ML20050B810
| ML20050B810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1982 |
| From: | GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13323A262 | List: |
| References | |
| GA-C16708, GA-C16708-V03-B2, GA-C16708-V3-B2, NUDOCS 8204070440 | |
| Download: ML20050B810 (400) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:G A-C16708 o @ . . INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 & 3 SEISMIC DESIGN AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS VOLUME 3 O POTENTIAL FINDING REPORTS BOOK 2 REPORTS F041 TO F112 and CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS PREPARED FOR gE southern caiitornia Edison company GENERAL ATOMIC PROJECT 2408 APRIL 5,1982 C OLOGY A DMSION OF GENERAL ATOVIC COYPANY R DO K O O 1 P PDR l
j l FOREWORD l l This report is presented in three volumes: Volume 1 - Executive Summary Volume 2 - Program Results Volume 3 - Potential Finding Reports Volume 3 is a compilation of all Potential Finding Reports (PFR's) and Corrective Action Plans that were issued as part of this review. For convenience of handling, this volume has been divided into two books. Book I contains PFR's 0001 through 0058, which were the reports that were filed before the Interim Report was issued, and PFR's F001 through F040. Book 2 contains the remaining PFR's, F041 through F112, and the Corrective Action Plans that were prepared by Southern California Edison in response to the seven Findings. For assistance in locating a particular PFR, the PFR's have been grouped into sets of ten as indicated on the dividers. Further, the first page of each PFR and Corrective Action Plan is printed on light green paper to aid in locating it within a grouping. Table 1-1 lists the PFR's in order by number and serves as an index to this volume. Table 1-2 is a list of the Corrective Action Plans.
)
1 1 I l I i
TABLE 1-1 LIST OF POTENTIAL FINDING REPORTS 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-0001B C 6 Bechtel Omission in computer Observation mathematical model (P&ID 40112-16) -0002A C 6 Bechtel Cantilevered line Invalid holding valve should be included in computer (related to dwg 1204-004-1, sht 50 PSG-82 -0003 C 6 Bechtel Input data for Observation seismic anchor move-ment (SAM) should be clearly specified in the calculation package. PSG-82. -0004 C 7 Bechtel Stress intensifica- Invalid tion factor to be used PSG-245 for reducers -0005 C 6 Bechtel Calculations should Invalid use latest design loads PSG-78 -0006 C 6 Bechtel Support analysis Observation should correspond to support used -0007 C 6 Bechtel Seismic response Observation spectra used in analysis be for location to be l analyzed PSG-78 l -0008A C 3 Bechtel Design nozzle loads Observation listed in design spec s/b consistent with loads derived in piping analysis O
2
TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-0009 C 20 Bechtel Design load for Finding structural member is greater than permissible load.
Tray hanger #37185
-0010 C 5 CE Nozzle loading Invalid analysis used for both units 2 & 3 CE calc. #S-PAC-010/6-24-81
-0011 C 4 CE Pump P016 low observation pressure safety induction pump-vertical accelera-tion used in analysis appears to be low 1
-0012 C 4 Bechtel(a) Additional data Invalid needed from Bechtel to verify support structure stiffness i
and anchor bolt loads
-0013 C 1 Bechtel Discrepancies in Invalid computer input data for containment structure seismic model
-0014A C 8 Bechtel Piping stress analy- Observation sis pkg S cale.
use latest design load (a) Original Design Organization response not required. - (v) 3
TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-0015 C 21 Bechtel Spec for control Observation room and field mounted panels
#5023-502-5 fails to require internal panel wiring or connecting wiring be simulated or other-wise considered during seismic qual, testing of panels
-0016 C 21 Bechtel Panel 2CR57 Spec Invalid S023-502-5 fails to require vendor to consider anchor details designed by i Bechtel
-0017 C 21 Bechtel Panel 2CR57 spec Observation fails to require the vendor to consider dynamic interaction of cabinets arranged in specific manner
-0018 C 8 Bechtel PSG-78 Cale Invalid P450-1.109-9.100 sht I weld elec-trode not identified l in calc.
-0019 C 8 Bechtel PSG-78 Allowable Invalid bending and weld shear allowable stresses not equal to basic requirement
-0020 C 8 Bechtel PSG 78 sheet 3 of Invalid calc. uses incorrect bending stress allowable
-0021 C 8 Bechtel PSG-78 Allowable Invalid stress on throat area 4
TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-0022 C 8 Bechtel(a) PSG 78 Member forces Invalid for W6x25 column on sht 2 are inaccurate
-0023 C 6 Bechtel Value CG be Observation ,
correctly modeled for computer input !
-0024A C 6 Bechtel Input data for Observation seismic anchor movement (SAM) r should be clearly <
specified on the ! cale pkg (pkg #78)
-0025 C 8 Bechtel Note on sheet 1- Invalid margin of safety in <
as-built cales ade-quate to accommodate I (h (_,) increased work loads not substantiated , i
-0026 C 8 Bechtel Cales and dwgs do Invalid f not identify steel -
I type nor weld elec-trode used. PSG-78.
-0027A C 10 CE ESFAS Aux relay Observation f cabinet Lack of .
functional testing during seismic excitation f
-0028 C 10 CE ESFAS aux. relay Invalid [
cabinet No RRS given although RRS testing i required
-0029 C 10 CE ESFAS aux. relay Invalid i cabinet Requirement for functional testing absent l
n w/ (* Original Design Organization response not required. l 5
TABLE 1-1 O 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-0030 C 10 CE Vendor not required Invalid to account for anchor flexibility -0031A C 11 Bechtel Seismic Category 1 Observation MCC Deficiencies in seismic testing requirements -0032 C 11 Bechtel Seismic Category 1 Invalid MCC Deficiencies in component identifi-cation -0033 C 6 Bechtel Valve weight not Invalid included in actual l restraint cales -0034 D --
SCE Inconsistency in Finding 10CFR50 App B criterion 18 reqmt and SCE procedure
#N18.04 -0035 C 6 Bechtel Design change not Observation made -0036 C 6 Bechtel Flow orifice and Observation node location not included in piping model -0037 C 5 CE The moment of Observation inertia of the concrete slab in-correctly used -0038 A --
CE Problem with inter- Finding face control l l 9 6
'N
\'
TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-0039 C 19 Bechtel(a) Reference source for Invalid certain input values were missing in I&C equipment field mounting design calculation
-0040A C 19 Bechtel Input acceleration Invalid g level used in I&C equipment field mounting design structural analysis cannot be traceable
-0041 C 19 Bechtel(a) Reference sources Invalid were missing for I&C level transmitter (2LT-0312) weight and associate tubing, etc.
O -0042A G -- Bechtel Several piping Observation supports were not installed per draw-ing. PSG-82.
-0043A C --
Bechtel Installed piping Observation does not conform to stress isometric-PSG-82
-0044 C 11 Bechtel(a) Seismic Category I Invalid Switchgear errors in App. B when incor-porating response spectra
-0045A A --
CE Interface review Invalid requirement
-0046A A --
CE Design requirement - Out of scope externally designed component
- Original Design Organization response not required.
(x )) 7
I l TABLE 1-1 O 2408-PFR Task Feature Cont ractor Subject Classification
-0047 A --
CE Organizational Finding design review requirements
-0048 A --
CE Project office Out of scope responsibilities - purchase orders
-0049 A --
CE Internal / external Observation design review consideration
-0050A A --
CE Design control of Out of scope spares
-0051 C 9 CE Seismic acceleration Observation specified in the CE specification for electric motor operated valves -0052 A --
CE Project Design Finding Management project responsibilities
-0053 C 11 Bechtel Seismic Category I Observation Switchgear incorrect location information -0054 C 6 Bechtel Need analytical Invalid justification supporting Unit 3 l pipe configuration -0055 C 6 Bechtel Need justification Invalid for N/A treatment of l seismic anchor move-l ment in PSC-57 -0056 C 6 Bechtel Inconsistency Observation between ISO sketch and computer model PSG-117 0
8
i i ( l V) TABLE l-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-0057 C 1 Bechtel Discrepancies in Observation computer input data for containment structure seismic model
-0058 C 1 Bechtel Discrepancies in Observation computer input data for containment structure seismic model
-F001 C 6 Bechtel Piping design loads Invalid not conservative
-F002 C 6 Bechtel Anchor loads not Invalid conservative
-F003A C 11 Bechtel Seismic Category I Observation MCC - Deficiencies O not accouting for base mount design
-F004 A --
CE Design control Observation training
-F005A B --
CE CEN-99(S) Seismic Invalid Evaluation of NSS Supplied Instrum. Equip.
-F006 B --
Bechtel Drawing in drawing Invalid log which required SEC approval not approved
-F007A B --
Bechtel Purchase spec did Invalid not stipulate special tool : requirements
-F008 D --
Bechtel Inappropriate Invalid corrective action field generated drawing control O 9
+
e C TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-F009 D --
Bechtel Inappropriate Intalid' corrective action . for instrument and control cards not - . showing Q and ' seismic class
-F010 B --
SCE Lack of design input Observation requirements for spec #412055
-F011 B --
SCE Design document- Observa tion. reviewer comments not resolved in writing
-F012 B --
SCE Registered Observation Professional Engineers seal not stamped on spec 512055 calculation DC-339
-F013 B --
SCE Specification 412055 Observation distributed for use with missing page ,
-F014 B --
SCE Calculations added Observation to DC-339 subsequent to review and approvp1-
-F015 B --
SCE No evidence of f Finding computer program , . validation in calculation DC 1339[ Corrective Action Plan
-F016 B --
SCE Inconsistency in Observation revi6w and approval requirements ~for ' calculations ~
/, -
s- . f 10
TABLE 1-1
!t
. 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification [
-F017 B --
SCE Quarterly listing of Observation ! new and revised i standards not pre- ; pared and , distributed j
-F018 B --
Bechtel Purchase Spec SO 23- Observation [ 407-13, SCE 0447 j 5/15/75 - welding , deviation
-F019 B --
Bechtel Computer code used Invalid [ for seismic analysis j ( ASHSD) not vali- i dated before use ! i
-F020A B --
Bechtel Partial calculations Observation missing from PSG-78
, -F021 B --
Bechtel Required information Observation missing from PSG-82, O' 57, 74, 117 ;
-F022 B --
Bechtel PSG-78 Design Observation ! Approval Not signed by Chief Engineer : j -F023 B -- Bechtel PSG-78, 82-57, 74, Observation , 4 117 Chief Engineer 1 did not sign for Quality I and II i desiga [
-F024A B --
Bechtel PSG-78, 82 Original Observation : i calculations not in l project file !
-F025 B --
Bechtel PSG-74, Revisions Invalid not on title page
-F026 B --
Bechtel PSG-78, 82, 57, 74, Invalid 117, Page identifi-cation missing i i l l 5 i 1 11
~
;!,, ~
1\ !\ g,'T ( .
%) , s .
( 3 . i
?
.. ,~ _
[ TABLE 1-1 Contractor Subject Classification 2ff8-PFR Task Feature
\-F027A B -
Bechtel PSG-78, 57, 74, 117 Observation Page numbering irregulartries
-F028 C 8 Bechtel Additional DCN's not Invalid included in calcula-1 tion P450-150-169
-F029 B -
Bechtel Unauthorized drawing Observation revision issued cable tray hangers
-F030A B --
Bechtel Inappropriate Invalid identification of procedure
-F031 B -
Bechtel Construction draw- Observation ing issued prior to calculation being performed
-F032 C 20 Bechtel Cable tray support Observation
#37202 loading in calculation
-F033 C 20 Bechtel(a) Seismic Class I Invalid cable raceway support system allowables used in calculations
-F034 B -
Bechtel Procedural viola- Observation tions - containment shell seismic analysis
-F035 B -
Bechtel Bechtel Design Observation Criteria Manual - procedural violation (a) Original Design Organization response not required. l O 12
O TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-F036 B --
Bechtel Bechtel Containment Observation Shell Analysis - FINEL model proce- ; dural violation
-F037 D --
SCE CAR - F-194 proce- Observation dural deficiency
-F038 D --
SCE Procedural Observation deficiency in Correction Action Request (CAR) S-52 (site) ,
-F039A C 4 Bechtel Suction system for Invalid LPI of the safety integration system including the fuel water tank T006, g-'s suction pipeline , air CE PSI pump P016. Rev.
A-C-E portion
-F040 C 6 Bechtel PSG-117 - improper Observation simultion of fuel
! installation in model i
-F041 C 6 Bechtel Incorrect calcula- Invalid tion of g-level -
valves
-F042 B --
Bechtel Procedural violation Observation on a specification change notice released without GA approval and signature
-F043A C 6 Bechtel Valve effective Observation acceleration calcu-lations inconsistent
-F044 B --
Bechtel Generic missing Observation design criteria and assumptions 13
TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification 7
-F045 B --
Bechtel(a) PIPM Manual Vol. 1 Invalid rev. reqmts not incorporated
-F046 D --
SCE Inadequate Observation corrective action regarding audit of 3?C (USTC) procedures
-047 D --
Bechtel BPC relaxed FSAR Invalid concrete placement temperature without changing FSAR. Audit 934
-F048 D --
Bechtel(a) Audit 975-Possible Invalid I lack of inspections on seismic Class I and II equipment mountings
-F049 D --
Bechtel Failure to take Invalid action to correct incomplete requests for nondestructive testing
-F050 D --
Bechtel Treating a Invalid significant
- deficiency in l engineering disposition on non-conformances as a minor deficiency
-F051 D --
Bechtel Audits 1476, 1555, Finding l 1567 and 1855 audit l findings not reported to manage-ment - a trend (a) Original Design Organization response not required. 9 14
TABLE 1-1 1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-F052 D --
Bechtel Audits 914, FQA161, Observation 345, 601, 1072, 1104, 1555 and 1596. Corrective action concerning field engineers inappro-priate or non-existent - a trend
-F053A D --
SCE(a) Field Change Notices Invalid
- vendor approval
-F054A D --
SEC Trend report- Observation document control - SCE
-F055 B --
Bechtel(a) Pipe support cales. Invalid Rev. 2 not signed off
) -F056 B --
Bechtel Pipe support FCN not Observation properly approved
-F057 C 10 Bechtel Control Room relay Invalid panels 2L use of foundation anchorage flexibilfty
-F058A C 10 Bechtel Control room relay Invalid panel 2L speci-fication of repre-sentative equipment included in testing
-F059 C 10 Bechtel Control Room relay Invalid panel 2L determination of specific panel configuration to be tested
- Original Design Organization response not required.
O's V 15
TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-F060 B --
SCE Spec addenda in use Observation but not released
-F061 B --
Bechtel Spec change notice Observation not incorporated within 120 days (Item 12)
-F062 B --
Bechtel SDDR not incorpor- Observation ated into spec within 120 days
-F063 B --
Bechtel Cal. dos not Invalid reference spec number as required
-F064 B --
Bechtel Dwg and spec were Invalid issued prior to cale being completed
-F065 C 8 Bechtel Applicability of Observation computer code used to analyze pipe frame -F066 B --
Bechtel Uninitialed and un- Observation dated pipe support calculations
-F067A B --
Bechtel Pipe support cales Invalid were performed on wrong forms
-F068 B --
Bechtel Pipe support un- Invalid approved cales, Rev. 2
-F069 D --
SCE(a) Safety impact items Invalid j not produced in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.29 (a) Original Design Organization response not required. O 16
O TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subjecc Classification
-F070 C 6 Bechtel PSG-117 - Incon- Invalid sistency in snubber orientation
-F071 C 3 Bechtel Refueling water tank Observation T006 buckling criteria
-F072 C 10 Bechtel Splice box support Invalid
-F073 C 10 Bechtel Terminal Box support Invalid
-F074 C 6 Bechtel PSC-117 Incorrect Observation weight calculations
-F075 B --
Bechtel Specification not Observation revised to delete component seismic testing
-F076 B --
Bechtel Computer code not on Invalid computer code list
-F077 B --
Bechtel Unvalidated comp. Observation program for piping analysis
-F078 C 3 Bechtel Refueling water tank Observation (T0006) hydrodynamics
-F079 B --
CE Component specs Observation
-F080 B --
CE BOP design criteria Observation
-F081A B --
CE Proj Manager Observation l provides design
- bases
-F082 C 8 Bechtel Pipe support cales. Observation
-F083 C 10 CE Load panels 2L123, Invalid
( - 2L127, 2L147 l l ! T l V 5 17
TABLE l-1 O 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-F084 C 10 CE Foxboro power supply Invalid 2 ARPS -F085 C 10 CE Rosemount temp Invalid transmitters 442H-82A -F086 B --
Bechtel Lack of SCE Observation authorization to proceed with design changes
-F087 B --
CE Reactor vessel Invalid support
-F088 B --
CE Quality record - Observation doc. distr./ approval form
-F089 B --
CE CE spec S-PEC-111, Observation Rev. 2 Method of h Verification
-F090 B --
CE Reactor coolant pump Invalid snubbers stress report
-F091A C 8 Bechtel Rock bolt loading Observation criteria -F092 C 8 Bechtel Pipe support PSG-82, Observation node 93 cales. -093 C 8 Bechtel(a) Pipe support PSG-82, Invalid node 93 -F094 C 17 CE Charging inlet Invalid nozzle, rotating load coordinates (a) Original Design Organization response not required.
18
i TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subject Classification
-F09$ C 17 CE Charging inlet Observation nozzle, justification of peak stress intensity values
-F096 C 15 CE Reactor vessel inlet Observation nozzle
-F097 B --
Bechtel Incomplete Observation calculations
-F098A C 14 CE Hydraulic snubber Observation reactor
-F099 C 14 CE Reactor coolant pump Invalid ;
DBE design loadings
-F100 C 22 Bechtel Containment interior Observation s t ructure
-F101 H --
Bechtel No pressure safety Observation injection pump
-F102A C 14 CE Stress analysis of Observation reactor coolant L devices
-F103 C 13 CE Reactor coolant pump Invalid support system
-F104 C 22 Bechtel Reactor coolant pump Observation i support system
-F105A C 1 Bechtel Containnment Observation '
structure seismic analysis
-F106A C 2 SCE Aux. intke Observation -
structure, section D , i
-F107 C 2 SCE Aux. intake struc- Invalid ture, section F 19 l
l TABLE 1-1 2408-PFR Task Feature Contractor Subj ect Classification
-F108 C 2 SCE Aux. intake struc- Observation ture, section C -F109 C 15 CE Inlet nozzle of Invalid reactor vessel -F110A C 15 CE Reactor vessel Invalid suport column -F111 D -
SCE SCE quality trend Invalid report
-F112 D -
SCE Vendor approval of Invalid FCN affecting vendor originated document O l l 9 20
l-i l
- )
4 ! TABLE 1-2 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS , SCE Corrective Subject ! Action Request 2408-PFR l S023-S-485 -0009 t S023-C-158 -0034
! S023-S-483 -0038 1
S023-S-486 -0047 l S023-S-484(a) -0052 i i S023-G-160 -F015 l Sp23-S-527 -F051 i ! (a) j This Corrective Action Request is combined with that of S023-S483. i 4 i i 4 i s i 4 i l I lO ? 1 i l 21 l t i _.._,.y , ,,..- , _ , _ _ , - ___.,,-,v__._ ,__ ,
~
PFR NO. 2408 PFR-F041 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION I I A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTE0 lTEMS: Safety Ir.jection System Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-245 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: San Onofre 2 & 3 FSAR Section 3.9.3.2.2.3.2 BASIC REQUIREMENT: C.E. Valves 2HV-9341 and 2HV-9342 be subject to effective accelerations ot 3 G's or less. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: If calculated using the same method as that used in packages PSG-56 & 78 1.e. by adding the ZPAs to the X, Y, Z components then SRSS for the resultant, the affective accelerations for valves 2HV-9341 and 2HV9342 would be 3.09 and 3.50 G's - DBE. Outside the allowable. In package PSG-245 the effect of ZPA was ignored for these valves. l I W PREPARED BY: DATE. REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
,/
U 7.kc/8' 1 ' Gb AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY DATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
h* PAGE2 2408 PF R 80. F041 , REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENTS The correct methodology for combining the ZPA with the effective acceleration ("A) from the computer analysis is described in PFR-F043. In short, the requirement is for the ZPA component, in the X, Y or Z direction, to be combined with the respective EA con-ponent when the EA is less than the ZPA. The conbination is by the SRSS nethod. If the EA is greater than the ZPA, the ZPA need not be considered. See the attached sheet . j gg ssg j]P( 5 mgjf{c/cf(gyf., 2 P A 's 65 }"6 D 0'N M SS? +^C4b 'T3hhSE O AGREE PF IS VAUD gg 4(/g ,g gg //g gfy, . O OlSAGREE It was judged that the valves were below the 3G limit. MR .3l23l22 BY: hN #ed DATE-M 1 aa m,wa re /m n D. REC 0f.'.'.*Ef.DATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE F - "' #N #C N (_o ca w & d h X r 5 - DEFINITION ADEQUACY: JR ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE tr^/<Md 8 'r N VAL 10lTY: IMftMh O VAll0 O NOT APPLICABLE R INVAll0 hPPttCA hh
/c 10 CRF En (Cle)- D-NCT-APPttCASLE O iJPuCABLE-LASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: .
CLASSIFICATION CRITER10N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" l COMMENT ON "0ESERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: DATE: 2 22 () ' ' E. TFT PROJECT MANAGER
$! ACCEPT O REJECT
. O BY: / W#NAR' DATE: 5 4
__ - - ~ ~ ~ ~
, htt5. 3/ed/s 2 Attachasnt to 2408-PFR-F041 Using the method described in our response to PFR No. 2408-PFR-F043, the resultant G-load for CE valves 2HV-9341 and 2HV-9342 can be found as follows: l i (1) 2HV-9342: G-load at C.C. of the valve (data point 125)
X Y Z Effective G: 0.516 0.011 0.852 ZPA: 0.5 0.45 0.5 Combined G: 0.516 f (0.011) +(0.45) 0.852 G - /g 2 + g 2 + g 2 g3g
-f(0.516)2,(g,g11)2 + (0.45) + (0.852)
= 1.093 i
C = XC = . 86 DBE OBE . (2) 2HV-9341: G-load at C.G. of the valve (data point 510)
+
X Y Z Effective G: 0.833 0.147 0. 1 ZPA: 0.5 0.45 0.5 Combined G: 0.833 /(0.147)+(0.45) 0.5 G ggg -)g2+g2+g2X Y Z
/(0.833)2 + (0.147)2 + (0.45) + (0.5)
- - 0.08
, G DBE " 0 = .6 0BE The G DBE for both valves are less than the allowable, 3.0g. CJ > t-4 .,,w. - e c w - ----. -g_- m , + - - - ,
t y;8- PFA ~ l=NI a 2 E i V !E Is 1 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE ElN GA-1076 , i(U 18 - w IN REPLY FROM: N. I. Marsh -- REFER TO: TO: F. S. Ople, Jr. DATE: 2/16/82
SUBJECT:
PFRs F041 and F043 A meeting was held at 0.8:00 on 2/13/82 with representatives of the Bechtel pipe stress group and J. J. Adrian from SCE. The attendees were: S. H. Freid - BPC A. R. Veca - GA* Salah Mohamed - BPC J. Stanley - GA Y. T. Lin - BPC P. Koefoed - GA R. Herman - BPC N. I. Marsh - GA J. J. Adrian - SCE A. A. Schwartz - GA* F. S. Ople, Jr. - GA* G. L. Wessman - GA* / I. T. Almajan - CA*
*PART-TIME The The disposition of the subject PFRs was the primary purpose of the meeting.
meeting started with an in-depth explanation frem the Bechtel representatives on how they handle ZPA in the valve ef fective acceleration calculations. BPC's method is as follows: They take the directienal accelerations from ME.101 output for a given valve and if the indivdiual values fall below the ZPA value, i.e., comes in the rigid range, then the ZPA and the acceleration is combined using the SRSS method. If the directional value is above the ZPA, i.e.. in the flexible range. then it is assumed that the ZPA is already included. This is done in three directions and the resultant is arrived at using the SRSS of the three values. In the packages being reviewed by GA three different nethods of determining valve accelerations were used, these were described in PFR-F043. None of these were as described above. Bechtel responded that engineering judgment was used and that as none of the values in these packages appeared to exhibit critical accelerations, the engineers chose to absolutely add ZPAs or neglect them totally whichever the case may be. Bechtel has agreed to check back on past calculations on the SONGS 2 6 3 project to see if the method described above was ever used for valve accelerations. I
~
g yf ff -PE2-RV/ l t INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE {- s GA-1076 On careful inspection of Section 3.7B of the FSAR, it can be interpreted I that the above nethod of combining ZPAs is covered in that section although there is no direct reference to ZPA in that section. As a result of using the above described method, PFR-F041 would be approximately 70% of allowable for the two valves in question. ; The question of incorrectly numbered node points in the piping packages was also addressed. Bechtel representative Bob Heman walked us through the procedure Bechtel uses with respect to field changes of supports etc. and was : able to as ure us that although node points are changed without changing the j design documents, i.e., support packages and IS0s, etc. they are in control in I that they use location coordinates and support tag numbers to identify a specific oupport and not the node point numbers. When asked why the node point ' numbers are not changed on the design documents, the response was that it would ; be a costly process to change the documents by means of DCNs. ! cc: CA Attendees R. C. Dahlberg l C. H. Charman . l . ; O . i 9 1
?
G $ l e de
-,. . . . - , - , = - _ , . . - - _ - _
2408 PFR NO. m2
! POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION l l A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Specification Change Notice (SC'!) #64 (5/26/81)
REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: Bechtel - Project Internal Procedures Ibnual, Section 11, Rev. 14,
., 10-15-80, paragraph 11.,8.2.2.
BASIC REQUIREMENT: The Quality Assurance Engineer will sign Class I and Class II SCNs prior to release for distribution. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: The evidence indicates that SCN #64 (5/26/81) was distributed for use without having been approved or disapproved by the QAE. The required QAE signature was missing from the SCN form. O PREPARED BY: '- -
" ~
DATE: I ~ '# ' b REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER CbEMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
~sk AGREE FF IS VALID E Y <- !'l DATE !# #
1 t/O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O O!SAGREE BY b DATE m y Review 0r OR Gmat Design 0nCs. CovenTS ,Evd-(/ 4M DATe l /A
1 PAGE2 flo y PER NO.F042 ,l REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENTS
. Approval by the QAE was obtained at the time the potential finding was dis- )
covered. The lack of signature was of no significance because SCN-64 was never issued into the system for use and it was deleted in its entirety by SCN No. M-73. E ' (Y' O AGREE PF IS VALID C DISAGREE BY: 4 % DATE: 8 !'Yh D. RECO.'."'EP.D ATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: Ji$ ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VALIDITY: ( VALID 0 INVALID 10 CF9 21- --
--O '20T ^FFLICABLE -O-APPttCASLC AfK 3/3}'*- -10 C?e 5155(@ O '!CT *L!C.* BLE G AFFliCABLE CLASSIFICATION: R OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION:
CLASS!FICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING
- COMMENT ON "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION ps D me & JL,;,~- e sc" ~
s% 0 seu ,J e J
+_ 24 n
E. TFT PROJECT MANAGER
% ACCEPT O REJECT AL-n, 0 ,T , 4Apu
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408 PFR NO. F042 pp Specification Change Notice (SCN) #64, 5/26/81
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET?
N/A
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS OURING AN SSE ?
N/A
- 3. COULD THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM OURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Not likely, but it can happen. l l 6. OTHER COMMENTS: The evidence indicates a procedural violation rather than a system breakdown. Impact assessment - nil. PREPARED BY: _- DATE: N - El - COMMENTS: c.o s' l l BY: i DATE:
. - = :
.f ppe ene - fc>n !
e p/en SCN 1R Ar.5f'.lil At FOR SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 & 3 PURCH ASE SPECS. SCh kO.
- 3CN DATE -
SPEC. OR t/M NO. O
- REY ADDENDUM k0.0F ATTACHED SCN COPIES ,
l TO: SUPPLIER: M V U .
/O n 0D , M dib 90 Vo A Offl :. -r . O .% \ i FROM: SPEC. CO NTR O L. EXT. O PROJECT ADYlhtSTRATION, k ORWA L K, BL OC. 45
- ~ b FILE NO. O ~~
DATE !> I
'/ { '
COPIES TO: - o SECHTEL PROCUREMENT X R. ANDERSON (2)
- 1CE
, EDMC X R. PRESTON
- INSPECTION D
o BECHTEL ECS
- SPEC. CONTROL i
o OECHTEL RECORD X H. PITTMAP RETENTION I
. PROJECT FILES l '
1 .
- PROJECT QU ALITY E hCIhEERihC ] C.ulTCHHART
- D
.Q l
- a j GU6,~'/lfN ~fo +{ % l
# 3/ >/P1--
- l I D SAN ONOFCC NUCLE AR GENER ATING ST ATION mE w. on
""'C''*""O* a coE wousa wo. SC""0-UNITS 2 & 3 SPECIFICATION CHANGE NOTICE q p (SCN) 3o13 -405-6 Acd Z . &Y OCl ETG'r) OY 3G N b , , , , _ ,,,,, ,,,, , ,, ;
DATE: 5~~ ~ k[ BY: * *O CH ANGE nEQUESTED SY: CLIENT h ENGIN EERING FIELD SUPPLIER /CONTR ACTOR nEAScN rCk CnANGE: T r> e v r's e. w ak.< 'iN l 1* e etti tere e e$s b, a t ccin n Yo.h cnu e m w e b~ l o ue, lu'Oc ki _ ro koe - ' Iin e L, a k
~r /
e n oiy_e a m - T. otsCRIPTION OF CH ANGE* A2d 4 Sp e c ' G 'd< c.~,. 50 2 3 -dos-4 6 4 //ew,; ,' Q
- 4. 10 4 _mdas 4.10. 4.1 SeaI <nNas
~ NCYum SY m).,,_ seaI <, s a .u. 'fc h ~
Ay e4 f b 5 e-lM4,z.J,hd'i'C s e ep? 4Ld +L _ --cfe, tim i Ts 4-a erf to n s c.K s4 n t.
> 4. r o. 4. 2 o ; I a. ~,,
m d.,,. h ,. .;1, ~ a : I e,L s a ,es. +- he ~ JA~A , hL s q 1 e < ., a .-f 9s-r ~L :,- - ~n.q. A MAdQt At A ~+m .J " +
- s. 2. z sL;yJ seL Lie f m.%.
a,_ 3 s y l e.I m q,c 3,y ova) n,_ 4 J. n hw., eQ oil enqs
*USE SUPPLEMENT SHEET Ir NECESS a RY OR ATT ACH COPY Or %. VISED S*ECIFIC ATION PAGES.
- MA T E RI AL PROCU R E M EN T R EbPO NSIBILITY AFFECTED SUPPL,taf PURCH ASE OR DERS stCMY rb OF FICC Co pet m A CTO R SECMTELFIELO PeO N E R E Q UIR C D g pCHTE L ENGINEE RING ] APPROVED DIS APPROV ED h {k A
- I* N V Von t. '-n i.'/ A l r> Ow p 5 t pL a w etOm DATE g *F E C T E D G mou* sept ev e s c e. g ; i s F mg oving o; QATL
. W k h
- 2.4*f 0 wj 2 N !!$-
p es c a t C T g % (. 3 % s t m DATE / C.
- L . G t / Delt i ARKS ADDete a p, PROJEC T P ROCUREM ENT } COST T R E N C E N C.IN E E R l Fr**Sttl'OCit J 78 ,
,f. yifor-(4:n-F&l-. l j
- = e y'=/et !l
$
- e. i f. i.. '. .~u.'.. ; i A. .
. FOR SAN ON0FRE UNITS 2 & 3
' PURCH ASE SPE CS. l
~ ~
O SCk NO.
- 3CE DATE SPE C. O R B/M NO. O "
REY ADDENDUM E0.0F ATTACHED SCN COPIES ! , TO: SUPPLIER:
@ /A!A_- %k%
on, y fu_, " ' oLA .e2 - AJ '/ /3i/O
.0L .- W Gl I
//
FROM. SPE C. CO NT R O L, OMd U PROJECT ACvintSTR ATION. NO RW AL K. B L OG. 45 h.XT. - - ILE NO._ DATE COPIES 70: o BECHTEL PROCUREMENT X R. AkDE RSON Cl * $0E EDWC x k. PRESTON th5PECTION D o BECHTf L ECS
- SPEC. CONTROL o BECHTEL RECORD x H. PITTM AN t UENTION
- PRDftCT FILES o PROJECT QU ALITY E ntthE ERihC
] C. MITCHMART -
*e .
o g t/s*A' f S '"h / $ ge gyw : SAN ONOF AC NUCLE AR GCNCR ATING ST ATION pgy, UNITS 2 & 3 s.. co.s c ..so M NO. .OD.M.o. WM No SCMNO SPECIFICATION CHANGE NOTICE 4 l (sCn) go2,-4cs-s pg,j, z H-73 JOs NO. 10079 'P A G E / Or [ DATE: h 8 / sv 777 u r_.t f a CH ANGE REQU JTED sVI CLIENT FIELD SUPPLIE R/CONTR ACTOR Q ENGINEERING RECON F 'R CH ANGE: fd # et/1 C p _ ma e g f tt & o t_t 1 yf f _ M e n OCCr*Mo a dL C n d 1 R_ e n rb r_ a er a a eYica r e s ett m S t ruL h ti' n te V t* m m e
/
DESCRIPTION CF CH ANGE* i A is sca is15 claIch.,i.,;+s ent,Aty scN Ha. M -4A. l USE SUPPLEMENT SMEET f F NECESS ARY OR ATT ACH COPY OF REVf 5ED EPECIFIC ATION PAGES. MA T E RI A L PR OC U R E M E N T R ESPO N51De L8 T Y AFFECTED j
, PURCH ASE ORDERS I a.cNT.L o rrice O co,N, ..cro.
i s. C NT.6 Ft.LD NON. . . Q u t. . D h %' 079/
=
l QEC L ENGINCERING
/ [IPPROVED O o's**raovco' ft. % w S ".,oM
.g.....
2{sl81 o... ..,c,..............:,,l....m-.., S.. _ / s9.2 % J W e _ s/s.... A M O=t~', 1AAN 1
/ A Q KS f
\ '
A
= ';,'g, g .,
, o P,,0;Ec 1 P.Oc u. - C ~T oea ,1. E N D E N G , ~ t E .,
......, s . ......,
I 2JIS - Q 3 I I
*
- 2
- p/o1--# 3/2Pf/ -sl.-
f&- o+'z-1 ADDENDUM NO. 3
)
- QUALITY CLASS II SPECIFICATION FOR AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMPS AND DRIVERS ,
1 FOR THE l SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 & 3 SAN,ONOFRE, CALIFORNIA
. SPECIFICATION NUMBER 5023-405-6 SCE NUMBER 4079 SEPTEMBER 11, 1981 JOB 10079 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 0"0
.lri
... )
) Bechtel Power Corporation $ ENGINEERS - CONSTRUCTCRC saw sae .: xo tes enc ars i34S-90/e
y gg -/'fA'-f o'/ ' ge- y>/' 2- /. . CERTIFICATION
. OF SPECIFICATION 5023-405-6, ADDENDUM NUMBERS 1, 2 AND 3 QUALITY CLASS II AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMPS AND ORIVERS FOR SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 & 3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY
~
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION ENGINEERS-CONSTRUCTORS NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90650 I, //, li/ 6 ,t t n e v.o certify that this Design Specification as amenced by Accencua Numcers 1, 2 and 3 covers the requirements as prescribed' by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 1974 Edition with Addenda through Winter 1974, Subsection NA-3250. flR ' JY.s. [**,..) .bi Y ti in r; Signature Date Stamp :{h ' - j
, . f gitting3g '\,j i(* ' No.1110 ?, ,
'f MECNMC4 f4 'J' 4 r CN7 C
ii l l
=r , '
Mcf - fff' ~f'W~~ . m s/1/< 2 - ADDENDUM No. 3
. Septe=ber 11, 1981 (Incorporates SCN No. M-6'., dated May 26, 1981; SCN No. M-68, dated June 20, 1981; SCN No. M-73, dated August 5, 1981.)
Please refer to Bechtel Power Corporation Specification No. S023-405-6 for Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps and Drivers, dated October 28, 1974; Addendum No. 1, dated January 11, 1979 and Addendum No. 2, dated September 11, 1980; and incorporate t!.e following changes as part of the specification:
- 1. Page 4-5, Paragraph 4.8, add to Sabparagraph 4.8.1.1 as follows:
4.8.1.1 ..., 1974 Edition with Addenda through Winter 1974.
- 2. Page 4-19, Paragraph 4.10, add Subparagraph 4.10.4 as follows; 4.10.4 Motors .
4.10.4.1 (Deleted per SCN No. M-73) 4.10.4.2 (Deleted per SCN No. M-73) 4.10.4.3 Motor Bearings -) Motor sleeve type bearings are to be manufactured to the Supplier's. standards and dimensions. The bearing caterial is to be gray cast iron per ASTM A 48, Class 35. 4.10.4.4 Motor Shaft The motor shaft shall be electroli::ed on the journal and thrust bearing surfc.ces in accordance with Federal Specification QQ-C-320, Class 2. Plating thickness is to be per the Processor's standards. 1 i
PFR NO. 2408-PFR-F043 ; POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISlotj ^ SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION i C I l l A. PREPARATION BY G A INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Safety Injection System Piping Stress Analysis ?ackages PSG-56, 57, 82, 117 and 245 REGulREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: N/A BASIC REQUIREMENT: When calculating valve effective accelerations (G's), the methods used should be in accordance with established design procedures. DESCRIPTION 0F POTENTIAL FINDING: In the 6 piping stress packages referenced above, 3 different methods were used to arrive at the valve effective accelerations (g-loading). Packages 56 and 78 added ZPAs to components then SRSS for resultant. Packages 57, 82 and 245 did not add ZPAs to the components. Package 117 added the ZPAs to the components but not the resultant. There appears to be no established design procedure for calculating valve ef fective "celerations. l I Q9 N. I. Ma La b
' (h PREPARED BY: DATE: NEU REJECTl0N OF GA TASK LEADER C0f.1MENTS BY: DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: S. REVIE'.',' BY G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS
/ AGREE FF IS VA LIO BY .t MV DATE 5/w/a -
O REGUEST 9E REVIE'.7 BY / / DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIE'.V 0F GR!GINAL DESIGri ORGb. COMMENTS SY: DATE: m
PAGE 2 PFR NO.2408-PFR-F043 ,_ R EVISIO N A _ C. REVIEW BY 0RIGit!AL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMEf1TS ; O I i l O AGREE PF IS VALID D DISAGREE i BY: OATE: t D. RECOMME!!DATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: )!lI ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0ITY: RI VAL 10 O INVALIO CLASSIFICATION: 5 OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION:
~
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTifJG IN " FINDING" COMMENT CN "0SSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION 8Ay f,/> & & S ? J A'/05 ?B .s k/4,aWAh y A a s & eL& Aa PFR + "O'"& M A.f-4+ (nA M g* w & " " & A a w a a g x M s L n J A Ql
- m. ~, M @ .
BY: ' OATE: $/25/&2 f.) ' E. G A PROJECT '.*ANAG ER l
% ACCEPT O REJECT i
O CY: / z LM**'N ' OATE: $b!
' 4"*FN-F'F.,
pFRNO. POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT R EVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION I l A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED !TEMS: Safety Injection System Piping Stress Analysis Packages PSG-56, 57, 78, 82, 117, & 245 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: None i BASIC REQUIREMENT: When calculating valve effective accelerations (G's) the method used should be consistant throughout the piping stress packages. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: In the 6 piping stress packages referenced above, 3 different methods were used to arrive at the Valve Effective Accelerations (G's). Packages 56 and 78 added ZPAs to components then SRSS for resultant. Packages 57, 82 and 245 did not add ZPAs to the components. Package 117 added the ZPAs to the components but not the resultant. This is inconsistant. PREPARED BY: Y N. I. Marsh b DATE: 2-8-82 , REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: I B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS f/Y f CDl'$ch C GCCDGn $b 1 fbf 25I l. C , titic;/ /$g. be. s/ } 7$7E ardi$cr4 b ,n ,
/I t Cd 'Cu le -
Ntf P ' C b lV. CCCL/st;- y{$j. fG f ) i !!a- 1 ii fit V.- t t") r~ h ! i -c c/c:.r~r qb&, 1 f 1 lq }
//
O' AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY f' LfL e DATE
,/
/
c 'b ,
/ / /
O REQUEST RE RE'/IEW BY DATE O OlSAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: __ DATE: I
' ' - 'PAGE 2 2408 PER NO. m41 ,
REVISION r C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENTS See attached sheet. . O AGREE PF 15 VAUD However, the icipact is insignificant. O DISAGREE , 68 BY: a- DATE: 1
- 0. RECON'.'.'ENDATION SY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFlNITIUN ADEGUACY: O ADEQUATE 5lllNADEQUATE VAllulTY: O VAllD D INVAllD 10 CFR 21: O NOT APPLICABLE O APPLICAB'.E 10 CRF 50.55(c): O NOT APPLICABLE O APPLICABLE "LASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUTiiFICAT!ON: -
CLASS!FICAT10N CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN ** FINDING" CORME NT OF~0 ES ER vidtetF' Ci>SS?RCAT!O N- / JN k'= S J m- Q , & ,) a;4 6wts) 24 c~:Jta ab flJd4 %LLjnJ' o ~a k % 4 ,a n " a u M . D_ k ~ 4 m A b * & A M '/& A f~" % fdd A e.*A.4/ "
' ^ * " " ' '
P&".ia m L 7;& & ht ll f+ AbGA.t J J 4 4 jbPPR4gU $
- BY: b n OATE: G //o/f 2 E. TFT PROJECT MANAGER O ACCEPT O REJECT-e
. O a i I [, ,\
r l B Y.*. DATE: z
Attt.chment to 2408-PFR-F043 f'*\ 1. The Correct Procedure for Calculating G-Loads on Valves is as follows: l If the effective G-load, in any direction, from the computer analysis is less than the zero period acceleration (ZPA) in the same direction then the ZPA is combined with the effective G-load by the SRSS method. If the effective G-load is greater tha:. the ZPA then the ZPA need not be com-bined with the effective G-load. The G-loads .in the X, Y and Z directions are combined using the SRSS method to obtain the resultant G-load.
- 2. Packages 56 and 78 The design engineer used his judgement when combining the ZPA's in each direction absolutely with the effective G-loads from ME-101. This is a simpler method of combining G-loads and results in conservative values when compared with combining ZPA and effective G-loads from ME-101 using the SRSS method.
3 Packages 57, 82, 245 The effective G-loads from ME-101, in most cases were very low and were below the ZPA values. Based on engineering judgement which considered the ZPA values, it was apparent to the engineering that the values met the G-load requirements. A written combination of effective G-load and ZPA was not necessary to determine valve G-load acceptability. A i i N_/ 4. Package 117 Effective G-loads from ME-101 were listed and combined by SRSS to obtain the resultant acceleration on the standard sheet. Later the ZPA's were added to the components. After the ZPA addition, using the conservative, absolute sum, method, it can be seen that the G-load in any direction is less than 1.0 g. The valve meets the G-load requirement, using engineer-ing judgement, without continuing the calculations for the resultant G-load. In general a!! active valves with extended topworks are designed to be rigid - fundamental natural frequency of approximately 33 Hz. If the valve is placed in a flexible portion of the piping system it may experience G-levels higher than ZPA. In this case ZPA valves need not be considered since a dynamic anal-ysis will produce higher G-levels than ZPA. If the valve is placed in a rigid portion of the piping system the dynamic computer analysis may not pick up the ZPA effect. In this case the valve G-loads from the dynamic analysis will be less than the ZPA and therefore the ZPA must be combined with the effective G-loads by SRSS method. v)
lMPACT ASSESSMENT l 2408-PFRF043 ( PFR NO. A { 21 t AFFECTEDITEM:3" "'Y I"l*"'
" Y*' " 'E "" # ** " Y* * " ** ' ' ' '
l 117 and 245 l l 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ? No. n ;1c d -- r- -
- ..o . :c c r i nd s26 " L [g
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS OURING AN SSE ?
No
- 3. COULD THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
I do not know
- 4. COULD THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
I do not know E. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ? V f Yes. On the Bechtel SONGS project there is no documented procedure for piping analysis
- 6. OTHER COMMENTS: Analytical inconsistancy can lead to undetected errors. The seven l I initial piping packages reviewed used three different methods of handling ZPAs in valve accelerations,
none of which proved to be Bechtel's " Correct Procedure" as attached to thig PFR. 'l- , . a.
;tificatic t! :t 2 c h t c l ' - " ' ' :t " :cdu re" i;
.: c e p t a b } c ),.-t/
stt_q sr ,1.; .1, t < ,, 7
,y i ,. s ,cc g r i,, s_
,cc._,1gr2ri m g gg pg ,f.g g g,y.p y, f ,'j -
8 4 C ud Mt.d CM de $D h pofesdkl of exceed ,
$2bl% NN S KtVn.
n A fd,hLhv&& 3/, g, ~^
/ - t -,.
/.
A je r c oteuca w m
/ & .g u u PREPARED BY:
N. I. Marsh
/ DATE:
/ /
U I c f 4, e &O .: k l COMMENTS:
/Md. [O7$ /4-/)d Cf AflYff tin'.'c 4
g,, A Agnnd - Y N) r/s c
< i t';f BY: -
DATE: Y "
/ / / '
2y641 -PFA -f0'/]
. y C !51 Y h l',
,cp INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE 3 l- '
, a *- --
(V ) GA-1076 . r , I, ' ' % 90%i i E U I. 4
- pc?- *
..u. L/'..
. . . -l l l.? ~.. ~ #
- y. ........----- IN REPLY FROM: N. I. Marsh /hg . -
REFER TO: TO: F. S. Ople Jr. DATE: 2/16/82
SUBJECT:
PFRs F041 and F043 A meeting was held at 0.8:00 on 2/13/82 with representatives of the Bechtel pipe stress group and J. J. Adrian from SCE. The attendees were: S. H. Freid - EPC A. R. Veca - GA* Salah Mohamed - EPC J. Stanley - GA Y. T. Lin - EPC P. Koefoed - GA R. Herman - BPC N. I. Marsh - GA J. J. Adrian - SCE A. A. Schwartz - GA* ; F. S. Ople. Jr. - GA* G. L. Wessman - GA* t/ I. T. Almajan - GA*
<g
/
D) *PART-TIME The The disposition of the subject PFRs was the primary purpose of the meeting. meeting started with an in-depth explanation from the Ecchtel representatives on how they handle ZPA in the valve effective acceleration calculations. BPC's method is as fo11cus: They take the directional accelerations frem ME.101 output for a given ' valve and if the indivdiual values fall below the ZPA value, i.e., comes in the rigid rance, then the ZPA and the acceleration is ccabined using the SRSS method. If the directional value is above the ZPA, i.e.. in the ficxible range, then it is assumed that the ZPA is already included. This is done in i three directions and the resultant is arrived at using the SRSS of the three values. In the packages being reviewed by GA three different methods of determining i valve accelerations were used, these were described in PFR-F043. Neue of thecc were as described above. Bechtel responded that engineering judg=ent pas used and that as none of the values in these packages appeared to exhibit critical accelerations. the engineers chose to absolutely add ZPAs or neglect them totally whichever the case may be. e_ Bechtel has agreed to check back on past calculations on the S0!CS 2 4 3
)
v. project to see if the method ' described above was ever used for valve accelerations. 1
} . L '/4/ -ffk' - fo Y) INTERNAL CORRESPO!;DE!!CE ( CA-1076 On careful inspection of Section 3.7B of the FSAR. it can be interpreted that the above method of combining ZPAs is covered in that section although there is no direct reference to ZPA in that section. As a result of using the above described method. PFR-F041 would be approximately 70*4 of allowable for the two valves in question. The question of incorrectly nucbered node points in the piping packages was also addressed. Bechtel representative Eob Hermat. walked us through the procedure Bechtel uses with respect to field changes of supports etc. and was able to assure us that although node points are changed without changing the design documents, i.e., support packages and IS0s, etc. they are in control in that they use location coordinates and support tag numbers to identify a specific support and not the node point numbers. When asked why the node point numbers are not changed on the design documents, the response was that it would be a costly process to change the documents by means of DCI:s. cc: CA Attendees R. C. Dahlberg C. H. Charman 4 2
L W9-en #9'3 [i - x .< / l I
- 5#7 l'##
l CALCULATION CHEET CALC. NO S DATE 3 I2' S2 CHECKED M*I* DATE b~ ' O ( )IGNATURE PROJECT M AN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3 JOB NO. SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 1 2 3 Valve 'g' Levels
- The data in this table is taken from the seismic inertia analysis s referenced in the summary of results in this calculation.
6 7 s Data Point (s) Effective Accelerations (G's) - OBE 8 Representing to Valve (s) Global X Global Y Global Z Resultant
" 210 1.084 .552 -71Z 1 410 '
'2
-215 1.o 82 .46G .45i I.262
'3 220 1. 10 3 I 474 586 1.33 5
(') vis 22s 1.o82 l -294 I (
.Ez7 t.144 16 25o l 0.931 I O 5 721 0 511 1 252 .
18 255 0 701 0 5c6 c. 5 11 1 ooS a 26o o.9 29 o.512 0 652- 1.249 - 2 26s o.468 o 4 19 c . 512. 0 811 21 22 23 24 2s 26 21 2e {
- Denotes C.E. supplied valve 29 3o The above effective accelerations comply with the " Criteria for Seismic Qualification of Seismic Class 1 Equipment" as stated in Appendix 4F or
[~'N if valve is supplied by C.E. the effective accelerations comply with the kj32 criteria for Seismic Class 1 valves as established by C.E. 34 35 36 N O O 7b ~ Z O O b E. Y W I f f319(PTIC If9tRTM RUN.
L*/C0-ffE~fd'/3 f i : . :.1/ f - ,, l N' / CALCULATION CHEET .j O' CGNATURE
- DATE CHEC DATE 'fl'b A
,,MWE CT SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3 JOB NO.
( SUEJECT d10 C O /L C#LLD W TA A 755 SHEET [7 Or 27 SHEETS To LH 'T 30 - c14LLO W T*K H bt. ! 1 2 3 Valve 'g' Levels
- The data in this table is taken from the seismic inertia analysis s referenced in the summary of results in this ec1:ulation.
s 7 s Data Point (s) Ef f ective Accelerations (G's) - OBE D Representing s2 Valve (s) Global X Global Y Global Z Resultant # Li r , ~ J, n - j
'* 2to l.0n ,b4L .MG l.ND\ W:
,o1i 1012 \ \'
21s t.or7 . I 3+
/.o65-I i13 21o I
/.05f .o7; .oT7 (C " 21 5 /.0/6 .441 .073 1.8%I l -
g
" 250 l .f40 .jzo l ,ott .2% l \ '%
\-
" LSS .sc7 0% l .o n .W7% \
" 2.9 ,No . ort l .ost .H 1 I \n 20 1(,5 ,43I ,o54 l .oI2. .43s I. 1 l' at l 22 U A 22 < a. J (' r T ' d.c' 2s M
27 l l re l {
- Denotes C.E. supplied valve to 3o The above effective accelerations comply with the " Criteria for Seismic Qualification of Seismic Class 1 Equipment" as stated in Appendix 4F or I s
" if valve is supplied by C.E. the effective accelerations comply with the criteria for Seismic Class 1 valves as established by C.E.
iC 'v 2 M Seismc INERT A Rua NB057 C 77
= ff$f-974 /d
ayor w m n n m Bechte! Power Corporation q - ' - * , Y, Engineers - Constructors
- 9. L. 'l! c.st', M)' 12400 East imcenal Hirihway ,.g Norwa:k. Cahforn.a 90650 p e ab6*
{f;, WAIL ACC54 ;'s P o Bo# GAM TF Au%AL AP.r.Er LCS ANGElf 5 cat ICANIA 'XOfo TELEPHOr4E (213) er>4 ton t,C..........~.---
, t. .. .. ---
March 16, 1982
%.i~ .
Log BX-7079 Mr. George Wessman Director of Torrey Pines Technology Post Office Box 81608 San Diego, California 92138
Subject:
Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3 Bechtel Job 10079 TPT Independent Review of SONGS 2 & 3 Seismic Design File: S023-722-G
Enclosures:
(1) Valve 'G' Levels Sheet for 50 Modes (2) Seismic Computer Ouput for 50 Modes v (3) valve 'G' Levels Sheet for 15 Modes (4) Scismic Computer cuput for 15 Modes (5) Isometric 1513-336-1 (6) Iso =etric 1513-336-2
Dear Mr. Wessman:
This letter is sent in response to the telephone conversation between S. ".cha= d of Bechtel and N. Ibrsh of TPT concerning the effects of ZPA on valve G-loads. Euclosures (1) through (4) are provided to confirm Bechtel's position that when a valve experiences C-levels higher than ZPA in a certain direction, ZPA need no longer be considered in that direction since its effects are enveloped in the higher C-levels. Enclosure (3) presents C-loads for two valves. C-loads in the X direction only are higher than ZPA. Excerpts from the seismic computer analysis from which these G-loads were obtained are included in Enclosure (4). Note that this seis-mic computer analysis was made for 15 codes and a cutof f frequency n# M". ~ This run was not long enough to develop the 7.PA valves for the Y and Z direc-tions since the valves and piping systems were very rigidly supported in thace directions. t Enclosure (1) presents C-loads on the same valves obtained from a computer run I made for g and a cutoff frequency of W "- - Enclosure (2). '"his com-l V puter analysis was made for a large number of modes in order to insure the . development of G-levels due to ZPA in all directions, t t e
et
! ft 4'c& ~ Pf2 - Fog'3 Bechtel Power Corporation Torrey Pines Technology Mr. George Wess: nan, Director March 16, 1932 Page Two Log BX-7079 i
Note that the only significant change in C-levels occurs in the Y and Z direc-tions. The increase in the X direction is negligible. Very truly yours, BECIITEL PO'JER CORPORATION kt I F. B. Marsh Project Engineer los Angeles Power Division DLC:jv cc: Mr. J. J. Adrian, SCE w/o cncl. l O
-.mtw --e --
-aa., ,mu'e s *-ag%<
2408 PFR NO. F044
~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Bechtel calculations for containment shell seismic analysis, F.H. Bldg. steel liner plate (spent fuel pool), control room prefilter, ESF Switchgear room coolin REQUIREhcoils$FER ENT R ENCE DOCUMENTS: battery rooms 2 & 3 exhaus t fans. PIPM Section 14.4.3 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
"The first page or pages of the technical portion of the calculation must include a listing of design criteria, design assumptions, applicable codes & standards, and reference data. This page should also have a summary of the sources of major equations used in the calculations." PIPM page 14-5, Rev. 10, 3/9/81.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: The calculations for the affected items do not meet the basic requirement in that one or more of the required items is either missing from the calculation or is scattered throughout the text. See the attached list for specific deficiencies on each calculation. l l btn W M M - A Fo 3faad fb M. W Anw f ,BSP
- cou%, mg - M WN&Mk - .,& M 8 V^2t$ & .
PREPARED BY: e # DATE: 8F t/ V REJECTION OF G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: NM v v DATE:IEM O N F B. REVIEW SY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS I 1
.n BY -/'
~
Jhl AGREE PF IS VALlO DATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY O DATE b W REVIEW GF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: O)~ DATE:
PAGE 2 2409FR NO. F064 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS -l l See attached sheet. ~ O AGREE PF IS VAL 10 DC DISAGREE BY: m# DATE: ,4,!3Nb
- 0. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: % ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: E VAll0 O INVALIO i CLASSIFICATION: G OSSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION:
CLA331FICATiGN CRiTER10N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0BSE.9 VAT 10N" CLASS!FICATION . PW M ,a- " 4 & J y M &f' & - l l l BY: ' ' ' DATE: 0!b v l E. G A PROJECT MANAGER gACCEPT O REJECT N
l'F l' - F U'?4 - , .
. i . e, ,
Ge2 eci e, ' Ps?'ensk./ fi5,s'i - dsJea /a ti:ma w,v-A s sscniD n in isph e 80 a'e-sifn e rjfer y a .53 a ny> h?nia, tefe icrees , app /i c. sWes coa'es and ahwa'a ra(s , 3s a ra cs c '," inagor- e</aajians s'y
~~
/ N G. Z7EM CilL C. /VO. DE/=/Clerc>' ABSEAr/ ffE5iCb ~
/Va. A/AM & /HISPhlenb PFR-
/ Cons. B/sy' . Seisin L Ana&sie c-2s7-i.03na i wsi1n cnp'nas /1 1 fo 3 +
- r. ASS tonf'^bsnS /H
/3e {ere yces $1 Cedes f SfaWan/s A E 7ua tron souoces A _ . .
C-257-/.of, Pe o C rif eria' A /=,3 3 6
,fosuwptoon6 M C sdes f 67'47tlardb /$/)
C- 2s7- 5.01. of C riierin A -,- Coc/<5 6 S 7n' raa'in's /f Me f~erenees is1 8 qua1 ion osu ees ty1
~ ~ ~
/>3 f //.BMg - Spent -fuel pes / &w 9-/ 07 Csa'es 1Mawais's A 6-fee / /i ne r ,
fyuation ssaws A Re ferences ivi - Sea t/nct Desiy> cr,ferie h1 m pics Asau >>p frans /y)-sax 8e ed
/W Cerm/ seem preGffer in-73 -43,/9by. /
/33 ESF Sov.Vc Ap,- /in 6sley dib ,;; 73 9, Rey, , Ors d S7'anta' ids k
/3 Y Ba //ery Rsen Ednust fin .Mity M~73-43
/35 "
g,, ., 3
-~ - ----. - - -
_ _ _ _ _~ .. _ y h )Prd, om'
" " I* O"l
- ibflderd int /uacb S Cal-ftr.f Or buried H l
g. 4' Bechtel R2sponsa to 2408-PFR-F044 e, Package 132, 133, 134, 135
- 1. Reference Calculation No:
M-73-43, Rev. 1 ------Control Room Prefilter M-73-52, Rev. 1 ESF Switchgear Room Cooling Coils M-73-63 Battery Room Exhaust Fan Unit 2 & 3
...are equipment sizing cale's. Codes and standards required for the design, fabrication, installation and testing of the equipments are as listed in Spec. No. S023-410-6, Section 44. The only codes and standards required in the calculations are those necessary for the completion of the calculations themselves. None were required for the above calculations.
PFR-F044 (Fuel Handling Bldg., Spent Fuel Pool Steel Liner)
- 2. It is true that the calculation does not follow the specified format. How-ever, this is not a critical requirement since all the required sources of information can be traced by the notation provided in the text of calcula-tions. The design assumptions,are given in a narrative form in the text of the calculations. Codes and standards such as ASTM, AISC, ACI are refer-enced in sufficient detail to enable the structural engineer to verify the referenced material. Similarly, referenced books, calculations, etc., equa-tions used, design criteria and Bechtel Design Guide C-2.6 are stated in the text of the calculations.
