems covered, and other agreed-upon modifications to the original proposal by IP to the NRC. Formal NRC approval was provided on September 10, but the IDR team has been working on the basis of the provisions of the approved Program Plan except for the changes in the systems selected to be reviewed and other work yet to be performed. L'. Is MM' 1g, . . (
)k 2+ ..
0070C 4 100184B I
~
Elg
I TABLE 1 REVIEW SU8JECTS vs. TASKS _ s .
.- , TASKS I'
Licensing . Design Design S&L Connon(2) As-Built Require- Design Design Interface Change Design Require- Control REVIEW (1) ments Walkdown SUBJECTS ments Adequacy Process w/GE & Other Control Reviews , SSW _ System x x x x x x- x x Mech. Systems Mech. Components x x x x x x x x x x x x x Civil - Strhetural x x x x x x x Electrical Power x x x x x x x x x x x Inst. & Control x x x- x Design System x x - x x x - - x x - Design Standards x - .- m Electrical - System (1-E,ac) Electrical Systems x x x x x x x x Electrical Components x x x x x x x x x x x x Civil - Structural x x x x x x x Inst. & Control x x x x x Design Systiem x x - x x x x x x x - x .5 Design Standards - - - Other Reviews x x x x x x x - Observations x x x x x x - Corrective actions x x Root cause analysis x x x x x x - 5 S ? w
In preparing the Program Plan, a public meeting was held with the NRC on June 28, in which special attention was given to matters of IDR scope and level of detail of the review. As a result of this and further consideration, the systems reviewed were changed to include the Class 1E ac distribution system, the shutdown service water system, and parts of other systems, such as the high pressure core spray system, as needed, to provide a sampling of different phases of design. Also, a walkdown program was added to review adequacy of design communicated to construction, and the scope of design contractors was expanded beyond S&L. < Organization and staffing of the IDR team proceeded on the basis of the approved Program Plan and at a rate consistent with the needs of the Clinton IDR. Of significance, has been the appointment of an . experienced Bechtel manager as the Liaison Manager for S&L and for the walkdown activities. This is Mr. E. M. Hughes, who is now completing his assignment as Project Manager for the Byron Station independent design review. Understandin5s were reached that S&L was to respond to the IDR requests by providing heavy support comensurate with the needs of the IDR. It was agreed that all parties would significantly increase - their level of effort for the IDR from that originally planned. The IDR team reviewed the schedule and provided IP with best astimates for optional means of issuing the Final Report. 2.4 OBSERVATIONS There are several areas on which potential observations have been issued. These are sumarized in Appendix A. Only e .c Observation Report (OR File No. 01) has been issued on the . subject of control system schematics for SSW pumps. There are discrepancies noted between implementing design criteria (DC-SX-01-CP, FPRf1673) onto logic diagrams (M15-1052) and transferring the information to schematic diagrams (E02-1SX99-001-002-003). This Observation Report is included in Appendix B along with a Resolution G7 Report which requests additional information from S&L. [N kh 0070C 6 100184B MUM
%)
n,: m. ;
Section 3 PROGRAM STATUS For this period, the Bechtel IDR has been actively addressing the designated tasks. The status of each task is given below. 3.1 TASK 1: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 1 3.1.1 Checklists / Procedures /Comitment Lists Checklists have been established for each system to be reviewed to c:
. k *
&. 4 '
P. .- - perform Task 1. A work plan has also been prepared for performing the 3,7.p 'q horizontal review. . Vg.(( Procedures on comunications, review process, processing of f. observations, and walkdown have been prepared and implemented for IDR g}gjg:g project team use. Y U=C
,(4p%
M2.Q The Clinton FSAR and SER have been reviewed to identify safety-related 4.s.y.f.?, "._ design criteria or other safety-related commitments and design fQ y requirements. This included IP responses to NRC questions. A hj preliminary comitment list has been prepared and distributed to the IDR team members to assist in the selection of comitments to be g[. h;g , reviewed for the IDR under Tasks 1, 2, and 3. The comitment list has f('f been separated according to the area to be reviewed, i.e. , shutdown U'M.
