IR 05000354/1985054

Idvp Insp Rept 50-354/85-54 on 850930-1003.Major Areas Inspected:Documentation Developed by Sargent & Lundy to Ensure Findings Technically Supported & Verified Items in Insp Rept 50-354/84-32

ML20138E075
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/14/1985
From:	Imbro E, Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138D824	List: IR 05000354/1985054 ML20138D819
References
50-354-85-54, NUDOCS 8512130329
Download: ML20138E075 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.

.

o

'.
.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Quality Assurance Branch Report No.: 50-354/85-54 Docket No.: 50-354 Licensee: Public Service Electric & Gas Company Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 ' Inspection At: Sargent & Lundy Engineers Chicago, Illinois Inspection Conducted: September 30, 1985 to October 3, 1985 Inspection Team Members: Team Leader: E. V. Imbro, Sr. Inspection Specialist, IE Mechanical Systems: T. Del Gaizo, Consultant, WESTEC Services Mechanical Components: J. Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services Civil / Structural: G. Harstead, Consultant, Harstead Engineering Hai-Boh Wang, Inspection Specialist, IE Instrumentation & Control: J. Kaucher, Censultant, WESTEC Services Electrical Power: C. Crane, Consultant, .WESTEC Services S? Eugene V. Imbro n & N

     'Date h

Team Leader, IE

  '

8512130329 851211 PDR ADOCK 05000354 G PDR ,,

Approved By: h M [. f[[ _ //M/g'f fUection Chief ames L. Milhoan Date' Quality Assurance Branch

 . - . , . -
    . . . ..

.
.
'.
.

HOPE CREEK UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM REPORT DOCUMENTATION INSPECTION September 30, 1985 to October 3, 1985 1. BACKGROUND On April 11, 1985, the NRC staff approved the Program Plan (Revision 1) for the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) of Hope Creek Unit 1.

Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L) had been retained by the applicant, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), to perform the IDVP for the purpose of providing additional assurance that the design of the Hope Creek Generating Station meets FSAR commitments and NRC regulations through a review of the technical adequacy of selected systems and the design process, including both vertical and horizontal type reviews.

NRC inspection activities associated with the IDVP are as follows: a. An inspection at S&L with review work in progress to ensure that the program is implemented in accordance with the approved plan and also to ensure that the reviews are conducted in sufficient technical depth to achieve program objectives. (The report of this inspection (50-354/85-32) was forwarded to the Applicant on July 8, 1985 in a letter from B. K. Grimes (NRC) to R. (PSE&G)). b. An inspection at S&L following publication of the IDVP report to review back-up information to ensure that S&L's conclusions in the report are technically supported.

c. An inspection at the offices of the architect / engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC), to verify performance of any corrective actions resulting from the IDVP.

2. PURPOSE The purpose of this inspection was (1) to inspect back-up documentation for the IDVP report to ensure that the conclusions in the report are technically supported and (2) to verify that the items identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-354/85-32 were incorporated in the program or otherwise satisfactorily resolved.

3. NRC INSPECTION TEAM The inspection was conducted by NRC personnel, with support of contractor personnel as follows:

Assignment Name, Position l Team Leader E. Imbro, Sr. Inspection Specialist, IE Mechanical Systems T. Del Gaizo, Consultant, WESTEC Services

__

,
.

.
,
.

Assignment Name, Position - (Continued) Mechanical Components J. Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services Electrical Power C. Crane, Consultant, WESTEC Services Instr. & Control J. Kaucher, Consultant, WESTEC Services Civil / Structural G. Harstead, Consultant, Harstead Engineering H. Wang, Inspection Specialist, IE 4. PERSONNEL CONTACTED A large number of S&L personnel were contacted during the inspection. The following is a brief list of those key personnel: Name Position W. G. Hegener Director of Engineering P. Wattelet Project Director H. S. Taylor Chairman, Internal Review Conmittee W. A. Bloss IDVP Project Manager In addition, the individual NRC Team members contacted the S&L lead discipline engineer in each of the technical discipline areas. The S&L lead discipline engineers arranged for contact with the specific S&L reviewers at the request of the NRC Team members.

, 5. INSPECTION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In order to assess the validity of the conclusions reached by S&L regarding the design process employed by BPC in the design of HCGS, the documentation developed by S&L during the conduct of the IDVP was inspected to ensure that their findings were technically supported.