- 3. F034 and F036 have previously been responded to.
2pP" l l l 9
IMPACT ASSESSMENT Spent fuel Pool steel liner AFFECTEDITEM:
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
N/A
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THATTHE ITEM MIGHT FAIL OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ?
N/'A
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM OURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Possibly
/^\
( j 6. OTHER COMMENTS: See Attachment B by the CAC originator. The missing or implied information can be obtained from the calculation texts and other documents. Therefore, the inpact on the seismic review of these departures from Bechtel procedures is negligible.
$&Y U W opz.3/fW.
PREPARED BY: DATE:
- bO8 Y COMMENTS:
l 6 Cy* - BY: DATE:
2408 PFR F044 [ ATTACE:$r B ORIGINATOR'S RESPONSE
- 1. I agree with the Bechtel response that no codes and etandards are required for calculations M-73-43, Rev. 1; M-73052, Rev. 1; and M-73-63 because the require-ment has been met by the codes and standards listed in the associated specifi-cation, Spec. No. S023-410-6, Section 44. Therefore, this part of PFR F044 is invalid since no co, des and standards are required for the calculations themselves.
- 2. I disagree with the Bechtel review C on pg. 2 and consider that part of PFR 044 concerning the spent fuel pool liner to be valid. The Bechtel reviewer stated in Item 2 of the Bechtel response that Calc. C-259-1.07 does not follow the specified format, thereby making this part of the PFR valid. There is no impact on the seismic design, however, because the necessary assumptions, codes and standards, design criteria and other references can be obtair.ed from the text of the calculation. -M 7 ,- g g J/gA p
- 3. The containment shell seismic analysis part of this generic PFR, F044, was processed in PFRs F034 and F036 prior to initiating PFR F044. This part is now closed, since PFRs F034 and F036 were found to be a valid observation having no impact on the seismic design.
sV
#aub 517sV
( k m L - y , m .e/ru l l l l O
.?V0I(- PPIL- Fotla 1 G:nsral Atomic Company /
. QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT Record 9f, Lonst Distance Telephone Call
\
1 Farty: Called I'*7 Date: March 8, 1982 Calling C Time: Completed 2:00 p.m. Started 1:45 p.m. Name Fred B. Marsh h-line 15 min. Company Bechtel , Location Whittier, Bldg l 47 Telephone No: A/C 213 No. 946-1811, Ext. 215 Discussion: PFR-F044, Part 2, Spent Fuel Pool Steel Liner Fred Marsh agreed with me that Part 2 o,f PFR-F044, concerning Calc. C-259-1.07, Spent Fuel Pool Liner, departed from the stated Bechtel
. .proced'ures regarding content format and is therefore a valid procedural deviation. ,
We both agree that the necessary information, i.e. , criteria, assumptions, references, and codes and standards, can be obtained from the narrative part of the text of the calculation and therefore there is no , impact on the se,ismic design.
- I r
I Record Made by K. J. Baylor Distribution: S. Bresnick W p. O 2408 Files N. f 96F j
. , - , , . , , ,, ,_ - - - .- - - . , - - - , - - , - - - - - . - - . . wn, , .,,,. .e.~~.
2408 F045 PFR NO. POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION N A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Pipe supports Calc. No. P450-1.44 and Calc. No. P450-1.50 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE 00CUMENTS: PIPM Volume I, para. 14.5.1 BASIC REQUIREMENT: Ce.lcs that require a Professional Engineer's stamp or that support nuclear Quality Class I or II design must be reviewed and approved by the Chief Engineer or his designee. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: SEE ATTACHMENT I ' N Ww I'F 2 Ck he $/S 'S We <M~frr b l* %
)
( m S sol ,e y r d o % VA l Id e i f P Ffl No ' W 14sd im w f M ^!O-
*5 e fg P O "L 3 b f Vo C PCfe c;)
P9EPARED BY: @ DATE: f REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS [h d. h Md ah
- N w ga ,- PFL Foz3 .
J& W' ^s ' fFL L h 4,b .0 t th, cm -& O jpx gt3 Tw PrL ,vL-lL k ma JL kM,* O AGREE PF IS VAll0 SY ^ - D'A TE'
~
d REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE Q OlSAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE: s
t l PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F045 __ REVISION -~ C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS l l l O AGREE PF IS VAll0 0 DISAGREE - BY: DATE: D. 3ECOMMENDATl0N BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: Jl5 ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: O VAll0 [S INVALIO CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING ' JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERl0N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSlFICATION q s &f PFA FD23 BY: DATE: #
/
/1 L/
E. GA PROJECT MANAGER M ACCEPT i O REJECT l BY; ' MMNb DATE:
- c
- l . :
'l ,,
, 2408 PFR NO. F045
_. ATTACHMENT I DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: This requirement was discontinued by letter dated 6/13/79 by the Chief Engineer, D. L. Kinnsch (copy of letter attached). The applicable paragraph in the PIPM was not revised to reflect this change but should have been in lieu of implementation per letter. Pipe Support Tag Items affected by Calculation No. P450-1.44 are: CA Item No. 24 Tag No. S2-SI-109-H-005 27 Tag No. S2-SI-067-H-002 23 Tag No. S2-SI-059-H-008 30 Tag No. S2-SI-033-H-002 & -008 32 Tag No. S2-SI-002-H-029
\,,,, 21 Tag No. S2-SI-043-H-020 29 Tag No. S2-SI-063-H-003 22 Tag No. S2-SI-059-H-009 31 Tag No. S2-SI-038-H-031 25 Tag No. S2-SI-002-H-020 26 Tag No. S2-SI-004-H-013 28 Tag No. S2-SI-031-H-003 NOTE: Similar Potential Finding was reported on PFR No. 2408 - F023 I i
f"'N
,\>
~
+ -
f p _/> e /~ o n - Bechtel Power Corporation 4c s/1a/w- . Interoffice Memorandum (m-. v. , R. L. Rogers Fae No. w keview of Pipe Stress Calculations o.se June 13, 1979 reom D.'L. Kinnsch of Plant Design
, c.s . J". E. Dempsey At LAPD D. J. Freeland J rt. 4192 N. W. Evans R. P. Ellis H. R. Cavankar J
e
- A sufficient nu ber of pipe stress calculations (stress sua: aries) have been reviewed by the Chief Hechanical EnFineers staff to assure that
[ the criteria and cethodelecy etilized er. the SO'; S 2 and 3 Frcjtet is acceptable. ' A.s a result, thes+. dccucent s will
- ne longer be revie.ced by the Chief except as outlined in the attached memo froc J. E. Da:psey dated February 23, 1979. Please revise any applicable Prcject procedures that e.ay be affected by this change.
\
\ /
s D') - 0 D. L. hinusch y JG9kgCdh uv
- .- u:..g
$0 ) 9 \ .
TC O,
- c.aG . y t
Y , Sti
.e .'/<T'd ,
'r 1: g t
'#!. c s' \
TW 9 < - if \
-r"e .g ,/,i.,g/
Y ids
/. p
..p-MI.O.s [- ;
{ l u t>-e s s e t e T A es o A m o) l e tt e fd
- . J l
i M6 2408 PFR NO. 0 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR 1 AFFECTED ITEMS: SCE Audit Reports BPCS-39-77 and BPCS-53-79, regarding U.S. Testing Co. ! QA procedures (concrete materials testing) REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: 1 SEE ATTACHMENT I BASIC REQUIREMENT: SEE ATTACHMENT I DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: SEE ATTACHMENT I l l &raca.t - SCE$. Cs+wu:wk - / LOm 7 AC Ab
'3/4'/f2.
Wf PREPARED BY: r' - 7 DATE: / [L REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
~
k AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY DATE'
~
l I C REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY OAT:
<f,'*
O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: * * " OATE: s
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F046 . . REVISION 0 - C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS l I See Attachment 3 AGREE PF IS VAll0 except as noted on the attachment O OlSAGREE \ _ BY:
//
DATE: SLD
- 0. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: 2 ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAllulTY: R VAL 10 O INVAll0, CLASSIFICATION: M OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTlFICATION:
CLASSIFIL.STION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION l I P A f J G.H m ,2A'sk & N O l/ST co a & wy Q y & Ch is
~
A A & M s,, A z- kw~J
, sd c w & sA Tb3r & FDCt/ k~0 8
&697a. @ M A d Q APFRs4 BY: - N DATE: 3!/ N
() ' E. G A PROJECT MANAGER D ACCEPT C REJECT BY:,' / 6M'M A'D DATE: /MPb
~ ) -'.
2408 PFR No. F046 i ATTACHMENT I REQUIREMET REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
- 1. 10CFR50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants"
- 2. ANSI /ASME N45.2.12 " Requirements for Auditing of Quality Assurance Programs for Nuclear Pow'er Plants"
- 3. SCE Quality Assurance Procedure N18.04, Revisions 9 (9/1/77) and 11 (3/1/78), " Quality Assurance Organization Audits - Scheduling, Planning, Performance, Documentation, and Followup" BASIC REQUIREMENT:
Reference Document 1, Criterien 18 (last sentence) states, " Followup action, including re-audit of deficient areas, shall be taken where indicated." Reference Document 2, Para. 4.3.2.7 states, " Specific attention should be given to corrective action on program deficiencies identified during previous audits." Para. 4.5.2 and 4.5.2.4 state, "When necessary, followup actions shall be performed by the audit team leader or management of the auditing organi-zation to: Confirm that the corrective action is accomplished as scheduled." Reference Document 3, Para. 4.6 states, "QA Organization personnel shall provide followup on corrective action items as necessary to assure timely implementation." Paras. 5.3.1 and 5.3.1.4 state, " Development of the audit plan shall be based on consideration of the following: Previous experience with quality assurance-related activities of the organi-zation being audited, including experience with the product or service, records of prequalification and pre-award survey, and existing audit reports, if available." DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FIEDIEC: Failure to confirm that corrective action was accomplished.
- 1. SCE Audit BPCS-39-77 included the following objective as part of the audit plan: " Verify that Bechtel QC is reviewing and/or approving UST Co. Quality Control Procedures. Also verify that Bechtel QA has reviewed and approved UST Co. Quality Assurance Program."
- 2. The audit report cited lack of evidence of ccupliance with BPC procedural requirements for review. Corrective Action Request (CAR) No. F-390 was written.
/ U -
e p yoJr- I)F17 - Fo@/Vu 4 % 3/' n C 3. SCE verified (on the CAR) implementation of corrective action, with a notation that the corrective action had begun (i.e., the required review of the concrete materials testing subcontractor's QA procedures by BPC was in process). No evidence was available to indicate verification of completion of the review.
- 4. SCE Audit BPCS-53-79, conducted two years af ter BPCS-39-77, included the same objective as the earlier audit, except that the last sentence states, "Also verify that Bechtel QA has reviewed and approved the current revision of UST Co. Quality Assurance Manual."
- 5. Again, in BPCS-53-79, SCE reported lack of evidence of compliance by the auditee and CAR No. F-864 was written.
- 6. SCE verified implementation of corrective action, with a notation referring to BPC letter of July 16, 1976, which confirmed that BPC had reviewed and approved a single revision to a single procedure.
- 7. It appears that neither corrective action response adequately resolved the findings. Th e first, CAR F-390, was evidently not followed-up to verify accomplishment of the stated corrective action and the later CAR, F-864, apparently did not consider the earlier stated corrective action. The response for CAR F-864 only partially addressed the requirement for review and did not satisfy the audit objective regarding review and approval of the current QA Manual.
O I l l 9
SONGS 2 & 3 Seismic Design Verification Response to 2408-PER-F046 (Block C) im Review of Description of Potential Findinst for Validitv
- 1. Valid Statenent.
- 2. Valid Statement.
- 3. Valid Statement.
- 4. Valid Statement.
- 5. Valid Statenent.
- 6. Valid Statement.
- 7. This statement is valid except for the last sentence. Audit report BPCS-53-79 did verify that the USTC QA Manual was reviewed and approved by Bechtel. CAR F-864 was written regarding the lack of review and approval of the USTC QC Procedures. The QC Procedures are separate from the QA Fbnual.
Revieu of the Significance of the Potential Finding The statements included in the description of potential finding do not indicate any significant impact on quality or control of material testing p activities by Bechtel or USTC. Included in Tables I and II is a complete s j history of the review and approval activities associated with the USTC QA Manuals and QC procedures. From review of these Tables, it is evident that the required reviews and approvals were provided. Responsibilities for review and approval were assigned to Bechtel from 11-17-75 to 6-18-81. SCE was responsible for the review and approval ftmetion prior to 11-17-75 and after 6-18-81. Table I - USIC QA Fbnual Reviews / Approvals Revision Date Approval Bv Approval Date 0 7-26-74 SCE QA 8-21-74 1 10-28-75 SCE QA 11-17-75 2 3-10-76 BPC QA 9-27-76 3 12-12-77 3-4-78 BPC QA 4 6-6-78 BPC QA 9-15-78 5 1-11-79 BPC QA 1-25-79 n t I 6 8-27-79 BPC QA 9-12-79 V 7 6-17-80 BPC QA 6-27-80 l
s 2408-PRF-F046 (Block C) Table II - USTC QC Procedures Reviews / Approvals , Procedure Revision Date Approval By Approval Date 2 0 9-16-74 SG QA 11-11-74 2 1 3-20-75 SCE QA 3-20-75
- 3 0 9-16-74 SG QA 11-11-74 3 1 3-20-75 SG QA 3-20-75 3 2 7-6-76 BPC QC 7-30-76 4 0 9-16-74 S& QA 11-11-74 4 1 7-3-79 BPC QC 8-21-79 5 0 9-16-74 SG QA 11-11-74 6 0 9-16-74 SG QA 1-15-75 Note: QCP # 1 is not applicable to SONGS 2/3. QCP #2 rev 2, QCP # 3 rev 3, QCP #4 rev 2 and QCP # 6 rev 1 all dated 2-80 were prepared by USIC and submitted to BPC (Norwalk Office) for approval. These QCP were never approved by BPC or used by USTC.
A review of ten consecutive CAR's prior to and ten following F-390 (F-380 through F-389; F-391 through F-400) was performed to determine whether F-390 might have represented a typical practice of SCE QA on verification of corrective action. The review reveals a generally consistent pattern of review and documentation of completion of the corrective action reported or proposed by the recipient of the CAR. l l
, 3 t- Sk Date f.M. Curran 9
1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408 F046 PFR NO. AFFECTEDITEM: SCE Audit Reports BPCS-39-77 and BPCS-53-79 l
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REOUCIN 3 DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT ;
DESIGN ALLGWABLES ARE EXCEEDED CR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET? ' Not applicable, i
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS OURING AN SSE ?
Not applicable.
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUCSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Not applicable.
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Conceivably. Any instance of failure to follow-up to assure implementation of effective corrective action could result in lack of resolution of conditions constituting or con-tributing to safety hazards.
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Yes, PFRs F038 and F054 cite other examples. I I c. OTHER COMMENTS:
/
[/,c' ' m, d . , l DATE: ~ / , -
' 'I- -
PREPARED BY: ' COMMENTS: I i.L- -
' 1
)\
BY: - DATE:
2408 PFRNO. F047
~~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION l SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Bechtel Site audit No. 934, conducted 10/20/77. REQUIRdMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
- 1) ANSI N45.2-1971
- 2) Bechtel QA Standard No. 5.1, Rev. 11, issued 10/17/77, " Project QA Audits".
- 3) 10CFR50.71(e), Revised 1/1/81, " Maintenance of Records, Making of Reports".
BASIC REQUIREMENT: SEE ATTACID!ENT I . SEE M7McHMENT H {3 0 8L U DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: SEE ATTACHMENT I WQ fh Z\ d5VY 14QeclL4% X5tC G b l l
& .cq j
ac$u7
.xt;p r;We 8
& ac 4 Wa, ,, wY awuuy' e
10 AM *kW ? PREPARED BY: DATE: REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: - DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: N b< DATE: N SE B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS y b ,
/) &
)f$
M AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY -
/v%C DATE 2/n/fu --
O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY h 4 DATE M REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: ' M' DATE:
. . - 1' t PAGE 2 2608 PF9 NO. F047 REVISION l
C. REVIEW C^0RIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATICM , COMMENTS
- 1. The requirements of 10CFR50.71(e) do not apply to the construction phase but are a requirement for operating nuclear plants.
- 2. Each, deviation to a statement in the FSAR does not require an FSAR change.
The function of Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's) is to technically disp <>sition s de.viations from design criteria. Only when the required changes were ta be
, ured ;onsistently in the design or construction process were FSAR changes implemented.
/ Q AGREE PF IS VAllD i ri .
DC GISAIREE , BY: / / Y DATE: A N,!84
, D. RECOMMENDATION BY FIN 0lNGS FEVIEW COMMITTEE UEFINITION ADEQUACY: % ADEGUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0ITY: O VALIO F INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATIGN: / ,
s CLAS'JFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING'- 4 l
, i i Cd".FMNT ON JBSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION i
1 i P 1 BY: - # - / f
/)
DATE: S//7/&'1
- :c ,
E. G A Po0 JECT MANAGER Dil ACCEPT O REJECT l 4 l BY: / b / 'Mu't'Id GATE: [ '(/A
l 2408-PFR-F047 ATTACHMENT I ( BASIC REQUIREMENT:
- 1) 19 Audits
. .." Responsible management shall take necessary action to correct the deficiencies revealed by the audit.". . .
- 2) 4.2 Quality Assurance Engineers (Auditors) para. 11. " Perform follow-up of open items to assure..., acceptable corrective action is defined, ...and verify that corrective action is implemented. Verification actions will be documented. . ."
- 3) (e) Each person licensed...shall update periodically...the (FSAR) originally submitted...
to assure that...the FSAR contains the latest material developed...The updated FSAR shall be revised to include the effects of: all changes made in the facility or pro-cedures as described in the FSAR;... DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: The potential finding is that the corrective action accepted was incomplete. Bechtel Engineering basing their decision to update the FSAR for facility or procedure changes on whether or not they consider such a change necessary, does not comply with 10CFR50.71(e) FSAR update requirements, stated above. If the concrete placement temperature was important enough for inclusion in the FSAR, then a change to that temperature must be updated in the FSAR per 10CFR50.71(e) .
/ This audit found concrete placement for the containment #3 dome with field temperatures
(,,}/ cveraging approximately 61.3 F and a range from 56 F to 67This F. is in contrast to the rsquirement "FSAR 3.8.1.6.1.8(F) . . .as close to 50 F as possible and not to exceed 55 F." The recommended corrective action was as follows:
"1. Follow requirements for temperature control per Spec. Cs-C2 and FCR 1099-C.
- 2. Investigate records for temperature on previous placements of Containment 2 & 3 and write NCRs as required.
- 3. Project Engineer to evaluate lack of temperature control on an engineering basis, (and)
- 4. Evaluate Quality Program deficiency (FSAR) as per QPAM 15.1
- 5. If evaluation required a program (FSAR) change, initiate change notice as per P.I.P.M., etc."
The stated corrective action taken was the following:
"1. FCR No. 8571C has been written allowing the use of 70 F concrete in the Buttresses of the containment bldgs.
- 2. An NCR will be written for all concrete placements placed prior to the issuance of FCR No. 8571C concerning the exterior wall of containment bldgs. 2 & 3.
- 3. Engineering has evaluated temperature conditions on subject pours (see NCR C-1642).
- 4. This item has been evaluated by Engineering and is not considered to be significan*
in the context of PQAM 15.1.
) 5. An FSAR change is not considered necessary."
LJ
! * --c,P bEC291977. b' t SAN ONOFRE NUCLE AR GENER ATING STATION
- b. i NONCONFORM ANCE REPORT ,,, _g..fm ,,0, / O,1 -
- . . . . . ...O o.. ,oR.w.......O ..v. . ... o.,<-....O
, . . . . O < . .e~ % .2 p l 2.! 3 // /4 77 23000 S' CoAce.Jcts &csnzur
..O m ... . ............O ......<~O , _ . .... , .. .. . . . . O.. ... Coo'.rn..oos.sur
. . . . < . . . . . . .- Encanos. QAu.
fr ela
- 2. INSPEC TION CR sT E RI AFPL A N NO. e. g*
die h wru. el O.*.t o v t .a t u ut s R .Pe G
"/4
.. A5Mg ag.THO.e.ggp
.% %METCH A.fa(HED v
.h
- 'l E OU.P O g.n .e.g H t o a v O Pe O._ ar
, .NSP.C T .ON H R O O g DwG SPEC OTHER PeO O . 'c c W :0~si 0 = => 0... H ~O O ... H O Oct. ~ O. ~o p on.
i e 8 7. DESC RIPTION 2 2. f*l E L D 23. OOSPOSITION COMM E NTS 1 us1. g ENGH
.I e O oER NO. PC S.. ow GISPE C R E O M T.. PR E SE P.T C ON os T.O Ps DECISION O c. O . ..
I
%Ec- STATzs rfiA"7 THE *TALt,gr ttw sce.tf__.g oge h E _.} H \C E M E % _ o F ^ - %
_Imap. . er_cocca.ers snau._ss_ms p q _s w _ q cs_q_p. pumapp TAAhLES* F EolL-pacEHam._marca _ i.e t y e g w s.._il W.o=- d4*. - F.X C.E A b ds F E K E._1 M 'T911ct.ME'6q_ rHE }HtLAMcxw. p{_sendetqc a vws. p ega put _1tArr b1MEAissoN_nt_AMQilLEicrJeAk %dpe.J_T"=='P*t***J-~ M ' Seva m ars_o# - A_ppim:xpest goymns mzerm eo m eza _ y w* M 3
~7;4c Exrxeaz e y & irs A n e 9 u c. T y 5sT j y-6Amnitevnr a lA r B E' 3 M > 4 A C 6 h s o. R e e Ru an o. 2 ere se tv a tsoafsOpf at v.t w oa s t .'. PRO.
\%_ HE4,.tewn n k40 jis sw
$r$Na ^
s s a t t u e %'n t v s t w nj , R e .m.M..I t . . oa m err O v a s., e Ono.z4. % m .,
. M _ M_ . ce '. ~ e m dWM '
W 6 C 0 2_ N tor a. u. 1 a m ...c. . Lm.am :49 n .J m' - n u rrw % f a _. g
--- ~
os ' ' >--v- o-
.r/ r 1 i 7 wo o.,C -o.d oce I
n - s r. uspssr ech/arenOv afa s t onta PRO,. e ea Lo see . _ _ . . _I0t_ l.fA.0,. = us . N l t
.. .. M .. A ,,,._scs o.,.dah =. A == '
as CC E PT A N C E O, N E W WO R M/R E WO R Mf.t E P A 8 R.: _ . . ,_ 1Q - es. RsCou.Aanonvaof r0 eRsvawr McCuRgenCc * ' dCNSt Mih EL. MVE "M WDE. " we ]ce mic Aeo wws. e.neu O c . ,,0,, , , , , , > =; a- r g3 gn Aov sso, p A m o:, w epac. pace c uspcyce os Aay owi ew ce:ps t.c.,
,,.O..,,,...v.w o.1.
e , l s.. .. .
...........u,..
m b 1 u._yr o.,J/ me n i N w ra O O O
....~ ...-- - :
i
.,. n'i'~'1'**"'
)
3 , pgg-r;;,1 L mj 1 I g
, 4. n
( T..
.:.. : a h[ % i i'<*~ E M g[- g ,< i w
'y' E N .
f!f* h
,3
, N Q
?
s
- [.. . i s - .
j' j ta O 2 5 - Nq - A h I h if %
- t. O h- ! I S) g g
- a io ,
9 us - E o Y n l a_- ; 2 E I D
% T-
$ o '
l w
; o e o fo R e's i ,
d t 2 N E Z k
$I(.1-o . 5 ES oo 0e sis y 5 o :Q d 4
, Z 3
*q
- t y g a L
' z 9 '$ Q b r.
9 5
+1 14 i E E n A M N 0 !- t #
.o q % .
b y : E 10 m 5 1E h -
\
h4
- N i
( . 0 5 ,': * - a p 5 :a 5 '3 4 9 4Q o ; D h. o . : o
< a
- e 3
t; W o
=N $
i ,
- (9
( l U - l O -
%,b * ,
c' \ l [J e, : ~481 g x w k k 0 ~N Ora g $ j . i
~5 z em
.ii
- so IN \9 4. -i F
'k"* f 5*
i I N .
.3 I
l
;i r o s- p n e ~ ic o s , ,
- 3/rPa - U . l
^
c Un cr
- z unir*3 Q DATe OR-_ .Livr.._ Avsanse_. ha,e ..aw. _. . Lner Avar. nan:
Racesmr- Nosert conc.WHP. kAcEMEMT NONBEE Cout . 3 ME I 2 -I5-15._ . _ 25 -Sol- A _ S/* . 9 74. .- 3tt.-A- 47'.-
/ -/4 - M es -3cz-R S4'
- 9- 2 5 - 74 zs-3n-n 42* _ _t 2 'f-74 _. 23-sos-A . 4 3* . _ _ _ lo 74. .. -. Es-5/3-L 4 5.*
2 74 .... 23-30Y-n 58 /c-28-%. . 23-DV-A . 40*- . 3 - S*r 74 _.. 23-so5-A . dt* //=/a-74 25-zir-& 4Y' . 3-/9.- 74. 23-3cs .R _ .s'V* . /2 -/- 74 _. .. 25 -ste -K 57* f
'/-/- 76. . 23-307-A 49' . /2-/3 -% 23-3/7-a 43* . %
'4 l 'f-/'/- 76 23-308-h S S'* .. /2 - 2 2 - 74 23-98-A 6/*
4'-2G, -% 23-So9-A ; f.- n /-C- 77 25-3n-A s'f'
/2- 2 8 - 74 23- 94-4 .& - .. B-/9- 77 zs-Yz4-A .. 43 * /-H-77 23-WP'-a do* . . _ . 2-77.. 25+r7-n 43* . l /-2S*-77 23- 98-R 4/.T -_ _ _.. 7-/4-77 2s-428-A . . .S8 *_ ?.
2 77- .-- - 23-MM-# ._4/
- 7: 27-77_ 2s 927-A _ 5 f' ' :
.3-2-77 23-420 -4 S3* .. /o-n-97 25-Y30-A 4'o '
3-2/-77. 23-42/-a .sa? .. _ _ - . . . . - _ . _ . - . . ..
} .&
y- 4 -77' 23-422 -n , s'S*. . _ . . _ . . . . _ . - _ . . . . _ _ _ .
...-.....4 1
Y20-7[ 23-V23-A . .$7 *. -._ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .
........1
~ t
.f-/3- 97_ _ 23-tz'y-a ,. CV*:.. _
,--. + t - 4
,_ . .;.s',: .
.._ _ g' . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . .
- m. . . .
_ _: 4,g . 3z 3 . . . _. .. . . .
..a
. ; s;si.s. . . .
.. .\
L - - - ..a.-
.,...__.-.n -
. . . - . . . :,. ._ . . . :. . . . . .. .. ~ .
- ..a
_~ \ ' _. _.
.... ___-. z%c_Y3 o,._.r. 3 *5&,1. .AM2
- C- >& sa. Y 'n
~
~x. g., . ....._..... -- . .~~. .
~-1
.. .~ . . - . _ .._ - .._ -
- ~ - . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................v.......
....u..-.....
. .. .,..... ... ~ .. ... ..... .
.2 40 tr -(21 =d- 1:04'7 FIELD CHANGE REQUEST
- 1. 2. e o Az.
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PAGE ._.l _ OF I UNITS 2 & 3 3. MO , DAY YR V 07 E7 NO. 10079 UNIT NO. D DATE 8025 17 1E F. DWG. OR SPEC. REV. 5. TIT LE
. dos) 3 WM NE NAME
. .JESIGN ORIGIN: ENGRG S VENDOR O viOENTipy)
- 7. EXISTING CON DITION: M F-Cb -C.7 6 4."11 MWFS <* nW12h 1
JR Af*E M E W iCM M$EEN N IG E- }L Ehf4"T" D ik/\E M iO G . M m p.iw q wed.l p~ m g sceso p s- W L%q- y g otLy g , a ple 3 $ p agms.
- 8. CHANGE REQUEST / SKETCH l } g E ylCYNESSI C) ARD A %MA1 ;
rm e og pe. *A(ie vs. eurgessc4 w, ~ 4 , um % % , gg g., wge. L 1 , b4NtM AL. p ACEM { T((-0CK.74ESS ACD y k j .; Y 7D,T I
\. S% M N Wl fLACEM 6 OE *.-...
pl ~--y 23-4s ,Acuz, w ,434 , h 4% PROJECT ENGINEERING APPROVAL PER Q Wp MW ' I famect to GA$E.MM ((Lp ' g f
- 10. REV EWED BY Dete 9.
civil 'r
- x II*Ih 77 PIPE 4 PREPARED BY ELEC INSTR 11. APPROVAL OF CCM DISPOSITION MECH NUC M i R.H CUTUR l
, CELD V /d A Date L ') ,
'42. PROJECT ENGRG APPROVAL: YESk NO O PROJ ENGR: bN osti / INT i h REMARKS:
; - - ' # D M'3
# / / * *f * ^7 y 0
11 QUALITY ASSURANCE ENGINEER (FIELDh Date
.w..w . . ......<as..........,........--w... .. s . .~...w.......-..v.-w..~.-*'- ---
a y cn, - f>< R -t- M 7 r, '
=s % 3/ir/ EL. ' FIELD CHANGE REQUEST 7 SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PAGE 1 OF /
UNITS 2 & 3
" ' [O } 9 ' C d " .,' b kk.N- 3 MO DAY Yi l NO. 10079 UNIT NO. N 3 DATE gg jp yy
;- F. owG. OR 5PEC. REV 5. TITLE Co s)STA u r To o /t.)
, C 'i . C 2 S Mac e r~st d rie rt) -
2 csye.ge re. 1:1. m jar is~ try PMn ruAr-
. 6 DEsicN ORiciN ENGnc 3 VENDOR I] (IDENTIFY 3 NAME
- 7. E x T G CONDITION 1 2.1 7 ~
..))/6 15]$6if TeirffgEd.7%o&L_o.f O_.cucdes2 SWdLL Libn 7iinto So "F - r_kA fliLexinwrs sdHits EA c.G sLD fo f t~e 7~
IN 1~rtic oc ove n s , l_i., i~r/E Lensr Dime n wN 1 / /9AN Didec M o n).
~ ~ ~- ~
- - - ~ ~'
s CHANGE REOuEsTTsxBU4 THo=, CHANae Ac o.uc. s r APPLIE.s To Ofe ci s ic.s n eit) G3-c 2 nna A U. keLa rio Dec.oin e10 75. LisnNse Pn n.nc,anpu 2. 9. 7 ro tien o fue rnR.6er 7" infean run.E cr* Coovc asrs /~o it
- n. A.naanwrs touse ri axceen to faar iiv trts Lensr-Co meous'u o n .
- 6. c.crisec u rsie funccmeavrs w n ic. a EAczec 19 To r a l.
\ CF to fec r in TH o ct.tve SS niuC t& R DJif tr H /~/t G
) GLes eo nme B e ru m u Ftacaincavm is LeSS ninN IA 0A13, Osin u Gu Ab C.Le nt Tb Sa 'r~ A3 feS5 NAL2.
no mucir ic. e no Pess e eue 5 a ALL. Ae.- un ao T6 mitoNTitorv n G ccoesre reinfun rJRL a3 C Lo S L fo Go'f AO [o' 05:AL E Ostr N o r G A c.es c 'oVG S S " s'.
- 10. REVIEWED BY: } (
Date Civil OO h*b'D p 9. PREPARED BY- M N ddl8//c8 8
- 11. APPROVAL OF FIELD OtSPOSITION:
ELECT. MECH N g-/f - h ' WE LOI N G, - / ' Project Fseid Engineer Date
- j. GAE < * * * '/ / /
g , i , I
.cPROJECT ENGAG APPROVAL: YES kNO C PROJ ENGR. .b Date b i REMARKS: Ut do'U N# /(*/'El dd l #6 S/Y /// 77
_ bmsm{ w a il le m c.ed acervdi~ br wW 'A% L /2hbf 13 QUALITY ASSUR ANCE ENGINEE R: Date
.2 ' fob ~/we - po y7 Srn Onofre 2&3 FSAR 3/'J-[#'d 43 . I. /. C , /,dI
~ i DESIGN OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES
( u
\w - B. Clean-Up Preparation Before depositing concrete, all equipment is cleaned. Debris is removed from spaces to receive concrete. Reinforcement and other metal to be embedded is thoroughly cleaned of all loose rust, scale, and/or coatings that might impair the bond. All compacted soil, rock, or concrete surfaces to receive concrete are thoroughly wetted before placement.
C. Constructiot 'oint Placement To the maximum extent possible, concrete is deposited continuously to provide monolithic units in the construction as shown on the approved engineering design drawings. Construction joints are provided in accordance with details as shown on the approved engineering design drawings where the size of large slabs or lengths of continuous strips so dictate. Adjacent vertical placements have a minimum curing time of 3 days. In all cases, concrete is deposited in such a way as to prevent water from collecting at the ends and corners of forms and along form faces during placement. All contiguous vertical concrete construction joints to receive additional lifts of concrete are moist cured. Newly placed concrete is moist cured by continuous application of water for the 7s first 7 days after the concrete has been placed. As soon as
; )
\- /
unformed surfaces of concrete have hardened sufficiently to (, prevent surface damage through application of curing procedures, ( an intermittent fine spray of water is applied as necessary to keep much surfaces continually moist for not less than 7 days. D. Placement Limitations Concrete is deposited in horizontal layers between 12 to 24 inches, and is not allowed to flow a distance of more than 5 feet from point of deposition. E. Segregation Concrete is not dropped through denes reinforcing steel, which might cause segregation of the coarse aggregate. Concrete is not dropped free from a height of more than 6 feet. l F. Concrete Temperature Control , The target ta=perature' of concrete shall be less than 50F for i 19 placements that exceed 6 feet in thickness; i.e., the least l dimension in any direction l rN '(x_,-) ^
~
7/80 3.s_40 Amendment 19
,. . p 40[r- PfR - Fo 'l]
Scn Onofro 2&3 FSAR N 3/'Idd-
# DESIGN OF CATEGORY I STRUCTL'RES -['
-(i The target tesperature for placements greater than 3 feet in the least dicension and less than or equal to 6 feet in the least l9 . dicension shall be 70F. The target te:perature for placements less than or equal to 3 feet in the least di ension shall be e5'F and the ( 26 maximum te=perature for placement shall not exceed 90'F. The total thickness for consecutive place =ents shall be determined by adding all placements made within a lapsed time of 14 days. This total thickness in the least di=ension shall be used in 19 deter =ining the target te=perature as indicated in the above paragraph. G. Weather Precautions During cold weather, if the air temperature drops below freezing at night, or if the mean daily temperature falls below 40F for core than 1 day during the period when concrete is being placed, concrete is placed in accordance with the Rec = mended Practice for Cold Weather Concreting, ACI 306. The concrete shall be main-tained at a te=perature no lower than 50F for at least 72 hours after it is placed. No additional protection from freezing will be required if that temperature is maintained for that length of time by means of insulation in contact with the form or concrete surfaces. Foundation for=s can be stripped 24 hours af ter concrete is placed. Concrete, when deposited in the for=s during cold weather, is required to have a te=perature of not less than the following: Less than Mass Concrete 2-1/2 feet in In excess of 2-1/2 feet Air Te perature Least Dimension Least Di=ension ( F) (OF) (OF) 30 to 45 60 50 0 to 30 65 55 During hot weather, when the ambient temperature is greater than 80F, concrete is placed in accordance with ACI 305, Reccarended Practice for hot Weather Concreting. Before depositing concrete in any form er on any surf sce, cool water is sprinkled on all surfaces and reinfcreement steel. Wind breakers are used to prevent wind from blowing over the concrete surface prict to the initiation of curing. 9/S1 3.9-41 Amend ent 26
> ^
~O 4 ~1 NI /4-[&A-s AN cNor ac NucLc Aa ocNcm AT'Nc sT ATicN PR OC E DU R E uni?3 : &3 T6TLE FkELDCONTROLOFLONCCNFGRMINGITEMS o 15.0 arv 11 p a (v) \-
- .. *cc 1 or 5
.ssvio LO ll-74 QUALITY. PROGR AM .m., 10 7 80 ou AuTv assyajNec e p o; c T u A N A c r.w e
v A N A cts /g J7 , 7&*r,bu hbp 6A 1.0 PL'hPCS E / To describe the procedure for the identification, control and dis-pcsitioning of items or services that de not conform to the require-rents of the purchase order, specifica:fons, drawings and applicable regulatory requirenents. 2.0 GENE?AL 2.1 This procedure applies to all Quality Class I and II and ASME Code noncenfernances discovered in receiving, stcrage, censtruc-tion, fabrication, installation and tec.t. These nonconfermances shall be identified, segregated frc: acceptable material (if practical), docunented on a Nenconfer ance Repert (SCR), show, as Exhibit 15.0 '., and dispositiened as cutlined n this. procet.re, e NChs may be initiated by Freject Field Quality Control, (mV) Prcject Field Engineering, Frojec: Field Q ality Assurance and Startup, o Quali:,. Class 1, l! and ASME Cede ncnconfor ances are generally reported by Project Field Quality Centrol. e Nanconfermances may be procedural (docusent deficiencies) as well as physical (dimensional deficiencies), e NCRs shall be initiated when Items are received with a Supplier Deviation Disposition Recuest (SDDR) that contains any deviations that are open after delivery, e Dispcsiticns affecting ASME Code items will require concurrence by the Authorized Nuclear inspector (ASI) . e Nonccnf ormances tha; af f ect the Client's scope of respcnsibili:ies shall be processed in accordance with the Client's Quality Assurance Fregram. e Senconf m.artis may be dispesitioned by the Freject Fiel Engineer (FFE) as " rework" or " reject" (retur-te S.pplier er scrap) er by an Engineerina review as " repair", "use as is". Noncenf:r .ing i:e .s may be "cenditi?nslly released" under certair CcnditiOLS as s l- } 37e,<:a...*C, 4.. e% v. i .v-
,w., _ ., w, : . \ . \se e
C F,
- e a s *.ts t
- h. ' . .:: . s. 1 ~e : a:e ,: Seze e *.se *: ov e y e-n s
- w e ms: .::e s: ee e. -e . s :n ,: ,se-ree. eu. sp.,* -
-c ,. w sww.. . ,c e z e s . ;,p i . & , . - .c e .e, _s s+ -e ,e:.te,;;:r.e..y e. c., ,t.is,..,+'. .
- a- er e
.- e # e + , eu ' ec r e; e+ c .c u . .e . , c o- c e ; <. :r e - . - : #. e s p ..e * ,t- + ; ,~
. i e2 e :;-e s-
~
l - General Atomic Company 29'o8 7"f4 kc47 QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT
/ Record of Long Distance Telephone Call Party: Called Date: O 4 2-Calling Time: Com'ple ted 4'T 2_o .
,- s , n s,__. Started _j@1o, /l Lo,31/c:gf Namei m.u ira A-p sh
_ ,gg3 company WC $p(gi_t y p p g g g , , ,_ 7 3 Location LV/77/eL Telephone No: A/c z/3 No. 94/d /6// Discussion S/D M645b'8 A ,,$6 Eb ,d[W M .AWh Ytse eblvtkee** Y [ Ax?a: n! Yatl-Q 4 7 3- LW
.A%Y~ <b5 & ] . ARA & & i es htt " ,a 1 AlCAL sin %csk%%'.or7Ad kk nkn ad-M zA Asdum ma %=&ods4 s M W & n b ,<u'a w d x d else r
,a/Adeh 2% Ab MR a .tste v
J%d,v' !!
.4 a rJJ s d A 4 k t k ,. A als O
/ 70 m.i % lv , " s. f.99 .a2JD&x
& ddell.5%E4'EA AM H&a..Nads4-
,ceM % M !, haJ sadni't kc't a nzed *
. dam x4 ewA Ms.tda &< v A- adn -
ad4 Adm~d s% Gauwd cua Jrl b6th 'h%>4 20-A atAe h k~uws~6r 70 & k laxaa 50 c.-r&d- tMd.Ad%dd he
,ne,0.stJ A MfrR rnA uJJ,/a O=h & cnct M a n C # 4e, un said L+ % s ader &a. d%m
& JAllad/w , & sata zu+ ax %ti2T d6.sM:4 $4U l+T%. dr':dued cred.kvd at
<aAbdurh % % % aiLaca & M rwrtL Y tis N*r $'bkA sst .d4 ArkIlk A'etudIYeint MdtTAddb5k
# '"D*'* #" N$c'cora Made by MM -
i Dis tribution: S,MiM
I rs 2408 PFR F047 U ATTACHMENT II I discussed with Shelly Freed of BPC on 3/10/82 the FSAR update requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.70, which are the same as stated from Reference (3) Attachment I. ! He said that on deviations from the FSAR, unless the design basis of the plant is ; affected, an update is not necessary. j All the buttress areas in the walls of the domes of SONGS 2&3 were placed with ! concrete temperatures above the FSAR maximum for the buttress thickness. Per the , last sentence of the original design organization's Statement No. (2), this change I was consistently used for the buttress construction and should be covered by an FSAR change. The following quote from Regulatory Guide 1.70 talks of changes from the criteria, l design and bases. There is no qualification that these are limited to those items l impacting the validity of the original design.
" Changes from the criteria, design, and bases set forth in the PSAR, as well as any new criteria, designs, and bases, should be identified in the s FSAR. The reasons for and safety significance of each change should be discussed. The FSAR should describe in detail the final design of the plant 7s e
[ as constructed." r 9 i n 4 3/ 2- . j
, s C/ r
- , - - ~ m . _ _ _ _ ,
F ~~ y, . . 2408 PFR NO. F048
~~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION l l A. PREPARATION BY G A INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Bechtel Site Audit No. 97'i, conducted 11/2 and 3/77 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
- 1) SONGS 2&3 FSAR, Appendix 3A, 3A1, "NRC Regulatory Guides"
- 2) Letter, Log BE3092,10/15/1976, J.D.Houchen, BPC, to D.F. Martin, SCE, subject : Regula-tory Guides 1.29 position C.4
- 3) 10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion I
- 4) PQPM 10.0 Rev. 2, paragraph 3.1 as of 10/12/77.
BASIC REQUIREMENT: 5) PQPM 1.0, Division organization and responsibilities. SEE ATTACIDIENT I DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Field engineers perform inspections of crection or installation of safet'f impact items. Review of reference (5) does not show field engineers "to have suf ficient organizational freedom - including sufficient independence from cost and schedule" as required by 10CFR50 Appendix 3, Criterion I. (Sdd MTMMENT J),, TX'E VM-tJlfry of rMG fY~R WA-s DEMNDENr eN TW47 of 2 yce - PFA-Fet whyM WAG DE c LAk 2D /N I/AL ib 3//*/8 J W" l PREPARED SY: - ' OATE: - 2-J REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: 0.iTE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS SY: D ATE: B. PEVIE'.V BY G A TASK LEADER COMMENT 5 '%p # ( k* fFL .d A 5 '* h
~ 4~3 49YSJe i
", u:g' pu 'm y J L} C N -4 2d N E;' f , Wr~ ^'
v* ,^^ n
%' gn oc.oD < ylLw. -
@-#tn h SMIy % h,
" L.1 m ~t h n ywp3 1 ,
pet F06 hpw ' 410/8 L O AGREE PF !S VALID BY - - CATE' T PEQUEST RE REVIEW BY
' ' OATE O OtSACREE BY DATE .
O REVIEW OF OP.! GIN AI. DErlGN ORGS. CCMMENTS SY: - - - - CATE:
PAGE 2 2408PFR NO. F048 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS l Ii l
~
C AGREE FF IS VAll0 O DISAGREE
./ BY: DATE: ' '
O. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: E ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: O VAll0 E INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITER10N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "O BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: - DATE: N 7-0 E. GA PROJECT MANAGER R ACCEPT .; , O REJECT l I l BY: / 2 6 61*Pe DATE: 4 '
L.* . g < O 2408 PFR F048 ATTACHMENT I BASIC RZQUIREMENT:
- 1) "This appendix discusses the conformance of plant design with the guide-lines presented in NRC Regulatory Guides 1.1 through 1.96."
- 2) Positions C.2 and C.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.29 require that the pertinent quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10CFR50 be applied to those structures, systems and components whose failure during a DBE could result in unacceptable damage to safety related systems (safety impact items). These safety impact items are designated QC III or IV by the project since they are not required to perform a safety function. ...All major permanent plant iten;s receive an installation inspection by cognizant field engineers."
- 3) " Persons performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality probicas; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions... Such persons ... shall report to a management level such that this required authority and
[.m
's organizational freedom, including cufficient independence frca cost and schedule wht.n opposed to safety considerations, are provided."
l
- 4) RESPONSIBILITY 3.1 Field Engineering Field Engineering personnel who are independent from direct construction craft supervision are responsible for in process inspection and testing activities in accordance with procedures ;
contained in the Project Work Plans / Procedures Manual. POTENTIAL FINDIEG - DISCUSSION: l This audit found safety ir pact items being in talled without QC inspectien. Per reference (1) this activity shall be performed per Appendix B to 10CFRSO. 1 This requirement is recognized by (2), but tne inspection shown ic by field l engineers instead of QC, Per reference (4) it is stated that the field engineers are independent from the performing activity (complying with 10CFR50 1 Appendix B Criterion X, independence requircr.crt). However, from a review of Reference (5), it is not clear that the field engineers have the organizational authority, freedom, and independence from cost and schedule required per reference (3). I 8 v'
A - -. --- -,s - a -- - M - - O , l l i l 1 i l I l i i l l l l l G; l l I h i I l 1 I i i 1 i L r 9; , i t 5 y r e
I l
} 2408 PFR RO, F049
~~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT R EVISION _ SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY G A INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Bechtel Site audit No. 1567, conducted 8/28-29/79. REQUIREMENT REFERENCE 00CUMENTS:
- 1) Bechtel QA Standard No. 5.1, Rev. 13, issued 5/10/79, " Project QA Audits",
Section 4.2 " auditors"
- 2) Peabody Testing /X-ray Engineering Co., QA Plan, Rev. C, per audit checklist 5-3.
- 3) Corrective action statement for characteristics 24 and 25 from the audit check list.
BAalC REQUIREMENT: SEE ATTACm!ENT I DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Corrective action taken was inappropriate, since it failed to correct the deficient
, P 5<Y -e&-ci * *>'A*YA*d'k '
f zug. a.jp . din. dA&nbu*Ychi-r ct 5 $"*^
'N" "YY ""
;*;lt;U stteg1c& gl kuyt * $LN' AN )) $U- ?
, sw A*dwW W"%
I > i ' e Ag
/?n un .cuerh
,4 c.At6a - m 4 p4 e' 4 /, W.M(9 '44 IfE , M M ##'f#'5'tVj % M PRE ARED BY: DATE:
A Y# ' g REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: 0 ATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS f fA-[-* n
? f f6 2/tr/ru h AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY
/]/w,~L 0A'TE. a/r/&
O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY ^ DATE - _
$;f REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: -f / '
OATE: s
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F049 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS SEE ATTACIDfENT II O AGREE PF IS VAll0 CC OlSAGREE BY: _, DATE: 3 /h/8 *- D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS h GW COMMITTEE . DEFINITION ADEQUACY: kADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: O VAll0 g INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING [JSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING l I COMMENT ON "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: - DATE: M '
- n
~
E. GA PROJECT MANAGER E ACCEPT . O REJECT a
\
,.~. J..
^ )
- 2408 PFR F049 l
< , ATTACHMENT I t i 0 'l j RASIC REQUIREMENT: 1 ! 1) " Review results of the audit, identify individuals responsible for actions l to be taken and establish due dates. In the event corrective action cannot be completed within 30 days, the audited organization's response i shall include a scheduled date for the corrective action." i 4
- 2) (From Audit Checklist) l Characteristic 24, procedure paragraph 6.1.1, " Requests for Radiographic
- Examination. The client will submit a written list of weld joints to be radiographed. The list will indicate the following: ,
, a) Weld joint identification i b) Weld joint size c) Wall thickness
- d). Weld joint location l
e) Code or Specification to which radiography is to be performed
- f) Other information that may' apply to the radiography, i.e., Repair No."
i l (Auditor's Remark for Characteristic 24)
"0BSERVATION: requests written by D. Bently 8/22/79 and H. Sibley i 8/22/79, 8/23/79 do not contain"... subparagraph 6.1.1 e) required 1- data.
(From Audit Checklist)
,. Characteristic 25, procedure paragraph 6.2.1, 'Tequests for Other
! Nondestructive Examinations. Requests will be received in writing or j verbally from the client and shall include the following information: .I i a) Type of nondestructive examination to be performed
!. b) Identity of item (s) l- c) Location of item (s)
I d) Weld or material thickness (for MT and UT only) e) Weld configuration (for UT only) f) Applicable Code or Specification g) Any other information that may apply. I
-(Auditor's Remark for Characteristic 25) 3 "0BSERVATION: requests for MT or UT examinations do not contain weld or material thicknesses."
- 3) "LWQCE, D. Martin has instructed the responsible personnel to comply with sub para...."
i. 4 n , - - . - 4 , ,,,-,w ,-----,w --n-. --- w- - - - - - - - - - - ~ - , - - - - , , ,-
N., ATTACHMENT II Page 1 of 1
. PFR #F-049
SUBJECT:
BPC Response to GA Potential Finding Report PFR #F-049 Following is BPC response to the finding reported in PFR #F-049: GA Finding: Corrective action taken was inappropriate, since it failed to correct the deficient requests for examination. BPC Response: The above finding references characteristic #24 and #25 of Audit Report #1567. The " Requests" for NDE are used merely to notify Peabody (GEO Testing) that the joint or material is ready for specified inspection. The technical data, such as wall thickness, weld joint size, code or specification, etc., are obtained from the welding checklist, which is a
" Quality" document and is available at the work location.
Further, the above mentioned technical data used by Peabody (CEP Testing) is verified by BPC personnel and ANI.
, Accordingly, when the omission of this information from the 7
" Request" forms was noted in the subject, audit, correct % [d u'c action was taken to assure that in the (ailuur dus torm is Cd 1////W properly completed for the appropriate NDE method. Pre-viously completed forms were not revised (backfitted) since it was apparent that the proper data was utilized in the performance of the inspections.
These " Requests" are non-quality documents and have no impact on quality. l l l 9
s A l-/O Q - f f ) - f D Y f f Ganaral Atomic Company g'c, ,3/14'/j +L --
- QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT l Record of Long Distance Telephone Call Party: Called W Date: 3 sf82 [E00ENIYCG CH Lb Callin h,MQ) Time: Comple ted // / 3 -
/ ,%
Name A.tr h0 (5 ES.) Started O n-l m.e 3 Company }WC ( m jc c5f 41on M ) A c.L. S' Location ( NGE 4-EC lfCd Telephone No: A/C 2/3 No. 994 /88 G' -<U Discussion NO ! W f% W ar .Nbf 7/b]A s nel tbr bn?!$ .cualtN
.M a5 srect~ %cv8/r~ t , 5Y4n wllo naat M 6, www7Ana (~i/4 noks-/ A ks,
% -xAw neeAV 3 x2u:,e nc ixe[eLed -clu 1 -cwe ,i B evwl % .-1% .-cs mitast, Tlu m 3L[ M m saf
%+ .nAiMo%^
.m} /na.<,1%d out an vt&c/ w muJaasn o as,Ler,t &
O -ceA Jtda kabt1A An AAcmJAk ,97/as
//u~wnA L u A n-Tie : wen, xx.Les A 4
~
Nte. Y t c4 e tsd'bt.pt.n e Yffa.Acc7 % 4Y,l y7 l'Ut t L t[atk/h,r . &f $k .c-b $c'tw$: .p/W
.c6t# ../b . e+-/'t/Y M TMo 4%c[e t Is'/d4 b 6 ;C$t dvetA MA% .A u -1$te .iblicl %USoS .. Ken 9 . o k u 5 A J F % r f L a c te: u v s a w 84c-uA45 MAv Q O AcKnil v,sd +/h%
.b% eaz&<K x,Lm; Mr 4Ldet As.s e + A A c.a h f- -
S A hIA kelA .Subh4':sibek .xvcM1 dicllf~econA 9df~ c642 atI'+#ds WA d
>L!h A.ew u %/&d-ti 4 BF.e m o t n t n m % m A + .e w d m u s i >: w a s ti, n .66 PFt- _
Record Made by k 6*d' Distribution: .6
2408 PFR NO. F050 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT R EVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION I I A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Bechtel Site Audit No. 1855, conducted 12/9-11/80 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
- 1) Bechtel QA Standard No. 5.1, Rev. 14 issued 8/39/79 " Project Quality Assurance Audits," Section 4.2 " Auditors."
- 2) WPP/QCI-006, Appendix I, Rev. 6, per audit checklist G-6-2, processing of NCRs relating to CE NSSS equipment.
- 3) Same as (1).
BASIC REQUIREMENT: SEE ATTACINENT 1 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
- 1) No CAR was issued but deficiency, discovered under characteristic 4, was handled as a minor deficiency.
M>-action-was-t-aken-at all to-cor-reet-characteristic 4-def-iciency-noted-for-
-NCR--(nonconformance-report ) 731 and-NGR-748c 'dgnde Au<t4 'Co d 'n 4M '#'
-TCC0rc%cw A&' SP. n 4L w $ c h ,,,u c{- 1:,&7t u,3 i k IA 9 Mi wwr tc4. 442ed M.4,.Cp 3, A '
h' s 9 Q PREPARED BY: ' DATE: 3 r/ REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: - DATE: .
^<* Y/ 1 REJECT 10N OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG)CONENYS}BY: OATE:
b'-d'$< B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
} }Q ,h U nV h , ,Nrt<L I #2h j p p, oW As k M #I y w w c% bJ ~ ' P' O's -
10 2ll4/t1 - X AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY .
/ Ow~L 0'ATE 2/r/n M REQUEST RE REVIEW BY t-DATE O DISAGREE BY D ATE -
,E REVIEV10F ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: -
DATE:
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F050 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENTS I I SEE ATTACIUIENT II O AGREE PF IS VAll0 5D OlSAGREE C.), .@(.a' li k / H o.%r LL SA E / BY: DATE: }/#'/f'l
- 0. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: Di[ ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VALIDITY: O VAll0 g INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION:
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" l I COMMENT ON "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION E. G A PROJECT MANAGER Ci! ACCEPT C REJECT l I I BY: / NJS//U'*L- DATE:
.'s.
2408 PFR F050 ATTACHMENT I O - RASIC REQUIREMENT:
- 1) 'When the deficiency is minor and is corrected prior to completion of auditing, a CAR need not be issued. However, the deficiency and action
, taken shall be documented in the audit checklist or data collection sheet.
For other deficiencies prepare a CAR in accordance with procedure No. 7.10 and submit to the lead auditor and his immediate supervisor for review." (Audit checklist)
- 2) Characteristic 4, procedure paragraph 3.1.4, "The Lead Nuclear Field engineer (LNFE) shall transmit a copy of the NCR and a memo recommending a disposition for the NCR to the CE Site Representative."
(Audit checklist) Characteristic 6, procedure paragraph 3.1.6, "The LNFE shall review and concur with the CE disposition memo end document the disposition and memo file no. in block 23 of the NCR. The LNFE shall also record CE's corrective action to prevent recurrence, as applicable, in block 21 of the NCR. A copy of CE's disposition memo shall be attached to the NCR for permanent record."
- 3) " Review results of the audit, identify individuals responsible for actions i to be taken and establish action due dates. In the event corrective d action cannot be completed within 30 days, the audited organization's response shall include a scheduled date for the corrective action."
l POTENTIAL FINDIEC - DISCUSSION: This audit found that, under characteristic 4, "three NCRs (nonconformance reports) N-751, N-749 and N-748 have not been sent to CE as yet", 12/10/80. The auditor treated this as a minor deficiency and informed LNFE of deficiency. The following corrective action was noted on the check sheet:
"A speed memo was transmitted from the LNFE to CE and return for NCRs N-749 and N-751." ,
The check sheet for characteristic 4 was completed 12/10 and 11/80, and showed an intent to write a CAR for NCRs not being sent to CE for dispositioning at least for NCRs N-731 and N-748. The auditor noted on the check sheet:
"This is finding No. 1 CAR No. ." l l
- z. ,
2408 PFR F050 PAGE 2 i ATTACHMENT I l However, the above quoted line was crossed out by the auditor on 12/22/80. Why was N-731 mentioned? Why wasn't N-748 mentioned in the speed memo above? How were N-731 and N-748 NCRs dispositioned? Under characteristic 6 these remarks were recorded: "The memo file no. in block 23 of NCRs No. N-749 and N-751 is not shown as required by this procedure paragraph No. 3.1.6." "These NCRs were corrected when the discrepancy was brought out." What about NCRs N-731 and N-7487 Two CARS were issued in conjunction with this audit, CAR F1178: unauthorized use of stick-on decals on a QA document, and CAR F1179: lack of hold tag evidence. The above deficiency was as serious or more so than these, why wasn't a CAR issued? No action was taken to correct NCR-748 contrary to reference (3) requirements. What of NCR-731, was it deficient also? O l I I l
ATTACHMENT II Page 1 of 1 PFR-#F-050
SUBJECT:
BPC Response to GA Potential Finding Report #PFR-F050. Following is BPC response to the findings reported in PFR-F050: Audit #1855 - GA Potential Finding Discussion: This audit found that, under characteristic 4, "three (3) NCR's (nonconformance reports) N-751, N-749 and N-748 have not been sent to CE as yet", 12/10/80. The auditor treated this as a minor deficiency and informed LNFE of deficiency. The following corrective action was noted on the check sheet:
"A speed memo was transmitted from the LNFE to CE and return for NCR's N-749 and N-751."
The check sheet for characteristic 4 was completed 12/10/80 and 11/80/80, and showed an intent to write a CAR for NCR's not being sent to CE for disposition-ing at least for NCR's N-731 and N-748. The auditor noted on the check sheet:
"This is finding No.1 CAR No. ."
