ML20126L097
| ML20126L097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1985 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506190414 | |
| Download: ML20126L097 (110) | |
Text
__ _ - - - - - _ -- -- _ _-_______--- -- _------ _ ----- ---_--_-_ _
W ," ^b,#p %o UNITED STATES
( [ k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
( L. ; j t
\, * * " * /
JUN 101985 i
Docket No. 50-354 l
. i MEMORANDUM T0: Central Files FROM: Walter R. Butler, Chief ;
Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
HOPE CREEK INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDVP)
OBSERVATION REPORTS i
Since the commencement of the Hope Creek IDVP, a number of observation reports have been generated. Enclosed is a copy of Hope Creek IDVP Observation Reports 1 through 48.and 50.
Walter R.' Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing j
Enclosure:
As stated '
Contact:
D. Wagner X 28525 i
I I
i i
t i
N S
. Jamso L. Milbxn 4
pT . -
SAnoENT & LUrrrY ENTs 3 NEE TAS m "" W ,
_, roWNDEDsets as CAST MONROC STRtt?
H. STEPHEN TAYLOR
, , , . , , asets teoatOOO 312-269 63f t TWX 960*t8t*2007 LSP-29 May 8, 1985 Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Independent Design Verification Program Observation Reports Mr. W. F. Bauer Principal Engineer Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza ,
Newark, New Jersey 07101 I
Dear Mr. Dauer:
Enclosed for your information and action :.s one copy of observatioq f Report No. recitlting from the IDVP of t'to Hope Creek Generating '
Station.
Tho Observation Report should be reviewed and the Resolution Report
' sheets completed and signed by Dochtel anil PSE&GC and returned'as ;
soon as possible. I have enclosod two cepics of the Resolution Report shoot for.ns for your uno. Return of original documents should bo via Federal Express or equivalait overnight servico in 7 order to facilitate S&L's disposition of *:he Observation Report. ;
i Please note the '.*nternal Review Committeo requires additional infor-mation (seu Item 4 of the observation Report), which should bo <
included in the Resolution Report, prior to evaluating the sofoty ,
significance of this observation. ;
i p
b f
9 '
CARCENT O LUNDY -
, ENGINEER 9
- CHicAto l
I Mr. W. F. Bauer LSP-29 Public Service Electric and Gas Company May 8, 1985 Page 2
- Any questions you or Bechtel may have concerning this observation should be addressed in accordance with the Program Plan Protocol.
Yours very truly, e
'h H. S. Taylor Chairman, Internal Review Committee HST:nd In Duplicate Enclosures Copies:
J. P. Milhoan L. C. Oesterich '
P. L. Wattelet W. A. Bloss (2)
O. Zaben -
T. J. Duffy -
H. G. L. McCu11ciugh .
R. M. Schiavoni !
o ,
i e
i.
e a
(
i i8 I
~
, f e
{
i u
.blic Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating S:ati:n *Jnit,1 Page 1 of 1 09sER'.'ATION REPORT OR No. 1 , Rev. 0 , Da t e_5/_2/85
- 1. Structure (s), ' system (s), or component (s) involved:
Computer Program: SLAP (Steel Load Analysis Program) i
- 2. ' Description of Observation: Theoretical manuals are required for all computer programs per the requirements of EDP 4.36.
A theoretical manual has not been developed for this program used in the final Joad verification of the structural steel.
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The requirements of EDP 4.36 for a theoretical manual have not been followed. The theoretical basis for program is not defined.
- 4. Recer.rendation fer resolution (optional):
Provide theoretical basis for SLAP (Steel Load Analysis Program).
Review other computer programs used for safety-related work to assure existence of a theoretical manual.
t 5. Internal Revitw Committee classification of Observation:
N.t s'ignificant to safety (See Item 6) x Aeditional information required (See Iter. 6) 5 Potentially Significant to Safety (See Iter. 8) 6.. Internal Review ccrre.ittee reason for ncn-safety-significance of
' .' Observation >r additional informa !on required:
Added,information required to evaluato safety significance.
- 7. Internal Review Cormitee Signatures
/. o as t' %
Cnairman /
_ ~
Hecnanical Representative ,, Electrical Representative '
7 J A ., A Structurai Representative control and Instrumentatten Representative
i e i
.a *
- dMbMA 7f AUa bY muo1nx1me - , ~ ~
, FOUNOCD4898 >
SS CAST MONROC STRCCT ( - -' -
H. STEPHEN TAVLOR AtSCCiarg t al2 ) 849*2000 [
312 2 9 6373 Twx esO.aat.geO7 [
L LSP-33
. May 13, 1985 :
Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company llopo Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 ,
Independent Design Verification Program Observation Reports Mr.' W. P. Dauer Principal Engineer Public Servico Electric and Gas Company l 80 Park Plaza Newark, Now Jers(y 07101
Dear Mr. Bauer:
Enclosed for yout' information and action is one copy each of observation Report No'c. 2 through 13 resulting from the IDVP of the Hope Creer: ;
Generating Station. . i Tho Observation P.eports should be revieweit and the Resolution Report [
shoots completed and signed by Bechtel anit PSE&GC and returnod as icon as possible. I navo enclosed several cop.es of the Resolution Rep 3rt shoot forms wit! Mr. L. C. Oostorich's copy of this lotter. Rotur1 of original documents should be via redoral ':r.prcnc or equivalent ovat- 1 night servico in ordor to facilitate S&L's disposition of the Obscrvation l Haports. i
. Any questions you or Dochtel may have coni:erning those Obsorvation Reports ;
should be addrosaed in accordance with thu Program Plan Protocol. +
Yours very truly, -
- 'c1 HST nd 11. S. Taylof f Unclosures Chairman, Internal Roview Committee '
Copius: '
/J. P. Milhoan L. C. Oosterich !
P. L. Mattolet I W. A. Dloss (2) !
O. ::abon W. D. Crumpackor ;
+
T. J. Duffy
- 11. G. L. !!cCullo'tgh !
h.11. Schiavoni
~ __ - - _ _ __ ___ __. -- . _ _ . -
b O
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. _2_, Rev. 0 ,
Date__5]l3/8
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
l SACS system cooling water supply valve IHV-2520B to the RHR pump seals and motor bearings
- 2. Description of Observation:
Logic diagram J-11-0, sheet 16, Revision 5, dated 4/18/83 shows valvo 111V-2520B incorrectly interlocked to RIIR pump A. Logic diagram J-ll-0, sheet 1, Revision 9, dated 10/18/84 incorrectly (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
Discrepancies on logic diagrams could cause discrepancies in the control schematic development and hardware design.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
Logic diagram J-ll-0 shoot 16 nhould be revised to show the correct RilR pump interlock for valvo llIV-2520B.
i (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
x Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
~~
. Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
. , . Observation or additional information required:
The control schomatic imolomonted the required logic for valvo llIV-2520B operation despite the logic diagram discrepancies. The control schematic dictatou hardwaro design.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: ,y / .
d 's Chairman f/
t_.-- ?-
-A- 'TW A.e+ V -k '
- tt , ,
Hocnanical Representative Electrical Hoprosentative N ) .. -
Structural Representative control and instrumentation Representative
.i .
l l- .
l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 l !! ope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 . Page 2 of 2 ;
l
!. OBSERVATIO:4 ' REPORT OR No._ 2, Rev. O, Date 5/13/85 l l
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) l references schematic diagram E-0223-0 for the valve lHV-2520B '
control circuit.
l l
- 4. (continuation)
Recommendation for resolution (optional) : '
Logic diagram J-ll-0, sheet 1, should be revised to show the correct schematic reference for the valve lHV-2520B control circuit.
l . Provide the methodology by which design documents are developed 1 l and used to insure that design input is correctly reflected and l assurance that this methodology has been applied to all other
- design documents to correctly reflect design input, t .
l i
i h
I
. I e
I I
s f
I i
L
+
i
I , .
l l
< Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 3 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/13/S$
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Calculation No. C-1750-30, dated 2/13/84, Safety Auxiliary Cooling System Piping l
i 2. Description of Observation:
l In Calculation C-1750-30, the computer model of line 153-HBC-30, between nodes 435 and 445, uses a wall thickness of 0.750" instead of the 0.375" as specified by Line Index specification 10855-P-500 (continued next page)
- 3. Significance of. Observation:
The apparent unreconciled discrepancy will affect the ficxibility of this portion of the subsystem and thus may affect the calculate $
pipe stresses and design loads for anchor 1-P-EG-153-H41 and restraint 1-P-EG-153-H36.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- a. Provide justification that thcfdiscrepancy in the computer model has been reconciled with'the design drawing.
( b. Provide assurance that other pi,cing stress analyses have been reconciled with the design drawings.
- 5. Internal Review Committee,classificati$d of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
. Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for ncn-safety-significance of
. ,. Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate refety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: .
f Chairman
.d
/
, j - }"
,bx __ , . lw 6w' Mechanrcal Representative Electrical Rep esentative l
f Structura;. Representative f
Control 1
and Instrumentatten
-~
Representative l
Public' Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llope Crech Goncrating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2
~i r; . QPSERVATION REPORT OR-No. 3 , Rev. O, Da'te 5/13/85
- 2. Descrfntion of Observation (continuation) _
. Revision.20, dated 9/13/83.. This discrepancy involves eleven ~
feet of-30 inch diameter pipe. -
L e
e
/
I O
e 4 s
- N I4
- 9 W h
' i. a Y
!, e
- ?.,. .
x h
k
's _
'3
.'.'j :
e k e
' ,_\ '
~
- Public Service Electric and Gas Company' Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 4 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/13/85 l
6
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Calculation No. C-1750-30, dated 2/13/84, safety Auxiliary CoolingSystem\ Piping.
- 2. Description of Observation:
In calculation C-1750-30, the computer model of line 155-HBC-30, from node 512 through node 520 does not appear to agree with the routing shown on drawing HG-1-P-EG-13, Revision 10D, dated 2/1/84.
(continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The apparent unreconciled discrepancy may have an effect on calculated pipe stress and calculated loads on anchor l-P-EG-155-HQ variable support 1-P-EG-155-H01 and restraints 1-P-EG-155-H02, 1-P-EG-155-H03, and 1-P-EG-155-H04.
-4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Provide justification that the discrepancy in the computer model has been reconciled with the design drawing.
- b. Provide assurance that other piping stress analyses have been reconciled with the design drawings.
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information recuired (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information recuired:
Additional information is required to determine the safety significance of this discrepancy.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: 4 f
- ,s' h, , av %
Chairman /
7
/'s 0 , (tm ./ ~/
Mecnapical~ Representative Electrical Representative c
/ , /t -
.4 w .n h .n k Control and Inst'rumentat;cn n ~ ..
, Structural' Representative
\ Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 4, Rev. O, Date 5/13/85
- 2. Description of Observation (continuation)
I L$ Mp7g e A}
@D Y m
k~ < v ,
u~ ,
F
% )
A JI N N gzo O
\
>! k $ % 2 c' N ng,k 0~W As Shown on Drawina As Modeled In the computer analysis, the line is modeled as a span of 4.25 feet from node 510 north to node 512 (X direction) , followed by a span of 7.75 feet downward to node 515, followed by a seven foot span north to the anchor at node 520.
Drawing HG-1-P-EG-13 shows a downward span of twelve feet from nodes 510 to 515, followed by a span of seven feet north to the anchor at data point 520 with no.4.25 foot span in the X direction from node 510.
O
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station --Unit 1 Page 1 of 2
^
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 5 , Rev. n , Date e n 3/89 l
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
ASME Code, Section III, Class 1 Piping System DesignSpecif(cation 10855-M-067 (Q) , Revision 2
- 2. Description of Observation:
ASME,Section III, paragraphs NA-2140, NB-3114, NB-3226 and NB-6322 require evaluation of testing condition loads. Table 1 of Section 3.1, Design Specification 10855-M-067 (0) does not explicitly address testing conditions. (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of-Observation:
Analysis for test conditions as required by ASME,Section III may not have been done. Because the design specification does not include the requirements for testing condition loads, Class I piping system design may not be in compliance with ASME, Ecction Il '
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- a. Revise Design Specification 10855-M-067 to include testing condition loads to be in compliance with code requirements.
- b. Provide assurance that test pressures have been accounted for in the piping analyses as required by ASME,Section III.
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observaticn:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
-Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Comnittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to determine safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. ' Internal Review Commitee Signatures: 3 W; ^
Chairman /
1 ~-
A /
f, Mechanical Representative f e -
t Electrical Representative 0
. + Af ,l wl -
. Structural Reoresentative Control'and Instrumentaticn
\ Representative 1
Pub]ic Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Crcok Generating Station - Unit 1 .Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 5 ,
Rev. A Date 5/13/85
- 2. Description of Observation (continued) i Therefore, it is not clear how the NB-6322 requirements for using the limits of NS-3226 for determining the permissible test pressure are met. Becausd Design Specification 10855-M-067 (0) requires a test pressure of 1.33 times the design pressure, the test pressure should be specifically checked for stress limits. The Design Specification does not appear to comply with ASME,Section III.
l e
a s
S D
e
???
o Public. Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating. Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OR No. Date 5/13/8a OBSERVATION REPORT 6 , Rev. 0,
- 1. Structure (s),' system (s), or component (s) involved:
Reactor Building Basemat Calculation 621-2(0) Rev. O Civil - Structural Design Criteria D2.1, Rev. 7
- 2. _D'escription of Observation:
A groundwater elevation of 95.5 feet was used in byoyancy calcu-lation 621-2(O), page 1. This is inconsistent with design criteria D2.'l g which specifies a groundwater level of 96.0 feet (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The design of the basemat does not appear to be in accordance with
- the Civil / Structural Design Criteria, D2.1, and the FSAR. Also, the Design Criteria.D2.1 does not appear to be in accordance with the FSAR.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional-): -
- a. Revise calculations and design criteria to be consistent ~
with FSAR commitment.
- b. Describe the BPC process for assuring consistency between design documents and-FSAR commitments.