During the inspection, the NRC team reviewed the background documentation used by S&L as the basis of their findings. This documentation consisted primarily of BPC calculations, specifications and drawings. The team also reviewed the l S&L completed checklists to assess the depth and completeness of the review and auditability of the IDVP.

The inspection revealed that the documentation was auditable in that the team was able to trace the technical findings back to the source documents. In addition, the review of the completed checksheets and the types of detailed findings that were discovered by S&L gave the team a good insight by which to judge the comprehensiveness of the review.

The inspection team concluded that the S&L findings were technically supported and that the IDVP was formally documented and conducted in sufficient technical depth to support meaningful conclusions as the adequacy of the design and design process at the Hope Creek Generating Station Unit I.

6. STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS Status of NRC Inspection Items from Inspection Report 50-354/85-32 dated May 8-10, and June 4-6, 1985 are given in Attachment I to this report.

   . _ . - -

w

.

. .

.
.

Attachment 1 Status of NRC Inspection Items from Inspection 50-354/85-32 Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution 1 Mechanical Systems 1.1- SACS Hydraulic Closed BPC indicated that Transient backup documentation in Analysis support of design work by the subcontractor may not be available. An OR questioning this design process should be initiated.

An Observation Report was issued.

1.2 SACS Hydraulic Closed This report referenced Transient a computer code as a Analysis certified BPC program.

S&L should verify the code as appropriate.

Review of this program was found to be unnecessary. The entire Transient Analysis was superceded as a design basis document by a full-size model and subsequent hydraulic tests performed for BPC by a subcontractor. S&L reviewed these test results.

1.3 NPSH Calculation Closed Calculation BJ-1(Q) for KPCI Pump indicated little margin (2.5 feet of water) over the required NPSH.

There was a concern as to whether the " operating pressure" from a GE diagram was actually minimum pressure. S&L should review this matter.

S&L investigated this problem and determined

-

.
~.
.
.
.

Attachment 1 (Continued) Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution that no problem existed because vacuum breakers were installed.

Hence the GE diagram showed minimum pressure.

1.4 - Design Adequacy Closed The checklist did Specification not provide adequate space for reviewer's comments, thereby making an audit of backup information supporting the final report difficult.

S&L agreed to revise the checklists.

The checklists were revised, and were found acceptable.

2 Mechanical Components 2.1 Floor Response Closed Piping calculation C-1750-20 referenced calculation 131-2 for enveloped floor response spectra.

Calculation 131-2 did not list the result of the enveloping process which was manually performed by the reviewer.

A POR should have been issued.

S&L reviewed this matter and PORs were written where appropriate.

2.2 Calculation Errors Closed The S&L reviewer corrected an error in a nozzle load calculation and concluded that nozzle design was still within allowables. The reviewer did not note this discrepancy on the

c- r ._

.

o

.
.
.

Attachment 1 (Continued) Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution checklist. A POR should have been written.

An appropriate POR was initiated.

2.3 Inconsistencies Closed Piping schedules in BPC in Piping design spec M-068 (line Documentation list) were inconsistent with piping isometrics.

Review of documentation was required for confirma-tion of formal transfer of information within the proj ect.

A review of this documentation was per-formed and formal methods for transfer of information were confirmed.

2.4

    '

Field Change Closed Review of FCNs should Review Plans address problem statements, inter-disciplinary positions, and evaluation of judg-ments to eradicate

  .

minor problems.

Subsequent S&L checklists and ors indicate the review of FCNs is sufficient.

3 Structural Discipline 3.1 Max. Rebar Spacing Closed Rebar spacing was seen to of R. B. Basemat . exceed maximum per ACI 318-71. The S&L review committee indicated that the capacity of the mat was structurally adequate. S&L should pursue this matter as a design process concern.

O

.o
.
.
.

Attachment 1 (Continued) Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution S&L reviewed the mat analysis questions with regard to design process concerns and determined that the FSAR commitments had not been violated and therefore no design process concerns existed.

3.2 Reactor Building Closed The basemat design Basemat did not include torus uplift loading to deter-mine moments and shears.

Anchorage and strength of supporting structures were therefore questioned.

S&L should address this issue in their review.

These issues were reviewed by S&L. Based on additional information provided to S&L by BPC, S&L determined the design is adequate.