However, the above quoted line was crossed out by the auditor on 12/22/80. Why , was N-731 mentioned? Why wasn't N-748 mentioned in the speed memo above? How , were N-731 and N-748 NCR's dispositioned? BPC Response: (1) NCR #N-731 was closed (invalidated) because the flow elements covered by this NCR were also covered by NCR #N-745. NCR #N-745 does have CE con- ! currence for disposition per CE memo, JS-SU-734 dated 1/8/81. This memo is referenced in block #23 of NCR #N-745. (2) NCR #N-748 does have CE concurrence for disposition per CE memo, #S-SU-754 dated 1/20/81. This emeo is referenced in block #23 of NCR #N-748. Therefore, the information regarding these two (2) NCR's was crossed out by the auditor, as it was not a deficient condition. As a result, no corrective action request was issued. <
/~T Q
l I
M bOEO G:n3ral Atomic Company QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT
,s, Record of Long Distance Telenhone Call -
Party: Called O Date: 3//4/82 (cz$J?o2-cCletl/) l Ca g ) ngj E@ [4V7775g) Time: Comple ted J .' L' ] - l Name ~TOMN SP'EPMD [S/yy) Staned /H 3 l On-line /4 Company BPc ,h$FMiu m wl l Location Telephone No: A/ C 213 No. '794~ / 8// UX M_.3 Discussion 2!Y #b l] S :bcsh$b n'!~ $ hPC ;1t RAY 7/b3k At.WwcM '
, .c $h Gn Ok .$A,#L, ,<"t d(%& .h h .bb Hbt1h PR , 9MOA Bt .e r&c. e ,, -T;s- E> Pc' d'Ldcp e~bt4 AQ , g4u:f / J.T [ /v W I'-2 e(4 I l0 C ?$ l'Y .c!h'-lh'& A%'.f-{cAs\C.; L t0 LN..{Il /
~
W$&G1 di
- 42,! A . $5fn' z ..lM'!&
.# d k A < 421 A ec A t d a d eh .Y/ C <~thsbs'h$ idL.'A.-vi,$I ty-tc C&C' t.t.; ,g'c S b-oSLvYi Jh'vk j b w.b. ,YC /<? / hoc h 1 /b L2/ L
.etit %!c <tcu ]we e 1% .AcM A . be nk&/
.<z wa A.m d! mar 2++Es -c-cW2h che u!uare%dair,
& (W ?S ?hk - .
k.imC A.WLvl t'?- LWl&C hef t
$ 6 nLl /C(M O cboY? P & ckl5L y /LEC-/bb' u
&5x N1-n.cs: Lna+w.nadh.'4 (NC0 7 T / + 748, 7NbA .4 S$bd AcAknLt aM/4u&d 7 5 / A ,e + .4 m o- A?7a 4 x a 's :&
bT d &'VLGC $(N : L+\A&ic!'ic<<.r:e, Sek ac2cl A to &ma .s. .+ &J
%..t b iza wt.w LL:u7ttef A zdu kec k s e d A u % b & a k su a st % t
<xiurxtu:. av2t actc e&pd, A ,, Q L k l Y w h \, cb %Cl./-l,t.'C L \f.c 'fi.5L, . -5x ??G.C \,
,. [,c~ Mi~'?. :,,w,/ D ,b./k'%]-R '<~ &jecb -!-uTc: 8WW Re cord Mr.d e by/fn
~~
/ f41,~!4
- --t -/(fA spM' ?" ~'
s Dictribution:
2408PFR NO. F051 POTENTIAL FIN 0 LNG REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 JEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION l l A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: The following 5 BPC Site audits started on the date shown: 1476, 3/15/79; 1555, 9/15/79; 1567, 8/28/79; 1855,12/9/80 and 2053,12/10/81. REQUIREMENT REFERENCE 00CUMENTS: 1) ANS1 N45.2 - 1971, "19 Audits." 2) Same document as (1), "18 Quality Assurance Records." 3) BPC Quality Assurance Standard No. 5.1, Rev. 12/ 3/6/78, "4.2 Quality Assurance Engineers." 4) BPC QA Standard No. 5.1, Rev. 13, 5/10/79, Rev. 14, 8/30/79 and Rev. 15, 11/16/81, "4.0 Responsibilities."
- 5) Same documents as (4) Revisions 14 and 15, 6.0 6 7.0, " Audit Records."
SASIC REQUIREMENT: See Attachment I DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: (1) A Trend - all of these audits had nonconformances or deficiencies which, were not reported as required per references (1, 3 and 4). Audits 1567 (see PER-F049) and 1855 (See PFR-F050) treated deficiencies as minor deficiencies, recording results only in the checklist. (2) Since 8/30/79 (reference 5) audit check lists or marked up controlling procedures are nonpermanent records. These audit results are not being stored as required per reference (2). PREPARED BY: d ' OATE: N REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS SY: m - DATE: . REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS SY: M _. ' fib' f ' DATE:3 M'D
~ - - . - ,
B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS h, LOL% $ hb hb Cb'd Ad AAc., cA. WWv a &c rt 44 W WQ % u m ~Lu w(, . 7 m
'\ J clf" k l k AGREE FF IS VAL 10 BY ied .
OATE .zMn O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE SY N DATE DATE: /
% REVIEW 0F ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: ,
s
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F051 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENTS SEE ATTACEMENT II C AGREE PF IS VAL!D
, S OlSAGREE C., .QLL4 g y,,cf }] Q /
SY: - U>NukST DiTk: 3 M'N'l-D. RECOMMENOATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: Cli[ ADEQL' ATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: ElVALIO O INVAL10 CLASSlF! CATION: O OBSERVATION 5lI FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING"
.dWh' 3 t l l COMMENT ON 'tGCE.T.vN'* Al,,y'r1.
CLASSIFICATION b N- # # E ) " A l yYl'L
Q4 mc1
- h ;nh( & -&A n Abnyda yyt y
/ kNSl N W' 2 '
BY: OATE: [9 (/ E. G A PROJECT MANAGER g M ACCEPT C REJECT BY: **'B - D ATE: # 4 i
O)
\
V 2408 PFR F051 ATTACRMENT I B391C REQUIREMENT:
- 1) "... Audit results shall be documented and reviewed by management having responsibility in the area audited. Responsible management shall take the necessary action to correct the deficiencies revealed by the audit..."
- 2) "...the records shall include, ... audits,...In general, records which correctly identify the "as-built" condition of items in the plant should be maintained for the life of the plant...these records should include...
records of nonconformances and their resolution..."
- 3) " Prepare QAFs ...(Quality Assurance Finding)... identifying nonconformances and deficiencies. QAFs are diatributed as attachments to the audit report... The report shall be addressed to the project manager for design office audits with copies to the project engineer and project quality assurance supervisor. For field office audits the report shall be addressed to the field construction manager..."
(O ,/ 4) " Lead Auditor... prepares a monthly audit report"...containing a
"... summary of audit results..." and a " summary of (for Rev. 13, a description of) deficiencies..."
- 5) "* o Completed audit element checklist used or
- o Copy of controlling document as completed by the auditor.
*Non permanent" (quality assurance record)
AUDITS REVIEWED: Audit Deficiency or Nonconformance not Reported (as Reauired Der No reference 3 or 4 1476 3 of 60 white drawings and 10 of 140 pink drawings in stick files not to current revision. l 1555 ICFE not maintaining missing items list for instruments which are required for panels. 1567 LWQCE not providing vendor with all data required to perform nondestructive examinations. 1855 LNFE not submitting NSS equipment NCRs to CE for dispositioning. l [) 2053 Electrical department not sending any FCR log sheets to CDM. l u l
\
l l
l ATTACHfiENT II l Page 1 of 7 l PFR #F-51
/--
SUBJECT:
BPC Response to GA Potential Finding Report #PFR-F-51 Following is BPC response to the findings reported in PFR-F051: (1) Audit #1476: GA Finding: Three (3) of sixty (60) white drawings and ten (10) of one hundred forty (140) pink drawings in stick files not to current revision. BPC Response:As recorded in attached page 4 of Audit Report #1476; this deficiency was corrected during the course of this audit. Therefore, the Auditor did not issue the corrective action report. This action was in accordance with BPC Quality Assurance Department Procedures, Section 5.0, Procedure 5.1, Rev. 15, paragraph 4.2.8(a), which states as follows:
"When the deficiency is minor and is corrected prior to completion of the audit, a CAR need not be issued. How-ever, the deficiency and action taken shall be documented in the audit checklist or data collection sheet".
(2) Audit #1555: GA Finding: ICFE not maintaining missing items list for instruments which are required for panels. BPC Response:As recorded on attached page 1 of Audit Report #1555, this deficiency was considered as minor deficiency since most of the panels were already installed and hence the require-ments were not necessary. This decision was in accordance with BPC QADP, Section 5.0, Procedure 5.1, Rev.15, para-graph 4.2.8(a). Later this requirement was deleted in Rev. 6 of WPF/QCI-702. (3) Audit #1567: QA Finding: LWQCE not providing vendor with all data required to perform . nondestructive examination. BPC Response:As recorded on attached page 14 of the Audit Report #1567, the WQCE did not provide weld material thickness for MT or UT examination requests. The LWQCE had instructed the responsible personnel during the course of this audit. Since, the corrective action was taken during the course of the audit, the CAR was not issued. This is in accordance with QADP, Section 5.0, Procedure 5.1, Rev.15, paragraph 4.2.8(a).
~
ATTACHMENT II
. Page 2 of 7 PFR #F-51 P
d (4) Audit Report #1855: GA Finding: LNFE.not submitting NSSS equipment NCR's to CE for disposi-tioning. BPC Response: As recorded on attached page 4 of Audit Report #1855 (G-6-2); this deficiency was noted by the Auditor for NCR #N-731 and N-748, on December 11, 1980. Later this deficiency was struck out in the report by the same Auditor, on December 22, 1980, indicating these deficiencies do not exist. Further investigation revealed that: (a) NCR #N-731 was closed (invalidated) because items covered by this NCR were duplicated in NCR #N-745. The NCR #N-745 does have CE concurrence for disposition. (b) NCR #N-748 does have CE concurrence. (5) Audit Report #2053: GA Finding: Electrical department not sending any FCR log sheets to CDM. BPC Response: As recorded on attached page 4 of the Audit Report #2053, this deficiency was known to the electrical department. They O(./ already had the training sessions conducted prior to QA audit. The corrective action was underway at the time of the audit. Therefore, the QA Auditor did not issue the Corrective Action Request. This is in accordance with QADP Section 5.0, Pro-cedure 5.1, Rev. 15, paragraph 4.2.8(a). 4 G
_ _ _ . - _ . . , _ . - - . . . - ~ . ~ . .
-..z ~ ~~~ --
, -- T ;- '
i ,., * &
,,c,.. ..-- - m .' . ' :. .-r
+ . ..
7.,. - .,
- 4. . < . - .. ;.
,j,p s
%. .. .. . ,3 , .
L t --""
- . s. .....u.. -
i} :
- {'j 4-
\ ,
[ .. .
- }.
l < g.!
~ ~~
AuaIT #14n - -
..- M<4'.,s '
g- x - ';lg
%' y. . w .,6f',; . . , .-. . * .
i , I AuoaT secsuLt trose o J'. *
' r-
. (s* ;
, ,r ,( a.g
. . . , .a ,
l1 M EO Yo"."c.*.'s' .=c,. CUALITY ELEMENT CHCCKLIST 4 3 ..' b ..,."[.. 3 ..:<<. . 4
~ g $n$.
l o= i,e sc . . c v =ov s . . ~--f Q T/ . Q':t
- o. 5 c.b R l +
j, ij coni.iotue.s oocuusNT AvoiT ActivsT v . 4
, , ,,. o ,. ; , g g \ rooccount c H tc,< us r e.o s. c .
a{ gg ;
.i t'nPr Pt AN PFOff TRES/otfA1.ITY N CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS H E F E 84 C HC C g-
.SjHCS2&3 f ji ~ accoutui s.crcwuEr DISTRI!.UTION MiD CONIh0L 6/TETCtr oits1TE y .c an au'a oEl *~c es ct O .JPP/QCI-a< * ' D 019. REV 11 C-22 3 gp ,
4 . I'l3 FIET D CFi!FR(TFD fi3CimENTS '
~ ' * " " ** * *> u ' 6* O g
C",*" ca.r urpi CH AR ACTENISTEC . '" "
, f' ,
f* A R A kt CIHOD OF V E RIF 4C A TtON
,7g .'
. 7. The Cf.C chall c..;ist in Quality r.udito \ hen con- 3'. 9.1 Ccatnet CAC of cubicic cud re. cord nana'and dh i
i x.x. . Jaeted in t hair a.rt. '[.'ud, t.bs11 't ake tir.2.11ati - cubicle on nutri.: r.t t o cha.d . 1 5
"/.,"L.
.g e
?
\s /I{ilI
-4 . .
3 .v y.7 - ! [b i
.- l cetic1 1.c_Jintc. h to co rect deficiencica. . !
-/ '#* {
- , v4 (Mtcicacf d J$ca 2ated durin;t au esilit~r.hcIl be 3.9.1.1 Varify ra.Jic.1 cction t Le,co' correct A/ [{ l d
i i'[ c ccav 1 iMitfief by rf.o com.tru-: ion centrol'lui cubic 1t V d2ficiacie2. M-d$pf N ,
's,jW'} s ' a ::
r.r-u r ent r ,. ca.a.in wsetvs ear. w - i -
. e.
i.,1 '
, g, .- .-- < p
. fit z P(' r.holl el*,f tr..I v.nffy t h e tl.:I hf90 ta'. .. 7.2 lavi c. ten OG) d'rs .: h.-: frau cubiels.a[ror. .&h
.r ny .
? .
il;' d . *~ 9t a cerc_m - t - t n t1m 1 > hti rc.v f a t o..l
- ctica$ 1 .Ltri::) v.:rffy cl.ct they are the '/,$M'Y} i
{ i I'
. l a r c ..t ;uldica 7. f. J dtril utlen ctra at kq/]i
_1Mr ! f:._.t'. 11'i._ct, JEi,. f./ 1
,,1 :L_ .
~
.1 cx .&. ) I . . . - L w,. . ! n.'y :. . ,,
.j5'W.
Ih.J!nw_ .,iAeM . . . l. or
-Q n ;
. ./ . - .
a . . I. Mt -. ...~, .a.....,,,. s m em> n
. ; H._.. ,.
,, .,, a c
.h *' ~*
, s . ,n _ .
9 31(**s.o h 3 .* .e avsp ~. *
- n *p.-
/ e
(/ j ./ ' s 1 s ' h* "s ) ^
- t q
; -~ j _ ..g. m2 i.,. s' d
, s u . _ . _ .
.g .M#_,
J . * =
. 1.-.. 7 l
- 8 5 . .
J
. . . . . . . . _ - - ,_ ,,, ,,,, _I f ,
r-n-n ' '- _ . , _ , . . , >f. w . &~~~~ .-l ;
..g .~... ~ .#. o^ 0.a es&J.L &.
~ ' ~
g ' g~ j t
, ~
. s ,
3 ' c -
,) ~ i i -
, _, s_ __
w, g. . .. . . ,
; y ,
e , N - l.- - W **'
'~.
- / A% vo r # /55S* E- :
, pg audit REsu'Lv LE'oENh
* ~
3 . , ll I ,i i
!b .". o" o ... cv.cgg" n'o*7c.'.'I. ' .o v o -
o..c CUALITY ELEMENT CHECKLIST .
,,,, 1 ,, 6 ,,,' ,', . C CsN T HOLLtd.G DOCUM ENT (TIT L E. 4 W MDE R. REVISION) AUDITED ACTIVITY #
TYFE 00' AudlT CHECs( LIST NO RLV f La P/QCI-702, R2v. 5 1/8/ 9 . - SQ;GS 2 & 3 g e. to Q e ios.cv 0 ' (~--i j Field f bunting of Instnrents in Parels ' , qG1 SITE e o,,ica O ""' O I-3 4 I
. r a CHAlt PHOCEDURE ODJECTIVE EVIDENCE h EVIEWCQ/PCHSONNLL A U DIT -
ELEMENT CH AN ACTERa5 TIC P A R A . ta o - Cot 4 T A CTE n st Esu LT s U
- , . ! . j:
, 1. Tr,3 ICFE rhIl nairiEhin a Status Itxsas 13st of 4.1.1 E::anine missing ih5TG, list. Dismss with j 4. > '~
missir.g instnrents witich are required for parvels i
, ICTE. * ' . , :,
t p~ . ND sud [," 5 h *
.1 "Di s e .a s s cp sJ<ra d a 4 x u r i s . . r e ft . -
> . 31. , ; ;
,; . ! .- - -ca a.. , s-, an i., a.re n ,a
- f>l~
t h . - n. _ _ ~
. L . $arokp D <<an& f % sv- ff Moos K h
; .- I
- w;vucxx 4 s is A a-rar-r% ,
.. Ls-r r "C,s. L,c1 h /.,'r - 2, art. .s*:dNan-n>
_[*; c r.r'.4* ffst 'r9 Wee .'e' ovpfo *2fA '
- , o' am 9'*v'
. . r_e'.*./
I *
. ~f $' Tir? ' L fb ' b fA$ .?G' b ! **/S d5' ,
s
/!ifh Sam st k 02*t h i PS 'n }b c's/MS
? < I
~
\
' ~
* .Tidos 1 C !t $7~; $ r. .~,2 9".* r;,1J~~ f. 9 e c $f 'O ED*
? '
- . c' ..r.u. v n, de a %.G:, ./.
,m a = ?;
cG t
- f. -
?*5
! ) ..
"om w
%2 l e. . --I
- w. J-, .'. c ):,.
1 o t
, t J
. .. t ee 4, . p' '.cgr -
>-4
. t
'h, : . . ,
- h. -
i
. }
i j C _I
- i. . . . ,
ga. , ! , - - - - _ l.
< h!
~'
< ..c m .cu.a :{ . iI A>a.<uvuaui N 0.(N'?//I' rt vi I
\ . 4 l1' 1 . .' !
s i f IJ '
* ** .- . ATTACHMENT II Pag 5 of 7
- f. ..
.-t ,. ,.-,.r..
s ,. .. m .. -..m.. i...- . : t-. .
. . .u...t -- - P.F8 #F-51 O. '.;7 '*
} $
S.
- g ;. ;-< w'
.,t .
..,f g-
-
- f -
2 *
- k- '
l 4 kV, ' '
% pe
. 3 1' ! ,
l
. I '
e .. 0- 4 [ } l 4 l l 4 n . . , ~ . . .
- s <,~ d .o e. ; .
,i .
- u. .. t.
4 8, . T d V. Q , l
' ~
.- ,a i
, i 4 .
?.
t'
%. I
,,s t
C.) . s4 1 . *
. ,e
** L 4. L Q -p-.l, **
} ._ {
w.I .t. ,v * -.,' ';,! i .n 2' _ . 1 (
,9 .* al u o y,
- C ,
.d. e*
p.1 4 9
. 2 '*' #' ' ** '
- O ~! ,
' V.
c ., h y ' (l
- af 2 '* ' '
! '%' f. ' '
e
.\% a. O -
( d'"
*i
'l.
.;'~t . /l
@ .I --
; "d,, t
! j [ #* / E 9 C c *
' ' i (. . ;
g s.3 : s .c a2 ; c,
.s.
J Q 0 %. -i
^
b 4
*l
- 1 6-
% . ,N :.4 !
C, lr 7-- I %. V N 3
;- OC i M L~~) 1 d '.< {q s ..
p
.s - a .-
1 - i e i
? g e : .* -
* - _v . -
c3 y g- %,
.e .4, { 2
- y
, * ~ '
j . . . . . . , _z.
, ~,, .. rs % * %, * -s '
,- G. -
. 4 *
. .-I C t . . -- i t
' I
. . U2; ;
q D. b, - h C f' 4 ,1. -' ' { d I j
./ H 31 py .
d s
,t l g M
)
* ~
s 4a
'..I
.. ,) l' .-
,- M.,a, . - *. '
Sj ,.' Q,, l .* *
.4
-.. l t,l ..< g
-s >- =.
.c g" y - .i 4, ::f a* r. v4 . ;
I [
- 4 %} ,l C* d
- i
~
M ; ** . t a 2 U era 6 - k . . a.-
-. ' 'tt 2
.'..:.,l ,,{'l -- r ,
t : i -
' 1-~* -
, - . .u -
J- j i ,i J './ Tl
- a. ~
.c,*. %
m$ 0 a
- i. \ v 4 I 6
e
>* k k.
a-
.)..'"
0*
.Y.i' r i l
l ' l ! f
**8 g
.w I
- 4=
bN s L e
')
i . i i
- .; ; . .i 5 i $ g
. ,J e -i 55 .** * & , i {' .i l
~~
I'
~
; I f s , . l f s
I
- I i , e I l l t n .. -
~
J
.c
-i
.,. q .
, } 1 i
_t , I i
.;J .m.e i
P at t. . l 4 y i * { 3 9 *d =4 4 W 8 Wi f ;
* ,J a, c I , , I
t ; M V 0.
.s i ' .
?! * !
- m. J. a - 1 t'
c l l
. i
.j t s t i
{ t t. ,
.s. . i .
> >j
-4
*3 *i**
- lll* g.4 ; I i' g i = -
Of 1
. :. s t.
6 l
-,f ..
.4 e
i q] *,,, ] =* d . :4 : , r
- 7 ,
a t y a .
. L *" . k " d C: r 9
- 3 he 8 4( o2 .
** 4
-'-- "u*
- . l
, 4 1 '1' f
l. Ll - .- "i i 3 I
.j - ' O' r2 .
. ;f 1 i .4 ' :
6 ' E1
,. y L.. < .."= l :
.I g e 1.* 4 ? !
.- .s. g M g 1 q:.
a < _a.- ---- l ..
-- , a
".., i i.
J. *; J gg -
-* k' i a j '.* i *
.4
]'
4 -
** e a 4 e d /*, '
. ;-j t es '
* [. ,*1 .;1 -
-s .-
;t
;d
,.i *M .i .4 s : .. . ;. ..
(t .f ~.t .f.4 e - . * -
; * . ;* - E - a 8 . b. i ? M *
. = 4 I l p. .
* "6 ** */
*=8 3 ".8 I .y 1 . -
- 5 '%
t.
- . E. p ! . f. 4 +4 *4
- y ' . .u=
.:: 't , 1 t
.i *J 'J.
...; q.. ; ;
- M I r.
, 1 2 i ; '
' n,,,' *' # .4
<j ~ i
- 6 .s 1 l .4 i w 4
.t
? . >! J **
L' '
- w .J
[ -. *: s. - . _ .}; i
. .m. - . ':t
' =.i -.
; >i g i .
,1 .. ;
j '
$ *; t ;
i .';I[ ;
**)
'"l
'4
.?*! .4 9 *1 i I
* ,a, ' 4 . M
, - ** t. l "
*4 , t g -** ,
l
. ; ? ..I -. J
*I
.! . .a ; 4 ?. .4 -,
- -.,;t ** . .i n., c:... 1.4 e
*. ~j t 2 3 g
;*;g p
e u N e'ek ." l
=.
1-*
.h *=4 .h f y 4 4 4g- * - 2 [ .t .4 :.e -:. 4 4
. .. ;J J.
- 2. H -e t [. . , .,
.. , :, ~. : I
=,
/ , N q m 3% i V. .. .-; l _ J. _ .42. .-.;._ __ t Qf - (W. m <e-
.:~,
.- 1:
1 *
,l l \
'* 4
- ' ' 9 ,
i f f
.- _ - . . . . - ..c .
e e e e e.
,1
< l t . ,,4 j j 4 t{! .
[
.: in ) : '
h N . o j"' < /' .lj'. -. ' [
>, ,, [
] l I! ~
.l.m
't-.
"0 V gnirk i
*a t $' -
.. n54%.,
,J
.h -
>o3m.
l cnk - 1 _ xk.' , I pj g,q!li!I # Q i.w0 .
,$ ~
./.. &a 1 , ,s 4 ~
nNnn... .i
*n . ,
f' 7} J oES n,
,M
\Sft' *
\ '
' - V 7- L 5, I .
r I T ! !)
- B s L Du '/
y !
. *N -
G T 5 2 U5 A 81 8
; f hN e
/
' W Y
k l
%u g 5
g- . e 6 E ? ' Y- .
/>
L G sr W m r n,
, f '- M C
/a
, 7 h
p. l> V' f '
' L H
L
/e n 4
4 n ._. .
- m. .
/ L % [ . . , / .
C N N u a 4 F ( A m.- .n y., f-2 h u
._ f T
3-
// '
GO c' O S N E t W-m - D F 7 N p o F. a Li A L I t a "'- P p r , 7 s u D '; ,, _ n
+
a " Dt I A
; tu u [D ' > , w [O r .
o a p wE u ? s m. N< C. A ' tT r ? e A s d ,c w M n,,_ .. N f iC ? f' e
. O V A W _
wL E T c w -
. T f e -
r
, h 2O -
P HN
-- Od a 5 /n v EO e s w
. I CC a m, '"*
a s t e
*(
E D N r w r C' r, w a . a ., i
& l w OV
/
b ^- . 9 e
^
5 -
. kn i
' O E , m ,.,
L . ,- k -. a E A
. E ,
f, V s ( . M . I a ^ fl 7 .
, T s -
.~ O /'S -
T j C r - _ a S E J P A 4 7 e r .
. n 3 2 f v
IL K & e O
/
m - J
. ')
f [S M-Y n r o
.~
--- O n
C E H W T 2t I r,u,m S 8 7
$ l
/
f n A <-- 1
, e r
a C IVS I e
* ~
E DS T [ T r. OU RO N- AS ]. J N 4
. E D tD . ' . M E EA 1 E T I
CR 3 L D- A E Y T U A HP P x
'L I
a .
._ A i
- o t
v e
. U r a R Q . R 4
E 0 O E R t I IT C I e l1 7I h e l7 / L I e t
!Nf 0G E ht OR hE S a
C i T f
- b - . 7 -
. vDSN a S s i
o h
/
E n d
- e G
L 6 E m i
,O E T r t *
/
RI N CA c 'i . ERCCI n a w w f a U SOOS e 6 CI I a t h i r i t - u a - . s e ' V dr i D ,a NtCL
.T D T C r s d t n
? ,e N E n a e -
E c. ,~L l. T .L N a s -- TM AI u G r E '.~'.s Ts UI CEX E t m u L (T /I T L r Y i #
,,,"~r I
t T '.. l x b L 'd. . NtE 0 E l 5 I ts 2 a
- $ U 'o. . u. UiM C l h e S
[ n" o 4 m C P P s m i t ' um c A E u S
- _ T s
D o DI r& .' P 6 I N I n E C !
-- U '.n G A ~.o N3 C00 m ,
WD- e sL o N , L P 1SI t
~ o T k ' r t -
D E e i s EmAP " I t
. ~
A P moi? oV Ph *" 'OPe 4 E c . P
. . .;;.*o*s e'
e ,
- e. 1 J.- f 7M ;. m . h 2+ i,$ .*
s
>b H% ) ,8
- h. 1'.
\
}jnv 2 a
~ , g4 ef.9
\ i -
- ,,.R.i.
F
."> y*[
,j .I i' ex _
j AUDIT #
.f 4 [j D Avoir ntsutT LtotND Ill. $ ,,,h.
C "" o : . % >"o7c"n'r'.'. n"n c , QUALITY ELEMENT CHECKLIST ence 4 or .2. jg
- on emcnreancy Noveo CHECM LIST NO i105 2 CON T ROLLING DOCUM EN T (TI T LE. NUMiiCR. H EVISION) AUDITED AC TIVITY TYPE Or AUDIT c, Ag WORK PLAN PROCEDURE / QUALITY C0flTROL IflSTRUCTI0ff "" "*' N
"' '" U G-25 4 FIELD CilANGE REQUEST (FCR) SONGS 2 & 3
.j 0;- ornce O """' O WPP/QCI-018, REV. 18 & PCil's 24 and 25 JOBSITE
$4 "" CE"""E "'ECVE Ev' E"CE "rvicwcofrEnsONNEt Avoir j ID M C"^"
NO. ttcucNT cn An AcTcnisTie PAnA.NO. CONTACTED RESULtd f i 3 When all FCR numbers on a page of the FCR LOG 5.1.3 NtitEEb TMtifCIM M LCM MD ) have been assigned the respective discipline FEC CI.StOSSGb PcCLEbotAt LEQQ1EM shall fomard an initial copy of the page to CDil; M ECC 's LEL10.1tDL M, .
.l.
!j 1*
subsequently, when all entry blanks on a page PL1dl TO ID-N-d 7WAS D1 VCEtd4DM
! of the FCR LOG have been completed, the respectiv a l Ch C_OP1E.S. b I A 'l-d .N PGR.-
II l discipline FEC shall fomard a final completed Stt0REL (ordbCOGb TtA3RGA% ECf_ i :1 copy of the page to CDil. Q L t T E.C.'$ NEG D11PCM6t3T k TO
.l f ~
Additionally, a copy of all pages of EXHIBIT WPP/ 5.1.3.1 T_yls ECET). blEL3E3.@L bl. 35 l
$ QCI-018-6 maintained by CSC shall be sent to CDil 70LL4 ALOPRG. CF M'15 P'2F1 LIM 1 3
, I month 1y. I-%b CttEqLT106. pd10h "fi MNR6d. _ .o >
l f_ML MALTGb; kbb3.5 COOR.D31GATltd6 US1.7t-\ a YI D.Ctact_ - GEC- CDO W-fL4cWrQGL A % to mf e-rs h ukd
]f 0 . . L 'i x E ti - CSEC. tencnen w .rwc. TEtEpces i 1 !. ~D. @wm - 1FEC_ rDD CCC REenREt>.
,i :
$. bht 2.- P. PS TA. k A VEC_ kt3BE.t. CSC LO6 WAS %
l; j 7 Oeug- dS C. VFC LOA?_ ten To C.bth [4 (GQGite j.1 4_, L. LUe.a c.m hmmue Geer
. ' . ; ene,h. to,,,,C 1.l O . d d u d t Ia 4-&1 y ,,,,.,,,,,.o ,,,. g A f E J /a/ o/ g R
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408 PFR NO. F051 AFFECTEDITEM: Accuracy of Audit Reports
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWA8LES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
N/A
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ?
N/A
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM OURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 4. COULD THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Yes, since early 1979 I estimate that at least 50 audits have results that were not reported per the procedure requirements and that at least 20 of these would be deficiencies. I I 6. OTHER COMMENTS: When the lead auditor fails to summarize minor deficiencies (or deficiencies handled by the auditor as minor deficiencies) in the Audit Activity Report, he is not in conformance with BPC audit procedure requirements (Ref. #3). PREPARED BY: 4 . DATE: COMMENTS: I I BY: DATE:
2.c. foe PFA oG~f Gcnoral Atomic Company _ OUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT .4 Record of Lone Distance Telephone Call
~
^
-ve&j} },
Party: Called M Date : M4 /g2 3/[6d2 Calling C Time: Comple ted 9// o - e,"o 7 Name $$$i(_ \/ eke'Ef) W17) * * '.e d On-line f
/
Company 8[C. Loca tio n Lt///T/8A Telephone No: A / C 2/3 No. 995 /8// Discussion fLA , u%Y r Ybu:A /:sec{<N ,er ct& FOY9 + F o so asfa% Alis Aa~1mnef k_ d E & c a 4 4 04 Y k , MW /$Ct1. sed Ad$ kh ' ' k cedu % xe a j er' 0 l 8 Record Made by['d # 9 3 v Distribution:
Gznnral Atomic Company
- QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT 1408 N u,ns
_ Record of Long Distance Telenhone Call %){ Party: Called O Date: 3//f/A 2_ Calling E Time: Comple ted :r; 2 f - Name SNELLv FMl> GM 273 'On-1me C Company /3 f<4 Location l' V / T / E A , Telephone No: A/C 2_/3 No. 9478 /I(( Discussion j/g-fW 5 , 10 h L FRl4&!d Uct haca~ttwr 2m sk %k smadj-j,,fjg Mw1 fxvf Ja %8 esmsg 6 cezklcA
<A %iom k,m AJA ole Chu k LA av da -us ,
e O v 4 i e e t e D. . Record Made by ht d Dictribtition:
G:nnral Atomic Company 299 WR Fv57 OUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT ',
,s Record of Long Distance Telephone Call Party: Called M Calling O Date: 3 Time: Compte ted k ff// 3 5' -
Name4N/)bl.NN.eclCV173 Statted n_' 3 o On-line C Company NFC Locatio n U)/-ft/EK Telephone No: A / C 71% No. 9Ng /F[ Discussion Fnced! a tad >& .cwtm n o n b-ur~ u % zlI atf /oj k " l Gn>se s-L 2 m i e d ~n w a y d a4 A A >ric] C/ ? 3 o d i] d /z-tJ+-t o ,
$/zCAel$ 97t' wM l/lA4t. AE%h ~h<@)
A L H E ;6 & n. 4d320t4 - 6Mi mty24mbDo ( % % ! % Y e v l i b t A' w A Ni d ire, R!dstmr
<t Jh can %e iad af /PN m z/ O nw h h ne-tw h th sib iGom wl~
A<1 m cn en de aiaAn l 2bW~n / 2 nato S MT bl4 A l Pn ad 2/s m LJ +Jv JAa A em .a-a- h4ddi
%vsvvum , A sd<un nidks4.e % Fo52 AucrA-a+us M Acn/4 27 MwA &M Lra
.se- w <W dhcAu' M ebn & /:riu, 9
4 EcCOrd MP.de by /r f)-
./
Diotrib'ition:
G:n2ral Atomic Company 2 y3$ M k [O$ _Q UALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT 4; f-~ Record of Long Distance Telephone Call
, i . ,
Party: Called O Date: W /MM 2 MMW DefO ~ Calling R Time: Comple ted // 4/ iWN S/t'CCLY FACED Started /lL 3 Name TOP ^tbHMEfB CC/ E ) On-line /C Company 8[C Location - Telephone No: A/C 1/3 No. #/W / 8 // UA(2.73 Discussion '/ N [0 00 N fMkt.Mf /D[d4 4'/ .((ce[Nui.J A Gbd46d
.+Wi <- L'&% mJ
.4'14wab<% ni M 4'i't Lu. Ach'u%s maJ he naAAM k
& L eci d7:l~ & > +t +' A s w ectbuto 4 % &Ju d % d Auela.-m nA 4m, LJc/1ejauc& aAuMt.,
R i a w A 1 m A a u s k 's t,-ec > .scras . o r w ito
" I . "n% da-l R Pc 4 -1.rcebwo,
() ntirina acu d Met bek Aw J1Pc 2M Alu AdGuud.JeM'easzk % w c m aof.
- 0) A uMaZesd .aun o!A mL x6Vt & P!w e
.tudmef mA4xlo ,a-the:6m uhk 16x
/t&e khelusist a drou cesitt .AnfaaauG4 2 P& .i U fL 4 an n ivz d a w f A E d % % A & n s e 6 e'" W * '
Y / v At U L h } b5 4 (4 GLv1 t Y A<3 9 CAk/kdm1 kL6'&, 9ttb1N .h-tnulww duA /7nAf dwudt/Adwt Aue%7sv '
>br%iwof 2bd .cu .eL .;tba Ae&6:eck
@ K li h r a sum .c4Lteicw h n.Abu&d
;%n Anecedww i %cM AkeJ4 e%e-(neu AmAM o>t +h?L,e:ove% ne1% nuuJ+t
!o k SW cTnudo t eirA AAT! /V% 2. + TOC PteC - (.J pgt.wrweh . y necora Maae syffA/ ~e.tMn(m-- d t 4 ( Distribution:
,I '. 2408PFR f40. F052
~~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC OESIGN VERIFICATION I f A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR I AFFECTED ITEMS: The following 9 BPC site audits started on date shown: 914, 10/12/27; FQA161, 1/15/76; 345, 2/14/77; 601, 5/2/77; 1072, 1/18/78; 1104, 2/7/78; 1555, 7/16/79; RbdlR A RNEREib'00C 1E T'S:
- 1) ANSI N45.2-1971, "19 Audits"
- 2) Same as (1), "17 Corre'ctive Action"
- 3) BPC Quality Assurance Standard No. 5.1, Rev. 9,11/29/76 through Rev. 12, 3/6/78
- 4) Same as (3), Rev. 13, 5/10/79 through Rev. 15, 11/16/81.
BAS!C REQUIREMENT: SEE ATTACHMENT I u 3psle" 3( sP@ DESCRIPTION OF IPgENjlAL ,, FIN 0 LNG p.ygs;_ -uca _ , , , , -pijo L i A trend - eewgof the nine audits concerning deficiencies, deviations or nonconformances by Field Engineers accepted inappropriate corrective actions (see discussion in hment I . tCd 4 M j, M / /.ezs M 8 8 G Z 4 Ms
*f' xfa :% .44 w<tAAdd essd 7pg). 9 ata/As had bel *<.gggy, a "%pmre ~ A~n%
i > N# PREPARED BY: DATE: 3 M 8 2. $8 7/2_rgt REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: 0 ATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: 8hd J DATE: N ' 1 B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS w/ M NW
.T g p pf3 (A oh Y O 'l y'n A - 9 LO 2 1lov $0 ]llWN
( l k AGREE PF IS VAll0 BYC ' AW< L - OATE -7l9/n O REQUEST RE REVIEW SY DATE i O DISAGREE BY h DATE - BY: IA
% REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS OATE:
\
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F 2 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS See Attachment II and III O O AGREE PF IS VALIO KOlSAGREE ) BY: FA r1 OATE: / R
- 0. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: N ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: (X VAllo O INVAL10 CLASSIFICATION: E OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION:
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT O N "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATIO N fw 5 a$N N M NW ,
,t z g ,e k 1 e e .6LBn))% M & Y "U $
W-BY: DATE: ObM82. fI ' v E. GA PROJECT MANAGER MACCEPT l O REJECT 1 i BYt ## M N DATE: [
2408 PFR F052 ATTACHMENT I p + Page 1 of 2 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
- 1) "... Audit results shall be documented and reviewed by management having responsibility in the area audited. Responsible management shall take the necessary action to correct the deficiencies revealed by the audit..."
" Deficient areas should be re-audited until corrections have been accomplished."
- 2) " Measures shall be established and documented to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as ..., deficiencies, deviations. . .and noncon-formances, are promptly identified and corrected as soon as practicable.
In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition..."
- 3) " Perform follow-up of open items to assure a written response is received, cause is identified, acceptable corrective action is defined, scheduled date of implem'entation is dewignated, and verify that corrective action is implemented. Verification actions will be documented..."
- 4) " Review results of the audit, identify individuals responsible for actions to be taken and establish action due dates. In the event corrective action cannot be completed within 30 days, the audited organiza <. ion's response shall include a scheduled date for the corrective action."
U POTENTIAL FINDIBC DISCUSSION: A random sample of 72 audits were reviewed of the 2053 .BPC site audits conducted. Nine of these, see attached summary, involved deficiencies, deviations or nonconformances by Field Engineers (CFE, ICFE and LNFE). For 7 of the 9 audits, no action was taken to correct Field Engineer's lack of compliance with procedure. Audit 601 stated that correction would be made as time allows, this is not prompt corrective action as required per Reference (2). Audit 1104 did not determine how many supports were changed by CFEs, and take action to get their drawings revised and reissued. No evidence could be found in the audit log of a follow up audit to see if the memo to pipe support CFEs had any effect on their field practice. Corrective action concerning Field Engineers was ineffective and inappropriate to correct their deficiencies. O V
~
2408 PFR F052 - ATTACHMENT I Page 2 of'2 AUDIT DEFICIENCY FOUND AND CORRECTIVE ACTION ACCEPTED,
SUMMARY
AUDIT DEFICIENCY OR NONCONFORMANCE ACTION REQUIRED BY NO- IO[ FIELD ENGINEER CORRECTIVE ACTION ACCEPTED FIELD ENGINEERS 914 No CFE present at initiation of work. It is intended that CFE be present. None Foreman to be sure they have dwgs. etc. FQA 161 Work proceeding before authorized Procedure changed to conform to field None via CIDR by CFE. practice. 345 CFE not performing progressive verifi- Procedure changed to conform to field None cation to assure compliance. practice 601 Work proceeding before "Q" and seismic "Q class is being input on ICCs as time None classes indicated on ICC and authorized allows" (What about seismic class?) by CFE. 1072 Fab shop CFE not sending master marked-up Procedure changed to conform to shop None pink ' drawing stamped " Fabrication complete" practice to piping isometric group. 1104 CFEs marking up ASME pipe support drawings A memo was sent to pipe support CFEs telling Stop and pipe fitters are instructed to work to them to have drawings revised before the work Practice them, this is contrary to procedure requir- is performed. (No reaudit of this area ing drawing revision and reissue. noted in audit log.) 1555 ICFE not maintaining missing items list Procedure changed to conform to field None for instruments required for panels. practice. 1596 Originating CFE shall forward copy of QC Changed procedure to start a FEWR log book None Class II FEWR to lead QCE as notification, and to call QC prior to start of work. (This prior to issue to field. Of 5 /SWRs sampled does not correct lack of notification.) none was sent to QCE prior to issue to field. 1855 LNFE not sending NSSS nonconformance reports 2 of 4 NCRs corrected via speed memo during the None (NCR) to CE site representative for dis- audit. (What about the other two?) positioning.
j .,
' ~
Attachment II Page 1 of 9 PFR # F052 Audit # 914 v Deficiency: f!o CFE present at initiation of work. Corrective It is intended that CFE be present. Foreman Action Taken: to be sure they have drawings, etc. GA Concern: The inappropriate action was accepted. Bechtel We AGREE with your concern.
Response
The CFE should have made sure that all the required information was available prior to beginning of work. l The CFE's are now aware of this requirement. Since
, then, there was not any known incidence of such problem.
Further, QC constantly monitors such work. The final inspection is performed by the CFE and QC. This in-spection is documented on the CIDR. As an improvement, we have strengthened our review of the CAR responses. Before final closure of the CAR, the responses and follow-up/ verification are reviewed 4 by the Lead QAE and the Project QA Supervisor. .i 1 i i O v
-, . . . ~ , , . . - - . - ,
Attachment 11 Page 2 of 9 PFR # F052 ( FQA-161 Deficiency: llork proceeding before authorized via CIDR by CFE. Corrective Procedure changed to conform to field practice. Action Taken: GA Concern: The inappropriate corrective action was accepted. BPC Response: We DISAGREE with this concern. The CIDR's are used to document the inspection of structural steel installation and not as authorization by the CFE to proceed with the work. Most of the structural steel installation takes a long time; as much as twelve to fifteen months, between start to completion. The CIDR's are not required until the installation is ready for inspection. If the CIDR's are prepared too early, they might get lost. Therefore , it is preferred not to prepare the CIDR's in advance until the installation is ready for inspection. Thus, the change in the procedure was correct, and the correc-tive action was acceptable. O 1
Attachment II
. Page 3 of 9 PFR # F052 Audit # 245 Deficiency: CFE not perfonning progressive verification to assure compliance.
Corrective Procedure changed to conform to field practice. Action Taken: GA Concern: The inappropriate corrective action was accepted. Bechtel We DISAGREE with this concern.
Response
The CFE follows through the installation of cable trays. He provides assistance to the crafts and co-ordinates any changes with Project Engineering. After installation, the CFE inspects the completed sections of the cable trays and documents this inspection on CIDR's and SDR's. In addition, the completed sections of the cable trays are also inspected by the QCE for safety related trays. This inspection is also documented on CIDR's and SDR's. Since the cable trays are inspected and inspection documented by two separate groups there is no need for CFE to document
, progressive inspection. Therefore, the change in procedure was correct.
9 1 6 { l
Attachment II Page 4 of 9 PFR 0 F052 ( Audit #601: Deficiency: Work proceeding before "Q" and Seismic classes indicated on ICC and authorized by CFE. Corrective Action Taken: "Q" class is being input on ICC's as time allows. GA Concern: Corrective action taken was inappropriate because it did not include entry for Seismic class. Bechtel Response: We DISAGREE with this concern for the following reasons: The Quality class is taquired to be entered on the ICC by the Instrumentation Warehouse Field Engineer (IWFE) per WPP/QCI-701. A review of Audits #1178, #1546, #1802 and
#1939, which were perfonned subsequent to Audit #601 re-vealed no finding related to the problem of not entering the Quality class on ICC. The Project Classification which includes both Quality and Seismic class information has been entered on the Quality Tracking System (QTS) for all instruments regardless of Quality and Seismic class including those referenced in Audit #601.
Reference Response to PFR N0. 009 O O
Attachnent II Paga 5 of 9 PFR # F052 1 px. V' Audit # 1072 Deficiency: Fab shop CFE not sending master marked-up pink drawing stamped " Fabrication complete" to piping isometric group. Corrective Procedure changed to conform to shop practice. Action Taken: GA Concern: The inappropriate corrective ection was accepted. Bechtel We DISAGREE with this concern.
Response
The problem of two different " Master" marked-up pink copies was due to the old fab shop practice. At that time the procedure WPP/QCI-402 required the fab shop to prepare two original drawings; one was considered as
" Master" and other one was sent to ISO Group. Therefore this deficiency occurred. Then the Fab Shop im-proved that practice by making only one master and copies were made from this mater. This removed the discrepancies between two casters. However, the procedure was not changed, at that time.
Therefore, the corrective action taken was appropriate.
\-- The change in procedure to conform to shop practice was a correct change since the shop practice was better than l the old procedure.
f 1 i i i O l
Attachment 11 Page 6 of 9 PFR 0 F052 (* Audit # 1104 Deficiency: CFEs marking up ASME pipe support drawings and pipe fitters are instructed to work to them, this is contrary to proce-dures requiring drawing revision and reissue. Corrective A memo was sent to pipe support CFEs telling them to have Action drawings revised before the work is performed. Taken: GA Concern: No reaudit of this area noted in the audit log. Bechtel We disagree with this concern. This finding was dis-Response: covered and reported in February 1978. This finding report was closed by QAE on 4-24-78. A reaudit of this activity was performed in September 1978 (Audit #1325) which revealed no deficiency. This indicated that the corrective action taken was effective. As an improvement, we have strengthened our follow-up or verification program. The finding report / CAR does not get closed until effectivity of corrective action has been verified by the QAE. 9
Attachment II s Page 7 of 9 1 PFR # F052 i !G Audit #1555: Deficiency: ICFE not maintaining missing items list for instruments required for panels. 1 Corrective Action Taken: Procedure changed to conforn to field practice. GA Concern: The corrective action taken was inappropriate. 4 Bechtel Response: We DISAGREE with this concern. At the time of the audit
- most of the panels were already installed. Missing item t
list would be required before installation and not after j installation. Further, this list is prepared to facili-tate construction schedule and has no. impact on quality. l This is a good construction practice but should not have ] been in the procedure anyway. Therefore, the corrective .] action taken was appropriate. Reference response to PFR. No; 051. l O t 1 4 I O
-n -. ~ , - --., _.,
. , Attachment II Page 8 of 9 PFR # F052 -
O Audit #1596 (CAR # F-836) Deficiency: Originating CFE shall forward copy of QC Class II FEWR to Lead QCE as notification, prior to issue to field. Of 5 FEWRs sampled none was sent to QCE prior to issue to field. Corrective Changed procedure to start a FEWR log book and to call QC Action Taken: prior to start of work. GA Concern: Change in procedure did not correct lack of notification. Bechtel Response: We DISAGREE with this concern. The copy of FEWR was not sent to QC for inspection noti-fication, but only to notify that the job will be scheduled sometimes in future. QC had no use of these copies of FEWR's, since they did not know when the work was going to begin. This requirement was deleted from the procedure because it did not serve any meaningful purpose. The FEWR's listed in CAR # F836 (FEWR's #J-171, J-172, J-173, J-174, J-175) did have QC inspection. O
Attachment II
. Page 9 of 9 PFR # F052 Audit #1853 Deficiency: LNFE not sending NSSS nonconformance reports (NCR) to CE site representative for dispositioning.
Corrective Action Taken: Two (2) of four (4) NCR's corrected ~via speed memo during the audit. GA Concern: No action taken for other two (2) NCR's. Bechtel Response: We DISAGREE with this concern. The four (4) NCR's in question are: N-751, N-749, N-748 and N-731. (1) According to audit report NCR's N-749 and N-751 were corrected via speed memo during the audit. (2) NCR's N-731 and N-748 were crossed out from the audit report since they were not deficient. a) NCR N-731 was closed (invalidated) because the the flow elements covered by this NCR were also covered by NCR N-745. NCR N-745 does have CE concurrence for disposition per CE memo, #S-SU-734 dated 1/8/81. 'This memo is referenced in block #23 s_,/ of NCR N-745. b) NCR N-748 does have CE concurrence for disposi-tion per CE memo,' #S-SU-754, dated 1/20/81. This memo is referenced in block #23 of NCR N-748 Therefore, the information regarding these two (2) NCR's was crossed out by the auditor, as it was not a deficient condition. As a result, no corrective a'ction request was issued. Reference responses to PFR No. 050 and 051. u a
Attachment III Page 1 of 1
. PFR # F052
^
r ',
SUMMARY
Of the nine (9) audit deficiencies discussed, we do not agree that a Trend exists. In eight (8) cases, corrective action was appropriate for the circumstances. One (1) case (Audit No. 914) the corrective action was inappropriate. Since the conduct of Audit no. 914 we have taken corrective action by strengthening our review of CAR responses by providing follow-up verification to assure the action was appro-pria te. This is accomplished prior to the closure of tne CAR. After the CAR is closed by the responsible QAE it is revieved by a Lead Engineer and Supervisor prior to close-out. O 1 O
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408 PFR NO. F0 5 2 l I AFFECTEDITEM: Bechtel Site Audits / Field Changes
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REQUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDEC OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
N/A
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DUR'NG AN SSE ?
N/A
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM OURING AN SSE CREATE A SUESTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARO ? ,
N/A
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTAdTIAL SAFETY HAZARD 7 ,
Possibly - See Comments
- 5. ARE CTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Yes, che sample made of site audits was 3.5% of the total number conductet . I estimate the total number of audits to be from 150 to 200 where the pro-d
- 6fHe'iOMJsITS:
changed to acc mm date neld engineering practice. 4 For 6 audits, the procedures were changed to conform to field practices;4 of these were warranted. For 5 of the audits, the corrective action was inappropriate since it appears to be a sacrifice of field engineering con-trol to accommodate schedule. The nature of this practice is such that numerous similar deviations probably exist. The field engineers are tech-nically responsible for the plant construction; failure to assure their full cognizance over that construction allows repetitive errors in im-plementin t PREPARED BY:
' e4WS geismic
/ D/[egign requirempnts.
OATE: 3/ 2b ui COMMENTS: T A @~4 "W Y~ W
^% J' %-.kg& W' M /
Q W N bff J ~ w A y &
~ W eu n p ha t Qhm~
Q.4,+g w w w inp-+~ L nkn gi 4 4+6 M P)hs/] .,u/su i BY: OATE:
G:norc.1 Atomic Company 16/0S ANN QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT
, Record of Long Distance Telephone Call Party: Ca11ed O Datc: 2//4'/M 2 bb/c-cc<<.,2 al(.7 Callin ET Time: Comple ted 2103 .
LFWO 60'C /l4/ Name OnH&f$W5hrf&
~
% $l$ Started On-1m, e 2._ 1 Company SN- [fgqgis ad(d 4:1.
Location - Telephone No: A/C 1/ 'l No. '7 94 [88 EN M3 Diccussion Y E&cm ..uRO xns w b'wawd H6td n.u.dt
,els.bs. & d o ocJ.L n o .bu tSc s t l'tp- J m J < a 4s.c[ pn d:.e vl di~ :t4i cm u At2/a d2R ask?!:d, L'I) &n ,ecaMt to 72 % Tid Vd'ad ex! tn
.;tt'w huum .bw-e6re CBlY~ A tnsdad el b ; J : u -t A c Wn+ As d!A G 2 kJ Je b?'cu b d
.htlac&l Jav An Ea'r- Aird.Au% Arz
.L&uM. chic 4-o% n,m% O 0
bu ad Ab~cti ik BM e.mW-ce.m
$L bb- +2A cJ h .c4nkJ%s:a1
- ?hlt4#t %3tn .rt:w A 4 LuJ ,7xJo
,i wm d&,na % c+4ccnr .ttud Mft( c%ebs:s
} Lct.c~{ A cc 4 1,te s ~ 4 u a & a z, i J. wteed 76tiet 274 .6-, ~&e sv=ti u<aJ n't >t N Y tit f X b,0 N se-c5clic^r .< -J', cnt af '6-
/]CAlc cN~ %bC ' lee {b h cttC W er ,le59 m e-tt m ngf e cn ad uce % n:2;w attc.m Aeze '4 sv wks itad sta mad &M L /dl AttdAtwts bWeu Diatt n d Ausw & Sw&,
% kt 4M da irms A Am%
/ # xk nata A hubaead Awdkt*
% w ees A m e g & + .n;644 , q Record Made by kdt ,
ve Distribution:
Gcnaral Atomic Company g y g po q OUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARThfENT Record of Long Distance Telenhone Call gs3 . t - k >) Party: Called O Date: - Calling O Time: Completed i Started I *** On-line Company Location Telephone No: A/C No. Discussion t {} 5>ctY$ '9f./tw. dey ,k$/) ,pso/h/2A pasrfu.) /u$ 1C
.4tiALnt hww&& . .cA m 4,
- 7tfk M 4} L /"A9-Ina & .a j d ,crd Aodkr% M+ m' A ac+
l Gsr4 nuk.uas i t / d m d c e < c a e /' 5
- i. w h'nA s, 2swx1k=
whid tid % sikuk lO* dad <AwA W A l &kG4 ztLet :dum q ch~aevAd%4rdA Dxama%cmA /v%22% am%AnwaxD U i
@ Ss t mulit /rFT cbdwA cid xt'c dsq
[ Rhu /59% Amt ne%te 30at AveAx%4$ca<wct
' $b4 ~Adut% .+tM 04cbt! Ys 1Aa . elf $.~bbc
$a0A
& rAteu/JbiaN & dceeMd-i 2o.am w!'2L4
. tnt %stnuuM Lxiauta&4 AddeAvoz, %
] f S sk .27 xx FNA REW /. c4ed OY 4&x b.aJuxculosAn.adab
.WbtD b Amll YUt%4 ht-t-lJEc$- AtN Y A
' Xt'a 'Lwedww dmf are A'c4s<&cb M s ct&, Ans<caZ44 ln Utbar .*bd .&,$'12 ETflAia U yg r / nec rd afade by dbg i matris.uon:
.~ - .
y
. G:norni Atomic Company Ug fggg OUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT
, _ Record of Long Distance Telephone Call 5 7
. l Party: Called O Date: -
Calling O Time: Compte ted Nm Started 1 On-1me
- Company Locatio n Telephone No: A/C No.
, Discussion
$) , e ICL V] h / 0 7 2. cze , ) / f S T A n h E./ L Uth b f1N AM5112dA.A l
i kr(A8!xEur-Els om A%% AvvMdna<ud,"1 o
- @'Fm
~
aa.d72 /5 7 4 8PC AcM MA pswuc m ma A isaadhva AGWL /4rr A'ahDh #v Q C A&& M
~
- d/+' j % mN' & tidot A~4k&b]W.
1 .
+tAa m a-A n % % A k D Q a du 93 B h / FRWhJLC Mn
& <tdwerell Adm,Ju /mf s(-24I-f a.u' c
546 auR+ nwHd$ aneA, ' A M M z t d $cA G A i & L w .~i b n A e $ $c ) Y o n & bu n~ m !d it / F K
% E' A $ h PX $ AR dM&
&n w rA x4 M a.e A M A m A&& O C ^~as ns/x A+M st xta' F2fo/
Guush st% mobka & am
&&Mv0 s 8 7'C sed-te.v M d 7 t d F 2 Ae/
nazaus a .oA e?*?2%m G4wat Mk bk ww~ whXA alm . Record Made by. - U#2 Distribution:
- .- .. - - ._-_z-
,--__.m.,_,__, ,
., G:noral Atomic Company _
OUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT 1 V O $ f k & $ 2.' Record of Long Distance Telenhone Call O. Party: Called D Calling O Date: Time: Comple ted Started i Name On-line - Company Location Telephone No: A/C No. Discus s ion .j M4 M i n, ALaba A kk ad s3, a AcA nd% .26 44% kt 24h PFA'aias xM
! BPC . Ak ' Q/Nu 6Mdsuwe~ca A<edd I %trA%' #Zah deb >a.74 L waAnf i /wA&La, net M aos M J+r ' "
l Mc i or,Asf -tidu lJ 1 iF GA#C LUun Asut a&t//c9' 1 Abme mm xlts mavvak 3//r/n i .& L eM M 24a Ma/
- Ah, m LhSns41a6 1 Scatbecaw xW %dlW si 1
% kvM>ect.am M'2vG hu h&&rc a a c Ad A das AtA % & kALabr i Abc Mhc K A d n1 1 % AJ 1 ; AcidbeMne&& a m Aa<
i dia >> av k h % .. A m u L A z ul a
' $ Y b ht b Y $1Ru-A A4>e Y bt Ltw A datAvuusAhAl/vn&
6tkA %ErAbwd? '? - Record Made byh Distribution:
c.. - .. - - - D s ix h a d v- 3 /48> SUBJECT ff'k " bCh d _M3ssACE pr/u /?>PG /wp eQAr[' _ ML 4d.1 M_h A__. r_
/{/ & & s Q bdW~L A% < A'l A ^
J / - l $$k J & & ca X t*H H , FM M im das A PFR-Fer2 sa < M Zso m a EM ~ .Wa Ativkef swhWW & Ad -
%wA- h14 : A Me&gw &vn r /
SIGNED AJPLY g
?u 3ln & <, ui U /d (J2% W A4~
- k. ban 4, J A & m L~
(LLM . v>ni L aWAL b /FL & A>a2 A - h
- A Sic ~E d fi %
'^' ' '"
DATE 3/ /& edIlf@9.'* 45 475 Aat 2di$s$ a N*N D W T tt Y. POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P475
{% For' Bechtel Power Corporation q Engineers - Constructors 12400 East imperial Highway Norwalk, California 90650 MAIL ADDRESS P o box 60860 - TERMINAL ANNEX. LOS ANGELES. CAUFORN6A 90080 TELEPHONE (213) 8644011 March 24, 1982 Log BX-7091 Mr. George Wessman Director of Torrey Pines Technology Post Office Box 81608 San Diego, California 92138
Subject:
Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3 Bechtel Job 10079 TPT Independent Review of SONGS 2 & 3 Seismic Design i File: S023-722-G
References:
(A) BPC letter (R. L. Rogers to G. Wessman), dated February 3, 1982, Log BX-7014 ( B ', BPC letter (R. L. Rogers to G. Wessman), dated C)' February 4, 1982, Log BX-7015
Dear Mr. Wessman:
The following information is being provided per the telephone conversation between yourself and S. H. Freid on March 23, 1982 regarding additional in-formation necessary to complete your assessment of References (A) aad (B). The as-built verification program was performed to assure that the safety related supports installed and the design stress analyses are compatible. The normal construction process for all QC II (safety related) supports re-quires a quality control inspection and sign-off of the as-built condition against the current drawing revision. Therefore we have closed the loop be-tween construction turnover versus the latest (as-built) drawing and the final stress analysis versus the latest (as-built) drawings. var 7 trul7 your=> 3 E C ElV E D BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION G. L. wEssMAN {i$((2d H. F. McCluskey Project Management COPY - Los Angeles Power Division 90 0 T E .