.:. ; , ,E service water, high pressure core spray, Class lE ac-pcwer, and high j?gy energy line break analysis (includes moderate energy) within the scope ' N)',
of the Clinton IDR. ik: 3.1. 2 Piping Engineering Major effort has been directed at identifying comitments. Eighteen documents were reviewed including calculations, design specifications, design criteria, piping fabrication specifications, valve specifications, P& ids, S&L piping standards, and valve drawings for design requirements. 0070C 7 100184B
3.1. 3 Plant Design Layout Design requirements were identified. Review of the draft commitment ' list was started. Mechanical engineering standards and layout requirements were reviewed. 3.1.4 Civil / Structural Pertinent sections of the FSAR were reviewed. Pertinent NRC questions and responses were reviewed and open items noted. Several responses are still under discussion with S&L personnel. The SER and its three supplements were reviewed. Open items were noted and are being discussed with S&L. Seismic analysis and pool dynamic loads analysis review have progressed. Reviews of structural steel design and reinforced concrete design of the circulating water screen structure and parts of the auxiliary, control, and diesel-generator buildings are in progress. Sample calculations have been selected for review. 3.1.5 Stress Review of stress calculations fcr the HPCS system inside containment is being completed. Most of the stress calculations of the SSW system piping have been obtained for review. Most of the backup documentation identified and requested have been received for review. x 3.1. 6 Mechanical Commitments were defined and review initiated. SSW design criteria were reviewed, as wull as contract specifications for SSW equipment, project instructions, design calculations, and related contract specifications. i 0070C 8 100184B
N N i 3.1. 7 Equipment Qualification E w Review of design requirements is complete for the ac distribution, . E SSW, and HPCS systems. Ten procurement specifications were reviewed for seismic qualification requirements. A total of 31 comitments { g were identified and reviewed. 3.1. 8 , Instrumentation & Control K The review checklist for the HPCS system has been completed. The l FSAR, SU, and SSER were reviewed for comitments. For the SSW ' system, the review checklist was completed. The FSAR, SER, SSER were reviewed for comitments. Design criteria were reviewed. E Twenty-eight design documents were reviewed. ( g 3.1.9 Electrical Systems .. s r= g Documents were reviewed to identify and list design criteria, " comitments and design requirements including the FSAR, NRC Questions and Responses, SER, General Design Criteria (GDC), NRC Regulatory f Guides, and Industry Codes and Standards (IEEE Standards). The following design documents were reviewed for design requirements: j - design criteria, single line, meMr and relay, and key diagrams, design calculations, and purchasa specifications. 3.1.10 HELB/MELB - P The draft commitment list 'ar HELB/MELB analysit was reviewed and reviseri. Determination of compliance with the design requirements p given by these comitments, as evidenced by review of S&L [ y,1,i documentation, was started. '.e %e e.N s E 1% si
'i ? :.%
l 3.1.11 Fire Protection [Q y.2 3.g.g.v "Olll Q; E e A review of the FSAR was made and licensing comitments were listed. The Clinton Station " Safe Shutdown Analysis" and Fire Protection lh 26 % K Evaluation Report" yere reviewed to establish the design basis and l [ criteria for the fire protection systems. A meeting was held with S&L 'AN-A. yQg...-f engineers to discuss these documents. L- ~t
;kk 100184B 0070C 9 j.Q -ge .,..
L ..
3.1.12 Seismic II/I A review of the FSAR was made and licensing comitments were determined. The Clinton project instruction and design criteria for potential interactions between safety related components and other plant components were reviewed. .. 3.1.13 Observations fg _.. ..,;.
. . . gt .
One Observation (OR File No. 01) has been identified resulting from
~
design requirements review. 4: #.. 0 uu f.cf:; c; e. 3.2 TASK 2: DESIGN ADEQUACY {T l
' kst@^T 3.2.1 Piping Engineering f 7* .O ;
; .y. A?; .
4M.y Fourteen documents were reviewed including P& ids, calculations, valve JI. . ,l .E.!
;./,* .
specifications, piping specifications, and valve operability documents ...#p for design adequacy. .
...,s +
' .g. , . '.
3.2.2 Plant Design Layout .'y. l }. ; . g;:. J y :
. : ,. y '
Design criteria review was initiated with request for documents. S&L m$...((.4 composite drawings have been received and review started. lj,h J, .
;; .. + ;
q l, a :y 3.2.3 Civil / Structural N S 'f-
*b
.Qv y_.y
+ .