4 Electrical Power 4.1 Unj ustified Closed No justification was Assumption provided in calculation 17A(Q) for use of an assumed conductor temperature of 50 degrees C, in variance with the BPC design guide. This was not initially addressed in S&L's review.

S&L subsequently reviewed the matter and an OR was issued by S&L.

4.2 Panel Separation Closed S&L electrical separation Criteria Evaluation checksheets do not account for " specific" separation criteria relative to internal components in CE panels.

GE design specifications

e

r u-

. . .                l o
.
.
.

Attachment 1 (Continued) Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject- Status Resolution should be referenced in electrical separation checksheets. S&L should incorporate this item in their checksheets.

The item was incorporated in the checksheets and an OR was subsequently prepared.

5 Control & Instr.

Disc.

5.1 Setpoint Closed Review plans do not Compliance with contain a requirement Safety Limit to evaluate setpoint calculations, including tolerance and calculation errors against established limits. S&L should address this in their review.

S&L subsequently performed a review and an OR was written on the subject of setpoint_ calculations.

5.2 Design Change Closed Design changes (FCNs Documents- and DCNs) have not been reviewed. S&L should review a representative sample of FCNs and DCNs.

A sample of FCNs and DCNs were selected for review. , t f L ! 8 l i l

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

QCtG o UNITED STATES

[d N  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
{ .$
 .

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

.....       :

ote u 56

       \
       '

D:cket No. 50-354

       :

Public Service Electric and Gas Company ATTN: Mr. Robert L. Mitti, General Manager Nuclear Assurance and Regulation P.O. Box 570, T22A Newark, New Jersey 07101

Dear Mr. Mitti:

SUBJECT: HOPE CREEK UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IOVP) INSPECTION REPORT 50-354/85-54 This letter conveys the results of the inspection activities of the Hope Creek generating station (HCGS) Unit 1 IDVP final report. The inspection was conducted by NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement from September 30 through October 4, 1985 at Sargent and Lundy Engineers' (S&L) office in Chicago, Illinois. The NRC inspection team was composed of personnel from NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement and consultants.

The specific objectives of this inspection were to (1) ensure that the conclusions in the report were technically supported, and (2) verify that the items identified in inspection report 50-354/85-32 were incorporated in the program or otherwise satisfactorily resolved.

The status of NRC inspection items from Inspection Report 50-354/84-32 dated May 8-10, and June 4-6, 1985 are given in the attached inspection report. All NRC action items identified in the previous report are closed.

Sincer ,

     -
    '

M rian K. Grimes, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement Enclosure: Inspection Report 50-354/85-54

cc: w/ enclosure See next Page e~, P 1 R I Q A Q/& v J{weav

   --
   -

I l

  ._

_.. . - _ - . . -. ..

.

Mr. R. L. Hitti 7 Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Hope Creek Generating Station V cc: Gregcry Minor Susan C. Remis Richard Hubbard Division of Public Interest Advocacy Dale Bridenbaugh New Jersey State Department of MiB Technical Associates the Public Advocate 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K Richard J. Hughes Justice Comples San Jose, California 95125 CN-850 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Troy B. Conner, Jr. Esquire Office of Legal Counsel Conner & Wetterhahn Department of Natural Resources 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. and Environmental Control Washington, D.C. 20006 89 Kings Highway P.O. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19903 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire Mr. K. W. Burrowes, Project Engineer Associate General Solicitor Bechtel Power Corporation Public Service Electric & Gas Company 50 Beale Street P. O. Box 570 T5E P. O. Box 3965 Newark, New Jersey 07101 San Francisco, California 94119 Mr. J. M. Ashley Resident Inspector Senior Licensing Engineer U.S.N.R.C. c/o Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

P. O. Box 241 Bethesda Office Center, Suit 550 Hancocks Brid5e, New Jersey 08038 4520 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Richard F. Engel Deputy Attorney General Mr. A. E. Giardino Divisicn of Law Manager - Quality Assurance E&C Environmental Protection Section Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

Richarc J. Hughes Justice Complex P. O. Box A CN-112P Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Mr. Robert J. Touhey, Mr. Anthony J. Pietrofitta Acting Director beneral Manager DNREC - Division of Power Production Engineering Envirer. mental Control Atlantic Electric 89 Kings Highway 1199 Black Horse Pike P. O. Box 1401 Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Dover, Delaware 19903 Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. R. 5. Salvesen U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission General Manager-Hope Creek Operation 631 Park Avenue Public Service Electric & Gas Co. King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 P.O. Box A

