ML17273A077
| ML17273A077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1982 |
| From: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212B718 | List: |
| References | |
| EVP-001-SL-2, EVP-1-SL-2, NUDOCS 8207130211 | |
| Download: ML17273A077 (17) | |
Text
PROCEDURE NO.EVP-001/SL-2 REV.0 06/23/82 FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE UNIT NO.2 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM 8207130211 820709'PDR;ADOCK 05000389 (PPDR EVP-001/SL-2 REV.0 06/23/82 FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY" ST LUOIE UNIT NO.2 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title~Pa e Introduction........................
~~~~~1 Selection Process........'............................
2 Engineering Verification Process..................
~..3 A-Task Force Activities.............'..............
3 B-Review Committee/Project Team Activities........
4-5 IV Documentation/Reports..............................
~.5 A'ttachments Al.l-Organization Chart-Task Force A1.2-Organization Chart-Review Committee A2-Engineering Verification Process Flow Chart A3 A4-Independent Design Review Flow Chart-Independent Installation Verification, Flow Chart A5--Independent Start-up Operation Verification Flow Chart EVP-001/SL-2 REV.0 06/23/82 FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE UNIT NO.2 ENGINEERING VERIFICATION PROGRAM I-Introduction A program has been developed to conduct an in-depth (deep cut)engineering verification of Florida Power&Light Company's St Lucie Unit No.2 Nuclear Power Plant.This engineering verification will be accomplished by Ebasco and Combustion Engineering Task Forces independent of the St Lucie Project teams.(See Attachment Al.l for the Task Force Organization Chart)The program is divided into the following tasks: A-Selection of items to be reviewed in accordance with Section II of this procedure B-Independent verification of the existing designs for the selected items in accordance with Section III of this procedure.
C-In-place examination of installed components to verify conformance with the drawings in accordance with Section III of this procedure.
D-Comparison of component design against actual performance based on startup testing completed to date in accordance with Section III of this procedure.
The independence of the verification Task Force is maintained in several ways: 1-The Ebasco and CE personnel performing the verifications will be individuals who have had no prior involvement in the design,.installation, or testing of the items being reviewed or in the review selection process.Resumes of Task Force members will be included in the program documentation.
2-Task Force members will be located separately from the regular Project teams and will communicate with the Project teams only through the Program Coordinator.
3'The existing design will not be available to the Task Force during preparatioq of the independent design.4-Regular status reports documenting progress of the verification program will be submitted in parallel to the NRC, FPL, Ebasco and CE.
1 EVP-001/SL-2 REV.0 06/23/82 II-Selection Process-The selection of items to be reviewed by the Task Force will consist of the following steps: 1-A determination by FPL of all candidate items (components or isolated sections of a system).2-An appropriate division of the candidate items into separate groups by FPL, as outlined below.3-A random selection by FPL, from these groups of candidate items, of eight (8)specific items to be verified by the Task'Force.The candidate items include all"major components" which: 1-are important to safety, and 2-have multi-discipline interfaces The candidates will be divided into A/E and NSSS items, and at least two (2)NSSS items will be chosen.The candidates will also be divided by major disciplines as follows: 1-Civil/Structural 2-Mechanical 3-Electrical 4-Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)5-Instrumentation and Control At least one item from each discipline will be selected.The general boundaries of the items to be reviewed will include: 1-The component support and/or foundation system including its interface with the building structure.
2-Piping up and down stream to the first support locations.
3-Local power supply, instrumentation and controls.Specific boundaries will be established by the Task Force after the items have been selected, and'omponent-specific boundary sketches will be prepared.