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
x Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
. .- Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
. , . Observation or additional information recuired:
-The differences in groundwater level'between the three documents is not significant enough to affect the design adequacy of the reactor building basemat.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee.
Signatures: ,2-
. . 01l ' %
Chairman /
f .
1
-/ / / ~~52
)f)W / w. A .'
MechTnical RepresentatTve Electrical Representative
/
( [ 'm Structural Representative
/f A A(. s , w ,
Control and Instrumentaticn i Representative O
'e . , . - ,
l' TPublic Service-Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30
' liope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2
' OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 6, Rev. O,'Date-5/13/85 Description of O,bservation: (continuation) and the.FSAR, Section 2.4.13.1 states the groundwater level can be
.up'to.97. feet. *'
.g l -
% $ L f
\
4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit,1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 7 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/13/83
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Reactor building basemat, Calculation Numbers: 621-2 (Q) , Rev. 0 621-15(O), Rev. 0 621-1(0), Rev. 0 621-8(O), Rev. 0
- 2. Description of Observation:
The acceptability of the Finite Element Analysis results for the basemat cannot be verified due to the following:
(continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The adequacy of the reactor building basemat design moments cannot:
be verified.
4
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
Provide justification for the adequacy of the reactor building basemat analysis.
\
- 5. Internal Review Committee, classification of Observation:
Not significant te safety (See Item 6)
~~~
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item S)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
. . Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4. ,
- 7. Internal Review Commitee.
Signatures: j
/rf, (71 J%
Chairman f/ ,
_y W~ /. s7
<^'
~
.f % < ' a' /
Mechanical Representative Electrical Representactve N
/ -l v im *
- /\ $' !/ n m Structural Representative Contrcl anc Instrumentaticn i Representative
). , ..
i .- ..
! ' Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Crech Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 j .-
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 7 , Rev._0, Date 5/13/85
- 2. Description of Potential Observation: (continuation)
- a. The number of elements through the thickness of the basemat is only 3. This may not provide sufficiently accurate element L~ stresses to obtain appropriate bending moments in the mat.
t
- b. The method used to calculate the bending moments from the element stresses as given in calculation 621-15(Q)(sheets 1&2) may not.
provide acceptable values as it does not account for the correct location of the stress in the element.
. c. The plan size of elements is very large considering the variation of the bending moment'in the mat. The limited number of element stresses may not provide an accurate moment distribution.
- d. The overturning moments for each wall system, calculated in pages 7-17 of Calculation No. 621-8 (Q) result in a net vertical load. The net load due to overturning moment should be zero.
The calculation of the nodal forces does not account for the nodal tributary areas (i.e., nodal forces are the same and do
- not vary with the nodal tributary area) .
r 9
4
.e s
s e
1 .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No.- 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 1 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 8 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/13/83 1
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Conduit supports - Standard Type R3 Calculation 6}7-38 (O) , Rev. 5
- 2. Description of Observation:
Calculation 677-38 (Q) , Rev. 5, does not consider the additional stresses due to self-weight excitation of the conduit supports.
l
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The adequacy of conduit supports cannot be verified without documentation of the effects of self-weight excitation.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- la. Document the effects of self weight excitation on the design i of conduit' supports and justify not including self weight.
- b'. Assure that with the addition of self weight the design of the !
conduit supports meets all FSAR commitments.
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
.__ Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for ncn-safety-significance of
. . . Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is requir'ed to determine the safety significance. Provide information requested in Item.4.
- 7. Internal' Review Commitee-Signatures: - a /
Y, e it i
. Chairman j/ .
J fA /
Mechanical Representative
/Sk Lu 'u Electrical R presentative
_ _ l-
/
l l l/* /
/ m A .1 % am Structural-Representative Control and Instrumentation
\ Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company' Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2
, OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. _q _
, Rev. 0 , Date 5/13/SE I
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
6"# conduits Drawing T-1406, Rev. 2 Calculation 677-38 (Q) , Rev. 5
- 2. Description'of Observation:
Allowable spans for 6"# conduits are given in Table C-1, page 3.20.2
~
of drawing E-1406, Rev. 2, for all areas of the plant.
g (continued on next page)
! 3. Significance of, Observation:
The adequacy of the use of 6"# conduits in areas of the Reactor Building above El. 132'-0" and in the Control - R/W Building above El. 124'-0" cannot be verified.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
, .a. Determine if 6" conduit has.been used in Reactor Building abovc.
El. 132'-0" and the Control - R/W Building above El. 124'-0".
- b. If 6" conduit has been used above these elevations, calculatic..
~
. shall e provided to justify the spans used.(continued on next
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation: page)
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information receired (See tem 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8) e 6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information recuired:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.
s
,- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -
4/. . . o, a Chairman j/
J f =
/' A 't 7
j by Mechanical Representative' Electrical Representative 0 '
[ l
.v( - -
m 4 4.vs Structural Representative
.A ' x Control and Instrumentaticn 1 Representative ,
ne-- w - ,-- -,-,-n. . , .--- -
4
- .Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2
~ OBSERVATION llEPORT OR No. 9, Rev. O, Date 5/13/85 4
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
Calculatioh 677-38(0)', Rev. 5, pages 350-354, appears to only provido spans for the 6"U conduits in the Reactor Building below El. 132'-0" and in the Control - R/W Building below El. 124'-0".
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)
(c. Revise table C-1 to provide controls necessary for the use of 6"$ conduit above Reactor Building El. 132'-0" and Control -
] R/W Building 124'-0", ,
4 e
!~ .
4 6 y a N
{
f
- - -- - -m.. . - , _ . - . . . , , - , . , ,m, --r.--,~~...w. .-,o _.,.-,mm.,,.,e ,,.--m_- - . - , . , - - - - . -
Public Service _ Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit l' .Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REDORT OR'No. _L1, Rev. C[_, Date 5/3 3/89
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
ASME Code,Section III, Class I Piping Systems Design Specification 10855-M-067 (Q) , Revision 2.
- 2. Description of Observation:
- The subject design specification, Section 3.1, requires that operating pressure be utilized for certain load combination calculations. The design specification further states in
- 3. Significance of. Observation: ~
A potential exists that inaccurate pressure values may have been used in calculating loading combinations.
- 4. Recctmendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Revise the Design Specification to clarify the proper pressure to be used in the design calculation.
(continued on next page)
.s s
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not signi,ficant te safety (See Item 6) v Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review' Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information recuired:
Added information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: ?
/I ./
GW&
Chairman j/
.s r
- ../
/
- 7
/
, u / , b l Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative
/ .m ) /
Structural Representative Control anc Instrumentation v Representative
o .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSPRVATION REPORT OR No. 10, Rev._0, Date 5/13/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
Section 3.1.that design pressures are listed in both DPC line index and General Electric process diagrams. This implies that either of these documents is appropriate for use as design input. However, review of the line index and process diagrams shows reference to the following terminology only:
Line Index 10855-P-0501, Revision 17,for line number 1FD-DBA-001, HPCI steam from main steam line C: Design Rating: 1,209; Normal: 1,120; Max: 1,330.
General Electric Process Diagram 761E270AC, Revision 4, Design Conditions Table lists the following: Peak Pressure:
1,330; Normal Maximum Pressure: 1,120.
Since the term " Operating Pressure" is not used in those documents, the design specification requirement may not be consistently met.
Also, there appears to be no BPC document that requires " maximum" g
line index pressure values to be used for " Operating Pressure,"
a procedure that BPC verbally stated is the practice.
- 4. Recore. ;ndation for resolution (optional):
- b. Provide the basis for selection of pressure values used in establishing the loading conditions required by the Design
. . . Speci fication .
- c. Provide
- assurance that the basis has been used for the selection of pressure values throughout the piping design for the proj ect.
4
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 11 , Rev. 0 ,
Date_1/J3/C)
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Class 1 piping systems designed by BPC.
Design Specification for Nuclear Power Piping ASME,Section III.
Class 1 10855-M-067 (O) , Rev. 2, dated 8/1/83
- 2. Description of Observation:
ASME III ND-3113, operating Conditions, requires that ecch condition: normal, upset, emergency, faulted and testing, "be in the Design Specification in such detail, as will provide a complett
, basis for design." (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of. Observation:
Lack of definition of what is to be included in a given load in a load combination may result in inaccurate load inputs to piping stress analysis.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Revise the design specification to define the loading terminology and to provide loading combinations as required by the FSAR, Table 3.9-8.
( ,
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Cctmittee. classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) y Additional information required (See : tem 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 6)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: . j
/* l. fl.<f , A Chairman f
/
/ ) ( 7Yu-- .
/(hcf k l... s ,.
.i '_
Meenanical Representative Electrical Representative
. b d' / ~-
Structural Representative Conte 1 and Instrumentaticn Representative
o Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Croch Generating Station - Unit l' Page 2 of 2 i
OBSFRVATTON REPORT OR No. 11, Rev. O, Date 5/13/S5
- 2. Description of Observation (continuation)
DPC Design Specif'ication for Nuclear Power Piping ASME III, Class 1 10855-M-067 (0) , Rev. 2,does not appear to define or reference a detailed definition of DBA, RVC, and RVO. Foot-note 4 of Table 1 1 Section 3.1 of the Design Specificaticn implies that a DBA incluces effects other than resultant RPV movements. There appears to be no definition of the other effects, a
- 4. b. Provide assurance that those loading combinations hcVe been incorporated into the Class 1 stress analyses.
t e
0 9 9 w
l l
r
a a
a .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating. Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. jjL, Rev. n , Da te r, /13/E :
I
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or compenent(s) involved:
Class 1 piping system designed by BPC.
Design Specification for Nuccar Powcr Piping ASME,Section III Class 1 108552 M-067 (0) , Rev. 2, dated 8/1/83
- 2. Description of Observation:
ASME III, NA-2140(a), states "It is the responsibility of s the owner to defino acceptability criteria to be applied for faulted conditions in the Design Specification."
. (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of. Observation:
Loch of references to the cource of design inputs do not readily allow verification or the compliance of stress reports to the Design Specification (M-067) requirements.
- 4. Roccamendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Provide the documentation which demonstrates that functiona]
capability is satisfied as required,by the FSAR cor.r.itment i to NEDO-21985.
(continued on next p ce)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classificatien of Observation:
Not significant te safety (See ! tem 6) x Additional informa:!cn required (See : tem 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item B)
- 6. Internal neview Ccmmittee reason for ncn-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
/ u,4G'
[, ,
I fl4 (tr %.
Cnairman /
~
/\ ]<'&& , /,ff)lfK M . k Electrical Representa
'.s -)
ve Mechanical Representative
, n ~
/ Y ,.
Structural Represen:ative Control and Instrumenta::cn Represen:ative
O O Public Servico Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 llopo Creol; Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSEltVATION ItEPORT OR No. 12, Rev. O, Date 5/13/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) l .
Footnote 3 of Tablo 1 in Section 3.1 of the design specification appears to provjdo acceptance criteria in terms of functional capability. !!oyever, there is apparently no reference to the !
definition of for c'.ional capability. FSAR Table 3.9-9, .
Footnote 2, references General Electric Document NEDO-21985, l September 1978, as ensuring functional capability to essential piping. This document is not referenced in the design specification.
I
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional): (continuation)
- b. Revise the design specification to impicmont the requirenonts of NEDO-21905.
. g 4 L
l s
- . t
- r
- Public Service Electric and Gas Company- Project No. 7212-30 Hopo Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 l i
,Date5/13/05l OBSET-[.3_ TION REPORT OR No. 13 , Rev. 0 l
t
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or co.Tponent(s) involved: !
j Design Specification 10855-M-068 (0) , Rev. 1, for Nucicar <
Power Piping ASME Section III, Class 2 and 3 (
I
- 2. Deccription of Observations :
l The loud combinations in Section 6.2 of Design Specification [
l 108 55-M-068 (0) , Rev. 1, do not agree with those committed to I in Table 3.9-p of the HCGS FSAP..
- 3. Significance of Observation: ;
[ There is an apparent lack of iraple:aenting an FSAR licensing i
t connitment.
?
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptienal): A
- a. Revisc the Design Specificction 10355-M-068 (0) to require l_ consideration of the load combination,specified in the FSI.R
[
l Table 3.9-8. (continued on ne::t page) l l 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation: ,
j Not significant to safety (See Item 6) !;
.x Additional information required (See Item 6) j __ Potentially significant to Safety (See Item C) i
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for ncn-ssfety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance. Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee !
! Signatures: > !
Chairman / i
/ Y .
wa .
I Mecnnnical Repres,entative ~
Electrical Esp esentative a .
l, si ,
l f. C , Ch y ) .2 l 4, m l
Structural Representative Control anc Instrumen:ation !
l Recresentative i 1
l :
l
.e <- - r-,,.- e- , , - - - - - -,-,-,c~m-n,nm_,-,-gn-wn,nn.e,.w.,.,w. ,,,__,-_,..n_vnn,--, _mmw~.,'
9
- o .
l
- Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7217-30 l Ilope Crock Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 j
OBSQRVj.TTO!? RPPORT OR No. 13, Rev. O, Date 5/13/85
- 4. Reco.Tmendation for resolution (optional): (continuation)
- b. Describe the process that is used to ensure that FSAR' co tenitments are incoporated into the design.
A l
! e f
I e
s s b
e I
L
F .
- , J. L.'Milhoan o- .
SARGENT & LUN'DY ENGINEEMS
.b g.
rouworoinsi eg SS CAST MONNOC STRECT ,
, I 60603 H. STEPHEN TAYLOR .
A380Ciaff latti369 8000 .
ne sse-sm Twx..........., .
LSP-35 l j
May 17, 19 85 '
Project No. 7212-30 i
! Public Service Electric and Gas Company I Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1
! Independent Design Verification Program l Observation Reports !
+
i t
Mr. W. P. Bauer l Principal Engincor Public Service Electric and Gas Company j i
80 Park Plaza Nowark, New Jersey 07101 [
Dear Mr. Baucri ,
l Enclosed for your information and action is one copy each of !