/[ Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 A      .

l

      !
-

l v ;-  ; _ __ - , _ _ _ _ __ __ l

     - . . -
.
. .Public Service Electric & Gas Co. -2- Hope Creek Generating Station
/

d cc: Mr. B. A. Preston Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

Hope Creek Site MC12Y Licensing Trailer 12LI Foot of Button wood Road hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Ms. Rebecca Green

- New Jersey Bureau of Radiation Protection
- 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 C
  .

s a

___ . . U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Quality Assurance Branch Report No.: 50-354/85-54 Docket No.: 50-354 Licensee: Public Service Electric & Gas Company Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 Inspection At: Sargent & Lundy Engineers Chicago, Illinois Inspection Conducted: September 30, 1985 to October 3, 1985 Inspection Team Members: Team Leader: E. V. Imbro, Sr. Inspection Specialist, IE Mechanical Systems: T. Del Gaizo, Consultant, WESTEC Services Mechanical Components: J. Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services Civil / Structural: G. Harstead, Consultant, Harstead Engineering Hai-Bob Wang, Inspection Specialist, IE Instrumentation & Control: J. Kaucher, Consultant, WESTEC Services Electrical Power: C. Crane, Consultant, WESTEC Services

  $$

Eugene V. Imbro

   & NWh I) ate Team Leader, IE N 2 n 1 o h #3 ^ O
@ Inif I V V W_ r ,

Approved By: \ M [. ////'//l'f~~

  /ames L. Milhoan  Date'

Uection Chief Quality Assurance Branch

.
.

HOPE CREEK UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM REPORT DOCUMENTATION INSPECTION September 30, 1985 to October 3, 1985 1. BACKGROUND On April 11, 1985, the NRC staff approved the Program Plan (Revision 1) for the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) of Hope Creek Unit 1.

Sargent & Lundy. Engineers (S&L) had been retained by the applicant, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), to perform the IDVP for the purpose of providing additional assurance that the design of the Hope Creek Generating Station meets FSAR comitments and NRC regulations through a review of the technical adequacy of selected systems and the design process, including both vertical and horizontal type reviews.

NRC inspection activities associated with the IDVP are as follows: a. An inspection at S&L with review work in progress to ensure that the program is implemented in accordance with the approved plan and also to ensure that the reviews are conducted in sufficient technical der *A to achieve program objectives. (The report of this inspection

'
  (50-354/85-32) was forwarded to the Applicant on July 8, 1985 in a letter from B. K. Grimes (NRC) to R. (PSE&G)).

b. An inspection at S&L following publication of the IDVP report to review back-up information to ensure that S&L's conclusions in the report are technically supported.

c. An inspection at the offices of the architect / engineer, Bechtel Feder Corporation (BPC), to verify performanct of ar.y corrective actions resulting from the IDVP.

2. PURPOSE The purpose of this inspection was (1) to inspect back-up documentation for the IDVP report to ensure that the conclusions in the report are technically supported and (2) to verify that the items identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-354/85-32 were incorporated in the program or otherwise satisfactorily resolved.

3. NRC INSPECTION TEAM The inspection was conducted by NRC personnel, with support of contractor personnel as follows: Assignment Name, Position Team Leader E. Imbro, Sr. Inspection Specialist, IE Mechanical Systems T. Del Gaizo, Consultant, WESTEC Services

._ - -_-__-___ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

     -- -

,

.
.

Assignment Name, Position - (Continued) Mechanical Components J. Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services Electrical Power C. Crane, Consultant, WESTEC Services Instr. & Control J. Kaucher, Consultant, WESTEC Services Civil / Structural G. Harstead,- Consultant, Harstead Engineering . H. Wang, Inspection Specialist, IE ! j 4. PERSONNEL CONTACTED A large number of S&L personnel were contacted during the inspection. The following is a brief list of those key personnel: Name Position , W. G. Hegener Director of Engineering l P. Wattelet Project Director i H. S. Taylor Chairman, Internal Review Comittee W. A. Bloss IDVP Project Manager In addition, the individual NRC Team members contacted the S&L lead discipline engineer in each of the technical discipline areas. The S&L lead discipline engineers arranged for contact with the specific S&L reviewers at the request of the NRC Team members.