Commitment items were reviewed for design adequacy for capacity of $;. .t . t{} ultimate heat sink (VHS) pond, seepage through UHS submerged dam, soil 1/j .l lb
.: , p. -
engineering parameters, tornado design parameters, screen house flood y; .Jf .;;
.s , . . 3; protection and fire rating of structural walls and architectural doors, y :I 9f
%;. R
%i:g 3.2.4 Stress -.- p **4E j.. {.f.
i 4..#.:. Design adequacy assessment is pending completion of review of stress {l' ~ ~FIT
- ~"
analyses and supporting documentation. 5.- t - r s.
, o , % -J
'
- ie 0070C 10 100184B
, p . , r 9 . . .g a yy y . ; ; . ; '.* w . . & . .c , . ,.,,;, p :9 s v v g n.. m a, n.
. . 7 ,,,,_p.:y a.g ,... ,.; ,. w .
,7, u
-; 7, ,es-'
., .s,
.y y .{.:4-9 'nCw
; 1, t .
Mechanical 0-b., $ .? 3.2.5 j.'. . y... JE. P& ids, calculations, and contract specificati3ns were reviewed for c
.~s...
1 v. design adequacy. W.'$..~ & ( ' _:Nk $ }f; 3.2.6 Equipment Qualification {. ;
- ji ., :i .
Six equipment packages, twelve binders, and ten purchase ;-
\l specifications have been reviewed for seismic qualification. Review ,s;%'[ .
w ,q of operability qualification (PVORT) design is complete. Three j9{3
- binders have been reviewed for pump and valve operability If; ~ . '
? . , u. .
_ eg'u
.4 2
] qualification and seventeen binders were reviewed for environmental .
.I quali fication. p.j g g .,
,, ; e, p,
< Ly
.2-Electrical Systems 4J,,,,
lt 3.2.7 ...s . [* f #[ , ., q. 7
. . ,43 . . -
The following design documents were reviewed for design adequacy: [h. . ..a ,7. _ . 'f design criteria, single line, meter and relay, and key diagrams, fg design calculations, and purchase specifications. > [ }., .( l .. $(;.y e
$ l .g c. -
w 3.2.8 HELB/MELB n,c. - n; # . m .: ..n
. Copies of Clinton Project design criteria, applicable GE design 1. .ha specifications, and completed S&L jet impingement and MELB g,. 4 -
5# c =:.& 4 calculations were received for review. Review of jet effects from . ,.^i; .i a "J postulated breaks in large (greater than 6") lines inside the drywell -Q: p. .
; to confirm adequacy of calculation OIME07, " Jet Impingement on ECCS Jy.
4 Large Lines Inside Drywell" has begun. Review was started of the {']%.g.. color-coded composite drawing outside containment to confirm M 9 .e N separation. Also, review was started of pressure transient analyses .. . .
. [
.I and moderate energy flooding and spray effects. l f ",.
a m-
... q y y ..
e d. e z
..w Fire Protection .c!J.i ,'. .as 3.2.9 : s w., ;
k .
- j. c Review of fire protection reports, layout drawings. P& ids and vendor M..,
drawings has commenced to determine that design is adequate to meet h,[.$. 5 [.[ . r ~. fire protection criteria. f i.' y]*. .,
- g. .; .
3; .gt'
^
. - .3 Q ; y;_
." , 'b.g:
j M . 0070C 11 100184B (;;y.cw .!
., ljY; e
'1, v..-- ; . s_,,.g'-__ y.
. .,,.,~4 ..,
,g p ., . . .. g - .;s
_ ._. :, p. ; ,
, . . . ;. p .. ,. -
. . - , , y . ::
. , ,. . .;., , 7 , ,. __S..
3.2.10 Observations . No Observations resulting from design adequacy review were identified. 3.3 TASK 3: DESIGN PROCESS 3.3.1 . Piping Engineering
'd Approximately nineteen documents were reviewed for design process.
3.3.2 Plant Design Layout . Review of design process was initiated. 3.3.3 Civil / Structural Approximately thirty-one design standards, twenty-eight calculations, sixty drawings, and three specifications were received for review
' design process.
3.3.4 Stress Twelve stress analyses and one nuclear Class 1 stress report are being reviewed, together with supporting documentation. This review is approximately 60 percent complete. 3.3.5 Mechanical Procedures and documents identified in Tasks 1 and 2 were reviewed for design process. 3.3.6 Equipment Qualification g Ten equipment packages were reviewed for design adequacy of seismic qualifications.