III-En ineerin Verification Process t EVP-001/SL-2 REV.0 06/23/82 A-Task Force Activities The Task Force will determine the design inputs considered necessary to perform an independent design review for the items selected.Utilizing the latest design inputs, inde-pendent calculations and sketches will be generated and compared with the existing calculations and drawings.Differences between the independent and existing designs will be documented and analyzed.If the differences are determined to be acceptable, the rationale will be docu-mented and the design review phase considered complete.If the differences cannot be resolved, the procedure out-lined for unresolved items in Section III.B.1 hereunder will be followed.Upon completion of the design review phase for a specific item, the independent field installation verification phase can proceed.The Task Force will obtain copies of the latest drawings and other design documents used to install the item and will perform an in-place examination to verify the as-built installation, against those drawings and documents.
Differences will be documented and analyzed.If the differences are.determined to be acceptable, the rationale will be documented and the field installation verification phase considered com-plete.If'he differences cannot be resolved, the procedure outlined in Section III.B.1 will be followed.Upon completion of the field installation verification phase for a specific item, the independent start-up operation verification.phase can proceed.The Task Force will obtain all applicable performance documents not previously provided in addition to pertinent start-up procedures and start-up test data completed to date.A comparison will then be made of the design requirements versus actual performance based on the start-up testing completed to date by Plant Operations.
Differences will be documented and analyzed.If the differ-ences are determined to be acceptable, the rationale will be documented and the start-up operation verification phase considered complete.If the differences cannot be resolved, the procedure outlined in Section III.B.1 will be followed.4-Task Force activities outlined above are depicted on the flow charts (Attachments A2 through A5).
EVP-001/SL-2 REV.0 06/23/82 B-Review Committee/Pro'ect Team Activities Any item for which the differences cannot be resolved by the Task Force-whether in the design review phase, field installation verification phase, or start-up operation veri-fication phase-will be classified as an unresolved item (discrepancy), documented, and transmitted to the Review Committee for resolution.
The Review Committee will consist of the FPL Engineering Project Manager, FPL Program Coordinator, Ebasco Project Engineer, CE Project Manager, and the Task Force Managers.Technical support will be provided as necessary'y FPL, Ebasco and CE Project team personnel.(See Attachment A1.2)Should the Review Committee determine through its own review-supplemented as necessary by support from the Project team-that the unresolved item (discrepancy) is actually acceptable, the rationale will be documented and the item recycled to the Task Force for its agreement and continuation of the verification procedure.
Should the Review Committee determine through its own review-supplemented as necessary by support from the Project team-that the discrepancy is not acceptable; the rationale will be documented and the unresolved item i.dentified as either a~findin or an observation.
Any unresolved item which could affect the safety of the plant will be identified as a~findin.An nnresolved item which results from either a generic technical process flaw or generic procedural program flaw will also be identified as a~findin An unresolved item not affecting plant safety but resulting from either an isolated technical process flaw or isolated procedural program flaw will be identified as an observation.
The Review Committee will document all findings and obser-vations before transmitting them to the Project team for its review and further processing.
Following Project team determination of, the corrective action to be taken for each finding, and observation, but prior to actual implementation, Task Force concurrence will be obtained.This will enable'the Task Force to assure itself that all aspects of the unresolved item it originally identified have been accounted for.
t EVP-001/SL-2 REV.0 06/23/82 C B-Review Committee/Pro'ect Team Activities (Cont'd)9-At the same time'the project team implements the necessary'corrective action for a finding, it will determine report-ability.Reportable findings require preparation and submittal to the NRC of the appropriate 10CFR 50.55(e)or 10CFR 21 reports.10-Documentation of item closeout by the Project team will follow implementation of corrective action for each find-ing and observation.
ll-Review Committee/Project team activities outlined above are depicted on the same flow charts illustrating Task Force activities (Attachments A2 through A 5).IV-Documentation/Re orts The engineering verification program will have a high degree of visibil-ity, with all process steps in each phase being properly documented for record purposes and the NRC being kept fully apprized of progress via regular status reports.The following reports will be generated during the program: 1-Meekly status summaries of the overall program 2-Minutes of all Review Committee meetings 3-Reportable findings, if any 4-Component completion reports as the verification process for each selected item is completed 5-A final report upon overall program completion Copies of telephone conversation logs will be included in the weekly status summaries.
