ML20052C611

Independent Design Review of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station-Unit 1, Interim Rept

ML20052C611
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	04/29/1982
From:	CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:
Shared Package
ML20052C609	List: ML20052C608 ML20052C611
References
NUDOCS 8205050283
Download: ML20052C611 (122)

Text

D g independent Design Review n Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1 D

D i

&" : . _m . af

~ci 1

l 1  !

[,i I E l.

.  :\

' ' ~ ~

' a ..

lij,, .,

L' D ,_. ;it '

.,~

~

y sc

,y' l?

~

o

-.- . _ _ ~

,f

[

3 3 l_.I q ...

sy g y pg- e - [ 1 __3-i

- - - - - - _ _ . ~~'

l  ;

i 3 khj550283820429 DOCK 05000416 A PDR

J Proj ect No . : 82026 3

INTERIM REPORT Indepe nde nt Design Review of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1 Prepared for Mississippi FOwer & Light Milner Building , Suite 320 City Center Plaza North 210 S . La Mar Stree t U Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Prepared by Cygna Energy Services 141 Battery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94111 O

m .

m, Approved by M/) y 4/k'l[87 Date

' Project Mg Ager Approved

~$6nior Review Team 7/h

'Da te' April 29, 1982 O

M XOII'Ti ll1111111ll1llll1!!1111llll111 0

1

\

) I

) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

l

) 1.1 Introd uction 1 1.2 De finitions 2 1.3 Status 3 2.0 ORGANIZ AT ION 8

) 3.0 S CO PE 10 3.1 QA Review (Horizontal) 10 3.2 Technical Review (Vertical) 12 4.0 REVIDi PROCESS 14 4.1 Collect Documents 14

) 4.2 Develop Standards 16 4.3 Proced ures 18 4.4 QA and Technical Reviews 23 4.5 Project Review 28 4.6 Senior Review Team 28 4.7 Reports 29

)

5.0 STATUS

SUMMARY

31 5.1 QA 31 5.2 Technical 33 6.0 SCHEDULE 36

)

)

D

)

lillllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllli Mississippi Ibwer & Li9ht 1

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review

) 82026 1

l

)

Attac hme nts :

}

Appendix A Material Reviewed Appendix B Review Standards B1 Quality Assurance Program Matrix B2 Pipe Stress Review Criteria l

} B3 Pipe Support Review Criteria j l

Appendix C Chec klis ts i Cl Sample Quality Assurance Checklist C2 Pipe Stress Checklist C3 Pipe Support Checklist Appendix D Futential Finding Reports Figures

) Fig. 3-1 Work Process Flowchart j Fig. 3-2 RHR Train A Flow Diagram '

Fig. 4-1 Review Process Flowchart Fig. 4-2 Observation Record Forms Fig. 4-3 Observation Log Form Fig . 4-4 Ectential Finding Report Eb rms

) Fig . 6-1 Project Schedule Tables Table 1-1 Observation Log

)

)

)

)

Mississippi Fower & Light ii

{tj 33 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 11111llllll11lll1111llllllllll 82026

.)

1.0 EXECITf1VE

SUMMARY

)

1.1 Introduction Based on discussions with Mississippi Power & Light and represen-

) tatives from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Cygna Energy Services began an independent design review of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS-1) on March 15, 1982.

j The scope of this review was agreed to be a QA evaluation of design control and a technical review of a selected piping system. The selected system is the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system, Train "A," which consists of four major piping analyses

) and a total of 35 pipe supports along the main flow path. Both.

reviews were to concentrate on the period from January 1978 to date, when the plant was redesigned to accomodate the require-ments of the New Loads Adequacy Evaluation Program.

)

The objective of this independent design review is to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the design and design control processes on GGNS-1. This is done by reviewing the performance

) under adverce conditions, such as during the major redesign effort initiated by the New Loads Prog ram . It is felt that a review of the design control procedures and a portion of the design process under these adverse conditions is a reasonable

) measure of the quality of the overall plant design.

Although this review focuses on the New Loads period, a portion of the RHR system is unaf fected by the New Loads and was there-

) fore designed at an earlier time. This portion of the system is controlled by seismic loads and was designed between 1975 and 1977.

)

Mississippi Fbwer & Light 1 Lkk,(I) L A Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independe nt Design Review lll11llll11ll11111lll111lll111 82026 i

)

On April 20, 1982, Cygna reported the status of this review to'

) the NRC as part of their Site Readiness Appraisal. The purpose of this Interim Report is to document that presentation.

1.2 De finitions

)

Checklist A listing of key items to be checked during the independent design review.

The checklist provides a guide to the

) reviewer; it is neither all inclusive nor limiting.

Proj ect Standard A compilation of acceptable pro-

) cedures and criteria. The adequacy of the design and design control process is measured against these standards.

I Observatio n Identification of an item in noncon-v formance with the project standards.

[) Invalid Observation Any observation which is judged to be inaccurate as a result of further review.

g> Valid Observation An accurate and complete observation as judged by the project and senior review teams.

]) Datential Finding A valid observation having a poten-tial impact on plant safety as judged by the project review team.

O s me r,pb' L =q Ill Mississippi Power &' Lig ht 2 L- Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review IIllllllllllllilllllllllilill! 82026 3

)

De finite Potential Finding A potential finding verified by the.

Senior Review Team to, have a poten-

) tial impact on plant safety. This is a reportable finding.

1.3 Status

)

The Observation Log in Table 1-1 summarizes the review status at the time of the Site Readiness Appraisal. It shows that fourteen observations have been identified. Of these fourteen, three have been invalidated as a result of discussions with Bechtel, three require further review to evaluate the potential impact on plant safety, and three have been identified as potential findings .

Eacn of the potential findings is undergoing additional reviews

) as directed by the Senior Review Team. At present there are no reportable findings .

T The potential findings are as follows:

PFR 001. The Bechtel QA Program does not address corrective /

remedial action for errors discovered in non-standard computer codes developed by the project.

PFR 002. Piping analyses are performed using an assumed stiffness for restraints. Af ter the restraints are designed, the piping analyses are not revised to assess the impact of the

) actual restraint stiffnesses.

PFR 003. Piping analyses assume a cutof f frequency of 60 hertz, whereas the hydrodynamic loads in some cases reach 100 hertz .

J D

Mississippi Powe r & Light 3 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe ndent Design Review L A 82026 1:: ,,,,

)

J Further reviews are being performed for each of these potential-

) findings to evaluate their potential impact on the safety of the plant. However, based upon the additional reviews we have performed to date, none of these is expected to result in a reportable finding .

D 3

J J

J D

]

p ML A Mississippi Power & Light Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 4

1 I

O

C v v v v v v v v v -v TABLE 1-1 Observation Log g Classification g No.

Valid ""'

Observation Finding Description Remarks N o.

YES NO YES NO QA-00-001 The Bechtel Quality Program is silent X X Cl osed. All Bechtel calcula-with respect to performing a spot check tions are checked.

of calculations and analyses.

Q A-00-002 The Bechtel procedures do not address X X Cl osed. All designs are the QA Program statement that identical verified. The " identical" designs need not be verified. option, which permits verifi-cations to be waived, is not invoked.

QA-00-003 The procedures are silent with respect X X Cl osed. The design reviewer to design reviewer independence. (or checker) is independent in accordance with the requirements in NUREG 75/087, Rev.1, " Standard Review Pl a n . "

QA-00-004 The procedures are silent regarding X X Cl osed. Bechtel does not use design verification by testing. testing to verify its designs on GGNS-1.

QA-00-005 The Bechtel QA Program does not specify X X GGNS-1 does not commit to that design verification be completed NUREG 75/087, Rev. 1.

prior to fuel load.

Q A-00-006 The Bechtel QA program does not address X X See PFR No. 001 corrective action for computer programs developed on-project.

Mississippi Power & Light 5

%'@ l Q Grar.d Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review ll111111lll1111111111lll11llll 82026

t O O U U U U U U U v v i

l

TABLE 1-1 (continued).

Observation Log Rev.No. O ClassHication Date 4/20/82 Valid otential Observation Description

" "U Remarks YES NO YES NO PI-00-001 The allowable valve acceleration of X X Cl osed. Valve vendors have 6.0 g exceeds the standard industry qualified their valves to the allowable of 3.0 g. 6.0 g specification.

PI-00-002 Restraints are input to the piping X X See PFR No. 002 analysis with an assumed stiffness.

The analysis is not revised to in-corporate as-built sti f fness.

PI-00-003 The piping analysis is cutoff at a X X See PFR No. 003 frequency of 60 Hz SRV and AP spectra typically reach their ZPA at 100 Hz.

PI-01-001 The insulation weight used on X X Cl osed. Line GBB-19 is a line GBB-19 that is 5% higher short piece of piping between than the value in the insulation the RHR head exchangers. A specification. 5% change in the insulation weight will not significantly affect the design.

PI-03-001 The mass point spacing in Problem 101 X X Further review is required does not adequately model the to assess the design impact response of the system above 33 Hz. and extent.

PI-04-001 Several lines in Problem 141 are X X Cl osed. This added insula-incorrectly modeled as insulated. tion weight occurs on short lines near anchors, so the design impact is negligible.

i Mississippi Power & Light 6 h,[.8; _'

L [d Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 11lll18111111lllll111111llllll 82026

l l TABLE 1-1 (continued) l Observation Log Rev.No. O ClasslHcation Date 4/20/82 Valid otendal Finding Observation Description Remarks

. N o, i YES NO YE8 NO 1

PI-04-002 The direction cosines of lateral X X Cl osed. The design impact is restraint S-22 in Problem 141 negligible due to the size of are input incorrectly. the line and the proximity of anchors.

PI-04-003 The bend at data point 760 in X X Further review is required Problem 141 was incorrectly analyzed. to assess the design impact and extent.

Mississippi Power & Light 7 (k[. _ d [ fd Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 1111lll1lll11111lll1111111llll 82026 .

)

2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION

)

Fig. 2-1 shows Cygna's organization for this project. This organization is divided into three functional tiers consisting of the Project Team, the Senior Review Team and in-house

) consultants. The Project Team is composed of the principal-in-charge, project manager and lead engineers in the areas of quality assurance, technical review and as-built verification.

This team, which draws upon the in-house consultants as

) necessary, is responsible for the day-to-day work performance .

The Senior Review Team consists of Cygna executives with extensive experience in areas directly applicable to this independent design review. Mr. Kacyra, President of Cygna

) Corporation, brings to bear experience in structural design and dynamic analysis. Mr. Ward, Chief Executive Of ficer of Cygna Energy Services, provides a knowledge of systems design and regulatory evaluation. Mr. Trainor, Vice Pre s id e nt , Quality

) Assurance, of fers extensive experience in the quality assurance area. This team, with as-needed assistance from the in-house consultants listed, reviews the work performed by the project team and passes final judgment of the impact of any potential

) findings.

)

)

)

- Mississippi Bower & Light 8 b I(d k t A Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe nde nt Design Review llll111lllllllllllllllllllllll 82026

)

U U V $ U U O V U U U PIGURE 2-1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION SENIOR REVIEW TEAM PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE B. KACYRA R. FALCIANI J. WARD E. TRAINOR 8

PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT QUALITY l ENGINEER T . W ITT IG IN-HOUSE CONSULTANTS D. GOOD E. VAN STIJGEREN ---------------- PROJECT SECRETARY P. MCCARTHY J. BONNER T. ACUNA DIVISION MANAGER AS-BUILT WALKDOWN PIPING GROUP LEADER R . H AMAT I D. DOYEL f

I l PIPE SUPPORT REVIEW l PROJECT ENGINEER AND QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW GROUP LEADER _,,j,,_ PIPING ANALYSIS REVIEW GROUP LEADER GROUP LEADER C. LUI P. DIDONATO L. WEINGART LEGEND PROJECT DIRECTION

- TECHNICAL DIRECTION CONSULT AT ION j Mississippi Ibwer & Light 9 g p c=.[.';ir11 ~4 77 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 11Qi11ll11111lllllllllllll

I l

)

l l

3.0 WORK SCOPE

)

The objective of this independent design review is to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the design and design control processes on Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1 (GGNS-1). To

) accomplish this objective, the review concentrates on the major redesign effort resulting from the requirements of the New Loads Adequacy Evaluation Program ( NLAEP) .

) Fig. 3-1 shows that this review consists of two distinct portio ns : horizontal and vertical . The horizontal portion is an assessment of the design control program and its implementation. It ensures that there is an adequate design

) control program and that the design control procedures are properly employed. Also included in the horizontal review is a confirmation that the correct (final) loading data was utilized in the piping system design. The vertical portion focusses on

) the design adequacy of a selected piping system. In the vertical review, the piping system design is evaluated against the requirements of the NLAEP and appropriate design criteria.

) Cygna developed the following criteria for selecting a representative piping system:

e The system shall be Seismic Category I.

• The system shall be safety-related.

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

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

k

.)

[ Mississippi Ibwer & Light llllllllllll11lllll11lllll1111 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 10 i

82026

)

U U U U U U U U U v v HORIZONTAL REVIEW ,

l q ,

I 4 4 g l Bechtel 4 1 q d toad Attenuation l I QA Licensing Quality + Design --en-NtAEP toad Definition + egg $

I Consni tment Assurance g Redesign

• Report (GI) (Civil / Structural + eDisplacements I q Group) l Program I l q g q d 4

l,_____________________-----___________________-------- d l 1

r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VERTICAL REVIEW l l I 1 i '

1 I I l RHR train "A" g Piping System Pedesign Design Criteria I (Plant Design Group) I I i I I

1

( ) 1 1

Other toadings .

Pipe Stress Analysis 1 -e, NSSS I i 1 1 I

l I .

1 l Flued I '"'* ' "'

Pipe Support Design l Heads l

l (Vendor) g i I FIGURE 3-1 1 Drawin9s 1 I I I I WORK PROCESS FLOWCHART I I I I l____ -_____-___--_____s Mississippi Power & Light 11 g*g t g r Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review lllllllll11ll1llllllllll1lll11

r-

)

e The system shall have a maximum number of design interfaces

) ( e .g . , M P& L , A&E, NSSS, and vendor).

e The system shall be located in more than one building. This is to ensure that the design complexities of routing piping

) from one building to another are addressed.

Based upon this criteria, the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, Train " A", was selected . This system, which is shown in

) Fig. 3-2, restores and maintains, if necessary, the desired water level in the reactor vessel after a design basis accident. The system is also diverse, has a number of design interfaces and is located in more than one building .

The vertical review concentrates on the following portions of the RHR System, Train " A":

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

e Piping between heat exchangers.

)

e Piping between containment and drywell flued heads.

e Piping between drywell flued head and RPV nozzle.

During the vertical review, the analysis and design of the piping system is technically reviewed to ensure conformance with the project design criteria and normal industry practice. An

) as-built verification of the pipe supports along the main flow path is also a part of the vertical review.

J 3 Mississippi Ibwer & Light 12 llllll1lllllllll111111llllll11 Grand Gu1f Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026

)

l T <

i l t '

d

?