Observation Report Nos. 14 and 15 resulting from the IDVP of the l
Hopo Creek Generating Station.
l .The Observation Reports should be reviewed and the Resolution Report i shoots completed and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and returned as l
soon as possible. Return of original documents should be via Fodoral Express or equivalent overnight service in order to facilitate ,
i St.L's disposition of the Observation Reports. [
f
- Any questions you or Bochtel may have concerning those Observation !
l noports should be addressed in accordance with the Program Plan j l , Protocol.
Yoursvery)truly,/
1
. ,/.Y ( Oy '
Nb **# H. S. Taylor
" Chairman, Internal Review Committee j J. P. Milhoan l L. C. Oostorich !
P. L. Wattelot f W. A. Bloss (2) ;
,.- O.'Zaben [
W. D. Crumpackor !
l 'k J
- T. J. Duffy l
II . G . L. McCullough t i R. M. Schiavoni l D. P. Whito ;
. o Public Service Electric and Gas Cdmpany Project No. 7212 *a0 Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 14, Rev. 0 , Date E /85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Reactor building basemat - Drawing C-0483-1, Rev. 8 Detail- 3
- 2. Description of Observation:
The drawing indicates that the horizontal reinforcing bar scacing used in the reactor building basemat can be 26" on center. This would exceed the ACI 318-71 code maximum spacing of 18" on conter as required by Section 7.4.3. (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of observation:
The maximum horizontal and shear bar spacing used in the reactor building basemat may violate the requirements of ACI 318-71, Section 7. 4. 3 and 17.6.1, respectively.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
A. Justify why the horizontal and shear rebar spacing deviate from the ACI code.
B. Update FSAR to document this exception. (continued on next pg.)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
._ Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Since rebar spacing in this case does not affect the strencth of the bacemat, capability of the mat to perform its function is not in question.
- 7. Internal Review Cermitee Signatures
/o o t- %
Chairman /
V/~' s ,
Mecht.:Tical Representative ITiectrical Representative J .n / X J. c Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticn Representative
r .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 l Hope Creek G'enerating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 l
i r
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.14 , Rev. O _, Date 5/17/85 l
i
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) ,
r The drawing also indicates that the shear reinforcing bar f spacing used in the reactor building basemat can be on 26" i by 52" centers. This would exceed Section 17.6.1 of the ACI l
318-71 code which has a maximum spacing of 24" on centers, i
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation) i
- c. Provide assurances that all other rebar spacing complies with the requirements of ACI 318-71.
l l I
\
, i h
I I
l 9
a..-a, - - - - .--..---- , -.-nv._, ,--,, y, ,, nw., ,,_m_,,,,.-..,,,e .,-,,-,--,---.-,._en w,,_,_,,, - - - - , --,--n.-n,
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station . Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 15 , Rev. 0, Da t e.5.Z12/85
- 1. Structure'(s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Cable Tray Support Type 03 Drawlng E-1406-0, Rev. 44 -
Calculation 677-3 (0) , Rev. 4
- 2. Description of Observation:
A. The allowable axial stress dotormined in calculation 677-3 (0), pagos 19-26, appears to have considered an out-of-plano unbraced longth based on the assumption
- 3. Significance of Observation: (continued on next page)
A. The largest unbraced longth may not have been considered in determining the allowable axial stress in the vertical members of Typo 3 cable tray supports. (continued on next page)
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
A. Evaluato Cablo Tray Support Typo 03 for maximum unbraced longth of vortical member, offects of self weight and tolerance variation allowed under drawing E-1406-0.
S. Internal Review Committee classifid N b "N O Ne N Ni$$$
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
'~ Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
' ' observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to ovaluato safoty significanco. Provido information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
fry. . y Chairman /
? _
Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative Structural Representative Control and Instrumen'aticn Representative
r - ,
s ,
.' .Public Servico Elsctric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Crcok Conorating Station - Unit 1 Paga 2 of 2 l OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 15, Rev. 0 , Date 5/17/85 1
- l
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) i that the vertical member is braced out-of-plane at the vertical location of the middle tray of a 3-level tray hanger. This location corresponds to the ,
normal location of the longitudinal brace. While this may be a valid assumption, it does not appear to recognize that sheet 3.20.23 of drawing E-1406-0 allows the location of the longitudinal brace at any point between the location of the middle tray and the bottom of the vertical member. This could potentially increase out-of-plano unbraced length of the vertical member by 25 inches, which could result in the vertical member exceeding AISI allowable stresses.
B. The added stresses due to the self weight and self weight seismic excitation of the hanger does not appear to be addressed in calculation 677-3 (0).
C. Drawing E-1406-0, sheet 3.24.03 appears to soecify a 7'-0" maximum dimension from the top of the support to the top tray level. Calculation 677-3 (0) appears to evaluate this dimonsion as 6'-0" maximum.
D. The + 2" horizontal and vertical location tolerance for the cable tray given in note 3.11, drawing E-1406-0, and the
+ 1'-0" vertical dimension tolerance for the distance from tho top of th6 hangor to tho top of the tray level doos not appear to have been addressed in calculation 677-3 (0),
which could result in the horizontal and vertical members excooding the AISI allowable stresses.
- 3. Significance of Observation: (continuation)
D. The possible addod stresses due to self weight and self weight seismic excitation of the hanger do not appear to be addressed in the calculations.
C. There appears to be a conflict betwoon the design drawing and the calculations.
D. Tho calculations do not appear to address the specified tolcrances.
Based on those four items, the design adoquacy of the Type 03 cable tray support cannot be verified.
- 4. Rocommandation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)
H. Assoas if the effects above occur on any other cable tray support types and assure that the supports are within their allowable stressos requirod by the PGAR.
u.
J. L. MilhoEn I
- J.
- r~ A
' SARo3 cmp & Luary " '/ W_
EN G3NE E32.9 'M rouhotoessi m,,,m l
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60003 H. SitPillie T AYLon i
M$%Af t ,
6348) 369 2000
$gy.pgg g3yg TWX 910 8 St.2 007 I LSP-34 l May 16, 1985 l Project No. 7212-00 .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company llopo Crcok Generating Station - Unit 1 Independent Design Verification Program l Obcorvation Reports l
l Mr. W. F. Bauor Principal Engincar Public Servico Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Ucwark, How Jersey 07101 Daar Mr. Bauer:
Encloued for your information .and action is one copy of Observaticn Report No. 16 renulting from the IDVP of the Hopo Crook Genornting Station. ,
The Observation Report should be reviewed and the Resolution Report choots completed and signed by Dochtol and PSE&GC and roturned as soon as possible. Return of original documents should be via Foderal Exproau or equivalent overnight service in order to facilitate S&L's j disposition of the Observation Roport.
l Any questions you or Bechtel may have concerning this Observation Roport should be addroscod in accordanco with the Program Plan l . Protocol.
t .
Yours very truly,
,, o fa llSTand H. S. Taylor Enclosuro Chairman, Internal RcvioW Committee t Copics:
J. P. Milhoan L. C. Oosterich P. L. Wattolot W. A. Blosc(2)
O. Zaben W. D. Crurc.pachor 4
T. J. Daffy
- 11. G. L. McCullough
. R. M. Schicvoni D. P. White
1 . *
)
t Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 l
Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 Page 1 of 2
]' OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 16 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/16/S5
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved
l HPCI System, Suppression Chamber Level Instrumentation P&ID, i l
M-55-1, Revision 12, dated 12/6/84. ;
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR, Sections 6.3.2.2.1 and 7.3.1.1.1.1 requires that the HPCI .
system initially inject water from the Condensato Storage Tank. !
When the water level in the tank falls below a predetermined level :
l . (continued on next page) l
- 3. Significance of Observation:
Considering the P&ID as the top level system design document, missing references to other drawings which show the rerpired design could cause omicsions in the required design.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
! a. Revisc the P&ID to show the correct GE Elementary Dingram reference.
l (continued on next page) i 5 .- Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
l y . -- Not significant to safety (See Item 6) f Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety'(See Item 8) j i
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of f Observation or additional information required:
Document review shows that the cable block diagram was completed and the physical electrical design is comploted from this diagram. [
L
- 7. Internal Revjew Commitee '
Signatures / r
/ A' Chairman
- / #-
t
_, [ &$ TEDS!_.4,VD j b; f7 (.M. .C bW
~
Mechanical Repre entative Electrical Representative f b O.fI d,. - t!n A sw~.yt Structural Representative Control cond Instrumenta'acn Representative i
i
. - . , . . . . _ , . _ . . - _ _ _ _--.______,,m,-.--..___.,_,,._., _
' -- - '- -~
o
- -~ ~-
0 ,.
-Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 i OBSERVATTON REPORT OR No. M, Rev. .
0_, Date 5/16/85
- 2. ,
Description of Observation: (continuation) or'the suppression chamber water level is high, the pump suction should automatically transfer to the suppression chamber. The P&ID does not show the reference to the GE Elementary Diagram from the suppression chamber level instrumentation to complete t the design for the automatic transfer.
i
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)
. b. Provide an explanation of the design process which causes i f
the design to be completed from P&ID references and assurance that reference omissions from other P&ID's to GE Elementary
} Diagrams have not caused design omissions, f
. t j 1 O
I I
4 1
1 F
e a
i i
i l e
m- .--e.w. .-,.__,.mg -.m, ym m,. y ,. . . . , .,er.-w,,, < . - , .,,o.y _may ,,.m...m,w,y -,,3.%,,, ,,p,--- y.,%-_,,,ww.__,.,,ym.p,_, , - ,
J. L. Milhoan
- ~ ,,. .
OT / bm 7
SARGENT & LUNDY ' d ~" '1 T'
ENGINEERS FOUNDED #899 se CAST MON ROE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 H. STEPHEN TAYLOR ASSOCIArt (312 ) 269 +2O00 312-269 6371 TWX 9:0 221-2807 ,
May 20, 1985.
Project No'. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company ~ '
Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1
- , 9
' Independent Design Verification Program Observation Reports aO Mr. W. F. BaueE Principal Engineer ^ (
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 5 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jdrsey 07101 i '
Dear Mr. Bauer:
- .x Enclosed for your information and action is one copy each' of Observation Report Nos. 17 and 18 resulting from the IDVP of the Hope Creek Generating Station.
'TheObservationRiportsshouldbereviewedandtheResolutionReport sheets completed and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and returned as soon as possible. Return of original documents should be via Federal Express or equivalent overnight service in order to facilitate S&L's disposition of the Observation-Reports.
Any questions you or Bechtel may have concerning these Observation Reports should be addressed in accordance with the Program Plan Protocol. -
Yours very truly, N Tayk'L k 0 7// n y
~
~
HST:nd $ H. S. Taylor Enclosures Chairman, Internal Review Committee Copies:
J. L.AM'ilhoan L. C. Oesterich P. L. Wattelet
}
W. A. Bloss (2)
O. Zaben W. .D . Crumpacker T. J. Duffy H. G. L. McCullough Schiavoni R. M.
D. P. White
l' .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station . Unit.1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 18 , Rev. 0 ,
Date_5410/85
- 1. Structure'(s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Seismic Qualification Report 10855-E-ll8(Q), Rev. O, BPC Approved 9/7/84, PSE&G approved 9/26/84, for 480V Motor Control Centers
- 2. Description of Observation: ,
FSAR Section 3.10 identifies the Class 1E equipment requiring seismic qualification, the qualification method and requirements.
There is an apparent failure to meet a design requirement in that (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
This apparent breakdown in design process could have resulted in testing of the Motor Control Centers to superseded response spectra.1 From S&L's review of the SQ Audit Package, it appears that Patel (continued on next page)
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Bechtel should identify the breakdown in the design process which permitted the use of a superseded material requisition and should provide assurance that their design process has (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
~__ Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
' Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
. Provide information requested in Item 4.
/
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -
// S 7kJ/lrk 0 W7 cum ' '
Chairman' l w '--6-, -
Mechinical Representative Electrical Representative
% M -,1 p Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation
' Representative L
~
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 18, Rev. O, Date 5/20/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) the seismic test procedure, which referenced a superseded material requisition, was authorized to be used by Bechtel. Patel Engineers' '
Test Procedure for seismic qualification of 480VAC Motor Control Centers, PEl-TR-833504-1, Rev. A, referenced Bechtel Material Requisition 10855-E-ll8(Q), Rev. 17. Bechtel reviewed the test procedure, Rev. A and granted Patel Engineers permission to proceed l on March 1, 1984. This material requisition was superseded on October 5, 1983 by Rev. 18, which changed substantially all of the required spectra. Thus the test that was approved was based on
. outdated information.
- 3. Significance of Observation: (continuation)
Engineers did obtain the appropriate response spectra. However, it appears that the appropriate response spectra was transmitted to Patel Engineers by means other than revision of the material requisition.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution: (continuation) has sufficient controls to insure that equipnent is qualified
~
to current requirements.
- b. Describe the BPC method for transmitting revised requirements for material requisitions to manufacturer and subcontractor and assure that the process has been used for other material requisitions.
+
- - -. -_. . - _ - - - . = - _ . . _ _ . . - _ _ . . - . - _ . - - - _ _ _ - . - - , - . -
- . . . i l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station . Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 17 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/20/85 i
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
- a. BPC Drawing 10855-P-3001-1, Rev. O, dated 5/10/76, " Flued Head Details" (current revision is 06, dated 2/6/79)
- b. BPC Calculation SC27-1, Rev. O, dated 4/16/85
- 2. Description of Observation:
Bechtel Engineering Department Procedure EDP 4.37, Rev. 6, Paragraph 2.2, requires that:
(continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
This apparent design process breakdown could result in:
- a. Design of the mechanical penetration flued heads and the flued head support structure to loads which may not have been adeguate.
Recommendation .cr resolution (cptional(): continued on next page) 4.
a.
BPC should identify the management and technical processes y
governing the design of mechanical penetrations from identification of design input to issuance of design (continued on no::t cage)
Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
5.