Distribution of correspondence will be made concurrently to the NRC, FPL, Ebasco and CE.
r L.utch VV~umph>C q uSH'f COMPhltlg 5T.LUG(E UNA NO-2 EBS/QTERIHG VFRt FlCATlOM PROSRAM:OPGttI,MIZATlON CHART-TASK FORCE ATTAcHQE'g T gl;i.j7AYE~4 TA5K FORCE CHh)CKMhOJ TAStC F4Rcl Aha k AOf k V-'wopOR TASK Fbi.C HALt AlgrQEZ P.HI L.LS'R Ct VlL Pckav EATERS PL.Au T APPpgATOS Res.H DESI&~%%HERS As ghJQWQ tgTtC I 8 cmC.oTwen,s AS 84)'.EBASC.O SERVtC ES J NClOMBUST(OQ Eh!&(NEER'1WG lMe NOTE-Communication, Adiuinistration, Project InterEace'Ries Exist Between Task Force and FPL Kngrg Pro)ect Hgr, EBASCO Prospect Engr, and C.E.Project Ngr.
V~~~.'RBVtRA....QQMfht'T.TBK
~<<~~~WFCa~tCAt..
SuPt oav As H~cassAR Y FL.ORtDA.Pawpp.4 t.!GHl gMSJMESttlNQ PRcQRCT MAM468R UV SOTSO N p~gtyg f5Lv6R g ktGHT.Prole,cy TFAM~~Ft.oRt9h Mwcm,$l.tcHy osaAH aoORotvAmR H R,AN@I 6.%~~~~(~FSPQCD QQRvtCCS gplg PRO~acv e~s tweed I~~8'PASCCt SERVlCSS th4C P f@Pd EL%'shM~(~~~~~caMSUS'AOQ EN&fvE6RtMS,INC PR'OJ 8 C'l fvi*g p 46.5t 4 C lvloL'Tee@
~~~w(,~.I p9ASCO SGRv<cBS,thkc GVP TAgK, FbRCS klAQASS~MEUM Ag EQQQFERWS,l paoaac.T-TFA.M~~~~&\~~........J.ESSkD QplhSVSTtOQ EN6tNQBRWS,)HE BVP TASK, PORES QAMAGGR DD Mtwt KQ...~.~~~~~~8VP,=.EustHEQRtNt" , V ERÃghTtOyur pRO&RAhh.~~(a~~(~
EBASCO SERVICES IHCORPORATED AHCCT~OS~ATTACKMENT A2 CLICOT OAOJ~CT ADO/CCT~'ATC~~~jL ITEII ESEIECTI ON(i PROCESS IDf NTIST ITEN FOR ENGRG Vf RIFI CATION COMPILE LATE ST DESIGN (NPQTS VERIFIED C.E.INPUT PERFORM IN Df Pf ND ENT CA I.CS COur ARE WITH ET ISTINO DESIGN DOCUME DIFFER-ENCES (Rf VIEWS PNNITTSE E APPlorAL ISO RICE lvf I Eaaauo)I DCSIC/I LClLCS J ANALYZE DIFFER-ENCES Ul I->~o Sa IL~C V DOCUMENT TIDNllE EN'D OF DESIGLI Rf VIEW P HAS E VERIFY FIEI.D INSTALL ATIDN DOCUMEN RESOI.ITE K (DISCRfli ANCT>DOC UMEN DIFFER EMCEE ANALYZE DIFFER ENC'&S R 4 DI~J DOCUMENT RATIDVA fND OF LNSTALL AT I DN Vf RIFI ATION H*E DDCVN VT'RATKAIAL END OF START VP VRRIFI CATIO N'PHASE VEICI PY pf c/DAN AND C AT START.UP DCCVIIf NT DIFFf R E S IF AIOT READII Y IF ROAD LY TO REVIEW COkk/TT ACcf PTAELE/ICCSPTAOL'E ANALYZE DIFFER-ENCES REVIEW COMMITTEE PROJECT TEAAE ACTIV/TIES