J Lv c

BX ~

u .* '

18-G EB-20 J k 2

e

$ 37 F05:

= a F04BAA is GSS-2.1

'C < h

&X$o 8 !DBB-G9 F051 2

JL Mbh g 1P 18'

.o

? 4*-GBS 15 4' HB8-F llA-A F052-AA F087AA 1 r 197 GBB-22 8'-Des - 87 GI GBB 43

' $. 0 -

• $b e Psv 7 * *

$ Foss i (_. 2* v

• e 1r F047A-A

.? -'T v

'm y& a <

o 18-GBS 18 4 6 k h f ,9E v E g 8 totHSB-94 g 8

5

],0 n b  ;

A T 9 F029A TO SUPPRE$$lON POOL

, m O CT i e i E Fl30A 2048s19 i

'+

20t ss-2o W.

istes-L9 W i i

l scoz A l [ soot A [,

RHR HEAT RHR HEAT EXC HA NGE A EX CH AN GE R l

l l

l gf=- =-553_2r

.~ - Mississippi Power & Light FIGURE 3-2c g2,d.d L1 t Id 3,=

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review f

1 1111ll111111111!!1111111111111 82026

?

l J

M 3Et N A o Y 3" 3

" sy gX ,

a F205 A F204A ."<{+ .!

o 5 g o

@ TH BG33 e

M N

M G304) 4 ,

g F037A-A 12* HBC 34 Fo4sA Fo4 e 8*-HOC 34

$XO

' Ifcas-il5 N

e 14*-GSB Zo F017AA 'd

~

F042 AA 9< - i-t a*-Geo-2o'

<a DRY WELL

=

$74 d A ~ l I e

A F SOA i WO BA-29 DBS 72 RPV CONTAINMENT V

4 ss - e r ,

JL o +

juPPRE5510N POOL 1

b o

%~

w 4* G BB-37 T -

MAIN FLOW PATH O BRANCH LINES F03l A IB"-GBB tB R

(X) GATE L

M GLOBE N CHECK Q MOTOR CPERATED D REDUCER RHR PUMP Coo 2 A-A PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE E THREADED CAP RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM - TRAIN "A" I

1 s

)

l 4.0 REVIEW PROCESS I The basic steps involved in the review process are listed belou:

Step 1: Collect Doc ume nts

) Step 2: Develop Standards Step 3: Develop Review Procedures Step 4: QA and Technical Reviews Step 5: Project Review

)

Step 6: Senior Team Review Step 7: Report Fig. 4-1 charts the review process from a line item on the check-

)

list (Step 4) to the final report (Step 7). Throughout this process, items identified as having potential impact on plant safety are given immediate attention, as indicated on the flow-chart. This is to ensure that MP&L and the NRC receive timely

)

notification of those items concluded to have a definite potential for impacting plant safety.

Each of these basic steps is described in the following subsec-

) tions.

4.1 Collect Documents 3

)

Documents are collected and reviewed in two stages. During the first stage, the review teams identify those central documents which guide the design and design control process, such as the SAR, QA manuals, project procedures, design criteria, system descriptions and drawings . Reviewing these central documents provides an understanding of how the work process is structured and directed .

)

3 Mississippi Ibwer & Light 14 lllllllllllllllllllll1111111ll Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026

)

f n

i 1 I ORIGINATOR I REVIEWER I I I I

CHECKLIST OTHER ITEMS 1

( A00 TO CHECKLIST) l NOTE i  ! I CONSERV ATISMS s l

I I YES I I S ATISF ACTOR Y? -

l I

"/" SATISFACTORY C0tuMN 1 l C CHECKLIST no  ! l E E l

OBSERV ATION COMPLETE l

=

e ASSIGN NO. -

e RECORO NO. CHECKLIST j j ON CHECKLIST l l I

____________________________________________I_____________________________________qp__________q 7

l l RE REVIEW I j RECORD ATTACH REVIEW e CHECKLIST NO.

• EVIDENCE 1 e COMPLETENESS I e CYGNA CALCS IF ANy I I REVIEW (

e OBSERV ATION NO. e ACCUR ACY NO e REQulREMENT

"

• CLAR[FICATIONS I e COMMENTS I

• DESCRIPTION + DOCUMENTATION T e CLARIFICATION I eCOMPLETd e ACCURAC7

• REFERENCE 00Ct;MENTS e ETC. I I

• DESIGN IMPACT l I e ADO COCl YES e REVISIONS I APPRa\vtr StGN e ASSESS E'

. EvAta ATz I I 1 I l l INF(

l I CONT OBSERVATION I I win l I I I I I I I I I I I

.___________________________________________3-____________________________________yp___________

I I I I I I I I POTENTIAL l FINDING I l I

REPORT  ! l t

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ,I b

nottS:(1) ASSIGNED 8V THE PROJECT MANAGER -

EM = = ==-e . .

J g ;T ] Mississippi Power & Light FIGURE 4-1.

t*S,b.J t fil Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review tilllilllllllllillllilllilllli 82026

?

i .

e PROJECT REVIEW l SENIOR REVIEW TEAM L i l

I l <

l I l

l l

l l

l- l l

l l

l N0 l I I I

REV!EW COMPLETE? l l

I p---------------------___----________ _______ ______ _ ______________________________________________

S

• _ REVIEW APPROVE? _

7 18 SERV AT !04 RE-REVIEd h NO

~

ESS NTS, AS NEEDED I TENT I SIGNIFICANCE I I

i l  :

INV ALID ATE (RECORO 1

l OBSERV AT!04 I

RMAL ERSATION APPR[OVE7 JUSi tF ICATION)

I 1 YES I 40 lBECHTEL N0 l 1 POTENTI AL N0 l INITI ATE PfR SAFETY O BSE RV ATION I YFS POTENTI AL 'f r % REPORT TO MPSL IMPACT 7 [ APPROVE 7 -- SAFETY -

AND NRC

---

__ .-----.-- YES-------------------------- - - - - - - - - ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - .

I < h PREPARE PFR l l l

I I I

'f l I

RECORD ATTACH I R[y[EW

• EV!0ENCE l

e AS$1GN NO. l e COMPLETENESS e CYGNA CALCS, IF ANY e ACCUR ACY e REQUIREMENT e CL ARtFICATIONS e ASSESS VAL 10lTV e DESCRIPTION o 1

~

• REFERENCE DOCUMENTS e EVALUATE SAFETY IMP ACT

(

• EXTENT ASSESSMENy I e Ann COMMENTS. AS NEEDED l I e nES!G1 IMPACT l e SAFETY IMPACT l

ASSESSMENT l l

{

LEGE ND : FLOW P ATH l

__ PRIORITY FLOW PATH l

l l

15

%EVIEWPROCESSFLOWCHART 1

i.

)

During the second stage of data collection, the review teams identify and gather those documents needed to complete the review. Whenever possible, these documents are collected for review in the Cygna of fice.

All documents utilized during the course of the review are recorded. Appendix A contains a representative listing of the documents reviewed to date.

) 4.2 Develop Standards A key element in the reviaw is the development of standards to measure the adequacy of the design and design control process.

These standards are a c.;mposite of licensing commitments, GGNS-1 standards and appropriate industry practice. The standards developed in the QA and technical areas are considerably dif ferent in both content and approach; accordingly, they are described separately below.

4.2.1 OA Standard The GGNS-1 Safety Analysis Report implements the QA requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B, by referencing NRC Regulatory Guide 1.28 ( ANSI Standard N45.2-1971) . The design control sections of ANSI N45.2 and Appendix B there-fore contain the requirements governing the adequacy of the design control system on GGNS-1. Another, more current, measure of the design control process is NUREG 75/087 (Standard Review Plan), Rev. 1. The Standard Review Plan

) ( SRP) has been selected as an appropriate industry standard to evaluate the adequacy of the design control system.

Since GGNS-1 is not committed to the SRP, Rev. 1, only D

Mississippi Power & Lig ht 16 ll1llll1llllllll11llllllllllll Grand Gu1f Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026

)

a; O " observations" (see subsection 4.3.2) will be recorded wherever the project f ails to conform to the SRP g uidelines . No potential findings will be prepared for nonconformance to the SRP.

O Appendix B-1 compares the design control elements of the Bechtel QA program to ANSI N45.2,10CFR50, Appendix B and the SRP. The central Bechtel documents which define the O project design control system are the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ( PSAR) , Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Bechtel Quality Assurance Manual (BQAM), Projec t Engineering Procedures Manual ( PEPM) and the Quality

() Assurance Department Manuals (QADM). Wherever the Bechtel Program does not address a design control element in the governing documents, it is noted in the remarks column of the matrix and an Observation Record is prepared. These are (3 discussed in Section 5.1 of this status report.

Appendix B-1 forms the- basis for measuring the ef fectiveness of the Bechtel design control program. An implementation

() audit to confirm that the design control program is enforced

during the design process is discussed later.

4.2.2 Technical Standards

-O The standards used to determine design adequacy during the technical reviews are the criteria documents contained in Appendix B. Appendix B-2, the Pipe Stress Design Review

'(3 Criteria, is based upon the requirements in the ASME B& PV Code and Bechtel's design standards. Appendix B-3, the Pipe Support Design Review Criteria, is a compilation of the

O lilllllllllllllllilllllilillll Mississippi Ibwer & Lig ht 17 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe nde nt Design Review 1 l() 82026 I i

1

)

I design requirements in the ASME B& PV Code, the ANSI B41.1 Code, the AISC Steel Construction Manual and manufacturer's

)

data.

4.3 Review Procedures

)

The standards discussed above provide a means for measuring the adequacy of the design and design control process. In addition to these standards, each reviewer is guided by checklists that

) identify key elements to be evaluated during the QA and technical reviews. If a reviewer determines that a line item on the checklist is inadequately addressed, an " Observation Record" is prepared. All observations are then reviewed to determine their

) potential impact on plant safety. For those determined to have potential safety impact, a " Potential Finding Report" ( PFR) is prepared.

Checklists, Observation Records and PFRs are described below.

)

4.3.1 Checklists Checklists provide the ~ reviewers with a listing of key

)

design and design control elements to be considered .

Appendix C provides a sample checklist for QA audit plus chec klists for the pipe stress and pipe support reviews. As a reviewer checks each line item on a checklist, its

)

adequacy is evaluated against the review standards. If the requirements in the standard are met, the line item is marked " satisfactory." Wherever significant conservatisms are identified, they are so noted in the " remarks" column.

)

If the reviewer determines that an item is unsatisfactory,

)

Mississippi Power & Light 18 t%g ( g Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe nde nt Design Review llllll1111lllllllllll1llllllll 82026

)

)

l l

an Observation Record is prepared and its number is recorded

)

in the remarks column of the checklist.

l

~

Each checklist is assigned a unique identifier. Those related to the quality assurance audit are labelled QA-01

)

through -nn. The checklists associated with the review of the four piping problems are assigned PI-01 ( Problem 96 ) ,

PI-02 ( Problem 6 9C) , PI-03 ( Problem 101) and PI-04

( Problem 141) . And, the checklists for the 35 pipe supports

)

along the main flow path are numbered PS-01 throug h -35.

Numbers QA-00-nn, PI-00-nn and PS-00-nn are reserved for observations noted during the review of GGNS-1 standards.

)

4.3.2 Observation Record Sample Observation Record forms are shown in Fig. 4-2, along with instructions to the preparers. The observation number

)

is a unique number sequentially assigned to each observation within a checklist.

Each observation record is prepared by the originator of the

)

observation and then reviewed by a qualified person assigned by the Project Manager. Based on this review, interaction with the project Group Leaders, consultation with Cygna specialists and an informal conference with Bechtel, the

)

Project Manager prepares the Observation Review Record.

This review record rules on the validity and potential safety impact of each observation. Those observations that are concluded to have a potential impact on plant safety are

) recorded on a PFR, as discussed in the next subsection.

)

Mississippi Power & Light 19 11lllllllllii1i;;........ 5" Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026

)

1

l

)

FIGURE 4-2, Sheet 1 of 3 Observation Record N

) $'$N'Uion 'No.

Revision No. O Sheet I of 3 Originated by 1 Date Reviewed by 2 Date

).  !

J J

J J

J J

) Mississippi Power & Light 20 Grand Gulf Unit Independent Design Review  ;

a 82026 lll11111111lI1111lI111111111ll D

)

FIGURE 4-2, Sheet 2 of 3 (continued)

) Observation Record $'$'yi,n N'No.

Revision No._, O Sheet 2 of 3 Originated by 1 Date

. Reviewed by 2 Data 1

NOTES:

1. Originator signature and date.

2. Reviewer signature and date

3. 01ecklist number. A sequential number assigned by the Group Leader to uniquely identify each checklist :

e Quality Assurance Review: Q A-00. . . .n n

)

• Pipe Stress Review: P I-00. . . .nn e Pipe Support Review: PS-00....nn

4. Observation number. A sequential number assigned by the Group Leader. It shall be the checklist number followed by a numerical designation.

Exampie : PI-10-7.

)

5. Revision number.

6. As a minimum the following information shall be provided :

o 1.0 Description Describe observation

) e 2. 0 Requirement Reference the requirement (s) pertaining to the observation e 3.0 Document Reference Reference the document (s) containing the observation and attach evidence ( Attachment A)

) e 4.0 Design Impact Assess the significance to plant design e Attachments A. Observation Record Review B. Evidence C. Others (as needed)

)

)

Mississippi Power & Light 21 L ;g 4 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 111111111ll111111lllll1111llll 82026

)

3 FIGURE 4-2, Sheet 3 of 3 (continued)

Attachment A l

Checklist No. 3 o Observation Record Review Observation No. 4 Revision No. O Sheet 3 of 3 YES NO i

O Valid Observation O O Potential Finding O O '

(PFR No. )

Closed O O Comments:

O O

3 3

3 O

Project Manager Date O

Mississippi Power & Light 22 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review LN-( t A 82026 11111!!I11111llll1!!llI1111ll1 Q

1

)

i The disposition of all observations, including those that l

) are invalidated, is recorded on an Observation Log, l Fig . 4-3.

4.3.3 Potential Finding Report Potential Finding Report ( PFR) forms are illustrated in Fig. 4-4. Each PFR receives a sequential number which is correlated to the observation number on the Observation

) Log. On this form, the cognizant Group Leader records a description of the observation, an assessment of the extent plus an evaluation of the design and safety impact. The PFR is then reviewed by the Senior Review Team to assure

) completeness and accuracy.

Should the Senior Review Team conclude that the observation does indeed have a definite potential impact on plant

) safety, the finding will be reported immediately to MP&L and the NRC.

) 4.4 OA and Technical Reviews Reviews of the design and design control process on GGNS-1 are performed by the four separate teams listed below:

e Design control (QA) e Pipe Stress e Pipe Support Design

) e Pipe Support Walkdown

)

Mississippi Ibwer & Light 23 g........mm.

m.m..o mm.. ... . . . .n."o Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 i

)- l

v 4

2 v

s k

r a

m e

R v

n i

o t

a i

c f

i s

s v a l

O l l C a8 N i"

t n

e o"

t 8

E Y

v O

d N i

l a

3 V S

- E w 4 Y e i

v E e

v R

U R G

I n F g O i s

e D

o t v N n

.e e vt d ea n t n RD i o h e gp t

p i e i Ld r n c &I s r1 v e e D wt g oi o P n U

L i pf n pl iu i

o sG s

t id6 v a sn2 sa0 v

r ir2 MG8 e n s o 'l i

l i

l l

b i t l i

O a v

h i

l l

li r

/

\

i l

i s /' ll l

l b l i

O l

i l

l i

l v

)

FIGURE 4-4, Sheet 1 of 3 PFR No.

)

Potential Finding Report Revision No.

Sheet 1 of I. Potential Finding

)

Description

)

) Requirement

)

Reference Documents

)

)

Extent Olsolated O Extensive O other (Specif y)

)

Mississippi Power & Light 25 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review L L a 82026 llllll11111ll1lllll11111111111

)

FIGURE 4-4, Sheet 2 of 3 (continued)

PFR No Potential Finding Report Revision No.