- -"~"~~~~"
SEF:jv cc: Mr. J. J. Adrian, SCE
F053 2408 PFR NO. POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION b SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION I l~ A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Southern California Edison Corrective Action Request, S023, F-893, 12/28/79 (Audit Report SCES-05-79), 12/26 -27/79) 3/s/A2. 04/ #' 2)ac
- C"T5 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: m , y ,, 7 ,uu,cu 7we. F4Is W
- 1. 10CFR Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control w urce pasp W 2.
uy 10CFR Appendix B, Criterion VI, Document Control g7 m,f , 31 s/c/r
?ASIC PeQUIREMENT: 1) " Design changes, including field changes, shall be subject to design control measures commensurate with those applied to original design and shall be approved by.the same organization that performed the original design unless the applicant designates enother responsible organization." 2) " Changes to documents shall be reviewed and approved by the same organizations that performed the original review and approval unless the appli-cant designates another responsible organization.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Violation of Criteria III & VI: CAR S023 F-893 states, "The following Field Change Requests do not have vendor concurrence recorded in Block 8." 18813C 23848C 17524C 25672M 23781C 17465C 22220M SCE Procedure S02 26-8-13 EDM, Item 8, under Action 1, states, "FCRs against vendor drawings or specification shall have vendor concurrence in Block 8." l /ailure *> obtafn vendor concurrence violates that requirement per basic requirement 1) and 2), sve. /~nesuc oua L o o os ana r sa Jn PREPARED BY:
' I } b t---3l410Recos W 314 .<a 2 r Mus WoiH id h a,osora v Odny[
. san's rso a onL nz. peg, D AT E:
,,yyt,,,,,,2cj4a<p44o ity Pd M d REJECTION OF G AYASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: "O'AiE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B, REVIEW BY G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS fFL, u i b ' -
~
_g n*%'
.. a , o.h A ^' u~4A&
LR 4? lfn y h At g +L CAN ALpr . 9 y n A tL. CA' ? WW
}( q&g jw A 6-fab #
& 6- '
I Of tLL h4 OU ~ l O AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY ^ - DATE' I g REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE l O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE: s
PAGE2 2408 PFR NO. F053 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS l I C AGREE PF IS VAll0 0 DISAGREE BY: DATE:
- 0. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: (8[ ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: O VAll0 Q INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION:
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION u E. GA PROJECT MANAGER
,$ ACCEPT Q REJECT I I BY3 / '/-I *' WF - DATE: L
2408- PFR NO. F08;4 A POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION Page 1 of 9 l l (This PFR was revised to more clearly describe and define the PF) A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTE0 lTEMS: 1) SCE Audit Reports (See Attachment II)
- 2) SCE Engineering Drawing / Document Management Center (EDM) at the SONGS 2&3 construction site.
REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
- 1) SCE QA Procedures Manual, Procedure N18.04 Rev. 18
- 2) SCE QA Procedures Manual, Procedure N16.03 Rev. 3 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
SEE ATTACHMENT I DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
- 1) SCE audits of the Engineering Drawing / Document Management Center (EDM), SCE & BPC site and the Bechtel Design Office (Norwalk) identified numerous deficiencies during the period of 1974 to 1980. Some of these deficiencies were inadequately corrected and/or resolved in a timely manner by effective correctics action (see Att. Il for specific cases) .
- 2) As a result of the above, these audit reports indicate the potential that preparation,
{ l distribution and retention of project documentation was not in conformance wi th prncedural requirements during the period of 1 4-1984 SEC it E ve s u us T* y A TT. .H t I nth cT "x'*" y ATE: M" M PREPARED BY. g s / N > ( " #" w r REJECTION OF G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: i- DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: I4** Yu OATE: h*8 o ~\ B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS jht,nD n Nih* .9- ECE I np. ) ff #l p V WNY S
,tyc t ;.l) Le t u b' A in A11 $ % lf-tc L 5' OfrAidAl
[f GuE8) D ^o N h 141f E' , c]Il 'l2 4/n MO # N AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY OATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY a g DATE Di REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: / OATE:
PAG E 2 of 9 2408-PFR NO. F05'u REVISION A C. REVIEW BY 0RIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS See attachment III for further discussion O AGREE PF IS VAll0 C OlSAGREE o... BY: DATE: D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: S ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VALIDITY: G VALIO O INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: 2 OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FIN 0 LNG" { COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION I^ s b ) CsJ24nde,csyvcieo esodrsk di d n- V t1- \ w e- 3 cs , h i r) % BY:
#p g' 9' ^'" # DATE: ;
; I' ; L E. GA PROJECT MANAGER
~
M a.
@ ACCEDT Tb M#$ 0 . V' f
' 3 b 4+w O REJECT k E b* w $utfbtL W I M w k l k ie In
' t'} 19 "'uL ' Lu~,. k b-. ga $Q h y k cutbM 6tfu.~p be gg& urfmp #
, j; f* Dtaw g g4 )
w i 6ds m uG /Dm,y g 7" *4 " " g j cayta a QL ID l.w< E duuv.abh cd 4 ' @u/
< t "*" z.,
BY: , DATE: W '?
, 2408 PFR No. F054 Pcga 3 of 9 ATTACHMENT I O SCE AUDIT REPORTS -
SUMMARY
BASIC REQUIREDEDrt:
- 1) SCE QA Procedure N18.04 (underlines added)
Para. 1.2 and 1.3 "1.2 To provide for communication of deviations from the quality assurance program requirements discovered as a result of an audit and associated followup corrective action verification. 1.3 This procedure is intended to satisfy Criteria XVI ara XVIII of 10CFR50, Appendix B, Regulatory Guide 1.33 and ANSI N45.2.12 with respect to planning, performance, documentation rnd followup action associated with corrective action." Para. 3.3 "3.3 The Quality Assurance Organization personnel assigned to perfc.:m audits are responsible for preparation of specific audit plans, performance cf audits in agreement with the audit plans, documentation of audit results, initiation and completion of appropriate logs, and follow-up action, including re-audit as appropriate, associated with corrective action." - Para. 4.5 and 4.6 "4.5 Management having responsibility in the areas audited shall review the results of audits and shall provide appropriate corrective action as denoted on the Corrective Action Request or the Nonconformance Report. 4.6 QA organization personnel shall provide followup on corrective action items as necessary to assure timely implementation." N
2408 PFR No. F054 Pcga 4 of 9 Para. 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 O
"5.4.3 Objective evidence shall be documented in the Audit Report to address each item of the audit plan. This documentation shall provide sufficient detail, to allow management to evaluate the effectiveness of the quality assurance program implementation.
5.4.4 Should areas be discovered during the audit which appear to present deficiencies, the auditor shall bring this to the attention of the audit team leader (as appropriate) and the management representa-tive escorting the auditor. This communication is considered neces-sary in order to provide a meaningful discussion during the exit interview and to provide a basis for required corrective action recom-mendations." Para. 5.5.2 "5.5.2 Jeviations resulting from the audit shall be handled using the Nonconformance Report (NCR) or the Corrective Action Request (CAR) in accordance with applicable OA Manual requirements. The associated NCR or CAR number (s) shall be noted in the appropriate block on the Audit Report." Para. 5.6 "5.6 Followup 5.6.1 The audit team leader is responsible to provide appro-priate followup action to assure that:
- 1) The organization audited responds to the recommendations, Corrective Action Requests and the Nonconformance Reports.
- 2) The responses are adequate and address the problems discovered during the audit with regard to cause, corrective action to correct problems and to prevent recurrence, and
- 3) Corrective action is accomplished in accordance with the established effectivity date.
Followup action may be accomplished through written communi-cation, reaudits or other means appropriate to the circumstance. Reaudits shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of this procedure." l l l
- O
2408 PFR No. F054 PIga 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT I
,Q
- 2) SCE QA Procedure N16.03 Para. 2.0 "2.0 RESPONSIBILITY 2.1 The SCE Quality Assurance Organization is responsible for identifying and documenting conditions adverse to quality, requesting corrective action from the responsible organization, evaluating the corrective action for acceptability, providing appropriate verifica-tion of corrective action, and for notifying affected organizations of conditions adverse to quality and associated corrective action reso-lutions.
2.2 Contractor personnel and SCE organizations are responsible for completing the CAR and for providing cause of condition, action taken to resolve problem and corrective action to prevent recurrence, as applicable. 2.3 SCE Project Engineering (Engineering and Construction Project) or Steam Generation Engineering (Operation) is responsible for evaluating corrective action for acceptability associated with contractor source nonconforming items discovered by SCE, where such evaluation is _ specified in procurement documents." O
2408 PFR No. F054 Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT II CORRECTIVE GENERAL RELEVANCY TO AUDIT 4/DATE DEFICIENCY ACTION TAKEN COMMENTS PFR ITFN SCES-10.0.17.17.0 All Project Documen- None (Initial Problem 3/31/75 tation is not being (10) Recommendations Identification) submitted to the EDM (C.A.) / I 2- g Center 2/ g NS SCES-10-75 Followup Audit of None None 1& 2 12/11/75 SCES-10.0.17.17.0 No deficiencies reported CCES-05 o Const. Mgmnt. Spec. None Failure to follow -tet tete 9/15/75 files not current / procedural regmts A n- d y u- -m w controlled in initiating cor- ^^* o No formal procedures rective action per 3 [""f'Jjd g 93 to keep spec. files N18.04 i current SCES-01-77 Lack of Quality Record 1 CAR issued None 2 1/13/77 Control SCES-GP-2-79 o Bechtel originated o Jobsite EDM None 2 7/18-20/79 Quality Surveillance Center to re-Reports could not be quest Bechtel retrieved from EDM. place EDM on o SCE G.O. encoded docu- distribution ments differently SCES-01-80 o Generate com- o Violation of 2 12/10-12/79 o Procedure for Mtl. mon station SCE QA Program Control S023-X1-16 procedures requirements. not issued for SONGS 1, 2& 3 O O O
( N/ Ptg27of9(my)) CORRECTIVE GENERAL RELEVANCY TO AUDIT 9/DATE DEFICIENCY ACTION TAKEN COMMENTS PFR ITEM S" O b 7 3 Listed vendor FCRs Delete require- Deletion is con- -49f* M 4F7ED 12/26-27/79 do not have approval ments from Pro- trary to reqmnts " * " *
- in Block 8, 502-26-8-13 cedure A#^ 88") ,
of Appx. B, Criteria 3 & 6. ,y [
-- 00".0 Of 90- Various violations of 7 CARS issued S023-P-13 -l+G- bete rto 9/15-18/80 ANSI N18.7-1976 & 4* (C# * # #***)
10CFR50, Appx. B Criterion XVI t/2+[Ik BPC-29-0 Lack of procedural 2 CARS issued Deficiency of 1&2 6/16-19/75 requirement to long duration. address a time FCR 183-C, Rev.2 response to incorpor- (10/7/74) has ate FCRs into original more than 25 FCRs documents against it. Rev. 3 completion date by 7/30/75 CPCS-29-76 QA Program 1 CAR issued CAR adequately 2 8/2-3/76 QA Records addresses finding BPCS-33-76 o BPC Procedural 7 CARS issued Additional train- 2 8/17-20/76 deficiencies ing. Instruction o BPC procedural of personnel is violation & conflicts required per CARS o BPC personnel errors BPCS-44-76 o Lack of interface 9 CARS issued CARS adequately 2 11/11-12,15/76 (Design) procedures address findings (BPC/CE) Implementation of o PIPM procedural corrective action deficiencies verification per CAR.
Pcg] 8 cf 9 4
~
CORRECTIVE GENERAL RELEVANCY TO AUDIT 8/DATE DEFICIENCY ACTION TAKEN COMMENTS PFR ITDi EPCS-15-77 Lack of procedural 2 CARS issued Deficiencies of 2 5/18/77 requirements, long duration. 5/27/77 Assure jobsite control of specs /changas. BPC-6-77 Violation cf QA Program 2 CARS issued CARS adequately 2 6/14-16/77 requirements. Ref. address findings Criterion III, App. B Reg. Guide 1-29 CPC-9-77 Incomplete Calculations BPC to complete Areas of QA program 2 7/26-28/77 and calculation control calculations & not implemented, logs. Criterica III required approv-Appendix B. als obtained BPC-10-77 Violation of QA program 5 CARS (see 1. BPC-ll-76 (9/76) 2 10/11-12/77 Procedures. Ref. comments for 1 CAR Criterion III, App. B Audit History) 2. BPCS-44-76 (11/76) 7 CARS
- 3. BPC-2/77 (2/77) 3 CARS
- 4. BPC-4/77 (4/77) 4 CARS
- 5. BI'C-8/77 (6/77) 1 CAR
- 6. BPC-9/77 (7/77) 2 CARS BPC-ll-77 Violation of PSAR Project Trend Violation of Long 2 10/13/77 requirements (App. A Analysis duration.
Att. 2, Pages A2-4, initiated A2-14 10/17/77 BPC-12-77 Violation of QA program 5 CARS CARS adequately 2 10/9/77 procedures (BPC/ supplier) reflect findings 12/6/77 Ref. ANSI N45.2 12/13/77 Sections 7 & 9 O O O
\ Psge 9%( ))
C,
/ A
~
l l CORRECTIVE GENERAL RELEVANCY TO AUDIT $/DATE DEFICIENCY ACTION TAKEN C00MENTS PFR ITEM -BPC ^4R-1-77 Violation of App. B Fisher to Were the require- M DEN , , 11/2/77 Criterion kVII. No receipt Insp. of inspect, test and provide ments included in purchase Documents h,d#^[y* gh,. safety related items records to BPC Final resolution? W {n M ??-S-3^3 CPC-Meeting Violation of AWS Survey Audit Verified Cotrective -tet- M4.r7am Minutes Dl.1-1972 Welding to be performed Action implemented ouror# cord 11/1/78 procedures 3/21/80. CA untimely. /" CPC-8-78 g4/IjWlP Violation of FCR Delinquent FCRs Evidence of lack of 2 1/4/79 processing time incorporated document control Ref. PIPM Sec. 26 into basic documents. BPC resp. Grp. Engrs to monitor SDDR-1613-1630 Violation of PQPM Addendum G Corrective Action 2 1/16/79 Procedure 6 Rev. 4 (3/8/79) of implementation (11/15/77) Spec. 507-5 verified 4/30/79 References SDDR 1613-1630 , BPC-02-80 Violation of PIPM 31 DCPn to be Procedura' 2 2/14/80 Ex3. 31-A, DCPs transmitted inadequacy. PIPM to Record 31, Exh. 31-A Retention
2408-PFR-F054A Block C Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT III O The following is provided to expand on the description of the problems cited in Attachment II to the PFR and the impact of these problems on the implementation of the quality assurance program in the area of preparation, distribution and retention of project documentation.
- 1. Audit Report SCE 10.0.17.17.0 (3/3-21/75)
This audit identified areas of the proj ect documentation retention operations which were not being performed in a satisfactory manner. Corrective action was requested by letter dated 4-4-75 from SCE Quality Assurance to the EDMC Supervisor. Timely and effective corrective actions were taken in response to the audit. A reaudit conducted 11-11-75 (Item 2 below) noted all previous open items had been closed.
- 2. Audit Report SCES-10-7 5 (11-11-75)
This audit summarized the actions taken in response to audit report SCE 10.0.17.17.0. No adverse findings were noted and all previous open items were closed. Followup audits conducted by Quality Assurance noted a significant improvement in the EDMC operations and those organizations providing documentation to EDMC. 3, Audit Report SCES-06-75 (9-15-75) This audit of SCE Construction Management identified apparent deficiencies in the area of control of specification files. Corrective action was requested by letter dated 9-19-75 from Quality Assurance to the SCE Construction Superintendent. A reaudit conducted 10-21-75 (audit report SCES-09-75) noted that all corrective actions had been taken and that specifications were now adequately filed for jobsite usage.
- 4. Audit Report SCES-01-77 (1-13-77)
This audit indicated that four quality records were apparently not complete. CAR F-235 was issued to Bechtel 1-18-77. Bechtel's investigation indicated that only one quality record, in fact, was incomplete. Revision of construction procedures to clarify completion of NCRs was performed to provide corrective action. The CAR was closed 5-3-77.
- 5. Audit Report SCE-GP-2-79 (7/18-20/79)
This audit indicated that CDMC General Office record retention and filing were not satisfactory. CAR GP-G-100 lh
~
2408-PFR-F054A Block C ATTACHMENT III Page 2 of 6 (~'p . Audit Report SCE-GP-2-9 (continued) V' and GP-G-101 were issued 7-25-79. Corrective action was taken by CDMC to obtain missing records, correct filing problems, and instruct personnel on required actions. The CARS were closed 9-24-79.
- 6. Audit Report SCES-01-80 (12/10-12/79)
This audit indicated that SCE station material control procedures for handling of spare parts had not been issued. CAR S023-F-896 was issued 1-11-80. Procedures were issued by the station and the CAR closed 11-7-80. It should be noted that these procedures were not used for design or construction of San Onofre Units 2 and 3 and were developed for use during the operational phase of Units 2 and 3.
- 7. Audit Report SCES-05-79 (12/26-27/79)
This audit indicated an apparent failure by SCE CDMC to check for vendor approval signatures on Bechtel FCR written on vendor drawings. Since Bechtel procedures (PIPM 26.7.5) required Bechtel Engineering to obtain approval from vendors on field changes to vendor documenta-s tion independent of the approval of the FCR, the CDMC checking function was both inappropriate and contrary to (\-) Bechtel procedures. CAR S023-F-893 was issued 12-28-79. CDMC procedures were revised to be consistent with the Bechtel procedures and the CAR was closed 6-13-80. The implementation of the Bechtel Engineering actions have been verified through audits of the Bechtel design office.
- 8. Audit Report SCES-04-80 (9/15-18/80)
This audit indicated a lack of control of SCE station procedures. CARS P-09 through P-15 were issued 9-30-80 to document these problems. Action was taken by the station to implement effective control of these procedures prior to use in operational activities. It should be noted that these procedures were not used for design or construction of San Onofre Units 2 and 3 and were developed exclusively for operational activities.
- 9. Audit Report 29-0 (6/16-19/75)
This audit indicated deficiencies in completion of FCRs and incorporation of FCRs in design document changes. Corrective action was requested from Bechtel by a letter dated 6-23-75 from SCE Quality Assurance. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct documentation, 7- s revise procedures and instruct personnel regarding proper C
2408-PFR-F054A Block C ATTACHMENT III Paga 3 of 6 Audit Report 29-0 (continued) controls for FCRs . Reaudits conducted 8-18-75 (audit report audit BPCS-32-75) report and 10-10-75 BPCS-44-75) verifie (d implementation of Bechtel corrective actions. Periodic followup audits at the j ob-site and the design office were conducted to assure that FCR procedures were implemented by Bechtel.
- 10. Audit Report BPCS-29-76 (8/2-3/76)
This audit indicated the lack of submittal of FCRs to CDMC. CAR F-101 was issued 8-18-76 to Bechtel. Cot active action was taken by Bechtel to provide missing recorus and instruct personnel regarding proper distribution procedures. The CAR was closed 12-30-76.
- 11. Audit Report BPCS-33-76 (8/17-20/76)
This audit indicated that quality records in CDMC were incomplete in some instances. CARS F-107 through F-112 and F-ll4 were issued 9-7-76 to Bechtel to document specific types of deficiences. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct records, revise procedures and instruct aersonnel. The CARS were closed after verifica-tion of the Bechtel actions in December 1976, January 1977 and March 1977.
- 12. Audit Report BPCS-44-76 (11/11,12,15/76)
This audit indicated deficiencies in the control of piping design documentation. CARS F-189 through F-197 were issued in December 1976 to Bechtel. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct design documentation, revise procedures and instruct personnel on required actions. Corrective actions were verified by a combination of SCE General Office and jobsite Quality Assurance personnel. The CARS were closed between March and August, 1977 after verification of Bechtel corrective action.
- 13. Audit Report BPCS-15-77 (5/18,27/77)
This audit indicated the lack of control of SCNs. The SCN had been recently instituted to provide an additional means of changing Bechtel specifications. CARS F-303 and F-317 were issued 6-28-77 to Bechtel. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to revise procedures and instruct personnel. The CARS were closed 10-26-77 and 8-29-77 respectively. Periodic followup audits at the jobsite and the design office were conducted to assure that SCN procedures were implemented by Bechtel.
2408-PFR-F054A Block C ATTACEMENT III Page 4 of 6 gs ( ,/ 14. Audit Report BPC-6-77 (6/14-16/77) This audit indicated the lack of completion of calculation control logs and checking of calculations prior to drawing issuance for construction. CARS S-246 and S-247 were issued 6-16-77 to Bechtel. Corrective action was taken by s Bechtel to correct documentation, revise procedures and instruct personnel. The CARS were closed 8-10-77 and 8-17-77 respectively. Periodic followu;. and audits were conducted to assure that calculation concrol procedures were implemented by Bechtel.
- 15. Audit Report BPC-9-77 (7/26-28/77)
This audit indicated incomplete calculations and logs and failure to include final loads versus assumed loads in calculations. CARS S-261 and S-262 were issued 7-28-77 to Bechtel. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct documentation, review other calculations for similar conditions and to provide increased monitoring of engineering actions by Quality Engineering. The CARS were closed 10-17-77 and 12-20-77, respectively. Periodic followup audits were conducted to assure that calculation control procedures were implemented by Bechtel. () 16. Audit Report BPC-10-77 (10/11-12/77) This audit indicated lack of design review documentation, incomplete calculations and drawing conflicts / missing information. CARS S-291 through S-295 were issued 10-13-77 to Bechtel. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct documentation and instruct personnel. The CARS closed between January 1978 and June 1978.
- 17. Audit Report BPC-ll-77 (10/13/77)
This audit indicated lack of project trend analysis, lack of SCN/FCR incorporation in design documents, lack of completion of SDDR, lack of corrective action followup on supplier surveys, lack of supplier surveys, improper approvals of QVDL, unclear specification requirements for documentation submittal and lack of record retention controls. CARS S-281 through S-289 were issued to Bechtel 10-13-77. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct documentation, revise procedures and instructed-personnel. The CARS were closed between December 1977 and July 1978.
- 18. Audit Report BPC-12-77 (11/9-10/ 77, 12/6,13,20/ 77) x This audit indicated current documents not being used for I inspection by Bechtel source inspection, lack of DCN/FCR/
)
l
2408-PFR-F054A Block C ATTACHMENT III Page 5 of 6 Audit Report BPC-12-77 (continued) SDDR incorporation in design documents, lack of control of design changes on shipped hardware, lack of current vendor documents in use at a vendor facility, and lack of current procurement documents at the jobsite. CARS S-324 through S-329 were issued to Bechtel 12-20-77. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct documentation or establish additional prqject controls. The CARS were closed between February and April 1978.
- 19. Audit Report FSHP-1-77 (10-26-77)
This audit was conducted at Fisher Coritrols , Corapolis, Pennsylvania indicated the lack of control of safety related non-pressure boundary parts by this vendor. CARS S-296 through S-303 were issued to Bechtel since Bechtel was responsible for surveillance of this supplier's activities and specification of procurement requirements. Corrective action measures were taken by Bechtel with this vendor and other related vendors to establish the acceptability of procured items either by additional program controls and acceptance inspections / tests beyond those normally applied by the vendor. The CARS related to Fisher Controls were closed between April and June 1978. g
- 20. CAR S023-S-392-0 CAR S023-S-392-0 was issued to Bechtel 11-1-78 regarding the specification of fillet weld sizes on pipe support drawings which were undersize with regard to AWS Code requirements. The corrective action was taken in stages by Bechtel. The first stage was to assess the magnitude and extent of the problem by a field survey. The next stage was to conduct a complete field inspection program.
The third stage was to conduct a series of qualification tests. The above actions were quite extensive and took over 14 months to complete by Bechtel. The CAR was closed 3-21-80 after completion of all Bechtel actions.
- 21. Audit Report BPC-8-78 (12/12,13,20/78 and 1/4/79)
This audit identified lack of incorporation of FCR in design documents, lack of an ASME Code list, and drawing errors. CARS S023-S-394, S-395 and S-396 were issued to Bechtel 1-22-79. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct documentation, revise procedures and instruct personnel. The CARS were closed 3-15-79 and 6-28-79. O
. j 2408-PFR-F054A Block C ATTACHMENT III Page 6 of 6 ry NJ
- 22. CAR S023-S-393 This request was issued to Bechtel 1-18-79 regarding the lack of incorporation of SDDR 1613-1630 in specification 507-5. The SDDRs were issued to resolve bid proposal exceptions proposed by Westinghouse to supply motor operated valves. These Westinghouse valves were replacements for valves originally ordered from ACF-WKM. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to revise the specification to reference the SDDRs. The CAR was closed 4-30-79.
- 23. Audit Report BPC-2-80 (2/13-14/80)
This audit identified the lack of NCR disposition approvals, lack of SDDR incorporation in design documents, lack of record retention for design documents and lack of program controls for fire dampers on normal HVAC ducting. CARS S023-S423 through S-426 were issued to Bechtel. Corrective action was taken by Bechtel to correct documentation, revise procedures and instruct personnel. The CARS were closed between April and June 1980. () Conclusion The above discussion illustrates that problems identified by audits or other means were identified and corrected. Corrective action commitments and schedules were determined based on the apparent significance of the problem and the priorities of the organizations responsible for taking corrective actions. Follow-up verifications to assure effectiveness were made by Quality Asst.sance af ter actions were completed. Initial failures to implement corrective action in an effective manner or repetitive deficiencies were noted by SCE in audit reports to affected organization management after emphasizing the nature of the findings in exit interviews at the working level. Increased surveillance and audits were conducted in areas shown by past experience to be weak in program implementation to assure that problems were identified before they became unmanageable or posed a significant impact on quality. These measures provided assurance that quality assurance program was functional in the area of preparation, distribution and retention of project documentation, n
- k. fs
/
I IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408 PFR NO. F054g i SCE Audit Reports AFFECTED ITEM: SCE Engineering Drawing / Document Management Center (EDM) at the SONGS 263 Construction Site
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REQUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
N/A
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ?
N/A
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM OURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Unlikely
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ? Yes, based on this small sample of audit reports reviewed, it is likely that similar conditions exist where inadequate or ineffective corrective action was taken.
- 6. OTHER COMMENTS: I Initiation of the PFR was based on a review of SCE audits of the Engineering Drawing /
Document Management Center, SCE & BPC site, and Bechtel Design Office (Norwalk). T'ils review identified many instances in the 1974-1980 period in which inadequate or ineffective corrective action resulted. Because these corrective actions were not effective in correcting deficiencies, there is concern over the possibility that both Quality Assurance'and Project Documentation was not adequately identified and controlled.
- Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: - M
% v
- DATE: 2/#MA COMMENTS:
l I
.- ,i..!.
BY: OATE: " "
- = - _ - . _ - - .. . _ _ . -_-.- _ _ . - - _ . - _ - . _ - - - - _ _
! 2408 PFR F054A ! PAGE 2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT : I a 1 A thorough review of extensive SCE documentation in these areas has shown that the EDMC (jobsite) was established in 5-74. The SCE Quality Assurance i Organization (QAO) had the responsibility to assure that QA's (SCE) and the I (then) AEC's document control requirements were identified and satisfied. Additionally, QA0 was responsible for developing and implementing the necessary i review procedures to assure that all Quality Class 1 & 2 documents complied with the regulatory requirements. QA0 also assumed responsibility for classifying all incoming documents, processing of Class 1 & 2 documents and approving configuration management procedures. Specific QA document requirements were not identified until 7-75 and Project Documentation requirements were not identified until 3-76. SCE identified the specific project technical documentation requirements to Bechtel on April 26, 1976. Prior to the establishment of EDMC (jobsite) QA records were maintained by QA and Project maintained their own design documentation records. l SCE Audit Report SCE 10.0.17.17.0 dated 3/31/75 documents the need for i upgrading the EDMC Implementation Plan to reflect the current work practices 1 being used. This plan, although requiring detailed procedures to be developed and implemented, does not provide specific operational details. The followup audit SCE-10-75 dated 11/11/75 states, " Detailed SCE-QA and EDM procedures have i been written to current work practices to supplement the EDM Work Plan-1974. . New procedures will be written as required as progress on the SONGS 2&3 project ' dictates." Although some procedures were developed in late 1974 for the Engineering and Construction Dept. relating to document control, the above noted reports indicate that these procedures were not being implemented at the i jobsite. Documented evidence of the adequacy of these procedures for EDMC use and implementation of same at the jobsite has not been verified. Additional documentation (see Att.) was examined and further substantiates the validity of the PFR. This review did not include examination of direct evidence in the area of document control management, but was limited to a small sample of audits performed on the document control activities. However, the review of audits and supporting documentation indicates a continuous problem. i The impact is that there is a potential that hardware may have been designed, ' l fabricated or installed in accordance with obsolete design documents. However, i no evidence of this actually occurring was indicated in the review of audits of site activities.
)
l l l \
2408 PFR 054A IMPACT ASSESSMENT ATTACHMENT
- 1. Audit Report SCE-1-76 and CAR 6-1 O
- 2. Audit Report SCE-4-76 and CARS 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9
- 3. Audit Report SCE-21-76 and CARS 6-29, 6-30, 6-6
- 4. Audit Report SCE-9.2.17.17.0
- 5. Audit Report SCE-9.1.17.17.0
- 6. Audit L ym i 00 10.0.17.17.0 A n. **
- 7. Audit Report SCE-36-75
- 8. Letter P. R. Belhumeur to R. E. Eversole dated 4/4/75 related to Audit Report SCE-10.0.17.17.0
- 9. Letter R. R. Hart to P. R. Belhumeur dated 10/3/75 related to Audit Report SCES-06-75
- 10. Letter P.R. Belhumeur to R. R. Hart dated 9/19/75 related to Audit Report SCES-06-75
- 11. Letter P. R. Belhumeut to R. E. Eversole dated 11/14/75 related to Audit Report SCES-10-75
- 12. Meeting Minutes dated 3/6/75
Subject:
EDM-QA Interfaces
- 13. Letter P. Dragolovich (Bechtel) to L. D. Hamlin (SCE) related to Project Document List
- 14. Letter H. B. Ray to E. W. Schultz dated 6/17/76 related to Audit Report SCE-21-76
- 15. Letter H. B. Ray to L. D. Hamlin dated 1/8/76 related to Audit Report SCE-1-76
- 16. Letter H. B. Ray to L. D. Hamlin and G. Mueller dated 3/9/76 related to Audit Report SCE-4-76 l 17. Letter H. B. Ray to C. Mueller and L. D. Hamlin dated 12/17/75 related l to Audit Report SCE-36-75 i
O
2 Vo8 - l'FE - FeSYA O D 18 Letter H. B. Ray to L SCE-36-75 D. Hamlin dated 1/21/76 related to Audit Report 19 Office Memo J. Bognar to J. Thomas dated 1/19/76 related to Audit Report SCE-36-75 20 Letter H. B. Ray from L. D. Hamlin dated 1/14/76 related to Audit Report SCE-36-75 21 Letter P . C. Tosti to P.R. Belhumeur dated 4/28/75 related to audit Report SCE-9.2.17.17.0 .
- 22. Letter B. Cooper to L. D. Hamlin and R. E. Eversole dated 3/31/75 related to audit report SCE 9.2.17.17.0 23 . Letter R. P. Miller to B. Cooper dated 4/8/75 related to Audit Report SCE-9.1.17.17.0 24 Letter B. Cooper to R E. Eversole dated 4/1/75 related to Audit Report SCE-9.1.17.17.0 0
i i.
-- - - - - - - .. . .._.__._____.,m _ . _ . . , , __ ,
Gan'2ral Atomic Company 05 OUALITY ASSUR A!!CE DEPAR TMENT t
/
Record of Lc- m e +'"~ T ' q' 7 - ^ 11, -'i g. p .ro S C.E. t . f? o 5 e. NE. A o ( + ,.[ Party: W B Co urA c. r e. o Date: 21MAh 19 L GalHng 8 Time: Compteted T Name J . k i'H o s a s SC.E OA "# *d )M4 O n -1 m.e J Cornpeny . So C. t. EE o ,s o a Loca tio n ( o.si ~ c w n
- t. A 6cosc.et. OF f 'c e Telephono Ma: ATCk No . \ N \\
Dis c ue e M m - Vis'T Wac Ev J . E . L a u ed A a o P . F H a v wer_i_ [bm G6 Q Al D o en c> s e. - .
- R'E v r e.w S C.E Q D ut.E % P o u s G 'fu
- 2. 4 o 1 O r a. H o r + A d o f fe r.
~h e s c,o e s e o a C.o v e a cr.! .q c.e aA f& c s p o m s n, prit+o N A, 5e u erac.* u,n n.s e sceoa ,e,.: s o o , g c. -n n m c.a u ear it OC Tet 0FA. O TTA c.H H ev9 TC \ss e c.s) e aJ c t t) b El A L~ e $ 'T
- rJ 4.-
en S C E' O A Avo oT h o o et n . E vu, .s - j A , vaca - e or rr ,s ge . , c v o o *,e n
. il 2.+[ v 2.
d A D o n 9
- e U Q l. b o C-U
- 4 MA T)
- r) VJ A 3 0 8 T'A
- U E !) fL*M 1 ,
$0$ & 41 * / Al c l U 0 0 U d*. b lid e *I' $6)3 3 ILR , { O nd.42 f*CT eV C bc 110.)
/2E.oOsa n p >> AS$b c. a vn D Co e et a s e a a a ex>c 6 k u op,,i .. v y 7"s*FLL).
3h CAJ n1 &~MA K E f f t.D To T/-n> H A r &f1 T ~ 8A le n up as/ .2) o c.u e c A.s TW * */ E a A +poa.s c*p iJO&st 3/$L.uS$re s) A & essy
'%s or Ce>Jcend 3 rr t. t. E,i sis /2 r a n t s u 3 s e.v m e- u s
_ Co &742.0 L D U n ,osJ 6 T H E ~~s % & f.d *,., xt iDtW7/C!En p e r 3t 7Mt m l I E e' / Record Made by %_ 2 I Distribution: ,
.s j y - _._ . _ . r, . re. , - . .
7_ ,
PFR NO.1%1 - PFR -U- Off POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC OESIGN VERIFICATION I l PREPARATION BY G A INITIATOR AF TED ITEMS: Pipe Support 167, 203, 826, 152, 200, 52, 166, 178, 93, 77, 466 46 (GA it 23, 30, 32, 27, 29, 24, 21, 28, 26, 25, 31, 22) REQUIREMEN 'FERENCE DOCUMENTS: PIPM Section 14. 7, Rev. 10 (dated 3/9/81) BASIC REQUIREMENT: Revisions must be recorded in the c rol logs ' hin 15 working days. Plen.se. V oi d
'rms i s a, JL w pu e,.hto9 Cr06E Ck DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
%>-M t1W W A check of the Project files s ed that the calculat s for the above were being revised (revision 2) and ti documentation was not comple . The title sheet for Calc No. P 450-1.44 was t approved for Rev. 2. Also Calc .- . P-450.1.50. These calculations include 1 of the above affected items. Attached e title sheets for
-1.44 and -1.50. -
l I PREPAR BY: N O v DATE: RE T10N OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: EJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
/ j r y b l- P G ' o \~ (0 U.
p-&J l mW g 2/u/n imd;L
@FA A4 dd 2Av/A
, .h AGREE PF IS VAllD BY
/ DATE E 'N '
{ l O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
l PAGE 2 PFR NO. REVISION REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION C. COMMENTS 'l } O AGREE PF IS VAll0 0 OlSAGREE BY: DATE: D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: $ ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: O VAll0 M INVAll0 CLASSIFICATICN: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERl0N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" l l COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION PFR L g g) f f d G/ PF/1 Fo&T BY: - - - v' ri DATE: Y v E. GA PROJECT MANAGER
% ACCEPT C REJECT BY: b IM2NbfI # - DATE:
/
E
/
9 . . ups - pre - o cr 7 C ALCUL ATION TIT L E SHEET
.tc,,o, 4 y>co (g .,,c, o,, c ,
- teoe 9&c aw2 s er rwu a2 ch c sus
,,, ,, it en e-c e0.
5.03 a su eu F.qsc P-456-l'N M g eioi~.ro... - Ud- o 1,
%,\'a\4o ou, , c,,u,,
a I e._.....l. x ma o... -s a .o........
. i '~ ~ '-
carcn As acouinto orvet or neview @ @ Pt S, A MP IP R Eo'D ORIGIN AL ISSUE NAME DA,E SI G NKu R E b Ossr.tt Ogtw M 3\ h
@ onouPLcaDan s a L m m ~ a 9.+ vo 6 ,/ C e ...
h SPECI ALIST
@ci, OTHER -
RECORD OF REVISIONS EGL EG5 SPEC. CMiEF DATE ENG. CK%
'sNo navistoN I
P ORRF r' TE f) O l ' A (_ tT V C L R 5 s i r. 5 -IS- s i h
/h CoGtemE0 Call TO PSbl.
A A
'Fon c.etTE.nin 71 Proc.s ooe<_,y Sct c.a u He fM50 -o to 7 %\s cAc.etm son (N C WD+1 C.f\\.C, P %Q -l 44-I DN
'P-4So-l.44 ~77f R.ev n GL00 es a,c h, o 69pple<,th 77E E ~773 j
, ./
,-. ; p< 7 w * ... . . , , . . _ ,
4
? ' "'
d
.3, ,
FOR CmQSTRUCTURAD 5
"' CATION OF THE
' ..,iLT CONDm0N, s .
/y . 9 ,
' SEE CALC, MO. N T 1
\
,1 (t -
.e t t .) . . ____- _ _ _
_ y v
2408 PFR NO. F056
~~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT ~ REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION l l A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFF ECTED ITEMS: Pipe Support 203, 178, 466 (GA item: 30, 28, 31) REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: PIPM Section 8.14.2, Rev. 24 dated 10/16/81 ; CMC *UE *
, SeE T.m9a d (\ssgssmed 4 t M crph4 i BASIC REQUIREMENT:
"EGS or designee shall note in Block 12 if they approve the FCN and initial or sign the appropriate space."
"The PE or designee shall then initial or sign and date the document as well as PE space in line 14."
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Block 12 - no ECS initials or signature were noted. Block 14 - no PE initials or signature were noted.
~
GA I em FCN without initial or sign gg g
,d r u,% i t. . se,% cie s , A g 28 ,1 31 p v3 g s; q y,q y teds q g 1 gq g,
\\- %
PREPARED BY: D A DATE: 1~ REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:dh. l N d, - DATE: 3 ~ ID 'I2-- B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS an - 3 // L g Q- ffN ja YA Y "'
^F F 90h j a 2tw/n-h AGREE PF iS VAllD BK / DATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE _ ,.
~ '
O DISAGREE BY - DATE-iT REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: C s/ DATE:
PACE 2 2408 PFR NO. F05G REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORfGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS g g The FCN's were developed to make minor field modifications to pipe support or hanger designs. Section 8.14.2 stated that blocks 12 and 14 through 16 are to be completed as appropriate to complete the conversion. Since the use of this document (FCN) has severe limitations on its use we have deemed it inappropriate to require both the EGS and the PE designee (same person) to sign twice in block 12. We have also decreed it not appropriate to complete blocks 14 and 16. O AGREE PF IS VAll0 Q O!SAGREE BY: r M OATE: l! b D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE OEFINITION ADEQUACY: 03 ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAllulTY: Q VAll0 O INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: Di[ OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTlFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" l l COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION N / BY: rl DATE: 3!O ' v E. GA PROJECT MANAGER 0Q ACCEPT O REJECT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT l I - 2408 PFR NO. F056 AFFECTEDITEM: PIPe Supports 203, 178, 466
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
N/A ,
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ?
N/A
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM OURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Very unlikely
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Yes { } 6. OTHER COMMENTS: Bechtel's practice of designating one individual to sign for Project Engineering approval on FCNs is not according to the PIPM. Bechtel's authorized signature memos do not explicitly sanction this practice but suggest that indirectly this is the intent of the memos. This practice is very unlikely to degrade safety. PREPARED 8'/: h CD tA & DATE: 2 ~ I b~ Ih COMMENTS: hg i e l
f*{Clr'- PfII- S W 6 P T_ h R v. 4% 3/n-/&G
. 24 D:te 10-16-81 N" DRAWING PREPARATION k, 8.12.3 VOIDING A DCN A DCN may be voided by the following methods:
e Issuing a drawing revision and stating " VOID DCN NO. in the revision block.
- Issuing another DCN and stating " VOID DCN NO. " in the Description of Change block.
Stamping the word " VOID" in the Description of Change or Change request / Sketch block of an original DCN or a copy of an FCR con-verted to a DCN and adding a letter "V" after the DCN subnumber. The EGS or authorized designee must then initial and date the DCN under the VOID stamp and forward the DCN to DDC for filming, distributing and filing. 8.12.4 DCN PREPARATION PROCEDURE (Refer to the DCN form, Exhibit 8-B and Figure 8-2, DCN PREPARATION FLOW DIAGRAM) 8.13 REQljSTING OF PRINTS FROM SUPERSEDED OR VOID DI:AWINGS Prints requested fro:a "cuperseded" or " void" stamped microfilm aperture cards shall be stamped " superseded" or " void", as appropriate, on the face of the print. 8.14 FIELD CHANGF. NOTICE The Field Change Notice (FCN) (Exhibit 8-F) is used by Field Engineer-ing to notify Project Engineering of changes to the Engineering design documents and to Supplier Drawings approved for construction. They are to be prepared in accordance with WPP/QCI-038 and require PFE or de-signee approval before proceedinS with the work. NOTE The use of FCN's is restricted to Pipe Ifanger or Pipe Support activities. f v 8-19
gqog . pfe - i= o s%
, ',?.
& 3//W"
~
Bechtel Power Corporation { interoffice Memorancum
- 7. L. W. Hurst ra, % SC23-704-AF
% San Onofre units 2 & 3 %, September 16, 1981 Bechtel Job 10079 ,
Authorized Signature p,,, R. L. Rogers for FCR, FCN, NCR o, Engineering
% ,, C. Mitchhart 4, LAPD, B-47E Ent. 201 W. D. Nichols A. Stenersen C. Wreath 1his IOM is to confirm verbal authorization previously given for the following individuals who are authorized to sign FCR's and FCN's for Plant Design and Pipe Support drawings and specifications.
D. Radcliffe ha/> kA/M Signature "- OM Initials D. Intcher 0 tykh n Signatu're og, Initials The following individual is the authorized EGS for Plant Design. D. Capito . Signatute N@Initials h' W
~
,, R . L. Rogers i
i CM jv i l l p ti v gNt i L 'g s\ @ gg.,_ q.a y
a<for SFfl- FuS~G P;g2 2 ef Nf6
.'. Revision 34 Name Employee -
Printed Signature Initial Project Position No. Discipline C. Mitchhart - Project Quality Engr. 713740 Q.E. H. Naz:rian f/((#g&Ma< * - h# Deputy EGS 313394 C/S EGS Designee 712981 Plant Design M. Noacges g J. Purucker Deputy EGS 620068 Nuclear T. E. Richardson EGS 370772 Nuclear R. L. Rogers Project Engineer 403458 Engineering A. G. Sassi Deputy EGS 407682 Mechanical E. A. San Jose 6,E] ECS Designee 502948 Control Sys. Nuclear R. A. Schilling [ EGS Designee 789666
. W. Schil ,
ECS 617830 Architectura A. C. Syriotis* - 594800 R. W211a tg [ EGS 316091 Control Sys. K. W21vekar W ECS 7149'9, Mechanical G. Wickenberg [,)[. ECS Designee 619582 Mechanical L. Wicdemanna 301921 Mechanical K. Williams Mf _ g Deputy EGS 408263 Plant Design J. Woo 4% , ECS Designee 616583 Electrical o Alco authorized to sign all discipline's FCR's, FCN's, DCN's, SPR's, TER's, Drawings, NCR's cnd Conditional Releases past fuel load for Project Engineer. ! co Alco authorized to sign all discipline FCR's, FCN's, DCN's , SPR's, TER's, Drawings, NCR's l n obsence of L. Wiedemann. 00* Also authorized to sign Conditional Releases past fuel load.
y vdr M 8 b Attcchment (1) 4 S//kW Pag 3 1 of 3 Revision 34 l (m*) SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 & 3 , AUTHORIZED ENGINEERING SIGNATURE LIST Name Employee Printed Signature Initial Project Position No. Discipline L. Allen j, fyy M h Deputy ECS A34040 Control Sys. R. Armour ** ECS Designee 404160 Mechanical [ H. Carpos -- 4 k #d d Deputy EGS C06360 Elec trical 711748 Plant Design D. Capito { EGS W. Druenond** b Senior Engineer 288103 Plant Design B. Duncil " FSAR Deputy Supv. 564737 Nuclear P- dgar** y % Eng.-S/U Interface E15228 Electrical orster Quality Engineer 310903 Q.E. S. Froid [ g APE 417610 Engineering A. Carza* gg , g, Pi Support Coor- 502648 P/S J. E. Gutmann g APE 791849 Engineering E. Hattler y h - EGS 315753 Electrical R. Hermann y, ECS Designee 792616 Plant Design R. Johnson " Environmental Coor- 582311 Electrical h hh h ' dinator K. Les v EGS Designee L32082 Elec trical b . A. Lopez O , ECS 408786 C/S J MacKinnon S - APE Designee M04480 Engineering
.shlmeister , b a.k.[ w w D APE 618136 Engineering
, o1 9 & - , F 3//
Bechtel ower orporation
- Interoffice Memorandum To L. Hurst r= No. SO23-704-AF Log OF-2386 O
se San Onof re Units 2 & 3 om. Dece:nber 22, 1981 Bechtal Job 10079 Authorized Engineering From R. L. Rogers . Signature List, Rev. 34 of Engineering - cap.= to C. A. Blun As LAPD, B-47E Ext. 201 D. Lobree E. Luder J. Sheppard C. Unick Individuals on list
Attachment:
(1) Authorized Engineering Signature List, Revision 34 The attsched list supersedes only Revision 33 of this list and indicates those individuals authorized by Project to approve Project documents in accordance with the Project Internal Procedures Manual and the notations on the attached signature list. O
. L. Rogers CM:je 7 2b ~
ante
\\GD O
t
;e M/dfr- 9f/2 -F<> 6 Pass 3 cf 3 l A s//L/k& Ravioien 34
' cuthorised to sign their discipline FCR's, FCN's DCN's, SFR's, TER's, Drawings and D.
Authorized to sign environmental doc...ntation only. xx Auth rised to sign all FSAR documentation only. , O
- O O
O O e 4
**,* ,,s , g e eap
. , + *= .,*- . . . ,, .. . . ,,. , ,,
t * -4'*.,. w be i .c , .
y 4 -/?S 72 . f c) $~C ,
& 3//a/4 L l R:v. 24 D:ta 10-16-81 DRAWING PREPARATION Project Engineering and QAE approval are required before an FCN becomes valid for installation acceptance.
8.14.1 FCN LIMITATIONS FCN's may be used except for the limitations given below. The relocation of Engineering designed pipe supports beyond allowances given in CS-P207 require Engineering approved FCR's. The pipe supports and eh racteristics of pipe supports listed below require Engineering approved FCR's:
- 1. Project Class A and B pipe supports.
- 2. Main Steam and Main Feedwater pipe supports for 18" diameter and larger pipe.
- 3. Pipe supports for Steam Generator Blowdown lines inside the Containment Buildings.
- 4. Type and size of pressure boundary welds on piping.
S. Ilearins, and reinforcing collars on Schedule IOS and 20S piping.
- 6. Pipe supports with loading conditions for which the FE does not have design guidelines.
- 7. Pipe supports that will become inaccessible at a later date.
8.14.2 RESPONSIBILITY The FCN is submitted to the Project Engineering office through Project Administration for approval. Project Administration will maintain a log of FCN's to track the sub-mittal, disposition, and return of the original to the CEM. Project Administration will distribute the original to the appropriate Disci-pline EGS, if required, after making a copy to keep in a pending file for reference and backup in the event of loss or damage of the original. (This copy can be removed and disposed of when the original is returned to the CDM.) 8-20 CO
1 '/OPA ]Wf A t,~6-Z., Of R .v. 24 Date_1[0-16-81 DRAWING PREPARATION Prior to returning the original FCN to the CDM, a copy of the disposi-tioned FCN will be made for distribution to Quality Engineering (QE) and Project files. In the event that the FCN is converted to a Speci-fication Change Notice (SCN) or DCN, copies will also be given to the Project Control Center or DDC as appropriate. Project Engineering Office may convert an FCN to a DCN or SCN as neces-sary. In the event that no conversion is made to the FCN, the Discipline Engineer, Project Engineer, or designees shall cross out blocks 12B through 12E on the FCN and complete block 12 on the form by noting in the remarks that the FCN will be incorporated in the next revision to the document it is written against. If the FCN is to become an SCN or DCN, the Discipline Engineer, Project Engineer or designees shall complete blocks 12B through 12E,14, 15 and 16 as appropriate to complete the conversion. The EGS or designee shall note in block 12 if they approve the FCN and initial or sign the s approprir.te space. The PE or designee shall then initial or sign and
- b. date the document as well as the PE space in line 14.
The Quality Engineer or Quality Assurance representative shall sign line 15 and dar.e the document. Af ter completion of all necessary approvals, the FCN or converted FCN/SCN/DCN is returned to Project Administration for processing as noted above. NOTE All Pipe Support FCN's must be incorporated into DCN's within 90 days of the sign off of the FCN unless a written extension is granted by the Project Engineer. The same personnel authorized to sign approval of FCR's may also approve FCN's. . ,(m y ' l 8-21
. . . ==e *'
- g yg e. P fc S u $~C d b 3/to/FL -
Rev. 23 Date 06-25-81 DRAWING PREPARATION
/
S Am oNoe nE Nuc t r Am osNamarse.o st A reoM '- 'C""D- 'aA ov & Lev , eac ocN sveNo uNers a a : - - - - - - - - - - - - C" Dafg tad DATE FCN /DCN/SCN a
- A GE ___or 'as sesc apotNo
- - - - - - - - - - - - - =o 7,- q,; ,, - - --
son ws s u .s n i 'n e a s.w o. oN +.es c >Mi s s No naw 5 Yeatr
- D'*"'" O"'6'" " " "
s NoRo O WENDO= 0 sio N ele v e e A es i s <, c oN e se e sun e ( M A Nte s Ho f s* e /48s 8.7 C88 4 t a s v te N(V pgWE D 3, DAtt 9 CivlL PIPE a a s
- A se t t) te v ELEC INSTR 99. AP HOV AL OF F LD Debt Oss TION MECH NUC e.nosa t t s ee Las s ees. eer e se attD OAE oAtr _
es Pno JL C T E NGNG AP* ROV A L vts O No O ros Pr oArc j NtMANMs l [ se ou At ef T A sttpW A Nf C FNGtNt t et (FIE L DI _ _ . . . , _ _ CAYr to Ne t 8 NebeNS & $#pM(e AD*PHOW AL -....~--PC . --. .. . tsatt . . . . . . - 9% let t 80 0 3 0 +## 8 4 8 4 0 W G NtetN8 f f8 4484 819 T A '.%IIN A Nt t ****s ..
- 90. A telea t te pee A t is ta. t ed elet i l et s N es g oe s t e sem pe g a p ee Erhibit 8-F FIELD CIIANGC NOTICE /DCN/SCN (Sheet 1 of 2) 8-40
* ~
l o j '(ok- -l252. fc' b f General Atomic Company
. # 3//A/b2 -
QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPART.'.!ENT (n(/ Record of Long Distance Telephone Call Party: Called 'S Date: 3 -Y- 9 7_ Calling O Time: Compte ted i c. 4 r Name h Ak M b b h On-line 1 6' m ., w Company Ree_M\9\ - Location W h
- Wiet Telephone No: A/C 17 A No.9 4 % IiI9 2351 Discus sion L; n t h u su, \\\\ '
P F R so7 7 - met ed be i m mr, ci de mn ben h e-Q , h etMh1 Oc meAh N P%R s o c C, - n e_e_.k%) t e m ~Mr 6 3 u c4 : < , .A-
+e iwyu\\A Ltt 9OGG_ P e w d ? t o_ n e,h o.Ax- D C D h. A14th - \- ed e ch %,-+ -
i - on
~ -
~t,. c o v ni u d- % 4 uvw-: , . s s % e_
p 4.v s m to s ( cs m Serr E Cs S eud 9 E,
. M 's 4 e_h w s \\ revitw / e<so o') { k o TA o_tMt I tcdaMod mh smA s e>m o Ln e4 ooncov d U d Tw;s m ou, ero v i ekn_. M er A cd-i m &n
'swvc3\idcdk 9 O O6-l .
l O e .
!* 4 t .~J .
, $ ) ,
Distribution: h-~ '"-S t I c\ & , 5 h cAv m ek8, k q v c,k Q V-'
.J ( Q\ g4;y 1 ~ 't ~ ~6 2- h ~ Ji/cy-/?f72
%L% ) 4. s/n/;?_-/~GSL t: r.
S (~ '
- l. FCN 12A- OUA V 12 C orN SAN ONorpt NUCLE AR GENCD ATING ST ATION .g Lg
[jO uu,rs 2 s s
-DATE
- - - - 4.- l 1. 7 9 7 -12D.ODATG'_S ubN
~n _ .
(,
'd i1 /DCN/SCN 2.PAGE I Or I '2a. secc A De N sn ~ $]" j9% -----
7, 02 l JOB NO. '"D C,,[CCd .3.-UN - .IT.NO._.
- __h- _
C ?" 4~NIF.D*G ON SPEC. SM . LT NO. H EV. S. TITLL 52 - SI . o :3 4 -oo 2. o_ _ Pi PE S UP Fo C~~ A SS EM SLY CNGRG VENDOR O (IDENTIFY)
- 7. LAISTING CONO RT 40N Abb F,s ..d Wet b teen ri e R.s .
Q. CH A NG E NOT aC E/5M ET CH CnAuc;G *(QAa @ EL (-) 10'- I"
- FAgnar L4 A s suawa : .{gg
- \ O'h'\TRSing
'/4 / 3 - 12 '/z. .
5A TMIS EMb i ( e i 5B OPP. EMD - b N E R.AL. ATTACMENT SvPPt.Y ASME. SEC.. J ' h [t-f SC. MATER.i A L. g pt Ad @ E L . (-) 10'- t " r.>' *f f -
\ '
c J r F f . M. f""
.N OT1ii. : Mo NEw M AT *L. h6d.
NOCY lM COh!:TVAJ C'*IoM Wirs FC.R. 207t s- S . PL 2754 PROJtc7 ENGtN EERING A PPROV AL PCR j g 10 REviEwtDav DATE /, ' //j, a/ {9 g, Q pn civil ciP _ --
//.d~ 4274D - . . t . a'; G e y, , , ,<
s1 AP c., v AL o r F L CrJ s srOSIT p W CLEC IN ST R '
. O*] // f h*.Y),
adECH NUC f
,,,tg.,,- , Q , g ,,
W wCLD O n rfd5d/ W& ~5l) gngg ?-h
,Q,
/"#").
12 PROJECT CNGRG APPR OV AL- V /
*oATc
*c ' '
YE5 7 NO O cgs - DC&dARMS b y ",'g'f((.,p--- q m O O. I, N [ V SYsa1 l ' s
&V5 J
--- ,I Y'I.' 2 c..,i,7 A N# 7~/* M '
DATC [ W ' t s CU A Livv a ssum aNet ENGINEte rit D) 44 CCC ENGsht tRING APPROV AL P E- '
.' "S i ' DATE IS. CCCHTCL OU A LIT Y ENGINEE R.QU A LITY ASSUR ANCE Datt_
IS ODDITION A L DISTRIBUT80N presas p tese te t e visa W
,. PFR n0.
2408-PFR-F057 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Control Room Relay Panels 2L-71 and 3L-71 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE 00CUMENTS: Quality Class II Specification for Quality Class II Panels, Relays and Devices for the Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Onofre, California. Specification Number S023-306-1, SCE Number 3274, July 31,1975. BASIC REQUIREMENT: Section 3.10A in Appendix 3.10A of the FSAR requires that the actual service mounting condition of' equipment be accounted for in seismic qualification by test or analysis. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FIN 0 LNG: Although paragraph 4.6.3.3 of this specification states that flexibility of the foundation anchorage detail must be considered in the calculation of the system natural frequencies, there is no information provided in the specification from which the anchorage flexibility could be included in the analysis or test. l l PREPARE 0 BY: J. Rakowski , r i 4 OATE: ( < W REJECTION OF G A TASK LEA 0 COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: _ B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS Jt AGREE PF IS VAllo SY DATE b O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY ! DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REV!EW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
~
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F057 REViS!ON C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMM ENTS See attached sheet. O AGREE PF IS VAllD M DISAG REE BY: DATE: 3!A!8d D. RECOMMENDATION BY FIN 0lNGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEF!NITION ADEQUACY: M ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0ITY: O VALID y INVAllD CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITER10N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: -
,y DATE: 3//7/#2-v E. GA PROJECT MANAGER R ACCEPT O REJECT m
- Attcchment to .
2408-PFR-F057
/
( i The provisions of Paragraph 4.6.3.3 of the Specification, pertaining to the V flexibility of the foundation anchorage detail, were introduced to account for the composite flexibilit y of the base frame of the panel and its connection to the rigid mounting surface provided on the building floor. The mounted surface is designed generically by Bechtel to afford a rigid interface consisting of structural steel embedments anchored in the concrete floor. The potential flexibility under consideration develops above the rigid mounting interface, within the base frame and connection detail designed by the equipment supplier. Therefore incorporation into the specification of the characteristics of the embedded rigid mounting i3r , ce is not essential for the evaluation of the equipment base f Lexibility n, the supplier. The embedded steel anchorage is detailed in drawings U13J and 25132, and it consists of C6 X 10.5 (rolled steel channels) with 5/8"6 anchor studs at 16 inch spacing. The base frame of the panel is detailed in Vendor drawings S023-306-1-7 and -31, and it consists of C3 X 4.1 framing with 3/16 inch fillet weld on 6 inch lengths at 12 1/2 inch spacing. The integrated mounting detail as defined by the above drawings is obviously rigid for the light weight panels under consideration. Therefore, for the seismic qualification of the panel by analysis it is appropriate to consider a fixed boundary condition at the base, and it is not essential to incorporate any refinement to account for the flexibility of the rigid structural steel interface embedded in the concrete floor. o F 20I T.na MA V) 'jiWB X 5-3/MO d
& 6 n qfp,n,~
M m * * ,~
</kd S&f psy n.
b "
- / .
f Qp _s yomy,W ljW
' Z C- & r e- yg.Q
.& S We ~ ",&
~ ' A s.6 Mc/pW 2c weetE Rm -
Ac e .jJ ,f, 4c/ J 7W S 2"'"g*. nud-G MW m!Gviddfu h Mg * . ,s a,S~ s pl w,ma:n, q,y.w a ' 4 ,% A cK DJ 4 '
- g. A n g,a c ~ ~~' " @ fi 7,
/
;2 )
/ g
,/ $k O ff $l l l' Wb'Ya be kt( '
hfk. & 7Qc f+V f6 /d rf-n&<r[un9C n ,p.mu Jt" , A4~sk)a
,4=A McN of&&
ahu ,u . ukJL.z//r,4u
,A k %~#
~ ~ ~
~ ATTAcHNE7T To 240e -fFg - Fos 7 Fo s2: 7A%/zowcici's w tie /& u
(-- no7ts O 1 y A F- M A 'e DM %
% %% h 'Lo.hD u Ayce. fM Q,% & cc. w.s- c% w +
AL. % cn Aa 4 > wiw % CAW Sh , . N b e %
~
"r r
h, ' Qh ~ .atM i 1L P % A M 7 o wm A 'LL C xpay x,a C w wy. % n:l.-: %e.::. ,-*2 ye ps
~
w m* n M, Aeb. A@ vo ts-%6 7 e 3i C ./ k MJ i. _Q A, b 4.