5. INSPECTION SumARY AND CONCLUSIONS l In order to assess the validity of the conclusions reached by S&L regarding ! the design process employed by BPC in the design of HCGS, the documentation j developed by S&L during the conduct of the IDVP was inspected to ensure that l their findings were technically supported.

During the inspection, the NRC team reviewed the background documentation used by S&L as the basis of their findings. This documentation consisted primarily l of BPC calculations, specifications and drawings. The team also reviewed the S&L completed checklists to assess the depth and completeness of the review and auditability of. the IDVP.

The inspection revealed that the documentation was auditable in that the team was able to trace the technical findings back to the source documents. In addition, the review of the completed checksheets and the types of detailed findings that were discovered by S&L gave the team a good insight by which to judge the comprehensiveness of the review.

The inspection team concluded that the S&L findings were technically supported and that the IDVP was formally documented and conducted in sufficient technical depth to support meaningful conclusions as the adequacy of the design and design process at the Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1.

6. STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS Status of NRC Inspection Items from Inspection Report 50-354/85-32 dated May 8-10, and June 4-6, 1985 are given in Attachment I to this report.

-

 . -  . - .. . - = . . . - .. -
..
'
 :

Attachment'l Status of NRC Inspection Items from Inspection 50-354/85-32 Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution 1 Mechanical Systems 1.1 SACS Hydraulic Closed BPC indicated that < Transient backup documentation in l' Analysis support of design work by the subcontractor may not be available. An OR

    . questioning this design s '

process should be

    ' 

initiated.'

i

    ,, An Observation Report was
   '

issued.

i 1.2 SACS Hydraulic Closed ' This report referenced

[   Transient  a.camputer code as a
{
'

Analysis certified BPC program.

S&L should verify the code as appropriate.

s Review of this program was found to be unnecessary. The entire l Transient Analysis was , superceded as a design basis document by a i full-size model and , subsequent hydraulic tests performed for BPC by a subcontractor. S&L

reviewed these test- ! , results.

, 1.3 ' NPSH Calculation Closed Calculation BJ-1(Q) for HPCI Pump indicated little rargin (2.5 feet of water) over

:     the required NPSH.

There was a concern as to whether the " operating pressure" from a GE

diagram was actually minimum pressure. S&L should review this matter.

S&L investigated this ; problem and determined

_______ _____

_ o-

...

Attachment 1 (Continued) i Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution that no problem existed because vacuum breakers were installed.

Hence the GE diagram showed minimum pressure.

1.4 Design Adequacy Closed The checklist did Specification not provide adequate space for reviewer's comments, thereby making an audit of backup information supporting the final

'

report difficult.

S&L agreed to revise the checklists.

The checklists were revised, and were found acceptable.

2 Mechanical Components i 2.1 Floor Response Closed Piping calculation C-1750-20 referenced calculation 131-2 for enveloped floor response spectra.

Calculation 131-2 did not list the result of the < enveloping process which was manually performed by the reviewer.

A POR should have been issued.

S&L reviewed this matter and PORs were written where appropriate.

, 2.2 Calculation Errors . Closed The S&L reviewer

   -'
 '
 .

corrected an error in a

  *
 ',-
  . r,  nozzle load calculation a M(,,  and concluded that nozzle I
  -
   . design was still within
  '
   , , allowables. The reviewer
 *
  ,
  * - '
    , did not note this
-  - 4 *

discrepancy on the

  .

5 .

 ,   ,

e' .

*
 . _-

t

*
,
!
.

Attachment 1 (Continued) Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution checklist. A POR should have been written.

An appropriate POR was initiated.

2.3 Inconsistencies Closed Piping schedules in BPC in Piping design spec M-068 (line Documentation list) were inconsistent with piping isometrics.

Review of documentation was required fcr confirma-tion of formal transfer of information within the proj ect.

A review of this documentation was per-formed and formal methods for transfer of information were confirmed.

2.4 Field Change Closed Review of FCNs should Review Plans address problem statements, inter-disciplinary positions, and evaluation of judg-ments to eradicate

  ,

minor problems.

Subsequent S&L checklists and ors indicate the review of FCNs is sufficient.