'TASK CO(CCE ACTIVITIES Qf VIEW IIURESOLVED ITEN (DISCREP ANCT)PRILIECT TEALI SUPPORT DOCUM EN Rf VICIV CCNNIITEE RATIONAL V 4 IJ I(a O 4 a K ul O O I O RECYCLE TO'TASIC FORCE FOR ACRE&M-ENTT ATEOORI POTEN TIA FNIDVI 6 P',.C STACTl/I I D CNTI AS FINDING AND DOCVkf NT IDENTIFY AS OSS ERV A'I ho N AND DOCVNENT PROI&tT TEALI REVIEW PRO/EC TEAM REVIEW DETERNUI Rf PORT ADILITY OSTAIN~I TASK I FORCE)CONCUR)ACNCE E J Icf Foarhal TAK E CORRR CT IVE ACTION TAKE.CORRECT IVf ACTION SOD NLT IOCFR SLSS(6 Olr PART gl REPORT DOCVMf N 1TE,M CIOSE OVT DOCvIIE ITEM CLOSEOV ENGINEERING I VERlF[CATlON PROCESS FLOW CHART NIO/I N CL>a<<r~'I>0>~CT>>/I/SC'>UC le vL>>r Llo.F>L GM&IN E ERIN 6 I/Fl AT>OH EBASCO SERVICES IIICORPORATED
~<<tA'F~OF I r A'TTACHI/LIGHT A3',.~or a e.SL 2 Pap SEC T TEAM PROGRAM CCORDLNATLDR I>>I I TAS FORC B PREPARE Llsr>NG or CALID>bATG LTCHS AND PERFORM RANDOH SELECT-ION OF SPEC lFlC ITCH S TRANSMIT SPECIFIC LIST ASSEMBLE LATEST DES>6M INPUTS FEIL REQOE.ST TRANSMIT DESIGN LN POTS TR/LLISIULLT SPECIFIC LIST FOR INITIAL TRAHSNLT'TO PRUAECr Ill*MS>/LLT To'TASK FORC X)ETE RMINE DESIGN INPoTS COMSIDE R-ED HECESSAILY TO PERFORM LHDEPEHD-EHT EHGIHEERIN 6 lLESLEH CALCVLATLOHS.
SLILS/>LIT WRITTEN>EGO<ST FOIL LATEST DESI4H INFVTS PERfoRNL INDEPENDENT EH4IL6.DESIGN CALCVt AT>OILS SKETCHES I: RETRIEVE EXISTING'DH'LL>H CALCS/D W6 5 FRUM F.ILK S 1RANSNLT CALCS DWGS TRAHSMLr 7o PRO JEC,T'TRANSMIT'ID TASK FORCE SuBMIT WRiTTEN'RECLUEST'OTL EXLSTIN6 DESLGH CALCS D WAS TRANSMIT'VERIFIED>
C.Ee INPUT>AS APPLICAQLE FoR ITEMS SELLLCTED'TRANSNlT To TASK FORCE'OMPARE IHDEPENDEQT DE'5LEN WITH ELLLSTLH6 DESIGN A VERIFIED C.E.IHPor DOCONEL>T ALID ANALYZE D>FFEILENCE IF REAL>>LY ACCEPI h'>L.E, DOCUMENT RAT>O>>ALE A>/D E>/D Dgs>ON&Ev>CW P//ASE IF Hor'READ>AY AccEPrASLE,bocUNc>LT V@RESOLVE'b ITE>L (D>SC<f PANC Y)AMP'rRANSM>r rO RE>/LEw'o>>>L>rr6
>>}D/I>I I MDEPEWDEMT.