*^ -
1 . fgc0 f EPC h .c w }[Lpgf. m m 4 - - - , ,iet l &% w% 4 c. s xss c O' % eL a 2
% %M cc,x o.s ch w - &, Hm M f FR, os7 c% JLs chAbot M.
e
. 4*Ud-ftn-tVJd PFR NO.
^
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFF ECTED ITEMS: Control Room Panels 2L-71 and 3L-71 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: Quality Class II Specification for Quality Class 11 Pcnels, Relays, and Devices for the Southern California Edision Company San Onofre Generating Stetion. Units 2 and 3, San Onofre, California. Specification Number S023:306-1, SCE Number 3274 July 31, 1975. A' , BASIC REQUIREMENT: All Seismic Class I equipment must be qualified by analysis or test for the maximum design loading conditions to which it may be subjected. sdSCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Addendum No. 2 to the referenced specification identifies cquipment to be supplied by the vendor for field modifications by the Purchaser. Field a modifications identified on the drawings do not provide for use of all such equipment,.but- A l-do identify abme open spaces. There is no requirement that the panel be qualified for all cquipment that could be used on the panel during all future field modifications. l I -
,)l '
i A. Schwartz PREPARED BY: REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: OATE: fND DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY:#E< b DATE: b B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS f ' Y/I:. f G % C2 f t if /UA '.ql t Y? Cf'Y
),91 ' 3 fua Lw, roic fua 6, AK 't "ff""
hm s..s rew ~ o/w A k a a MM' - s wn r .< r ' c& G ecs cl & f-e bj d Y * * !
/
0 REE PF IS VAll0 BY DATE bY ' I I / / / / O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O OlSAGREE BY ' DATE b IEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE: l 1
PAGE 2 PFR NO. A REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS q g jn s,/n 4 : L/onu&ksyfnotfh.tXoni7+d
, }. ?"S b / w p ,f d - g x /s +d ~/r f * ,
7Y
' N:-
fwa s y (n o " w sua d-
/M nf /*/ptw & f h " Q '
pi' L , Y f I5 Mand y n 3 ~?m
% N-ef-
/ , /m NR *y/3/yz O AGREE PF IS VAL 10 [ /e / w f 4 2 '
O OlSAGREE Ch cf cm // $ls recan - wsANs /% wem /< dd YJ BY: DATE: //N. p 3/ ggt D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE / DEFINITION ADEQUACY: Al(ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0!TY: O VAL 10 INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING - JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" ~l } COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: -
- n DATE: . 23M, v
E. GA PROJECT MANAGER
$ ACCEPT O REJECT ss
. k BY:/ W/ NL DATE: T L-
,r' - -. PFR NO. 2408-PFR-F058 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SDNGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY G A INiflATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Control Room Relay Panels 2L-71 and 3L-71 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: Quality Class II Specification for Quality class II Panels, Relays, and Devices for the Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Generating Station, Unita 2 & 3, San Onofre, California. Specification Number S023-306-1, SCE Number 3274, July 31, 1975.
BASIC REQUIREMENT: All Seismic Class I equipment must be qualified by' analysis or test. DESCRIPT10N OF POTENTIAL FIN 0 LNG: Paragraph 4.6.3.5 of the referenced specification states that the Purchaser will determine the specific panel configuration to be tested and will supply a representative sample of panel mounted equipment to be included in the panel test program.
- 1. There is no requirement or information furnished to assure that qualification of the repre-
, sentitive equipment can be extended to cover all Seismic Category 1 equipment in the panel.
q g , For the resistor sub-panels specified in Section 4.8.6 of Addendum No. 2 of the specifica-tion: (a) there is no requirement or) their qualification as part of the panel 2L 71, nor is thero PREPARED BY: J. Rakovski- y DATE: 2 4, Y T2. _ g , REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
- 8. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
- AGREE PF IS VALIO BY OATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY
/ DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORl6lNAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
PAGE 2 3408 F-058 PFR NO. REVISIOrJ C. RE511EW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS See attached sheet. I hVEf k pyw ??14d *lPNCN O AGREE PF IS VAL 10 G OlSAGREE 3 BY: DATE: 3!MM _
- 0. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: O ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: O VALlO O INVAllu CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTlFICATION:
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION 'I I BY: DATE: E. GA PROJECT MANAGER l O ACCEPT O REJECT l l l l l BY: DATE:
.,r PTR No. 2408-PFR- 58 /N .
( ! N._/ Dn cription of Potential Findings (Continued) b) a required maximum in-panel g-level for separate seismic qualification of these panels.
- 3. There is no requirement in this specification that the vendor mount the representative equipment at the cabinet locations having the highest response for all of the equipment which it represents. Therefore, this vendor could have placed it in a low response regica of the structure and met the specification requirements while not, properly exciting the equipment.
- 4. There are no requirements for minimum contact chatter duration to be verified during qualification testing.
i
\
x,_-) ! -
\
3 9
;' \,
- 5. j l
9 e
l t ' Bechtsl Re:ponta i to 2408-PFR-F058 Page 1 of 2
. Ill>
References ( Attachments are excerpts from references and have the same number as references)
- 1. Spec. S023-306-1 dated July 31, 1975 (Sheet 1 of 2)
Spec. S023-306-1, Add. 2 dated Feb. 2,1978 (Sheet 1 of 2)
- 2. Not Used
- 3. Seismic Qualification of Relay Panels 2L-71 and 3L-71 NMC Control, Inc. -
S023-306-1-37-1
- 4. Procedure for the Seismic Qualification of NMC Control, Inc. (with Field Changes 1) Control Room Relay Panels, 27-71 and 3L S023-306-1-43-0 Acton Procedure No. 13844
- 5. Acton Technical Report " Seismic Vibration Analysis of NMC Controls, Inc.
Control Room Relay Panels, 2L-71 and 3L-71 (with Field Changes 1)" - S023-306-1-44-0 Acton Report No. 13844
- 6. " Functional Testing of Components Relay Panels 2L-71 and 3L-71" -
S023-306-1-32-0
- 7. Spec. S023-306-1, Add. 2 SCN E-02 dated 7/18/77
[ 8. Component Layout of Panel Load GRP "B" - S023-306-1-34-6 Re sponses
- 1. Attachment 4, Sheet 8 furnishes the basic requirement for Seismic Cate-gory 1 qualification. Attachment 3, Sheet 2 shows the panel mounted equipment that were tested.
Attachment 8, Sheet 1 and Attachment 7, Sheet 2 shows equipment that are - actually mounted on the panels. The tested equipment are identical or similar to those installed on the panels, and are representative of all Seismic Category 1 equipment in the panel test program. Test plan (in-cluding specimen for testing) have to be approved by design engineer prior to test.
- 2. Attachment 4, Sheet 2 and Attachment 7, Sheets 1 and 3 shows that there is such a requirement. Attachment 5 Sheet I shows that the resistor panel was included in the analysis.
Attachment 5, Sheet 4 provides the results of the analysis and tests and shows the C-level for the resistors.
- 3. Attachment 4, Sheet 7, Sections 2.7 and 2.8 shows that there are require-
- ments for the structure excitation. Attachment 5, Sheet 4 shows that the tested G-le. is of the components in the panel at various critical loca-tions are equal to or greater than the response level computed from the y analysis.
i .. 1 o . -' Bechtel Reeponsa I
/ , to 2408-PFR-F058 l Page 2 of 2
/ <
U 4. Attachment 6,,Shee't 2 provides the basic requirements for verifying relay
, chatter. At.thchment 3, Sheet 3 provides test procedures and criteria for s, j monitoring contact chatter.
Additicpally, the relays with the chattering problem are not installed in the safecy related sections ("A" and "B") of the panel but are actually installed;in the non-safety related section (X) which should be excluded
;,' in ths, qualification test.
s,
'"='=# O i< d d o7l-3 4 ~ fa~f 4 T-p'd f ,M /*
z~7se fu f. w J;/L ,9 >% u n,n er' paw [e;ppm
-bumuirw, J
, >gY"#g a w' ion 4,
- 04. Tks />dd d,/.AY'? Es S ~g v
?. ~ s ';,, ,JJ,l.:
s, / q u s,- i/ e _, , -.-, i.. - t --
,ii . , ~ :sc - ,,
j h ~, - , - -
' ' ' ,^
1, , _
~
_ j. h r ,
} nn - ' ' / ,'yuJ ' .' .a w ^J ,',,i, i. (
/ _ __
r -- ,r .3 'e
/
't l
/%Ae /L?' %
/4wt z., 3, g' y y d
\ %,% ,4v of %7Xn hM' fnt <(%. C bMrk) e y& Ve; 4.t k te-am p warbj o,/ R A Gd n is. ( g - f lV 1
,. .. -,i f-c -
l / , r
/
f l k ' f l
, / >
l
- , - _p '
O
+
Attachment to PFR-F058 The original PFR was based on paragraph 4.6.3.5 of the specification, which states th at Purchaser will determine the specific panel configuration to be tested and will supply representative panel mounted equipent to be included in the panel test progras. However the specification also states that the vendor will supply and test all panel mounted equipent. Conversations with the original design organization and documents supplied as part of the response to this PHL and to PFR k059 (which covers the same panels) show the following: P *f. a) The purchaser did not supply representative panel mounted equipment for testing. All equigaent was vendor supplied. b) The purchaser did not determine the specific panel configuration to be tested. All panels were qualified by analysis based on the as-installed equipent locations. c) The vendor qualification procedure specified that testing was to be performed for chattering. This was done. d) The vendor requalified the panel in response to Addendum No. 2 and preceeding documents for all equipment installed on the panel in the field,
, including the resistor sub panels.
On the basis of a) and b) above, potential finding 3 can be considered invalid . On the basis of c) above, potential ' finding 4 can be considered invalid. On the basis of d) above, potential finding 2 can be considered invalid. vd g gy, g As originally written. potential finding I can be consideredinvalid, but g \$ == t be restated to require that the panel qualification consider all equipent which may be mounted on the panely This is particularly true since these panels a,re auxiliary and likely to undergo modification with time. Thus, the qualification should have been required to consider equipment on all mounting locations. The qualification procedure and report indicate that the panel was qualified only with the as-installed equipment. Fortunately this filled up most. but not all, of the panel. Y/ ' VP/U-k/
'S ' E ,
, M 7A Q/M e W T .L. SH&WT 1 N= 2 FiqC&f $PEC. N0* K633- 304~/ s_5 D/4.Y 3/p /37d*
4.6.3.2 For loading combinations incorporating seismic loads resulting from the DBE the allowable stresses shall be D in accordance with Paragraph C.4.2 of Appendix 4F with the exception that for members subjected to compressive stresses k' the allowable stress shall be 0.90 times the minimum guaranteed yield stress or 0.90 times the ultimate capacity
. determined by considering elastic stability, whichever is less.
4.6.3.3 All natural frequencies of the structural system shall be greater than 10 cycles per second for horizontal motion and 15 cycles per second for vertical motion. Flexi-bility of the foundation anchorage detail must be considered in the calculation of the system natural frequencies. 4.6.3.4 The structural system for the panels, when subject to the Design Bar.is Earthquake as defined by the corre-sponding acceleration response spectra of Appendix 4F, shall not exhibit acceleration responses higher than the following limits at the locations where equipment is mounted: Horizontal acceleration response 1 3g Vertical acceleration response 1 3g 4.6.3.5 Seismic Qualification testing shall be performed by the Vendor in accordance with Paragraph C.3 of /.ppendix 4F.
- The Purchaser will determine the specific panel configuration to be tested and will supply a represent.atiye_samp_le of panel mounted equipment to be included in the panel test program.
4.6.4 Quality Design The panels shall be designed to meet the requirements of Quality Class II as specified in Appendix 4A. 4.6.5 Avcilable Services 4.6.5.1 Electrical Power Available for Instruments and Control: 120 Vac +;10 percent and 60 Hz -5 Hz, single phase; 125 Vdc (range 105 volts to 140 volts). 4.6.5.2 Electrical Power Available for Vital Instruments: 105 to 125 Vac, 60 Hz 12 Hz. , 4.6.6 Fire Protection Survival The equipment in the panels shall operate during, and subsequenttoexposgreontheexteriorofthepanelsto dry chemical and CO fire protection systems.
~( -
outline the placement of the accelerometers in each of the tests. Each of the components were seismically tested to the levels dictated in the analysis and the results of the testing are pre-sented in Report No. 12461-1. The Relay Panels were certified to the conditions C. I outlined in the specifications. This would be ' the maximum allowable seismic condition to which i they could be certified. Installation is required to be as outlined in Drawing D1002073 NMC Controls Inc. , , 44. , if Douglas E. Wishard By: L Vice President ,3 F - Date : February 24, 1977 , , f No.17733 I \a } t ~i$'kCp'G,i../ )j , ' ui CW\- \ l l .. . _. .. , ~ l st77hC6 Mew 7 3 ' 3.0 EQUIPMENT TESTED S N 'zoF3 Seventeen (17) different panel mounted equipment were tested. The panel mounted equipment were divided into i three groups, and each group was mounted to a test fixture and tested separately as a group. The groups were divided i in the following manner: GROUP A l NMC NO. . _D_E S C R IPT I O N_ ' 1002202 MDR 131-1 P&B Relay MDR 5060 P&B Relay l- 1002206 l 1002204 MDR 137-8 P&B Relay . ' 1002207 HDR 5061 P&B Relay . 1002205 MDR 138-7 P&B Relay 1002203 MDR 134-1 P&B Relay '- ------ MDR 163-1 P&B Relay . , 222858 GEf CR15162 T,erminal Block GROUP B 224827 MTS-202B Ganged DPSW 1002210 Model 7014PD Agastat Relay ( , MF4122 P&B Relay ., 1002212 - ------ MDR 141-1 Relay ~ GROUP C 233325 Ohmite 2.5K 2 W Resistor 223414 14K, SW Fixed Resistor 238516 . 100K, 2W Variable Resistor ' I . .. . t-Report No. 12461-1 lO * . .k - . -a S023 - 36 6 - /~37- 2. f CTom ; m Page 4 myg177 3 . g . . .f . . %g7 3 g jeL3 ~ 346 ~/ ~ 2 7- 1 g : .Sr/Ecri 3 of 3 i! ;g 5.4 TEST M0t!!TORIrlG N;i ," large The components, which are, { l ', enough to support accelerometers, will be moni-q tored with accelerometers to determine its mechanical response. Data will be recorded on visicorder. charts. 1 In the unenergized state,.the normally closed i contacts of the relay will be wired in series t and the normally open contacts of the relay will be wired in parallel and will be monitored for . In f
- contact chatter in excess of 10 microseconds.
'I the enernized state, the normally closed centacts i i I (now open) will be wired in parallel and the
- f,
#5I normally open contacts will be wired in series q and will be monitored for contact chatter in ffc ' i yk excess of 10 microseconds. . s E..i The terminal block will be. wired in series ' fhj and will be checked for di'scontinuities; in the ~ * - energized state. k . The switch will be monitored in its open and j 4 J closed position for chatter in excess of 10 micro-w);{ ' -f?. - - seconds. 124 61-B Report No. he ' t l' . rwvo.nu m. Page - AcTOfA u / /i . h.. > . ; * [ *i hhhWT J 202 2 - 290 ~f & ? l IT i ' ' l ;j The second type of qualification test is a 711 a .- sine beat test. This test will consist of ap-li:\ tr. ) , plication of sine beats at every 5th frequency - ly - ; from 5 to 35 Hz and at any mechanical or elec-1 jf ' trical resonance found during the resonance survey, i ' with a peak acceleration corresponding to a level l f , , 1 8 7 4 equal to or greater than the maximum acceleration , f f found at the component's points of attachment to I P 1 4 r h the structure during the response spectrum modal ~ i a - i - analysis. Each sine beat will consist of 10 , e i k ( cycles / beat, and a test for a given frequency will r. I
- f. be 5 beats.
n . hi fi The multifrequency and sine beat tests will 3 f, P be performed in each of the four ho,rizontal- . vartical quadrants of the component (i.e. front- c .jp to-back & vertical, left-to-right & vertical, . g k back-to-front & vertical and right-to-left & . *g . vertical). - l Y r .. \ M ,i . . .gc h: 'h# - Report No.124 61 -B l 4 l rv. $h l > e: , umwo.umru. ;I { ..e . 9 I, ACToN p,g, 1g hl coneonAroe *. 3 ., f, $CW/fGW7' 4 2Ar'tTV T .L of .( Procedure No. 13844
- O -
. PROCEDURE , for the SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF NMC CONTROLS, INC. (With Field Changes 1) CONTROL ROOM RELAY PANELSs 2L-71 & 3L-71 e I ) l l \ Prepared by: _ Kyl@artini 4I Date.1 /d / M ' Engineering Analyst Acton Environmental Testing Corporation 533 Main St., Acton Massachusetts Approved by: 1 Date 2 . . , Marvin L. Tolf, President
- Environmental. festing Corporation Approved by: I a e,1/ut i Date N 73
-itm, Co n t rol s '. I n c ~. ' Douglas E.Wishard, Vice President . Sh8POR TANT Sf the pnce or schedule is effected try Wiis documerit approval, Sashtoi must tua motsfeed pner to febncation or such ciarms are werved. "20 g Agl[ ==. ===r.;=m:== =~ seapormaelsty for daeapt Approvsf crf the documorit does riot relieve the supplief from full seapormtmasty for sorttract or purchase order requer,ments snclud4rg, but tad for the ntend fu l ==-.= 2-/7 23 G&"O _._.. ..o_p g' h'mo ~ re O ls' M i.' E ^/u7 S 0ne"n'U Ee E !o r t $Ns
- 8 5,2,Yd",'sT"l%^a,"=buiaio , ..... ,,,,,,
k sb23-soc-i-43-0 s d *3 n s. i S U F S T4. 1DACD NO . ', .. REPRODUCTION ACTONi . I(, ., -1, ~ - r?M.*pt CONTACT l . \.,.......... .. . k Y7ACNh dT/7 f C/thhC T 2. off f' g 1.0 IN Ti10 DU CT IO N NMC Controls Inc. Control Room Panels A&B Bay s and X Bay have been previously analyzed and seis-mically qualified., The mathematical model used in s . that analysis was verified by " h'owing s "that the natural frequencies of A&B Bay determined first by analysis were within +10% of the natural frequen-cies determined by physical testing. The results of the analysis and the test can be found in AETC Reports 12461-2 and AETC Report 12888. Sin'c6 'the analysis has been performed, field changes have been made to the panel. Because of the field changes to the panel, additional analysis has to be performed to qualify the new panel con- .- figuration. The additional analysis will consist of modifying the original mathematical model of . each panel to include the following field changes: a) The additional mass of the added equipment. b) Mathematically model the resistor sub-panel and its connection to the main panel and include this in the model of the main panel. ~ Using the modified mathematical mode 1, the same analysis that was done previously w'ill be performed as described in Section 2.0.* 13844 ' Report No. ~ 30(-I D q - p0ge I q AcTON ) ._ . _ - . _ _ .- _ Y L _ _"_R _ _ 5. &tf>fgg/r StfG3T .3 6P[ . s 2.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES _ 2.1 GENERAL - A mods 1 analysis will be performed to extract . the rack natural frequencies followed by a re-sponse spectrum modal analysis. MRI/STARDYNE Library program will be used to ~ perform the analysis described above.
2.2 DESCRIPTION
OF CDC MRI/STARDYNE LIBRARY PROGRAM The MRI/STARDYNE finite element program is identified *as STARDYNE 3(C), July 1,1976 August 30, 1977 update. It is a program in the public domain, offered by Control Data Corporation, at their Waltham, Massachusetts Computation Center
- - and elsewhere.
Versions of-STARDYNE are available at anytime by access'ing the following documents: STARDYNE User Manual;STARDYNE Theoretical Manual; STARDYNE System Bulletins (Computer printout); and Engineer-
' ~
ing N' e wsletter. These documents are directly avail-able from the Contro.1 Data Corporation, or may be perused at Acton Environmental Testing Corporation, Acton, Massachusetts. , 0 Report No. 13883 306-I 0 b TESTtMS [-none .
NTAGIN6MG 4 S/YFE7fef={
,-- ~2. 2 (Continued)
Static inputs to STARDYNE can be loads, i displacements, temperatures and temperature grad-
. ~
ients at the nodes and/or elements of the model. Dynamic inputs are either forces, displacements, 3 velocities or accelerations that can be sinu-l j soldal, random, _ shock spectral values or an ar-t . bitrary function of time, such as time history of an earthquake. Dynamic analysis. output con-sists of eigenvalues (natural frequencies) and eigenvectors, element forces, stresses, nodal dis-1 placements, velocities, and accelerations. 2.3 MATHEMATICAL MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
' The following assumptions were made: llll a) The comoonent will not contribute any_
stiffness to tne structure
'This is because the attachments to the structure are usually too small to transmit
~
moments and the stiffness contribution due to the transfer of forces through the attach-ment is negligible. The components will be
~
modeled as lumped masses at their points of
. attachment.
' - 13844 Repxt Nk.
306-1 O .
~.W 4
E*9' cose 3mAfters
- - ~
W
F [ W nn607 f &f27.yopf u-
+
n% p1 2.3 (Continued) , b) The side panels, doors, and top panel will not contribute any stiffness to the struc- ! ture
.This is due to the lack of full fixity at the attachment points and the small thickness of the element will not allow the transfer of forces and moments to the structure. The panels will be modeled by a 3 DOF plate ele-ment which will resist bending forces only.
This, type of element will only be used to con-veniently distribute the weicht to the struc-ture, since the small thickness will allow little resistance to bending. The doors will be modeled as lumped masses at their points of attachment. c) .The base beams will not behave as_a beam _ element and must be modeled as a plate This is because the base beams are re-
. strained at their bottom flance and a beam element will not accurately describe t'he j
l twisting and warping affects of the beam due to the large forces it will see. 1 . i 13844 Report No. 306-/ D O ewwoomnu, 5
" acro); "
( N h """*
l . . sf772&fffEFT' '/- WE276 BPf s u-
,~
2.3 , (Continued) . d) The rack's frame membe_rs will behave as % beams and can be modeled as such The bpundary conditions are not the same Q
. as that for the base beams, and thus a beam element will describe the frame members ac-curately.
e) Damping The damping ratio is 4%, selected for a welded steel structure in accordance with NRC'Rigulatory Guide 1.61. The RRS curves found in Appendix 4F are calculated at 2% and 5% damping. A linefar interpolation of the curves will be used to compute a 4% damping curve as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.60. 2.4 GE0 METRIC MODEL - The ' geometric mathematical model of the rack will be generated based on the physical dimensions of the rack. This information will be supplied by NMC Controls, Inc. The geometric model will be verified by a suitable computer run which will' check the geometric model for discrepancies and p' lot the model's geometry. - 13844
, Report No.
30G- t 0 ewsoammm. 6 O
- AcsoN\
cenw omanon I
$ 1 1
.s .,
l
.YIlNflMEUI' V' NWI'I Yf$
m - I (j., ( . , 2.6 (Continued) modes witfi frequencies spaced by 10% or less will be summed absolutely.in a aroup and then combined with other modal responses as described S above. c) The responses resulting from the RRS in
- each of the principal directions will be combined by che square root sum of the squares method.
2.7 OPERATIONAL LOADS The racks operational loads are due to the gravitation forces acting on the rack. A static analysis using a one "g" vertical acceleration, to
.O simulate the gravitational forces, will be per-
- formed on the cabinet. Stresses and displace-ments will be calculated.
2.8 _ VERIFICATION OF DESIGN ADE00ACY The seismic and operational stresses and dis-placements will be combined to give a worst case condition. An evaluation of the stresses and
. displacements will be made to determine the ade-quacy of the structure design.
9
' Report No. 13844 306 43 - D
- O _
C , TENTIPee , lh
i m . . 3.0 DOCUMENTATION . The documentation of the analysis on the g% NHC Controis Inc. racks A111 be in accordance with paragraph D of Appendix 4F 3 S Pc(*FdN So 2.3 'Lo b - n . e e . e l I
~
O e e R*W" W - 3cg _ y_ g3, o
. . - = . 9 g
** IO98 ACTON.
~ ""
._. // .
DA
I
M7?MMMsWT C !
Sf/EET f aF=- <f l.0
- INTRODUCTION NHC Controls Inc. , an vol Room Panels A&B Bay and X Bay have been previously analyzed ar,. :sismically qualified. The mathematical model used in that analysis was verified by showing that the natural frequencies of A&B Bay detemine first by analysis were within +10% of the natural frequencies determined by physical testing. The results of the analysis and the test can be found in AETC Reports 12461-2 and AETC Report 12888.
Since the analysis has been perfomed, field changes have been made to the panel. Because of the fiels changes to the panel, additional analysis had to be perfomed to qualify the new panel configuration. The additional analysis consisted of modifying the original mathematical model of each panel &3 . g to include the following field changes: a) The additional mass of the added equipment.
~
b) Mathematically model the resistor subpanel and its connection to the main panel and include this in the model of the main panel, c) The stiffness of the resistor panel at the top of Bay A&B was corrected to reflect test results (see AETC report 12461-2, Appendix D). Using the modified mathematical model, the same analysis that was done previously was performed as. described in Section l 3.0. . l-13844 Report No. , 306- /- W-o d acTouj yl "" .-
styyr)W,pfirgyf f~ 6 STYE u 2-0P b 00 1 F _. p/' 3.3 Continued , bottom flange and a beam element will not accurately describe the twisting and warping affects of the ; i beam due to the large forces it will see. ! Sl ' d) The rack's frame members will behave as beams and can be modeled as sucn ' The boundary conditions are not the same as that for the base beams, and thus a beam element will describe the frame enembers accurately. . e) ramping The damping ratio is 4%, selected for a welded steel
, structure in accordanr.c with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61. The RRS curves found in Appendix 4F are calta-lated at 2% and 5% damping. A linaar interpolation 9t of the curves was used to compute a 4% damping curve as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.60.
3.4 GEOMETRIC MODEL The geometric mathematical model of the rack will be gener- ! ated based en the physical dimensions of the rack. This infor-mation was supplied by NMC Controls, Inc. The geometric model was verified by a suitable computer run which checked the geometric l model for discrepancies and plot the model's geometry. Figure 1 i shows the computer plot of the resistor panel added to A-B Bay, i Figures 2-9 shows the computer Plots of A-B Bay and X-Bay. l ~ l 13844 i Report No. . Sol,- /- W - 0 i 3.- $ N___ AcTON I
,. 7 .
Q f) conmmm .
WME37 C
/ S&7' 3 0P- 9
- 3. 7 Continued forces acting on the rack. A static analysis using a one "g" %
vertical acceleration, to simulate the gravitational forces.
& l Ql were performed on the cabinet. Stresses and displacements were k calculated.
3.8 VERIFICATION OF DESIGN ADE00ACY , The sets.mic and operational stresses and displacements were combined to give a worst case condition. An evaluation of the stresses and displacements were made to detemin'e the ade-quacy of the structure design. The accelerations determined in the analysis were compared to the acceleration that the mounted equipment were tested to ensure qualification of the equipment. e
'e e
e a 4 e 13844 Report No. . 306 44- O - h ' ACTON CORPORAT10P6 e ..
5
& CMMb2/T C l S/ tar 7'f of= f V T'
5.0 CONCLUSION
As shown in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.2.4, the calculated stresses for Bay "A&B" and Bay "X" are less than the yield stresses for . a low carbon steel and therefore, both bays will maintain their ; structural integrity when subjected to the seismic event described 4 in AETC Procedure No.13844. - The maximum acceleration conputed at each component's interface with the panel are listed below. These valves are The the
. maximum acceleration for all three principal directions.
peak accelerations that were used during the sine beat tests of the components are listed below also: (see AETC Report No. 12461-1). Calculated Tested
= 2.1 g's 2.1 g's l Max. Relay Input Accel. 2.1 g's Max. Terminal Block Input Accel. = 1.6 g's Max Switch Input Accel. = 1.2 g's 2.1g9's Max. Resistor Input Accel. = 0.6 g's 3.3 s As can be seen above, the components were tested to higher levels than the analysis computes it to be.
e 6 O 13844 R. port No. 306-/- 44 0 . (- l N
'. ACTON ; I_
- g. i7 e ,
he'onwonm 9 e.
,I' ,
PROCEDURE tJU.'1tER FT 7614 A f f) V // M tr W ,~ h .
.Stah LP3 7' / d A 2. ~
- IMPOR T AN T
[ g If the pre;e or schmfute is effected by this document approval. Dechtet must t '. be notile*<f preor to f abricatio i or such eteems are svaeved. Approval of etexui9 ants mvolvang cMculation, analyses or test report is only ers acceptance of the er.ethod ustd by the supplier. Supposer retaans full I ros.ponsab.lsty for rJestg.a. Apl.coval of this document does not refseve the suoriteer f.om full respont.betsty for cantract or pt.rchue order requerements mcf 4deng, but not femsted to, adequdCy and suitabsIsty of matenals and/Cr equipment
- repretented titerPOn f0F the Intended funCtson.
*l:.i.)' ';'"./.2 - % 9 W.'.'.'" .-.
"N 2Im t
* *' S ' ' b,*b DOCUMENT 57ATus OATE 1" *}*****
- t Q APPROVID. MANUFACTURE R MAY PROCf f D 1
3 Q AP7 ROV 80 EECEPT A5 NOTED MAK E CHANGF5 AND RE*Umst.ttT. MANOF ACTURE R M AY PROctED AS APPWOVE3 4 O NOT APr'ff 0Vf D. CORRfg7 AND PESUBu 7 7 0 86'oa'dAT80* ONLY Llo'57a'sursoN ntOuiReD ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,s FullCT10?!AL TESTI:!G OF C0l'PO,'!E:lTS RELAY PAi!ELS 2L7L 3L71 OV APPROVED ' 5. C4C- APPROVE _ $r - 4('@ ENG lilE'.iR lim DUALITY ASSpi,CE l NMC CONTROLS Itic. l . l . ( 12/1f/76 Rev. 0 1 ('
- a.
i 1 . Spf2 3- 306-/ 3a2- 0 Se s
- 32 W l
.. .... l a, ,;
R; vision 0 WffMEN7 fr S /121 7 7 r. O P 2 . RELAY PANEL 2L71, 3L71 (S FUNCTIONAL TESTING OF COMPONENTS f GENERAL The components in the above relay panels consist of relays, switches, fuses, and resistors. These components when assembled in the respec- hs tive relay panels form only a portion of the control circuit in which q3 the components operate. Functional testing, therefore, of the compo-nents after installation becomes a more difficult operation. The ccm-ponents will be tested before installation to verify that they are in workin6 order. This procedure outlines tests to be performed on each of the components to verify that the components are acceptable for installation. The relays will be inspected 1005 to assure all are functional. The resistors and switches will be sampled using a normal sample distribu-tion shown in the attached table. RELAY TESTING Relays will be separated by part number into groups or lots and will be tested as a group or lot. Using a calibrated power source,and tes probe, each relay will be cycled and tested to assure proper fur.ctiens by verifying the following: (
- 1. Proper contacts, when energized, are opened and closed.
- 2. Freedom from chatter and/or humming.
3 Freedom from overheating during cycling. See figure 1 for relays and terminal designation to be tested. Relays which fail to make proper contact or exhibit chatter, humming er over-heating (too hot to touch) will be rejected. SWITCHES The double pole miniature knife switches shall be tested on a randem, sample basis normal sampling. See attachment I for sampling plan. Test random sample switches as follows: Using a calibrated power supply, apply power to terminals
~
1. 1 and 3 - positive and negative respectively.
- 2. Connect calibrated voltmeter to terminals 2 & 4.
W W 306-/-3.2-o
Q 4fTMNMevr 7 sHEe7 r op 3 Q E~M T',"pH 1/rc sex 2 - 3at -/ t ex.) 9 ~ e a on &:0S * *L. M ALL rnaTEgw wf rat \lElame. AtcDtumM 70 WL
%mu 15L R.0 CORED R sCMnt. El SL7R\ CAL ~ 5E1Smic ' AND
_M (AuRL\W.._A n oREN'cE__C M En.m_ 1MVRED_3Y TE.15 SFEDFICMI% AM MOWmt>sTI _camSGE.- R Pf ROU A. L ._ ___ __. .. CE.CO. 3 DC3%_LOILL E .SVffuED_10 .
. plE_.XlE10D0fJ. 3EET2. SIDEMUM_F.0L _ . . . . _ ...
SDRL\ER__TO._ GCCUEi THE,..._AC9JL_.._ _ . _ _ . . . _REAV 8tTn ENTS . .. . _ . .. _ - . . _ _ ._ . ._. _ . . .. _ _.. - _ . . ..
~
_A93.T EBtB COTnf0kYt.9T...F0mJEBED...3BRLL BE. _h SO99LTED_WiH_PJ. _6FtR. M9&EIAG _L)P4D _TO..TM,
're\)\tt 4 LismMG Trit
, . .. PDLLCuDM 19?OLWCa3 ..
..REMSTOG EXCWDEDM . . . _ _. .
.._.. .____ A.'MV\CE.. DDDEL MG, ( >JL. '. \hTfs. CD' e c)
_._._. __ _. B, i,0, \R \32.74I . FUL Sd23-30b .01 .
....__._ __.. C,. PDL GSE _.iM _ fRMELS _.2.,3 LUT 1 .00 LY ...
__.._.4M.A,2. ERB SWffit% LR'ttL .03ED .31 TBE \!B0DDL ' __ _..SRPLL Lb~T IBE.. .FDLLOV tNG .@9M01JRL 1NFDRTQnOil l __. _.. _. .PL E9QL\BL..10kV9NG _RGEN iS Coa _,
. . _ . _ _ __. .&L E .hhELS . 2,3t01.,.. Forv .uss. . 0NLN ..
W_ ___.k)\%3 ha Er2PT_. DE. EL _BELD__RO\MDR 'U... _.._.__ _. .tBht%E DRDFdL _RS \S$VEQ .B'i _EWAMEER.\\ 3'a i
'3 WHMezer 7 y 9-9 E-02
. sMwer2-op3 R4M Usc sol > 20.4 -j s cA) E- 6 2. op MA 1.
(, . OWmTE bW\DOHm TYPE. Z\0 10 0 2.5 kil. , 2.5 v0 V AR\ABLE. k TsEsisToess, tr\0 DEL NO, 03r8 4
- l. 52 STATES TYPE MTS TEST SWTTCRES,
# 2 0 1- b , G R N G E D T O V B L C_. POLE SWTCBES 3 \0 L\TTLEFOSE 3RG
- SLO-BB, 5- AW NEh tRTRLCb MO. 313005, Ts?'E0 AT \26 NOLT. 5.
CORSL?TE WTTR L\TTl F\CI, NSE BC-DE1 i ' h9E T BLOCK. WTH I./SaJ SIU \1 P- g C u % te.TPLos NO. 'b5bO C
- 9. 20 GENERPL Et.ECTOC NPE CK\ sib'l TErsTratJRL SUXV5 s
- 10. i S000 FT, 59001 OF 000- v3 L~
W E SIS NO.% (4L WW.E For-VSE IN THE LGB06r:.7JP T sm'r' $ CO'_0R.- GG.By , PEC. StiD F\C K D N SEC1Q9 4.9. 2. ROD 4,% .'b.i T l -- '. g
dm
. . . r.
. D MT?cHHeur 7 0 gy
.Dtea-r 3 of 3 Aum spee , sn..s - m -i s w a _o2 e m.1 ['
TF- 9 2 -co ut.ts N-\p t t % E 9thu1DED
)
tMru 49Y 99RmIRRE QLG%ARY M MTiL\;\% ~O4F EXiTn)JG SOfmKT
-_ g k
STR\r.~.lDEE rnETnErF3 r 900 %00nT\kh Mttt%\TV.... .E0fs. b)ECTld6 SHALL Si ,
.D % 11 m la p. SPR a> & OE fRE-IrJLLtp .
B.91ES_ID9_ MSLST0rv W10_VJGMb. ._.._.._.__. ...._. SBPiLL PR1CLUDE %A\tdE7 thEEPddhl. W\P41h FRBm TCOCBDSb P _35EiDL _E 9.t B _ _.S O B .P M E L _ B SS m & _E _.S W L L. --
._._@L50 lOCLO9E O M b Lt S U F F D R T. SMS . . . .
4 O M& TE 6LEmaRLt.tirf Oc SEQOg .
~
4.9.2.12. . .
. . . . . . _ _ = . - _ _ . _ . - _
_41.U. DES %D_5RBLL TI,..lM .ElDPJ8kX1.. .._. .
.LJER_lMt___StlMCs G.E.2.; I...T.itl..E6f2NT3.........
DE TH\S__SG.tLEttfd0d... TE3b.MD0.1__ _.__ _ .. SBFLLL....T:4 IS5 DEA _LER_EA __ .... _ . ._.
. NSIL9GDAS _.BMD._U$ R.S . _)JSCtSS RW . . . _ _ . .. .
f%t \MS~hLLG 'Oi IE 00EE1._0,:_ _ ._ TRt. 50BM).R1_10 tilElES . .... IRE... ...... .. ._... __.DBCU.C.YcMT.S 3.L4hLL E.155VED DETvPJi ._... __ MAB9ERT100 90fL WG~EL APf30 VAL. _ _ _ _ .
.._ _-___.____.......-__. .- 1
; y. .
.>.. w:..... a.- .
en.. . g; n %. p. .
.,... w.. .:... ... c+.p.v ,
u . _ q
. m..
.m. mp.,. .y 1
.f .. , w . . ..
.., i ,.. yw -
c
; c. . . w.
o .,,F..e<
.g.., - . . ,. -
.., e -
se a
.t ..,..
.<,. .l
,4. t.
- te _-4
,e
. . w.nas=eu . :;.pr. te**,,Q. -b 9;'
m yh.,.*;. _ ,, .g.n ,s.. w
. ww.
- r. - e)-
( ' h1 &. V W Q% .,i 1 QQ'pi~Hi:&p,j;i,p., . f..
- 3i' -
pee &3- l t. . .a~ f
% ;p-w . .~ ". - . . t(h m s pe 3.e a et ;spf,ed 3 .Ns ;s ;
'*p
.. r .
": 1- 7. m t ,. ' 1 ' r' *"4 :g $
-\"
'4 t:: .t '4f" %w '. "
t-==
> g e s s rs s'.6%
a o a o. ,4 n :'y ; l- y1 p $ e s t , a . q., ,; . .-?.r" .. q ,A< L .,, a 6 - . y$.b e O$ l*' b $y ~o.'. *
- e
- .r :
. . . o -
rw -m ,. r. -i { .% *f - mc 2.~.'."Nf
#'y#P. s b
.1+ keg'4 P* 9
'8'
.e " .'.
*- >* *<m ** I.
,og h (, g,%. . ~, h #
Y p.s m!. m a 4 e....- 8S f M.? . Mm- d Y f 6!Ei[$M n. b*-
- m. 4 (*
pe
*iQIC?h l1 .) S.Y,.*T .,. 1 [
w
'f
@ e A [.s y . ,,e,-
r
.-T.
Wf
- ~ -
. w. N '%f,fD3 ,. #4.NF,.' ~.m&y ,.
- m. y,,. m.Mv{.
I . . s 7h!
' ~
g=M.a*.D'3S,.r.N.g...f.g.< r
- t 4.4..m rw - %y 4 4 Ms v .mm. o %.n s, . n u 4..s .
M: rm.=d rp.g,g ,g* gan aa 09pf v . 5:. . .. ',: . ,, . - I'% ::> Ru -> t u '. . r i
'n =.TP .-
O ** *
.==*,. o . ,g .'[ h
~
- e4
'g). r ..w e a 3 o, .4 w a e.ww, .
O ?* d,p z :- sy +$$@:f.5,' ' v >w. ' N NE.N e -5 D'<f -f . 0, 0 $y b.*f:'d U j%ph. 4
.7 p,..;;im...,f t. . q. . ;s P $..:7,.ccf
=== .. . .
en& , ') %., g - (
. - r d .b .:?:,&
! h f &.c.k m- h.N,D.g? l b $- ,
w.. , r.g -,a.a ,n . . g
... .: , ,.e. .t..
V- W ' imp:m.w 1 q%.syp,u,W ,:. , - s,s w,
...s. n -
es ,e .4. ' .m. . n.a. n, ., , . .
.m n.nu.w& %ps s- n-m.. m y -
gL .:9.w,.g, m' u
~
* ' ' " I~
~
[; f' %.
.. vs.s e1 % S U)..$ .' ' ,i*.,'**.'t' j 'Cg, E ^ . QMf,. ' fL.- ,.i. fx. (L
{ lI lg .speg ,** qgO n
.e..
.,. a ... .c s s -. r g[ ,8 '
Qg kANNY'[.d. . hf.>. : * ~ ; *~c.[.% "'I f U. - E dYl ' Nh ".* M T5'*1*'ll D *2.>
.; n' i I *E f.. % l P.,...?.'-*
[ (.' l h,a Tsb($ISU . N5
. p*d*@82...'.g~.h*. Y M .*.l.3.
,p -
p ,? .h h **** W1 C 4.
- p. i e ,.
v u m ,- -- A 4 n.;;.: - . ..
.11 y Qb . . .,-',:{ + O j
l 1 ~-s r. .] fg. T*.
'w& .T I s -
&x.
%.1.cm. ra ;.a., s , --
d', 3,*'N".F9.'M.["M*f.,h'y;*g%<I'*'
...%.t . . . . : . yC. = .
r
- 3. wmt .\ qv , '. _. .
a ry . e- - w
\ r( _-
o w m-o., m
?-n :.. ? We sp,) r. a
~3 ", td y
I; : ? '
;I f T f 3;f' [ M p
. ::f.;, 3.17.p;[T&-h.[',, '%
I.3M4 -
~
l gy&p] .T -
" I'M I%- e ' I
.' F
- 1, I j- ki A. . .rm.N h .? ~ >N,. .(.
4 .a .d 73
.c :. .g a .
. .. g
. ,f W.A t ,g.,.,.q -s
.a
~
. u --
- J ( m. * ;, .
.. p e . n..,
L, --w,. . a'
.a. . . . ss _-
' ].,.g M WS FU Mm u ,% <- o -
1;Nr N' %'p ,. : ..G. e t 2y$ &_% S. g,, .9 . .':' c. ..$. b.f ' t :. f-L4: ,+ c
- %,,'.n%. d. ,;', .$,
' - --- ~
.y'r-+
J. *;- A. ....y..-J c .n..'s ... p .l 7, ,.
; M. . ..
.i. #
' iG.
. X,,- ., .. .
;-4 2,y,*.
. . p.
') y' p.,
\ .-
**,mL.
...,,p
$ * \ .,.-
a .
,. *~
6'
- a. . Tf. u. - . . >
- c e~u' 2- -
-. ' Y. , .'* ,.*. ... . >
f t *, f ,.! Ql *>. ' . . D #
- h
- k. 1(. $ ..
~Y '
k - 8"'* *"84'musamtmu' I' [k g:Y.,;.h,j 'Q.Aj'W f*'*. Q't '. : . t ' B'? y' r 1 .sLh.,
. . . & ;; % - Q V >,.L .: ,-
- - n,... ~ n . ,.. - -.. - .,...
IBWW .) f. % &y_ yd.yy-
. ~*
~'.y , 3 l,
*7* i o,c *%He% '.Q l'.;- h'"N, ( YY%'
'A ' ..
v *Qf f: .IN i%*IYrM.WW i.Kl,, .cj.' I t D'?] O .$f*f.fE'~7' d b F [ \! . .v~ t*fwl
'be*.
.w n,% -:.g o w'. . m. . . .
. .,,% l,f .e v .'..
'y k t' p3.
m ;
'(
- 't
*e
. ; .8 t' " m *- - ' m'.i, 3p;Q . .
_ _'f'd
._-__-___________'}
r
)
y PFR NO. 2408-PFR-F059 POTENTIAL FIN 0 LNG REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION RY G A INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Control Room Relay Panels 2L-71 and 3L-71 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: Quality Class II Specification for Quality Class II Penels, Relays and Devices for the Southern California Edison Ccmpany, San Onofre Nuclear G:nerating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Onofre, California. " Specification Number S023-306-1 SCE Number 3274, July 31, 1945". BASIC REQUIREMENT:A. Section 3.10A, 3.3.1.1 of Appendix 3.10A of the FSAR defines two Z thods for (.est qualification of assemblies, i.e., fully operational assemblies versus cabinet testing with dummy weights. B. Section 3.lin.3.3.2 states that the assembly shall be mounted to the vibration generator in a manner that simulates the intended service mounting. DESCRIPTION OF FOTENTIAL FINDING: A. The method of testing assemblies with dummy weights is to be used if the fully operational test is not practical, however, in this case it is prcctical. Hence, by providing representative equipment as stated in Paragraph 4.6.3.5 of tha specification, with no requirement for the vendor to install dummy weights elsewhere, the vendor could have interpreted the specification to call for a cabinet test with only the r:presentative equipment installed. If this was the case, the test was not valid because the ' l ltzplification and frequency content of the test configuration may be quite' dif ferent from the an2 installed in the plant and equipment operability would not be veriff.ed. (See attached ch:et). PREPARED BY: _J. Rakowski OATE: Nb ' REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADEdIOMMENTS BY: GATE: _ REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: 0 ATE: B. REVIEW BY G A TASK' LEADER COMMENTS i - AGREE PF iS VAL!O BY DATE k l l 6 i j O hEQUEST RE REV!EW BY DATE 3 O OtSAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMEflTS BY: ____ DATE: A
PAGE 2
' - C PFR NO. ,
REVISION _ 'I; l C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMEN TS See attached sheet. ( ) D vs W r w 'M r-e Co u<uaulk - h /N n/rdahe $r} ?N-
/%wr's coma & us O AGREE PF IS VALID Q DISAGREE 9km (3, dh$&&$'gg
,gg 7 // d fe' BY: DATE: 3 b / B /j [ p ( Y y j;g O. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE A' * *
[ DEFINITION ADEQUACY: M ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VALIDITY: O VALID g INVALID CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITEnl0N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" - COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICA fl0N BY: A DATE: 82 c, - E. GA PROJECT MAN AGER JO ACCEPT - O REJECT BY / /4*/44/hf_ DATE: b
4
~
. .r - 'S 3, 1
- j. / ,
\
e ' Attachment PFRllo:' 2408-PFR-F059 /
/ .
t l'
> Description of Potential Finding (Continued) lt-Purchaser determination of.a specificf panel configurationiindicates that .eit:her feff i B..
J panels 2L-71 and 3L-71, the only panels covered by this specification, are differant. ' or only one dissimilar section of the overall panel need be tested. Paragraph
- 4.1.2 indicates that dissimilar panel sections may make up 2L/3L-71. !
!/.
/
, ,There is no requirement that the test configuration determined by the Purchaser is-to be representative of all fully assembled panels covered by this specification. t s - - - -
If only one panel section is to be tested, there is no requirement that the I r qualification remain valid when the sections are joined together. - I'
. h
^!.
a l 4 .e
,g '
i
/s h
< s l
M. J , g- / f f ie a f [ f
'. 4 i '
(* - i , 5
^f
[ '; , i
- r. v + , ,
i . o ] y) ' si.. ~ : ,
- ~. ,
, ;, w ,
l * + 1la ,, 4 -i .
-i. f ,
I
'Y
> + ,
T
- v. )-
- s ,
l a s t*
-.'jf
f <?
. Bechtsl Rerpon 2 to 2408-PFR-F059 < Relay panels 2L-71, 3L-71 and their components were seismically qualified by combined analysis and type testing which is acceptable. The design engineer approved the above approach based on detailed reviews and evaluations with the vendor as indicated in the following documents.
- a. NMC telexes to Dave Morrow and Perry Kine dated 2/1/77, 2/2/77 and 1/26/77
, ~
- b. NMC letter to Bechtel dated 10/24/77, 11/8/77, 12/14/77 and 12/1/78 The following are additional documents which substantiate the method chosen and the qualification of the panels,
- a. Test procedure for the seismie qualification (BPC Iog S023-306-1-8-2). -
- b. Seismic qualification of relay panels 2L-71 and 3L-71 (BPC Log S023-306 '
37-1).
- c. Seismic vibration analysis of control room relay panels 2L-71 and 3L-71 '
(BPC Iog S023-306-1-37-2).
- d. Procedure for e seismic qualification of control room panel 2L-71 and 3L-71 (BPC Log S023-306-1-43).
- e. Seismic vibration analysis of panel 2L-71 and 3L-71 (BPC Iog S023-306 -
44-0). [ The above documentation clearly indicate that qualification tests and analyses were completed to include all configurations appropriate. The purchase speci-fication need not include a complete detailed discussion of these considerations so long as the post-procurement documentation properly addresses the design re-quirements and is reviewed for acceptability by Bechtel. mo -# .- u,-% .
& miJG quJ &
- A aryGA m~"s~
i t w a 1. f& M - f 76 ,.r.n& Ad'~%M ~/ M 9"Y"~' JA~ 9 -1, d.sm b f nfsc'h
.m & ,P se AM e) /%fiuerg ~, JW p - f s3 'f'S
_e +;, eA N. ?ky& AQ Af*td i$ cm Scl & '
&Q 5' !' /0 te/ .,$ucd m M p -
_ s p./ /-g .m J Akr. yfr/r z-
I Attachment to PFR 2408-PFR-F059 Paragraph 4.6.3.5 of the specification requires qualification by test. and f ur ther states that the purchaser will de termine the specific panel configuration to be tested and will also supply representative panel mounted equipment to be included in the panel test pro gr am. However. paragraph 4.1.3 requires that the vendor shall be responsible for purchasej installation and wiring of all panel mounted equipment. Also. Appendix 4F of the specificati4 permite qualification by test. analysis. or a combinatin thereof. The documentation supplied by the original design organization indicated that the panels were qualified by analysis and the equipment vps separately qualified by test (en a shaker table) to a peak acceleration %- to or greater than the acceleration obtained in the analysis at the mounting location of maximum response for the equipment type. Regarding potential finding A. the purchaser did not supply representative equipment. Since this potential finding is based on such supply, it is not applicable. The specification adequately covers qualification when all equipent is vendor supplied. The analytical qualificatig procedure describes how vendor supplied equipent is treated. Regarding potential finding B. the purchaser did not determine which panel Os section or configuration was to be tested. There are two types of panel sections per panel. The test procedure requires that they were both to be qualified by analysis. Additionally, an analysis was to be performed on the panel sections joined together to determine that the qualification will remain valid under that condition. These analyses were performed as evidenced by the
-teet repor t.
sa Af4 7% W l l I l l 5 1
)
1
;, . ..e
, l 2408 PFR NO. F060
, POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT R EVISION l SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION )
I r A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Electrical Penetration Assemblies Specification #S023-304-1 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: a) SCE Engineering and Construction Dept. QA Procedure #39-20-3, " Preparation, Review, Approval, Verification and Release of Specifications and Addenda Developed by SCE for SONGS 1, 2 and 3" b) Corporate Documentation Services Procedere #EDM 37-30-40, " Review and Release of Company Procurement Specifications, Addenda and SONGS 1 Mini-specifications. BASIC REQUIREMENT: SEE ATTACHMENT I DESCRIPTION OF P0TENTIAL FIN 0 LNG: SEE ATTACHMENT I l I PREPARED BY: " 0 ATE: 2/mM REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS
% AGREE PF IS VALIO B 'O A' TE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY h A DATE k REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS B OAT
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F060 _ REVISION -- '*- C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS - s j I See attachment 2 CD AGREE PF IS VALID O DISAGREE BY: /Mt> Jc7 kf0 ATE: J-l#~M D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: 5 ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VALIDITY: Gi! VAll0 O INVALID CLASSIFICATION: O FINDING
$ OBSERVATION JUSTIFICATION:
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" _ COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION { l kM $ A ' g n , u JL , VA M ~L4~Z f'^ D
& ja'd f .A ;ob d/M Q-l BY:
n DATE: O!2 2 L/ E. G A PROJECT MANAGER K ACCEPT O REJECT BY: - b WOMNU DATE: bk
,'; ' , , f3l4Tr2
)
(/ w 2408 PFR NO. F060 ATTACHMENT I BASIC REQUIREMENT: SCE initiated specifications and addenda are to be submitted to Corporate Documentation Management (CDM) following review and approval. CDM prepares a form 41-95, " Drawing / Document Release" and distributes the specification / addenda with the form 41-95 in accordance with the project distribution matrix. CDM Drawing Control group maintains configuration control of all specifications through the Supplier Drawing Component System (SDCS) Configuration Control Log. This log is to be kept current and distributed on a weekly basis. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: SCE Specification #S023-304-1 for Electrical Penetrations has been revised with seven addenda. Addendum #6 was sent to the subcontractor on Change
,' ) Order #9 to Purchase Order #E4138321. Addendum #7 was sent to the sub-contractor on Change Order #15. However, there is no evidence that the addenda were received by CDM for release, distribution and configuration control prior to transmittal to the subcontractor. Forms 41-95 for these addenda could not be located. In addition, the SDCS Configuration Control Log indicates that the specification is still only Revision 5. A telecon check by CDM with the jobsite (2/11/82) revealed that the site Drawing /
Document History Card also identifies the specification as only a Revision 5. l r
~-
': ' '~ ;lefor-fRa -- fo G o
;,92s S/f&
, ATTACHMENT 2
- 1. Corporate Documentation Management (CDM) maintains separate files -
one for correspondence and a second file for drawings and engineer-data, including specifications. Addenda 6 and 7 to Specification
#S023-304-1, after the proper reviews, were inadvertently sent to the correspondence file and therefore, were not distributed as prescribed by procedures. The documents were, however, properly incorporated into the purchase order and given to the supplier.
- 2. Impact - The requirements covered by Addenda 6 and 7 had no impact on the seismic withstand capabilities of the electrical penetra-tions. Addendum 6 dealt with painting and finishing criteria and the inspection procedures to verify proper coating application.
Addendum 7 was issued to incorporate a change in the ASME Code per the summer 1974 Addenda. No physical changes in the electrical penetrations for San Onofre were required because of either of these addenda. Seismic criteria and qualifications were not changed from the original specifications.
- 3. Corrective Action - Forms 41-95 for " Drawings / Document Release" have been prepared and processed by CDM for Addenda 6 and 7 to provide proper distribution.
Prepared by: h M> 4_/ C. O. Hoppes", tiroup Leader l Electrical Engineering Approved by:. IGu H. L. Richter l Project Engineer, SONGS 2&3 o . e
l lMPACT ASSESSMENT l l F060 2408 PFR NO. AFFECTEDITEM: Electrical Penetration Assemblies Specification S023-304-1
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWASLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
Unknown
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE 7 Unknown
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Unknown
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Possibly { )' 6. OTHER COMMENTS: The primary impact of this discrepncy is the lack of configuration control. This can create confusion at the jobsite when supplier equipment is received which does not meet the requirements of the released specification. PREPARED BY: - 3 DATE: COMMENTS: h,W BY: DATE:
s v- 9 x 2408PFR NO. F061 I POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT _ REVISION - i
~
SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION , I I A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: #12 Electric Motor Operated Valves, Spec. 507-5
#12 Safety Release Valves, Spec. 507-3 REQulREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
a) Bechtel Power Corporation, Project Internal Procedures Manual, (PIPM) 11.8.2.1 b) Specification S023-507-3 c) Specification S023-507-5 BASIC REQUIREMENT: All SCNs must be incorporated not later than 120 days folic.aing the date when the first outstanding SCN was issued against a specification. Exception to this requirement may be granted by the Project Engineer on an "SCN Extension Request and Authorization" form. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: ' SCN J-14 dated 2/27/78 and SCN J-23 dated 2/23/78 were incorporated into specification S023-507-5 addendum 5 dated 9/21/78, a period of time greater than 120 days. No evidence of an "SCN Extension Request and Authorization" was located. SCN J-01 dated 11/16/77 was incorporated into specification S023-507-3, addendum 3 dated 5/10/78, a cariod of time greater than 120 days. Also no evidence of an*SCN extension request and { } authorization
- could be located.
PrtEPARED BY: M DATE: "'/ #A - REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER -
- COMMENTS 1
IO REQdEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY N TE
% REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS *BY: , DATE: 3
~e
, PAGE 2 PE R NO.F061 ,
REUISION C. REVIEW BY O RIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENT 3 C I I
- SCE J-01, SCN J-14 and SCN J-23 were incorporatcd into the specification on dates greater than 120 days after the SCN date. No "SCN Extension Request and Authorization" was initiated. Since the SCN's provided immediate direc-tion to the Vendors, the existing needs were satisfied with no identifiable impact associated with late revision of the specification.
O AGREE PF IS VALID O DISAGREE SW Y: N.d # N @ DATE: J"IO
- 0. RECOMYEP.DATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: El ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: $ VALID D INVALID 1e CFR 2^. ~ 0 N OT ".""LlCACLE O MFuiCA5cE ggg 10 GGF SG.55M. O '! R AFF u cAnte O AF"LICACLC IB OBSERVATION O FINDING
{ CLASSIFICATION: JUSTIFICATION: . CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON 0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION p-.,o.J A . s ~ # se" U g a sa - Ja u~su p2L' 'A~ a r
%s W a %q . -
BY:
- OATE: Og2 0 '
E. TN PROJECT MANAGER [ ACCEPT l 0 REJECT l l I > BY:/ - /2ddillill' DATE: j s
I IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408PFR NO. F061-AFFECTEDITEM:
#12 Valves
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWA8LES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
No
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS OURING AN SSE ?