Sheet 2 of '

Design impact

)

)

)

Potential Safety impact

)

)

)

)

Originated by Cognizant Group Leader Date Approved by Project Manager Date

) Mississippi Power & Light 26 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Li.b L A 82026 ll1111ll1llll11111lllll!!11111

)

FIGURE 4-4, Sheet 3 of 3 (continued)

PFR No. i Potential Finding Report Revision No. --_

Sheet 3 of II. Senior Review YES NO 3 Further Review Required O O Valid Observation O O Potential Safety impact O O C

Comments:

3 3

J Approved by Cognizant Senior Reviewer. Date D -

Ill. Project Manager Comments:

3 Approved by Project Manager Date O

Mississippi Power & Light 27 4{ ,

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 lllllllllll1llll11lll111111111 3

4

) -

Each team, except the walkdown, is composed of at least two

)

individuals capable of both performing and reviewing the work.

These review teams are guided by the standards and checklists described in the previous subsections. They perform the initial

)

reviews, complete the checklists and originate observations.

During their reviews, the team members also record significant conservatisms that they identify.

)

4.5 Project Review Fig. 4-1 illustrates the role of the project review in the decision process. Once an observation has been originated and

)

reviewed by a qualified individual, the project review is performed to verify the accuracy of the observation, its completeness, the design impact and the extent. Given this information the potential safety impact is also evaluated.

)

In addition, the project team reviews the completed checklists to verify their completeness and accuracy.

)

The project team is responsible for the preparation of all reports, including the status and final reports .

4.6 Senior Review Team All observations and reports are reviewed by the lenior Retriew Team.

) A cognizant member of this team, assisted as necessary by Cygna specialists, will review each PFR for completeness, accuracy and potential impact on plant safety. Based on their assessment, the Senior Review Team may do one of the following:

Mississippi Ibwer & Lig ht 28 11111lll1111lll1llll1111i11lll Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026

)

h e Direct the project team to perform more work, such as

) clarifying data, extending the review or performing limited independent analyses .

e Determine that the PFR has insignificant impact on plant

) safety. The finding may therefore be either invalidated or retained as an " observation."

e Notify MP&L that a finding may have potential impact on

) plant safety but requires extensive review, beyond the current work scope and budget, to reach a conclusion.

e Notify MP&L and the NRC that a finding has a definite

) potential impact on plant safety.

The Senior Review Team will also evaluate the collective safety impact of observations that are individually concluded to have

) insignificant safety consequences.

4.7 Reports

) The results of the review process will be recorded in a report issued concurrently to MP&L and the NRC. As a minimum, the report will contain the following:

) e Review standards e Completed checklists e Observation Log ,

e Significant conservatisms identified e Botential Finding Reports e An assessment of the ef fectiveness of the Bechtel QA Program in the area of design control

)

Mississippi Ibwer & Lig ht 29 111111111111111111111111111111 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe ndent Design Review 82026

)

)

e An assessment of the implementation of the design control

)

procedures based upon the selected scope of review e An assessment of the quality of the overall plant design as inferred by the results of this independent design review.

)

)

)

1

)

)

)

30 g{ g i Mississippi Ibwer & Lig ht Gcand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 111111111111111111111111111111 82026

)

5.0 STATUS

SUMMARY

)

The summary presented in this subsection represents the status of the independent design review as of April 20, 1982.

l

) I As described in Section 3.0, the scope of the review is the I design of RHR Train " A" piping during the New Loads period .

However, due to the fact that Problem 96 (piping between the RHR heat exchangers) is unaf fected by the New Loads, the review has l

)

extended to include piping designed prior to the New Loads era. l This segment of the RHR piping was designed during the period from 1975 to 1977 and is controlled by seismic loads.

)

Fourteen " observations" have been identified to date. Table 1-1 provides a brief description of each observation and its current disposition. Of the fourteen observations, eleven are considered

" valid" and three " invalid." Three of the observations have been

)

invalidated based upon further review and discussions with Bechtel which revealed that the Bechtel QA Program does indeed conform to industry standards. Of the eleven valid observations, three are classified as potential findings and two require 7

further review to determine their potential safety impact. Both the potential findings and observations requiring further review are discussed in the following subsections. Ib ne o f the po te n-tial findings has, as yet, been determined by the Senior Review

)

Team to be reportable.

5.1 QA Review Status

)

Approximately 60 percent of the QA review has been completed.

This includes preparation of a QA Program matrix, comparison of the Bechtel QA Program to project commitments and industry

)

% {tj g i filssissippi Power & Light 31 t ,

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review S2026

standards, and the development of checklists to guide the implementation audit. The implementation audit is in progress.

Six observations have been identified as a result of the QA program review. One of these requires further review before an evaluation of potential safety impact (i.e., potential finding) can he made. This is as follows:

QA-00-005. The Bechtel QA Program procedural system is silent with respect to assuring that design verification is performed prior to fuel load as required by NUREG 75/087 (Standard Review Plan) . The project has not committed to this requirement, how-ever, Bechtel will be requested to outline the status of their design verification ef fort.

Of the six observations in the QA area, one has been classified as a potential finding . This PFR is contained in Appendix D and is discussed below:

PFR-001 : Although the Bechtel QA Program addresses corrective /

remedial action for standard computer programs, it does not address such action for non-standard computer programs developed by the project. Further review is required to evaluate the impact of this potential finding . Thus far, Cygna has reviewed the non-standard computer programs developed by the Bechtel Civil Group to calculate amplified response spectra due to New Loads.

Our initial assessment indicates that the documentation packages for the programs are complete. Furthermore, the review disclosed no conditions which would require corrective actions. Cygna will review all other non-standard computer programs developed by the project to assure that appropriate controls have been employed .

Mississippi Ibwer & Light E 181ll11ll11111111lll1111111111 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 6

82026

1 l

) 1 Based on our current evaluations, this observation does not

)

impact the safety of the plant. However, until the evaluations are completed, the PFR will remain open.

5.2 Technical Review Status

)

The technical review is approximately 35 percent complete, including the following :

)

• Development of standards (criteria)

• Development of checklists e Review of geometry e Review of 4 pipe supports

)

e Review of load cases for gravity, pressure, OBE, SSE, thermal, safety relief valve, annulus pressurization and loss-of-coolant accident loads.

)

Eight observations have been identified during the technical review. Two of these require further review before an evaluation of potential safety impact ( i .e . , potential finding) can be made. These two are discussed below:

)

PI-0 4-0 0 3 . A bend in Problem 141 (piping between the drywell and co ntai nme nt) was incorrectly modelled as a straight piece of pipe. This is a large radius bend, 6'6", so the impact on the

)

piping analysis is negligible. However, this observation will be reviewed further to assess the systematic implications.

PI-03-001. The mass spacing in one span of Problem 101 (RPV to

)

drywell) does not model system frequencies greater than 33 hertz .

Since the hydrodynamic loadings exceed 33 hertz, the modelled spacing is inadequate. As a result of this observation, further

)

Mississippi Ibwer & Lig ht 33 ll11111lll111111111111llllll11 Grand Gu1f Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026

)

l l

l reviews will be performed to (1) assess the impact on Problem 101 l 1

and (2) verlfy the mass spacing on Problems 69c. 141 and 96.

Of the eight observations in the technical area, two have been g classified as potential findings. These PFRs are contained in Appendix D and are discussed below:

PFR 002. Piping restraints are input to the piping analysis using an assumed stiffness value. After the pipe restraints are 3

de s ig ned , the piping analysis is not revised to incorporate the actual restraint stiffnesses. The adeqtacy of this approach will be evaluated in conjunction with Cygna's review of the pipe sup-ports along the main flow path. During the pipe support review the actual restraint stiffnesses will be tabulated to permit a meaningful assessment of the Bechtel approach. Based on our experience, Cygna expects that the design impact of using the actual vs. assumed restraint stiffnesses will be minor. For example, our previous work has shown that an order of magnitude change in restraint stif fness causes less than a 10% variance in the system stresses and loadings.

~)_

PFR 003. The piping analysis used a cutoff frequency of 60 hertz. Since some hydrodynamic _ cads do not reach their zero period accelerations until nearly 100 hertz, this assumption may

, be unconservative. The adequacy of the assumption will be tested J

during the remaining reviews of the piping analyses, by calculating the percentage of system mass that has participated in the dynamic response by 60 hartz. The significance of the spectral accelerations beyond 60 hertz will also be assessed.

In January of 1980, GE published a report entitled, " Generic Criteria for liigh-Frequency Cutof f of BWR Equipment." This O

[ehlyjlfij Mississipp.i Power & Light 34 lilllllllllllllllillllllilllll Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review

. 82026 J

J g report suggests procedures for assessing the adequacy of a cutof f frequency and recommends 60 hertz based on analyses of the main recirculation and main steam lines. Based upon our review of their report, it is expected that our calculation of mass participation will confirm the adequacy of the 60 hertz cutoff.

3 D

D D

D e

D l

l 0

Mississippi Ibwer & Light 35 l111lllllll1111ll11111111lllll Grand Gulf' Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 0

)

i i

6.0 SCH EDULE Cygna's schedule for completing the independent design review of ,

GGNS-1 is shown on Fig . 6-1. The kickof f date was March 15, 1982, so the date of this status report (April 20) falls in the

)

sixth week of the review.

Work to be completed includes the following:

)

• Class 1 stress report e Flued head analysis

• Piping output review

• As-built pipe support walkdown

)

• Pipe support review

• OA implementation audit

• Draft report

)

J

)

J J

• b{ g i Mississippi Bower & Light 36 11ll111111111lll11111lllllllll Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026

)

F o o o o o o o o o o o ACTIVITY DURA f!DN WEEK 2l WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK WEEK l

l1 g 3 4 g 5 6 g 7 g 8 9 l WEEK 10 l

! g I GENERAL l

Detennine Scope i a, g l l l Collect Data l l , ,

I 1

Draft Report I I

I I i  ! 1 I I

I l l I  !

4 II QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW I I I I l 1 i 1 1 l

Perform Review of Bechtel y l  ! I I l l l Program and Develop Matrix _a l l 9 g i l Develop Implementation l l l  !  ! 1 1 l l l Evaluation Checklist j = a l l I l I I l 1

'! I I Perform Audit 1 I l

{ i l

_____.____.____.-___I______i___..i- _ _ . _ ...____t _

a,

_f _ l I

Review /.pplicable 1

l 1 I I I l l l l l l l l l Criteria Docunents y g a Develop Review Program Checklist I l !1' a l I I l

l I

l l l

l g

Perf'orm Stress I l l l e l  ! l Analysis Review g __.n a l l j g p l Perform Pipe Support l i I l l Design Review l o

. _n l l l l g g g  ;

9 Perfonn Pipe Support l l I l As Built Review l I l  ! l l g i - 1 = a l =

FIGURE 6-1. PROJECT SCHEDULE

, . Mississippi Power & Light

• h [ t i Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review l11111lll111111111111111111111 82026

']

O e

APPENDIX A D

MATERIAL REVIEWED 9

9 8 .

l l

8 filssissippi Ibwer & Light l 8,( t i Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review ll111111111111ll1ll11ll1!!!Ill 82026 8

1

3 APPENDIX A J MAT ERIAL REV IEWED J Following is a representative listing of the documents reviewed to date:

1.0 GE letter to M P& L , M PGE-77/12, "NSSS New Loads Adequacy 3 Evaluation," dated 2/77.

2.0 GE report, " Interim Co ntainme nt Lo ads Report ( ICLR) , Mark III Containment," Rev. 2, dated 10/78.

O 3.0 GE letter to M P& L , M PGE-78/3, "NSSS New Loads Adequacy Evaluation," with Attachments 1, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 4A, and 5, dated 7/18.

O 4.0 Bechtel letter to GE, "SRV Program Output," dated 5/78.

5.0 Respo nse spectra: SRVA 20 valves, 1 valve, 8 ADS valves, O OBE, SSE.

6.0 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 3, Section 17, Appendix 6A, Appendix 6D.

O 7.0 Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-831, dated 9/81, sand Supplement No. 1, dated 12/81.

O O

Mississippi Ibwer & Light A-1 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review b (.U Jd f Al liiiiiiiiiminiilllllillllli

O

1 l

)

8.0 Bechtel Design Specifications:

l

) 964 5-MS-01, Rev . 12, Valve Ide ntification 9645-MS-02, Rev. 30 and 31, Piping Class Summary Sheets 9645-MS-03, Rev . 2 9, Pipe Class Sheets l 9645-MS-04, Rev. 9, Typical Connection Requirements

)

9645-MS-05, Rev. 5, Guidelines for Routing Piping and Equipment Vents and Drains 964 5-MS-0 7, Rev . 9, Buttweld End Preparatio n-De tails 9645-MS-12, Rev . 7, Insulation Thickness

) 9645-MS-13, Rev. 8, Criteria for Supports to Preve nt Pailure of Non-Seismic Piping over Essential Equipment 9645-MS-14, Rev.1, Bolt and Stud Tensioning 3 9645-MS-16, Rev. 21, Criteria for Hanger Installation 9645-MS-21, Rev. 2, Compensation Allowances for Pipng Misalig nment 9645-MS-24, Rev. 7, Design and Installation Guide for

) Penetration Closures 9645-M-220.0, Rev.13, Nuclear Piping Systems l

9645-M-300.2, Rev. 16, Hangers, Supports , Restraints and Anchors 3 9645-M-204.0, Re v . , Field Fabrication and Installation 9.0 Civil Design Cclculations :

l l

3 C-G 720.2, Rev . O, ASHACC Program C-G 720.5, Rev . 1, S PECENV Program C-G 721.0, Rev. O, POLCART Program

) 10.0 Plant Design calculation nos. 69C, 96, 101 and 141.

1 l

l Mississippi Power & Light .

A-2 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review lJL Al 82026 g ......

D l

l

) )

11.0 Mechanical and Isometric drawings for Problems 69C, 96, 101 and 141.

)

12.0 Computer input, output, and stress summary sheets for Problems 69C, 96, 101 and 141.

) 13.0 System Description, S D-10 85, " RHR System," Rev . 2 14.0 Pipe Support Sketches and Calculation packages.

) 15.0 Bergen-Patterson Pipe Support Corp . , Catalog No . 77NFRI.

16.0 ANSYS computer output for Flued Head 313.

) 17.0 Bechtel. Quality Assurance Manual (BQAM) -

ASME III, Division 1.

18.0 Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM).

)

19.0 Project Engineering Procedures Manual ( PEPM) .

20.0 Quality Assurance Department Manuals (QADM).

)

)

)

Mississippi hower& Light A-3 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 (tj ig ll1111111111111llll11111111111

)

1

)

)

)

APPENDIX B REVIEW STANDARDS

)

)

)

l

)

l

)

Mississippi Ibwer & Light N k' ! L A Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review llll1lll1llll1ll11lllll1llllll 82026

)

)

APPENDIX B

)~ REVIEW STANDARDS

) The following review standards are attached:

Appendix Title Re v . No .

) B1 Quality Assurance Program Matrix 0 B2 Pipe Stress Design Review Criteria 0

) B3 Pipe Support Design Review Criteria 0

)

J

)

)

)

W1 L

ll1llll1llllllll11111lll111lll Mississippi FOwer & Light Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe nde nt Design Review 82026

)

-- m - - _ _- - _

APPENDIX B-1 GR AND GHlf NUClf AW ST AilON HNii i INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW - fE CHTEL QU Allif ASSUR ANCE PROGM AM MATRIX, DESIGN CONTROL

> GOVERNING DOCUMENTS HF CHTEL PROGR AM ELEMENTS ITEM N45.2 ATP B SRP NO. QUAL ITY PROGR AM REQUIREMENTS LINE LINE P AR A. PS AR NOAM BQAM PEPM QADM RE M ARKS j Ceneral l

l 1 Measures shall be established and docu- 4.1 til.1 17.1.3A Pg 17.1-34, QGG-3.1, 3100 3.4 N/A l mented to assure that the applicable 12 13.0, 3300 2.1 speci fied design requirements, such as Pg RIF.3-3 15.1 4.3.2 design bases, regulatory requirements, 4.4 codes and standards are correctly 4.5 translated into spectf tcations, 17.1.3B 5.1 drawings, procedures, or instructions.