?
0070C 12 100184B
-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . i
i__ 3.3.7 Electrical Systems The followipi design documents were reviewed for design process: design criteria, single line, meter and relay, and key diagrams, design calculations, and purchase specifications. S&L's office and the Clinton jobsite were visited to detennine design process and obtain existing documentation. At the jobsite, pertinent personnel were met to discuss the status of construction, interface with S&L, IP, and various contractors. GE and other vendor documents were reviewed for design interface with balance of plant (B0P) portion of the Class 1E electrical system. S&L interna.1 system design review report for the Class 1E electrical system was also reviewed. 3.3.8 HELB/MELB Review of project procedures and documentation was started to determine the design process followed by each S&L department and division. 3.3.9 Quality Engineering Quality engineering has reviewed S&L's QA manual, comments to 10CFR50 Appeadix B, and ANSI N45.2-11. In addition, nine general QA procedures and seven project instructions have been reviewed. 3.3.10 Seismic II/I Review of project procedures and documents was started to determine how S&L incorporates Seismic II/I consi,ierations into the design process. These considerations include both the inplace movement and the potential falling of components during a seismic event. 3.3.11 Observations One Observation (OR File No. 01) resulting from design process review has been identified. 0070C 13 100184B
3.4 TASK 4: GENERAL ASSESSMENT For this task, the results of Tasks 1, 2, and 3 will be assembled and analyzed for conclusions. No conclusions have been made to date. 3.5 Horizontal Review The horizontal review effort has been initiated. Review of the following has begun: of the Cygna Energy Services Independent Design Verification (IDV) of Fermi, Teledyne Engineering Services Independent Design Review (IDR) of LaSalle, NRC Integrated Design Inspection (IDI) of Byron, Bechtel IDR of Byron, and Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) Review of Clinton. A total of 114 report items have been reviewed. Of these, 53 have been closed because they did not indicate that a discrepancy existed, were not applicable to design process or to the Clinton IDR scope, or were a repea; v other items being reviewed. The remaining 61 items have been prov.ued to the various systems groups for further review and analysis. 3.6 Walkdowns For environmental qualification, a walkdown checklist has been completed and walkdown packages are being prepared. For seismic qualification, approximately 30 pieces of equipment have been selected for walkdown verification. Preparations are in progress to support HELB/MELB field walkdowns. Outside containment, the walkdown will test the effectiveness of separation. Inside containment, the effects of individual pipe breaks will be compared with the calculational results. Worksheets for the fire protection walkdowns have been prepared and walkdown packages for nine fire zones are being prepared. A procedure for the Seismic II/I walkdown was prepared. This procedure includes a checklist to be used for each area being reviewed. Approximately twenty waikdown areas have been selected and approximately twenty more will be selected based on site conditions and insight gained during the initial walkdown phases. 0070C 14 100184B
Preparations were made for verification of the SSW mechanical process _ as well as the diesel generators by field walkdown. For stress analyses, walkdown guidance has been completed. A plan and list of . package drawings of civil / structural items for field walkdown . . verification were prepared. Documents were gathered in preparation of f f eld walkdown to verify plant design mechanical leyout. ,s i)o cs -1 ., Pipe support engineering has completed selection of items and prepared 4 . .w - l . a checklist in support of field walkdowns. . j[ p. 7a.yj For electrical layout, in preparation for walkdowns, procedures were 0 gathered. The status of construction and turnover was investigated to ;,7,;:h l determine the areas and equipment to be inspected during walkdowns. 'g .3 0
- .ws8
, .,.g .* -
- vq?p.
$$. 'y
' ~' 9..
. .s y
.s. . _ . -
I,.
~; y:
-n
. . .;+ .
- r .
ftl 't b E$_?s_- u.les k .k4OO I
'.;l.' rw Y% k #
.% Q t/h; iQ-!
S.*[*y go , ' e'
.* e
.#. . +. s
. , ? ~. *-?'~
v . t A; g,T. A .' , .