No
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM OURING AN SSE CREATE ASUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No -
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Yes s , l h 6. OTHER COMMENTS: Since the subject SCNs provided immediate information directly to the vendors, the revision of the specification is incidental and has no impact on the design safety. PREPARED BY. -
-- M -- DATE: MIL-COMMENTS: A
-l*
2408 PFR NO. Fne
~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION
~
SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION - l }. . . A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR ,
~
AFFECTED ITEMS:
#70 Control Panel 2CR57 .
REQUIREMENT REFERENCE 00CUMENTS: a) Bechtel Power Corporation, Project Internal Procedures Manual (PIPM) 33.9 b) Supplier Deviation Disposition RequestgSDDR) #300 BASIC REQUIREMENT: When engineering action is required, such as a drawing change, the change shall be made within 120 days after the SDDR is approved. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: - SdDR 300 dated 7/9/76 waT not incorporated into the specification addendum #3 until 12/2/77. l Y PREPARED B DATE: Y/ $2 . REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REklEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS i I h AGREE PF IS VAL 10 BY - DATE i
! O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY OATE O DISAGREE BY h M DATE l k REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS B OATE:
, ,, PAGE2 2408 PFR NO. F067 _;
. , REV1510N C. ** VIEW SY ORIGINAL. DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENT 3 I 3DDE 300 was incorporated into the specification on a date greater than 120 days after
, the SDDE date. Since the return of the approved SDDR provided immediate direction to the vendors, .the existing needs were satisfied with no identifiable impact associated with late revision of the specification.
R AGREE FFIS VAUD . Q O!SAGREE A: E"E . Mar.s k IM OATE: I7 O. RECOM*AENDATION BY PINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE l l OEFINITION ADEQUACY: 5 A0 EQUATE Q INAGEQUATE l VAUDITY: E VAUD Q INVAUD IMF4486 S "*~ eim.assa U arrur.AsLa pg pp,,, 10 CRF $0.55(eh _ C = CJ O "E - C " "~'J ". ^2 " " -
; mASSIFlCATION: B OBSERVATION O FINDINS auST1FICAT10N:
- CLASSIFlCAT10N CRITERION NO. RESULTING IM "FINDIN8*
g PL COMMENTON"A08SE J A na n,y g4 m , . d VATION"C1.AS W, pg -
- 2. e p y; f: p J r. A A ,= _
BY: ' (/ DATE: S' M f2 E. TFT PROJECTMANAGEM, gACCEPT Q REJECT e
,,, A 0,n ow
IMPACT ASSESSMENT F062 2408 PFR NO. AFFECTED ITEM:
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET?
~'
No
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER -
ITEMS DURING AN SSE ? No
- 3. COULO ThF FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Yes
- 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
Since the vendor is the initiator of an SDDR there is no real need to revise a purchase specification instructing the vendor as to the subject change. The revision of the specification is incidental and has no impact on design safety. PREPARED BY 2_ 2 DATE: {//?L COMMENTS: hM I l 1 BY: , DATE:
l 3 2608 PFR NO. F063 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION I l' ! A. PREPARATION BY GA !NITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Generic Problem inherent to system. REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: a) Bechtel Power Corp. Project Internal Procedures Manual (PIPM) 14.4.3 b) Calculations: E4C-027, C-257-7.04.01, C-259-2.03.14, C-259-5.02.02, C-270-01-02 c) Drawings: 38055-0, 38057-1, 37342-2, 37925-1. BASIC REQUIREMENT: PIPM 14.4.3 states when a calculation is used to support a specification, the calcu-lation number must be entered directly above the date in the cale sheet, and the specification number must be entered directly below the subject title. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FIN 0!NG: The above listed calculations, ref. b, do not identify the applicable specifications as required by ref. a, nor the drawing number. There is no estaalished system which cross references calculations, specifications
' ' and drauings.
ggm , pyf _ p n g J, g y f b N L e) W W % f>tw i % E/~, ?**- L Y s/c/'s s PREPARED BY
;- N,M,y -M OATE: U h-REJECTION OF GA TASK LEX 0ER COMMENTS BY: DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
- 8. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS fQ p jintb'k. kNb%k Yn br ~~ ^-
,A a.u M & M A dd skin 1
l I 1 l p( AGREE PF IS VAL 10 BY - DA' TE'
~
O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O t O DISAGREE BY ATE k REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS DATE: BY:1h/n A-
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. vn[ _ REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENT 3 The objective of calculation E4C-027 is to provide an electrical auxiliary system ground
, fault protection design which includes the 4600 V buses. This calculation is developed af ter the equipment has been procured and when the actual parameters of the electrical components (current transformers, circuit breakers, relays, etc.) are available. The intent of the calculation is to support a system design rather than to support a speci-fication used for equipment procurement.
O AGREE PF 15 VAUD CD DISAGREE G SY: - 3 OATE: 3 /' D. REC 0f"/ENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: R ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAllulTY: O VALIO S INVAllD 10 CFR 21' C NOT aFitiCABLE C #FLisaitt gg g 10 CRf-50.55N: G-NfRAFFusaBi.E O ***UCAPLE - CLASS:FICATICN: O OBSERVATION O FINDING q JUSTIFICATION: - CLASS!FICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION l 1 8Y: - - n 0 ATE: 8/f/f2 E. TPT PROJECT MANAGER
)$ ACCEFT O REJECT
. . l l n
8Y- I Adv4emo- DATE: D
._ . . .-_ . _ . _ . _ ~ _ . _ ~ . . -
fL40 6-- ()fft - f % 3 Ganoral Atomic Company -447C- 3/#/P QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT (V Record of Long Distance Telephone Ca'.i Party: Called .El Date: MY/B2 Calling O Time: Comple ted s:so - Name 74 JLil $ 8 "' '
- j On-line //
Company (3N Location A>dh, Telephone No: A/C ais No . 9+'6 /g//
' (x2 ?3)
Discussion fW for,3 -
~'n % :A sM m,L N u m LO m ,+ m
-A, tk P/;e MA M, m A YL J=: b - iAlk &
J A, . A d / d
, L: ~__ s z///r1 a c /s' r , L R h J L i <
. _1.
LO '
- 3 ,- fL - o -tu
~A. A !A N' l' ! bff M f. s.1
//
s a -.x x .. ] . a J 26'x A s E $ +1.
-a.L A A r.~& hl. ef_r - -
,J
( % R 'e_J.1A -rs.. . i u_ .. e J. ~ ,w r" f
*$~- % m $ t& . . s BPe oJxadu t,<W sA.-Q-14 w L
/ -
&& ,~ .
h,.,. L 4~ V
.. . / -L b ~
-a h f A '
t ' kA ' e 13Pe k f _ Atwahd *
.: - = *lb <>>- ,. >? */$ . l Y* E V
J f J 2,_.-7 0 1 _ . A. 1 m . . J -/. 1- x n., x .LX 1,. ,a - ei s .2'- . L-'~ jJ (
.Y- 7 a L fl. ~f L / <Y si, l f L a rju$ Y l V An.
J Y a- . \ k mA -ak < 1 PfR FM'f ~ xw w ila ~ 44 eki" bu sm J m ZG -. d dx m, fa 1Yi ~ n as. ~k n ixx -!L mL,x - ,, J c
,v, / cab 1 _i ..: xL_ g--
a ' Re co rd Mad e by -g- [._ [_ [f Dlutribution: fl0f - 00g ?OS f
l l . Supplementary Response to FFR No. F063 The referenced calculations C-257-7.04.01 C-259-2.03.14, C-259-5.02.02 and C-270-01-02 are not used to develop technical criteria for any specification issued by Bachtel. The calculations are solely for structural analysis and design incorporated into drawings, not specifications. The PIPM 14.4.3 re-quirement has very limited applicability, restricted to cases where a calcula-tion would be performed to establsih design details for a specific procurement specification. r t j- f h44 g Mrk/: .d/ 0f/Of?L O b ,s . . *....s .y . .. . r i.: * ,;..* 3
'V*.**.. - . , . *- '
O . I. e
y .' . 2408PFR NO. F064 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION
~
l i' A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: 4160V. Switchgear. Specification S023-302-2 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: a) Bechtel Power Corporation, Project Internal Procedures Manuai (PIPM) b) Calculation E4C-027 c) Drawing 30108, Rev. 2 BASIC REQUIREMENT: Design calculations are " checked" before the associated design drawings are issued for construction or before the associated specification is issued for bid. D ESCRIPTION O F POTENTIAL FINDING: Calculation E4C-027 was issued 10/7/75. The specification was issued 9/5/73 and drawing 30108-2 was issued on 8/5/74. Both the spec and the drawing were issued prior to the calculation. AJ x :_f M =_/ J-4_= f - :ft: Uu W A*l SE= J-_1. ' &e M VWes-l I' w g w trx .. PREPARED BY. d=A DATE: M D-REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS (Ly fFn P ir A 'S s e r/c w i l i l 1 l l
, htf AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY F ' DATE
{ ) O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE 1 O DISAGREE BY O ATE ^
$f REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: ! DATE:
, PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. m64 ,
REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENT 3
' ' ne objective of calculation E4C-027 was to fine tune the electrical auxiliary system l l ground fault protection scheme including the 4160 V buses. It is usually done after the equipment (switchgear, motors, etc.) has been procured or data available, because it is necessary to know the electrical characteristics such as current transformer rating, accuracy range, circuit breaker clearing time and trip setting, motor data, etc. This calculation was not required to support the switchgear_ spec fi_c_ation_S023--302 2_ when it was issued for bid nor the switchgear one line drawing 30108 prior to the final revision. De short circuit calculation E4C-008 (used to determine the short circuit O AGREE PF 15 VAUD available at the switchgear) is required and was completed prior to specification issued for bid.
BY: d DATE: 3 /s /#2-D. RECOP"'ENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: E ADEQUATE D INADEQUATE VALIDITY: O VAUD E INVALID l 10 CF" ??- o nci1MLMAsts n appycAgtz 1QIRT 50.55hh O iiGT AFFi.iCABLE D AFFLiCA5i.E [ WYO l 'LASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING l l JUSTIFICATION: - CLASS!FICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON **0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY:- /- . DATE: I. 2-- U - E. TN PROJECT MANAGER l hACCEPT U REJECT k_ , l Ii BY: - ANf*v OATE: ' 1
~
~
g yog -/W72 -t' O 6Y Gsnoral Atomic Company MD QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT m _ Record of Long Distance Telephone Call Party: Called ,E! Date: 1/9'/B2 Calling O Time: Comple ted 3:so - Name -?/4 AL/l Y,,.'0 ' ** j On-line // Company AW Location A>d/E Telephone No: A/C .2is No. 9+'6 /g// ' (x2 73) Discussion P/2 for 3 -
%L: A i,>a 6f n .. & n w -- A.A x.,+ m 4 tL.: Pfe ni d
f), as n .a ~/A.
/
X A' - 1All W J ut.L . A ,- L: -~ s 2/// n D n$ cat e An L % J .1 L . _ L. v
- K -
- 31. AL_- '. 0 -t/J _
t 1A~ J -.// A 14. /L}J2 = - . d Afe a J z '. > //_J s a -.x x .1 , s - j _ uc
- b. _
E .N az _e L
~
A -1/- Y -s /_ ~n" () / a ?L e l L L -fb .
/
~
/ 'A,J -- --
/
d - -* f _ . u & f r-
-+. "A . . _ c 1 . ! L ' --rh A t .. ., h t- aM ,.,W *
/ -
AsL -Q -tL -w /. A -
>L & rw -.
a2%.,. l Aan _hwe.. V . 1 -L b - a - k1 b, ( ' t bA '
-1. 13pe' A A4MMA
- a n .L -//. , ) ,
~
2 ~- .: rL j 'L' L - J f J A 1_ ~ - lL 1 m . . . J -L /--. x ~R w 1J r j s en -, s - - U- 12__ n. .s X J f_ ' j._ J
/ ' o L n.-
V M J u...- f
-11J :/ A(1- -_ n) JJ : . *-
t h m& . m,k PM Fern ~
- - - M - -f4 e JJ- L ,n n' dk d 1;d x u. f, R JJ f n 13 , pf L z ddl. -!L m /~t-.,, an,. m f *t
_ n~/ c< 1 , . /' x - yl- & - l N 4 J / Record Madc by Ay/#,,_[ [4 ! Distribution: h '{0 ( h b , - f0Sh I OS (' l
^
l b PFR NO. 2408-PFR-F065 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT R EVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION 1 A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Safety injection line to reactor coolant loop 1A, Piping Stress Analysis Package, PSG-78, calculation sheets for Node 167 Tag No. S2-S1-059-H008 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: N/A BASIC REQUIREMENT: Shear deformation effects should be included in the calculation. NW
'FPc DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
See attached sheet l I ft PREPARED BY: P. Rasm ssen DATE: !I L REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: - DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: Nd
/
DATE: Mfb2 B. R_EVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS b EE PF IS VAll0 BY DATE 5v - O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY I i DATE O OlSAGREE BY A DATE d VIEW 0F ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: ' / ' DATE: 5 "
FAGE2 2408 PFR NO. F065 , REVISION C., REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS q l See attached sheet. , O AGREE PF IS VALID G DISAGREE BY: DATE: J//! D. RECOMYENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: $ ADEQUATE D INADEQUATE VAL 10lTY: 5 VAL 10 D INVALID ISHR 71 r1 NOT APPLICABI F ~ Q Ar%isaiUi 10 Car (n w.i. O Nc7anot!rnots e pratic. L-
/'3//o/d=
W OBSERVATION O FINDING { CLASSIFICATION: { } JUSTIFICATION: - CLASS!FICATION CRITERl0N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMM NT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION
& Y & S m !c ? ! Q . N & i 4
a J w .a A l. MA-A # % M M BY: --
- OATE: J//0/#2.
E. TM PROJECT MANAGER i M ACCEM , l 0 REJECT . 1
-l >
i Attachmtot to i !. 2408-PFR-F065 ! The effects of shear stiffness in the analysis of the subject support are con-sidered insignificant.
- However, the subject support has been reanalyzed for the purpose of taking into
- consideration the effects of shear deformation. Results are as follows
Deflections , i ! The resulting deflection is still well below the allowable. The maximum defec-tion is 0.016-in. which is much less than the allowable of 0.0625 in.
- Normally, actual shear stresses in support members are calculated and checked
- against allowables. This check limits the deflection due to shear to a negli-gible level.
Reactions The reanalysis indicates a redistribution of load such that shear reactions have been reduced but some forces and moments have increased. Increases in the controlling moment reactions are not significant - less than ten percent and resulting stresses remain below allowables. 4 4 1 .I i f d
,--y.- w v ,
v.--3 , v. 1 r, .,- - - -. - - - --- m.,. -
%y - -. -- --
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408-PFR-F065 { l I PFR NO. AFFECTED IT{gpe Supp tt at Node 167 PSG-78
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUlFEMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
The increased stresses due to ehear deformation are not large enough to cause design allowables to be exceeded in either the members or connections of the frame.
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE 7 No
- 3. COULD THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL
~ SAFETY HAZARD ?
Not within my expertise.
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ? The scope of my review is only concerned with this particular support, but it is probable that this code s '
was used to analyze similar (
- 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
47,4 q p PREPARED BY: DATE: C0MMENTS:
,hr4Q (>Jrk 61LA N f4A<.
/ /'YC& ~
m ewa c w9a w -r & y- c$r 5 Y
~ u ,,w,- I l-gy. _
b' DATE:
/ / /
/
INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE T CA-1076 IN REPLY FROM: P. Rasmusson REFER TO: TO: Potential Findings Committee DATE: 2/16/82
SUBJECT:
2408-PFR-F065 This potential finding concerns the applicability of the computer code used to analyze the pipe support for Node 167 of the Safety Injection Line to Reactor Coolant Loop 1A. Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-78. The new calculation received from Bechtel Power Corporation as a result of PFR-25 uses the computer code, general frame analysis. to compute member forces. At Node 167, the vertical frame members are connected near the base plate by a cross member whose centerline is 4~ above the base plate. Therefore. the member below the cross piece is 6.38" deep by 4~ long and the normal assumption of long slender beams does not apply. The fact that the code input does not include the shear modulus Poisson's ratio shear area or any other information necessary to compute shear stiffness would indicate that the code assumes long slender beses. The deflection calculations on p. 1 of Attachment 1 indicates that the computer deflection is much closer to the deflection of a cantilever beam than to the shear deflection of a short beam. The shear deformation will change both the stiffness and transfer matrices that are used to calculate forces -and displacements.and therefore the resulting forces. moments and deflections will be changed. 1 l
,,_. ,.......c_ - -- - - - . -- . _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - .. ~ . _ _
** O A 268 R E V. C 70 GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY l'//8'8FA MS CALCULATIO45 POR EQUlP. NO. s lPROJ.NO. CALC.NO. lPAGE l OP
, _ PREPARED SY Q QA$ Mg e, A DATE 7-[*5 /tt REP. DOCUMENTS:
REVIEWED Hy TE g y c,t, , p g,j 7 APPROVED' RY OATE { I l l l l I ! !l l l l i l l !l l l ! I wa AJ,i l l i!! III I I I 1 ! Iii i i i l l _J i l l I I Li 6+4 m .J - Ior Jxm.d I wu'r.,u I l ~4 Ac e,L Aul
\
- y. c. -t ! z .I<. d a ! ! ! I 1- , !
l p' I I l I ! ! ! ! !I I I lA_ , PL c . ly , l 4l-
/r,;n njsl2 !s J M'- l v'
I
} l l 1 l l- A j; I iir $+ , I l } I i
i I l l I l
! foe A jpc u r I
v4 l f 'l II I s! I
%WI u, -----i j s. y y y[- d e 'T j!
i + j
.e/ b fl/ n t) . l . i
[) I
. ,! l .
l ) l l' I l l l l I I J- A Li +.6 I i- ! Iil i I
- m l l , i l i !
4 wcMi- l F*c I ! I ! ! l - - err! b w rl Z !FA>- - I i (~ Com e th Lc e I I I i 1 2. h !+ u J .A .. ' I l l ; I I i l l 1l l l l ! l 1 I A
~
I e d'L z y., /#f I l l 17 ! l 1 ! i i j j j j j i i i i, i i i i
- k.i e
- 1NI 7 ~
4l I l k r Nhuh l l lm l TN6 ! OM! ! l l ! IMF lvhrol l ! ! I I I- l l l 61 I t.J ! I i!
.i l; PU l14,!D o,y I .I 1 ~ ,p. .)1 ,
l l !l ! I I
!ml l) N I f hEcoh[T'1 h) ! ! ! ! ! l l l l l l II I. I i i l i I I I I. I i I I
l i i : I Ii!1 i i i !l i i t l j , i , i I i t
- l i i ! ! l ! ! ! t i
! ! ; ! . i i i
( I , 1
!. j. ! !, j j i i
i i i i
- l. ! i ,
' 4 i r
l --- ( l
._'_9 !
l ! . . i i , , ; I
- i i
{
! i i
! ! l fi '
f > ! ' I l
! ! ; I ! i i
! : i . i ! I ! ,
, i .
i;! l !
! i i i i i ! . 4
!! ! l i ! !
! i -
l i i! ! I i l i l l I L i ; l ! ! l l l l i i i L
, s
~ - . .. -. _ _ . . -. -
h7T**w & t* TO PF2- FO bT GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY From: Date: ,
- ~ , ."
\
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION RECORD (Please hand letter legibly in black or red ink) Call Initiated by: E. /1.Ar5*055M at G A X Other Call Received by: 5 f"JGlp at G A Other ru sts v - vi+ttreG/-. _ Other
Participants:
Date 1/f/fs- Time 4w ,~ Program Name/No. Task or 189 No.
Subject:
PFS- FO60 Summary As Pkc := 00/16 ;.A og 3 F40 (_, Olc mT-5 r e .h eri To r p foh & Fil ro O Titiw f PetL P FA- Fa,f Is oat o Aun ru g T A *^ ?M Novdu se te .za . H <- To 14 c s-- t o - 3 ta Tru P?acuve A
,- <> f TW F e#0 i M4; , I t#Fe Le-em th e, 77m f- C /4kB) . v , rte
--- Nc a rtzds i r g.wr 'As g n #; g r- og<ce eg c t.o ggn w ytet; p,p o , ac Uev v0 A 'o r- ##N De e,M e P- Th-( f P t P6- CePTArt.-r .
Action items: Date Rea'd Responsible 9 - Info cc: File No. GA 1615
l 2408 PFR NO. F066
~~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION
~
s SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTE0 lTEMS: Pipe Support: 167,203, 826, 116, 178, 93, 77, 466, 146, 52, 200, 152, (GA Item #23, 30, 32, 21, 28, 26, 25, 31, 22, 24, 29, 27) REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: PIPM Section 14.4.4 Rev. 10 dated 3-9-81 BASIC REQUIREMENT: Attachments must be numbered, dated, identified with a title and the calculation number, and initialed by the responsible engineer to indicate approval of the contents. /. DESCRIPTibN OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Attachments to the calculations as follows: Drawings and change notices / requests were not it.itialed by the R.E. nor dated. See attached Table. l I PREPARED BY Nu h"IM DATE: 88 /0 If/J-REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: C OATE REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: MM #/"f#k:DATE: J/M/ 9# ' [f B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS ' l pf AGREE PF iS VAll0 BY DATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O OlSAGREE BY - _a DATE c-d REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BW /W DATE: e b/
/
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F066 RE'llSION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS ^{ } The reference material does not cantain any portion of the calculation. These sheets were included in the calculation package for reference convenience only as indicated by the " Reference Material Only" stamp on the face of the page. These pages serve to aid in latter review of the calculation, however, they are not required to complete the calculation. The calculation cover sheet does indicate these attached reference sheets by FCR or DCN number. , O AGREE PF IS VAll0 X OlSAGREE BY: M DATE: f 81
- 0. RECOMMENDATION BY FIN 0lNGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: Gir ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: 50 VALIO O INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: Dil OBSERVATION O FINDING JdSTIFICATION:
x CLASSIFICATION CRITERl0N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" _.l l COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: DATE: 7 n v E. G A Ph0 JECT MANAGER p[ ACCEPT C REJECT BY3
/ JHEN DATE: 6
'a .
2408 PFR No F066 J, Attachment 1
/
.s Description of Potential Finding ATTACHMENTS TO CALCULATIONS NOT TABLED PER PIPM SECTION 14.4.4 PIPE SUPPORT PAGES LACKING CA ITEM NUMBER SUPPORT TAG NO. CALC. NO. R.E. INITIALS & DATE 23 167 S2-S1-059-H-008 P 450-1.44-570 4 30 203 S2-SI-033-H-007 P 450-1.44-415 3 S2-S1-033-H-002 P 450-1.44-413 3 32 826 S2-SI-002-H-029 P 450-1.44-180 2 21 116 S2-S1-043-H-020 P 450-1.50-169 12 28 178 S2-S1-031-H-003 P 450-1.44-410 4 26 93 S2-S1-004-H-013 P 450-1.44-211 6 25 77 S2-SI-002-H-020 P 450-1.44-171 6 s 31 466 S2-SI-038-H-031 P 450-1.44-458 5
(\ ') 22 146 S2-S1-059-H-009 P 450-1.50-211 6 24 52 S2-SI-109-H-005 P 450-1.44-654 7 S2-S1-109-H-003 P 450-1.44-653 8 29 200 S2-S1-063-H-005 P 450-1.50-222 3 27 152 S2-S1-067-H-002 P 450-1.44-580 4 x_/
IMPACT ASSESSMENT / I ) PFR NO. F066 PIPE Support: 167, 203, 826, 116, 178, 93, 77, 466, 146,52, 200 and 152. AFFECTE0lTEM:
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
N/A
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT FAllOR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE 7 N/A -
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY H AZARD ?
N/A
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD 7 Unlikely
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ? s Yes
- 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
z fea mar run a a note auAA L V/ 0 LA 7/ad MJ boas A/07 OoN C 7 '7 U 7d* AN y S A r s 7 ;/ sg zgg g , PRFPARED BY: - M- '
#f*4 OATE: 3//o //7<f A
(/ COMMENTS: j j v'M i )
'?
BY:
/bb '
DATE:
- h-pyof -RfR F06G g 3//2;/trL - *
. p& CALCULATION CHEET _sgo r.tt 2rf -
- DATE N CHECKED DATE TURE 10079-003 tf PROJECT SONGS UNITS 2 & ! NO.
b SHEEN [ OF ' SHEETS SUBJECT RCCFIVFn 4-6 O g//Af TM
- 9-n - 0o9 - #- *'S -]
2 DESIGN VERIFICATION FC4 Y D-/Xf // I O===>a==v=~='~=='~=>======~r
*Z.2 7 :
# SIE MIIACNM S N TS ] W
% orsicNED BY CALCULATION nEF. * }
REFERENCE DESIGN DATA s .__ siness pnostzu No. S Card.-- en. No. 9.3 ] e starss iso NO. MM" #[*! nEV.NO. O oc is nY n DL TL Hov'rS l-+ y' p '(; -lM 7
- 3fv.V3 x- +.e ,, g
- f. * '1 4 3l H6 Q u
,, ,s - " V~7 k,~
FR/C TIO M LOADS / m
/ i O b? / .n E' .:: .5 (35t7) = foof 4
7 I 6 (
., Fn = 5 Gm+ h n) = tor 9 " Fx
= g\
Q3 = 3 (3'11f +t 9) = //Ty 4
" Fu = 3 (t(4) = 169 "l c;f z C. -go h Nit!r l'a401 A4 f4.af1 ,$cu./
*4 /t '-
m ( ' 44,6 r, .c21
*I**I f, =1 s
.,c..
f . THESE CALCULATIONS WERE PRODllCED 3Y g 1 Q' .julNTERNATl0HA1. CONSUL. TING ENGINEERS
=
- . , _ ~ _ _ _ _ . - . _ . . . yw _ .
_=___ . _ = _
^^
~
, pg _pogc A 4 n/w /
sa 51-oog H-*tS g g (!(A4) yy 7f @ (.rs., ( 4') p q - y G(u..vt) '
@ (sv sc..r),-
9 lo] c5 gb //k AC 9D
@ @ @ (vcM)
C~><j, c,., ,o c,,,x > cu.x) REF. MdERIAL ONLY SHEET ~tT 6F7 77 [ MC # 45 4 ' ' " t ,( ' g k O$ (*) c j A4HL 1=U3 , A = 3.1,2 a) sc.p sf z a k 1 = ty , A ~ az- >- ;--; zapwg cous. : D wp l )o
#$ -> W d h #g *'*y* h* g*
N. 3) -(
- 8 i
-7 d 2*
b #f ** $*4 [0 go
. .a_, .
.. . g qo& -pnt- fo4L
& 3) / L 32 .51 - oc4 - fl-c13 g,, J) Old5]
g ' 91 O UN @ Cro 4 0
!fi) cn., c .c)
"bo
(>s, 4F foy b (so, so.r) SE d QB 3C D
@8 @ s O
'*i1Q Ca, n D (g,3g ("' '0 REF. MATERIAL ONLY A
SHEIT ~ l'f ~6 f7 , CALC # b@-\-4'_23_1 0 : I ~ r D< , to. .)
) A B cD EF HzI z = n.3 .
A-Tw
- 9) GF k I=-WP , A * -137
, JoAphv4 cona. g i o fireo l I $ $ M hf )# 4 6 U7 b 2# - D) +f ---> + 7..o* 2c [l # (, *'&# ho 2o
,ll2'/04 .942- F oCG Gcnarcl Atomic Company M 3// !M /
QUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT I Record of Long Distance Telephone Call Party: Called [ Date: />;u c a /o, / 9 L Calling O Time: Comple ted 9: 2e Name Started 9 :e o DA w es yss 7 o On-1tne io m eyu res Compahy 2res/7te-Location _ djns rrien Sedc3 PQoJECT Of~/*!CC Telephone No: A/C 4/J No. 9W /B/9 T 2e / Discussion Arviea/ e; perr , Pacts.aun AL pse/u/grncers 37srct) 14 P/P/r .Ta c 7se g / V. <,f. </ , A U) 2/1Aq/1EEMcN71 CA./ SU)fJrc7 PFA F0 4 4 Ps7t GA PAlo.Jrc 7 PADCEDUAE ?'/ W . P D = 3 b A7Cb '/l'*13 l /98 3-- So lo 4 )nVf CA Ps 70 73 CNECX ANA f/db ouY .ddH Y A TTA C HME471 73 7NE Sa/.B./L e 7 Add 6 ft)EXE A/0 7'" f)A7E) A/V O l /4// 7/At E) x3 Y 7Nr AESPodf/Eti EA/G/d[E/L.
.s
-DAVE OA P/76 GAllEb o A/ /O kyAACH / 9d*2- A-T l*0& D AN)
.spoxt wi78 rwE ag,77en pscareDidr; 7HE P fr. Ala. Fo es, I po s472 'h O ct 7 7b /// M 7 HAT /M 77/L 04-L e u LA770HC )~oA P/PE
.S t.JPyoit 7 9 3 3 SHEf 7" /1 of /7 AMA l'NEET /3 or / 7 lUE7?E /AMENTCb A1 AE*Ff>t GA!C4 MATEX/A L cALV i U t7Nou 7 B E/ W h 2 A 75~b , shCAr7/s r /f')
/4 i7H A- 7/ 71E, OA /4 / 7/ s9 Lc~D BY 7NE ACS78 dt'/ B LE EAfC/svEE7L Tb
/db frA.~rE APPRo vn L of 7HE cos/7ENTC.
l
/>7/t . ('4P / TD ACAEE) fd/ r?/ ME AECA'Ab/dG THE F/db/dC SHcW2 04 f~edd , A Mk STATE 2) 7 H /f 7~ B i C t/ T E Z- /sl/LL /2EVIEA/ 3 /A// 7/A L, AA/p /) E N 7// 'l 7NE A77~ACHMEN7[ U/l7H THE 7 /T~ls 76 PEE 7 7HE AEOU/ K E MEN T OF P/PM S E C 7!o v /</. V. e/. /?f V. f6 1ATrn 3/9lEl.
_ BASED O A/ TNE F0/ECPM C ,1 FECL 7?fA7 7N/f F/A/A /AJ C ff VA L/p
~
1 _Aivb /3EC//7EL h /) A/d 7 CokfPLY 4)iDf P / P M 5~E C 7o ^/ l'Il' 4' ' D /
" N'f U' Record Made by QW0 8 . trg /7ts>>ff Distribution:
l r 2408 PFR NO. F067 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION
^
SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION l A. PR EPAR ATION BY G A INITI ATOR AFF ECTED ITEMS: Pipe Support 167, 203, 826, 152, 200, 52, 116, 178, 93, 77, 466 and 146. REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: PIPM Rev. 10 date 3/9/81 Section 14.4.3 BASIC REQUIREMENT: Calculation must be performed on sheets, Form LA0 0513 or Form 0514, except Title Page. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: SEE ATTACHMENT I I & /4 L Ajed (ggjgjpgg p),3 73 mg g , y gND OA) 0 l l O
- nm'%i r. h g,(mqW
.5 ho// 7b PREPA3E0 BY wa h0 ATE: 3 M// pm REJECTION ONA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
,, ffN fif hffeb *# '**
n g fhJJL & '. 1% k th! &N b hs Mfh -
' d ,Jsli du 431, Tth" Yipa . 9 F' 4 WA 3 13 3 psp-BY C
~
G AGREE PF IS VAll0 D'AT E' O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE , O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
~~
l s
l PAGE 2 F067 2608 PFR NO. A REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENTS I l O AGREE PF IS VAL 10 0 OlSAGREE BY: DATE: D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: 5 ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAllulTY: O VAll0 $ INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTlFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "O BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: . - g DATE: OM E. GA PROJECT MANAGER ! ACCEPT O REJECT BY- '
/
//2ME't+v DATE: / // IL
~
l
- F067
. 2408 PFR NO.
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC OESIGN VERIFICATION I I A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Pipe Support 167, 203, 826 (GA Item #23, 30, 32) REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: PIPM Rev. 10 date 3-9-81 Section 14.4.3 BASIC REQUIREMENT: Calculation must be performed on sheets, Form LA0 0513 or Form 0514, except Title Page. 4 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: See Attachment 1
] ul/L L g/Da) GyA).f/J C7L 7)t/J 73 EG /A/]AtL / ) Ethic @ OU bed /+Tcl 's Q m m c m 7* g 4
3 hc /s 7 r a. PREPARED BY: "7 N- m4NM OATE: N8 d > / 9/* REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS l Lu h I^ ' h 3llofV
~ '
% AGREE PF IS VAll0 BY / DATE O REQUEST RE. REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY n -
0 ATE d REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: a M DATE: '
PAGE2 2408 PFR NO. F067 ,, REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS The requirement reference document (PIPM, Re v. 10, dated 3/9/81, Section 14.4.3) states,
* " Calculations must be performtid on suitable Calculation Sheets (see Form LA0 0513, (8-1/2 X 11), or Form LA0 0514 (11 X 17) for typical examples).' The PIPti does not state that LA0 0513 or LA0 0514 are the only calculation sheets that may be used. It merely states that they are examples of suitable sheets.
O AGREE PF 15 VAUD 3 REE SY: DATE: /!O
- 0. RECOM*.'EP DATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: W ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAllulTY: O VAUD 5 INVALID 10 CFR 21: O NOT APPLICABLE O APPLICABLE 10 CRF 50.55(e): O NOT APPLICABLE O APPLICABLE CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: -
CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION YD//o/8z._
] // -0 i. w 1
BY: V* / "M DATE: d/ / U/ 6 < fl E. TPT PROJECT MANAGER O ACCEPT O RE.ECT h BY: DATE:
; .- . .? F047
'. 2408 PFR No.
j'
. Attschment 1 4 .
/T Description of Potential Finding Y/ Calculation not on required forms. See Table Calculations not on Required Form 0513 or 0514 Pipe CA Item Support Support Sheets not on Point Tag No. Calculation No. Form 0513 or 0514 23 167 S2-S1-059-H-008 P-450-1.44-570 1 30 203 S2-S1-033-H-007 P-450-1.44-415 1 S2-S1-033-H-002 P-450-1.44-413 1 32 826 S2-S1-002-H-029 P-450-1.44-180 1 S2-S1-002-H-028 P-450-1.44-179 1 27 152 S2-S1-067-H-002 P-450-1.44-580 1 f
S2-S1-067-H-001 P-450-1.44-579 1 29 200 S2-S1-063-H-005 P-450-1.50-222 1 24 52 S2-SI-109-H-003 P-450-1.44-653 2 j S2-S1-109-4-005 P-450-1.44-654 1 21 116 S2-S1-043-H-020 P-450-1.50-169 None 28 178 S2-S1-031-H-003 P-450-1.44-410 None O) ( _ 26 93 S2-S1-004-H-013 P-450-1.44-211 2 25 77 S2-S1-002-H-020 P-450-1.44-171 1 31 466 S2-S1-038-H-031 P-450-1.44-458 None 22 146 S2-S1-059-H-009 P-450-1.50-211 2 S2-S1-059-H-009 P-450-1.109.9.100 1 l-( i I l l l
'~.)
~
2.9 0 F PFR NO. r 0 GT POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION I l' A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Pipe Support 167, 203, 826, 152 200, 52, 116, 178, 93, 77, 466, 146 (CA Item 23, 30, 32, 27, 29, 24, 21, 28, 26, ~ , 31, 22. REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: PIPM Section 14.7, Rev.10 (dated 3/9/81) BASIC REQUIREMENT: Revisions must be recorded in the control logs within 15 working days. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: A check of the Project files showed that the calculations for the above were being revised (Revision 2) and the documentation was not complete. The title sheet for Calc No. P 450-1.44 was not approved for Rev. 2. Also Calc No. P 450-1.50. These calculations include all of the above affected items. Attached are title sheets for I I
~k' s,
['re * .4 13 see.e@e% ND% is WM 4 '50 htMeh t%4 HCM M m e; g e_3 g 4thv=wk v ioM% kn wM t% 9 9 % S OU h wvWaw* Er 3 h PREPARED BY: b S DATE: D I b' REJECTION OF G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS
/L $ A g 11G N )
iUM a e f ' l a 3 p / n k AGREE PF IS VAll0 8 DATE O REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY ^ ATE kREVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: - DATE
PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F068 , REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
, q Calculations P-450-1.44 and P,-450-1.50 are currently under revision. Upon completion of the revision process Rev. 2 will be recorded in the control logs within 15 working days.
O AGREE PF 15 VAUD Q 0,lSfGREE
/W L BY: DATE: N' O. REC 0f.".'EP.DATION BY FIN 0!NGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADE.!UACY: 5 ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0ITY: O VAUD El INVALID 10-Cyn 2n U MUI APPLIGABLE U Ar7UCASLE j 3)f/gg_
10 [RF EQ EEfal* ONOIAEU E U-
;LASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING
( ( ) JUSTIFICATION: - CLASSIFICATION CRITERidN NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "O BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION i BY: DATE: Y U o . E. TFT PROJECT MANAGER
% ACCEPT O REJECT i )
e ' ^
PFR-f067
) C ALCUL ATION TITLE SHEET sHect i or 49/00 ~
leUCC m: m LE2 Joe No goo 7 t>g. o c , oisetPLiNE g sect Of f OM S C[1 ( 4W {Q { y ggg, p, g g
,JEc7 WC rile No.
c A Lc. u o. P- 456- 1. W j ~ o
**^ t __. opyg cuaLITV cuassir.-
@ casoiN ATon sio.---
^ DW / oate 7-~ 1 O3 up'2asy nog ~I/
@ cwrcutn sto - cHrcx As scouinto ..'. ."' -
trvrL or nav8tw @ .@ .
, , ,, . / ORIGIN AL ISSUE lf I HAME oaTE _
SI GNRu R E DALW MN -
@ onoueLtAorn D W lb l?
@ tos
& \O Yk k meb 9-A-TD ._/
@ sPcceALisT
@ cHier ovnen - -
RECORD OF REVISIONS ncvisioN oave zNo. l cx5 sol cas 29'cc. l cwicr l
.]No , /
C09PMTE B OitpuTV fr / Coscern=0 Call To D5bL C L P SG t F~. 5-l5-!i
~
)
5[ .____- 1 l
/\
t i .
! Fort 4. cite ain IS_. P ro c.c. oo ct=_.y Sct. c_au:, nc Nso -o to 3 %\1 cAc.etm$n tNc woes c.tN a F MSO .l W -I.Thru a
s
'P-4so-l.W ~17i Lev 'n io0 4s ac h ng supp!mb vz i ,,3 s
l
; [* t f - ' 'f fvr
- ut,..
~
l }l
~~.5f'05 g.
m emumswas M '
-'" CAT 10:10F Ti;E
.,iLT CO.lDITION %
- v -
*EE CALC. ;;0. PGL M U
-]. .
~
j }t' s -
'f-J' .
,2 --
~
.h ~.' _
--.*.E . . _ . . . . . _ ~ . . - . _ ~~_
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
T mn kmc m p,ga Y Etto m A m 2Et u u t. v s. . ~ . s i i4ut
/ ros
. ._c, y%ay 7Ct., y-Oy t.f'5//ff 2,pj m e/ .t / w wsscc, i or / 7 ' T, ygg L4'r 1$3 JOB NC 7- DISCIPLIN E ,
g,eostcy , b c *J 6 f P-4so tec eero r c/t ea t t e. tot J GY3 c ,,L,,o.
--s. ,,c, p t et
* ~
e ,Lc, ,,, P . G C -1. M
' b
' ' ~
ou ALiTy cL Assir. T ' -V DAvr
@ cosci,Navon sis.-
hbO [ Art 7! No. Last Pang .
@cHecutasin. check As ncouincD /[g- ,. ,
Lcvri. or nrview @ @ PE sT AMP IF nEQ D . ORIGIN AL ISSUE NAME DATE slGN ATUPC 7 N NO N _
@ onour LcADcn EDEtt CAMLSninh nydmd '7-a-a @ ros %"
@ sPcci AusT
@ esier OTHEn . -..
RECORD OF REVISIONS CGL EGs SPEC. CH I E F l DATE ENG. c Kft() N gto l MEvislON 6' s ('DRREcTTB OO At fi-V OLRSSrF C.15-f f '
- e. CCO@i2mm CALCs 7b R5DI .I l
/\ i
/\ -
i
/\
P G o c.5 cmc Su c A t.c. P 4 5'o .- o t O Fow. c.m ontn E. 9 M O-1 50-l TM u. C A t.C. T Tuu c Ac.vLn' t e o INc.LU DCS
' ?. qso. t.5 0- %5. ,
1 T CMC, br WPh M 7 f ktJ. 'mdv e5 T ! I. 7 '?
'TcR c m y5i E N A .', G 1
( YERinCATION OF THE i ~ %. s .
.ts .
AS BUiti CONDill0M, ; .
/3 j % a.
9 OEE C*1c H0. M50-1,f
~4 . azak
" . 3~ - i-N
.Qa
"****"MN*Aptem my e . .g., ,,
2408 PFR NO. F069 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Those portions of structures, systems or components whose continued function is not required but whose failure could reduce the functioning of any Seismic Category I plant feature. REQUIREMENT REFERENCE 00CUMENTS: SEE ATTAOLETT I BASIC REQUIREMENT: SEE ATTACIMENT I DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: The potential finding is that SCE did not comply with Regulatory Guide 1.29. Position C.4 (quality requirements for safety impact items and from the boundary of all Seismic Category I items to the first seismic restraint) from August 1973 through the resent, 2/82. (For th discussio^ , see Attach ent I). . , W MN& M & $$W NAk hn4 , b Ju/G S Lt3 % r
) M. ffA 5 Ws $
PREPARED BY: 4 DATE: N REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMYNTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS hLL k [a vd8 .[0E ['O A* M* pre y ~L Pr j& M-In O AGREE PF IS VAL 10 BY - M - D'A TE' Of REQUEST RE REVIEW BY ' OATE ~~ I N ' O DISAGREE 8,Y DATE O REVIEW OF GRIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
\
y PAGE3 PFR NO. REVISION - - - - - C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS l I O AGREE PF IS VALIO O DISAGREE BY: DATE: D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: E ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAL 10lTY: O VAll0 E INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "*0BSERVATION" CLASS lFICATION l l
/
BY: - ' () DATE: O / 7!f2 E. GA PROJECT MANAGER rLt rk;s W e*v " - #""
' N' '
S ACCEPT $ og r<e. ' Sa + os .urs,.t. rt.s se.p / rLak pr*y **~ b's. rk< p r* *
- Ja .s d'*a O REJECT e , , ,, , , ,, _ , ,, , s. 5, . ,..., g ,,,,,,g , g* f"' * 'd s%'#F' * '*""a a s ^ t l tw a ste 7 3rt e l rk p rogrs = (d.]. lea r- pae g,.g .4 gy gy *
- r. rk4 y , S , ._ . . a ,; g ,,,,, ,, , ,,,, ru c, ,,y y ,y ,5 , ;g _, , ,,,,,,, ,
,g,, , , ,
- f r k u r... enasr,..... /f.5.,,,,,,; , , , , , , ,
BY: / LILWw DATE: #!/( ' e
. _- _ .. -- - .- - - -- - --. - o
. 2408 PFR 069
&& Z $w=D
.s
SUMMARY
f h SCE stated in a PSAR amendment (10/72) that SONGS 2&3 "will be designed to be compatible with applicable portions of AEC Safety Guide 29. Implementation of Safety Gu'.de 29 will be discussed in detail in the FSAR." Regulatory Guide 1.29 Rev. I w .s issued in August of 1973. Regulatory Guide 1.29 position C.4 imposed 10CFR Appendix B, 4 Quality Assurance requirements, on "those portions of structures, systems, or compo-nents whose continued function is not required, but whose failure could reduce the functioning of any Seismic Category I plant feature." Position C.1 imposes 10CFR50 Appendix B on all Seismic Category I plant features. The Regulatory Guide allows submittal of alternate methods or solutions different from those set out in the guide. SCEoin their FSAR, 3/77, adopted guide position C.1, as is, and proposed alternate methods for position C.4. which were accepted by the NRR (nuclear reactor regulators) . These alternate methods and solutions- are reduced so far from the Appendix B to 10CFR50 requirements that I believe their acceptability is questionable. For example, only 15% of tha 13 pertinent activities controlled by Appendix B to 10CFR50 were addressed in the FSAR, namely, designing and inspection. Only design reviews were mentioncd under iesign control in the FSAR. Nothing was said about control of design approval, release, distribution and revision. Nothing was said about delineation of acceptance criteria for inspection and tests; or design changes including, field changes. Also, appendix B to 10CFR50 Criteria V " Instructions, Precedures and Drawings" and VI " Document Control," which impact criterion III
~y. " Design Control," were not addressed in the FSAR alternate method.
Inspection was only partly covered being limited to those inspections performed during plant erection. These inspections are performed by field engineers independent f rom the performing organization per criterion X requirement, but not having sufficient freedom from cost and schedule, or to take corrective action as required by criterion I of Appendix B to 30CFR50. However, this review was not conducted to check the performance of the NRR. The NRR has accepted these alternate methods via the FSAR for SONGS 2&3 and are within their prerogative to do so, therefore this PFR is invalid, h E/2l-8L l (m) v l l
' 2408 PFR F069 P2gg 1 Cf 6 ATTACRMENT I I' REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMETS:
J
- 1) Regulatory Guide 1.29, Rev. 1, August 1973, Regulatory Position C.1.
- 2) Same document as (1), Positions C.2, C.3 and C.4.
- 3) 10CFR50 Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants.
- 4) Paragraph 2 of letter, Log EE 3092, 10/5/76, J. D. Houchen, BPC, to D. F.
Martin, SCE,
Subject:
" SONGS, Unit 263, Bechtel Job 10079, Regulatory Guide 1.29 - Positions C.2 and C.4, File S023-600-A."
NOTE: The following pertinent data referenced by the above letter was not found by CDMC at the site: "(A) CN-1730, 8/10/76,
Subject:
QA Requirements Imposed on the Design of Safety Impact Items, (B) SCE letter to BPC, 9/9/76,
Subject:
Compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.29, Rev. 1, and (1) Safety Impact Items Compliance Information" (an enclosure with original BPC letter).
- 5) Same document as (4), Paragraphs 5, 7 and 8.
- 6) Same document as (3), criteria I and VII.
l 7) ANSI N45.2-1971, 2.0 Quality Assurance Program.
~'
- 8) SONGS 2&3 FSAR, Appendix 3A, Comparison of Design with NRC Regulatory Guides, JA.1, NRC Regulatory Guides.
9)- Regulatory Guide 1.29. Rev. 2, February 1976, D. Implementation.
- 10) Letter, 2/22/1982, J. J. Adrian, SCE, to G. L. Wessman, TPT,
Subject:
Telecopy Memo, dated February 22, 1982, from G. L. Wessman to J . Adrain/ J. K. Thomas.
- 11) Same document a.2 (8), Section 3A.1.29.3 Paragraph C.2 of the Regulatory l Cuide.
- 12) Same document as (8), Section 3A.1.29.4, Paragraph C.3 of the Regulatory Guide.
G ( O
l ,,, 2408 PFR F069 l . Pegs 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT I i .V BASIC REQUIRE 3ENT:
- 1) ". . . Seismic Category I. . The pertinent quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10CFR Part 50 should be applied to all activities atfecting the safety related functions of these structures, systems, and l component s . . . ".
- 2) "...Those portions of structures; systems.or components whose continued function is not required but whose failure could reduce the functioning of any plant feature"...(Seismic Category I). (Also, for Seismic Category I items)..." requirements should extend to the first seismic restraint beyond the defined boundaries... The pertinent quality assurance requirements of !
- Appendix B to 10CFR Part 50 should be applied to the safety requirements l l of those portions of structures, systems and components..." '
! 3) "...The pertinent requirements of this appendix apply to all activities 1 affecting the safety-related functions of those structures, systems, and components; these activities include designing, purchasing, fabricating, handling, shipping, storing, cleaning, erecting, installing, inspecting, j testing, operating, maintaining, repairing, refueling and modifying. As used in this appendix, " quality assurance" comprises all those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a { structure, system, or component will perform satisfactorily in service..."
- 4) " Positions C.2 and C.4 of Regulatory Cuide 1.29 require that the pertinent quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10CFR50 be applied to
- those structures, systems and components whose failure during a DBE could result in unacceptable damage to safety related systems (safety impact items). These. safety impact items are designated QC III or IV by the project since they are not required to perform a safety function."
I
- 5) "...A11 items, regardless of Q-class, undergo receiving inspection whereby shipments are checked against the packing list and purchase order for count, condition, and identification..."
" Vendors providing Quality Class III and IV items are not required to implement quality assursace programs in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix B, and source inspection is not required for all standard, commercial items."
" Additional quality assurance provisions for safety impact items are not
( considered necessary, based on consideration of the following factors (per ANSI N45.2-1971):..."
- 6) "A program for inspection...shall be established.. .to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and draviegs for accom-plishing the activity. Such inspection shall be performed by individuals other than those who performed the activity being inspected."
/
I
2408 PFR F069 Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT I
" Measures shall be established to assure that purchased material, equipment, and services... conform to the procurement documents. These measures shall include provisions, as appropriate, for source evaluation and selection, objective evidence of quality furnished by the contractor or subcoctractor, inspection at the contractor or subcontractor source, and examination of products upon delivery..."
- 7) "Regardless of the methods or levels used, the program shall provide for the assurance of quality consistent with applicable codes, standards, and other requirements. As a guideline, some factors to be considered in assigning methods or levels of quality assurance are as follows:..."
- 8) "This appendix discusses the conformance of plant design with the gu!.delines presented in NRC Regulatory Guides 1.1 through 1.96...Where the design differs from the Regulatory Guide, alternative methods of pro-viding an equivalent level of safety have been utilized:..."
'9) and 10) Quoted in the discussion, l 11) 3A.1.29.3 Paragraph C2 of the Regulatory Guide l
Items that would otherwise be classified non-Seismic Category I, "but whose f ailure could reduce the functioning" of items important to safety "to an utscceptable safety level," are to be " designed and constructed so ( that the DBE would not cause such failure." In addition, Paragraph C.4 of the guide recommends that the pertinent quality assurance requirement of Appendix B to 10CFR50 should be applied to the safety requirements of such items. Both of these recommendations are followed by applying the following practices to such items: A. Design and design control for such items are carried out in a similar manner as that for items directly important to safety. This includes the performance of appropriate design reviews. B. Field work is performed under the direction of experienced field construction superintendents and is inspected by the staff of field engineers stationed at the site. The field engineers are responsible for verifying that construction is performed in accordance with the I design drawings and specifications and with applicable standard codes and specifications.
- 12) 3A.1.29.4 Paragraph C.3 of the ReRulatory Guide l "...to the first seismic restraint beyond the defined boundaries." In addition, Paragraph C.4 of the guide requires that "the pertinent quality assurance requirement of Appendix B to 10CFR50 should be applied to the safety requirements" of such items. Both these requirements are considered to be met adequately by applying the following practices to such items:
2408 PFR F069 Page 4 of 6 : ATTACHMENT I . , A. Design and design control for such items are carried out in a similar manner as that for items dircetly important to safety. This includes the performance of appropriate design reviews. B. Field audits are performed by representatives of the originating design group to assure that the final installation of such items is in accordance with documents that formed the basis for the seismic analysis of the items. POTENTIAL FINDIEC - DISCUSSION: This audit was concerned with QC (quality control) inspection of the mounting of safety impact it e.as and the audit is covered by PFR Report No. 2408 PFR F048. The potential finding reported here was discovered during review of data used to verify implementation of the audit's corrective action. Reference (2), position C.2 imposes the same Qualty Assurance (QA) on " Safety Impact Items" as for Seismic Category I and p >sition C.3 does the same from their boundary to the first seismic restraint.. Reference (3) defines these
" pertinent requirements" as 16 activities from " designing" to " modifying".
5 Reference (4) acknowledges that the items of (2) require " pertinent" QA per Appendix B to 10CFR50. It further states: "These safety impact items are designated QC III or IV by the project..." Reference (5) details BPC's QC Class III and IV receiving inspection, and control of purchased material requiremants. These do not comply with the 10CFR50 Appendix B, QA requirements for these same quality activities, see Reference (6). Reference (5) states that based on ANSI N45.2-1971 no sdditional QA for safety impact items are considered necessary. Reference (7) provides a guideline for establishing quality levels as stated in Reference (5), however the first sentence makes it clear that such a classification must comply with QA require-ments of applicable codes, standards, and other requirements. Reference (7) was presented as the basis for Reference (5) not complying with the reference (2) stated QA requirements. The last sentence of (7) states that the following list was: "a guideline...to be considered in assigning... levels t of Quality Assurance.. ." However, the first sentence states: "Regardless of ; the... levels used, the program shall provide for the assurance of quality l consistent with applicable...other requirements." [ Reference (8) adopted the reference (2) QA requirements, end these constitute "other requirements" per Reference (7). Therefore, reference (7) does not ; establish (5), but (5) shows itself at variance with (7) via (8), as well as ; (2) per the above discussion. ? ! V t l mpw%.. m w _ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _
l 2408 PFR F069 Page 5 of 6 h ATTACHMENT I The verification action taken for this audit, block 17 by BPC QAE, lists reference (4) as the Engieenring justification, and its acceptance by SCE as per "Tel con with R. Rogers verifying SCE acceptance (Ray to Bashore, 10/26/76)," This shows SCE accepting BPC's position on Reference (2). 71a reference (8), "this appendix discusses the conformance of plant design with the guidelines presented in NRC Regulatory Cuides 1.1 through 1.96. . .", SCE has committed to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.29, positions C.2, C.3 and C.4. BPC's quality assurance program for SONGS 26 3 is deficient in at least 8 of the 16, ref arence (6), "pertinest" QA activities for safety impact items. If SCE opted to submit other methods .ad solutions to thoce of Position C.4, they were required to submit them to the NRR shortly af ter August 1973 for evaluation as stated in Reference (1), " Methods and solutions different from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis f or the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the commission." Via reference (9) "except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative method...the method described herein is being and will continue to be used in the evaluation...", the commission makes it clear that (~ _ for evaluation. Reference (10) states that: "The following information is provided to respond to the request contained in the reference memo.
- 1. PSAR Amendment 16 (10-19-72) Page 1.8-h includes a compliance position with Safety Cuide 29 (June 1972). This Safety Guide does not include positions C1, C3 or C4.
- 2) FSAR appendix 3-A (original Issue of 3-21-77) Pages 3A-8, -9 and -10 includes a compliance position with Regulatory Guide 1.29 Revision 1 (August 1973). This Regulatory Guide Revision introduced positions C2, C3 and C4.
The above reference PSAR/FSAR pages are encioned for your information. These constitute the only written communications between SCE and the NRC on compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.29 for San onofre Units 2 and 3." Reference (11) states that "the pertinent quality assurance recuirement of the appendix B to 10CFR50 should be applied..." This misquotes the guide, reference (1) which talks of ". . . pertinent. . .reauirement s . . . ". The pertinent requirements per (3) are 16 activities. Reference (3) has 18 specific criteria i of quality assurance which apply to these pertinent activities. The pertinent I activities for safety impact items, which should have had alternate methods and l l l e
2408 PFR F069 i ATTACHMENT I l i solutions presented in (11) are the following: designing, purchasing, fabricating, handling, shipping, storing, cleaning, inspecting, erecting, installing, repairing, modifying and testing. The criteria of Appendix B to 10CFR50 that apply to safety impact items are the following: 1) organization;
- 2) quality assurance program (suppliers); 3) design control; 4) procurement document control; 5) instructions, procedures and drawings; 6) document control; 7) control of purchased material, equipment and services; 8) identification and control of materials, parts and components; 9) control of special processes; 10) inspection; 11) test control; 12) control of measuring and test equipment; 13) handling, storage and shipping; 14) inspection, test and operating status; 15) nonconforming materials, parts or components; 16) corrective action; 17) quality assurance records; and 18) audits.
Reference (11) proposes alternate methods and solutions for only 3 of the 13 pertinent reference (3) activities applicable to safety impact items, namely designing, erecting and installing. Reference (11) mentions only design review , as the design control measure, while reference (3) criteria 3, 5 and 6 impose many controls on the designing activities. , Reference (11) states that field work is inspected by field engineers. Field l engineers are "other individuals...than those who performed the activity being l s inspected. . ." as required per Criterion 10, reference (6), but do not have 1 sufficient organizational freedom " including sufficient independence from cost and schedule" as required by Criterion 1, reference (3). (This matter is
' reviewed in PFR 2408 PFR F048.)
Reference (12) proposes only design review, which is inadequate design control (see above discussion) and auditing, to comply with reference (3) requirements. Many of the pertinent activites and criteria of reference (3) discussed above regarding reference (11), safety impact items, apply to reference (12) quality assurance requirerents from the seismic Category I item boundary to the first seismic restraint. The alternate methods and solutions per (11) and (12) for reference (3) imposed per (2) and adopted by SCE per(8), are inadequate in the area cf design control and do not meet Criterion 1 for inspection, and totally neglect to address 70% to 80% of the pertinent activities requiring quality assurance per (3). These ! alternate methods and solutions are reduced so far from the Appendix B to ' 10CFR50 requirements per Regulatory Guide 1.29 position C.4, that their acceptability is questioned. ( O
~
1
. -~ - ~ ~~ -
r PFR fdO 2408-PFR-F070 l POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION j 2 ' SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION r A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Low Pressure Safety Injection Systen Piping Stress Analysis Package PSG-117 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: s BASIC REQUIREMENT: Consistency between Isometric Sketch, Computer Model, Pipe Support Description List, and Snubber Installation Drawing. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Horizontal snubbers at D.P. 179 are shown oriented in the
--- Z-' fVB (-x) and (-z) directions on ISO Dwg. No. 1204-149-1.