(Org. responsiblittles for prep, review, approval) (SRP) 2 These measures shall include provistons 4.2 111.2 N/A Pq 17.1-14 OGG-3-1 3000 3.4 N/A to assure that appropriate quality 12 15.1.3 2.1 standards are specified and included in Pg Rl1.3-3 15.1.4 4.3.2 design doceanents. 4.4 4.5 3 Danges or deviations from specirted 4.3  !!I.2 17.1.362 Pg 17.1-34 NS 3000 4.3.4 N/A design requi rements or quality stan. 12 4.2.14 dsrds shall be identified, documented, Pg R17.3-3 4.2.15 and ControIIed. 4.31.6 4.4.7 4 Records of 1.nplementation of these 4.4 N/ A N/A Pg 17.1-17 QGG-l?.! 7000 4.1 N/A design control measures shall be 117.1, 17.2 13.0 4.2 available for review.

LIGIND N45.2 ANSI N45.2 1971,Section III. NOAM Nuclear Quality Assurance Manuel

" Design Control' APP. 8 10Cf R50, Appendim B, Criterton Ill, N)AM Rechtel Quality Assurance Manual - ASME Ill, Olvision !

" Design Control" SHP NUREG 75/087 Rev.1 - Standard Review Plan. PEPM Projest Enginering Procedures Manual Chapter 17, Sections 17.3, 17.6, 17.16, 17.18 i PSAR Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Prellennary Safety QADM Quality Assurance neportment Manuals l Analysis Report Oapter 17 N5 Not Specified NA Not Applicable Mississippi Power & Light I Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review r g f p 3 = =1 82026 L :: n.'....l i f 1

m! h U S 5 5 5 5 _

W N c.

APPENDIX B-1 GR AND Gulf NtJCL E AN ST All0N UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DtSIGN REvifW - ht rHTEL QU AL IT V ASSUR ANCE PROGRM M ATRI X, DESIGN CONTR0t.

GOVERNING DOCUMfNI5 N CHTEL PkOGRM EL EMENTS ITEM N45.2 AF P B SRP NO. QUALITY PROGRM REQUIREMENTS LINE L INE P AR A. PSAR NQM BQM PEPM QADM REM ARK S 5 Design control measures shall provide 4.5 17.1.3A Pg R17.3-3

!!!.9 OGG-3.1 3000 4.2.19 N/A for design analyses such as physics, 13.3 4.3 stress, thermal, hyarolic, accident, 15.2.3 4.4 compatibtitty of materials; accessibt- 4.5 lity for inservice inspection, mainte- EDP 4.36 nance and repair; and delineation of N5 acceptance criterta for Inspectfons and tests (Field Eng & Computer Prog) N5 (SRP).

6 Measures shall be estabitshed for the 4.6  !!I.3 N/ A Pg 17.1-3.3 OGG-3.1 3100 4.4 N/A selection and review for suitability of SI 15.l.5 appitcation of materials, parts, equip- Pg 11.1-34 ment. and processes that are essential 11 to the function of the structure, Pg R17.bT system, or component MRF ACE CONTROL 7 Design c.ontrol measures shall be 4.7 Pg 11.1-34

!!!.4 N/A OGG-3.2 3100 2.1.1.6 N/A applied as necessary to identify and . 1182 15.1 3310 3.2.3 control design interfaces and for Pg L 17.3 3 3330 3.2.4 coordination among participating destqn 3350 3.2.5 organtiations.

4.2.11.2 4.2.19 4.2.20 4.3 8 These measures shall include the estab- 4.8  !!!.5 17.1. 3D Pg 17.1-34 OGG-3.1 3000 lishment of procedures among partici. 11 15.0 4.2.18 N/ A pating design organizations for the Pg R17.3-3 14.2 4.2.19 review, approval, release, distribution QGG-3.2 4.2.20 and revision of doc ument s involving 15.1 4.3.2 design interfaces.

Mississippi Power & Light 2 w/ 175 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review M Ld L r11 82026 ll11lllllllI11111111llll1ll111

APPENDIX B-1 GR AND GutF NUC1E AR ST Afl0N UNIT I INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW - MCHTEL QUALlif ASSUR ANCE PROGRAM MATRIX DESIGN CONTROL GOVERNING D00lMENIS ttF CHiFL PROGR AM FLEMENTS liEM N45.2 APP B 5RP ^

NO. QUAtlif PROGRM REQUIREMENTS LINE t!NE

{ P AR A. PSAN NQAM BQAM PEPM OADM REMARKS Gesign Vertftcation f

9 Design control measures shall be 4.9 N/A Pg RI 7.3-3 applied to verify or check the adequacy

!!!.6 OGG-3.3 3312 3.2.6 N/A 13.0 3230 4.5 of design, such as by the performance 4.4 of design reviews; by use of alternate 4.3 or simplified calculational methods; or 6.2 by the use of a suitable testing 6.3 program.

10 The vertf ying or checking process shall 4.10 111.7 N/A Pg R17.3-3 OGG-3.3 3312 4.4 be per*urmed by individuals or groups N/A 13.0 4.5 other than thuse who perform the ortgt- 4.3 nel design but who may be from the same organization.

11 Verifying or checking should consist 4.11 N/A N/A Pg Rl7.3-3 OGG-3.3 3312 3.26 N/A of, at least, reviewing the design. 12.0 3230 4.3 spot checking the calculations or 13.0 analyses, and assessing the results 4.4 4.5 against the original design bases and functional requirements. 6.2 6.3 12 The responstble design organtration 4.12 N/A 17.1. 3E l shall identify the particular design MS OGG-3.3 NS 6.2 N/A 13.1 vertftcation methods ut11tred. 15.1.3 OGG-II.I 15.0 13 Not appropriate for cross reference 4.13 (testing).

14 Regardless of the re gree or standardt- 4.14 N/A N/A NS OGG-3.3 NS ration or stellarity to previously NS N/A 13.4 proven designs, the applicability of standardtied or previously proven designs with respect to meeting pertinent design requirements shall be vertfled for each application.

9 --. - 4 Mississippi Power & Light 3 b'gr$y,  :

g Grand tfi1 82026 Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review lllllllll11111111lllllll11llll

v () d U ' .j

. I,.J b k. U APPENDIX B-1 GR AND GULF NUCtE AR STATION UNIT I INDEPENDENT DEstGN REVIEW - HECHTEL QUALITY A55tlR ANCE PROGR AM MATRIX. DESIGN CONTROL GOVE RNING DOCUMENT 5 HIEHTf L PROGRM ELEMENTS ITEM 75.2 AP P B SRP NO. QUALITY PROGRM REQUIREMENT 5 LINE LINE P AR A. PSAR NQM 8)M PEPM OADM REMARKS 15 Not appropriate for cross reference. 4.15 N/ A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/ A 16 Nt appropriate far cross reference. 4.16 N/ A N/ A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A 17 in those cases where the adequacy of 4.17 111.8 N/A Pg R17.3-3 OGG-3.3 NS NS N/A design is to be verif ted by tests. the QGG-II.2 testing shall be identified. OGG-il.2 18 Testing shall demonstrate adequacy of 4.18 til.R N/A Pg R17.3-3 OGG-3.3 NS NS N/ A performance isnder the most adverse Con-ditions.

19 Operating exies and environmental 4.19 N/A N/A N5 OGG-3.3 N5 NS N/A conditions in which the item must 13.2 perform shall be considered in deter-mining the most adverse conditions.

20 jf testing indicates that modifica* ions 4.20 N/ A N/ A N5 NS N5 N5 N/A to the item are necessary to obtain acceptable performance. the item shall be modified and re-tested as necessary to assure sattsfactory performance.

DiANGE CONTROL 21 Design Changes. Including field 4.21 118.10 17.1. 3F 1 Pg 17. i-34 QGG-3.5 3000 4.2.14 N/A changes. shall be governed by design 13 13.0 4.2.15 control measures commensurate with 4.2.18 those applied to the original design. 4. 3.1.6

, 4.3.2.6

4. 3. 4 4.5 4.9.3 6.8 7 4 Mississippi Power & Light . 4 p"+f q 'i =dI Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review ggggggg. . ..... .............

82026

) O L) U U U U () V O s )

APPENDIX B-1 GR AND Gut F NUCL E AR ST AllON HNil l INDEPENDENT DE SIGN REVlf W - It CH'EL OHAt tif A$5HW ANCE PROGRM MATRIN. DESIGN CONTROL GOVERNING DOGIMtNTS RI Chill FROGRM ELEMENTS ITEM .

N45.2 AFP B ShP

40. 00At tif PROGRM REQUIRLMENis LINE L INE P AR A. PSAW NQM BQM PEPM OADN RENARKS 22 Design changes are reviewed and 4.22 Ill.10 N/ A Pg 17.1-34 QGG-3.5 3000 4.2.14 approved by the organizations that N/A 13 13.0 4.2.15 performed the ortgtnal design, review and approval.

23 Not necessary for cross reference. 4.23 N/A N/ A N/A N/ A N/A N/ A N/A

$IANDARD REvilW Pt AN 24 Errors and deficiencies in approved N/A N/ A 17. l . 3Cl NS OGG-3.3 5810 4.2.15 N/ A design doc enent s , including design 14.2 4.2.14 methods (such as computer codes), that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety are doc umented; and action is taken to assure that all err ors and def tctencies are corrected.

25 Organtiational responsibilities are N/A N/ A 17.1.38 NS OGG-3.1 3000 described for preparing, rewtewing, 2.1 N/ A QGG- 3. 2 3.4 approving, and sertfying design docu- OGG-3.3 4.3 ments suc h as system description, 4.4 design input and Criteria, design 4.5 drawings, design analyses, computer 5.1 programs. Specifications and EDP-4.36 procedures.

26 Procedures are established and N/A N/A 17.1. 3E 2 descrthed for design vertftcation activities which assure the following:

a. The verifier is qualtfled and not NS OGG-3.3 NS NS N/A directly responsible for the 13.4 design. In enceptional circum-stances, the designer's immediate supervisor can perform the verif1-cation provided:

Mississippi Power & Light 5

< 'i=-

r2'L L7 9 LT11 Grand 82026 Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 111lllll16ll11lllll11lll111111

APPENDIX B-1 GR AND Giftf NifCLF AR STA!!ON UNIT I INDf PENP,ENT pf $!GN Rt Vl[W - M CHTf L Qtl At tif A551tR ANCE PkOGR AM M ATRIN. DESIGN U)NTROL GOVIkNING 000UMfhT5 lit Otf EL PROGR AM EL EME NTS ITEM N45.2 APP B 5RP NO. QUALITV PuGGR AM REQUIREMENTS LINE LINE P AR A. PSAR NQAM fl0AM PEPM OADM REMARKS

1) The supervisor is the only technically qualtfled person.

2) The need is individually docu-mented and approved in advance by t:e supervisor's management.

3) QA audits cover frequency and ef fectiveness of use of super-visor as design vertfters to Juard d'jainst abuse.

b. Destyn vertitcation, if other than NS NS MS N5 N/A by quellfication testing of a pro-totype or lead production unit. 15 conpleted prior to release for pro-curement. manufacturing, construc-tion, or to another organization f t,r use in other design activities (excepttons). In all cases, prior to fuel load,

c. Procedural control for design docu- N5 NS NS 4.3 N/A ments tnat af fects the commitments 4.4 of the SAR; this control dif feren. 4.5 tlates between documents that receive formal design vertf tcation .

by interdiscipl inary or multi-organizational teams and those which can be reviewed by stogle indtvIduals.

d. The responsiblittles of the veri- NS QGG-3.2 NS 6.2 N/A fler, the areas and features to be 13.3 6.3 vertfted, the pertinent considera-tions to be vertfled, and the estent of documentation are identi-fled in procedures.

~

h Mississippi Power & Light '

6 rr y i = = Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review

,.,3 bi { A1 82026 L

APPENDIX B-1 GR AND GULF NUCtf AR ST ATiON UNil i INDEPENDENT DESIGN kEVilW - HFCHTEL QU ALITY ASSUR ANCE PROGR AM MATRIX. DE 51GN CONTROL GOVfRNING DOCUMENTS RF CHTE L PROGR AM EL E ME NTS IIEM N45.2 AP P B SEP NO. QUAllif PROGR AM REQUIREMENis LINE LINE P AR A. PSAR NOAM PEPM BQAM CADM REMARKS 27 Procedures are estabitshed to assure N/A N/A 17.1. 3E 4 NS NS NS App G N/ A that verified computer codes are Certt- EDP-4.36 fled for use and their use spect fled.

DOOM Ni CONTROL 28 Measures shall be established and 7. 0 VI 17.1.6 A2 Pg 17.1 48 OGG-6.2 3000 4. 3.1 N/A documented to control the issuance of 14.0 4.2.19 doucuments such as drawings, including 15.0 4.2.20 changes, which prescribe activities affecting quality.

29 These measures shall assure that docu- 7.0 VI 17. I.6 A2 Pg 17.1 48 OGG-6.2 3000 4.2.19 ments. including changes, are reviewed N/A 17.1.6 A3 15.0 4.2.20 for adequacy and approved for release 4. 3.1 by author 12ed personnel and are distri-4.3.1.6.1 buted to and used at the location where 4.3.1.6.2 the prescribed activity is performed.

30 Part t c t pating organizations shall have 1. 0 VI 17.1.6 Al- Pg 17.1-4R OGG-6.2 3000 4.4.14 procedures for control of the documents N/A 17.1.6C1 15.0 4.2.15 and changes thereto to preclude the 4.3 possibiltty of use of outdated or 4.3.2 Inappropriate documents.

31 Ibcument Control Measures shall provide 7. 0 Vil P 17.1-48 OGG 6.2 3000 f or : N/A P R17.3-4 15.0

. Ident i f ic ation of organizations re- N/A 4. 3.1 sponsible for preparing, reviewing. 4.3.2 and approving documents including c han'je s .

. Identi fy t ng proper documents to be 17.1.681 used. 4.3.1 Coordination and control of inter. N/A 4.2.10 face documents.

Mississippi Power & Light 7

@;" "fd . . .i'y Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 lill.

V V V V U V U U U \_/ V b

APPENDIX B-1 GR AND GutF NUCLE AR STATION UNIT I INDEPENDEhi DESIGN REVIEW - fE CHTEL Qu Atliy As5URANCE PROGR AM MATR'X. DESIGN CONTROL GOVE RNING fMICtME N T S le CHTEL PROGR AM f t FMENTS ITEM N45.2 AF P B SRP

=0. QUALITf PROGR AM RE0HIREMENis L INE LINE P AR A. P5AP NOAM BQAM PEPM OADM REMARKS

= Ast er ta t ning that proper documents 17.1.6 A4 OGG-6.2 4.2.10 are used. 15.0

. EstablishinJ current and updated 17.1.682 OGG-6.2 4.3.1 distribution lists. 15.0 Corrective Atton 4.2.15 16.1 1 4.2.14 32 A system for corrective action shall be 17.0 svi 17.1.16 Pg 17.1-69 UGG-16.1 5800 4.2.33 estabitshed. QGG-16.2 6.15 6.17 APP G -

EDP 4.66 Aun!!5 33 A system of planned and documented 19.0 XVill 17.1.18 Pg 17.1.lR OGG-la.1 6000 4.2.13 18.1-1 audits shall be carried out to verify 15.0 2-22 canpliance with all as pect s of the 6.13 quality assurance program.