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
.' Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significan.t to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of
'
- Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
P.rovide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
d S 72e y /e2. f.6-<j 0 2 /cy a. ,
Chairma
, .b Me'chanical Represyntative Electrical Representative
' ~
s
$ s Structural Representative m ti (A/}Q'//M.m Control and Instrumentation Representative
s Public Service' Electric and Gas Company Project 7212-30 Hope Crook Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 17, Rev. O, Dated 5/20/85
- 1. Structure (s) , ' system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)
- c. Basic Technology Inc. Report BTI-76079, dated July 1, 1978,
" Flued Head Fittings for Primary Containment Penetrations for the Hope Creek Generating Station." (BPC Reference No.
10855-P- 404 (Q) -37 (1) -3)
- 2. Description of. Observation:. (continuation)
' " Calculations shall be completed, in accordance with this procedure,.
prior to using calculation results for input to other committed or
- -final calculations, issuing drawings for construction, issuing
- equipment specifications, or issuing other documents for use out-side project engineering."
There is an apparent failure to meet design requirement in that:
, a. BPC Drawing P-3001-1, Rev. O, dated 5/10/76, for the mechanical penetration flued heads was issued for fabrication prior to the BTI Analysis Report (reference c) supporting the design.
~
- b. The BTI Analysis Report is not signed off by the preparer, checker, or approved and is stamped as being preliminary.
- c. BPC initially did not provide calculations supporting the i faulted condition loads shown on Drawing P-3001-1, Rev. O.
In response to an S&L question, BPC generated Calculation SC27-1 Rev. O, on 4/16/85, to demonstrate to S&L the basis and j adequacy of the faulted loads; however, this does not provide assurance that an approved calculation was completed before the issuance of P-3001-1, Rev. O.
- 3. Significance of Observation s (continuation)
- b. Fabrication of the flued heads to a design which may not have been adequate for Hope Creek.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation) documents and provide assurance that these processes were j followed in the, design of other mechanical penetrations.
f b. BPC should provide assurance that approved calculations exist which support the design of the mechanical penetration flued heads.
l 1
y e
J. L. Milhocn pm SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEE313 rOU ND ED 649 SS EAST MONROC STRttT H. STEPHEN TAYLOR CHICAOO, ILLINOIS eosos Associars (ssa) ass.aoco H2 26043N -
TWR 980 38t.aeo?
LSP-37 May 22, 1985 Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Independent Design Verification Program Observation Reports e
q Mr'. W. F. Bauer Principal Engineer Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Bauer:
Enclosed for your information and action is one copy each of Observation Reports Nos. 19 through 31 resulting from the IDVP of the Hope Creek Generating Station.
The Observation Reports should be reviewed and the Resolution Report sheets completed and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and returned as soon as possible. Return of original documents should be via Federal
, Express or equivalent overnight service in order to facilitate S&L's disposition of the Observation Reports.
Any questions you or Bechtel may have concerning these Observation Reports should be addressed in accordance with the Program Plan
. Protocol.
Yours very truly, MS%y%/QQhhm IIST nd !! . S. Taylor Enclosures Chairman, Internal Review Committee Copics:
J. L. Milhoan L. C. Oesterich P. L. Wattelet W. A. Dloss (2)
O. Zaben W. D. Crumpacker T. J. Duffy
!!. G. L. McCullough R. M. Schiavoni .
D. P. White
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ - . _ _ . , _ _ . _ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 19 , Rev. 0 , Date5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Electrical Auxiliary System Switchgear - Short Circuit Capabilities:
Bechtel Calculation 1.1 (Q), Rev. 5, Short Circuit Studies of 13.8,,
7.2, 4.16kV Systems"
- 2. Description of Observation:
Prefault voltages used in the calculation for momentary short circuit currents for 13.8kV, 7.2kV and 4.16kV busses were 1.04 per unit, 1.0 per unit and 1.00 per unit respectively.
(continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of observation:
The momentary short circuit current at the 4.16 kV busses is within'3% of the breaker rating. An increase in the prefault voltage from the assumed values might lead to an overduty on the 350 MVA breakers.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
Determine if additional compensating factors, i.e. transformer or cable voltage drops will reduce the prefault voltage to assumed values. Provide assurance that other fault studies (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
. Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Iten 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures
/-i & % d l d,, 0 W , ,i,.n Chairman /
u _, b Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative Structural Representative Control'and Instrumentation Representative
- - - - - - - , - - , - - , - . - ,--,. ,, .---y- , - - - - . . , - - ----_.g--m---
, ,__-----.---,__.-_~,.,----_.,,.---__c- - . , ,
j, , ,.
p l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-3&
Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.19 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85 i
- 2. Description o Observation
- (continuation) i Based on the following factors it is net: clear that these prefault voltages are conservative:
l ,
- a. The maximum voltage of the 500kV system is 1.06 per unit, as l given by Exhibit A of calculation 1.lQ.
- c. The maximum buck in each of load tap changers for the 13.8 -
. 7.2kV and 13.8 - 4.16kV transformers is 5%.
- d. Based on the above, the maximum prefault voltages are 1.106 l
por unit for the 13.8kV busses and 1.056 per unit for the 7.2kV and 4.16kV busses.
I
- 4. Recommandation for resolution (optional) : (continuation) have implemented the required conservatism similar to Assumption 5 for these calculations.
e I
=
I e
u_ .
i.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 20 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
13.8kV ring bus fault detection.
FSAR Section 8. 2.14, page 8. 2-4.
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 8.2.14 states "The neutral of the grounding transforme) is connected to a 0.5-ohm resistor and relay for phase-to-ground fault detection and annunciation." This is inconsistent with
( ntinued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The selection of the neutral grounding resistors does not appear to be in accordance with the FSAR.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- a. PSE&G/BPC is to provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected. Will the FSAR or design drawing be revised? (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
- - - Observation or additional information required:
The values of neutral grounding resistor sizes shown on the design drawing and on the calculation are adequate.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures -
il..C Teo/, v/An (2 02% em Chairman /
M, ,)
Mechanical Representative ~ Electrical Representative u b', '
4Mr ,s
- Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
, i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 2 0, Rev . 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 2. Description of' Observation: (continuation)
PSE&G Drawing 249000A1818-5, Rev. 5, 8/29/84, 500kV Switchyard One Line Control Diagram Electrical, which indicates re'sistor sizes of 770, 1500 or 950 ohm depending on the particular grounding trans-formers. This drawing information is supported by PSE&G letter dated 7/9/82, K. H. Change to G. W. Supplee, and PSE&G calculation
" Grounding Transformers Ground Alarm Relays" dated 1/11/84.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. PSE&G/BPC is to describe the failure in the process identified above that resulted in this observation.
- c. PSE&G/BPC is to identify the process that controls the updating of the FSAR, to keep it current with the design, particularly when the design is within the scope of PSE&G.
J F
4 9
9 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 21, Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85 i
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Class lE 480V Unit Substation Transformers' Impedances FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.2.6.b.1 and Figure 8.3-12 Bechtel Calculation 1.30
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.2.6.b.1 states " Transformers: 4160V-480V, 1333kVA, 6.75% impedance..."; FSAR Figure 8.3-12 indicates the impedances of these transformers are 6.75%. Contrary to this (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The selection of transformer impedance is not in accordance with the FSAR. i
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC is to provide specific information as to how the ob'servation has or will be corrected. Will the FSAR or design calculation be revised? (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) y -- Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
- - - Observation or additional information required: .
The calculation for short circuits utilized the actual impedance based on test reports.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
Oo S %lleL !><> 0 9'/ > u Chairman / j --
c-
__ 7 c_-
Mechanical Representative Electrical R,epresentative rh / /MT St'ructural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative 8 , . - - -..w.- __s..- - , , _ ,r . - - --.-.,.~,-.,-,.,---e_-.,..
Public Service' Electric and Ga's Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 21, Rev. O. , Date 5/21/85
~
- 2. Description of' Observation: (continuation)
Calculation 1. 3 (Q) , Short Circuit Study of 480V Systems, Rev. 1, dated 11/20/84, establishes short circuit current on the 480V busses utilizing 8.75% at 1333kVA as the transformer impedance. In addition, transformer test reports attached to Calculation 1.3 (Q) show that the actual impedances are 8.75% or larger.
,4 . Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. BPC is to describe the failure in the process identified above that resulted in this observation.
- c. BPC is to identify the process that controls the updating of the FSAR to keep it current with the design.
O
. \
J Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 22 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Class 1E 480V Motor Control Center Circuit Breakers FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.2.6.c.3 l
Bechtel Calculation 1.3Q
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.2.6.c.3 states " Circuit breakers (molded case): 480V, interrupting rating, 22000A rms symmetrical."
Contrary to this , Calculation 1. 3 (Q) , Short Circuit Study of (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The interrupting rating of the 480V motor control center breakers is not in accordance with the FSAR.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- a. BPC is to provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected. Will the FSAR or design calculation be revised? (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classifica; ion of Observation:
__ Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
- - - Observation or additional information required:
The value obtained from the short circuit current calculation
,was used in the specification for 480V motor control centers.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -
H. . ( Dr i /n fb> 0 2'/ r n ,
Chairman j / A >
Jw Mechanical Representative ' Electrical Representative Structural Representative
)> 4%
Control and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service' Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 ,
Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.22 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) 480V Systems, Rev. 1, dated 11/20/84, indicates the interrupting rating for these circuit breakers as 25kA. In addition, Specification 10855-E-ll8 (Q) , 480V Motor Control Centers, specifies the circuit breaker interrupting rating at 25kA.
i 4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)
- b. BPC is to describe the failure in the process identified above that resulted in this observation.
i '
- c. BPC is to identify the process that controls the updating of
- the PSAR to keep it current with the design.
I f
8 0
l m l 1
i i
I
---mm.,. ,,y --.,-.,y--_-...,,_.,,a.
- - -,, - -- - a,,,,- , _ - . - , - , , , , , , - . < , , , - - _ -_ n-,,,,n. -~.-..p--,,._,,_,----yn-wn--. -,_.w.-n<
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 23 , Rev. 0 , Date5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Seismic Qualification Report 10855-E-118 (Q) , Rev. O, DPC approved 9/7/84, PSE&G approved 9/26/84, for 480V Motor Control Centers
- 2. Description of Observation:
. FSAR Section 3.10 identifics the Class lE aquipment requiring seismic qualification, the qualification method and requiromonts.
There is an apparent failure to moet a design requirement in (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
Lack of justification for engincoring judgoment may result in extension of test results to inappropriate configurations.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
. BPC should provide justification that qualification results for the 5 bay and 6 bay motor control contor can be extrapo-lated to a 26 bay MCC.
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
- x. Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
. .. Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluato safety significanco<
Provido information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
S,N L//W J fllAgw Chairman / '
( " "
W Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative
% e t ~* * ,
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service ' Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hopo Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT
- OR No. 23, Rev. 0 , Date5/21/85 Description of' Observation: (continuation) 2.
that a technically incompleto analysis was used to establish the basis of the seismic qualification for 480V motor control centors.
- a. Patol Enginocrs performed analysis on a 5 bay and a 26 bay MCC on 12/1/83 to dotormine which configuration was most severe and should be tostod. The analysis showed the 5 bay configu-ration to be more sovoro.
- b. On 12/30/83 BPC commented on the Patol Engincors analysis stating that the approach was not clear and that the model
- nooded to be vorified as the results did not appear to bo reasonablo. Thoroforo, the 5 bay configuration may not be :
the most novoro configuration.
- c. On 3/1/84 DPC granted Patol Engincorn perminnion to proccod with the tant of 5 bay configuration. It apponrn that DPC authorized soinmic qualification tonting of a MCC when they had norious doubts about the adoquacy of, the analysis which l providon the bania for tho tont.
- d. Tonting was completed on 4/12/84.
- o. To date, DPC han*not accepted the Patel Engincorn analysis.
BPC han accepted the tant results. On 9/7/84, BPC performod indopondent calculations on a 5 bay and a 6 bay MCC to justify the tanting parformod on tho 5 bay motor control contor.
- f. DPC staton that their analysis of the 5 and 6 bay McC's demonstraton that tho 5 bay in moro novoro than tho 6 bay MCC.
Thorofore, "by judgomont" longer line ups of McC's (more than 6 bay) aro also noismically qualified. Extrapolating the ronultn of a 5 bay and 6 bay MCC up to a 26 bay MCC apponro to bo a quantionablo use of ongincoring judgomont.
d
Public Service Electric and Gas Co.mpany Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 24 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Damping values used in the dynamic analysis of Scismic Category 1 Activo Equipment Equiptront Qualification Report 10855-M-070(Q)-47-3 (February 8,1980 Equipment Qualification Roport 10855-E-ll2A(Q)-14-4, Rev. 2
- 2. Description of Observation:
. There is an apparent discrepancy betwoon the FSAR ond Regulatory Guido 1.61 regarding the damping to be used in the dynamic analysis of Soismic Category 1 Activo Equipment.
- 3. Significance of observation:
This apparont discropancy may mean that the soismic qualification analysis of Soismic Category 1 Activo Equipmont may not be in accordance with HRC requirements.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC should provido assuranco that the actual damping values used in tho analysis of Scismic Category 1 Activo Equipmont are in accordance with the Rogulatory Guido.
Internal Review Cormittee classification (continued on nextpage) of Observation:
5.
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
- . Additional information required (See Item 6)
~ Potentially Sign!!icant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
, , . , observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to ovaluato safoty significanco.
Provido information requestod in Itom 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
..L Tau fa. / An O 9;/ m ,
Chairman d 4.
w.
Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative
~
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentatacn Representative
l Public Servico Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Crcok Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 2 4 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 2. Description of Observations (continuation)
FSAR Section 1.8.1.61 states "!! CGS complies with Regulatory Guide 1.61."
FSAR Section 3.10.2.3.1 states "The damping values are in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.61 and IEEE-344-1975 for electrical equip-ment and instrumentation.
Regulatory Guido 1.61 specifies the damping values to be considered in the analysis of Soismic Category 1 Equipment as: OBE-2%
SSE-3%
except (por Noto 2) in the dynamic analysis of active co'ponents m
where the damping for SSE should be 2%.