. 1 p.,
8.W. c .. s?"? h,
.',$I,f. . ._s
n .. b Section 4 N MEETINGS C b; During the reporting period the folicwing meetings have taken place. k . June 1 Decatur Initial meeting with IP on IDn x P scope and approach ('k5sk[ . lu . . % T Chicago Initial IDR kickoff meeting with ;Mr gg'[q =- June 6 h 9. S&L :
., j. .c r
. g ;.4 %
F [s '% b June 28 Bethesda Meeting with NRC on Program Plan '. - . :p' i r ;: E W'z ' 5l July 12 Chicago IDR program work with S&L - Gv K _. ,s.A. . m . I July 24 Chicago /Clinton IDR program work 4 [ g jobsite ^l.v C .] Aug. 9 Chicago HELB/MELB orientation meeting at gd S&L e_- h Aug. 22 Chicago Working meeting with S&L engineers [ en fire protection [ Aug. 28 Chicago /Clinton IDR program work sy , . .. e jobsite ~:':4 E E S k,.Q 6
a Aug. 30 Clinton jobsite IDR program work YQ, ,:j
[ - ((iO. ?.*,, 'c k Sept. 11 Chicago Working meeting with S&L engineers ll m "3 T = Sept.12 Chicago Meeting with S&L on level of N'f N)
" 9..
[ support and schedule review ' p a- .,,, f s Sept.17 Chicago Working meeting with S&L engineers f*i y.. ly..? M Sept.19 Chicago Working meeting with S&L engineers 0070C 16 100184B
Y.#k,*s
- b[ t' h . ['* . , , 'p ' Ed a '
e4 7 *, , jf *# *f* *
' .~ l'*gl . . N'_
- h. .. - * , -[ -W w .. +,' k .
M . , ' . . ' { j. , ,* ,, tpdg A e'g. 4 ,- ., %f, d t, . Q M,, 6 ?4 ".. 9 u w'
- N.. f- . .
y
'g ... ,,$ " e ., w's ,
.w . M. l,'- . . - [t* 3n ^ 1., , u.k .,T., . .I ,T d' n. y.,..
.. a ..
.. u .
y
.w;e
. ,q .
.4 -
d5e,f .o _v '; - '
- 9. 'g . .
.n..
3_ g, y. .
.g- ,
.g
,.,.,i..
-;. w, j t.; y
,# w
% j. .g
. . > . s.,e . .
. o . .y ->
"i pf.
Appendix A ; 4..
,v.
.... rq %, .
.3
...s... .
a. t+ l
.'..4,,
_3
- J%
...-.. . g 'si
. -( ri .,
^
.qm.,. . g" J ' . . ..
-.+ ,
- e. g
>w..e. .. .. C. Potential Observation Report Sumary
- 4 t. ,
< s, . ' c:
- k. ' ,, 7
'.... ' t ?-
.:-.Q >
I
*%- , . U i ,, #
,. . g 9. ... ,
. e, #,P -
. .A.3 > . .. .g . . :
. . . , ,a .
.." ry v: ?-
s .n .
, . 4e y . , p; .g a. . ,r -
- . e,s ,
..,. 4,..e
. .g
, w .m . ,
4'* y.,.c,.18.;4-v- + w' . . , ~.
-.. 6,,
..,,e < r.,
- ,, g -
gr us y.
+v .,
q':. i,.. -y . .%
. ' -l'.
3 g %, Q. .,
.fg *.
c.. .. ,
..t
.0
".'.?. y~ . .s e 'Y7,. -
.V -
.e .3 c
.'y... --
;J;Q
;%.;eh.:.. . y~ .,na:- . 6. u'. .
. -y?x n :-2 z- -.,
,x-
-s s <,o.s tj, -Q.. .
- .. + .
4.
. ..g 9% 4 y.. pi. v,. . , , y.
4 : , . 4p. . cun o' N.,- l. w .h,. l. .- ,,Q .
,n
,.,**'p..
r; .. -
.Q ;...., .r.:'. .,:.
p-,* ;s. - g.
,.m..g. 3 w?.s ,y r
.,.. -_._;e-gr- r
- _g 4.? & G.6
.s.... .-
- r. @. s .n. ,.
.i b u. -: .
- 2.+
;t, <.:i*+,s .
. p iy ,.- .
.:.,V, b!%
v.% s., .
.- ~q q;'6
,5.% '. .
. ' ' ..g ,
E .". ' . '
..o.. @b.% , %.
g
. , t. .