N 88I8 # ###b However, the Computer Data Input and Pipe Support 7' ! Description List indicate a rotated orientation'as
-I follows (see sketch):
X-
- Global components x y z g 0.61 l g p g x - SNB 0.0 -0.79 y Z - SNB -0.79 0.0 -0.61 PREPARED BY: P.Koefoed DATE:2-17-82 REJECTION OF G A TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: D. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS [ EE PF IS VAllD BY DATE i l
/
r O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE - BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN OftGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE: w w-- w--
-. . _ . ~ . - - - - - - . . . - - _ _ - - _ . . _ . - -
PAGE 2 PFR NO. 2408-PFR-F070 REVISION-COMMENTS (J.' REVIEW The snubber BYorientation ORIGINAL DESIGN as shown ORGANIZATION on Isometric 1204-149-1 is not consistent with that in g g the Computer Model, Pipe Support Description List (PSDL) and Snubber Installation Draw-ing S2-SI-149-H-015. However, the isometric sketch is not a controlled document. The requirement is that there be consistency between the piping stress calculation (which includes the Computer Model and the PSDL), the snubber installation, drawing, both of which are controlled documents, and the as-built configuration. O AGREE PF IS VAllo b "" " $ agree ?F no t w ? h l,' hAGREE g gn4 ggg BY: U DATE: 3/'[E A GM cu t- 4 s4M . D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINulNGS REVIEW COMMITTEE M N'N #'#* DEFINITION ADEQUACY: ( ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VALIDITY: O VALID R INVALID CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUST[CICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" l l COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION , BY: -- * (, DATE: S//o/92 E. GA PROJECT MANAGER MACCEPT O REJECT l l
/
BY: ,
/M/b'J46 0 ATE: '
. .. ... ...... .. ~.- .. . .
i .* ' - j
, PFR NO.308-PFR-F071 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT fiEV!SION l SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION 4 p
.d A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR _
AFFECTED~ITEMSp))Ref. l2 Ref. 2 1
- 3) Refueling Water Tank S21203MT006 -
[ REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: Ref. 1: Design Report for 245,000 Gallon Refueling Water Tank, BPC Log No. 407-13-110( Ref. 2: BPC Design Specification S023-407-13 including addenda 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 ,) Ref. 3: ASME Code Section III including Appendix F and Code Case 1657. BASIC REQUIREMENT: To meet the buckling requirements according, to A,SME Code Section III. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: The buckling criteria of the ASME Code Section III was not appropriately applied in the analysis of the Refueling Tank T006 (see attached). l t c %ys PREPARED BY: DATE: b O /N f REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS f 1 l REE PF IS VAllD BY DATE 3 / l [ l i O REQUEST RE-REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW 0F ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: , DATE:
PAGE3 , PFR NO. 2408-NR h0/1 REVISION l C. REVIE"1 BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS - ? ..) l SEE ATTACHMENT II (D AGREE PF IS VAllD , however, no impact on design. O DISAGREE BY: 8 __ DATE: 3h M D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEVICOMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: K ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAL 10lTY: M VAll0 O INVALID CLASSIFICATION: )l(I OBSERVATION O FIN 0 LNG JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERl0N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "08SERVATION" CLASSIFICATION B d WM N #' n u%m& %M & -~" y Awa6s>4aP W ;4 P BY: ' A DATE: 2 2 [] E. G A PROJECT MANAGER JS ACCEPT O REJECT l BY: /' 6/4 N DATE: k ED c == - - - - - - - - -- -
7 Attachment to 2408-PFR-F071 P
]
l Description of Potential Finding REASON: BPC design specification for the tsuk (Ref. 2) states that the tankould sh be designed to the ASME Code Section III, Div. atmospheric storage tanks and Code Case 1657. I. Subsection NC-3800 for The design specification also Fstates that for buckling subparagraph F-1323.2.cosiderations the tank should be designed to Appendix not The instruction in F-1323.2 above applies to limit analysis techniques and buckling and is therefore an incorrect direction by Bechtel. Subsection F-1325 more which gives rules specifically applicable to buckling, would have been appropriate. i The tank vendor. BMT misapplied the allowable stress table in Code Case 1657 for faulted events. buckling and is so 3t.ated in Note 2 of Table I of this codeThe of 2.0 used by BMT on B. case. factor Code Case ! the allowable stress for buckling, is only for l ' allowable the stress buckling case). values obtained fos Table I.7-1 and I-7.2 (which do not t ' i -
,g The dynamic effect i j on critical buckling loads was not considered. For
- ' cylinders under axial loading. the dynamic critical buckling load may be substantially lower than the static buckling load. (Ref. A and B) According to the ASME Code. Section III. Appedix F. Sub paragraph F-1325 the faulted allowable buckling load should not exceed 75% of the dynamic buckling load.
REFERENCES:
1 (A) McGraw-Hill R. J. RoarkBook andCo.W. C. Young." Formulas for Stress and Strain'. 5th Edition . i . (B) L. E. Penses and S. K. Bhat. ' Generalized Hydrodynamic Effects of Double . Annuli on a Vibrating Cylindrical Shell.' Sept. 1975. Paper No. F2/6. 3rd Int. Conf. on SMIRT. London. 1
. I O
. _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ ' . .~ - - - ' " - - ~ ' * ' ' -
._.y.. y _ _ . - . . .-,m, . - . . g -
,s- p
---_~ - ~.-. - _ . --
. ATTACHMENT II P:gn 1 of 4 PFR #F071 It is acknowledged that the provisions of Specification No. S023-407-13 pertain- -
ing to the consideration of buckling loads in accordance with Paragraph F-1323.2 of ASME B & PVC Section III, Appendix F are not appropriate. Paragraph F-1325 is recognized to be the appropriate reference to the Code. Also, it is recognized that the factor of 2.0 used by BMT on the allowable buck-ling strength, B, is not consistent with a fundamental interpretation of the ASME Code. The Code does not address specifically the increase factor applica-ble to allowable buckling stress for the faulted loading case under considera-tion, and BMT introduced a nuurical interpretation of such factor based on Table I of Code case 1657. BMT's interpretation, hovever, must not be miscon-strued as implying usage of the stress limits per Table I. Those stress limits clearly do not apply to the buckling case and in fact were not applied by BMT, only the implicit increase factor for allowable stress under faulted case was used by BMT. The allowable compressive stresses based on buckling analysis for cylindrical shells, as specified in Paragraph NB-3133.6 of the Code, are derived for the elastic buckling range from the Timoshenko formulation with a safety factor ( = 2.0) and incorporating a lower bound of experimentally-determined capacity reduction factors cited by Timoshenko ( = 0.21). It is clearly accepted that the reduction factor's are necessary to account for the imperfections and/or other physical effects that drastically reduce the actual buckling stress, and any evaluation of critical buckling load for design purposes must include these factors directly or indirectly. The emphasis on dynamic instability analysis expressed in Paragraph F-1325 of the Code is pertinent for cases of severe dynamic loading conditions chsracter-ized as cyclic or transient in nature, but not necessarily including high-period (T > 2 sec.) type of loads. The tank shell loading under consideration is initiated by a seismic event that is a real dynamic loading as characterized above, but the actual loading undergone by the tank is associated with the re-sultant liquid sloshing which is a high period, quasi-static response. Such type of response is not the type of dynamic loading that the reference litera-ture (Penzes, et. al.) cites as resulting in a possible reduction of critical buckling load. Nevertheless, it is not proposed herein to disregard the re , duction of critical buckling load due to dynamic loading considerations. The reference literature (Penzes, et. al.) demonstrates analytically that the dyna-mic buckling load can be either lower or higher than the theoretical static bhckling load, and that if only a lowering effect were to be considered, the conservative lower bound factor would be 1/3 with respect to the theoretical critical buckling stress per Timoshenko. This is an analytical extrapolation, and fundamentally does not include an allowance for physical shell irregular-ities. Experimental evaluation of tanks subject to seismic motion and reports on tanks that underwent earthquakes provide the following observations:
- 1. The tank exhibited actual buckling stress of approximately 2/3 of the theoretical static value. (9.5 ft. dia. X 20 fr. high, 14 ga tk. plate, tank with free base, another base-anchored tank did not buckle, Reference (1))
- 2. Under simulated earthquake of 0.5g the tank did not buckle, it experienced stresses at least 3 times the allowable buckling stresses. (12 ft, dia.,
14 ga tk. plate tank with free base, Reference (2))
.~m . ..__ _ _ - _ _ . __ _ __ ___ _
i , ATTACHMENT II
. P2gs 2 of 4 PFR #F071
- g,,j) 3. Approximately 100 tanks, including " broad" tanks (H/D) = 1 and " tall" tanks
- (H/D) = 2, suffered characteristic buckJing at base level, leakage due to buckling failure was not observed. (Reference (1))
i Admittedly the cited references are limited, and certainly do not permit sepa-rate evaluation of the buckling stress redu; tion due to irregularities and due to dynamic loading. Nevertheless, it is possible to draw the following conclu-sion: For the type of dynamic loading undergone by liquid-filled tanks during seismic event, a dynamic buckling strength of 1/3 of the theoretical static buckling strength (TSBS) is conservative since the tested tanks either ex-hibited buckling at the higher value of 2/3 X TSBS or did not buckle at stresses of 3 X (TSBS/9) = 1/3 X TSBS (TSBS/9 is equivalent to the allow-able stress cited in the test of Reference (2)). The buckling stress levels reported were observed in actuel tanks filled with water, subject to seismic motion, and with slenderness t/R = 0.00137 substantially lower than the 0.00289 for the tank in question, therafore the test data pro-perly reflects the dynamic as well as the physical-irregularity effects with respect to TSBS. For tank design, application of the conservative lower bound factor of 1/3 for dynamic effect plus the conservative lower bound factor for irregularities effect is unnecessarily conservative. Accordingly the critical buckling stress to be used for design chec!c of the tank .
, per Paragraph F-1325 of the Code may be derived by applying conservative lower g bound factors to the TSBS (Timoshenko) as follows:
i i 1 Et
- r. per Timoshenko
, vl3 (1 -1g2) R (c,= .75(1/3XI[r.) Lower bound of dynamic reduction Jyaus factor by Penzes.
OR per F-1325 . i . C(h' .75 ' . 25 6(, '
~
Representative lower bound of shek irregularities reduction factor by Timoshenko. i Simultaneous incorporation of both reduction factors is considered unwarranted. i On the foregoing basis the stress comparison per Table I was calculated, which , is considered to be indicative of the adequacy of the tank. The corresponding calculations will be incorporated as a BPC revision to the BMT report.2
- O
- -er *-wn- + w -
a %
ATTACHMENT II Page 3 of 4 PFR #F071 3 TABLE I Vertical Shell Stresses for Refueling Water Tank Shell Pl. (1) (2) (3) Thickness f, F, F, ksi 5/8" 8.54 12.58 9.43 1/2" 6.59 10.06 7.55 3/8" 4.91 7.55 5.66 1/4" 3.55 5.03 3.77 (1) Calculated design stress per BMT Report, pg. 53 (2) F, = 0.75 (1/3 X Icr) (3) F, = 0.75 (.25 6 cr) e 9
- ATTACleiENT II ,
Page 4 of 4 ) PFR #F071 ; 4 References (1) Buckling of Cylindrical Liquid-Storage Tanks under Earthquake Loading, by A. Niwa and R. W. Clough. l Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 10, 107-122 (1982)
- (2) Experimental Evaluation of Seismic Design Methods for Broad Cylindrical i Tanks, by D. P. Clough.
Report No. UCB/EERC-77 10; May,1977 i 1 l I i i
- l i i
1 I t l l l l I t 3 9 i i _ _ ._. . __ _ __- ._ _ _ . _ .
. . , - , _ . _ , , . _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - . . _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . . , _ _ . - -
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408-PFR-F071 PFR NO. l Refueling Water Tank S21203MT006, BMT Design Report, BPC Log No. l AFFECTED ITEM: 407-13-110, BPC Design Spec. S023-407-13. 1, IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEED D OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET? gt W' h' m Ye 1 However, the allowable stress is only slightly exceededA24 ft above the base o thetankaboutfft. below the high water level.
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THATTHE ITEM MIGHT Fall bNDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ? f No . The minimum buckling stress is not exceeded based on loading derived by the tank designer (BMT).
- 3. COULD THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CRIATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Yes . The water in the tank is needed to cool the core during a LOCA. l
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST?
Yes. There are other storage tanks on site. '
) 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
See attached sheet bS en2.e5 5-24 .82. PREPARED BY: ' DATE: 3~ ~b COMMENTS: YO W / &W dlNONY. A&bM <>f 7?7f arc1, Me auge 6 ejeb y r h u a m Ap cou ,u y n ;Q w t/ u 4 m -A d L j K o w w c. , tuas,q y cq, M NH/ u ~/ adeqab fe u uL M77 cs (c. ( are &uo' r>r M a T A' d ]' , Sh
/9tH6' cs?Q c AA A&l'//aA Asdu', Ain, of TAs w,si e
w<am c(Q p im w,9 4.,n BY: /b> [d ' DATE: 8L
/ J f~~ / '
derefe, ryaf.
0' Attachment to 2408-PFR-F071 IME&CT ASSESSMENT
- 6. OTBER COMMENTS:
The res ponse by BPC states that the PMt is valid and that a revised l calculation shows that the corrected allowable buckling stress is not exceeded. TFT calculates a slightly lower allowable buckling stress based on a stricter interpretation of the buckling data. TPT shows that the allowable stress is _ violated in the top course of the tank. (See the following table). Shell Pl. (1) (2) (3) F,(3) Thickness fa KSI FaKSI Fa KSI f fa(1) 5/8" 8.54 9.43 9.75 .25 1.14 1/2" 6.59 7.55 7.74 .24 1.17 3/8" 4.91 5.66 5.35 .23 1.09 1/4" 3.55 3.77 3.045 .20 0.86 . (1) Calculated Faulted Stress per BMT Report. O (2) Allowable stress per BPC Fa = .75 (.25 0'#p. cr) 53. (3) Allowable stress per TPT Fa = .75 (f 10B) where f represents the lower bound of Bending Buckling data and varies from .25 to .20. 10B is 10 x the ASME allowable and represents the theoretical buckling stress. m O
A //a e 4 ~ 7' 15' GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY ggg, g .po7f
. . oA 2ea REv. s-7a ~
CALCULATIONS FOR EQUIP. NO. lPROJ.NO. 08[Oh CALC.NO. lPAGE / OF k PREPARED BY - DATE J[d'2.- REF. DOCUMENT %
/ REVIEWED BY ((f YA/ DATE 3 /2 y[f 3-I APPROVED BY DATE l l l l l l l l !
64t wLarToN Ya ~DdretLAri AtW 79f6 htAo anatcI'5NrdiriQ NA$SWs; of -rs/K k'A/Ogdijyy NR70 4 NNk $$1203b17$V)E,, c5}wcs uNns._2.c 3. , I l 7'ou1 y i & mower sf pu.owsoi.e .cr xesses l lus'rr!c_ rAn l II I! sx xcedabql_ l l I I I l l l l l l I I i l l l l I ofs,de. 1 I A4 + 4sce l* M 5sl/Wep I I I I I I I I I I I I pud 40x $i&%hk ?YNI}x1F *e.L4?^%5)
- Fa N -i di (Ci l i he'o n2h I nro 1% kryol h L 3k9 93 /E i?VO ?NTD USNo h
Wh qup 53ro i sso Mo 1/ hrfa 3, ro IJokf I N7e 'Mko
; I ! I i i i ! i i .
O l l I I I n) rnom rn-oun 2- l l l l l l d) kA the us 3 I I i ! l
- 73) him Exat G I4 l . i l
__ly) IF4 t$ FNkt Tk%LE f prr. I7ET o$PYAWfb?/ l l l (il_Jhicmds-rd 4sJr,_d hitek,\ 7vA ur Irknn-j.sk_ m risic .rl Ark tr & rex 4& l'l l I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l I I ! I I I I I Iii l I
!! I I I l l l l l l !I I I l l l ! !!
! !! I I l !I I II l i ! l l I !!! !!
I i l l l ! l ! l ! !! I I ! ! ! ! ! l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l IIIii! ! I
! ! I I lI l !!I i !ii !I i
! l I I l !
! l I I I I i il I i ! l ! l l l i I l ! I j '
l l l ! I I ! i ! ! ! ; ; l !l l l l l ! l l l l l l l l I ! l ! l l ! I I ! l l ! i l ! i I ! !l l l l ! I Iii: ; :
! l !l ! !I I I I!!!I i i i I ! ! i l i i i
l Iil i l i i l l ! l ! I I II i j i i l l ! ! i i
' O A 268 REV. 6-79 GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY
[o'7 / e CALCULATIONS FOR EQUlp, NO. l PROJ. NO. 7.-fdh 80 f CALC.NO. lPAGE 2.,- O F f
, PREPARED BY % DATE [M REF. DOCUMENTS: I l
'; ReviEweo .Y p.g,c/h oATE V24 /P2.-
APPROVED BY lDATE l llI I I bs isc, p,4 -wr ik o L i ,, s e s,v e , we 4vg St r?M S*fsrv, uw se-rto x wre.g. r>9Nx ' . II ! I I l l l l l 1 I L- __ temm_otlyj doda. l l l l l A oornos_pmmerexJ '
! I I I
- v. ~
nrscos remeree ! i~ chikoeot rr54tew l 7Reis Re cb 6n-+h;oAl Isf WeA */ kStAls. MSME d*DE M rA-1 I ! l l l l l l l l l l'l l l l I l I l l dydiake l I I b' ('J l (2) iI (Q
~
imen th ili t/d p% ll.T kl MST'JA Tr'U C, 8' .o shs b.2 >z. bil. .o'oo.u _s2oo
) .x '
6,s,) b , M E s 36 .Awh .Inb h4 .booAt ran, c.4) f/o,nol 9 8 al .bekr .!u.k >< d>- .Joo22 3/do 64) 7, f 3o y /s Isd ,.azoe3 lyh/ vne '.aoh doao 04 Ao l l 't I I I II I I I I I ! I ! I I hero.i l l l jl l l OiA= s.a r , o. 2% 3 kd etunonis+d i I l l l I I I [d) ! i 1 hN) i l l ([M M 'd M ,k'w o'cL u,1 ! M!: d! ar I I
! ! tz)! s 'i 4E l
)I 7/Zewer ! M'! I iI ! I I l l Fa. i ll I I11 l l l l ,
i l i l I I i l l ! l l l i I ! l ) l l (3) Vedics lrbal etc , ! vn - t} oi L z. ! !lir J n:) a 4 top ! i
! t i i _(' 'lviI civ
, Md d/si 11 ilW1.Po M Irt).I n sbiacI vil ' h \ o/l L-/ !!TI 1
! ! h&phav b riq esih.sl f I I I l l l Z- ! fhrb i l I I l l l l I#ri 7 -hlg., ii l i i i ! sl .:nrd . I I i ! l I letscyw i
! I! I ! l ;4 ! M/I l ! l l l- 1 I i !! l I 'l i i ! ! I II l' I II I i I , I I I I i l I I l l l l l l
,,,y GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY pgg CALCULATIOM3 POR EouiP. No. l PROJ. NO. N-fdh 60 [ CALC.NO. lPAGE ) OF f PREPARED SY DATE L REF. DOCUMENTS:
( \ REVIEWED SY [ (,Ghp OATE jp /N h 2 -
APPROVED SY DATE I ! I _
l rweis#uoww.c Grxess us w c shd vdvesl l !~ ! I I I I I I I
_srukoh H .B> 71 At L. J. ! f# Akg I I I kadea Nili lM 4lC ~?%u?'" (L w \ l l I
t __ /7
_h,ooo a n( 851 Mi' loffi l I I
- i. no 0.sio suo nyo_ ' sero l E _ N/3oi 0 3W 2pc' S3so N S~~ l I 4th /P/r
~
lyI ' vedo I I %)rl I ~s71~ I II I l ! I
~
nom; i (s) LA = c< fo J B , % C .NorE (S) Tksa la l I h) ._F-g, = Ed v~g g- 1 I I I !
!I q '
l l l l I I I, I I I il l l l l I
! ! I I I .
! l l l l l l l l I I l l l ! l l l l l l !I I I I i i lI I ! I I I l l l l l l l l l I iiii! l l l ! ! l l ! l l l l l l l l ! l! ! l l !
l l l I l ! i l i i I Ii i I I i l ! l l l l i il l I ! ! I i ! ! ! !
! I I ! II I l l l ! l! I i i I ! I 1 ! !
! l l !! I II l ! I i ! l ! i l ! I i ! i i ! l!II I Il l l , I ! ! ! ! I i ! ! I i i 1
!! d )
! l ! i I I I I I I i 1 l l 1 ! l ! I i l ,
i i I i ! l !l!l l l l I l l l ! ! ! i I > l ! ? I! Iiil l l I ! l ! i
! i ! l ! i i i ! i .
il i i i l i l l Il ! l l 1 i i i l II I I l : ! I !
. om 2ea nEv.s.79 f 07(
CALCULATIONS FOR _ l EouiP. NO. l PROJ. NO. h f$ h Od .')L- CALC NO. lPAGE f OF f l PREPARED SY DATE 3[gb REF. DOCUMENTS: REviEwEo sY f f,yh oATE J it.Lf 4
]
I l l l l l l l l l Fox) 4xini. LAADtNG of c4usbig,. l l l I l l l
- EA '
I I
/Q _ li 2 ,l 45vi4c F =la Ie3 Ql7?I+w "M V Jll '~oN ') l l l l l l l 1 I i !l
! !ll l l l !I I II I I Il
= /h u u d_ Lp 4 i, c0 !. A . 6 4, !
s , , I I I l 4 L l t i i l i l I 3i Tv '@
, T h ,l - *' M !!
. l 7v l' i ' j/ j l l I l l l l , I I I I ! Y G d 9 /, 2.54- l l J, l !g l l l l
- O] vu i ri l l' tili 74o h h !l!I I I I II
! l ! !I l l l l I II I l !
Lise44 a ::: 34 Ic /i4 ! I i T' l 14 l@ l l- I . 2al l l ! Ii l II 'z i !l ! l l
! ! Fi ! I Il l 'T I l l ! ! ! I I lF/ thzc I //ra /&-I hded.IdoMa.!esiseval W .s As I 6 *4 l !
f I 2_c usch l Yb isrkmi+rs l%d/dai)i I l l ! \\ \ \ 203tL ! 4: \ Qu}od_ t/i/AlYE14tadMCA5c.o crac Vdybsy lisrH \
< \ s 1 1 7EY l 'D41~4 l Fof. l Aith idoOgs ystok' f l l l l l ;
CYbNotA- JL\ \ Qs ioEtt. \Q C-j kggt. ! ! NumBEA dsJ p l T ?M) I !F4erv4 '!'~tg ) .isV[_M; l f- ;) % : l li i . lad 2s 54,I784 I 3'/$/22 l//4 / rJ ! ! F580 i i ! d (' ! 12.! 'orav! fp I %V't) I g] sy 2. ! l 431p , i i !3 l I
's.3ff Jog 2 I S Y ',191 ! SiMo ! I 'h 4 2 i l i i l'/ ! I 'e.zspi 'Jol, s/t/ i fd/ I e, i3 953. ' i J5ye -
i l i ! i ! ! I I I1 I i ! ! ! i i il ii l i ! i I i i 1
n - - . - - - - -_ - - _
,, ,, g , y, GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY [
CALCULATIONS FOR EOuie. NO. l PRO;. NO.y(Og CO P CALC.NO. lPAGE h OF f PREPARED SY DATE $p REF. DOCUMENTS: {';
~
REVIEWED ey gv,(/h DATE h/2.(f//2 - l l
## PROVED SY DATE l l l l 1 I i !
NoH v stas FtcutC ll1 blNN PUMu_Bhut&Cl1NbS N Mads: !l II I I I I I i netE \ m %u %AsssneAx'o d c e z i l(Th A A Y bsduc i i I I I [ EESP FD&-) l/5)!' NM ' 785WNd/M l l I ! 5YuNDU/ lL & 'f') Q \ &ar- l j.? C C -) l l hvD166$ i fsb ) Y??Arak. '*(pn) l 5 fel-D**0 /ps-) $W* l l
/ ). Of '
/.Ss' l 5~a, Nd I/2j ?Ev l d 2oi I l l 9- M.rEo a.d/ ),, '624 l 1Ed 75/o! I I 3 d3k I.d3 s he. '/72 l Nof 62!6ol l l h ).2Eol Io.do 7o3 /V l fo 63 l3$rol l l
.I l l l l l l Arrs: f4e 'ndre sHcus.o Fccps; l l l l l c) I I I I I l i
I I
! !I I I ! !I I I I I I I I I l l II I I I i ! ! ! l 4 l l l I I l l 1 I i ! l! I I i iil !!l I I l l l i I ! l ! I Iiil I ! l l ! !il I !I i ! !! I l ! l ! Iil l ! I l i i i l l l l ! II I i l l l i l ! I I I l
l l ! !!! I i l l l ! I I ! Ii! ! ! ! I
! l ! ! I I ! I I i i l l i l i I l t ! I t j I !
l ! !I i ! l ! i i l l I i i l l ! i ! i i 1 l l l ll l l l ! ! I I! ! l i i iI I i l l e !
! ! ! I i i jjl l l l i l l l l 1 i i l l ! : '
! i i i ! ! l ! !I l l l l l ! ! l l l i ! I i t ! !
l ! I ! I i i i l I i l ! ! I I I I ! ! ! ! i i ! i i i l I I i i Il I, i ! I i !! ! i I Iiili i l I
. 50'1{
N$bb 6 f NC-3000 - DESIGN _ NC41??.MC-3r"
}
l or l' of the stiffening ring using the section values of A falling to the left of the j corresponding n that used in Stet. 6. material / temperature line, see Step 4.
, Step 8: If the required mo' ment ofinertia is greater !
Step 3: From the intersection obtained in Step 2, 1 than the moment ofinertia for the section move horizontally to the right and read the selected in Step 1, a new section with a value of factor B. This is the maximum larger moment of inertia must be selected allowable compressive stress for the values and a new moment ofinertia determined. If of Tand R used in Step 1. the required moment of inertia is smaller Step 4: For values of A falling to the left of the than the moment of inertia for the section applicable material / temperature line, the selected in Step 1, that section should be value of B shall be calculated using the satisfactory. following formula:- (c) For fabrication and installation requirements for stiffening rings, see NC-4437. s$ hV NC-3133.6 Cylladers Under Axial Compression. Step 5: Compare the value of B determined in Steps The mammum allowable ecmpressive stress to be used 3 or 4 with the computed longitudinal in the design of cylindrical shells and tubular products compressive stress in the cylindrical shell or
, subjected.to loadings that produce longitudinal com- tube, ushig the selected values of Tand R. If pressive stresses in the shell or wall shall be the lesser the value of B is smaller than the computed of the values given in (a) or (b) below:
compressive stress, a greater value of T (a) the S value for the applicable material at design must be selected and the design procedure
*emperature given in Tables I-7.0; repeated until a value of B is obtained which (b) the value of the B determined from the applica- is greater than the compressive stress com-ble chart in Appendix VII using the following puted for the loading on the cylindrical shell definitions for the symbols on the charts: or tube.
3 T= minimum required thickness of the shell or
) tubular product, exclusive of the corrosion allc wance, nn. NC 31 J.i conical Heads. The required thickness R=inside radius of the cylindrical shell or tubu- . of a conical head under external pressure shall not be lar product, in. less than that determined by the rules of(a), (b) and (c) below.
The value of B shall be determined from the applicable (a) When one-half of the included apex angle of the chart contained in Appendix VII as given in Steps I through5. cone is equal to or less than 224 deg., the thickness of the cone shall be the same as the required thickness of Step 1: Using the selected values of T and R, a cylindrical shell, the length of which equals the axial calculste the value of factor A using the length of the cone or the axial distance center to center following formula: of stiffening rings, if used, and the outside diameter of which is equal to the outside diameter at the large end m A = 0J25 of the cone er section between stiffemng rings. M (b) Wh n one-half of the included spex angle of the cone is greater than 22% deg. and not more than 60 Step 2: Using the value of A calculated in Step 1 deg., the thickness of the cone shall be the same as the enter the applicable material chart in Ap- required thickness of a cylindrical shell, the outside { pendix VII for the material under consider-diameter of which equals the largest inside di meter of l ation. Move vertically to an intersection the cone measured perpendicularly to the cone axis, j with the material / temperature line for the and the length of which equals an axial length that is l Design Temperature. Interpolation may be the lesser of either the distance center to center of made between lines for intermediate tem- stiffening rings, if used, or the largest inside diameter , peratures. In cases where the value at 3 falls ' of the section of the cene considered. to the right of the end of the materi- (c) When one half of the included apex angle of the al/ tam-enture !in. unme w --~+ - - ^ " ' ' '
.a na .m.. u s p w uan u (
( y erd of the material / temperature : ae. For
.pper >nsa ce tue ume as tne requeca tmaness tar a cat head under external pressure, the diameter of which 5
hY ASME ' 7 i Figs. VII 1101 I, Vll.Il012 SECTION lit, DIVISION I - SUBSECTION NA i (g j - i 4
! I l il 1 1 g i i i u,p to 300 F-----
18 000 t6.000 14.000 s - 500 F 12,000
# (l.- # C A $
10.000
/8I m I M I
M800 F---- 9 000
/ I ih I #"I iD'iAJ l 'I$" --~~ ""
//
[Jf!i liL7 g'i e # 1 p-73 l F
// / J~! f' 1
f, $
>~
// / ! ,i_fl j# I N
/// IM Y 5.000 E = 29 0 a 10 4 E
- 27.0 a 108 ' ! /
4.000 E = 24 5 a 108 (([ i,,, 3g E = 22.8 a 10 s. ( - E = 20.8 a 10 5 3.WO
)
2.500 2 3 4 5 8789 ff l 2.000
, 2 3 4 56789 2 3 4 56789 2 3 4 56789
.00N1 .0001 .001 .01 1 FACTOR A I
FIG.Vll.11011 CHART FOR DETERMINING SHELL THICKNESS OF CYLINDmCAL AND SPHERICAL l VESSELS UNDER EXTERNAL PRESSURE WHEN CONSTRUCTED OF CARBON STEEL (Specified Yiald Strength 24,000 psi to, but not including,30,000 psi)
']
l 25.000 l 1 II l l I = to~3=500 5 m0. l F---- 18.000
' ' - - i
, .--- 16.000 f ! 80'OF'---- 14.000 l l / L/Tl MYS ,, ,
10 000 u / ,/
//> i l fj\f/ f i
/XY"v '"
g C
^
/fn M / n $
~ /
/// V i }i
//ff i ***
////l f !
E = 29 0 m lo s . N I ' ! E = 77 D n 10 e .s M/(( l l 4 000 E = 24 5 = 10 8 % (([ l 3.500 E = 22.S a 10 s / l l E = 20 8 u 108 // 3.0M l llill l ll l l 2 3 4 5 6789 2 3 4 56789 2 3 4 56789 2 3 4 56789
.00001 .0001 .001 .01 1 FACTOR A FIG.Vll.11012 CHART FOR DETERMINING SHELL THICKNESS OF CYLINDRICAL AND SPHERICAL
. c a .i ., v . . ., c . . m , . .~ _ . u . A . . c o u . . e . .... w ...... L . c v v. - .. . . c. . . .. ao i...u Strength 30,000 to 38,000 psi inclusive) AND TYPE 405 AND TYPE 410 STAINLESS STEEL 244 e
~
,,1 s
3e Dum
,a
- s [< n%
1
; ,g 4i
" ,, 'o g 9 8
oS g, _ 7 S o*. .O,v[ s, h*g%.e / 6 l A L t _ og / 5 E R
\ \
1
,\
.\
T_( _5 , - ' N' - g 4 U 1
\
N
\'
s I X \h ,
\ _ s S(
\
Y
-og oo /g I
3 S S E R
\ -
o L 2 I P V
\%\
i T
\ \ \j \ k
\
I L A
\ \ \T
\ *,g N 1
\ x
\ \
\ % L
\ \ s s L I
-\'
1 T I 9 8 0 R E
-\ N
<) s - I l
1
\ \ T t,\_ _ '
)
\
T-k 4*. I 8 7 T X E
\ \@(
I 6
. 1 '_ l
_ 'T s - R
\ s \ _\ \
i 1 k
\ < \
'\- -
1 l 5 4 E D S 1' \ i
\
g L \ L
'\
%. m
%* \
l 3 N G U N
\ \ '
\ T SI O %. RD 1 \ ~
Y \ \ \ L S}W(
'k '
2
\ -
I EA
's\ T
\
\ l_
\
\
\
\ \ - o% -
A DO NL
\ 1
\
\'T
_ ( C\ \ m
\ o%*
1 0 0 0 R IL E Y V . 3\ 9 1 I V CS
\ - C
'\' pi 8 3 T <1 _A T 3_ D k g
\(s '
- o% \- *%
7 A F R S E 9
\
_\ l T AK k\ 5 6 O F P R x \ L '_ ' k \
' 5 TM
\
\\
\
\
s
\ \ 1 i
li\
\
\
k
\
\
\
\
M\ \
\ \'
ql 4 3 RO AC
- CH R O
\ \ \ \ \
L
\
\
\
\T
.\
3
\
\
\
\ 2 C IR
\ \ k \ \
T E
\ \s\O \ i L
~ 9 0 01 0
M O E k \' \ _.1))_ . t
~
~
8 7 G L 1 s T 6 1 1\ 6 0 1 0
\ 4 1 1\
1 l o. 3 i V. 2 GI F 01 0 0 o 0 o 0 g .
' o o g
,, s 0 ,
4 3 , 3;
,, 6 4 1
1' I I 0 1 90 ~ 0 7 6 s g '- ' 0 o 0 0 o. y 3j 5S $ E l ,' .' lj . .
Am en se.~r s v
,, - %: a-
- yvn wn?1 ,
TABLE I Vertical Snell Stresses for Refueling Water Tank Shell Pl. (1) (2) (3) Thickness f, F, F, ksi i 5/8" 8.54 12.58 9.43 1/2" 6.59 10.06 7.55 l 3/8" 4.91 7.55 5.66 1/4" 3.55 5.03 3.7 (1) Calculated design stress per BMT Report, pg. 53
- (2) F, - 0.75 '1/3 x (cr)
(3) F, = 0.75 (.25 6cr) G G G
. O e
e I l' b O
PFR NO. 2408-PFR-F072 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC OESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Splice Box 2BB4RZTB03 i - 7 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
- 1. Calculation for junction box supports C270-01-03, Sheets 25 thru 76.
- 2. Explanation Report Drawing 34705 (Rev. 83 Run 146, Page 11).
BASIC REQUIREMENT: N.r.N yJJenhlw The seismic design adequacy of components should be documented. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Splice Box 2BB4RZTB03 serves the safety injection tank T008 leakage drain valve HV9341. This box is described in the explanation report, Ref. 2 as being.18x18x8 inches, however, seismic design of the support for this box size is not covered in the calculations contained in Ref. 1. l l} ldcxts wirH dicsm Comdar.r, 7Vn Pf2 a a m,a go m io, p 3.a.ag PREPAREb BNU. Darwin I 'y.}f.gj -^ REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS dh AGREE PF IS VALIO BY DATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY
/ / /
DATE O OfSAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
PAGE 2 PFR NO. 2408-PFRrF072 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS ' Junction box calculation have been performed for most frequently used boxes and the largest size in a representative group. Thus the analysis for the 18 X 18 X 8 box are covered 'ay the calculations performed for the box 18 X 24 X 12 (Sheets 67-76 of C270-01-03). The analyses are performed for the limiting (i.e. , largest) size for a particular group. 00n CL r t.AN he f8uY2bvHh O AGREE PF IS VAllD recomnus A nh T & - DD OlSAGREE lWeW. Yrf f5- , r G4) Mu>h&f BY: [f 2 O ""* '
'- DATE: gg-D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE [
OEFINITION ADEQUACY: D[ ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VALIDITY: O VAll0 @ INVALID CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING"
] g COMt.1ENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION
.g.~ ..
BY: , - DATE: o i E. GA PROJECT MANAGER
$ ACCEPT O REJECT O
BY: / 66W"O DATE: y {/f7 - 1
PFR h!0. 2408-PFR_F073 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION 3 l A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Terminal Boxes 2XB5RZTB03, 2BB4RZTB03 and 2ABRZTB09 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
- 1. Calculation for junction box supports C270-01-03 Sheets 25 thru 76.
- 2. Explanation Report Drawing 34702 (Rev. 83 Run 148, Page 14) HV9345.
i 3. Explanation Report Drawing 34717 (Rev. 65 Run 151, Page 50) HV9344
- 4. Explanation Report Drawing 34705 (Rev. 83 sin 146, Page 11) HV9341 BASIC REQUIREMENT:
ww4mm The seismic design adequacy of components should be documented. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: We agree that the supports are rigid by inspection for wall-mounted junction boxes, however, adequate verification of rigidity is not provided where these boxes are attached to structural steel.
< D PREPARED BY: . D. Darwin h DATE: 24482 REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE:
REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS l l AG REE PF IS VAL 10 BY DATE O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY
/ /
-DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE O REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
PAG E 2 PFR 0 PFR-F073 REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
^
Terminal boxes can be mounted either on concrete surfaces or attached to structural steel numbers. We have reviewed the location of terminal boxes 2XB5RZTB03, 2BB4RZTBO.,' 2AB5R2TB03 which are attached to structural steel members and they will not experience higher acceleration levels than assumed in the analysis. 8f & hf D O AGREE PF IS VAll0 / Q7 g /u M A N A G OISAGREE /Irw 6 *IAN 'I ' BY: DATE: 3 1 gg O. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: E ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: O VAll0 E INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FIN 0!NG
- JUSTIFICATION
i . i CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN "FINCING" ' COMMENT O N "0 BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION d I t BY: / OATE: ##- k j[Y E. GA PROJECT MANAGER S ACCEPT C REJECT d I BY / / WDC OATE: U
) - -- - -^ -
__T_________________:--
i f / Of L l I l s
- Attachment to PFR-2408-F073 j
! l t The bulk of the cabling and conduit are ~ field routed". and terminal boxes are " field mounted". Thus, the exact location and specific type of mount for I each terminal box is not documented prior to as-builts. Accepted practice for
" field mounted" hardware is to perform generic calculations for standard designs. which cover particular ranges of size. mount and location within the containment.
Because of this lack of detailed information concerning location and type ; of mount for ~ field mounted" hardware. Bechtel personnel initially assumed that all " field mounted" terminal boxes were either mounted on primary structural steel or on concrete walls or ceilings. This is reflected in their response to the PFR. Also the only information they sent was a copy of their " generic ~ l calculations for " field mounted" terminal boxes (Calc. C270-01-03. Sheets l 25-76) and two drawings summarizing allowable junction box suppor t ! configurations (Dwg. No. 39400-9. Sheet 26 and Drawing No. 39400-5. Sheet 47). l l At TPT's request Bechtel site personnel checked to determine the location
- and type of mount for the three terminal boxes listed in the PFR. The i
results of their sit' check e were as follows: ! VTNE p nn.a [ g
- 1) Terminal Box 2BB4RZTB03 is mounted g on structural steel in the 45' ;
to 63 '6" area of the containment. i
- 2) Terminal Boxes 2XB5R2TB03 and 24B5RZD09 are mounted near the the i top of 8"x8" (3/8" vall) steel columns. Two such steel columns are l located along side each safety injection tr.nk for tubing supports. {
The base of the columns are at the 63'6" icvel of the containment l and they are joined to the tank near its top with two 4' long ' trusses. Each truss is made up of two 3"x3'z1/4 angle (hounted back to back). ase g ,
.t2.t Bechtel structural design calculations for the columns (C257-E2%y) and ;
, a drawing (Drawing No. 23280. Rev. 6) have been rtviewed. Also field change {
request (FCR-R-4042) shows how the terminal boxes are mounted on the columns. ; l Bechtel has made a very conservative estimate of the stiffness of the column. This includes allowance for flexibility of the top of the saf ety injection tank. Their estimate for the combined system is about 11 HZ. This f is more rigid than the FSAR requirement of 10 HZ (FSAR Para. 3.10.3.2 ) . ; Inspection of the containment res ponse spectra for the 63 '6" level. 10 HZ ! (period = 0.1 sec.) and 5% danping gives an acceleration of 1.25 g's. This is ! well within Bechtel's design criteria of 1.5 g's. ; The method of mounting the terminal boxes to the columns is essentially rigid. Thus use of these columns for terminal box support appears to be acceptable design practice. 1
~t .- -
AHu eAwt- x-2%a - AFA- fo73 SG u *f t Since two of the terminal boxes are mounted on the column and the third is mounted on structural steel. Bechtel's design is adequate. I therefore recommend that this PFR now be declared invalid. Alan Middleton 3/27/82
< e w- ~ a r
& W l' #
,was Ma "R - * .
'"l.Qpw,p a) a g,.,me(z.+jmjn tc w & f,"d' ,ji, en, - * "*/ n#
p y* */ p ppiz. O
,wawy y 3/>7[d 2 -
l 1 ; r I
~
~
r 2408-PFR-F074 PFR NO. POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION 9' SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION L l b A. PREPARAT10ff BY G A INITIATOR AFF ECTED ITEMS: Low Pressure Safety Injection System Piping Stress Analysis Package PSC 117 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: BASIC REQUIREMENT: Weight c. a.'stions should be based on correct pipe schedule, and all component weights incit1.i. , DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: Seismic anchor load calculation for D.P. 435 (Sheet 17 of 67 in Calc. No. PSG 117) should be based on Sch 140 pipe over approximately 7 ft. The weight of flanges 2FO 9410 should also te included. An adjusted calculation gives thefollowigg sults: Wt = (7)(9 78) + 1000 + 152 + (3.5)(48.81) = 1965 lbs . [Pay2 + Pa 2 ] = (15382 + 19652 = 2495 lbs (instead of 2114 lbs listed). ,
, ^)
~
PREPARED BY:P. Koefoed DATE: REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS (
~
AGREE PF IS VAllD BY DATE 2-l2 2-lif E ' (
) !
O REQUEST RE REVIEW SY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE
. l
)
O REVIE'/10F ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS SY: DATE: i
,_m ,,y_ - , a 4 -mm .ammm.m .e-a - '* * * " ' " '
., PAGE 2 2408 PFR NO. F074 ,
REVISION
, m
( REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION COMMENT 3 Bechtel concurs that a revised load of 2495 lbs. instead of 2114 lbs. is appropriate. Using this revised load in the load combination for the penetration makes a minor difference (less than 4%) in the final load which is still well below the penetration allowables. 3 AGREE PF IS VAUD However, impact is not significant. O O!$ AGREE' BY: ^1 OATE: J// 8A D. REC 0f.tVENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: fil ADEQUATE D INADEQUATE b'AJ'7Y: IK VALID D INVALID
}$CF"2P U NOT Af7LICA5LE O #EIUCASLE 10 Car qssr@ O NOT APPtIEARI E - ArrLIGA5LIC ~
W OBSERVATION O FINDING (' CLASSIFICATION: I ) JUSTIFICATION: - CLAS$1FICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FIN 0 LNG" COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION
& s YM, M s M.
8Y: ' ' OATE: 0 (l ' E. TFT PROJECT MANAGER kACCEPT C RDECT
' ~
. 1 l I, l
BY: , .- 2484#NC OATE: L '
IMPACT ASSESSMENT g,_q m PFR NO. l l AFFECTE0-ITEM: 7/ #[ b8U AN#/f Eldfdf8 N
- 1. IS THERE THE P0iLJ'AL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINSTO THE EXTENT OESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQU:REMENTS ARE NOT MET ?
Nr). Tit f rt V{s (Cl SO (q2 n f t tYt S fi 17 204 d JS syt?/ 6 flew W 1 ptkt tr4 fieM Q?tocottf6
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall O R ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ?
N& t & c^ C ^ Wii w f ?!il1 Yf ?> /VO .
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ? . . !
The rt y/fcut r a'atS not fcjt +y /4e ceM1/N RfMS/VF Skewffdff a f reMutt s/R Mcif $ )11 f OVDf 412 P ?" Hf S'/S'0* 'Y# adeque it 2y stM & esk f*14)S 9Hesft*4o
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
klbf %f@l Ctt6Yl',
- 5. ARE OTHER S/ SIMILAi}Hri24rDEVIATIONS LIKELY,TO EXIST ?
Gl'cp'ra flok C W8FJ otker noff4'Ma' t '1 ffds Peetegt
) 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
l l PREPARED BY: lle DATE: #9 8#//// 7 N8, COMMENTS: y-p_ t Ld7 $ 6 } M LI En l W l 1 l l f BY: / OATE: [
/ /
2408 PFR NO. F075 POTENTIAL FINDING REPL.7T REVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Emergency Evacuation Alarm Specification #S023-307-14 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: a) Project Internal Procedures Manual, Section 11.8, " Changes to Purchase Specifications." b) Project Internal Procedures Manual, Section 33, " Supplier Deviation Disposition Requests." BASIC REQUIREMENT: Vendors of safety-related equipment who seek approval from Bechtel to allow the vendor to deviate from a purchase specification must submit a Supplier Deviation Disposition Request to Bechtel. If the request is approved, and a change to the specifi-cation is required, Bechtel must change the specification within 120 days of the SDDR approval. The specification addendum which incorporates the change must reference the SDDR. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FIN 0!NG: SEE ATTACHMENT I l PREPARED BY: I- DATE: *09b REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER CCMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS k AGREE PF 14 valid BY
- O'A TE'
~
l k O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O OlSAGREE BY B OATE
~
M REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE:
~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . PAGE3 2408 PFR NO. F075 .
. _ _ _ . REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGAN!ZATION COMMENTS M I 4
O AGREE PF IS VAll0 O DISAGREE BY: DATE: D. RECOMMENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: E ADEQUATE O INADEQUA1E VAll0lTY: E VAll0 O INVALID CLASSIFICATION: E OBSERVATION O FINDING JUSTIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION CalTFRION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING"
~l' I COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION f-M BY: . .
DATE: YI. b E. GA PROJECT MANAGER M ACCEPT O REJECT
'l l BY:, /N4 DATE: 8L
- ' ',' PAGE2 2408 PFR NO. F075 ,
REVISION l ? 9 REVIEW BY ORIGIN AL DESIGN ORG ANIZATION C.0MMENT3 l See attached sheet. l s 5 AGREE PF15VAUD But .re is no impact on design. O OlSAGREE BY: DATE: J!/ A
- 0. RECOMYENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE i DEFINITION ADEQUACY: O ADEQUATE D INADEQUATE 1 i
VAL 10lTY: 0 VAL 10 0 INVALID ! 10 CFR 21: D NOT APPLICABLE D APPLICABLE l l 10 CRF 50.55(e): D NOT APPLICABLE D APPLICABLE . l LASSIFICATION: O OBSERVATION O FINDING l JUSTIFICATION: - CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" COMMENT ON "O BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION BY: DATE: - I E. TFT PROJECT MANAGER I O ACCEPT i O REJECT i i l BY: DATE: ,
c l 2408 PFR No. F075 ( ATTACHMENT I DSSCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: a) Emergency Evacuation Alarm specification #S023-307-14 requires the sirens to be seismically tested with the Type CC adapter piate. The vendor performed the seismic testing without the adapter plate and subsequently submitted SDDR #1694 to Bechtel on 2/15/79 to request a waiver on the adapter plate testing or a decision on whether or not seismic testing would be required with the Type CC adapter plate. Bechtel Engineering approved the waiver request; however, the specification has never been revised to delete the requirement for the Type CC adapter plate, nor to identify its replacement part, if any. b) SDDRs #1215 and #1784 were incorporated into Addendum 2 and 3, respectively, of specification #S023-307-14; however, neither SDDR is referenced in the addenda. (Ref: PIPM Section 11.8.2.1) c) SDDR #1784 was approved by Bechtel on 5/7/79, but was not incorporated into Addendum 3 of the specification until 9/21/81. O O 1 l l l i l l _Y O
. Attechmtnt to 2408-PFR-F075 m-3 %Lt.0 llup Je =)zMew
- 1. The design engineer concurred with the vendor that type "CC" adaptors N were not required for mounting Seismic I sirens and the seismic testing was accomplished in this manner. Since the disposition of the SDDR provided immediate direction to the vendor and the existin~g equipment installation matches the design, there is no identifiable impact associ-ated with late revision of the specification. An addendum to specifica-tion S023-307-17 will be issued to delete "CC" adaptor plates.
- 2. The specification was changed to incorporate SDDR's 1215 and 1784. There is no identifiable impact on not referring to the SDDR's in the addenda.
- 3. SDDR 1784 was incorporated into the specification on dates greater than 120 days. Since the SDDR disposition provided immediate tirection to the vendor, the existing needs were satisfied with no identifiable impact associated with late revision of the specification.
i O l
. i I
e (kJ _)
- . . - ~ . . . . , . - . . . < . . . . . , -. - . . , .- . , - ~ , .
IMPACT ASSESSMENT l I 2408 PFR NO. F075 {}
~
AFFECTEDITEM: 1
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET?
Unknown
- 2. IS THERETHE POTENTIAL THATTHE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ?
Unknown
- 3. COULO THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Unknown
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
No
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Possibly
- 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
I The SDDRs were reviewed and approved by the Project Engineer, Engineering Group Supervisor, and QA. Since these individuals would have been the principal reviewers of the specification addendum, it is assumed that the spec change would have been approved had it been initiated. PREPARED BY: DATE j COMMENTS: hp l g , M OATE:
.4 2408 PFR NO. FO.76 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT R" VISION --
SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION T A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Refueling Water Storage Tag) Support Structure Calculation REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: a) EDP 4.36 Computer Program List b) calculation C-259-5-02.02 l BASIC REQUIREMENT: Reference (a) states that computer programs used in design calculations appear on the Bechtel " Standard Computer Program List" as Code 1. DESCRIFTION OF POTENTIAL FIN 0!NG: Reference (b) states that a computer program titled "0PTCON" was used in the Computation of Structural Loading and Design Base Earthquake analysis. The computer code "0PTCON" cannot be found on the " Standard Computer Program List". O pm c_ . + % ~ T ^ ^ '^ I h 85M-roa7 a mg.1m m e ;r -/ y,i,, . rm a y d- at t :t wat PREPARED BY: 1 OATE: fdA l REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: DATE: B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS f[h. )4 faveb'b-
; X AGREE PF IS VALIO BY 0'ATE .
O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY OATE O DISAGREE BY b DATE k REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. "0MMENTS BY: a - DATE: $/et s
^
PAGE2 2408 PFR NO. F076 _,
, REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS l
l l l (~~.'OPTCON is a computer program incorporated as part of BSAP-POST (CE 201), which is
,' listed in the " Standard Computer Program List". The program is a reinforced concrete
~
I design module that accepts input either directly from BSAP or from an independent structural analysis via punch cards. i O AGREE PF 15 VAUD ! 3 OlSAGREE I BY: - DATE: d //!8 k D. RECOP.'.YENDATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: (Il ADEQUATE D INADEQUATE VAL 10lTY: 0 VAUD R INVALID
...m.. . ,,.
1QCRF50 Mfah m _
..,,,.o,,
n kr1T Apot!;.agtg n_.......m,,,,,, g Aaat;; =,L; - O OBSERVATION O FINDING (LASSIFICATION: q } JUSTIFICATION: - , CLASSIFICATION CRITER10N NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" l' - COMMENT ON "O BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION 1 BY: - DATE: 3/gi2 o . - E. TFT PROJECT MANAGER MACCEPT U REJECT 4 , BY-AMEf* OATE: 7
. < r
a 2408 PFR NO. F077
~~
POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT REVISION l SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION l A. PREFARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Piping Analysis for Segments 78, 82, 245, 57, 74, 56, 117 (G/. items 13-19) REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: EDP 4.36 Computer Program List, Bechtel's " Standard Computer Program List, i Revision 8" (7/24/81) BASIC REQUIREMENT: Computer programs used in design calculations appear on Bechtel " Standard Computer-Program List" as Code 1 (validated) DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: The above analyses include summaries of computer code output but do not identify the code source. Section IV, " Applicable Codes, Standards and References," of the analyses lists 9 computer programs, three of these are not shown as Code 1 (validated): ME 199 - Code 2 (incomplete) . . Econoline - not found \ ' '" d E A-E O US 3 l Pipe Break Program - not found [uu w
=w
+
,E es T. :d ek Eg\ ,?!
+
is 4s DATE: DD 1 PREPARED BY: g , REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN OHG. COMMENTS SY: M CD b4 DATEki0/T7. B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS M J/pg om y,1-n In , u mL ,. 1.
,l_?. A B n . ,.
. L.
un p,
- - -,7 9A LL QQ J/ a 10'-
On F oA'J-43 w & 2A.ls 9Fr P AR ~ &' : i) n s m A ;4 - w a)rMEM+ W 4 .j 4 f l O
l IMPACT ASSESSMENT
^
F077 ( ) ( ) 2408 PFR NO. AFFECTEDITEM: Piping Analysis for Segments 78, 82', 245, 47, 74, 56, 117
- 1. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET?
N/A l 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS DURING AN SSE ? l N/A , 3. COULD THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL l SAFETY HAZARD 7 l l N/A
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Unlikely
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELYTO EXIST ?
Unlikely l 6. OTHER COMMENTS: l a) ME 199 was validated, but af ter it was used b) Econoline was not validated, but was not used for safety related work. PREPARED BY: ' DAT $ k COMMENTS: hh 1 BY: DATE:
j_ ___ _ . -_ -__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ,
'o- .
pop-pprt -f:s 77 Genaral Atomic Company OUALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT - (,]y
\ )
=
.;; Record of Long Distance Telechone Call Party: Called 'S
~
Date: 3 -Y- % 7_ Calling O Time: Comple ted i c. 4 C Name Ih;4 %GebrY ** On-1 m.e I f m.3w Company %te_hYe.\ , Location W h *.\hiee Telephone No: A/C ?.i1 No.94% Iil3
~
33$1 - Discussion Unt T\ u , u,, \N\ 9FRso77 - he.e4 h iwv<1\,elah f ow ~ b nw h e-Q q h etMYd t a m M 1d)= % '2- .C /
-( ok NE S Ot% . R C% 3. g o. h 9 R %GC%~ R e_e_.kk d t w>b IwsuR9 ticM'
. +e ; m em\ A 9occ. e m d e c_ e_ r,
- CL.sL C D E h h. W*skth K\-ed O k ihex* iS cin
__a u a wa am ,s " sm ptv-sem io s ( cA m ken E G, S eust\ PE.
. M 4th w 's \\ r e vi tw / e.v $ { S o R9_tkh! t % M Q am h s uu:-\ saamn11 e4 o oncovd U d .
rwis - veo v i eka_. U e m cd-i n &o
'wi v o.LLcled d % O CG. -
,e c)
Record 2.tade by (,kFA)-f?Ag Diatribution: ))_d ts3Ich , J h uv.y.sn Q , .
\_.t y d3e q [ .
l~
.i
' PFR NO. _ 2408-PFR-F078 i POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT hEVIS10N !
SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION i b ._. A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Refueling Water Tank S21203MT006 REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: R2f. 1: Design Report for 245,000 gallon Refuelim Water Tank. BPC Log No. 407-13-110, Raf. 2: BPC Design specification S023-407-13 including addenda 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. BASIC REQUIREMENT: The tank shall be designed to withstand the wave motion of stored liquid, at design level, during the design basis earthquake, and to function after being subjected to the design basis earthquake (par. 4.7.5.1 of Ref. 2).
" ** * * * * * * * * "^
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: censider the response of the stored liquid in a DBE and may be unconservative for reasons given on the attached sheet. h M PREDARED BY: DATE: N REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: - DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: ,hl/ LEO DATE: I ~ B. REVIEW BY GAi ASK LEADER COMMENTS
/
/ AGREE PF IS VALIO BY U DATE D '
l t ! [O REGUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY DATE I VIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: 'M. DATE:
,- , 3, .
I
~ ~~
( ______. _'____'~~~'~~~
^
_ ,_ ~ PnGE 2 PFh00. PFR-F678 '. g REVISION C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION ' COMMENTS The BMT Design Report dated 10/76 utilized seismic design bases in accordance with the industry accepted practice at the time of design and in conformance with NRC recommended practice per Reference 8 of the BMT Report. The literature cited as References 1, 2, 3 and 4 in PFR-F078 augments in part the Housner approach used by BMT in their Design Re-port, but it is not expected to render the existing design deficient. If the more current literature provides substantial evidence that earlier design practice could result in design difficiencies both Bechtel and the NRC have mechanisms to advise O AGREE PF IS VALIO owners / licensees of the need to reevaluate their older installa-tions. Such notices on the subject or revisions to the original G DISAGREE document have not been issued. BY: DATE:MM8A
- 0. RECOM,*.1ENDATl0N BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: E ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAll0lTY: IIIVALIO O INVAll0 CLASSIFICATION: E OBSERVATION O FINDING l
JUSTIFICATION:
')
CLASSlFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" i ) COMMENT ON "0BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION j /g & #1t Y b ~' b ' , Q ,f4 A'h! & OA H .H m ,A A~A & " & ?
& w &de Cobby M 4 mm spx&
BY: DATE: 2
// ' '
v E. GA PROJECT MANAGER l (R ACCEPT l O REJECT l I > l BY: 46 ANN DATE: L
} . ', ' '.P ' ' ' ' ' Attachmint to:
' 2408-PFR-F078 l
t G )) Description of Potential Finding The use of the Housner approach by HMI to determine fluid sloshing loads 4
. is not appropriate and may be unconservative in this specific case. There is a large osount of interaction with the roof of the tank which is not covered by the Housner
- formulation. Additiona13 y, Refs.1 through 4 indicate hat the Housner approach may be unconservative.
References Ref. 1: R. W. Clough.and D. P. Clough: '.' Seismic Responaa of Flexible Cylindrical Tanks". 4th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. August 1977. Paper No. K5/1*. Ref. 2: R. W. Clough, A. Nima and D. P. Clough: '* Experimental Seismic Study of Cylindrical Tanks." Journal of th'e Structural Division, ASCE 105, ST12, Proc. Paper 15062, Dec. 1979 (2565-2590). Ref. 3: G. W. Housner and M. A. Haroun: " Vibration Tests of Full-Scale Liquid Storage Tanks." 2nd U. S. National Conference on Es.rthquake Engineering. Ref. 4: R. P. Kennedy: Aboveground Vertical Tanks. Section 3630. Standard x Provisions / Commentaries. Nov. 10, 1981. American Society-of Civil l Engineers, Structural Division.
%/
I e d , ~- > l
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2408-PFR-F078 ( , PFR NO. AFFECTEDITEM:
- 1. ISTHERETHE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET? l Yes. The loading is increased by 41% causing the allowable buckling stress to be exceeded by 24%. i
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENbANGER OTHER I ITEMS DURING AN SSE ? .
No. The calculated stress is between the allowable and the minimum buckling stress.