FSAR Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2 define the damping values used for analysis of NSSS and Non-NSSS equipment as: OBE-2%
SSE-3%
but do not addross the NRC requirement which specifies that for SSE, 2% damping is to be used in the dynamic analysis of Seismic Category 1 Activo Equipment. A review of the two subject equip-mont qualification reports shows that 3% damping was used for the SSE which is contrary to the Regulatory Guido 1.61 requirements for activo equipment. ,
- 4. Recommendation for Rosolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. DPC should justify the 3% damping values for SSE defined in FSAR Table s 3.7-1 and 3.7-2 in lieu of the 2% damping required by Rogula ory Guido 1.61 for the analysis of Scismic Category 1 Activo Equipment.
, c. Reviso the FSAR to be consistont with 1. or 2. above.
- d. Describa the failuro in the design process that resulted in this observation. ,
- c. Doncribe the process that assures the FSAR contains requiremonts consistant with applicable regulatory requirements.
.-y,4_,- - - - c - . , - - - - - - - - - . ., - - - , - - , - - - - - - , . , , , - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - , , - -
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 2 5 , Rev. JO _, Date 5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
- a. !!PCI Pump
- b. Bechtel Design Specification 10855-M-068(Q), Rev. 1, for Nuclear Power Piping, ASME-III, Class 2 and 3, dated 1/23/79.
- c. Bechtel Stress Analysis C-33-2 (Q) , Rev. 2, 11/2/83.
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 3.9.3.1.16 describes the !!PCI pump nozzle loads that control pump design. The allowable loads in the design specifi- l cation and stress analysis for the discharge piping do not appear (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
a., There is a potential that the FSAR does not contain correct licensing commitments for !!PCI pump nozzle loads.
(continued on next page)
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC should clarify which design parameters are correct, FSAR or Design Specification. Will the FSAR on the Design Specification be revised?
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Ccmmittee reason for non-safety-significance of ;
- . - Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significanceo Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
YS. *llWbt-- u b $% e .,
Chairman / /
Mechanical Representativo Electrical Representative w
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative 6
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATTON REPORT OR No. 25, Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) to be in accordance with the FSAR.
Also, the FSAR Section 3.9.3.1.16 appears to have an incorrect reference. It states that Table 3.9-5V has the definition of FO and MO. The Table does not appear to have this information.
- 3. Significance of Observation: (continuation)
- b. There is a potential that an interfacing design issue between Bechtel and GE may not have been closed out satisfactorily or -
the close out documented properly.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. Bechtel should identify the failure in the design process that resulted in the observapion and how it will be corrected:
- 1. Bechtel should describe the process that assures that inter-facing design information (including nozzle load information from suppliers) is properly communicated to the required
- Bechtel personnel
- 2. Bechtel should describe the controls which assure that any interf acing design information which cannot be accommodated by Bechtel's design is properly reviewed with the supplier of the information and Bechtel has documentation of the close out.
- c. Bechtel should provide assurance that the observation is an isolated occurrence and the FSAR reflects correct nozzle loads and other design information in Section 3.9.
I
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 26 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 1. , system s or component (s) involved:
i Structure Bochtel Des (s)ign Speci(fi), ca tion 10855-M-068 (Q) , Rev. 1, for Nuclear PoWor Piping, Class 2 and 3 (1/31/79)
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 5.2.1.2.2 states that all Class 2, 3, MC and MF components have been designed to ASME code.casos listed in Table 5.2-2. ASME B&PC Codo caso 1606-1 is referenced in M-068, (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
Thoro is a possibility that a code caso may be used for design which is not included with the list of code casos committed to by PSE&G.
l 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Do,chtel should provido specific information as to how tho observation has or will be corrected. Will the PSAR or 4 the Design Specification be revised?
(continued on next pago)
! '5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
- Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee ro ..on for non-safety-significance of
- - Observation or additional information required:
Use of an approved codo caso for stress critoria for Class 2 and 3 piping providos nooded critoria and will not croato a safety significant condition.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee 1 Signatures:
YE.TcLt/lA.
Chairman 4
> 0h%eg
/
J NAL ~7 Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative
- ^t. : e Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation ,
Representative '
9
-,, . , . , ,n - , - . , -,--- - - -- -, n, - - - , .---,n.--,- ,,--4-,-,-.,.-,-,_.._n,e, -, --~+- , ~~. ,
,,-e - --,-,,----
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Crook Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.jli,, Rev. O _, Date_5/21/85 Description of' Observations (continuation) 2.
but is not in FSAR Tablo 5.2-2.
- 4. Rocommendation for Resolution (Optional): (continuation)
- b. Bochtel should identify the failuro in the design process that resulted in this observation and how it will be corrected.
- c. Bochtel should provido assuranco that there are no other codo casos which are boing used by Bochtel or subcontractors, which are not in FSAR Tablo 5.2-2.
E l
e e
m I
l
t : ;
i t
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 l Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 27 , Rev. 0 , Date5/21/85 l i
1 r
i
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or compnent(s) involved:
Bechtel Design Specification 10855-M-068(Q), Rev. 1, for Nuclear
, Power Piping, Class 2 and 3 (1/31/79) ;
i
- 2. Description of Observation:
d FSAR Sections 5.2.4 and 3.9.6 requiro in-norvico inspection to
! bo in accordance with 1977 AS!!E DLPV Codo Section XI with Addenda i l through Summer 1978. Ilowevor, Section 3.1 of M-068 invoken (continued on next page) j 3. Significance of observation: .
i Activition at the !!opo Crook Sito regarding ASME Soction XI l requiremonta could possibly bo inconsistent with tho !
committed edition and addonda duo to apparont discropancies I betwoon approved documents.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Bochtel should provido opocific infrrmation an to how tho ;
observation han or will be corrected. Will the FSAR on the Donign Specification be revisod?
(continued on next pago)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of observation:
. Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
~~~ ~~ Additional information required (Gee Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 4. Internal Review committee reason for non-safety-signi!!cance of !
- Observation or additional information required:
A commitment to moot either codo edition in acceptablo from a safoty significant viewpoint. ,
- 7. Internal Review Commitee ,
Signatures :
//GWbt f$u $ 0lftv Chairman ' '
ll ..
w Mechan'ical Representative Electrical Representative >
< .m W(
/ g/
W \ A ur,,
l i
structural Representative Control and Instrumentation !
Representative t I
. . i .
Public Service' Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ,
ODSERVATIO!! REPORT OR No.JJ_, Rev. JL_, Date 5/21/85 I
- 2. Description of Observations (continuation)
Section XI Edition and Addenda through Swmner 1975.
- 4. Recommondation for Resolution (optional): (continuation)
- b. Dochtel should provido evidence that ISI and pre-servico .
inopoction activition at the Hopo Crook sito are being dono '
in accordanco with the correct codo edition and addenda,
- c. Dochtol should doncribo the failure in the donign procoon .
that ronulted in this obnorvation. i
- d. Doncribo the procosa for annuring consistoney botwoon the FSAR and the Donign Specification rogarding applicablo codo editions.
9 9
d e
f e a e
I
[
l 4
l I
-______7___-________
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OR No. 28 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85 OBSERVATION REPORT
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Bechtal Design Specification 10855-M-068(Q) , Rov. 1, for Nuclear Power Piping Claso 2'and 3, (January 23, 1979). ,
Bechtel Technical Specification 10855-P-202, Rev. 10, for field en f abrication and installation of piping for Nucle.r Service.
- 2. Description of Observation
- PSAR Section 1.8.1.37 staton that !! CGS complion with ANSI N45.2.1-1973 an endorned and modified by Rogulatory Guido 1.37, with clarifications and exceptionn notod.
(continued on next page)
- 3. significance of observation:
Inconsintent referencen may havo resulted in inappropriato
- cleaning proceduros boing appliod.
Also, thoro may bo inadoquato controls on making reforonco to Bochtol'n supplier documents in Bochtol'a donign documents.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Dochtal should provido specific information as to how the observation han or will be corrected. Will the Donign Specification or tho croction specification be revisod?
(continued on next pago)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
, ~ Additional information required (See Item 6)
~
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
., observation or additional information required:
Additional information in required to ovaluato safoty significance.
Provido information roquented in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
M.r 1 4 /,L 0 % ,
Chairman / ' (
M w L Mechanical Representative Electrical Rep,resentative J.
- 5tructural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative e
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ODSERVATION REPORT OR No.2f_, Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 2. Doncription of Obnorvations (continuation)
ANSI N45.2.1 covern the managomont of clonning and cleanliness control of fluid nyatomo and components. It providen a basin for development of proceduron. Among the standard'n requiremonts for planning, in a requiremont for review of design specifications to ensure that provisions for cleaning havo boon incorporated.
M-008, Section 9, references GE Specification 22A1300DE9 for Cleaning of Pipo and Equipment. !!owevor, Bochtol 10855-P-202, Rov. 10, Section 7.3.1 staton that 10855-0-099 in unod for
, cleaning.
- 4. Recommendation for Ronolution (optional): (continuation)
- b. Dochtol ahould provido annuranco that the apparent inconsintent reference to a cleaning specification did not renuit in inadequato proceduron (or cleaning of !! CGS piping nyatoms.
- c. Dochtal should identify the failuro in the donign procons that resulted in the obnorvation and how it will be correctod.
- d. Ilochtol chould provido annuranco that the correct GC opecification for cleaning in unod and referenced in other ucchtal Donign Spocifications, f
0 m
I 9
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 29 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:
Bechtel Design Specification 10855-M-068(Q), Rev. 1, for
- Nuclear Power Piping, ASME-III, Class 2 and 3 (1/31/79) l t
l 2. Description of observation:
l FSAR Section 3.2 commits to ASME Section III. Section III, l .
NA-4410, Design Controls, requires stress reports to be reviewod for compliance with Danign Spocifications.
i (continued on next page) l l 3. Significance of Observation:
l There in a ponsibility that stress reports and other design l
documents may bo incorrect becauno the applicablo Design l Specification in apparently out-of-dato. Thoro in a (continuod on next pago)
Recommendation for resolution (optional):
l 4.
- a. Dochtol should re-review and roviou tho Design Specification to' bring it up-to-dato.
Provido assurance that the stress reports and the overall design is compatibio with the now revision. (cortinued on next pag (
- 5. Internal Review comittee classification of observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
- s. Additional inforeation required (See Item 6)
~ ~ ~ Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review committee reason for non-safety-significance of observation or additional information required:
Additional information is requirod to ovaluato safety significanco.
Provido information roquestod in It.im 4.
- 7. Internal Review comitee Signatures:
b Tn i ibn U 0 My .
Chairman >
/
< W= - - Electrical Representative y t-Mechanical Representative
> \ r e -?
- Structural Representative control and Instrumentation Representative 5
~' '
Public Service Electric cnd Gac Ccmpany Projset No. 7212-30 Page 2 of 2
' Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 OR No.23_, Rev. 3__, Date 5/21/85 OBSERVATION REPORT
- 2. Description of Observations (continuation)
Several OR's have identified apparent deficiencies in the Design Therefore, it is Specification (ors 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 29).
not apparent how the required reviews of stress reports have been accomplished with the design specification containing numerous inconsistencies.
- 3. Significance of Observations (continuation) possibility that the QA requirements of ASME Section III, may not be mot.
(continuation)
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) :
- b. Bochtol.should identify the failure in the design process that resulted in this observation and how it will be corrected.
- c. Describe the process that' assures that Design Specifications are kept current with design requirements.
- d. Bechtel should provide assurance that the observation is an isolated occurrence and that all other ASME III Design Specifications have been updated on a timely basis.
e 4
4 9
s e
~
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 30 , Rev. 0 , Date5/21/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: , {
Drywell Shield Wall Concrete in Areas Around the Drywell \
Penetrations.
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 3.8.2.1.5 states that: - *
"The maximum allowable temperature of the drywell shield j wall concrete in the areas around the drywell penetrations is 2000F."
- 3. Significance of Observation:
This apparent failure to meet this licensing commitment could ^
result in a reduction in the strength of concrete.a n ,
~
h i
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
Bechtel should provide documentation that the subject licensing commitment'is met. ,
5.- Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant .to safety (See Item 6)
- x. Additional information required (see Item 6)
Potentially Signi'icant'to Safety (See Item B'j
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is' required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review-Commitee' '-
Signatures:
$.f.Tc1/lcL 'h I'lelen Chairman / j/ - -
Mechanical Representative f
Electrical Representative I s n % -
N cA %
- Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative 4
- th $ %. k j
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OR No. 30 , Rev. 0 , Date S/21/85 OBSERVATION REPORT
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) !
There is no objective evidence that this licensing commitment has been met. .
D 9
l
?
I i
4
Public Service Electric _and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Page 1 of 2 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 OR No. 31 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/21/85 OBSERVATION REPORT
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Seismic Qualification Report V.P. 10855-P-302(Q)-385-6: Class 1 Nuclear Design Report of 3", 900 lbs. C.S. Gate Valve with SMB-000-5 Limitorque Operator, for Anchor / Darling V.C., by Anamet Laboratoriest Inc., Report 78.168, Rev. E, dated 9/20/83.
- 2. Description of Observation:
NOAM, Section 0, No. 4, Page 6, Re v . 10, (matrix), by way of reference to EDP-4.36 and EDP-4.37, along with 10CFR50, Appendix B, requires that computer programs used for design purposes be (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
Without validation, there is a potential of using erroneous results in. concluding that the components are qualified for the intended service under the postulated loads of the design environment.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- a. BPC should provide validation documentation for the subject com'puter programs to assure the results produced are within reasonable and acceptable accuracy limits.
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
~
n.,_ Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
Yml,16 rJbn khs NM%
Chairman / ,/
s
- h. -
r X.<t. .
7 Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative Sfi{ ,, h ,, -
- Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
o
., o .
Public Service Electric.and das Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT ' OR No . 31 , - Rev . 0 , Date 5/21/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) validated and the validation be documented.