+ n_.
t .: c. .. .
- 1.ry .w ?c. m, d> hY p y,,., t.,9. l>
s i. <^*
, + ..., ,. ./ y, 4...ss ....- + YA'.a '?
e.<, v n. . ,
,/.
, s.
4 : /%n
, 1. e <$ 0070C 17 1001848 -(g y $',.- - 4%.g,::
td l."-f 'lf yK . . , .)
' Wr 9 4 A '.y . *.; ' i . Y g, Q ' l.=ft_N ' '- ' . ff %.? % '* \. 4 i 2. +
1'. ' ft 3
, ,.h '7, J. ' 't ,;py d-l:.; w'i R.;5.' *.y. C yQ v .q2 e . , . _ .w : [, . . ;: Q :.. y. y ,y ? rf.-l _ . . &4 y' L .... ' p yS.et,.@' .'<tw.t*
9 rb_-Y<$.
APPENDIX A POTENTIAL. OBSERVATION REPORT
SUMMARY
Classification File # Title Description of Concern Valid? Significant? Status Description of Resolution SSW pumps lA & 18 do not satisfy Yes S&L 1 SSW Pumps design criteria to operate whenever diesel generators operate. Logic diagram for pump 1C does not imple-ment the criteria. Closed Concern vf inconsistency 2 Time Delay Relay Coil Time delay relay coil, shown con-nected across the 125 vdc control between design criteria, power bus, does not satisfy intent logic diagrams, and schematic diagrams of FPR #1673. incorporated into OR-1. Penetration Impact Possible inconsistency between RFI 3 Testing penetration fitting design spec and - piping spec with regard to impact test requirements for Class 2 piping forming part of containment pressure boundary. Hydrodynamic load effects on Level-1 4 Hydrodynamic Loads components in D.G./ Control Building may not be fully considered. Discrepancy may exist in SRV responses between Aux. Bldg. and D.G. Bldg. even though on same mat. Valve Operability Design documentation of Posi-Seal and Level-1 5 Xomox valve operability might be incomplete. A-1 100184B 0070C 35
Illm - t l APPENDIX A POTENTIAL OBSERVATION REPORT SUPNARY
-Classification .
File f . Title Description of Concern Valid? Significant? Status Description of Resolution 6 460v Motors Calculations may be needed to ensure Level-1 that 460v motors and MOV operators required to function upon actuation of safety signal will perform.their safety related function 7 Mechanical Eqpt. Possible discrepancy between FSAR Level-1 and S&L procedures on testing mechanical equipment when resonant frequency is less than 33 Hz. for seismic loads and 60 Hz, for hydro- - dynamic loads. 0070C A-2 1001848
. ~ . , . . e ~ ., - - .
. . . . a - ~
. .< + ;e. ., v .. n .
4: v. ' .1. . : . ? : 3. .%$., '.?. g.:, . D. N.
+ M '- i &n,.- s' . / :i%, -.','.
L. .. * :. ' .k : # + ; e .:.
. .-9 ^. . ? * : . \. ' ' , '. -' L < i : ?.
/.rY. :9 , ' ;_,
. , . p..
[ . , s: r b
-NM
. s.
_-; y'
- .,e.'
1 w( ,- r +- .* * -
.l g i
- u. e.
.:a, ..* ,-
..m; w ti n a. . r,, 2 we.
;- -E -
~u p. -:.d.,+
.g. ,s.,..,~. .-
Q Appendix B jgg Q
,e g . ?-
,me- - g. ,
. ;y r :g
.',Aw,
.v. . ,.i ..
. . . _r ,.
, <: ;w e..-
g -1 O' Observation Reports and Resolutions 3 g ;;q .so g . -. ,;, 3 -
- p. .s ,
. ,a-
.sf -
mz
. y2 - ,
4w . ~ <
+
... ac. . n. . . , ;r . .
.- k,y..
i .:.. f+
.s.. .e . .=
. x 4.
- : xv
. 't .a.- 2 3, r,; a .,. y s.- q;; ~, . w.. .
+= %.. e .b, r; 5.. * .
,n 'n ,
., -q f. . ' , T.,'gb4 ..
g . . 'J.', w- g. 'i[
- ( ....
X . -- - yq.,g ; .3e 4.
..-- ' {'l ' .
m% ,3, .