Mississippi Power & Light 8

@'[d l fj Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review

. .g, 82026

) APPENDlX B-2 Job No . 8 20 26 Doc . No . DC-1 Rev. 0

) -

INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PIPE STRESS DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA

) FOR GRAND GULF NUCL 7AR STATION - UNIT 1 MISSISSIPPI POWER & L IGHT

)

Prepared by , .

>3 4!7[d2 L~. J feingar Date

'""i::"";"' ww e,/st T. Ngu en (/ Da t'e Approved by .

// 44 / 1 / [ 4 rgpi j

[Ddte Divisipn Manager CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 141 Battery Street, Suite 400

)' San Francisco, CA 94111 April, 1982

)

m ua 11111111llllll11111!!!Il111111

)

i APPENDDC B-2 !

)

l GRAND GULF UNIT I

) INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW MISS ISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT Criteria for Review of Piping Stress Analyses

)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

) The purpose of this document is to provide the criteria to be used for the review of the Piping Stress Analyses for Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Station Unit 1.

) 2.0 SCOPE The p.oing systems included in this review are the following portions of the Residual Heat Removal ( RH R) system, Train "A":

)

2.1 Pump discharge from pump nozzle to containment flued head through the heat exchangers. (Bechtel Problem #69C.)

) 2.2 Piping between heat exchangers. (Bechtel Problem # 96.)

2.3 Piping between containment and drywell flued heads .

(Bechtel Problem #141.)

)

2.4 Piping between drywell flued head and RPV nozzle. (Bechtel Problem #101.)

)

l l

D Mississippi Bower & Light 2 of 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria LJk A DC-82026-1; Rev. 0 l llllll11lllllllll11lllll111111

, APPENDIX B-2 3.0 CODES AND STANDARDS

" .1 Piping Design and Stress Analyses shall be reviewed for conformance with:

3.1.1 ASME Bealer and Pressure Vessel Code, 1974 Ed itio n ,

Addenda through Summer 1975. l 3.1.2 Gode Case 1606-1.

i 3.1.3 The following Bechtel Mechanical Standards:

a. 9645-MS-02 Piping Class Summary Sheets l

b. 9645-MS-03 Piping Class Sheets I

c. 9645-MS-12 Piping Insulation Thickness 4.0 DESIGN 4.1 General All piping systems shall be reviewed for conformance with the requirements of the Code as stipulated in Subarticle NB-3200 and NB-3600 for Nuclear Class 1, and NC-3600 and ND-3600 for Nuclear Class 2 and 3, respectively.

4.2 Classification of Piping Systems 4.2.1 Nuclear classification of the piping systems are shown on the P& ids in accordance with the nomenclature specified in the Piping Class Sheets (9645-MS-03).

Mississippi Power & Lig ht 3 ot' 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe nde nt Design Review Design Criteria L [ i DC-82026-1; Rev. O lilllllllllillililllllllllilli imo m

D APPENDIX B-2 1

1 4.2._ Seismic classification of the piping systems are I specified in the Piping Class Summary Sheets (9645-MS-02) j and are also shown on the P& ids .

4.3 Boundaries D

4.3.1 Piping system boundaries are designated on the P& ids for Nuclear Class 1, 2 and 3 piping.

D 4.3.2 The dimensional location of each such boundary is shown on the Piping Isometric Drawings .

4.3.3 Piping Analyses may be decoupled when:

D

a. The ratio of the section moduli of the run and branch piping exceeds 10.0.

D b. The restraint configuration and piping layout of the branch line is such that the effects of any large masses (e.g., valves) on the branch line will not significantly affect the run pipe.

D 4.3.4 Equipment nozzles shall be considered as anchor points in the analyses.

2) 4.4 Loading Combina tio ns 4.4.1 Load Combination 6 (Bechtel specification No . 9645-M-220.0, APP. S) shall be reviewed, i .e . ,

O N + (SRVADS + SSE + SBA/IBA)l/2 O

Mississippi Ebwer & Lig ht 4 of 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria L {jg il DC-82026-1; Rev. O g lllll11111111111111111111ll111 iom m

APPENDDC B-2

)

l where:

)

N = Normal load consists of pressure, dead weight, and thermal loads.

) SRV ADS = The loads induced by the actuation of safety /

relief valves associated with Automatic Depressurization System which actuate within milliseconds of each other during the

) postulated small- or intermediate-sized pipe rupture.

SSE = Loads due to vibratory motion from Safe

) Shutdown Earthquake loads.

SBA = Small-break accident .

) IBA = Intermediate-break accident.

4 This combination is to be cone.iderei as a faulted condition.

) 4.5 Stress Limits 4.5.1 Stress limits for Class 1 piping shall be in accordance with the Code . In addition, Appendix F of the

) Code shall be used for the analysis of piping in the faulted condition. Elastic or inelastic methods are acceptable .

4.5.2 Stress limits for Class 2 and 3 piping shall be in

) accordance with the Code . However, for piping in the f aulted condition, the rules of ASME Code Case 1606-1 apply.

)

Mississippi Power & Lig ht 5 of 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Indepe nde nt Design Review Design Criteria M'jL[d DC-82026-1; Rev. 0 ll1111!!?i 11lllll111ll11111111

)

mm

APPENDIX B-2

)

4.5.3 Functional capability requirements shall be in

} accordance with Bechtel specification 9645-M-220.0, Appendix T.

4.6 Design and Operating Co nditio ns 4.6.1 The design pressures and temperatures for all Class 1, 2 and 3 piping systems are tabulated in the Piping Class Summary Sheets (9645-MS-02).

)

4.6.2 Operating pressures, temperatures, and flows are tabulated on the SFDs for Class 1, 2 and 3 piping .

) 4.6.3 For Class 1 piping, the pressure, temperature and flow transients, including cycles, duration and description of subsystem boundaries are provided by General Electric Document No . 794E858 ( M PL No . E12-3000 ) .

)

4.7 Geometry and Computer Modeling 4.7.1 Piping geometry shall be reviewed for conformance

) with the latest revision of the Bechtel "M" d rawi ng s . The modeling should be within the tolerances of Bechtel specification 9645-M-204, i .e . ,

) a. Pipe centerlines may deviate in any direction up to a maximum of one (1) inch from the design location, with respect to the building column lines.

) b. Pipe centerline elevations may deviate +1 inch from the design location.

)

Mississippi Bower & Light 6 of 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria

[ A DC-82026-1; Rev. 0

) lillllllllllllilllllilllilllli

I

) APPENDIX B-2 4.7.2 Restraint locations shall be reviewed for conformance

) with the latest revision of the Bechtel "HL" drawings .

These locations should be within the tolerances of Bechtel specification 9645-MS-16, i .e . ,

a. For Nuclear Class 1 hangers, supports, restraints, and anchors, the location deviations shall not exceed + 2 _

inches.

) b. For Nuclear Class 2 a nd 3 hangers, supports, restraints, guides, restraints and anchors, the location deviations shall not exceed _+ 6 inches .

) 4.7.3 Pipe properties shall be reviewed for conformance with Bechtel Piping Class Sheets 9645-MS-03, Bechtel Piping Insulation Thickness Standard 9645-MS-12, and P& ids .

) 4.7.4 Material properties shall be reviewed for conformance with Bechtel Piping Class Sheets 9645-MS-03 and ASME B& PV Code,Section III, Appendix I.

) 4.7.5 Poisson's ratio shall be taken as 0.3 for all metals at all temperatures.

4.7.6 Mass point spacing shall be sufficient to adequately

) represent the dynamic properties of the system up to 60 HZ.

4.7.7 Valve modeliing shall be reviewed for conformance with the following conventions:

)

a. Weights and centers of gravity shall be as specified on the applicable vendor supplied valve assembly drawings . J

)

Mississippi Power & Light 7 of 13 l Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria L g d DC-82026-1; Rev. 0

) lllllll1111111llll111111111111

APPENDIX B-2

)

b. For motor operated valves, modeling shall conform to

) Bechtel GPD Stress Group Newsletter, No . 22, dated July 16, 1979, i .e . ,

" Modify valve stem coding so that the moment of inertia

) '

of the stem elements is equal to:

2 3 (W i t i (312- 1 1) + 2W2 12) f 2 I=

58.7 E D where:

+ "W2 11

= Distance from pipe center- 12 og

+

line to CG of Valve (in.) t

= Distance from pipe centerline

+ +1 12 3 to CG of operator (in.) Valve Body W t = Valve weight (1bs.)

W 2 = Operator weight (lbs.)

f = Natural frequency of valve (cps) 3 E = Modulus of elasticity of valve (psi)

I = Moment of inertia (in 4)

The thickness of pipe required to yield the proper moment of J inertia can be found from the following formula by trial-and-error:

I= .0491 (OD 4 - (OD - 2t) 4 )

J where:

OD = Outer diameter of pipe element (in.)

t = Thickness of pipe element (in.)

J J

Mississippi Power & Light 8 of 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria Li[tj [d DC-82026-1; Rev. 0 1111lll11111llllI!Il1111111111

) APPENDIX B-2 If the natural frequencies of the valve stem in the two

) lateral directions are dif ferent, a component ( CM P) element must be coded into the program, with 'I' being input directly."

) 4.8 Loading Review to assure that each load case meets the general stress requirements as specified in the code with emphasis placed upon

) the following particular items.

4.8.1 Gravity Analysis

) a. Review to assure that the weight of the pipe, fluid, insulation, fittings, flanges, valves (including actuators) and other in-line components have been co nsidered .

)

4.8.2 Thermal Analysis

a. Review to assure that the maximum temperature and all

) thermal modes were considered .

b. Review to assure that the effects of thermal movements from equipment nozzles has been considered .

)

4.8.3 Seismic Analysis

a. Review to assure that SSE spectra at appropriate damping

) values for all pertinent buildings at the proper elevations have been enveloped . Individual building Mississippi Fower & Light 9 of 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria L [ g fil DC-82026-1; Rev. 0 11ll111111111lll111llll!Il1lll

APPENDIX B-2

)

response spectrum curves are per Bechtel Ci vi l Cal c ul a t i o n .

)

b. Review to assure that damping values are consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 Rev. O, i.e.,

Damping Ratio (Percentage)

)

Pipe size Upset Faulted Pipe diameter greater

)

than 12 inches 2 3 Pipe diameter less than or equal to 12 inches 1 2

)

The damping ratio is assumed to be the same for all modes.

c. Review to assure that the closely spaced modes method

)

(10% Grouping Method) is used for combining modal responses as per NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Rev. 1.

d. Review to assure that analysis cut-off frequency used

)

was at least 33 HZ.

e. Review to assure that piping is designed and supported

~

such that the acceleration of the valves does not exceed

)

6.0g in any direction or lower g values as required by the respective manufacturers.

)

) Mississippi Power & Light 10 of 13 Grand Gul f Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria q{ { , y,j DC-82026-1; Rev. 0 lll1lllllllll1ll1lllllllllll11

) ..

APPENDIX B-2

)

4.8.4 SRV and Chugging Analyses ADS

a. Review to assure that spectra at appropriate damping values for all pertinent buildings at the proper elevations have been enveloped. Individual building

) response spectrum curves are per Bechtel Civil calculatio ns .

b. Damping, modal combination and valve acceleration

) requirements are same as those for seismic analysis.

c. Review to assure that analysis cut-of f frequency used included all significant spectra loading up to the ZPA.

4.8.5 Seismic Anchor Movement (SAM) Analysis

a. Review to assure that seismic dif ferential anchor

) movements have been considered. Movements are per Bechtel Civil Calculations C-714.0, Rev. O, and C-H002.8, Rev. O. This analysis consists of moving the supporting points a relative distance as determined in

) the Civil vessel and building seismic analyses. The shock suppressors are to be acting during this analysis.

4.8.6 Pressure Ef fect The effect of internal pressure shall be considered in computing longitudinal stress per the Code .

) 4.8.7 Restraint stiffness input shall be reviewed for conformance with Bechtel Specification 9645-M-300.2 Table 10, i .e . ,

l

)

Mississippi Dower & Light 11 of 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review Design Criteria k=1 L IA3 DC-82026-1; Rev. 0

) 111111111lllll111111111lll1111

APPENDIX B-2 "The design restraint stiffness shall be derived from the.

equation :

h= .0 9 I II" where :

K A = flexibility (in/lb) h = stiffness (1b/in)

W = weight of pipe including fl uid and insulation between supports line In lieu of calculations, the table below may be used :

RESTRAINT NOM. PIPE RESTRAINT NOM. PIPE SIZE FLEXIBILITY SIZE FLEXIBILITY (Inches) ( I N/ L B) (INCHES) (IN/LB) 2-1/2" 6.1 x 10-5 14" 2.6 x 10-6 3" 4.7 x 10-5 16" 1.9 x 10-6 4" 3.7 x 10-5 18" 1.4 x 10-6 6" 1.3 x 10-5 20" 1.1 x 10-6 8" 7.7 x 10-6 24" 7.5 x 10-7 10" 4. 7 x 10-6 28" 4.4 x 10-7 12" 3.3 x 10-6 30" 3.6 x 10-7 The assumptions made in this specification are :

(1) Pipe schedule 40 (2) Insulation Calcium silicate - recommended thickness for 900* F Mississippi Power & Light 12 o f 13 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent nesign Review DE-8h"D2b- ; M . O 111111111llll111lll1ll11ll1111 am

APPENDIX B-?

(3) Fl ui d in pipe Water

) (4) Pipe support spacing per ASME Section III, Ta bl e (for gravity) NF 3271.4-1 4.8.8 Flanges modeling shall be reviewed for conformance with the following conventions :

)

a. Flanges shall be considered as additional lumped weights.

)

b. Flange thickness shall be assumed as the same thickness of the pipe for purposes of modeling stiffness.

4.8.9 Stress intensi fication factors and stress indices

)

shall be reviewed for conformance with:

a. ASME B&PV Co d e ,Section II subsections N B-3680, N C- 36 70

) and ND-3670.

b. For weldolets, refer to letter f rom R. W. Schneider

( Bonney Forge) to R. Patel ( Bechtel ), dated 11/18/75,

) and GPD Stress Group Newsletter, No. 10, dated 6/26/ 78.

)

f Mississippi Power & Light 13 o f 13 Grand Gul f Unit 1 Independent Design Review N-8h"()2 - v. O lillllilllllllilllllllilllilll

) APPENDIX B-3 Job No. 82026 Doc . No . DC-2

) Rev. 0

) INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA FOR

) GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 MISSISSIPPI POWER & L IGHT

)

Prepared by d ' ![71.

C. liu Date

)

"d ReviU"#*"'y L. Chiu t

f/82

' Date Approved by -

f </////t'4

/

ti / / pte D is n Manager

)

CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES an F n isco k 41 April, 1982

)

11lll1lllltll11lllllll1llll111

) .

APPENDD( B-3 1.0 SCOPE 1.1 This criterion is intended to establish general guidelines for an independent design review of supporting components, hangers, restraints and shock suppressors in the RHR, train "A" piping system.

1.2 Pipe supports shall be capable of supporting a piping system during all conditions of operation by transmitting the loads from the pipe to structural members in the building .