The referenced design document uses results of NA@S and SAPIV computer programs (Anamet Laboratories, Inc.) to conclude that the subject component is qualified for intended service. However, there is no objective evidence of the validation documentation for
. these programs within the reviewed seismic qualification package.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution: (continuation)
. b. BPC should provide assurance that subcontractor computer programs that are used for qualification of safety-related components are validated.
c.
Describe the process for assuring that. subcontractor computer programs are validated.
0
=
/
J. L. Milhoan j
C , A
__ , i.-,. _
SARGENT & 'LUNDY ' ' "
- l ENG1NEERS FOUNDED 18s9
$W3, -
as CAST MONROE STREET H. STEPHEN TAYLOR associait tala)ase.aooo -
312-269 6371 Twx e10 33e.38o7 LSP-40 May 24, 1985 Project No. 7212-30 P'blic u Service Electric and Gas Company Hope. Creek Generating Station - Unit 1
. Independent Design Verification Program Observation Reports Mr. W. F. Bauer Principal Engineer Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Bauer:
Enclosed for your information and action is one copy each of Observation Reports Nos. 32 through 37 resulting from the IDVP of the llope Creek Generating Station.
The Observation Reports should be reviewed and the Resolution Report sheets completed and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and returned as soon as possible. Return of original documents should be via Federal Express or equivalent overnight service in order to facilitate S&L's disposition of the Observation Reports.
Also, we are enclosing Observation Report-No. 24, Revision 1, dated May 23, 1985. Please note the change.~.
Any questions you or Bechtel may have concerning those Observation Reports should be addressed in accordance with the Program Plan Protocol.
Yours very truly, Hs%4 tn/ka %
IIST ;nd H. S. Taylor Enclosures Chairman, Internal Review Committee Copies:
J. L. Milhoan
'L. C. Oe'sterich P. L. Wattelet W. .A. Bloss (2)
O. Zaben W. D. Crumpacker T. J. Duffy
-H."G. L. McCullough -
o . , ,
. o Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit.1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 32 , Rev. 0 ,
Date 5/23/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Conduit yield strength Calculations: ,
677-3 8 (Q) Rev. 5 677-156 (Q) Rev. 0
- 2. Description of Observation:
The yield strength for conduit material has been verified based on a load test program by BPC Material and Quality Service Department. The following items do not appear to have been fully (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The adequacy of the conduit design to meet the FSAR seismic requirements cannot be evaluated.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Provide justification for sampling in test program.
- b. Justify not including 2" conduit in the evaluation of the test program results.
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
~
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance,
, Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -
N.S 'Yeu/bv Chairman' lW 0 eLud I
he$ST*EN5LAdh Q f,})(,
Mechanical Representative Electrical R presentative fM Structural Representative u OI _ -
Control and Instrumentarion Representative i
. - _ . . _ _ . . _ , _ , _ ,_._.__m _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . , _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ,
c OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 32 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/23/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) resolved in the evaluation of the test program presented in Calculation 677-156 (Q) :
- a. The justification for the sampling program (sample si=e and conduit supplier) appears not to have been provided.
- b. Per Calculation 677-38 (Q), pages 366 through 368, the span length for 2" conduit is controlled by the yield strength of the conduit material. However, the test program and evaluation do not appear to address 2" conduits.
- c. In Calculation 677-38 (Q) , page 3'61, the allowable span length of conduit was reduced by 10% for all conduits except for 3/4" and 1" in the upper elevations of the Reactor, D/G and Control Buildings. This margin serves as the basis in Calculation 677-38 (Q) , page 361, for justifying the lower yield stresd obtained in the test program. Since this margin was not provided in the 3/4" and 1" conduits in these buildings, no justification exists for the test program lower yield stress for these sizes.
- 4. Recommendation for, Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- c. Provide justification for using results of conduit test program for 3/4" and 1" conduits.
e I
7 . -. ,-__., .- ,- - h - - - + - - - - - -- - - - - -
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No.. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unitol Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 33 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/23/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Seismic Qualification Package 10855-P-305 (Q)-317-2, BPC approved 9/27/84, PSE&G approved 9/27/84, for 24" AQ Butterfly Valve IGS-PSV-4964, which contains Wyle Report 46863-2, Rev. A.
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 3.9.3.2.7.2 identifies the operability assurance requirements for active Non-NSSS valves. During seismic qualification testing of the subject valve, the actuator failed-
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The valve supplied to Hope Creek may not be capable of operating ar
- required in the event of an earthquake.
- 4. Recommendation for resdlution (optional):
- a. Bechtel should justify taking credit for testing performed prior to the test anomaly.
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
-- ; Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of I ' ' -
Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance l . Provide information requested in Item 4. ;
- 7. Internal Review Commitee l Signatures: -
N S faAbr 0 ?) etcc.>
Chairman' '
I Mechanical Representative m LE.$TEMSLAND Electrical Rypr(sentative h .h[ kpf G
m 'h / AW Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.33 , Rev.0 , Date5/23/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) to rotate a full 90 0 when energized due to a bolt becoming loose and being wedged'between the piston and the spring end retainer (Wyle Report 46863-2, page 24, Anomaly No. 6). Testing was aborted, the loose bolt reinstalled, valve was modified by adding two set screws to secure the bolt. Testing was resumed. There is an apparent failure to meet the valve operability requirements.
- a. Prudent industry practice dictates that in demonstrating the qualification of a component by testing, credit cannot be taken for qualification testing performed prior toarfailure.
In this valve qualification test, credit was taken for the OBE sine sweep testing performed prior to the failure, without providing any justification.
- b. There is no objective evidence that the valve actuators supplied to Hope Creek have been similarly modified.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. Bechtel should provide assurance that the valves supplied to Hope Creek have been or will be modified, so that they are similar to the test specimen.
- c. Bechtel should provide assurance that their Seismic Qualification Program has sufficient controls to assure that modifications necessitated by the qualification process are incorporated into the set of components represented in a qualification test.
- d. Bechtel should provide assurance that their Seismic Qualification Proaram does not allow credit to be taken for qualification testing prior to a failure.
l
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 34 , Rev. 0 , Date5/23/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Bechtel Design Specification .10855-M-067 (Q) , Rev. 2, dated 8/1/83, for Nuclear Power Piping, ASME Section III, Class 1.
Bechtel Specification 10855-M-95(Q), Rev. 4, dated 8/1/84, for Listing of Code Editions, Addenda and Cases.
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Table 3.9-9, Footnote 1 defines ASME Code Edition and Addenda for Class 1 Non-NSSS Piping. Three exceptions are in Footnote 1 of Table 3.9-9. These exceptions are not in either Rev. 2 of M-067 or Rev. 4 of M-95.
~3. Significance of Observation:
ASME Class 1 design activities may not be performed in accordance with the correct code edition and addenda.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Bechtel should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected. Will the FSAR or reference specifications be revised?
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of
- Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: -
H S ser /),, Q 7w w Chairman' /
L. R. S ra w a o A g d . h . 0 0u c i
'~
Mechanical Representative Electrical Repres,entative
/
/'r f
/
/ m
(. m. . Y o ,f M n Structural Representative Control'and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2
~
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.34 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/23/85
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. Bechtel should identify the failure in the design process that resulted in this observation and how it will be corrected.
- c. Bechtel should describe the process for assuring consistency between the FSAR and Design Specifications.
9 6
0 s
- m t
I e
9
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 35 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/23/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
- a. Bechtel Design Specification 10855-M-067(Q), Rev. 1, (8/1/83),
for ASME,Section III - Class 1, Nuclear Power Piping.
(continued on page two)
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSARc Section 3.2 commits to ASME,Section III. ASME-III, NA-3 25 2 (d) , requires the design specification to include the code classification of items covered; NA-3252(e), requires
- 3. Significance of Observation:
There is a possibility that code classification may have been misapplied, due to an inadequate definition of the requirements.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC should provide confirmation of the method by which code classification and code boundaries are determined and documented for instrument piping and provide corrections (continued on page three)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee-reason for non-safety-significance of L
Observation or additional information r'equired:
l Additional information is required to evaluate safety significancei
- , Provide information requested in Item 4.
1
- 7. Internal Review Commitee-Signatures: .
f-l f %)fcq a/0 c GLcn i
Chairman e
/
i
/ b N d b Mechanical Representative Electrical Re r-esentative ' '
A 'l- h / $/ / LT 11
/ -
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.35 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/23/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: (continuation) !
I
- b. Bechtel Design Specification 10855-M-068(Q), Rev. 2, (1/23/79),
for ASME,Section III - Class 2 and 3, Nuclear Power Piping.
- d. Bechtel P&ID Legend, M-00-0, Rev. 6.
- 2. Description of Potential Observation: (continuation) the design specification to define the boundaries. Both design specifications state that code classifications are shown on piping class sheets (PCS) and piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID) and that boundaries are provided on the P&ID's. 1
- a. For Class 1 instrument piping (tubing) downstream of excess-flow-check-valves (EFCV), the design specification appears to conflict with the P&ID requirements.
- b. For all other instrument tubing, the P&ID does not appear to have or reference classification requirements.
Following are examples of the P&ID regarding instrument line code classification and boundary requirements.
- 1. Class 1 Instrument Piping (Tubing) Downstream of EFCV's M-067, Section 5.3 states that instrument piping has the same code classification as the associated nuclear service piping. This implies that all instrumentation piping and tubing from the process piping to the instrument is ASME, Class 1. However, P&ID (M-55-1 for HPCI) shows a class
(. , change downstream of excess-flow-check-valves (EFCV) i.e.
l~ "CCA" to " tubing'." There is no definition of " tubing" on M-55-1. Bechtel P&ID Legend M-00-0, Sheet 2, Rev. 6, Note 17, refers to Drawing 10855-J-G1010 for instrument l- tubing rating, material, and code for tubing used down-stream of excess-flow-check-valves. Drawing 10855-J-G1010-3, 4
Rev. 4, (12/13/84), shows Class 2 downstream of EFCV with Class 1 piping from the process pipe. This does not appear to be consistent with the design specification.
2 .- Other Instrument Sensing Lines The Bechtel P&ID does not show any identification for instrument sensing lines for other applications. No note or reference " tubing" is made. A line is shown between i the process pipe and instrument symbol. No information, code class, or boundaries is included. No reference to J-G-1010 appears to be made. Therefore, the P&ID does
\
l Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30, Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 3 of 3 l OBSERVATION REPORT
'OR No. 35,.Rev. 0 , Date5/23/85 l 1
- 2. Description of Potential Observation: (continuation) not appear to contain or reference the information. required by Section 6.0 of the design specification.
4.. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation) to the appropriate documents and drawings referenced in this
. observation.
- b. BPC should identify the failure in the design process which resulted in this observation and how it will be corrected.
- c. BPC should provide assurance that the method provided above has been used in the design, fabrication, installation, examination and testing of all ASME instrument' piping.
(
0 9 q s e
O
d o .
. O Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 36, Rev. 0 , Date5/23/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Seismic Qualification Documentation Package 10855-P-305 (Q) for 24" Air Operated Butterfly Valves, which contains BIF Report N50871, dated 10/2/84.
I
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Section 3.9.3.2.7.2 identifies the active Non-NSSS valves requiring qualification and defines the methodology used to demonstrate operability. (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
This model could result in unconservative computation of valve frequency and stresses. In tne worst case, this could result in the valves inability to operate as required in event of an earthquake.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC should demonstrate that the use of a potentially unconservative model for the valve yoke does not adversely affect the valve qualification.
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance Provide information requested in Item 4.
Internal Review Commitee
~
- 7. '
Signatures: ,
// J' 72a/ArlAu 9%tw Chairman / / l /
f ,
WSl.A & - . . JM?
eceansca1 Representatsve Siec;;,caiRere.en.at1.e
$Yu
.truct.ra1 Representat1ve Con.co1 an
/ &< A 1nstrumen=a.,on Representative 4
- - . - - - - , - - . - . _ __ . , , , , . . _ . . . - - - - , . _ _ , , . - . . . _ _ _ . - - _ . _ - . . __ . ~ - _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ - - -
Public. Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ;
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 3 6 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/23/85 i
\
i .
l 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
! There is an apparent error in the model used to compute the moment of inertia for the valve yoke. Page 2 of BIF report N50871 defines j a composite moment of inertia for the valve yoke treating it as a single member. Since the yoke consists of two independent members l (legs), this model may be inappropriate and may yield unconservative ,
j results.
! 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation) l b. BPC should identify if this method was used to calculate the yoke section properties of other valves and if so, assure that j this approach does not adversely affect the valve qualifications.
i i
! l i
I i -
i
.i
\
i j
- i i I f
i s'
___ - __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ ._ _.~ _ _ _ . _ .. _ _ _ _ _ .. ,_, _ .
- l l
. i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 1 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 3 7 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/23/85 i
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Sectio; 6.3.2.2.1 states: " Start .up of the HPCI System is completely independent of ac power." However, the ECCS jockey pump is ac powered as indicated on drawing E-6431-0, Sheet 1, Rev. 2, and appears to contradict this statement.
- 3. Significance of Observation:
Without additional justification it cannot be determined that the start-up of the HPCI System is completely independent of ac power and, if not, what the potential consequences may be.
- 4. Recommendation for reso'lution (optional):
BPC is to provide justification for the ac powered ECCS jockey pump, assessing the effects of a momentary or extended loss of ac power on operation of the HPCI system.
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Obse;vation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
t
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: ;
. M ~9 ns,../Au d 9's, cn Chairman '
g7' ;
- I 6
Mechanical Representative Electrical R presentative
- t. /% . , ~
Structural Representative Con' trol and Instrumentation Representative
e-Public Service Electric and Gas Cdmpany Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station . Unit-1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No . 2 4 , Rev. 1 , Date 5/23/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Damping values used in the dynamic analysis of Seismic Category 1 Action Equipment Equipment Qualification Report 10855-M-070(Q)-47-3 (February 8,1980)
Equipment Qualification Report 10855-E-112A(Q)-14-4,Rev. 2
, 2. Description of Observation:
There is an apparent discrepancy between the FSAR and Regulatory Guide 1.61 regarding the damping to be used in the dynamic analysis of Seismic Category 1 Active Equipment.