.. s A b. ; .A .e . -
.e;. .
me e. g
.f'
' j v. ..-
f ym_. h55 n* ,a
..: ?. .)A. -.
f'
- f, y
,.g- .--
%;Y :p.oy,.
l' s : ,. I .i.w s .. .g,.s . , .. g.- =, , , r 3 g' t - } 3 - i* : . *. . . yy _* W
}{$.4.,
. c.
. ~. <-
. ff 3:
.t.'e i a3
?
.1
,.; e
<jd - %% g
.bh,l ?.bh.
;- ,. .e -
1 .$ .,.g+.y -
.4 't'; R . l n' .'
s S: [,. V.!i 4
- w. #,p .a
- L-a .>. .~
.d} _ GJ r ;; u a W yc.
. ; xl % g-
, rv. 4.,^
-c , -
rg.:v yn...'m.*., t . m. x)y .4* 100184B ,i.
.a 38 v'- 'o '
ggjoc l y. 's
.g .
. . ct,. a, %_.
1+g
- m. .
#N ,s
'"g v.'.p , ;h - ,v
,6'- ,
',e g.' m e- ; .<
- ~;e+ c - . .. - .;7 . * '
'; [; '_K - g. . ,' '-h i[.g 4;'. ' ,::.
.: # . .;.f f. -u,- t
.i ~ ' . . g , ;. 4 3 ..- ,l. t . . .
c,3,,
;: . R . . , , -:'- * ; ., ; '.. . '.
. G h. . ,. 'Ls'. ( ' "
.- ..[
'.,.<: . ;*r..;f* ...
* , . . 4 .: ~ ,_
,l. '~ -
N > b
=-
CLINTON POWER STATION g Job 15478-003 A OBSERVATION REPORT g e File No. 01 A File Revision No. U 8 Date 9-18-84 1 4 4
- 1. Level 1 classification of Observation: g Not significant to safety
-g Additional information required *see 5, " Recommendation for resolution" %
x Significant to safety, send to Level 2 Committee $I-P
- 2. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: Vg
-j SSW Pumps lA, 1B, 1C 9
Time Delay Relay Coils (2-SX1PA, 2-SX1PB) m{ NOTE: This OR ccmbines the concern which was noted on POR File No. 2, [_ Rev. O. Description of Observation.
- 3. 3 There are discrepancies between implementing design criteria (DC-SX-01-CP, @
FPR #1673) onto logic diagrams (M15-1052, Sheet 3 Rev. C, Sheet 6 Rev. 8) e and transferring the infcrmation to schematic diagrams (E02-lSX99-001 T-Rev. P, -002 Rev. R. -003 Rev. L). Several examples found are: 3 m (See continuation sheet) @ 2
- 4. Significance of Observation: }R There is the potential that certain design criteria, logic diagrams, and Q
;-=-
schematic diagrams have not Leen properly coordinated. N Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- 5. *-
~
S&L should provide an explanation of why these discrepancies occurred, and G an assessment of their safety significance. S&L snould identify and verify % that the design process for preparing logic and schematic diagrams en,ures that the design criteria are implemented in the design. $ _ w
- 6. Signatures: 4 f//fM -
Leve'l 1 Review Comittee RAut A % MLL 8
-_an)%& 5, M,
m_ 0110C [+
L.:q . ; r , ,_ ,.
, .y,
;' < . ; , . a 4 _
' ' * :h. .*A;?;;;4w. 169,9f%g L:;.. _ , t.y;.g ' (.y y. g_ g s[,, .}.g7 ;j.g..]
-s 7 ;pu ,;
3..y
- . "l 1. - -
, l.e. 5:N ,f l ? - [. ~. ..
;y. . ,; . ,
. .c ~ lv CLINTON POWER STATION Job 15478-003
-f.
e. 3;n ,..n, ~. . l;4. 3 ,- OBSERVATION REPORT " f Nd' (continuation sheet) } f y-
.;: File No. 01 p\.
.4.. File Revision No. 0 : %i M Date 9-18-84 -.W .. .
d,.. .,*'
?
. . .y .
'? . , I g.... i ' if.,
'.'. .p .p.4
.h. g! 3.(a) The design criteria DC-SX-01-CP, which specifies the SSW pumps IA and S.s.':]' .