3 Structural Discipline 3.1 Max. Rebar Spacing Closed Rebar spacing was seen to of R. B. Basemat exceed maximum per ACI 318-71. The S&L review committee indicated that the capacity of the sat was str.cturally adequate. S&L should pursue this matter as a i design process concern.

i

F

      '

L

  - ,

i

 ' (j  ,
    :

t

    *
  *
.)
*

 '       "
  '
  ,

Attachment 1

 *
    (Continued)

1 Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution

       ;
         }
   '

S&L reviewed.the mat N ' ' analysis questions with *

         ,
   ,    regard to design process 3$
      '

concerns and deterr.ined

'

that the FSAR cossnitments

 '

had not been violated

'

ac:1 therefore no design

,
   .-    process concerns existed.

' 3.2 Reactor Building Closed The basemat design

s' Basemat did not include torus

,' '

uplift loading to deter-

         '

mine moments and shears.

Anchorage had strength , of supporting structures were therefore questioned. J

 ,     b S&L should address this e  i issue in their review.

. These issues were

    . reviewed by S&L. Based on 5  additional information provided to S&L by BPC,
     ,

y S&L determined the design

     /

is adequate.

I

'? 4   Electrical Power
        .

4.1 Unjustified ' closed No justification was-Assumption 4 provided in calculation

      . 17A(Q) for use of an
     #

assumed conductor

'

temperature of 50 degrees C, in variance with the BPC design guide. This was not initially - addrissed;in S&L's review.

<

  ',    ,'
     ^

S&L subsequently reviewed

  <

the ratter and an OR was

  ,;g    issued by'S&L.

- s, 4.2 Panel Separation Closed , S&L electrical separation

  , %s Criteria Evaluation   checksheets do not
     ,  account for " specific" s  !  separation criteria ,

i' relative to internal - components id GE panels} .

GE design specifications' ,

    '
,,    7   \ '
)
     '

*      '
 ,      'P, *w
 -,   x-

    -

y - e

..

Attachment 1 (Continued) Original Comment / Obs. No. Subject Status Resolution should be referenced in electrical separation checksheets. S&L should incorporate this item in their checksheets.

The item was incorporated in the checksheets and an OR was subsequently prepared.

5 Control & Instr.

Disc.

5.1 Setpoint Closed Review plans do not Compliance with contain a requirement Safety Limit to evaluate setpoint calculations, including tolerance and calculation errors against established limits. S&L should address this in their review.

S&L subsequently performed a review and an OR was written on the subject of setpoint calculations.

5.2 Design Change Closed Design changes (FCNs Documents and DCNs) have not been reviewed. S&L should review a representative sample of FCNs and DCNs.

A sample of FCNs and DCNs were selected for review.

F

.
, Docket No. 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company ATTN: Mr. Robert L. Mitti, General Manager Nuclear Assurance and Regulation P.O. Box 570, T22A Newark, New Jersey 07101

Dear Mr. Mitti:

SUBJECT: HOPE CREEK UNIT 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDVP) INSPECTION REPORT 50-354/85-54 This letter conveys the results of the inspection activities of the Hope Creek generating station (HCGS) Unit 1 IDVP final report. The inspection was conducted by NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement from September 30 through October 4,1985 at Sargent and Lundy Engineers' (S&L) office in Chicago, Illinois. The NRC inspection team was composed of personnel from NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement and consultants.

The specific objectives of this inspection were to (1) ensure that the conclusions in the report were technically supported, and (2) verify that the items identified in inspection report 50-354/85-32 were incorporated in the program or otherwise satisfactorily resolved.

The status of NRC inspection items from Inspection Report 50-354/84-32 dated May 8-10, and June 4-6, 1985 are given in the attached inspection report. All NRC action items identified in the previous report are closed.

Sincerely, . Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement Enclosure: Inspection Report 50-354/85-54 cc: w/ enclosure DISTRIBUTION:

(DCS;  JMTaylor, IE JLMilhoan, IE JStrosnider, RI NRC PDR RHVollmer, IE EVImbro, IE HKister, RI Local PDR BKGrimes, IE HBWang, IE SDEbneter, RI QAB Reading JGPartlow, IE DHWagner, NRR Team Members DQAVT Reading GTAnkrum, IE WButler, NRR f

I :QAB IE. AVT QAB IE: AVT: DQAVT:QAB:C VT.D HBWang: art EVImbro JLMilhoan T nk m im s 12/ o 2/85 12/02] 85 12/ * /85 / 85 12/ 85 }}