' (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
This apparent discrepancy may mean that the seismic qualification analysis of Seismic Category 1 Active Equipment may not be in accordance with NRC requirements.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC should provide assurance that the actual damping values used in the analysis of Seismic Category 1 Active Equipment are in accordance with the Regulatory Guide.
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
k' SNaf b b<f & Nfn M Chairman <
4.$T615LM) Y.Nbu Electrical Reptasentative" Mechanical Representative
-.v ,
/-m ~ 4, n n, Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
/
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 2 4 , Rev. 1 , Date 5/23/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
FSAR Section 1.8.1.61 states "HCGS complies with Regulatory Guide 1.61." :
FSAR Section 3.10.2.3.1 states "The damping values are in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.61 and IEEE-344-1975 for electrical equip-ment and instrumentation.
i Regulatory Guide 1.61 specifies the damping values to be considered in the analysis of Seismic Category 1 Equipment as: OBE-2%
SSE-3%
except (per Note 2) in the dynamic analysis of active components where the damping for SSE should be 2%.
FSAR Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2 define the damping values used for analysis of NSSS and Non-NSSS equipment as: OBE-2% ,
. SSE-3%
but do not address the NRC requirement which specifies that for SSE, 2% damping is to be used in the dynamic analysis of Seismic Category 1 Active Equipment. A review of the two subject equip-l ment qualification reports shows that 3% damping was used for the SSE which is contra'ry to the Regulatory Guide 1,61 requirements for active equipment.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional)' : (continuation)
] b. BPC should justify the 3% damping values for SSE defined in FSAR Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2 in lieu of the 2% damping required
- by Regulatory Guide 1.61 for the analysis of Seismic Category 1 i Active. Equipment.
R c. Revise the FSAR ,to be consistent with a. or b. above.
I d. Describe the failure in the design process that resulted in this observation.
- e. Describe the process that assures the FSAR contains requirements consistent with applicable regulatory requirements.
i i
J r
6
, . - ,- ---w- e -, y , ,. ,m,,,- ,,,-- ~n- - ,-e., *,n, , - - - - - - , - --- -.-- - --c-, ,m - - , - _-----_--m -
J. L. Milhorn b v f]
, , r #AD SARGENT& LUNDY ENB1NEEMS Fg y
, rounOEosee ss EAST MONROE STREET H. STEPHEN TAYLOR ggggg (312) 269 2000 312 269 6371 Twx e O-22s.2eO7 LSP-42 May 29, 1985
. Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company
!! ope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Independent Design Verification Prograra Observation Reports Mr. H. P. Bauer Principal Engineer Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Bauer:
Enclosed for your information and action is one copy each of Observation Reports Nos. 38 through 47 resulting from the IDVP of the flope Creek Generating Station.
The Observation Reports should be reviewed and the Resolution Report sheets completed and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and returned as soon as possible. Return of original documents should be via Federal Express or equivalent overnight service in order to facilitate S&L's disposition of the Observation Reports.
}'
Any questions you or Bechtel may have concerning these observation Reports should be addressed in accordance with the Program Plan Protocol.
Yours very truly, .
- v. / -
f.J. , (1 ') I 'K--
/
IIST:nd II . S. Taylor Enclosures Chairman, Internal Review Comnittee
' Copies:
J. L. Milhoan L. C. Oesterich P. L. Wattelet W. A. Bloss (2)
- 0. Saben W._D. Crumpacker T. J. Duffy
, II . G. L. McCullough R. M. Schiavoni D. P. White
. n . - _ _ . -- -- . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 38 ,. Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
- a. Dechtel Design Specification 10855-M-067 (0) , Rev. 2, for Nuclear Power Piping, ASME Section III, Class 1 (8/1/83)
- b. Bechtel Specification 10855-M-96, Rev. 0 (1/31/85)
- 2. Description of Observation:
FSAR Sections 3.2.2 and 3.10 do not appear to assign a Quality Group Classification to non-in-line instrumentation. Likewise, Bechtel Specification M-96, Section 3.5.2a, states that the code (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The design specification may not provide correct design require-ments for instrumentation in ASME Class I piping systems.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC should revise Design Specification M-067 to delete ASME III applicability to non-in-line instruments.
(continued on next page) -
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
x Not significant to safety (See Item 6)
Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Design Specification M-067, Section f.1.3 is in error and should be corrected. There are no regulations or codes that require non-in-line instruments to have ASME III classification.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
llS & bt Chairman du 0 9?Anivn
/ 2w LR'SulMb 41$.}.W.8kn?.
Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative
/ & EAe n Structural Representative Contrcl and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2
~
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.38 , Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
(ASME-III) does not apply to non-in-line instrumentation. Likewise, Bechtel Design Guide J2.8.2.4 (referenced in Note 17 of M-00, P&ID),
Section 3.1, states that ASME does not apply, as stated in ASME-III, NA-1130.
Design Specification M-067, Section 6.1.3, indicates the design to include all pressure containing appurtenances such as pressure 4
sensors.
If ASME Section III does not apply to instrumentation, then the design specification should be revised accordingly.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. Bechtel should verify that the incorrect information in Design Specification M-067 has not been implemented in the instru-i mentation design.
- c. Bechtel should identify the failure in the design process which -
resulted in this observation and how it will be corrected.
1 6
I 4
l
l t
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 l
OR No. 39 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85 l OBSERVATION REPORT l
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
l Concrete Structures:
l Floor system at El. 102'-0", Reactor Building, supporting i SACS heat exchangers, drawing C-0803-1, Rev. 18.
Calculation 624-0, Rev. 4
- 2. Description of Observation:
l Page 571 of Calculation 624-0, Rev. 4, indicates a possible
' overstress in beams Nos. 28 and corresponding bean 59. Pages 596 and 597 indicate that a knee brace (continued on next page) would elininate the
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The adequacy of beams Nos. 28 and 59, and/or the adjacent floor slab cannot be verified.
l
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Prqvide justification for not installing knee braces for beams Nos. 28 and 59.
i (continued on next page) l 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
~
i
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures
// E 404 l bu 0 ??fonn ~
Chairman' e f
Mechanical Representative W L t?Srusudb Electrical Reprysentative
Y]V $n "k
) l .
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation l
Representative
' i
! l l
l
o .
l l
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 39, Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85 l J
i 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
< overstress and was added to the design drawings for four other r j
beams, but not beams Nos. 28 and 59. Subsequent pages (pages '
598 and 599) of the calculations assumed that the slab would span in the direction parallel to beams to eliminate the over-i
! stress by carrying the beam. Page 600, however, indicates that the resulting shear is 231 psi versus an allowable of 126.5 psi, i j . Page 613 of calculation 624-0 shows the beams to be marginally
- adequate for dead load only.
- 4. b. Provide assurance that all other beam modifications designed i I
- to eliminate overstresses in the beams have been installed or i reconciled by calculations which does not result in an over-stress in either the beam or slab.
! c. Describe the process which assures that all structural cal-culations which indicate an overstress are reconciled.
i l
- i t
I
- f I
i ,
i l
i I
f i ;
o .
o Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No . 4 0 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Reactor Building basemat:
- a. Calculation 621-14(Q), Rev. O
- b. Calculation 621-18(0), Rev. 1
- 2. Description of Observation:
The calculations for the reactor building mat do not appear to consider the following:
- a. The twisting moment, Mxy, in determining the design rein-forcement. (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The adequacy of the reactor building basemat cannot be verified.
The items addressed here should be considered with OR-7.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Show that the Reactor Building basemat design meets the FSAR requirements considering the Items a through g in 2 above. .
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
$ d Nu/du & 0 $9atcm Chairman /
%=- ,
b S.STed;Ladp h )y Suspiy i Mechanical Representative Electrical Kepresentative "
/ ,Q KAA ,fp $) A hf \ om
~
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentaticn Representative
s .
4 Public. Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ODSERVATION REPORT
- OR No._il, Rev. g__, Date 5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), sys tem (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)
- c. Calculation 621-17(0), Rev. 0 ,
- d. Calculation 621-15 (Q) , Rev. O
! 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
- b. The torus uplift loading in determining the design moments and shears.
! c. The thermal loading in determining the design moments and shears,
- d. The design of the vertical construction joints.
- c. Sectioni 9. 2.1. 2 (d) of ACI 318-71 where # varies from 0.7 to 0.9 for beam-column design ( 6 21-15 (Q) .
- f. The seismic inertial forces due to containment flooding in determining design moments and shears.
- g. The weight of water due to containment flooding should not have been included in the bouyancy calculation since it
' results in a higher factor of safety.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (' continuation)
- b. Provide assurance that Items a through g are included in
' other basemat designs, or if not included, provide justifi-
! cation for omitting them.
i .
i l
l e
l l
1 I
o l
l 1
r- .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 41, Rev. ib , Date 5/28/85 s
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Class lE 125V and 250V Battery Chargers
- 2. Description of Observation:
PSAR Section 8.3.2.1.2.3 states that the battery charger is capable of supplying the largest DC steady-state load and recharging the battery from the design minimum charge state
( ntinued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
Basing the charger capacity on actual amp-hours removed from the battery rather than the minimum design charge state of the battery may result in the charger not having sufficient continued on ne::t page)
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optio(nal):
BPC is to reconcile the battery charger sizing calculations and the PSAR to reflect a consistent basis for sizing. If necessary, this reconciliation should include revising PSAR -
continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classifica(tion of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Iten 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internai Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significanceo Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
Lfb'1- / LC/) ,
/
Chairmap
'/Y.
L R S w a n / A,I 6W6 Nim!n Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative 9f' l')l ~
f/,+A-
\ ^ _ / tw ,
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 41, Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Battery and battery charger sizing Calculations
- 4. l (Q) , Rev. 4, 10/12/84, Class 1E 125V DC Station Battery and Battery Charger Sizing, and 5.1(Q) , Rev. 2, 3/14/84, Class lE 250V
- DC System (a) Station Battery Sizing (b) Station Battery Charger Sizing, identify the minimum cell voltage as 1.75V (i.e., design minimum charge state). The required charger capacity, however,
- was based on the actual amp-hours removed from the battery rather than the design minimum charge state of 1.75v per cell. There is )
an apparent discrepancy between the FSAR commitment and the battery 1 charger sizing calculation.
- 3. Significance of Observation: (continuation) capaci*" to satisfy the FSAR commitment. It appears that the battery charger sizing calculation does not demonstrate the i
same degree of conservatism as committed to in the FSAR.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation) i statements concerning battery recharge time.
- BPC is to identify the process that controls the updating of the FSAR to keep it current with the design, as well as. the process that assures that FSAR commitments are correctly incorporated into design calculations.
J J
l
. , . . - . . , . ,n .,- ,, , - - . , ~ .,--,.------,mann _m-n- --,.,, ,, ,. ----,,-.n - .-_-,,--+,---r, , , , , - - ,,-nwr,-,, - - -
v, ..
~
Public Scrvice Electric and Gas Company
- Project No ; 7212-30 Hope CreekzGenerating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of'7.
OR No. 42 , Rev. 0, Date 5/28/85 OBSERVATION' REPORT
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or componen't'(s) involved:
Conduits Supports:
Conduit Support Type R-3, Detail R-12 as shown on drawing E-1406, sheet 3.24.652.1, Rev. 1 ,
- 2. Description of Observation:
It appears that no calculations have been prepared for the conduit support detail R-12. ,
- 3. Significance of Observa' tion:
The adequacy of conduit support Type R-3, Detail R-12 cannot be verified. .
- 4. Recommendation.for resolution (optional): ['
- a. Prepare,. calculations for conduit support Type R-3, "
Detail R-12.
T (continued on next page) .
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional i$ formation required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)-
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significa$ce of -
Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is reqClred to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
' s .
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: e ,
/N is/k bf h 9fezceo -
Chairman < / ,' ~
- b.f.3MS L WD ((S !.k[ f Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative',
[ ., '
D h n) s .t > '
-_5
)/
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation ,
Representative
~% > t
.c . .. . .
'Q_. 'd
- Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.42_, Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
'4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. Provide assurance that calculations have been prepared for all other. conduit support' details.
- c. Identify the failure in the design control process that resulted in this observation and how it will be corrected.
' I O 9 l
1 1
-7 _-.r.- ..,x -
, , . _ , - - - -c-
Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Page 1 of 2 ,
Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 OR No. 43 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85 OBSERVATION REPORT 4
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved: '
HVAC duct support connections: Type M and DJ Calculation 625-11(Q), Rev. 4, Drawing C-0330-0 (Q) , Rev. 14 Calculation 625-30(Q), Rev. 2, Drawing C-03 34-0 (Q) , Rev. 13 0
- 2. Description of Observation:
It appears that calculations have not been prepared for all HVAC duct support connections.
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The adequacy of the HVAC duct support connections cannot be verified.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Provide calculations for connections in HVAC duct supports,
- b. BPC should identify breakdown in design process which permitted the release of HVACcontinuted duct supports without on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classif(ication of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) y Additional information required (See Item 6)
- Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
'- Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
/J /&p (2 h wa Chairma,n' P7 L.R.STexst.wb In dO/ ud Mechanical Representative Electrical epresentative n't B M ,-
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 Ilope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 43, Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional): (continuation) calculations for the connections.
- c. BPC should provide assurance that their design process has sufficient control to ensure that other connections in component supports have not been released without supporting calculations.
l S
e
+ .
m l
~
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 44 , Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Mechanical Auxiliary support steel:
Drawing 1-P-FD-001-H03 (Q) , Rev. 3; C Calculation 1-P-FD-001-C10, Rev. O (continued on next page)
- 2. Description of Observation:
The following items have not been addressed in the calculations:
- a. The member and connection stresses from the self weight of the component hardware (both supports) and auxiliary support steel (support 1-P-FD-001-H01 (Q) . (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
. The adequacy of the supports cannot be verified.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Provide justification for not including stresses due to self weight and seismic self weight excitation in the design of pipe support 1-P-FD-001-H01 (Q) .