2.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS The following codes shall be used for the design review of pipe suppo rts :

2.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Sub-section NP, 1977 edition.

2.2 ANS I B 31.1, Power Piping Code , 1977.

2.3 American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., AISC Steel Construction Manual, 8th edition.

( 2.4 Bergen-Paterson Pipe Supports Catalog No . 66R 3.0 PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Natural Frequency

a. The natural frequency of a seismic restraint with its tributary pipe mass must be greater than 33 Hertz in the Mississippi Power & Light 2 o f 11 Ib bd ( f il Grand Gulf Unit 1 tillllllllllllllllllllllllllli Design Cr1ter1a DC-82026-2, Rev. O

l APPENDIX B-3 '

J pipe 's restrained direction. The mass used to calculate the natural frequency shall include the weight of the restraint, restrained pipe , pipe insulation, fluid, pipe attachments, and valves . Any rational analysis may be used to calculate-the natural frequency. The natural frequency calculations of pipe restraints do not have to include the flexibility of the building structure .

b. The natural frequency of a support in its unrestrained direction shall be considered for the purposes of computing

'1 loads and stresses . Only the weight of the hanger applied uniformly along its length needs to be considered .

c. For the purpose of determining the natural frequency of 4 snubbers and their frames, consider the snubber to exhibit stiffness qualities which would make them a rigid link between the pipe and the supporting structure. The supporting structure, from the building 's frame to the 9

snubber, shall be designed such that the natural frequency is at least 33 Hertz.

3.2 Gaps O

A gap shall b'e provided to accommodate radial expansion and construction tolerances. The maximum total gap allowed in the restrained direction is 1/8" . In non-restrained directions , the support design shall allow clearance for the most severe thermal plus seismic movements of the pipe. Proper installation tolerances shall be provided where thermal movement cannot be accommodated within the specified gap minus 1/16".

_)

3

(( Mississippi Power & Light 7 3 o f 11 d d g' M Grand Gulf Unit I lllllillllllllllllll!!!!!!!lli %S h2[hehh . 0

l APPENDIX B-3 o

3.3 Devia tio ns

]

3.3.1 The design location of the supports in a straight run of the pipe may deviate by + 1 outside diameter of the supported pipe from the theoretical location provided it is not adjacent to equipment nozzles or heavy valves.

3.3.2 The distance between centerline of piping and structural attachment may deviate by 10%.

D 3.4 Spring Supports Spring supports shall be capable of exerting a supporting force equal to the load, as determined by weight-balance calculations, plus the weight of all hanger parts, such as clamps, and rods, that will be supported by a spring at the point of attachment to a pressure-retaining component or to an integral attachment. The design shall be such as to prevent complete release of the component load in the event of spring failure or misalignment.

Any variability of a supporting spring force resulting from movement of the component shall be considered in the loadings used in the stress analysis of the component. The spring 's O

available travel will be checked against the thermal and seismic movements.

3.5 Hanger Rods Hanger rods shall be subjected to tensile loading only unless specific gapping instructions are indicated on the drawings . Rod hanger assemblies shall be designed to allow anticipated thermal 9

horizontal movement without subjecting the pipe to extraneous loads. The maximum swing angle due to horizontal pipe movement D

r

- = = Mississippi Power & Lig ht 4 o f 11 L9b [td [ fil Grand Gulf Unit 1

_ . 0 ll11111!Ill1111111111111111111 QSh2hEh h ,

) -

APPENDIX 8-3

)

should be less than 4*. If the swing angle of the roi is its excess of 4* and/or the total movement is in excess of two

) inches, the hanger shall be offset two-thirds of the thermal movement towards the direction of movement.

3.6 Snubbers 3

The snubber assembly shall be offset two-thirds of the thermal movement in the cold position if the swing angle exceeds 5*

and/or the total movement of the point of attachment on the pipe E is in excess of two inches. The midpoint of thermal travel for snubber strokes shall be set at the midpoint of the total travel with hot and cold settings established accordingly.

I 3.7 Structural details shall conform to the requirement of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction.

3.8 All seismic supports shall be two way restraints.

O Regardless of other imposed loads, the pipe must be physically restrained in each direction along the restraining axis .

4.0 RESTRAINT D

4.1 The loadings that shall be taken into account in designing a component support are, but not limited to, the following :

O a. Weight of the component, insulation, and normal contents (DL). Pipe and component weights from manuf acturer 's data .

b. Loads induced by the actuation of safety / relief valves O associated with automatic depressurization system (SRV ADS I' 3 _

Mississippi Dower & Light 5 o f 11 L%),(t j [ fd Grand Gulf Unit 1 l1111111!!!I1111lll11111111111 Design Criter1a DC-82026-2; Rev. O D

APPENDIX B-3

~j

c. Loads generated by restrained thermal expansion. These include temperatures at normal operating conditions (TH).

d. Loads induced by the steam condensing / chugging (SC/CH).

l

, e. Seismic Loads - Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).

J 5.0 LOADING COMBINATIONS T he following loading combination shall be used for the design review of pipe supports:

DL + TH + SSE + SRVADS + SC/CH D

This is a f aulted loading condition.

O O

n

~)

O O

J Mississippi Power & Light 6 o f 11

($@' g' fi] Grand GulDesign CrUnit

~

teria ,1 l111111ll11ll11111111111lll!!!

DC-82026-2; Rev. 0

'D

APPENDIX B-3

)

6.0 ALLOWABLE STRESS LOAD CASE Stress Normal & Upset Faulted

)

Value KSI Tension 0.6 Fy 21.6 Shear 0.4 Fy 14.4 Web Crippling 0.75 Fy 27.0 Fa Per Table 1-36 AISC

) Bending 0.6 Fy 21.6 As per ASME Appendix F-1370 Bearing 0.9 Fy 32.4

) Bolts Tension Allowable Tension per AISC 307 Shear Allowable Shear per AISC

)

Anchor Bolt TABLE A Welds 0.3 Fy 21.0 (Fillet, Shear (Weld Metal)

) Full or Tension 0.6 F 21.6 Partial (Base Metal)

Pe ne tratio n)

) Combined Stress Ibr AISC Catalog Items Catalog Values

)

t*h L9 t Td 11111llll111111111111lllll1111 Mississioni Power & Light 7 of 11 Grand Gult Unit 1

) gsbS02kN) h

- .O

APPENDIX B-3 l

APPENDIX A

, DESIGN ( Anchor Bolt)

J A .1. 0 APPLICATIONS A .1.1 Concrete expansion anchors should not be used ind iscriminately . For important work, bolts should preferably be cast-in-place, welded, or grouted in drilled holes or in cast-in-place sleeves. Where those types of installation are for good

, reason impractical, expansion anchors may be used .

J A.l.2 Provisions of this standard shall apply to the shell or stud type expansion anchors .

Anchors must be at least 1/2" diameter when used for A.l.3 structural connections or for anchorage of pipes greater than 2" diameter.

~

A.l.4 Embedded length of anchor shall be exclusive of thickness of grout pad or other overlay.

A.2.0 ALLOWABLE LOADS

)

A.2.1 Allowable loads shown in Table A, as modified by the provisions of this standard, shall apply to anchors installed in ordinary concrete.

A.2.2 For concrete strength between 2 ksi and 6 ksi, linear interpolation in Table A may be used. For concrete strength greater than 6 ksi, use 6 ksi allowable values. For sound concrete of unknown strength, use 2 ksi values .

O --

. . - - = - Mississippi Power & Light 8 o f 11 krdh l#$ 2 Ill Grand Gulf Unit 1 111111111!!!11111111llllll1111 Design Criterla DC-82026-2; Rev. O O

APPENEIX B-3

)

l A.2.3 Allowable load values given in this standard shall not be increased because of short duration of loading (e.g., for wind or seismic loads).

l A.2.4 For anchors subjected to continuous or frequent (more than 500 times per year) reversal of loading, allowable loads shall be 1/3 of the allct:able values given in this standard.

A.2.5 Allowable loads given in this standard are intenaed for use at " working load" levels. For " ultimate" or " limit" load

)

design purposes, twice these values may be used.

A.2.6 Anchors insta led in lightweight aggregate concrete shall have allowable loads equal to those provided for anchors in

) ordinary concrete with f' = 2 ksi .

A.2.7 If center-to-center spacing of anchors is less than 12 diameters and/or if distance from edges of concrete to center of

) anchor is less than 6 diameters, the allowable loads shall be reduced in accordance with the following formulae :

i N E P = 2.25 P^

N+6 E+3 S

D

= 1.5 S g E I E+3 l

where:

l PD= allowable pullout load reduc'ed for edge distance and/or spacing Pg= allowable pullout load from Table A SD= allowable shear load reduced for edge distance SA= allowable shear load from Table A h

Mississippi Iower & Light 9 of 11-LNI L A Grand Gulf Unit 1 lll11111llllll11llllll11llll11 gggr eQ0. 0

APPENDIX B-3 D

N = number of diameters of anchor spacing (6<N<12): if N>l2, use N=12 S

E = number of diameters of edge distance (34E<6): if E>6, use E=6 Anchor spacing shall be not less than 6 times nominal diameter of G

anchor. Edge distance shall be not less than 3 times nominal dia' meter nor less than 3 inches. If edge of concrete is chamfered, edge distance shall be measured from nearest edge of chamber.

A.2.8 For anchors which will be subjected simultaneously to pullout and shear forces, the allowable load values used must satisfy the following formula:

• C 5/3 S (p ) +( g C)5/3 <1 D D where: P, D SD= allowable loads (pullout, shear), reduced for spacing or edge distarce if appropriate.

P' C

S C= design loads to be used in cases where pullout and shear loads may occur simultaneously.

D No te : For convenience in calculation, exponents in the above formula may, conservatively, be reduced to 1.0.

D O m f"p .)4 3 ==JkIA- Mississippi Power & Light 10 of 11 L

Grand Gulf Unit 1 ll11lll1ll111111111111lll11lll Desi n riteria DC-8 026-2; Rev. O

l APPENDIX B-3 3

TABLE A l s

ALLOWABLE LOAD (KIPS) ON EXPANSION ANCHORS J ,

l NOMINAL CONCRETE STRENGTH, f'

, ~

J 5 ksi 6 ksi DIAMETER 2 ksi 3 ksi 4 ksi P S P S P S P S P S (inch) 1/4 .25 .30 .275 .30 .30 .30 .325 .30 .35 .30 0

3/8 .40 .54 .50 .60 .60 .67 .70 .73 .80 .80 1/2 .70 .74 .87 .89 1.05 1.04 1.23 1.19 1.40 1.34 3

5/8 1.20 1.00 1.50 1.25 1.80 1.50 2.10 1.75 2.40 2.00 3/4 1.80 1.50 2.35 1.80 2.90 2.10 3.45 2.40 4.00 2.70 .

3 7/8 2.50 2.00 3.35 2.35 4.20 2.70 5.05 3.05 5.90 3.40 1 3.30 2.50 4.30 2.90 5.50 3.30 6.60 3.70 7.70 4.10 1-1/4 5.30 3.40 6.65 3.95 8.00 4.50 9.35 5.10 10.70 5.70 NOTE: P, PULLOUT ; S, SHEAR 3 For expansion anchors installed in lightweight aggregate concrete, assume F' =2 .:s i . See par. A.2.6.

3 l

D I Mississippi Power & Light 11 of 11 L*k.[t. j i Al Grand Gulf Unit 1 Iflllll1111tl1ll111111!i1lll11 Design Criteria .

DC-82026-2; Rev. O O

)

l

)

)

)

APPENDIX C

)

CHECKLISTS

) .

)

)

)

2-Mississippi Ibwer & Light k k k A Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 111lll111111111lll111111llllll 82026

)

)

APPENDIX C

)

CH ECKL ISTS 3 The following review checklists are attached :

Appendix Title Rev . No .

j C-1 Sample Quality Assurance Checklist 0 C-2 Pipe Stress Checklist 0 3 C-3 Pipe Support Checklist 0 J

J J

J O  !

1 Mississippi Ibwer & Light '

[d Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review I lilll;;m;iii::  ::;ill 82026 0

u u u u u u u u v u- v M%M lll1ll11lllll111lll11111lll111 Quality Assuranco Audit Checklist Audetor(s) AudH No.

MS-82-ID

'*" "##'"d"** * ^ **

BEGITEL POWER CORPORATION - GAITHERSBERG POWER DIVISION Audit of Specification Control Porsonnel Contacled Job No(e) 82026 Item No. Audit Antibutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments CONTROL OF DESIGN 1 Have project engineering procedures NQAM been issued to provide for the QGG-3.1 procedural requirements of 5.0? Sec. 5.0 ,

2 Are ASME design specifications and BQAM revisions certified to meet Sec. 3130 requirements of ASME III by a Sec. 3180 Registered Professional Engineer?

3 Have design specifications been BQAM correlated with the Q-list to Sec. 3120 ensure that all ASME items are ,

described?

4 Have specifications and revisions BQAM received the same review / approval Sec. 3331 as drawings encompassing the following :

(a) Checked by individuals other BQAM than originator. Initiated Sec. 3311 by checker?

(b) Review, approval, initial by BQAM

1. Group Supervisor? Sec. 3311

2. Project Engineer or desioneet?

tcod Auditor / Dele: Last Attribule No.: Page 1 of 10 APPENDIX C-1

Item No Aud68 Attributes Referinc3 Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments (c) Specifications shown on BQAM Design Control check list? Sec. 3312 (d) Forwarded by Design Review Notice to Chief Discipline Engineer for review and approval?

5 Are specifications revisions BQAM -

including addenda and Specifi- Sec. 3332 ation Change Notices reviewed and approved in same manner as original issue?

6 Have engineering procedures BQAM describing incorporation of Sec. 3332 Specification Change Notices been issued?

7 Have all specifications been BQAM entered onto the Specification Sec. 3333 Control Log including Specifi-cation Change Notices issued against latest revisions.

8 Is a Specification Control Log BQAM issued every two months? Sec. 3333 9 Has the Project Engineer approved BQAM ,

the distribution Schedule for Sec. 3334 specifications?

SPECIFICATIONS 10 Are specifications identified as PEPM follows : Sec. 4. 5.1.1 (a) Job Number, i .e. , "9645"?

(b) Specification number listed in Specification Subject File Section 4.1.6?

no Audit No. MS-82-1D Page 2 of 10 APPENDIX C-1

v v v v v v v v v v v Hem No. Aud6t Attributes Referinco Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments 11 Are all specifications coordinated PEPM using Specification Review Form? Sec. 4. 5.1. 2.1 BECHTEL REVIEW & APPROVAL 12 Has Resp. Engr. prepared a PEPM specification checklist? Sec . 4. 5.1. 2 .

13 Has the Resp. Engr. prepared PEPM SAR/ER Change Notice for any item Sec. 45.1. 2 on Liscensing Commitment Tracking System Report which the specifi-cation cannot satisfy?

14 Is completed Specification Check- PEPM list made part of specification? Sec. 4.5.1.2 15 For material only requisitions, PEPM is a Specification Checklist Sec. 4.5.1. 2 incorporated as an appendix?

16 Has a checker other than the PEPM originator who has qualifications Sec . 4. 5.1. 2 at least sufficient to originate specifications reviewed and signed off on the cover sheet?

17 Has the Group Supervisor reviewed PEPM '

and signed Sec. 4. 5.1. 2 (a) The Specification Check List?

(b) The Specification Cover Sheet?