- 3. COULD THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
Yes. However failure would necessarily involve rupture of the tank to allow water to escape. Bucklingalonemaynotfallowwatertoescape. Resulf irs ruplure of & 4,rk 6,<d -
- 4. COULO THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIA SAFETY HAZARD ?
l N/A 1
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
Yes. There are other atmospheric i. 2. age tanks on site. (D l l
' / 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
See attached sheet. p bM b FREPARED BY: ' DATE: COMMENTS: fM CAfr H {A A W 6 fil// k Y . Ytl h
/ t!- )$4 N & &
l 7 ~~ ffS - f o 7/. l l l l
, l L
BY: DATE: 5 t i N1
/
/
i Page 1 of 2 , ( -
\ _
Attachment to Impact Assessment for 2408-PIR-F078
- 6. OTHER COMMENTS:
The concern of this PFR is (1) thic the water tank is sufficiently flexible ! such that it vibrates in the first cantilever mode at a frequency which is in the amplified response regime; (2) that the water sloshing against the roof could cause rupture of the roof. TPT's calculation of stress in the roof due to water impingement abows that impingement forces are not great enough to exceed the allowable stress. However. an estimate of the first fundamental cantilever mode vibration I frequency of the tank gives 11 Hz including both bending and shear deformations. This puts the tank in the flexib13 category since it is in the amplified response regime of the DBE ground response s pe ctr a. At 2% of critical desping the acceleration is estisated at 1.7g's from BPC ground neponse spectra. The moment acting on the botten of the tank. as shown in Figure 1. is the , sum of the convective component caused by gravity waves sloshing the water at
.29 Hz and the impulsive component caused by the tank vibration at 11 Hz. ,
Since these two components are far apart in frequency and vibrate rather independently of each other. in both frequency and direction. it is appropriate ' to sum them statistically (i.e. SRSS). The total moment statistical sua is estimated at 111.600 K-ft as compared to 63.250 K-f t used in the tank stress analy sis. The ratio of new moment to old moment is proportional to the ratio of applied stress. Thus. the new membrane stress caused by bending in the tank is 1.41 times larger at the base of the tank. There is a 14% margin between the previously calenlated stress and the ASME code faulted allowable stress. This means that th allowable is exceeded by a factor of 1.41/1.14 = 1.24. The minimum buckling stress is a f actor of 1.33 times the allowable buckling stress (i.e. 1/.75). So. the resultant stress from the new loading based on the flexible tank lies between the allowable and the minimum buckling stress. The results of this analysis is summarized in the attached table. The minimum
, buckling stress is shown as a function of tank radius to thickness ratio in Figure 2.
I Based on these arguments. it can be concluded that the loading used by the ; tank designer was unconservative such that allowable stresses are exceeded but it is judged that the tank will not rupture because the minimum buckling load is not reached. i l b j sn fue _ _ _ - _ _
- _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - w--
Page 2 of 2 l o O Attachment to 2408-PFR-F078 Table of the Comparison of Applied Stresses to Allowable and Minimum Buckling Stress for Loads Based on Rigid and Flexible Tank. Source of Moment Applied Allowable Minimum fa fa Analy tical at S tres s Buckl* Buckling Results MA fa F , (/ Fmin Fa Fain K-ft KSI KSI KSI f* QdpSSEF 1 SOYS"v BMT Analy. 8.54 9.75 13.00 0.88 0.66 Rigid Tank Flex Tank 111.600 12.0 *. 9.75 13.00 1.24 0.93 Anal. - 05 t - T*A bit' 6
- o .** .
g gg
~
A/4 M _s WATE. f. IJi.VE L 0 500 1000 $ l Anial Comprwmon Tes+s l E7 , , G6
* ~
- 0N *P -
1
- Drwss specomens as y ,
l, - A MA n A ASE
>q a4 N %
g*u i Ni_. 't 't l Min briffeb ',~y ' A f elil J gi q ly ' , h j at - r [ 0, 500 1000 $ Pure Serdng Tesh Earthquake Fig. 2 Fig. 1 Test Data on Tank Buckling Schematic of Water Tank Taken from Timeshenko & Gere. Theory of Elastic Stability. 2nd ed.. McGraw-Hill Book Co.. 1961, page 484. (; [{ t',% g g ys, saa
2see-892- fo37 #l 2Vo8 - N/E- f078 H
) INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE GA-1076 b
FRON: I
- 2. Vollman/C. M. Charman h IN REPLY REFER TO:SE:SA:11:82 T0: F. S. Oplc DATE: 3/12/83 i
SUBJECT:
Conference Notes on Meeting with Bechtel Power i Corp. on SCE-PER's-F039.-F071.-F078.-F105.-F101 .
-F059. -F0017. -F0009. March 10.1982 .i ,
ll 1 i j A Meeting between Bechtel Power Corp. and General Atomic personnel was held j at BPC Bldg 42 to discuss the subject PFRs. There were two meetings conducted
; in parallel as follows:
1 1 1. PFR's F101 and F105 - Seismic Analysis of Containment and LPSI Pump Support l 1 Natural Frequency. 1 Attendment
] .
H - AEG GAG t L Alfredo Lopez C. M. Charman T. H. Lee PFR-101 Alfredo Lopez confirmed that the LPSI Pump Natural Frequency of 112 Hz that BPC calculated was incorrect and that BPC would recalculate the natural frequency and asses the' impact on the piping system. PFR-F105 (Containment Structure Seismic Analvain) The PFR documents the deviation in basemat response. Alfredo Lopez confirmed
- that there is additional modeling feature in BPC's time history analysi of containment structure. This feature, which is based on Prof essor Newmark's theory. forces the basemat to track the input ground motion and thereby reduces
, the basemat response. It is believed that this is the reason why GAC's value i obtained by using MODSAP is 30% higher than BFC's value at the basemat.
Mr. Lopez also answered the other questions listed in the PFR and provided clarification line by line. He will provide CAC with additional information in regard to the procedures of implementing the ground motion tracking feature a into commercial codes such as MODSAP. 1 O' ' 1 l ) 1
INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
~
CA-1076 t f 1,
- 2. PFR-F039 NPSH nt LPSI Pump Attendees AZG._ SAG Bheldon Treid R. Vollman Floyd Rippetoe L. Penzes
[ Dave Cappito i Others A 2-hour. discussion took place which is summarized below: l a. .BPC engineers believe th at they met all the requirements for proper operation of the refueling water system and LPSI pump th at were consistent with engineering practice and accepted codes and standards at the time the design was made. Thus. they do not feel that BPC violeted any specifications or standards in perf orming the engineering on the task. .
- b. 'BPC engineers do not believe that seismic acceleration will cause
' cavitation of the LPSI pump. ~
I
' c. BPC engineers do not believe that the pump will be damaged even if it does. cavitate during the short duration of the earthquake.
, d. BPC engineers understand GAC's concern now (they didn't fully comprehend the extent of GAC's concern before) and think that the q] effects of seismic acceleration on fluid systems operability is a long
; term task in which the validity of the problem needs to be established
.first. If the problem is found to exist for high seismic sites then.
it is beyond the state-of-the-art at the time that SONGS 2 & 3 were designed and would be a candidate for an NRC I&E bulletin applicable to all nuclear plants. , 1. l e. BPC. engineers feel that they cannot respond within 3 days on this problem so that there is no choice but to have CA process the PFR as valid and make an impact assessment to determine the safety
} consequences.
l l-t t
! 2
- t
.~ . ,
) INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE GA-1076
- 3. FFR-F078- Refueling Water Slosh Analysis and PDL-F071 - Refueling Storage Tank Buckling Attendees A2G GAG Alfred Lopez L. Penzes Sheldon Freid R. Vollman C. n.T.charman]r _ Y H. Lee
- a. BPC engineers feel that the Housner method for calculating hydrodynamic loading on storage vessels was the industry accepted practice at the time that SONGS 2 & 3 were being designed and is therefore acceptable.
However, they recognize that the Housner method does have limitations which may have been violated in this particular instance due to the high seismic site. ' The snalysis method used by SHT is to be reviewed by BPC staff to d determine if the analysis is valid. GAC is supposed to hear from BPC on Thursday. March 11. by telephone on the results of their review of the Ecuener method.
- b. BPC engineers agree that the ASME B&PY Code was appif ed incorrectly in evaluating the buckling of the refueling water storage tank. However, they are currently engaged in reanalysis ~ which they think will show the tank to be O.K.
I l 4.* PFR-0009 - Globe Strut / Cable Trav Anchornee The corrective action is currently scheduled to be completed by the end of ! March including the field survey to determine strut anglea. The evaluation I to iletermine allowable pullout loads is being conducted by a consultant to I BPC. CAC stated that th e entire evaluation was dependent on the f establishment of acceptable pullout loadi .and suggeted that that part of the evaluation should be speeded up. BPC agreed and said they would try to get, that part of the task done as early as possible. l l 4O i 3 I
.+.,% ~. - . _ , . . . . , . . _ . .
y-
~
l l( ( ' INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE GA-1076 t
- 5. PFR-0017 - Couoled Vibration of Reactor Control Console l A time history analysis is in progress for a two-degree of freedom system tuned to a structural frequency of 28 Hz and a subsystem frequency of 22.5 Hz. The acceleration time history is the one used to generate the floor horizontal response spectra th at the console is attached to. The mass
~
ratios were varied parametrically as .05. .005, and .0005. The maximum amplification ratio was found to be 1.35. A report will be sent to GAC on Friday. March 12. for review.
- 6. PFR-F059 Control Room Reinv Panel Seismic Ounlifiention References sited in BPC's response to thin PDL were requested. Sheldon
. Freid ordered them and we expect them by Friday. March 12.
I ~ l O e e I i (
- RROI4: i LOCA ION: To d -l 8 7 DATE:
TO: b e [- b LOCATICt! DATE: i Q TELEPHONE COMMUN'ICATION ( PLEASE HAND IIITER LEGIBLY IN BIACK OR RED INK) RECORD CALL INITIATED BY: [ b kn AT GAC C OTHER: 05 CALL RECEIVED BY: /d /dm e-,1 .AT GAC @ OTHER: OTHER PARTICIPANTS: 4./m - - , I
--PROGRAM NAME PROGRAM NUMBER I
DATE: E//-8LTIME: l680 44f 5'c [ 'fe dret rk 8dd/d i SUB3ECT: APS ~ SC lb ft bdi%, l/lb ku/Jlrr)kv1wic.' Ncdrha
SUMMARY
- h t'e t/i ce J W
& $dsvb n ,e bst),%
cAstrA be Air & ' r,'&rsa 4,, efc
- Ch ief Eu ,wst n a dac k), o rc ' d ic #
w<w # e< rue u11% LJm adaAhl J .lC,,'w4ll rb-J McM' ' i/, " j . i Date Person ACTION' ITEMS: 'MM( Required Responsible e e=. DISTRIBUTION: FN8-File No.:
.ume. _ __ . . _ . . . _ . . . _._ ~ _
.J
,) 2408 PFR NO.
F0M
~-
7 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT R EVISION SONGS 2&3 SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION /i h A. PREPARATION BY GA INITIATOR AFFECTED ITEMS: Combustion Engineering scomponent Specifications - see attached REQUIREMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: PE-001, Rev. 1, Section 6.1.4.3 (Combustion Engineering Procedure) BASIC REQUIREMENT:
"The Design Requirements document will specify functions, definitions, performance require-ments, compliance with codes, standards, regulations, mechanical and material consider-etions, interface and testing requirements, and other design basis to the level of detail necessary to permit the design activity to be carried out in a correct manner and to pro-vide a consistent basis for making design decisions, accomplishing design verification DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FINDING: measures, and evaluating design changes."
(SEE ATTACHMENT I) l I PREPARED BY: W" # DATE: M 2-- REJECTION OF GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS BY: DATE: REJECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORG. COMMENTS BY: #h8M DATE: 34 vp 2_ B. REVIEW BY GA TASK LEADER COMMENTS l f(( /LyJo' v tQ k
~
Ty& y a _ w u - w -.x
/
t,arsa e gm g AGREE PF IS VALlO BY D'A TE' b O REQUEST RE REVIEW BY DATE O DISAGREE BY h ATE - REVIEW OF ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGS. COMMENTS BY: DATE: 2L U ' s
PAGE 2 2EdPFR NO. F079' ,,. REVISION > - C. REVIEW BY ORIGINAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION COMMENTS There appears to be some confusion as to the basic criteria to be used in TASK B - Design Procedure Implementation Review. ItisC-E'sunderstandingthatthedesignwar} I was to be evaluated against the procedures in effect when the design work was done. Nowhere in the Project 2408 Program Plan is PE-001, for instance, specified as the basic criteria to be used. This confusion has led to the generation of several PFR's that appear to require the documents be "back-fitted" to comply with procedures that become effective several years afte: the document was originally produced. The PFR is such a case. O AGREE PF IS VAll0 FDISAGREE Nevertheless, the design input discussed in the PFR was contained
/T in the Specifications for the equipment listed. C-E produced thesy specifications to be used for the actual design work on BY- -
g dv/6/[/ O ATE: - / L e equ pmen men ne n 08- N ON were seen by GA's Quality Assurance D. RECOMMENOATION BY FINDINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE DEFINITION ADEQUACY: M ADEQUATE O INADEQUATE VAL 10lTY: M VAll0 0 INVAL10 CLASSIFlCATION: 5 0BSERVATION O FINDING , JUSTIFICATION: l l CLASSIFICATION CRITERION NO. RESULTING IN " FINDING" ._ COMMENT ON "O BSERVATION" CLASSIFICATION l I 24 L nl wa-.~ A e L.)f -/s &mA s.& .AHyp m a a a L , JyJa 3 '--- t' A ' J A ,'ssq a n. 4;p Q w y y at m& y A. 4MM BY: f/ DATE: ShOf2_ ( E. GA PROJECT MANAGER R ACCEPT 0 REJECT l BY: . 22A' U C DATE: / b
I
~
( / (- - l .! '
/
- 2408-PFR-F079 Cont.
.l
.$ - , Page 2 N
j O team during their review at Windsor during the week of 2/15/82. Having stated the above, C-E still wishes to address any concerns raised by this . PFR. With that in mind, attached are a sample of the memos and letters that deal with design input for the equipment in question. Included also are the title pages from the Plant Engineering Design Quality Assurance procedures in effect in 1970, 1971 and 1973. Memos attached: S-CE-187 Transmitted Pressurizer Seismic Accelerations (Project Manager to Chattanooga,10/8/70) S-PM-142 Transmitted Preliminary Loading Date for Bottom of Support Skirt (Project Manager to Chattanooga, 4/30/71) IOC W. Stolecki to G. Huba/E. A. Steen, 4/29/71 (transmitted data used in S-PM-142) S-CE-1027 Transmitted Preliminary Pressurizer Support Load Table (Project Manager to Bechtel, 2/22/74) IOC Transmitted Max. Accelerations for Pressurizer CG (R. Kassawara to T. Ianuzzi, 2/14/75) S-PSE-079 Transmitted Seismic Loads for SONGS Pressurizer Support (D. Satter to R. D. Haun, 4/4/75) S-PM-15 Transmitted Specification for Seismic Design Criteria (Asst. Project Manager to Engineering, 2/24/70) IOC Transmitted SCE Response Spectra - Containment Bldg. i (A. Swan to P. W. Weilhouwer, et. al. , 7/12/74) BC-1268 Transmitted Final Response Spectra for Aux. B1dg., Containment Bldg., etc. (Bechtel to Project Manager, 10/14/77; sent to I&CE and Plant Engineering by routing stamp BC-? Transmitted Response Spectra for Aux. Bldg. (Bechtel to Project Manager, 7/24/73; sent to I&CE and Plant Engineering by routing stamp) PSE-77-025 Transmitted Proposed Rev. to R. V. Assembly Specification , (R. P. Kassawara to W. E. Stolecki, 3/4/77) S-PM-1262 Discussion of R. V. Column Supports Seismic Loads (Project Manager to D. A. Peck, 11/18/76) i S-PCE-334 Transmitted Seismic Requirements for Valves # (A. J. Tillman to Engineering, 4/22/75)
- S-PCE-263 Discussion of Design Changes due to 33H Requirements (P. R. Wade to Project Manager, 2/26/75)
'v 4
o .m-
-e .- * - ---- -+ - .c %-- m --- - yw -e--. --- - - --y- -, y-->
l_,g_ __ _ _ ._
- '~.. . .
't._..... 2408-PFR-F079 Cont.
,' , Page 3 i l S-CE-3364 Discussion of Pressurizer Branch Line Seismic Spectra (Project Manager to Bechtel, 10/22/76) l BC-PKGE#574 Transmitted Safeguard System Pumps Spec. Comments (Bechtel to Project Manager, 8/9/74; sent to I&CE and Plant Engineering by routing stamp)
S-PSE-039 Transmitted SCE R. V. Support Loads (W. E. Stolecki to E. E. Magette, 10/10/74) I 4 x f
\
l o 9. 1 l - l t N J'_ - Ws b g-.
1 _ \ l A
'W~~ ..
s-a , C[Oh ^ 2408 PFR No. F079
,- ATTACHMENT I
-y 3
m .
- q .,
s n
.. 't ii;
'" DESCRIPTIO!i OF POTENTIAL FINDING:
? s-t
, DerE gn input wins not ava11ab1<t as required in PE-001. It is recognized that certain of the attached items may have been prepared prior to the issuance
-; or PE-001. However, PE-001 is being used as the basic criteria as specified in the. Project 2408 Program Plan, and no evidence could be found that the
. besic requirement was met in any manner.
. The point of coNiern ,is the control of design input in the 1969-1975 period.
Design input by today's standards must be availabic wher design work commences, must be re: viewed and approved and must be controlled as changes occur. Components examined which had design work in the 1969-1975 period were: n Safety Injection Tank T008 , LPSI' Pump P016 g - Valves 2FV-0306 Spec.1370-PE-704 (SI 306) (' ' 2HV-9342 Spec. 1370-PE-704 (SI 611) < 3 2HV-9341 Spec. 1370-PE-704 (SI 618) 3 y
~ '
, -- 2RV-9322 Spec.1370-PE-705 (S? 635) j Reactor Coolant Pump Reactor Vessel Supports -
i Pressurizer Unit 2 Pressurizer Unit 3 . Containment Spray System Pump Boric Acid Make-up Tank - Unit 3 a i s 9
,9 ~% %%.
4 s b n
+ .m
. s
?
4 L
- 4. . ,_ ,. . .. L . . - - . -
- 7. .
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4 y F079
.[ ) 2408 PFR NO.
AFFECTEDITEM: Combustion Engineering Component Specification T. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING DESIGN MARGINS TO THE EXTENT DESIGN ALLOWABLES ARE EXCEEDED OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET ? N/A
- 2. IS THERE THE POTENTIAL THAT THE ITEM MIGHT Fall OR ENDANGER OTHER ITEMS OURING AN SSE ?
N/A
- 3. COULD THE FAILURE OF THIS ITEM DURING AN SSE CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
N/A
- 4. COULD THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATION CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD ?
The lack of rigid control of design inputs such as by a " Design Requirements Document" could have caused designs not being responsive to needed inputs.
- 5. ARE OTHER SIMILAR DEVIATIONS LIKELY TO EXIST ?
N/A I. ) 6. OTHER COMMENTS: ' This PFR is of a procedural nature - no actual' design deficiencies were noted in this part of the study. PREPARED BY: MC W DATE: COMMENTS: /%R
< i BY: DATE:
240/- f oM 4 7f% G:neral Atomic Company C QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT Q), ( Record of Long Distance Telephone Call l Party: Called [ 7/fF
~
Date: 3 Calling O Tirre: crompleted F: 6 s- - tarted 'r 3 0 Name Oade $ls's ven , On-line / S-Company & h d4 En G/nrer, Location b f/'tiva soie . dner . Telephone No: A/C263 No. 66f / 97/ J V//f/ Discussion
$ 41 '
PF/e F 679 i F68/
, , - /
e 5 S of hPAL ffA WN3 cased ssed - 7% v 're e, 7' ?5Ve s /n a
. wi,- zu a.s AJ -fo sa n/ o? reie f
' ~ 176e- o m bs,h / e= A s k mbm zMs, epol>2re . g e } G.e f Ye$ Yesp/14a-Q_ % JL eN c Ane
" Des,in 2wu,aAraR ci:/ nf ku su/s " snc/ de e <ws c. 5emss n,A rs a 4,49 w;-r </ v % GA'se/ . ia w> v.
< ,o , ,, , L, wve Mo7" s,0c/ ine 7%d c+ '
N ved nc ed s, &n b5se s.
/
po aNlcY er uY N ia. f M d-Tc>ke' Ce'ma,a / SA 's tu u e Ag% >-, ru, M,ca7<- w A,,:1. h ' c4 e u ined n,..</ 77W Ne 7&ws/t
,%-_ eS&nc Y tm ~ y ec A' 7%As /
<2 LV N E W-
'J necore mae. sya,,_ <s <6 i Distribution: g p,,, g,4) f y _,e o f f j , fe ) p g 4 g 7 f_,)g A
/phok,Ye j
_ _ . . . - _ _ - . - - .. . - . . . - - - . . - -- - \
pyoVff2 FON_
\{ - Q a gg-
- a. .
O
. *f TWx ..
le a; .' DATE RECbVED ., maER 8,197o
. OCT 141W0 .
i
'10: W. U. ROBERTS - CHATIA:IOOCA . t
*\ '
SUBJECT:
SAN dnCFRZ PRESSURIZER l CCHFI EIEG TELECON, G. J. EUBA TO W. W. ROBERTS, OCTOBER 1, 1970, THE FOLLO'.7IUG ARE THE SEIS;IIC ACCELGATIOT.S (c's) TOR THE SAN ONOFRE i PRESSURIZER. THESE WILL APPEAR IN 4.6.8 AHD 4.6 9 OF THE SPECIFIC /.TIOH.
"DESIGI" Hi 4.6.8 WILL BE CHANGED TO "OPERATICEAL BASIS EARTHC.UldG" l AED "I&XIE1" IN 4.6 9 WILL BE CHANGED TO "IESIGH BASIS EARTRUAi3". ,
O ~e OPERATICHAL EASIS EARTEU/d3 DESIGN EASIS EWIEQU/JG HORIZONTAL VESTICAL EORIZOL"IAL . ' VERTICAL
.8 525 1.6 1.05 l
VEE TRULY YOURS, [., , SCI SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 _ CCt3USTIOH E!OIEF2 RING, IRC. A ll, p f MCL.
~
A2/ W Pg4
~
V. C. IL".LL c o... l l VCH/GJH,/JOL:1js en ' -
/ ./
! S-PA-Of( .
-(1 6" A VN S-CE-187 [ 1
\ ACT_l 3 k s.sov e r.d PG 1.-
lE AS { E. A.S.gT 1 4 1970 . Q'm y
/
i g,,, j i e..u-o Fleid Off. aan. r i-l WOW ( ,,.,d. ,
, Chena. F 6t*
& / Q. C.
.. - l - . - _ _ . - _ ---. N$ 0W
.- -m- - - --
~
( INTEROFFICE C("}RESPONDENCE
~
2& HPFR-t=077
& .:r/w/u b7-.L.El COMBUSTION DIVISION
~
~
To: W. W. Roberts (3) Southern california v. c. Hall Pressurizer cc: G. J. Huba y S-FM-142 D. R. Wade - W. E. Stolecki . April 30, 1971 File .
Enclosure:
(1) Loading at Botten of Support Skirt,-Preliminar/- dated April 29, 1971. Enclosure (1) is forwarded for your use in sizing the support skirt and orderin6 material.- i .,- l V. c. Hall, Jr. 1 .
. . Project Manager t ..
s / . l [, ; -- - 4
,v vca/caH/EAS:iy
'~ '
S-PA-383 .. .. , - .
. c.. . . . -.. . ....,i'.. . ..
DATE RECEIVED
.. MM . ,( 1,9 71 #. ;
,. _;~ . ... _, .
.. ~
.- . a w . .; L.,. .,i. l.' . ., ..,.
... . w .n ,
. n . ,e f. , .. . :M. . yf. % a,,.;. ., --
e s:.e. c R.f.:. : :y.N 9_8 9.1 s ::,n, -p Q.,3-lt. ....-
.gc.1 ; ;< . :;fy; .,,;;
. ?; - :- m. y
,.~.,,.4- . q.y, - . ....
- . . . . ;.y .,, . .
- ,. : . n.:. .:.m n e: c~ * . - .-
; .x; wi. .. .
,..,a.-,.
, s :. n.x.2lAm 4
? n : 1. .
.%,. ...p. .
.i 3 ..
- 1. . . .
. .i[. ,i . .. ..2L,y. , ,fli. :ACT INF EJP L ' " l' '
'~
J. .;. '
.- ~.' S. MAY - 61975 EAS'I ~\ ..
EEMk '< ~~k ' l'
'wowl l l V '
d-
' FILE
. . :n
-. s
- D
.* . 9 %.
= . ,
= g.
..4
,e
+ . d%.:. * . .
g
>: s. ? - , ., _ .
. * .l-
-;* ,. ,93 ., , -;- ,
":1.---* 2 : : ? ' ?. . ~;. %-
. (..-Q:. == e.-, . e - s;z." v .
,- ..a
. pg_ ppp. g.;,y r .
. f, ' ,. .
.:e ..
' i.,4k 0) -WrT-t# Tiff n i
, . t- --- . .
(..O
; ; ,;.. h.a. . i.-s.pn 7
., .e
, .. . :w..
.. ..:. .. m .
- ' . ~..... .
' ' ~~. '
- e. .
c-
. v.
' t
.?.
_ .- . ..': . ;.{. l [. .' :' . f 1PWARD) Z. . -
; ..s . -
r...
- . : ..> .. . t..:. . 2,
)...
c.. ,..
, c. .
y ... . . i .
.. i y"4 Mz X< ,i u -
[ l.
- ~ M y. . . -
- c. . . :
i
.x..,.. n. n.-:.. u. . ..:. . .,.. . .m .,. ... ..c . . .; . a .
~.
o . ,. . . , . . , ,. ~. .
..:. ~ , ..... .:
. . . : r. . . .
- . - (.
)
.. 4 t , ,
. : A^ '
A -powjlw - FOR CES KlPS . MOM ENTS IN-KIF C NDITlON x -y I rz Mx- W Mz l h' 4 T.H. E. RMA L. EX PAN. __
-S.2 -2. 2 +20.3 l-325 -/S33; -/92
.2 l-147
. DEAD WEIGHT '
.2 +3o 6.4 - /3 +262 .
COML3lNED -s.4 +304. 4 + 26. l - - s 72 -/546 + 70 ~
- 9.;& ' t.22 I 1326 ts3,4oo.
~ A =~ 1 X t2s9 o
.' b wp li!}W .1 Y o -
2256 o -
!930
!S3,60s.ht246 t 9 9. 4 ! 90 5
*22 8 2269
? .:. ,c.L.u[f.).mc--e2 4c , .l 26.4 . '( 0 . n! H *' PIPE C_.A.3. EI Fv.4o2.4 F..H < o M.. s='seoe. !MT - o Ms=23,242. M. T. o I' '. - R U Pr .C A.. S E . 2.-. Fv- o Fs . si.s- - NO'TE 2.Cf s q 3 Fv. o Fs 4o2.s IVis= o MT /9pe._! . N O~ ES : m =sta usts =na= . 2 x OrEaAT1= usIs = nam
'I' I (2) SUr.SCn1 PTS DENOTI V = VERTICAL, H = E0nIZONTAL, B = BESDi .
' ~
T = TORSION & ACT IN Tile DIRECTIONS k'HICR CIVE THE VO?.ST
' s
. 1.0ADING COM?,IMATN:'S ~ Dors Nc7- /NetU M N04""R . .
e
- o pc.ca rrass /Ju D .:co u ros~. :oA OS 4 ,,
./
o (3) ronces t.CT 0x surronT
.. e
. .snInT . .
.w, .. . . .,;' . w.. ^~
' d elqh k. . , -.MIta;'ll
~
5
.. 'l.... .
- ,! l
~
._ i'.- _. , _
- - - - = _ - - -
__???w,,_.,~,,. - . p o r ~()f R - Fo ?'/~ ~- l
- c. .
eXA - 3
. . C@VER @NCUBJECT @NLY -
~ > - in ... .
IN CCH LET ~. - .. - m.
, eEr r w sn .
- I~ l OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE -
- - 1'-
~' ' k d 4 - D . ' - l DEPT. 4 OCATION .
'i,,h7 No:BA/ a ersss
^ ~
- '.c~ l DEFT.. LOCATION [
, FRObe /
0 WYDA$c~$/ ^
- '""(',' cf ?r 2' .7,esaewes2 as.s.cd.s
- 4.:.v " f/24W -
\
. ..A.
97xce-#x2 ,aarcwrH NA?/ 7:er s'&'#M-Ve.,e7 .<asss yo 2 X/O' so.2' PMY PM2'M
'~ '
7,.9 r' s s z c: 9.D s 4M .22dd.' +' #~'9W '*D l e.es ;2s twsd . M .v'Az4*t? 4/2 2P ' W . Q2 eus4-g, a c1A s X+'f!' v'+"&'<' 2 PF .84 , a sj pc. e A ,y: . <. -# 4- </?'2.A&' . 2/? FAX l a ORIE ATOR . DO NO WRITE BELOW THIS LINE SIGN ED REPLY . l
./
]
, II.S. AFRCS sn TO 0 ~
F,;'b c . 5, 90 s&
~
5- uf;t . . I DEPT.. LOCATION # l'alGNED DATE
- i SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT - PINK WILI. BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
_t , . - _ - .
., .m .
Y2 ,
. . . SY
-w.- _ ~. _
g.k.
.e :
ym,M,a.m~=.wsrsh-F*5 M m- w m. - c;._ - . , z_.,nww;gg._
- ygf4 EJ;~gXsygn -
l
. . . .m.w +..
~
. .< t L';' -
.m.
- 9. x. ,.., .[ , ;.g ., --
* '* e.
egg 81s . e
.e.. , . - - ~ _ . . - - - . ...---,w. . - - . % . . . . - . _ y 4
U
- m .p, g _ pg;gg_
^ -^
'Lf
~-
.U
[m.'el, W 4eg_pn g-PA-s/peje 'tr L _ g, g9 t gPWARD) t .. - t, Z -
. I pi ! Mz Y
;_ 'p _ _ .
1
- - , r O
- ~
- A~
' <- A pagiiyllnanV i.
FO R C ES KlP_S MOM ENTS IN-XIiJ l C NDITION FX -Y t-z Mx: My ka
-2. 2 l +20.3 ,325 -/S33; - /9)
J- . THERMAL EX PAN. -S.2 1-DEAD WEIGHT 2 +304.4 2 -247 - /3 +262 C6MBINED -54 +3o4.& + 20.1 - -872 ~/546 + 70 32s ts3,400. gv&~l 2X t2s7 o i 91 4
- t22I ~
2 Y o t'2S6 o ! 93 o t 99.4 ! 9of 1 .-
. ta 6 22M 2S3,600. t 246 t228 '..:. b ~5 22 26 5 'l 0 .
Ms=st ooo. MT o
- d. PIPE CASE I Fv.4os.4 FH = o Fs - s/.c Ms-23,242. MT. o RUPT CASE 2 Fv- o -
N O'TE 2 CAS E 3 Fv o Fs dos.s- Ms o Mr./9 set._ ' N OT ES : c6 DESIcN >^S15 EaTHauuE . 2 x orERxT10xAt 8 ASIS EARTHa ' (2) SUBSCRIPTS DENOTE V = VERTICAL, H = HOP.IZONTAL, B = BENDII!G, l - T = TORSION & ACT IN Tile DIRECTIONS WHICH GIVE THE WORST - LOADING COMBINATIONS toes war /nezccE Noe.n% (
,. OPERA TIN 6 /?ND GEtCMIC LOADS (3) FORCES ACT ON SUPPonT SKIRT
/
.' - I )
dM.
~ '-
wiz 9hl s
. . u . .:u.,. es
. . m. . .w.<.:
. .:;.::. n.
, .~n. a. . . .;'nu. v n= q2m D o ;;~TvCu.t'in"i N- Spee tticat s cr. N:>. - ri:- u o acv a.: or. .ricure 16 Sheet - .
- -. _ _ __ ___ _../._37o ___. ,
' ~
,. ,. ,- aufok -PfA- f0"7 r ,:5#c.- s 2 MQ g COMBU(A} DP/ISION.
WIN 050R. CON N. 060 5 5 COMBUSTIO C.
%,Q FE8 2 61974 O '
COMBUSTION DIVISION I February 22, 1974 , l l S-CE- 1027 S-PA-776
. Southern California Edison Company - 2; - i San Onofre Units 2 and 3' ~ _ _ _j __ . ' ' ' ' ' ,
SCE Order No. N1800001 j Bechtel Job No. 1304-606 C-E Contracts 1370 and 1470 E.A.S.JP 2 B-1974; i l i Mr. J. D. Houchen ' , Bechtel Corporation - P. O. Box 60860- ..- i Terminal Annex ; !; .T.w.k#EB 2 8J97,4
~
i Los Angeles, California 90060 , f 3 ..
Subject:
Pressurizer Supports - 3 ,
References:
(A) BC-223, J. D. Houchen to R. W. DeVane, August 15, 1973, Pressurizer Support Spectra dI ' y (B) BC-234, J. D. Houchen to R. W. DeVane, N September 18, 1973, Pressurizer Support Locationc %
Attachment:
(L) Preliminary Support Load Table
Dear Mr. Houchen:
Review of the design data transmitted by Reference (A) indicates that the pressurizer support skirt is capable of withstanding the resulting seismic - loadings without requiring the upper horizontal support keys discussed in Reference (B). It is proposed to delete the upper horizontal keys from the pressurizer. ; Concurrence on your part should include consideration of the support loads shown in Attachment (1) and consideration of seismic motions for branch lines at the top of the unkeyed pressurizer. The maximum horizontal acceleration and displacement at the top of the unkeyed pressurizer are 1.67g's and .050 inches respectively for OBE, and DBE equal to 1.67 times
- OBE. ;
G -
/ - .-.% .._em .--e. ,-.- . - . . . - - .--.-an.----mu.._ -.~ - - --_. - . _ . - - - - - - .m_
. . . gf cfob--(WQ ~ PO 71 ~
?' *
% "f 3//Vl&2 .
(] - 2- February 22, 1974 S-CE-1027 In order to maintain our pressurizer fabrication schedule we request your concurrence with this change no later than March 22, 1974. Very truly yours, u LLkg R. W. DeVane, Jr. Project Manager RWD/DDM:jj cc: L. D. Hamlin (SCE) R. G. Lacy (San Diego G&E Co.) W. L. MacDonald (CF.-Orange, Calif.) O e O . G
, . g l . _ . . - , , wms. . ----.-=.-= --- -e -. -. . .- .mm .-.- - - , . . -
__- ._e -
- ..J__= -
w . --. . _ . ___
~~
gs{dt,- g.. Pft2 -Fo 1$_
- o. _q , - ... , - -
(- .- 4 I - -
/ '
g .
- I .
y (UPWARD) N
, Z
~ I g Mx x M(.
iy F!y . glifjAR V
;< ,?- - - -
p .
~~
A. A , C0flDITI0ft FORCES r.95 MOMENTS IN@ Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz i THERMAL EXPAfl. -5.2 -2.2 +20.3 -325 -1533 -192
~~'
DEAD WEIGHT .2 +306.6 .2 -247 -13 +262
. CMBIflED ~
-5.4 +304.6 +20.1 -572 -1546 +70' ~
4 OPER; BASI .X (50 0 0 0 0 33,,3go Col.fH- +Y 0 10 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ QUAKE +Z_ 0 0 ( ,5 0 _ _33,3go o o PIPE CASE 1 ,FV = 402.5 FH = 0 MB = 29,000 f4T = 0 '. RUPT. CASE 2 Fy = 0 FH = 51.5 MB = 23,242 MT = 0 fl0TE 2 CASE 3 FV = 0 FH = 402.5 MB = 0 MT = 19,100 NOTES: (1) DESIGil BASIS EARTHQUAKE =l,670PERATIONAL BASIS EARTHQUAKE (2) SUBSCRIPTS DEtiOTE V = VERTICAL, H = HORIZOUTAL, B = BEf;DIrlG, T = TORSI 0ft & ACT If1 THE DIRECTIONS WHICH GIVE THE WORST LOADIllG ,j ) COMBIflATI0flS - (3)FORCESACTOf{SUPPORTSKIRT , .
Title:
LOADIfiG AT BOTT0f4 0F SUPPORT SKIRT -
. . . . _ . . . . . . . __ i ._ .
I e -..;- a 'e s .
~
. . , mm=E.. 2..A
- - -- .. . . . ... . ~ .
. ~ _a:. w.
~
COVER ON ' SUBJECT @NLY IN w CH LETTER "%
.-._.g.a 2 =,-w .=
. - - ,.-.;. m .--.~,-. , .y
< 3,y .;.: ' ## ;. Qg gx-e , .$W: y. ,CSg C,~,g.w ..Q+.7
- n. y . .s ~ 7 .g . e .. " ,v .u
" a R' OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE."3 IF 5' , , . ,
'. D,.. 4,; .,,.N , .
EFT..l.OCATIO a
.4/ p
- x 11
*e J r.
6.. ..
- a .3 % > p p ,." ,,
e v 6 's. 4 *. y t *,- ,
~ % .- ( 1 ': . ..d W &~%:
/4 .f . m j , :f '.' 1 / '_ v". #
> D EFT. ' ^^ ^ TION * - .- t d I.J., .
,, rRoss 1-7 Qf v .
.s+~e-.-
% g . t.s. . y &. ; - d. . /]. . Mn._g c.4.:a's., - i n..., %.- !" ...nl r . :' .
, Q, :_ .
c. (:,.- 6 , ,Q 'U
'J - * - . . ^/ ' 7i .,. . w .4 ". e
* ~
ma55A15
.. 2 N
,- - . - 4., g .
bs. .
.O ' s'
. A ',h . ,
.. . [
..m e . ., .
. s . .
J
. ;* .*. ?P 4 . .
- A. % + . .. ' C. A. y*f *pc M. ?'., W r- ; 2 W
's*..
- T ~*** ', ,-d*M - .;, . ,' ,.(s *. .';",%. ...-
.
- ir
- L:2 * *J . , ! L R, e ' a*. : .- t.<.. u $< s.
~
( ), g' %"%#.8 w ;* Y J .1
.. ,, , ,-g ,
~-*
.* .N.s : v, . '
,L~R,e% L W . K:,T '. +.i; E 1 Q Q. . Amy . ,w-
. - } ,.J l-~ ~ W
** 9. ' 4. ,
- - ' ~
-8 . . ."
gg
- p. ,s " - a %
". k f.c 4" *[p' .
9 3 ;.. ; ; . M C. . , n.+..
,4 ~- .
. : $ 15 s3Q - ' . .
n- '
; - .. a,.6 -; * ,**
- . ' < ;I .t ..~-
- w
.p, ,e, -
- ;h. 'f } ., ;,- t* ,,.
., -c* f *i, " . *A ,g.' . .
N.~'.' .p.D, 4 e ISO9 A% .. . . ,, _ , .
- ci,....o <
h' h h . .I l
- v
.g..,
e
. 3 ,., , t. u4... 5 .. 3 4 ..m . ,
. .u . - .
',t .f. "'W_.G 5. ..... '.
- b. g 9 :-(.,'#: %
.r:) -~ ' .;; , ,? .
* % .,4so ,.
-* ~' p ~.v
.o,%; a ,.p. .m . . .
(/ ,4;. <. , . gW.
. r...,
.. . . ._ - 1 -
=
~[ ; f E
.. CCl3tMATOR . DO NOT WRITE BEI OW THIS LINE' .
_ _ ,' ' . ,!'. SIGN ED m'" p..asm.
.- e j . ., ;f
- a. ~ , .n c. qa,, ,;g g?.g,.f.g p .c pc - - ~.q j,. .y g3.y s s. .. gr ,q. g..g.j,, ;; ,, ,,
s .. .
. .t a.
,.e
, e. '
%,;.7*K.);..,,-,.,,c.6. ' ::
'...,n.. & ' Q '.cs..*.*b. %, .
Q,.
- n. 3;, [';v_.
- Q. . A.. , ;- .:
2, .q z'<!3. . ., -* . ,- gl l; m . ,---
- g. : . . R . . s. .s . ; y ; p. . - .,, .'. .t- . .. . , .n ' ' . >J._
.a . .'m . ' , .
- m. -
J y,.
,~ .
,..,,... 3- .,* <.
- . n ,.%, 2 . .
- *;d. , -
).._ w. *:
;. K~ . t. . . .
. . .'. . f:'q, .*v g . ..L.) ~ f.e_41 o e, 2..,,',*y.', _ ?-- - n; +. n~
.'~- '
n . 3.,.5.y ,,7;,e.
. . A,.. y e. .. . .~ .; .. 2 .. . ..:. w; 4: A. .6 . ',.
;,y .; y . .; , , .._.3,...'.: . ... - -
. H. . . s. ,r
_g l .-s. .- - t. .; ., ; : * ' , y y sK
'.% . , .; R . '[.Q&W .'.? . R*d' ,'S,h$',Y;9. g ,=;E ,. , 'Q , *V; g 3.e;9'.. 34. . ,& ,. -$'.W, ',. ;J y.. , [: \* .Mb
~
.l ,
.t-g {-.'*.,
[ ' 6? . '~.p,,
*. .g'$.,.
, p.y. . g y..
. , ,' fC a ' ' . ,.r 6. . .v 7.g;f.'., -; .,-
A..
- 7. f.-g 3,,,,_ , # ' .
y* . ,. % .. n . >: - V . .w.~*
., p. sc'* ' . . ~, * .
...J., L .4. ,- *
- i u& . '* .'~ x . *;., ,*
't
~
. - ~L.~
a .* c ,~e ..v' rt l. ea 1* *.* ~'My4 ..
.. ;_: ; .. . ,,; .9. ,. ; < +. , r
. s. . r ',o...~a...
. ,yrQ , .5;.y ~. ,e, g ,-.- .
- 1. .>k ,
.x - ., s. ,- .,
. .* w.
m- ,ws_uyh ~ >' J.A
- . ..m. ., M.
- o.: s. g~, c > .' n't f.23.,3..,4,.
% _-n.c..- .; .
p .-
..v.~;
e.- q 1,,
.- 7 c . ..
r u. vs s... , &.
. ,+ .
., e1 . .
cm-m' . .n%.
.r,..t..<.' 7. b.,e,. :v.g x.v. .- +
1 . .e
.. .6 .%
tq, a: *%. ' ,3%. e 9,-J - ;,,-> , b ,. e= u EsS ' AtMMMy ~ ~ ^ .v.L:, 'n? ., >c1+g nD :-C..; : ,a 1. 2 i. SCf . ( SIGNED + D. ATE.f.g *( - ..
. , DEFT LOCATION .. , ... .. - S m. , . . .., ..; .g.. - . , . . , ,,. , .
s.j . .'
.s - c- - . , . , , % w .,
~h{.M %b. 's.*[g. .s ,,, .[ N'*g,,, {."'
..s
[N, c.t,<' t.. ./8[ , +=ij~.M. [. ..*l% . j '- '; , .,
. y;- '*[* '
. . _- .. . . . . . . _ . ; . .n ;o .
, . .. SEND WHITE AND, MNK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT-PlHK WILL BE RETtJRNED WITH REPLY. - , -
w
. .- w m. -
.J. .c
- 9. J.
99+_.g
.3 ,
~
. f 4'9 g
.,*.. 1-sm ; .. -
- 2. y ,, .h %.
-- su *
= . . 4.. $<'%
f A
< - e._ w
.u. .
z o' :. c b.vaa_. := y;? ;f .y qp
.z. g .. m - -
- m. ' . 3-
%.z.m,
.- n . w.m,%. * . ____m,,.-,.__m.__.__m.,_
. ;.;7 _2 g. y.-
w.,.-,,,
, _' ' q
*. m." f.. , i 3, ._
*[ :. . ,y,[;. .
., .- t i . ,-s
,* .o
- eli t a. ,.
.j -
ge
. 1 1
1 v
, n; , , _,..+
e *
- t. . . ~
- u ,
, e .
n4Ttyta=l:1TCC RRESPONDENC~~~" 1
~
a'. s mm (i , ayor.pm - Fo77 Oi bd3 COMBUSTION DIVISION TO: R. D. Haun SCE D. Sattar San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Pressurizer Support S-PSE-079 Seismic Loading
. April 4, 1975
Enclosure:
Seismic Loads for San Onofre Pressurizer Support Subject enclosure supersedes what is currently in the specification. Please note that the format has not changed, only the magnitude of numbers. Q DS:dmk D. Sattar enc 1. 4 m
.m
[ , M p dy
?. 1
- e -
u; --
~
ss S e f e n L/ 1 l
1
~- ._ - . . . _ _ . _ _ __ . , _ _ . ,
-~ _ . _ _ _
e g- O sv/or -/va- 07y-COMBUSTION ENGINEERING. INC. '. \ r WINDSOR. CONN. cd., JMca S8v4TM C? // rjn3( f A ,n.jyA CONT. / No. / 7O _MAct By - D ATc LOCATION I.b/ '#_ / OK[ 2 M # 'O 3 DWG.No. C*m o By D ATE I
.c ri.5 w .L.:. . .g ; 7:c prz:gu . is . y,.m cr-c0a.0rn oil F'M- M'F3 / C M * M - ' M @ P 3 i d '*= 3
=,
rT' l 19 r]- 'h
. ib l /4; Xhy /20 /s0 to 2Gio 2Go 75GS 7.5 b' N 20 ?co l56 37?O /3/C S ,uc lc o .
c, w l26y V E . xhy' IGS 2J0 10 3G50 3/5 // '20 35 G ,9 o r,; H 5tY 30 340 /50 4330 1600 cf490 N5 m I o g _ .. .,,z- 2 <n
ssfoY~/)f/2 ~fo? 9 m ... ,. .
.} g ^f...T L=,,X :.~'
' 7..':'g g:'_Q l=. Q Q,... -Q*( Qf f. & Q_ _ _fQy f
f - . . - - - - , . . _ . J -eas w) 5: E. F. Flynn
---- - f " $ $T.MS#4m -. . -. __
d SCE Specifications _. _i ~j _ pH & D. F. Streins ~ ~ ~ , J. E. Myers
~
' " '""" - - --- February 24, 1970 '
S-PE-15 ces B. J. Cochran (w/o enel.) ' J. D. Crawford (w/o encl.) W. W. Albert (w/o encl.) , . .
'**'1, . , ,
\
s I r i helosures s (1) Specification for Beisnie Design Criteria
- ' ' San Onofre Euclear Generating Station r Units 2 and 3 L (2) Southern California Edison Ccmpany Specification No. A6k-1967, 13,200 Volt A-C Induction Motors
.! for Generating Stations (3) Southern California Edison Company Specification No. A54-1959, h160 Volt A-C Induction Motors for f Generating Stations (k) Southern California Edison Capany Specification
~
No. A65-1969. 460 Volt A-C Inductier. Motors for l Generating Stations (5) SCE Questions - Bos. 1. 13 and ik sad related ansvers 1 - The enclosed documents are forwarded for your_ infor-tim aaA Ese ~ during the design of San unorre Units 2 and 3. Enclosure (1) l estanu snes the ts.a. seismac easi 5 n criteria which was agreed to hr l CI except as amended by the answers to questions Ecs. I and 13 Enclosures (2), (3) and (4) are SCE induction motor specifications and establish the actor standards required for Units 2 and 3. Dese , ,
! standards were accepted by CE as expla.ined in the answer to Question
- l .
1 Bo. 14 . j D. F. 8trein j - - gyg y . - l l
) I i
l f.i
)
- r : .-
; *~ _ b;.
c#V0V-PC2 fa'7f
'- =
$IT , ,
Mi .u:::::.w:::::. :.~ r
- rdr Lnu C,*o+a= v sau o~ .c, v"'s'.",'" w .u '" C.
un Cv '"' 'c9.'m" C '..'s ' rri.er--
. .v. u .
/ .---
e {lMTER OF?!CE COI: RESP 4DENCE
~~
- U! ,
r W , e * . 8 D LPT..LO CATIO N 4 / Ih f (Uj U.. u. . .~ _ k i. : N / . ' /- It*"<k F R ;, M 4 DLPT..LOCATIO N f .,o l (S. ".s. %.
~
$CE .
jq ,
&'rs& ^'"7 42./7q MES S AGli
',r.
r- s f3 2 a e T j %sp" ! E
-C. ,. } Q J ) :~ll.- & 3 }
l / $'- S 7d
- f. t L. ~
'u.. ,lr 3 #l- ,' ,
of; ? *. (
" **'.1 o C E = '
l' 'I.* %. . * *. t '. ' ' *\ ,Y 9s (j - s . . = s,s , g
/
/./ (,~(4- .i: L 1 GRICINATOI) . DO NOT WrlTE BELOW THIS LINE SI'3 N ED .
REPLY: l l L. EP T..LO CAT I O N SIGN ED DATE
/ /
SEND WHITE AND PINK COPf ES WITH CARBON INTACT-PINK WILL SE RETUmNED WITN RCPLY.
= a o
e e e
..;- ..._ - - ~- __- .. . - _ . -
, p{0 V - /df2 - r O ] f ~
.
- FREQUENCY (cycSes per tws!)
100 53 25 to E
. . n 2 1 .5 _7
-- La '
N Sd = 10 T S, 2 i . .; d..I -l . , ,
,;=! SECHTEL PCWtf. COlWO%YlC's '
{- l _6 .- LCC ANGELE: OlVt",f 0:4 ! sV '/
,-,. r -l. .j.
Sg= DL 'LACEMENT RES?CN3E tihCHf.-l , i
, ,,,,,,_ ,, _.J T = PERIOc tSEC.) i ' .
FOUTHERN CALiPortratA EDt:iCN CC *.'.?A*JY i h-q,,Q' .-15J !4 CNOFRE NUCL C Al'. C ENER
!' i UNIT 5 2 8. 3 S. = ACCELERATION RF .PON3E (g's) . ,
4 1 ' OESIGN BASIS EARTHOUAKC DAMPlNG VALUES '-
' ! --- VERTICAL ACCELERATION RCSPONSE 4
AS PERCENT CF CT11T! CAL . i SPECTR A FOR CONTAlfdME!JT r- INTERIOR STRUCTURE ELEVATION ..5*.0** I.ii- .s.~;
.. .: ;.. . - d.. l'-
1
' ; .1 !
i i ' c,ee.. sy: n ... s e v: meceo.e av
'.p ! H_. -;y. - .
., .ye a
! . l J e/ KM5 /GH '@ //R.6/%$2 i
-j_ R E V.
',. Jos No. SKETCM NO.
.': :--l
,, i ,
i ! ,. _-;.i i .
.i I -
13c4003 S023.S K.S.G31 i . -- , ,
-. . , .3,
. s
- k. . _- 9
[ 1 I . t ; t I t 8 I 3 ,, i,,,f * .
, j 6 ,
' 4 ,.-,
4 a
. ,4
-w+- :, ,. 6 6 t .
e 4 . . .
, . e . i i !"~ I . . ' I i f
_, J. l ' f I . t, . ;;I,
- i , , -l- .
j.' ' i ..
- .J - .
i i i , .n._.- . ' '. . . c_. , - r r. -- _._; .. > .- -- . , i 1-. .. s l
._.t. ---. . : , ,. . , ,
. i.
., . . .. i . . 4
,i ; .-** --
,s ,. 3a( t , , ,ae ". , .j ar w . * * ,="*.;i e., ,
. ;T.s- -
*- ~ '
g -*"""**l . ., l . . ~l
] 4 ! , i i_,*
l
- l !, l ; l- -
l- . x-
..i_
!.ll' .
l a ' _!
- e-jj == -
' - I a h- j,- -'
*-==
_ ,,- _- ae, .-H ,
'* r -- - l-; n .
e, i , i , i I T'
- I 4 e i i t
_r. .1-- - i.4-T. .k- ' I
, D A L*.7I N G = 0.5% rc. i ' m.
'. .'t--
, , i , .
%' 7 _ y. ,i -
t N 10
~
.,* . L k "y!-.' ' d
- - I-4
- -2 . . -
r' i .: ' ' I
,/ t- ',
.L- . . _ . . _ .;
c: w
.g
+ ._s: .- .
.._4__." *
; 4._H ;_ ' . .
i_ . . . . + . l . _-: t, 4._ ' , w - -- - - - .-*~ 9 . ,i , v o H_: -- . . .: : ; : :- , i._ s, i i , , , .,., . .i,. _e.
- s. ,-
< .i s
. L; !
I
. i
...1 I 1-4
.4
. . . ..m... - p-- * .J .
8 l , 6 i. - l---*- - D AMPl t N G = 1.0h'ws. _ . *- --.a e- .. 3s i t i , 1 . .
,. r.. i t, i r_- ,i , ., . . , , ,, ;
i 1
' , - .3, '
I
, . : ' 'I ' i i
i 1
. .i i J. . Wi .
--+
i i . 7 ' ' ' i
.! j.-J, . t
...I j
! f '
;2 1 ' I .
t . .,
. l
_ _. I
' _f . - i e e - i
_._..I I '-
' ' _ - .l
--4. ' ,
6
- - - f
*_;_-.,, L_s 6 '6- :a .I ' . p- . '1 .," ' .
f_
3 t . i ; i ' ' ' - DAMPING = 2.0%
- J I l}! - -
, .-. i \ s 2.- __h. 'i N, 4. , $. -*! .i -
' i * '
5 l ; rI
.. _ ' , . ;- ". A- M i , . -;
i .'**F"- . . . .i. i , , .-
,. , i m ... ..,
, , . i i .
.s i 1" "L, *.* , ,- ! i , ~F 6 % i i . .
.1 , . t 6 . , 4, ,
i 3,
-- rt.. , ..---- ' - -* , i- _. t 4 i. -- i-1
.t 6 __ i t i t
- , t i j
. _$ . l I ,g
~
- 1 T ' ..* ,
g I g
' _..l,-
.j_ w ' ! '
I i : I ' _* ' i e : J %.) . . --_ ., , l , DAMPING = 5.0% 7--- ----; @'. , \M.' g-, . , ! J
.s ,--h . ,
. . .i- i. , --- - - - -
i,- s . i ,
- -r- M , f-* I 7
i r..- i , ..,.,._..".i. , i , . , J i ... , 6 ,
, i , , . . . , , sI. *. .a , . e. . .
-.,- .- .. ,. c
--+
. .-s ..
t
, i-7--- -
. - ,r- - - .
2 .
+-
- - - - - - i .
- - - m - a.->-
/\ t__ - _ - . . - - 1
.l
- 1 : - . r--- - --m2, :- --- -
-.-.....':..~. Lj -1 s-3.,a 7,
_ ' .j_ .5. .:_:. , {....i_ ., . .. ; N. . : i ' i c-! (J ~._ _
~+.-
a'- - _., f 1
' _ ., .L w -- --
, y _ g _p. -
j '. ; -- . . . _ p.4 .., i i j
. i yt1-- i i . -- m .__...
;m 0
, 7. , .
- - - -.. r __r. ,
.01 .02 .C3 .c4 .CG .t.; .1 .2 .3 .4 .6 .8 1 2 3 e. 5 i
L..d Gee.') _ _ _ . . . . _ . o. n .3.
. ;1 y o(c - P F A 007f~
- FRECUTNCY (cyclu pts mond) 50 75 5 2 1 .5 .2 100 10 I
2 -'~~ - - - ' - --- P--
, . . sd , ,o 3 s. -
, [ . .gt ' .d BECHTEL POWER CCRrOR ATION I
, LOS ANGELES OtVISION SdOt$ PLACEMENT REL70NSE UNCHES) - -
h*I r# .t . T = PCnlOD (SEC.) _l b*d-- y SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDtSON CCMPANY a SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENER ATING STATICN UNITS 2 r,3
$. = ACCELERATION RESPONSC (g's) l DAMP!NG VALUES E' DESIGN CASIS C ARTHOUAKE HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION RESPONSE AS PERCENT OF CRITICAL ' SPECTRA FOR CONTAINMENT
, j i j ! i , INTERIOR STRU 'TURE ELEVATION 45.0" l l
........c e u....e e r a .. ..... u ;
l
" rus MH OS M )T! f AEV
! I t i '
Jos NO. SEETCH NO. , i 1 6_1 i
- i t i '
1304-203 S023.SK.S.G37 8 f ,r i
'. t .j _ i I wJ 1 I
- 4. . l_ J_ t,;_ ! ';,.j J i i l i e ! ' 1 --
i I ! ' . ; _ '_._ !
! l .
i I '
' - ' 2 '
j i H-h . r: i , i 6 . 3-i a. "."_r 7 32
' ' ' '__. l y._l ,_,,
D AMPIN - . G .=. . ,0.5'",g_g--n:: ...- i .+ - - - l l 5 1 i 6
E'#! .! .! -
f.7, i ! i , , i i . i .. ' 1
. , , ,i , , , , , i i . , ._, ..
4 33 ' ' ' ' I - ' 7 d - ! . pt; l f ar ' ! i i i i i i ii ~ i
-- .'- . -i , i ! c . ~; . i : i .. _.4,__ .,
7 T ' l ! l':
+- '-4--! ;'; 4 ' ,') I J--! -
10 Q . _L 'j --- --i 4-H : . i ~ -t' . . :. - - H --i M t-- .,i._-4 , -*- 3 C: ' ' ' ' t Ot ' ..- 7! i D AMPING = 1.0?
'.-)
W . i } } I .i,,16 ! l 5 67 . J i l ' f: 1?e 5.; "f" T ; . 7..i *( 6 i 1 i 4 W 9 , i i j, ,,, e.
; ;; , a e Q -
j u ! t 4
2_.J i 1 e
." h i g,,, y I
i s. g a( i + e i 6 i . - Qi i .I e . e . ; i _ 8
' 1
- ' '- i
-l '
h -~~N".', Y ' t 1 i. I i . i
... m i .!.
I It n i. ; i ! *i i
- I t i i ' Uf n i!\ l !
, # ! i 4 '
tJ . . t i
. .J.
7 ' I I a6 . ii.2 s. t . i i e I i i T 1 . i ..q l , ! DAMPlNG = 2.0%Q-- -t-l MI ! -\Ni L l, -1 t t t
- i .
I-
%.J i
^ p_ ". .,. t - ' i'
! i i
i G i . l' i t I i i r- i i , .: > !, T it i I ( !
' i 1 i i F. , .) !g i i t
- 4
* . I a ii\ _j ' ' '
.. l'
_ ' ' ' ' \ F' 5 i i l 4h8'T. . i% i 1 i , t
. i
. I q8 . . 9 t . .* i :) > i i i j
_' ' ' \ ^; 2 DAMPING = 5.0%%. .. 4 l i *
- I
' . .' ,j i i i
. 1 i)y T !' l
~. #
I
-J
! l=;;i; i i n 6 i ,
--i
__" . i
; i U, .""' C- g ~~M - 7 I;r-t
. 4
-i--$ i t T,Nx
%5 '-
,s ,
--t - -
, 4-!
- -" - i
' ' ' # ' ' ' ' \ -'
3 !
. .' N~ ' e. .v . 3i ,'i, s
,' 'j: .i-t-'
. i
~ ~;-
+ j -i- ,i , 4 . --';9-->- , ;
+-
4 , x; 9
-i i i . . . . .< ! , . x . i- -- -- - ;
, j . t .+ ' ,- - -* - . j .. _C_...,.--' -' -
j 4- , , ,
; _ ' _j ! -; > - %-- . - ,i J}}