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
~
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
Yt[5.dba dZy.m Chairman [
> l- R.Sre.xunafffRb$aa!
Mechanical Representative Electrical Rep (esentative
/,
/
/k t VV /m jf 4 h
/3
/ * / c-v m Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 _
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 44, Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved:
Drawing 1-P-EG-125-1101 (0) , Rev. 1; Calculation 1-P-EG-125-Cl, Rev. 1
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
- b. The member and connection stresses from the seismic self weight excitation of the component hardware and auxiliary support steel.
- c. The effects of load eccentricity on the auxiliary support steel due to the location of the pipe in the hot position.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. Provide justification for not including eccentricity of the load on the auxiliary steel due to location of the pipe in hot po,sition.
- c. Provide assurance that the effects of self weight, seismic self weight excitation and eccentricities in the design of auxiliary support steel have been adequately accounted for.
O E
-- y g- + w -r-- _ q-- or- -
. 4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 45 , Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Reactor Building Structural Steel Floor Framing at Elevation 102'-0":
Calculation 624-2(Q), Rev. 4 Vendor Drawing M69(Q)-13, Rev. I (continued on next page)
- 2. Description of Observation:
The calculations for the reactor building steel floor framing do not appear to consider the following:
- a. For beams 29 and 33, the axial load in the member and its connections due to the added knee brace. (continued on next inge:
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The adequacy of the floor framing cannot be verified.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- a. Provide justification for not considering items a through g in'2 above for the design of the Reactor Building structural steel floor framing. (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
~ -
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
S/ /b'2- / 0 hYtAco Chairmany /
,s'" ' An
< - STcdsLAdT) 0N. OUY '
Mechanical Representative Electrical ,Representa tive ' '
0A f B6% a Structural Representative bah 1, Control and Instrumentation s
i j
Representative l
" - v- ---..g.- . _ _ _
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Proj ect No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 4 5 , Rev. 0 , Date5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s) , or component (s) involved: (continuation)
Design Criteria D2.1, Rev. 7 Vendor Calculation M69 (Q)-16, Rev. 3 2.. Description of Observation: (continuation)
- b. Location of SACS heat exchanger loads as shown on outline 4 drawing and vendor calculation.
- c. Calculations use a uniform versus point loads for the SACS heat exchanger,
- d. SSE and thermal loads per D2.1.
- e. 50 psf and 5 kips concentrated loads per D2.1.
f.. Connection capacities.;
- g. Frequencies of the beams to justify the use of a rigid zone "g" value.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. Provide assurance that other structural steel framing includes
- the applicable effects in their calculations.
- c. Identify the failure in the design control process that resulted in this observation and how it will be corrected.
l I
e .-
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 46 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Calculation 17A(Q), Control Transformer Selection and Maximum Circuit Wire Lengths for MCC Control Circuits, Rev. O, dated approved 4/4/63 and 4/4/84.
- 2. Description of Observation:
Engineering Department Procedure 4.37, Sections 6. 0. 3 and 6. 0. 4 state: "3. If sheets are added to a completed calculation, only the added sheets will be identified with the next revision (continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The potential exists for using outdated calculations as a basis for design.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (cptional):
- a. BPC should revise the calculation per procedure EDP-4.37 and ve'rify that the revised calculation has been utilized in the design process. (continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
Y f' /n t4hr
~
Chairman ' -e a 0 ?M.wa j
l ,- 7, u gQ 'h
. L .R. W c.ds u .J D / / 1 l s /X C h u n d G Mechanical" Representative Electrical Representative
//
/ & ./ -
Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
t Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No.16_, Rev. j__, Date 5/2 8/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) number of letter..." and "4. Description of the revision of the calculation cover sheet shall indicate the sheets revised or added."
Contrary to this calculation 17A(()) , prepared on 4/1/83, checked on 4/4/83 and approved on 4/4/83, consisting of 17 sheets was identified as Rev. O, while calculation 17A(0) , prepared on 4/1/84, checked on 4/4/84 and approved on 4/4/84, consisting of 18 sheets was also identified as Rev. O. That is, a calculation was apparently revised (by adding an additional sheet) without the revision status being changed or the description of revision being indicated on the cover sheet.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional): (continuation)
- b. BPC is~to identify the failure in the design control process that resulted in this observation.
[ c.. BPC is to provide assurance that this observation is an isolated occurrence and not indicative of a generic problem for calculations controlled by EDP-4.37.
us 9
9
- e 9
1 I
I 4
- l
,. c. ...-n , - - _ , , , _ - . , , , , , , , - . . . - . - - - - . , , , , . _ _ - - , _ , . - . . . - _ - _ _ - - _ . - - - . , - - _ _ . . _ - - - . . _ - . . - . , . . - - , , - - - _ . , -
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of: 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 4 7 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Environmental Qualification Report for ASCO Solenoid Valves, J601(0)
- 2. Description of Observation:
There is an apparent failure to meet a licensing requirement of 10CPR50. 49.
(continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation:
In.the absence of consideration of all significant temperature effects, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion regarding the qualified life of the solenoid valves.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC/PSE&G should justify the methodology used to evaluate thermal effects on qualification life or (continued on next pare)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of i Observation or additional information required:
- - Additional information is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
S ke ukn Chairman <
L/ 0 %%q
/ f
. L.R,51triSL4dD bH.0 N. i.
Mechanical Re resenta,tive Electrical Representative /
/ .
7 m Structural Representative Control and Instrumentation Representative
t Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-3&
-Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 47, Rev. 0 , Date 5/28/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation) 10CPR50.49, Paragraph e.5, states that " Equipment qualified by test must be preconditioned by natural or artificial (accelerated) aging to its end-of-installed life condition. Consideration must be given to all significant types of degradation which can have effect on the functional capability of the device."
In order to determine the qualified life, degradation from thermal aging must be considered. This must include:
- normal, abnormal, and accident temperature profiles associated with the areas where the devices are installed.
- temperature rise due to coil energization, and
- the duration of the energized state In determining the qualified life of the subject valves, the environmental qualification report does not consider the temperature rise due to the energized state of the solenoid valves (e.g., coils).
4
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation) ,
- b. BPC/PSE&G should provide specific information as to how the observation has or will be corrected. Will the environmental qualification report be revised? and,
> c. BPC/PSE&G should assure that there are no other equipment qualification reports which neglect applicable thermal effects in establishing qualified equipment life.
4 6
J. L. Milhoan M Q &^
SARGENT& LUNDY j ENGINEERS FOUNDED 8498 as EAST MONROE STREET H. STEPHEN TAYLOR ASSOCIATE IO'II38'*2000 ,
sia. nee-em twx .iO..... 07 LSP-43 May 31, 1985 Project No. 7212-30 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 Independent Dasign Verification Program Observation Reports ,
Mr. W. F. Bauer Principal Engineer Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Bauer:
Enclosed for your information and action is one copy each of Observation Re' ports Nos. 48 and 50 resulting from the IDVP of the Hope Crcek Generating Station.
The Observation Reports should be reviewed and the Resolution Report sheets completed and signed by Bechtel and PSE&GC and returned as soon as possible. Return of original documents should be via Federal Express or equivalent overnight service in order to facilitate S&L's disposition of the Observation Reports.
Also, we are enclosing Observation Report No. 29, Revision 1, dated
. May 31, 1985. Please note the changes on page two.
Any questions you or Bechtel may have concerning these Observation Reports should be addressed in accordance with the Program Plan Protocol.
Yours very trul ,
HST:nd Enclosures H. S. Taylor copies: Chairman, Internal Review Committee J. L. Milhoan L. C. Oesterich P. L. Wattelet W. A. Bloss (2)
O. Zaben W. D. Crumpacker T. J. Duffy
!! . G. L. McCullough R. M. Schiavoni
! D. P. White
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 4 8 , Rev. 0 , Date5/31/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
HPCI Pump Discharge Flow Instrument Loop,P&ID M-55-1, Rev. 12, dated 12/06/84, GE Elementary Diagram 791E420AC, Sheet 9, Rev. 14, dated 11/02/84 2.- Description of Observation:
P&ID*M-55-1 and Elementary Diagram 791E420AC were reviewed to verify FSAR commitments with the following discrepancies:
(continued on next page)
- 3. Significance of Observation a.. Discrepancies on the P&ID could cause errors in the design, due to differences between BPC documents and GE documents.
(continued on next page)
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. BPC should confirm the discrepancies noted in this OR and correct the appropriate documents.
(continued on next page)
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) x Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additi'onal information required:
Additional infonaation is required to evaluate safety significance.
Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures: j 7
/. . CJ1 N Chairman f
/
N .5603lAN .k/ ll l Mechanical Representative Electrical Appresentative '
& sc3 %
Structural' Repr esentative Control and Instrumentation Representative j .
,. 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 ,
OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 48, Rev. 0 , Date S/31/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
- a. The P&ID shows the square root extractor FY-K601 as located on panel C650, GE Elementary Diagram 791E420AC shows FY-K601 as located on panel Hil-P620, the correct location for FY-K601 is Hil-P620. The P&ID M-55-1 should be revised.
- b. The GE Elementary Diagram shows flow transmitter FT-N008 connected to square root converter FY-K601, then connected to controller cards E41-K600-1 through 4 then connected to E41-R600-1 flow indicator. The P&ID shows flow transmitter l,
FT-N008 connected to square root converter FY-K601 then connected to flow indicating controller FIC-R600. The BPC P&ID and instrument index does not show controller cards E41-K600-1 through 4, or flow indicator E41-R600-1. The BPC design documents do show FIC-K600 for the abovo instruments.
BPC apparently does not identify instruments that they do not l have to buy or install. FIC-K600 is BPC designation for the controller instruments shown on the GE Elementary Diagram.
l 3. Significance of Observations (continuation) ,
- b. The discrepancies betwoon the BPC documents and the GE documents, could causo discrepancies in testing and calibration.
- c. Without a complete and consistent devico designation system, device identification for equipment qualification can bo I incomplete and erroneous.
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
- b. BPC should provido assuranco that the discrepant information was not implomanted in the design,
- c. BPC should provido an explanation of the " system" utilized to number instrument typo devices and an explanation of how the system moots the requirements including device testing and t
calibration, qualification tasting, and intordisciplino design.
i i
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2
. OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 50 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/31/85
- 1. ' Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Pipe support:
Drawing 1-P-FD-001-H02, H03 (Q) , Rev. 3 FCR E-4215, 3/27/84 (continued on next page)
- 2. Description of Observation:
Conduits were attached to pipe supports 1-P-FD-001-H02(O) and H03(Q). The conduit loads on these supports were given in FCR E-4215 and E-4104; however, there is no documentation for
~
the basis of those loads shown on the FCR.
- 3. Significance of Observation:
The pipe / conduit support cannot be evaluated because calculations of conduit support loads are not available.
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
a, Prepara and submit calculations for conduit loads attached to supports 1-P-FD-001-H02 (0) and H03(Q).
(continued on next page) .
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) y Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluato safety significancoc Provido information requestod in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
/ e /$ /
Chairman j/
' ^ ' kSo$ff&l.4NP h/ ll (Y Mechanical Representative Electrical Representative
- Structural Representative Contr'ol and Instrumentation Representative
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 RREEBVATION REPORT OR No.50 , Rev. 0 , Date 5/31/85
- 1. structure (s), system (s) , or components (s) involved:
FCR E-4104, 3/14/04
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional): (continuation)
- b. Provide assurance that supporting calculations exist for all
, s, conduit loads attached to pipe support steel.
- c. Describe the process to assure that calculations are prepared to support FCR's.
S S
e b
e
- o. . .
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 1 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. gg_, Rev. L__, Date 5/31/85
- 1. Structure (s), system (s), or component (s) involved:
Bechtel Design Specification 10855-M-068 (Q) , Rev. 1, for Nuclear Power Piping, ASME-III, Class 2 and 3 (1/31/79) 2.- Description of Observation:
FSAR'Section 3.2 commits to ASME Section III. Section III, NA-4410, Design Controls, requires stress reports to be reviewed for compliance with Design Specifications.
- (continued on next page)
'3. Significance of Observation: -
There is a possibility that stress reports and other design documents may be incorrect because the applicable Design Specification is apparently out-of-date. There is a (continued on next page)
- 4. Recommendation for resolution (optional):
- a. Bechtel should re-review and revise the Design Specification to bring it up-to-date.
Provide assurance that the stress reports and the overall design is compatible with the new revisions.(continued onnextpag
- 5. Internal Review Committee classification of Observation:
Not significant to safety (See Item 6) y Additional information required (See Item 6)
Potentially Significant to Safety (See Item 8)
- 6. Internal Review Committee reason for non-safety-significance of Observation or additional information required:
Additional information is required to evaluate safety significancee Provide information requested in Item 4.
- 7. Internal Review Commitee Signatures:
//. A Chairman pr w,
/
Y S E N'Gh k . h__f h lll Y Mechanical Represen'tative Electrical jRep esentative
' /A . n' Structural Representative Control and Instrunentaticn Representative t
t Public Service Electric and Gas Company Project No. 7212-30 Hope Creek Generating Station - Unit 1 Page 2 of 2 OBSERVATION REPORT OR No. 29 , Rev. jl_;, Date 5/31/85
- 2. Description of Observation: (continuation)
Several OR's have identified apparent deficiencies in the Design R Specification (ors 13, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29). Therefore, it is not apparent how the required reviews of stress reports have been accomplished with the design specification containing numerous inconsistencies.
'3 . Significance of Observation: (continuation) possibility that the QA requirements of ASME Section III may not
, be met. /
- 4. Recommendation for Resolution (optional) : (continuation)
R b. Bechtel should identify the cause of these discrepancies, the design control process which should have prevented then,and why that process did not prevent the discrepancies.
- c. Describe the process that assures that Design Specifications are kept current with design requirements.
- d. Bechtel should provide assurance that the observation is an isolated occurrence and that all other ASME III Design Specifications have been updated on a timely basis.
I s
.