- c t IB to operate whenever the diesel generators operate is not satisfied. . . l. ~ -
e J .- The logic (M15-1052, Sheet 3 Rev. C, Sheet 6 Rev. B) and schematic ,;;[ ? (E02-1SX99-001 Rev. P, -002 Rev. R) diagrams for these pumps do not "
?'
show this criteria being implemented. ($ 3] N.u + J , q~ (b) The logic diagram (M15-1052, Sheet 3 Rev. C) for SSW pump IC does not ?F ~ implement the above mentioned design criteria, although the schematit.
/*.. :Y diagram (E02-1SX-99-003 Rev. L) for pump 1C does. $. .; .>, N
.M '
. u
'4 3 ('ri/g
.f Q (c) Time delay relay coils (2-SX1PA and 2-SX1PB), shown connected across 3 the 125 v de control power bus in schematics E02-1SX99-001 Rev. P and M%.
,"l E02-1SX99-002 Rev. R. do not satisfy the intent of FPR #1673 and are
- p. s inconsistent with logic diagrams M15-1052, Shed 3 Rev. C and M15-1052, g%3 6ct,
- Sheet 6 Rev. B. A 10 second timer was added ir the start circuit of MV6
f, SSW pumps 1A and 1B to prevent spurious starts if the SSW pumps 35 '
.V J resulting from short tem (less than 10 sec.) cicesures of low SSW '
.4 %
.,f,j header pressure, reactor level or drywell high pressure sensor " 6.; '"..-
? -f contacts. As shown on the schematics, the time delay relays will not M'e perform as intenced. .
4.a * ,
..f; i -
Hb 3-Q,
* . i; w.g .; 7 7.~O, . 9bh: '4.
y , y? ' f' .ll-
)[.f g ?. . ' _ .. ; 5 }:y . % '-l B.f
, .: s :. g. .-
- p O g.
N
'g.y g .,4 .
y W' .
.. % , ' r f$ $.
- r. ,,,"I ..
, 7, . .
c.
.. sa. _
a y 4 py y, g y ,;
.;.. u % .s.
- . - Te*';
+: Q4 ? i 4r 34;;
'C .s 0110C ?. m c,
" t. ,
,, , M^ '
.C
- -. '.. ; v . : . >. . ..;a ,
l * ,, y f4: , G. ' }' . ,< :- '.-). , . : . . ., , _
,7' ,.
CLINTON POWER STATION Job 15478-003 RESOLUTION REPORT File No. 01 File Revision No. O Date 9-18-84
- 1. Resolution by Level 1 Internal Review Comittee e
- 2. Classification of Observation:
- a. Not valid (see continuation sheet)
- b. hot significi;nt to safety
- c. x Additional irdormation required
- d. Significant te safety
- 3. Program resolution is:
- a. Closed item
- b. x Action to be taken by Reviewee -- Provide addit.onal information
- 4. Review Comittee signatures:
- b. _ m k di fM %%%1
- 5. Reviewee proposed resolution:
- a. Description of proposed resolution:
- b. Basis of proposed resolution:
- 6. Reviewee response report signed by Engineer Date Manager Date
- 7. Illinois PLwer Co. concurrence: Date 0111C
-E _
. 3 9
3 CLINTON POWER STATION Ji Job 15478-003 5 RESOLLITION REPORT i File No. 02 g File Revision No. U ] Date 9-18-84 =
- 1. Resolution by Level 1 Internal Review Cossaittee 9
NOTE: The concern of g
- 2. Classification of Observation: this POR is the q same as that ex- e
- a. Not valid (see continuation sheet) a Not significant to safety pressed in OR
- b. File No.1, Rev.
- c. Additional information required Significant to safety 0; therefore the
- d. two observations have been com- A
- 3. Program resolution is: bined in OP. File Q No. 1. See 41
- a. x Closed item Completion Report. g
- b. Action to be taken by Reviewee m
Review Comittee signatures: 4.
$ MY :
M eta,k i
- k. % W ~
RMd>hA D _[ '
- 5. Reviewee proposed resolution: _- _.
- a. Description of proposed resolution: ;'
- b. Basis of proposed resolution: ,
L
~
l 6. Reviewee response report signed by _3 Engi neer Date j' Manager Date J t
- 7. Illinois Power Co. concurrence:
2-5 s b 01160
~
-}}