18 Is a Registered Professional PEPM Engineer's seal applied to cover Sec. 4.5.1.2 of applicable specifications?

mr=

APPENDIX C-1 # '

Audit No. MS-82-1D 3 10

v v v v m m ~ - ~ - --

llem No Audet Attr6t>utes Retirincs Document SAT UNsA1 NA Comments 19 For all Specifications on the PEPM Design Control Check List Sec . 4. 5.1. 2 (a) Has the specification been transmitted for revision by a DRN?

(b) Has Chief Engineer signed cover of Specification?

20 Has the Chief Engineer signature PEPM block been marked "N/ A" on all Sec . 4. 5.1. 2 specifications not listed on DCCL?

21 Has the Project Quality Engineer PEPM (a) Placed his stamp on all Sec . 4. 5.1. 2 Specifications?

(b) Signed or initialed and dated all Specifications?

(c) Signed off as A/B above on all safety-related material requisitions, changes and purchase memoranda except non-Q specs which affect only non-technical issues.

22 Has the Project Engineer initialed PEPM or signed and dated all specifica- Sec . 4. 5.1. 2 tions, revisions, purchase requistions, purchase requistions, ,

material requistions and purchase memoranda?

23 Have all specifications been PEPM submitted to MP&L for review and Sec. 45.1.2.3 approval at Revision 07 24 Have all comments transmitted by PEPM any means other than letter been Sec. 4.5.1.2.3 confirmed by Bechtel?

"" Audit No. MS-82-ID Pasp of APPENDIX C-1 4 10

v v u- v v v v y y -

Item No Aust Altributes Refer 2nco Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments 25 If MP&L approval has not been PEPM received within 10 working days, Sec . 4. 5.1. 2. 3 has Bechtel advised MP&L of pro-ceeding with procurement process?

ISSUING 0F SPECIFICATIONS 26 Does each Group Supervisor PEPM -

maintain a record of all Bechtel Sec . 4. 5.1. 3 specifications issued by his discipline?

27 Is the status of specifications PEPM shown in revision block on the Sec. 45.1. 3 title page?

28 If specifications are issued for PEPM .

reference purposes Sec. 4. 5.1. 3 (a) Is the cover sheet identified to indicate user's responsibility?

(b) Has permission to issue specifications been obtained from the Project Engineer or Engineering Manager?

29 If project specifications have been PEPM issued and subsequently superceded Sec. 4.5.1.3 ,

by a Material Requisition (a) Have the specifications been reissued?

(b) Have the cover sheets of specifications been marked

" voided by MR Rev and stamped "V0ID"?

30 Are all specifications for safety PEPM related items stamped with a "Q" Sec. 4. 5.1. 3.1 including appendices that are in themselves safety related?

""" APPENDIX C-1 Audit No. MS-82-10 Page 5 of 10

Item No Aust Attr6butes Ref:r rca Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 31 Do all specifications distributed PEPM to recipients, other than the Sec . 4. 5.1. 3. 2 project engineering team, bear all required signatures?

32 Are all specifications transmitted PEPM to MP&L via a standard transmittal? Sec . 4. 5.1. 3. 2 -

33 thve transmittals been approved PEPM by the Group Supervisor-prior Sec . 4. 5.1. 3. 2 final typing?

34 Have originals of Transmittals PEPH been initiated by preparer and Sec . 4. 5.1. 3. 2 Group Supervisor?

35 Has a copy of each transmittal PEPM been forwarded to the Document Sec. 4. 5.1. 3. 2 Control Register?

36 Has the document control clerk PEPM affixed a "Q" symbol to lower Sec. 4. 5.1. 3. 2 right hand corner of each transmittal noted " Nuclear QA is applicable"?

37 De subcontract and purchase PEPM ,

specification table of contents Sec. 4. 5.1. 4. 2 list all appendices including revision?

38 For changes to standard attach- PEPM ments, have the following actions Sec. 4. 5.1.4. 2 been taken?

(a) Prepare " Standard Attachment to Specification /MR" form listing all specifications referencing / incorporating standard attachment.

I APPENDIX C-1 Audit No. MS-82-1D Page 6 8 10

v v v v v v v v - - _

ltem No Audt Attr6bules Referenco Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments

1. Signed by responsible Engineer within

- one month if supplier not involved?

(b) Responsible Engineer generates changes to specifications if the standard attachmer;s affects specifications? -

(c) Place a copy of the form in proper files via Project Admini strator.

(d) Project Quality Engineer conducts surveillance audits?

SPECIFICATION REVISIONS 39 Have specifications, revisions PEPM been identified as follows : Sec. 4.5.1.6 (a) Alphabetic designations for internal review prior to Revision 0?

(b) Numeric designations after l I

initial approval and release to MP's for approval?

(c) External in revision box l on title page? l

_ 40 Are individual page revisions PEPM refler ted on Individual Page Sec. 4. 5.1.6 Revision Index Sheet?

41 If revisions affect licensing PEPM documents, have SAR/ER Change Sec. 4.5.1.6 Notices been generated by the Responsible Engineer?

42 Have Specification Checklists been PEPM reviewed / revised to reflect new Sec. 4.5.1.6 commitments in the FSAR?

a"" APPENDIX C-1 Audit No. MS-82-1D Page 7 os 10

U V ,

V U V U U U U U U llem No Aud6 Attr6butes Referenco Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments 43 1s a new Specification Checklist PEPM issued with each specification Sec. 4. 5.1.6 revision?

44 Has MP&L approval been obtained PEPM prior to issuance of Specification Sec. 4. 5.1.6 revisions and SAR/ER change -

(Telecom memo is acceptable)?

45 For revisions : PEPM (a) Is each revision identified Sec. 4.5.1.6 by a triangle r' A5 revision number in left rgin?

(b) If entire page is revised, is notation "Page Revised" made at bottom of page?

(c) Have page revision indices been revised?

(d) Has procurement issued a revised P0/ subcontract for each specification revision?

46 If a specification is revised for PEPM response for Field Change Requests Sec. 4.5.1.6 or Nonconformance Reports, does the Specification Revision descrip ,

tion block include FCR/NRC number? '

47 For revisions to specifications PEPM originally sealed by a Registered Sec. 4.5.1.6 Professional Engineer (a) Has title page for each revision been signed and dated by RPE?

(b) If original RPE is not avail-able, has another similarly '

qualified RPE sealed, signed and dated the specification title page? '

APPENDIX C-1 "# '

Audit No. MS-82-10 8 10

W~~ W U U U U U U U U U Hem No Aud6t Attrit>utes Refer ncs Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 48 For "Q" specifications affecting PEPM Design Criteria, SAB, Codes or Sec . 4. 5.1. 6 Standards, have revisions been signed by the Chief Engineer?

SPECIFICATION ERR ATA CHANGE NOTICE 49 Has a specification been revised PEPM within 4 to 6 weeks after issue Sec . 4. 5.1. 6.1 of an Errata change notice?

50 Has a revised material requistion PEPM been issued to reflect changes Sec. 4. 5.1.6.1 resulting from errata change notices?

SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE NOTICES (SCN) 51 Have SCN's been issued only to PEPM performance specification or Sec . 4. 5.1. 6. 2 mechanical standards for work done by Bechtel Field Construction?

52 Have the following rules for SCN PEPM use been followed : Sec . 4. 5.1. 6. 2 (a) Numbered consecutively against each specification? .

b Entered into SCN control log?

c Not modified, once issued?

d Incorporated into the base specification when (5) SCH's or 90 days have elapsed from issuance date; via specifica-tion revision?

(e) Referenced to FCR/NCR if issued in response to an ,

FCR/NCR?

""" APPENDIX C-1 Pope of Audit No. MS-82-1D g }g

y v v v v v v NJ C- ~

11em No Aust Attricutes Referenco Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments (f) Receive same approvals as required fer original speci ficat. t on?

(g) Filed wit. 3ppropriate speciff ra c,ns in project files?

(h) Microfilmed per Section 4.5.1.5?

PROCESSING SPECIFICATIONS PEPH Sec. 4. 5. 2 53 Has the Responsible Engineer PEPM generated a Specifications Review Sec. 4.5.2.6 Sheet?

54 Does the transmittal letter PEPM contain the following: Sec. 4.5.2 (a) "0" symbols for all Q-listed specifications?

(b) Initials of

1. Responsible Engineer?

2. Group Supervisor?

3. Project Engineer?

(c) Signature of Engineerng Manager?

55 Is the record copy of each PEPM '

specification, latest version Sec. 4.5.3 complete with all appendices, located in APE office?

m'" APPENDIX C-1 Audit No. MS-82-1D "*" 10 10

u v independent Design Review Pipe Stress Checklist checklist No.

Support No.

Reviewer Date l

Item Satisfactory Comments

1. System Boundaries

a. Check that all required branch lines are l included.

b. If system starts at a branch attachment point, that attachment point is justified as an anchor.

-Refer to P& ids, SFD and Criteria for Decoupling DC-1 Sect. 4.3.3

2. Piping Classification o

-Check for consistency with P& ids, SFD and Bechtel Piping Specifications 9645-MS-02, Rev. 31 &

9645-MS-03, Rev. 29 l

l

3. Design & Maximum Pressure

-Check for consistency with Bechtel Piping Specifi-cation 9645-MS-02, Rev. 31

4. Thermal Loading

a. Maximum Temperature

-01eck for consistency with Bechtel Piping Specification 9645-MS-02, Rev. 31 Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 1 of 14

[:A,'i d l g Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2

=

CH-82026-1, Rev. 0 lll11lll!Illlll111111111111111

Independent Design Review Che "'

Pipe Stress Checklist sup rt E Reviewer Date item Satlafactory Comments

b. Operational Modes Considered

-Refer to RHR System Description Bechtel Document No. SD-1085, Rev. 2, P& ids , and SFD

c. Equipment Nozzle Movements

-Refer to equipment drawings and check any hand calculations

d. Branch Attachment Point Movements (if applicable)

-Refer to thermal calculation computer output for run pipe

5. Dynamic Loading

a. SSE Spectra

b. SRV ADS Spectra

c. SBA/IBA (Chugging) Spectra

-For a, b, and c check that the spectra at appropriate damping values for all pertinent buildings at the proper elevations have been included in the enveloped spectra and that the proper interpolation technique has been used (i.e., linear for SRV loading and logarithmic for seismic and chugging).

Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 2 of 14 u i APPENDIX C-2

[. ;q;.....h..y

...i...} Grand Gulf Unit 1 CH-82026-1, Rev. O

o u u u u u u v -- U U U independent Design Review Pipe Stress Checklist Ch "'

8 pp rt E Reviewer Date item Satlafactory Comments

-For b and c check that all significant loadings occur at frequencies less than or equal to l

60 HZ.

d. OBE Spectra

e. SRV y Spectra

f. SRV ALL Spectra j

g. Other Hydrodynamic Loads (i .e. , poolswell , i P.S.P.T., Flow Impact, Annulus Pressurization)

-Inspect d, e, f, and g for reasonableness as I compared with a, b & c above

h. RV Blowdown Loads

-Refer to Bechtel Mechanical Calculation 1.1-18.Q, Rev. 0

6. Seismic Anchor Movement

-Check movements to assure that proper buildings have been considered. Refer to Bechtel Civil Calculations C-714.0, Rev. O, C-H002.8, Rev. O, and support details.

If piping passes between buildings, check movements 1 for proper phase.

Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 3 of 14 M'"

El'E Lr11 iF1 Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 CH-82026-1, Rev. O lllllll11111llllll1111111lllll

U U U U U U U U U U

~-

I T Independent Design Review checkHa Pipe Stress Checklist g p rt E.

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments

7. Section Properties

a. Pipe 00

b. Pipe Wall Thickness

c. Insulation Thickness and Weight

d. Weight of Contents

-Refer to Bechtel Piping Specification 9645-MS-03, Rev. 29, Insulation Specification 9645-MS-12, Rev. 7, P& ids, and SFD

8. Material Properties

a. Sc

b. Sh

c. Ec

d. a

e. Poisson's ratio

-Refer to Bechtel Piping Specification 9645-MS-03, Rev. 29 and ASME B&PV Code Sect.

III, Appendix I.

9. Geometry

a. Diagnostic Messages Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 4 of 14  !

.i<- 1 Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 g,3,,,h,~ CH-82026-1, Rev. O

u v v v v -

r --- - - v ---- -------- v -------- v independent Design Review Ch '

Pipe Stress Checklist S tE Reviewer Date item Satisfactory domments

b. Element Data Table

-01eck lengths, pipe properties, material properties, code specification, bend radii &

angles

c. Node Data Table

-Check for consistency with input and isometric

d. As-Built Tolerances )

-Check M drawings versus H drawing l

10. Restraints

a. Location and orientation

-Check for agreement with isometric

b. Type tolerances against HL Drawings

-01eck for agreement with isometric & hanger details

c. Sti f fness

-Refer to DC-1 Sect. 4.8.7 ll. Valves

a. Location

-Check for agreement with isometric Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 5 of 14 e =- Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 ba 'b-D L Ill "

CH-82026-1, Rev. O llll11lllllllll"'" "'"

~

e f

o o o o o o u O ~U U ~O~

independent Design Review checkHst o Pipe Stress Checklist s pp ,, ,

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments

b. Modeling

-Refer to valve drawing and DC-1 Sect. 4.7.7 l

12. Fittings

a. Location and type

-Refer to P&ID and isometric

b. SIF

-Refer to ASME B&PV Sect. III, subsections NB-3680, NC-3670, and ND-3670 and computer input

13. Weldolets

a. Location

-Refer to isometric b SIF

-Refer to letter from R. W. Schneider (Bonney Forge) to R. Patel (Bechtel) DTD 11/18/75 and Bechtel GPD Stress Group News Letter No.10 dtd 6/26/ 78

14. Nozzle Flexibility

-Refer to equipment drawings Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 6 of 14

[((( [ fj Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 l111111111111lll11m111llllll CH-82026-1, Rev. O

I l

l Independent Design Review Checklist No.

Pipe Stress Checklist Support No.

Reviewer _ _ Date item Satisfactory Comments L5. Penetration Sleeves

a. Modeling

-Refer to Penetration Details

b. Piping outside containment

-Check that proper thermal expansion of sleeve i at containment and drywell is considered l

c. SIF

-Check details to determine proper SIF l l6. Mass Point Spacing

-Check for adequacy to 60 Hz l 7. Cut-off frequency /no. of modes

a. Seismic

-To 33 Hz i

b. SRV

-To 60 Hz L8. Damping

-Refer to NRC Reg. Guide 1.61 r- Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 7 of 14 r g'[p i = 1l Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 L a= L IA1 CH-82026-1, Rev. O

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!llllllllll11

O O O O O O O O O O O '

Independent Design Review che klist o.

Pipe Stress Checklist gp ,, o.

Fleviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments

19. Modal Combination

-Closely spaced modes (grouping method) l

20. Gravity Output

a. Di splacements

-Less than 0.1"

b. Stresses

-Satisfy code eqns

c. Loads

-Downward Direction

21. Thermal Output

a. Displacements

-Less than 3" or consistent with temperature, piping layout and restraint configuration

b. Stresses

-Satisfy code egns

c. Loads

-Consistent with temperature, piping layout and restraint configuration Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 8 of 14

.t <.

1yi Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2

?= E LFA1 CH-82026-1, Rev. O llllll1811111lll1111111lll1ll1

u u u u u-- t r - -- ----- v ----- ---- - v u-Independent Design Review checklist No.

Pipe Stress Checklist Support No.