DES IGN R EVI EV/FLOW CHART
cL<av LOP I D" POW I G'ttT 0 QNIPAL)~Ioi~cc tUIJCC'l IVE'EK V Rtt=t AT om EBASCO SERVICES IKCORPORATEO
~NccT~OF~anZCVMEur A 4.rP DATC~~~~SL 2 PROJBCT T'EANI PRO&RAM Cao&Dlhl AToR.l-AS V Fo Rc 6 I C I EtID OF%6stott tREvtew PHASE Foa~SPEcIFIC I'TFM L.ASSEMBLE'REQUESTED I NST'AI.LATIOt4 All D OTttfA.DESI'~DOCVME II'TS TRRHSAIIT COLITROt.LED COP I R>TRANSMIT To PRcVEC I TEAIISerr Vo TASlt: FoacE S08thIT WRITTEt4 tZESII EST Fct A.COhlTlzoLLED CbPIES OF LA'rf~T DWGS AQD OTKf R MSIOH DIICUMENS'USED rO IIISTAI L SPECIFIC ITEM LOCATE (t45TALLE,D'TEM, PERt+RM AAI IH-PL*CE EXAMINATI4H AND<ERIF'0 THE AS-SIIILT I HSTALLATIoN AGAINsT THE DW&S AIID OTHER.56 SIGN QOcl+4E hl'TS, 30CUNEQT Akj)AltALYZE DIFFEREIICES IF READIL'r ACCEPTABLE, DOCUMENT RATttttdALE i4I4D RttD FIELD INSTALL-ATIDII VERIRICA'Troll PHASE, IF IIOT WRADILY ACCEPTAQLS, POCUttfltT IINQES>LVEP ITEM PDISCRf FANCY)AND f RAM 5 HIT TO'R4VIGW C OMMt YTEE ttlc/I t4 INDEPEhJPEKJT FIELD INSTALLATION VERIFICATION FLON CHART
'C oscar OR~aozccv S~Uclccc POPE OC ULII T COM g EIZ IP mt Ohl EBAKO SEIVICH IIICORPORATED SH~cc~op~ATTACHMENT A5 J oivc~<~~Sl.2 PRO)ECT'TEAM SL 2 PLAHT OPERA'TtONS PROGRAM C&RDINATOR.
7Ase Fog.c6 QNb OF FIEl-D!INSTALLATION VERIFICATIOnl l'PHASE FOIZ S PECIFIC I TEAl I ASSEMSL6 QPPLICABL PERFORMAHCE, DOCUMEHTS N e T SoRE-PIOUSLY PROVIDED TlCAN SMt T PERFO&f-AHCE DOCU+EIHTS
$5$EMQL'E%'EQUEJTE'P 5TART-UP PROCEDURES HD COMPLEtKD TEST DATA TRAHSNIT PROCEDURE S AIID TE ST bhTh~RAIOSMn TO PROJ ECT TRAHSltll W OPERaTiaVS
$IIBMIT INRITI'EH KEOIUEST FOR ALL A'PPLICABLE PERFoRAtAQOE CK)CUMEHTS HOT F'REVIOUSL'f PROVIDEP FO<'S PGC)PIC tTBM, SUcH AS VENDOR SHOP'TltST'DA'TA,$U EMIT%Ill'1TTE+
Q6CIUE g'P FOR STAItT-VP PROCEDURES AND START'-UP.
VEST'DATA COMPLETED TO bATE FOR SPECIFIC ITEM V'ghNSMIT TO CASK FOtac6 COI4PhRE,.
'QELSIQ t4 Wlc'CLQ IQ,I IA6+TS vs AC,VVAI P ERFORMIjt,QC6 I 5TART QP TESTIN 0 COMPLETES 70'DhT8'DOCIIMEHT AUD ANALYZE>IFFQILS'HCES 1P SEA'PILY ACCEI'TATI LE, DOCUMEHT RATIOHAL AHP EHD STAItT.UP OPEItmloU VERIF tchttoH PvASE NIO/MI IF HOT RKADILT ACCEr I ABLE,DoctttcEHT UNttEsoLVEV ITEM{DISCE6PAICY)
AMO mANSW7 14 ItEV<EW COH<tzygE JMDEPEN9EHT START-UP OPERATION AERIFICATION FLOW CHART