Reviewer Date l

item Satisfactory Comments

22. SSE Output

a. Displacements

-Less than 1" or consistent with spectra, mass distribution, mode shapes, piping layout and restraint configuration

b. Stresses

-Satisfy code egns

c. Loads

-Consistent with spectra, mass distribution, I mode shapes, piping layout and restraint configuration

23. SRV ADS Output

a. Di splacements

-Less than 1" or consistent with spectra, mode shapes, mass distribution, piping layout and restraint configuration

b. Stresses

-Satisfy code eqn

c. Loads Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 9 of 14  ;

f' 4'f q ' fAj Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2

" 1., CH-82026-1, Rev. O I

O O O O O O O O O O U Independent Design Review l Pipe Stress Checklist Checklist o.

gp ,t o, Reviewer Date l

Item Satisfactory Comments

-Consistent with spectra, mass distribution, mode shapes, piping layout, and restraint configuration

d. Mass participation

-Check that 90% of total mass has been included

24. Chugging Output

a. Displacements

-Less than 1" or consistent with spectra, mode shapes, mass distribution, piping layout and restraint configuration.

b. Stresses '

-Satisfy code eqn

c. Loads l

-Consistent with spectra, mass distribution, '

mode shapes, piping layout, and restraint configuration

d. Mass Participatior.

-Check that 90% of total mass has been included Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 10 of 14 NE L Al iS0 ,R .O APPENDIX C-2 11111llllllllllll11111111lllll

u .

v v u v m w - --- v ------------- u --

Independent Design Review Pipe Stress Checklist checkustjo p ,

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments

25. SAM Output

a. Displacements

-Consistent with input movements, piping layout, and restraint configuration

b. Stresses

-Satisfy code eqns

c. Loads

-Cor.sistent with input movements, piping layout, and restraint configuration

26. Load Combination

-Consistent with DC-1 Sect. 4.4 l

27. Equipment Nozzle Loads

-Refer to equipment drawings

28. Valve Acceleration

-Refer to DC-1 Sect. 4.8.3 and 4.8.4, and Valve Drawings Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 11 of 14 rL*aii rkd e -L Grand Gul f Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 Al CH-82026-1, Rev. O lllllllllll11llllll111llllllll l

~

k

O O O O O O O O U U U 4

Independent Design Review Pipe Stress Checklist Ch *' '

8 pp rt o.

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR CLASS 1 PIPING

1. Load Case Evaluation

-Refer to Pressure / Temperature Histogram (GE Drawing No. 794E858)

a. All cases in the pressure / temperature histogram have been considered.

b. Proper number of operational cycles for all events including hydrotest.

J

c. Proper definition of both pressure and temperature for all events,

d. Clear definition of the time span and event time function (ramp, step, or other) for loadings

2. Piping Discontinuity Evaluation

a. All discontinuities, whether structural (i.e.,

thickness change) or material (i.e., stainless to carbon) has been evaluated forj a T gTbl*

1

b. ME913 computer analysis for calculating dis- '

continuity stresses has been referenced and checked, l

1

- Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 12 of 14 g

J= jg ayi Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 L fil CH-82026-1, Rev. 0 11lllll1111llllllllll111llllll

.V U U U U U U LF V V U Independent Design Review checkilst No.

Pipe Stress Checklist g pp ,, 9, Reviewer Date i

item Satisfactory Comments l

3. Stress Indices Usage

a. Proper B, C, and K indices have been specified for all components and incorported into the ME913 analysis.

-Refer to NB-3683, applicable Bonney Forge Weldolet and Sockolet publications, and Bechtel Standard 9645-MS-04, Rev. 9

b. Proper type of component welded joing (girth butt weld or longitudinal butt weld) has been specified when selecting stress indices

-Refer to Bechtel Piping Class Sheets 9645-MS-03, Rev. 29

c. Hand calculations of stress indices

-Check for correctness and proper code or source reference. Refer to Table NB3638.2-1 and Bonney Forge publications.

4. Material Properties / Allowable Stress Usage

a. E

b. E c H ((cold modulus hot modulus of elasticity) of elasticity)

c. p (Poisson's Ratio)

d. a (coefficient of thermal expansion)

e. S, (design allowable stress intensity)

Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 13 of 14

,1 r < --' Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2 t *B d.d L fAl CH-82026-1, Rev. 0 1llllll1111111lll1111111ll11ll

independent Design Review Pipe Stress Checklist checklist No.

Support No.

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments l f. m, n (material parameters for NB-3228.3)

-Refer to Bechtel Piping Specification 9645-MS-03, Rev. 29 and Appendix I of the code.

5. ASME Code Class Acceptability

a. Proper load cases have been formed and load cases have been combined in the proper equations

b. Type of analysis is properly described (i .e. ,

ASME Class 1 standard or simplified elastic-plastic)

c. Cumulative usage factor.

-Check to assure that the factor does not exceed 1.0.

6. Welded Attachments (if applicable) l

-Check for analysis of any welded attachments (lugs) and acceptability in accordance with ASME Code Case 1745. i Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 14 of 14 A'- iF1 Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-2

'5bd'JLFA1 CH-82026-1, Rev. O 11lll11lllllllll11llll11ll1111

u v -.

y v v v. u u independent Design Review Pipe Support Checklist Checklist No.

Support No.

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments I

1. Design Input Data

a. Check that all data were used correctly.

b. Refer to Bechtel Calc. No. .

2. Design Assumptions & Design Methods,

a. Check the Acceptability of the original design.

b. Refer to Bechtel Calc. No. .

3. Loading Combinations.

Check for consistency with Bechtel Specification No.

9645-M-300. 2. , Sect. 5. 7. 4.1. , Rev. 16.

4. Gap

a. Check for consistency with Bechtel Specification -

No. 9645-M-300. 2, Sect. 5. 7.9.1, Rev. 16.

b. Does the gap accommodate thermal & seismic movements in non-restraint directions?

- .t

' 'J% . Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 1 of 4

{4{cjlfj Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-3

.............m... CH-82026-2, Rev. 0

independent Design Review Pipe Support Checklist checklist No.

Support No.

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments

5. Restraints Oieck whether the design suit application requirements.

6. Spring supports Check consistency with Bechtel Specification No.

94645-M-300.2, Sect. 5. 7.6 & 5. 7. 7, Rev. 16.

7. Hanger Rads :

Check consistency with Bechtel Specification tb.

946-M-300. 2, Sect . 5. 7. 5. , Rev. 16.

8. Snubbers Check consistency with Bechtel Specification No.

9645-M-300. 2, Sect. 5. 78.8.

Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 2 of 4 Grand Gul f Unit 1

[eh'id[fd -82026-2, Rev. 0 APPENDIX C-3 llllll11115llllllll11llllllll

u O U U

~

o u O O u u U independent Design Review Pipe Support Checklist Checklist No.

Support No.

Reviewer Date item Satisfactory Comments

9. Design Interface Requirements

a. Stiffness and Frequency. Does the design meet the requirements of Bechtel Specification No.

9645-M-300. 2, Table 10, Rev. 16?

b. Stresses. Does the design meet the requirements of Bechtel Specification No. 9645-M-300.2, Table 2, Rev.16? l

10. Loadings

a. DL l

b. TH

c. OBE

d. SSE 1

e. SRVADS l

f. SRV i 9 SRVALL

h. Inspect other loadings for reasonableness Mississippi Power & Light Sheet 3 of 4 83:,[dL[1] '

Grand Gulf Unit 1 APPENDIX C-3 grimm - CH-82026-2, Rev. 0

lllll l

3 4 -

- f C

oX I 4 D N

t E eP eP h

S A t

s

.. n ooe e NNt a m t tD m isr o o l

k p C cp eu hS c

y r

t o

c f

a s

it a

S r

e w

i e

v e

R e

h t

l l e l t l ah _

a c _

w o n ye 3 it e i l f t

vs t cn t i

c eo h g _

el n r  ? _

u r n i

Rk c f ow co L

ne gh h

t e

t s c

h &

r1 O

i m es e .

sC e t

e l t f n wt v oie et t e m

ee r m PnR U

Dr o i e i ,

n ng pf 2 n pp t g gn pl -

i ?i a iu6 e u s ss r et er sG2 s 0 d S d nd a) id2 n t uemel (

e s sn8 sa -

ee pp ph eh ag t t rt cn u i ii ir1 M_G 0 ei O s us sw d P eqeya n oeoh r i ]..e w I

n i gD rD pd 7 t.

s .

e .

D a b 1 I.

a7 jt

d. .

1 1

'A" . .

{

l

l b

3 g

l l APPENDIX D b

POTENTIAL FINDING REPORTS O

O O

O O

Mississippi Power & Lig ht ti,( t 31 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review lillllilllllillllllilllIIIIIII 82026 0

b l APPENDIX D 1

] l POTENTIAL FINDING REPORTS l The following Potential Finding Reports are attached:

PFR No. Rev. No .

001 0 002 0

)

003 0 )

D D

J J

J J

WL 11111111llllll1lll11111111llll 1

Mississippi tower & Light Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design review 82026

)

)

APPENDIX D PFR No. 001

) Potential Finding Report Revision No. 0 l Sheet 1 of 3 l

l l

t

1. Potential Finding Description The Bechtel GGNS-1 QA Program (NOAM and implementing procedures) is silent with respect to performing corrective actions or remedial actions wnen errors or deficiencies are identified in non-standard computer programs.

D Requiroment 10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion XVI.

)

Reference Documents Bechtel GGNS-1, NQAM, BQAM, PEPM and PPM documents.

)

)

Extent Olsolated Extensive O other (specif y)

)

Mississippi Power & Light Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review L l k A 82026 11111lllllltl1lll1111llI!!1ll1

)

APPENDIX D PFR No 001 Potential Finding Report Revision No. 0 Sheet 2 of 3 Design impact Design may be impacted if corrective / remedial actions are not performed to determine validity of designs generated using computer codes (programs) found containing errors or deficiencies.

p Potential Safety impact If project-developed (non-standard) computer programs are not properly controlled, desi.gns based upon data calculated by these codes may be unconservative.

I Further review is required to evaluate the potential safety impact. The following will ba done:

1. Review the verification packages for the following non-standard computer programs developed by the Civil discipline to calculate hydrodynamic spectra : ASHACC, SPECENV, POLCART.

2. Review all other non-st indard computer programs developed by the project to assure that appropriate controls have been employed.

/ M 2 Originated by ' Cognizant Grou Leader D'a t e" Approved by NTri'z aa 4/f4 /4-Project Manager ' Date Mississippi Power & Light

i Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 1111111llll111111111ll1!I11111 82026

D APPENDIX D PFR No. 001 g Potential Finding Report Revision No. O Sheet 3 of 3 II. Senior Review YES NO D Further Review Required g O Valid Observation O O j Potential Safety impact O O O

Comments:

Perform the further review recommended in Section I and return the results to the Senior Review Team.

D 0

0 Approved M 7 L dannWant Senior Reviewer. Date' O -

lil. Project Manager Comments:

D Approved by YMIlf - 0 AN'l /M2 Project Manager '

/ Date o

Mississippi Power & Light Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review A_ 82026 imui::  ::alli b

D APPENDIX D PFR No. 002 3 Potential Finding Report Revision No. 0 l Sheet 1 of 3 1

1. Potential Finding Description The restraint stiffness input into the piping analysis is based upon a restraint frequency of 33 Hz. The actual as-built stiffness of the D restraint is not reviewed to assess its impact on the piping analysis.

3 Requirement The as-built restraint stiffness should be reviewed to assure that the variation from the value used in the piping analysis is not large enough to significantly change the systems' mode shapes, load distribution, support loads or pipe stress.

Reference Documents 1

1. Bechtel Specification 9645-M-300.2 '

D 2. There is no documentation which reflects a closure of this loop.

D Extent Olsolated MExtensive O Other (Specify)

J This finding applies to all piping analyses on GGNS-1 performed by Bechtel.

O ML A 11111llll11lllllllllllllll11ll Mississippi Power & Light Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 D

O APPENDIX D PFR No 002 Potential Finding Report Revision No. 0 7

Sheet 2 of 3 Design impact O If the requirement as stated above is not satisfied, significant changes in support loads and system stresses may result.

3 0

1 i

g Potential Safety impact l An increase in the system or support stresses due to revised restraint

! stiffnesses may prevent the RHR system from performing its safety function.

O O

Originated by >L - e , r3 4/INL cognfa nt'drouger ~ D'a t e Approved by T/TU if WI 4 /ft i l Project Manag'er Date o

e Mississippi Power & Light y [q g , . Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 1111111111llll1111111111111111 82026 O

)

APPENDIX D PFR No. 002 Potential Finding Report Revision No. 0 l J

Sheet 3 of 3

11. Senior Review YES NO 3 Further Review Required

% O Valid Observation O O Potential Safety impact O O D

Comments:

Perform the following additional reviews :

1. Review previous Cygna analyses to determine the impact of restraint D stiffness changes on the system stresses and support loads.

2. During the pipe support review, tabulate the assumed restraint stiffness vs. the actual (designed) stiffness.

3. Request that Bechtel reanalyze a representative piping problem using D the actual restraint stiffnesses.

D Approyed [d Fi/l2 ant Senior Reviewer. bate D -

Ill. Project Manager Comments:

]

l Approved by Id llLO[hn Ab 'IlF 2 Project Manager Date l l Mississippi Power & Light I i Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review

[D A 82026 l111111llll1111111111lll111111 i

l

) l l

APPENDIX D PFR No. 003

) Potential Finding Report Revision No. O Sheet 1 of 3

1. Potential Finding Description A cut-off frequency of 60 Hz was used in the SRV dynamic analysis. The ZPA for the SRV spectra is not reached until 100 Hz.

)

) Requirement All modes which have significant contribution to the system response should be included in the piping analysis.

)

Reference Documents

) Bechtel memo to J.K. Parkh regarding New Loads dated 8/1/79.

)

Extent Olsolated gExtensive O other (Specify)

) This observation applies wherever piping systems are subjected to l hydrodynamic loads having a significant frequency content in excess of l LO hertz. )

l

)

Mississippi Power & Light Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review '

L l L A 82026 tilillllllllllllllllilllllilli

)

O APPENDIX D PFR No 003 Potential Finding Report Revision No. O Sheet 2 of 3 Design impact O If some significant modes were not included in the analysis, the resultant loads and stresses could prove to be unconservative.

3 0

g Potential Safety impact The consideration of harmonic responses in excess of 60 hertz may lead to overstresses in the piping system during SRV loadings.

The following additional reviews will be performed :

1. Review GE doc ument, NEDE 25250, " Generic Criteria for High Frequency Cutoff of BWR Equipment," January 1980.

2. Calculate the summation of the mass participation factors for all modes considered.

3

3. Along with item (2), evaluate the significance of the spectral accelerations beyond 60 hertz.

Originated by 1 -

As nT 4/MB ?__

Cogniy droup L8 Date

~

Approved by li(Y ( t( N a 4 /f 4// 2 Project Manager ~j Date D

Mississippi Power & Light M 3 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review 82026 Ill1111111ll111111111111111111 3

b APPENDIX D PFR No. 003

, Potential Finding Report Revision No. O 3

Sheet 3 of

11. Senior Review YES NO 3 Further Review Required g O Valid Observation O O Potential Safety impact O O 3

Comments:

Perform the additional reviews recommended in Section I and report the results to the Senior Review Team.

3 3

3 Approveg zant Senior Reviewer. 'D a t e' O -

lli. Project Manager Comments:

3 r l

/,,

Approved by />M[// /60u7 4/1 'l/d 7.

o Project Manager

' \/ Date Mississippi Power & Light WA l

Grand Gulf Unit 1 Independent Design Review l L 82026 11111lllll11111111111111111111 3 1